The Young Turks - Bowman's Bad News

Episode Date: June 27, 2024

Rep. Jamaal Bowman loses Democratic primary to Westchester County Executive George Latimer. 16 Nobel Prize-winning economists warn that Trump's economic plans could reignite inflation. Leaked emails reveal Newsom's office will not negotiate crime bills, unless DAs pull the 2024 ballot measure to amend Prop. 47. Conservative US lawmakers are pushing for an end to no-fault divorce. " HOST: Ana Kasparian (@anakasparian) SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE: ☞ https://www.youtube.com/user/theyoungturks FACEBOOK: ☞ https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER: ☞ https://www.twitter.com/theyoungturks INSTAGRAM: ☞ https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK: ☞ https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕 Merch: https://shoptyt.com ❤ Donate: http://www.tyt.com/go 🔗 Website: https://www.tyt.com 📱App: http://www.tyt.com/app 📬 Newsletters: https://www.tyt.com/newsletters/ If you want to watch more videos from TYT, consider subscribing to other channels in our network: The Watchlist https://www.youtube.com/watchlisttyt Indisputable with Dr. Rashad Richey https://www.youtube.com/indisputabletyt The Damage Report ▶ https://www.youtube.com/thedamagereport TYT Sports ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytsports The Conversation ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytconversation Rebel HQ ▶ https://www.youtube.com/rebelhq TYT Investigates ▶ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwNJt9PYyN1uyw2XhNIQMMA Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. Let's go! Ice cream. Live from the Polymarket Studio in L.A. It's the Young Turks. Welcome to TYT, I'm your host, Anna Casparian, and I'm a little nervous about today's show, because on today's program, in the first hour, I'll be interviewing a man that I deeply admire who just came out with his memoir.

His name is Glenn Lowry. He identifies as a conservative, but I'm actually going to challenge him on that. And I highly recommend reading his memoir. I promise you will not be disappointed. And so we'll be doing that in the first hour along with covering the election results from yesterday. Not a lot of good news in that area, but I will fill you in on that and give you my analysis. Later in the show, we'll also discuss how the Supreme Court accidentally leaked its decision on on abortion rights. Now, this doesn't have to do with Roe v.

Way, they've already reversed that, of course, but it has to do with whether abortion doctors in states that have effectively banned abortion, have the ability to perform emergency abortions on women if the pregnancy risks their health. So we'll get to that decision later in the show, and we'll also talk a little bit about this conservative effort to do away with ban no fault divorces. As always, just want to encourage you all to like and share the stream. It's an easy, free way to support the show. You can also support us by becoming a member, hit that join button, or just go to t.com slash join to become a member that way. All right, without

further ado, let's get to our first story. may have won this round at this time in this place. But this will be a valuable for our humanity and justice for the rest of our lives. God help us build a better world where everyone understands when we say free Palestine and is not 18-Septic. Unfortunately, progressive Congressman Jamal Bowman has a full. officially lost his primary in a race that was flooded with pro-Israel money and spending, namely by APAC. Now, in fact, it was the most expensive house primary race in American history, drawing more

than $25 million in ad spending. So let's get to some more of the details, because while I certainly do think that APAC made the difference here, Bowman was also a vulnerable campaign. candidate in this primary race, and I'll explain what I mean by that in just a moment. First, let's take a look at who Bowman was ousted by and what the results were. So he was ousted by Westchester County Executive George Latimer, who with 84% of the votes counted, had received 58.4% of the vote. Bowman had 41.6% of the vote. Now, the squad member had been an outspoken critic of Israel and how they've been prosecuting this war in Gaza, and was

referring to that war as a genocide, something that APAC, of course, does not take kindly to, since they represent not the best interests of the American people, but the best interests of a foreign government, Israel. And so at the start of the war, Bowman also alleged that there was no proof to back up claims that Hamas had used sexual violence on October 7th. He later walked that back and apologized after the U.N. had provided evidence. And because of his criticisms of that war, A PAC spent an unprecedented amount of money in this race to make Bowman look as bad as possible. A PAC spent at least $14.5 billion on anti-Bowman ads through its PAC, United Democracy Project, as of June 20th, and that's according to Federal Election Commission

filings. And yesterday, as voting was underway, Bowman had some pretty strong words for APEC. Let's take a look. Even as I've talked to voters, there are some who are like, I don't want to share who I voted for. I don't want my neighbors to know. It's got intense. It's intense because APAC are bullies. APAC intimidates people. And my opponent and my opponent has sided not just with APAC, but with Republican billionaires. And because he's been in office so long and because he's been counting the executive giving people jobs, people are afraid. Now following Bowman's loss and Latimer's win, APAC released a statement on X, writing that they congratulate Latimer on his resounding victory over an anti-Israel detractor.

It's just so ridiculous that that's supposed to be a qualification for political candidates in America. Okay, if you're not ridiculously unwavering in your loyalty and support to Israel, well, you're gonna be a target. But let me continue. This triumph by a strong pro-Israel candidate represents a major victory for the democratic mainstream that stands with the Jewish state and a defeat for the extremist fringe. Calling Bowman part of an extremist fringe is laughable to say the least, especially coming from an organization that funds pro-Trump candidates, extremists on the right.

I mean, these are individuals who have been funding the Republican Party. So the idea that they know what's good for the Democrats is hilarious to me. Now still, Latimer claims that he was unaffected by all that money pouring in from APAC. And, you know, he downplayed their relevance and skirted questions about them. Here's an example of what I'm talking about. This is, as we've been saying, the most expensive house primary in the history of this country, $25 million poured into this New York district more than $14 million from APAC. What do you say to some of your constituents who are concerned about that kind of money pouring into politics in this way? Well, the first thing I can say, Abby, is I've been in public office for 35 years.

I've held a variety of positions. I have never once changed the position based on a campaign donation ever. Nobody's ever accused me of that. What I know is that in winning this race tonight, I didn't win it on the national debate. I won it because I went door to door where I could all throughout this district. And I talked to people about the issues they wanted to talk about, which included what's happening in the Middle East, but really prioritized domestic issues. That's nonsense. Okay, that had nothing to do with it. Clearly, the act, and the tens of millions of dollars that poured into this race had a lot to do with the fact that Latimer was able to defeat Bowman in this race.

But I also want to be clear in stating that while I do believe that that APAC money made the difference, Bowman was a vulnerable candidate for a number of reasons. First off, you have to remember that the district that Bowman had previously run in and won in had been redrawn. And so when that district was redrawn, it ended up. up including some of the wealthier people living in that area. And these are individuals who might not have been so warm to Bowman and might not have wanted to vote for him in the first place. So that made him vulnerable. There was also that whole fire alarm incident where he was

caught lying about how he accidentally pulled the fire alarm video proved that that wasn't the case. I don't know how much of an impact that had on him. But there's a The reason why APAC has decided to focus their resources on Bowman's race and Cory Bush's race, they saw the two as vulnerable progressive candidates who have been incredibly, or incumbents, I should say, who have been incredibly critical of Israel. And so they've focused their energy on those two individuals. And so Cory Bush has not faced her primary election yet, but it is important to note that AAC is targeting her as well.

Now let's get to some of the reactions coming from the Democrats and from the squad. Now, as you can imagine, the squad is not happy about this development. They're not happy about Bowman's defeat, but there are some disgraced Democrats, like former New York governor, Andrew Cuomo, who are elated by this, saying that they're congratulating Latimer. Tonight, middle school children who pull fire alarms and do it while denying rape as a weapon of war lost and progress won. I mean, real sweet of Cuomo to weigh in on things like sexual misconduct, considering the fact that he has multiple women, some who he worked with, accusing him of sexual misconduct. So maybe I would have sat that one out, but he couldn't help himself, of course. You can't be a real progressive if you don't make progress. Now we can. So that last statement I want to focus on for just a minute because, look, the idea that

corporate Democrats are propelling this country in a progressive way or are leading Americans toward progress is laughable to me to say the least. Okay, especially when you talk about corporate Democrats like Andrew Freakin Cuomo, who decided to send sick elderly people back to nursing homes during the COVID pandemic, which led to the mass deaths of elderly people in nursing homes. Okay, that's what happened. Under Cuomo's watch, under his leadership, he's a giant piece of crap. But I also want to just note that when progressive voters fight for you and get you elected, you do have to deliver. And I don't, I think it's fair to say that voters in general have been kind of disappointed in the performance of members

of the squad, of members of the Justice Democrats. Okay, there's been a lot of acquiescing to the mainstream Democratic Party when they were elected to push back against the Democratic Party in order to accomplish incredibly important economic policies that they purported to care about so much. A lot of them in the very beginning kind of fought for those policies, Then they acquiesced to the Democratic Party and hyper focused on culture war issues. And I suspect that's part of the reason why there wasn't really a high turnout when there was this rally for Jamal Bowman this past weekend. AOC was there. Bernie Sanders was there. A couple hundred people showed up. That was not a good sign. Let's get to some more of the Democrats and how they responded to all of this.

You have a House minority leader, Hakeem Jeffries, who also weighed in. His team was absolutely furious that a spokesperson for the Justice Democrats called him out, despite the fact that he did endorse Bowman. He says that the outcome of this election is a reflection on Bowman's leadership and whether Hakeem Jeffries stood up to Republican mega donors. Oh, apologies, that was a statement coming from the Justice Democrats. So the outcome of this election is a reflection on his leadership. and whether Hakeem Jeffries stood up to Republican mega donors.

He didn't like that statement, so Hakeem Jeffries shot back with his spokesperson saying the following. The so-called Justice Democrats stated back in 2017 that their goal was to destroy the Democratic Party, and they laughably threatened to primary Hakeem Jeffries. They have failed miserably in every way, is anyone surprised? So that rift within the Democratic Party is still very much there, even after the Justice Democrats acquiesced to the corporate Democrats. So maybe some lessons can be learned here, but I doubt it. And a coalition of groups sent a letter on Wednesday demanding that Hakeem Jeffries take

a more confrontational approach toward APAC. In the letter, more than a dozen progressive organizations said that they had dire concerns over the party's continued association with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, APAC, the future of the Democratic Party, the future of our multiracial democracy, and the future of our planet. And they should be worried about that. In fact, all voters, regardless of their political affiliation, should be concerned about that.

Because do we care about what's happening to Americans in our own country? Or are we more concerned about whether or not our politicians in Congress are loyal enough to a foreign government's country? I'm just asking that question because again, for the MAGA crowd out there who proudly declare themselves America first, are you really America first? Because America first would mean that you want your politicians to focus on this country first. APEC doesn't want that.

A PAC wants these politicians to focus on what's allegedly best for Israel first. And I find that pretty gross. We didn't elect Israel to be part of our country or to have sway over. our policies, especially our foreign policy. But clearly, when you see the decisions that are made by leaders in both parties, as it pertains to foreign policy in Israel, it's always favorable to Israel, regardless of what Israel wants to do, even as they are overseeing the mass slaughter of innocent people in the Gaza Strip as we speak.

Finally, let's pivot to some more cheery news today, because one of the other surprising outcomes of the elections that took place yesterday was the congressional race for the fourth district in Colorado. So Lauren Bovert won. Didn't see that coming, right? The guy, like the woman who was groping her date during a Broadway show and vaping while doing so, by the way, like she got re-elected because there's no justice in the world. There's really no justice in the world.

She, of course, switched to a different district, and she turns out that that one, that effort was successful. I don't know why people would vote for her, but they did, and there you have it. We're gonna have another Lauren Bobert term to look forward to. I guess we have the Congress that we deserve. For now, let's take a break, super depressing news, I wish I could give you some positive news from yesterday, but there isn't really much of it. And when we come back, we'll have a wonderful conversation with Glenn Lowry.

He has a memoir out. It's an incredible memoir with a lot of confessions about terrible things he's done in his life. I want to give him credit for that, but also learn more about it. So stick around. Glenn Lowry, we'll join us when we come back from the break. Welcome back to TYT. I'm your host, Anna Kasparian. And this week I came back from a little bit of a break.

I was on vacation last week, went to Mexico with my best friend. And during that trip, I read one of the most memorable memoirs imaginable, one of my favorite books. And it's titled late admissions, Confessions of of a black conservative. It's written by Glenn Lowry, who's an economist, social critic, and who also has a wonderful podcast that he tends to host with John McWhorter. You should check that out as well. And I'm happy to say that Glenn Lowry joins us today to talk about his memoir, to talk about his life, and to talk about current events in politics. Glenn, so good to have you. I'm so excited, Anna, thank you. So I want to start off with a question that I'm sure

you get quite often and it really has to do with your political label here. Because as the title of your book states, you know, you're identifying as a conservative. But I want to challenge you on that. And I was also delighted to see that your own son, Glenn Jr. challenged you on that label as well. Because you certainly do have some views that are conservative. But you also have some views that are not, in my mind, conservative at all. You're a critic of how Israel is prosecuting this war in Gaza. That's one of the more recent examples. You've also been a critic of mass incarceration and have called for criminal justice reform. These aren't really things that conservatives identify with. So tell me why you chose to identify as a conservative in the

title of this book. Well, I'm not a movement conservative. I'm not a movement conservative. I I don't find that to be the core of my political identity, but there are a couple of things. One is on the economic policy front, I tend to lean toward open markets and pro-capitalist sentiments. I'm suspicious of regulation and so forth. I think the egalitarian impulses sometimes leads us a straight, that kind of thing. On the cultural issues, I'm a born again Christian who's lapsed in my faith, but who has held on to some of my basic cultural instincts. And on the race questions, I tend to be more of time to stop belly aching and complaining about discrimination,

time to get busy building and taking personal responsibility for our families and our communities and so on. So that's my account of why it is I call myself a conservative, although I loved it that my son pushed back on that. Yeah, that was a fascinating conversation, which I again encourage the audience to look for and watch. Thank you. But you know, okay, so you talk about your criticisms of, you know, black culture in America, take personal responsibility, you know, that whole notion. But in your book, you also make clear that there is clearly a difference in how policing, is carried out in America. You know, you write about the similar rates of drug use or drug abuse by whites and blacks,

but black people tend to get convicted at a higher rate than white individuals. So how do you kind of deal with those two conflicting thoughts? On one hand, there is evidence of discrimination. On the other hand, you want black Americans to take personal responsibility. Now, I have a long history in my own research, going back to my thesis, of making the case that there are structural impediments to African American progress and that the fact of historical discrimination and segregation had a long, cast a long shadow. So I think that that's true. But I think it's not the only truth. And I think there are imperatives of our, if you will, existential condition.

When I say, our, I mean black people. here we are in the United States, in the early 21st century. We're a long way from Jim Crow. We're a long way from the civil rights movement. And the world is moving on. And so I think acknowledging structural factors is not enough. Placing ourselves in the posture of waiting for, quote, white America to do the right thing is just a monumental historical mistake. The glass is more than half full, and I think we need to get busy.

That's the line that I've been taking on that question. Do you think that your personal experience in succeeding and being so incredibly successful as an economist? You went to MIT, you've taught at Harvard, you're now teaching at Brown. Do you think that that personal life that you've experienced might give you, I guess, a different, standard for other African Americans in this country? Like I did it, so why can't you kind of feel? You know, I'd hate for that to be the impression I give. And I certainly hope it's not the substance of my position.

I have done well all things considered, but not without a lot of help. I got help in a scholarship in college. I got help along the way of one sort or another. I benefited from affirmative action at one stage or another in my career. I had the support of family of a loving church community, et cetera, et cetera. So, you know, I'd hate to be the guy that says, look, I did it, do what I did. On the other hand, I know from recovering from a severe drug addiction problem, I know from coming back from being a father at the age of 18 and again at 19 and again at 21, having to drop out of college working nights and going to school full time. You know, I know that hard work pays off and that it's possible to make your life better in this country.

And so I don't want to seem to be saying, do like me, in part because a lot of the stuff I did, I would not recommend for other people to follow in my footsteps. But in part because I realize that I have been the beneficiary of good fortune and of assistance. as President Obama once said, you didn't build that. And I think that has to be said about my life as well. I don't hesitate to say that. You know, part of what I admire about you just as a person is your open-mindedness and how you really can't, I can't put you in a box. And I think most people, politically speaking, can't be put in a box.

Yet we're so loyal to these political labels that don't quite fit. I don't know if they've ever really made sense, but they certainly don't make sense to me these days, right? So I'll give you an example. You know, in your book, there was a portion where you write about Marx that really shocked me. Because, you know, as a free market capitalist, I just, you never come across free market capitalists who give Marx any credit for anything. But I want to read the excerpt that I'm referring to so the audience knows what I'm talking about.

knows what I'm talking about. You're right. Though I read a little Marx as an undergrad, I was afraid that I'd be forced to endure hundreds of pages of ideological propaganda. What I found instead was a herculean effort to systematically analyze the advent of modernity and the transformations in social and economic relations that tended the rise of capitalism. I couldn't help but be impressed with Marx's breathtaking intellectual ambition and range. He was dealing with a big essential with the with big essential problems in the history of economic development and applying his interpretation directly to the world he lived in. Even if reading capital didn't turn me into a Marxist, it gave me an appreciation for what so many others saw in his work. I feel that in today's political discourse, being open-minded to the other side,

actually having the curiosity to explore different perspectives and different ideas is something that's kind of frowned upon because there's this effort to put everyone in this box, to stay loyal to a political label. And that's something that I've been dealing with and having some frustrations about, especially recently. I'm curious, as someone who seems to have a little bit of fluidity in your political ideology, do you see that as a problem that's further polarizing Americans? Or have things always been this way?

I do think it's a problem that has gotten worse in the last decades. We're very polaris. It should be forbidden to say something good about Karl Marx, Das Kapital. I mean, this was a very important intellectual intervention in the 19th century as we thought and tried to figure out what was going on with modern economic developments. I mean, I'm not a Marxist, and I think Marxism has wrought much in practice that is lamentable in world history. But still, I think sitting in the middle of the 19th century and looking at industrialization, the rise of industrial capitalism and global commercial interests and all of that these are big thorny nitty problems and i i think serious people can't be blinkered we we can't live like

this we we have to be open to broader arguments and that's that's all that that's just one example one example of a kind of intellectual ecumenicism that i would commend to uh to all serious people grappling with social issues. One of the areas that I thought was really fascinating was your critique of Obama, not only the Obama administration, but even in the very beginning when Obama was considering running for president, you seem to be against that. And then you referred to his tenure as depressing in the extreme, which is fascinating because Obama actually had incredibly high approval ratings, especially when you compare

Obama to, you know, Biden or Trump. And so I wanted to get a little more elaboration on that. What did you find depressing about Obama's tenure? Well, remember the Democrats lost control of the House, lost control of the Senate, and ultimately lost control of the presidency and consequence of Obama's tenure. I thought that the president's blackness was more of a branding enterprise than it was something that had an authentic route. I'm from Chicago, and I'll confess this might not be entirely fair. I saw a carpetbagger in Barack Hussein Obama coming to work as, quote, a community organizer and working his way up in Illinois ward politics. And, you know, launching his campaign from Springfield, Massachusetts, evoking the image of Abraham Lincoln.

We are the ones we've been waiting for. Our time has come. And so I thought it was a bill of goods. And I was less than, as I said, my uncle Mooney, who raised me, my mother's sister's husband, who was a hard-nosed businessman and a hustler, I don't think he would have been at all impressed with Barack Hussein Obama. Yeah, I mean, we, when I say we, I mean, me and my co-host and the CEO and founder of the Young Turks, we were disappointed in the Obama administration. And it was mainly because we totally bought that he, we bought the bill of goods.

We thought that he was actually going to propel the country in a direction that we felt was good for Americans in general. And then campaign Obama was very different from President Obama. We definitely noticed that difference. So it was interesting to hear your critiques, read your critiques as someone from Chicago who kind of saw him rise up in the very beginning. I want to move on because I don't want to take up too much of your time. I do want to move on to some of the personal elements of your book because that was really fascinating to me. You do not present yourself in the most positive light. In fact, you disclose quite a bit about yourself and your personal life that makes you look really, really bad.

And I admire that because I think it made you someone that a lot of people can relate to. I think a lot of the passages in your book that talk about your downfalls resonated with me and it made me admire you even more. I'm going to give you a, I'm going to give the audience an example of something that I was amused by. you write about the first time you were arrested and it was because you stole a car because you were chasing tail. I just, I thought that was hilarious. Okay, so I'm not judging at all about that. I borrowed the car. My intention was to return it after the date night was over. That was so funny. Unfortunately, I got arrested on my way to the date and then, you know. Okay, so later though, you get into some of the more serious stuff.

including, you know, while you were teaching at Harvard, you became addicted to crack cocaine. And so before you answer any questions about that, I want to ask you a broader question. Why did you feel the need to put this book out there to disclose all of these sensitive things about yourself? You know, I didn't start out intending to do that. I started out with a nice, neat little formula for the book. It was going to be called changing my mind and it was going to be about my political journey to the left, to the right to the left and so forth. And then I realized it couldn't just be about that because I have

scandal, public scandal, a woman accused me of assaulting her. I was up for a big government job during the Reagan administration and I had to withdraw. I was humiliated. I was this bad boy black conservative who beat up his girlfriend, you know, an extramarital affair, love nest that, you know, we could go into the details, but I urge people to read the book. So I had all this stuff and I thought then the book was going to be about the stuff,

about dealing with the stuff. And I started down this road of sketching and recounting and constructing and confronting myself with the record, you know, what had happened. What happened with this beautiful woman, Linda Thatcher Lowry, Dr. Lowry, the late economist who was my second wife. I met in graduate school and whom I was married to for 28 years and with whom I was not always faithful. And she stuck with me through thick and thin. And I had to confront the reality of that relationship. Anyway, Anna, I won't go on too long. I just want to say, as I got into the bowels of it,

I realized that the challenge for me was to be able to confront truthfully the facts of my own life. And as I sketched them out and put them on paper and made them vivid and real, I realized that there was, I was called to something here, that this was an opportunity for testimony. It was an opportunity for me to share The beginning, the middle, in the end, well, not quite yet the end, but so far I'm in my 70s of a life that was fully lived. And I was hoping and am hoping that the credibility that I might gain with the reader from my candor,

that the humanity that I might reveal to the reader through my struggles and my triumphs as well as my failures would leave me at the end of the day more real and authentic. persona. And I'm aiming for the ages here. I wanted to produce a work of art. I put that with a small A. I don't mean to pat myself on the back. But I didn't just want to do an advertising campaign to sell Glenn Lowry to the world. I wanted hopefully to produce something that would be of lasting value. And I've tried. I mean, I think you have succeeded in that because it's a story of what it means to be human, right? To make mistakes. And I think we're in this era where people don't want to do any self-reflection.

But, I mean, it was just this thick memoir full of self-reflection, taking ownership, yes, evolving, changing. I really, really appreciated it. I'm personally thirsty for that genuine authenticity, not the fake authenticity. that we see with politicians as they're campaigning and all that nonsense. A lot of us, I think, are having difficulty connecting with others because right now, political labels are everything, and you're not supposed to see the other side as human. You know, as a progressive myself, as someone on the left myself, I've been changing lately

and I've been, I don't know what prompted it to be quite frank with you, but, you know, I watch your podcast with John McWhorter, I absolutely love it, and you guys are individuals who have some political views that I disagree with. But what I love is that I see you as human, and there are things about the two of you that I can relate to. And I'm trying to get members of our audience to kind of push back against the idea that political labels define an individual and instead try to get to know the individual, right? And when you read your memoir, it's just so human.

And I really, really appreciate that you disclosed all of this about yourself. Final question, because I'm just dying to know, you know, you became addicted to crack cocaine while you were teaching at Harvard. You went through a few, several stints of rehab, and finally it stuck and you were able to recover. But how are you able to do what you were doing at Harvard while living that double life? Weren't you exhausted? I would be exhausted. You know, like living that double life. The 24 hours of the day, I marvel at it myself in retrospect.

I was living a double life or triple life, you know, I was better, you know, Superman going into the telephone booth and, you know, transforming myself into a guy who could go from a seminar room at Harvard with the Oak blind and all of the fancy stuff and the high ideals over to the streets of Roxbury or Jamaica Plain where I could buy drugs and hang out and corrals and whatnot. I was living a double life. And it came crashing down. I mean, I couldn't really make it work in the long run. And I had to confront the reality of that. But for a while there, I was doing what I don't think anybody else really, you know, could do. I mean, find another story like the one I tell, smoking crack in my office at Harvard, hoping that somebody next door wouldn't know that I was in the office and come in and ask, you know,

what am I doing? Yeah, that was pretty crazy. Yeah, I mean, you brought a woman that you were cheating on your wife with to official work functions, Which was, I mean, balzy to say the least. But anyway, thank you so much for not only writing the memoir, but being so generous with your time and speaking with us about it. I do want to encourage everyone to check this memoir out.

Again, it's late admissions, confessions of a black conservative. Glenn Lowry, I hope you'll come on again in the future. I really appreciate it. Anytime, Anna. All right, well take care. And we're gonna take a brief break. When we come back, we've got more news to get too, so stick around.

Welcome back to the show, everyone, Anna Casparian with you. I'm really happy to read that, you know, our live viewers were enjoying that conversation with Glenn Lowry. I just want to read a few of those comments. Teddy Cool writes in in our member section and says, I've been enjoying these interviews recently. Anna, you are a very good interviewer. Thank you. I appreciate it. And Galfar writes it and says, what Anna's talking about here is why the founding fathers wanted no political parties in the USA and why George Washington refused to join one. I mean, when you really talk to ordinary people in America, ordinary voters, they're really a hodgepodge of different political beliefs, right? Some are more conservative, some are progressive. A lot of Americans

actually favor some of the progressive policy proposals. When it comes to social issues, I think that there's a mix of conservatives and progressives and moderates, of course. And so, yeah, I don't think that most American voters fall squarely in one camp or the other. And I think that makes sense. I think that's normal. Let's go to one more comment. Okay. Oh, here we go. Louis Seifer says, picked up his book on Kindle, Anna has yet to lead me wrong. I would never promote a book that I thought sucked. And honestly, Glenn Lowry's book was amazing. So right back in after you read it, because I'm curious what you thought about it. Okay, with that said, let's get to the news. Leaked emails from California governor Gavin Newsom's office reveal his effort to crush a politically

popular initiative that has qualified for the state's ballot this year. The measure would allow the state's voters to amend Proposition 47, which voters back in 2014 actually approved. But it led to deadly unintended consequences, including a surge in overdose deaths and crime. Not only were violent felonies reclassified as nonviolent misdemeanors, something voters did not know what happened, but it served as a catalyst for open-air drug markets, public drug use, and record numbers of overdose deaths in the state. It also reduced penalties for theft, which is why you might have seen all those smash-and-grab videos out of California. It's worth backing up, though, to note that unlike many states in the country, California actually had a program. that was succeeding to help rehabilitate addicts while avoiding convictions or prison time.

In fact, back in the 1990s, the state had rolled out something known as drug courts. Think of this as a prison diversion program that gave those accused of drug-related crimes, the option to either serve time behind bars or opt for mandatory drug treatment. And it was successful. It was a successful way to compel those who needed help to get help. It was working. By 1998, the state was pouring $4 million each year into the program to fund drug courts in 34 counties. But then came Prop 47, which slashed penalties for drug possession altogether.

And look, I admit that sounds real good on the surface, which is why I myself voted for Prop 47. But it also took away a powerful incentive for addicts to receive rehabilitative services. Prop 47's impact has been brutal to say the least. A 2020 paper from the New York base center for court innovation, surveyed California drug courts after the passage of Prop 47 and found participation was down statewide by 67% between 2014 and 2018. This impact is seen in nearly every county in California. In San Diego County, more than 650 people participated in drug court in the

the 2013 fiscal year, which was two years before Prop 47 was enacted. That was down to 255 people last year. In Alameda County, more than 640 people attended drug courts between January 2014 and September 2015, an average of 30 people per month. After the passage of Prop 47, that dropped to 14 people per month in the 2015 fiscal year, and it has stayed at that rate since. So when combining the impact of Prop 47 with the opioid epidemic and the surge in fentanyl use, well, you have a recipe for disaster. Between 2019 and 2021, opioid-related deaths spiked 121 percent, according to California's Health

Department. This is why Californians, like Greg Totten, want to reform Prop 47 to amend the provisions that have led to all these terrible unintended consequences. He says that the promise of the law was more treatment, less jail. But there's actually less treatment when people don't go to drug courts. From a common sense standpoint, why go to a treatment program rather than just walk out of a courthouse free? But Governor Gavin Newsome does not want voters to weigh in on amending Prop 47 on this year's ballot. Instead, his office proposed their own set of bills that allegedly address some of the concerns

voters have been expressing. But as CBS News reports, it does not go as far as the ballot measure itself. Later, email exchanges between Newsom's office and Greg Totten, who's of course behind this year's ballot measure to amend Prop 47, were leaked to CBS News. Those communications make clear that Newsom is worried about how reversing parts of Prop 47 will hurt him politically, especially as he's eyeing a presidential run in 2028. So he's seeking to maneuver around policy changes that voters in California want. Based on these emails, governor's office would prefer Californians not vote on reforming

Prop 47 this year. In one email, the governor's chief of staff, Dana William tells the coalition's lead negotiator, Greg Totten, that leadership is willing to negotiate on its package of crime bills, which would take effect immediately, clarifying as far as an initiative, meaning a proposal to amend Prop 47, we are open to something in 2026. Oh, Newsom is open to amending Prop 47 in 2026 when his term as governor is already over and he's less likely to suffer from the terrible optics of voters expressing their disdain toward a measure that he was a massive proponent of. In fact, Newsom was an early proponent of Prop 47 and consistently defended it, even as

its downsides were evident to everyone paying attention. Newsom's chief of staff led the opposition campaign against previous attempts to reverse Prop 47. Californians rejecting his failed policy looks really bad while he's. still in office. Jessica Levinson, a professor of a professor at Loyola Law School, says that you can imagine that Governor Newsome, while he's still governor, doesn't want to vote on a big issue that would be viewed as a rebuke of his legacy.

He was very strongly in favor of Prop 47. Mike Trujillo, who supports amending Prop 47 and also works as a Democratic strategist, agrees saying, I think that 2026 makes sense. If you are the governor of California that does not want to have to deal with the actual problems occurring today in California, most politicians always want to sort of kick the can and Governor Newsom is part of that very old tradition. And there's good reason to believe that Californians will vote in favor of amending Prop 47.

I mean, just take a look at what people are experiencing in the state's major cities. According to the Los Angeles Police Department, homicides have increased by 10.6% year to date as of June 4th. Robberies have also jumped by 17.6% over 2023, and more specifically, robberies that have taken place at Los Angeles businesses, restaurants, liquor stores, and clothing stores account for 894 robberies this year, which is up 43.6% from 2023. Los Angeles isn't the only California city experiencing a jump in crime either.

Homicides are up 83% in Long Beach and 133% in Fresno compared to 2023. Meanwhile, car thefts are up 52% in Long Beach while shoplifting is up 79% in San Bernardino, according to law enforcement statistics. But Newsom is more concerned with his legacy, so he wants to resist any reversals of his disastrous policies. There are also concerns about how this ballot measure might galvanize more conservative voters in the state to actually show up and vote. That could potentially hurt Democrats in down ballot races. But let's get back to that email exchange between Newsom's chief of staff and Totten.

Totten replied to Williamson, saying, as I noted previously, our focus is on amending Proposition 47 on the 2024 ballot. If the administration is prepared to consider an amendment of Proposition 47 on the 2024 ballot, then we're happy to meet. An irate Williamson responds saying, quote, if that's your position, then I agree, there's nothing to talk about. It's really amazing how you're incapable of taking a win. And the consultants you're working with haven't won anything in a decade, good luck.

Todd didn't respond to her after that, but 15 minutes. Later, Newsom's chief of staff emailed him again and called him rude. After that, Newsom's office added a poison pill to their bills on Monday that would automatically repeal them if voters passed the ballot measure in November. I would say that's pathetic, but honestly, if the ballot measure passes, that's way better than their weak bills. Look, I really want to emphasize that what Newsom has been doing is not about improving public safety or solving mass incarceration, it's about cutting spending in order to close a massive budget

deficit that he himself exacerbated. Newsom squandered 24 billion dollars that was allocated to help the homeless. A recent state audit couldn't even account for that money, and homelessness in the state is worse than ever before. And now we have a budget deficit, but even before that, Newsom wanted kudos for ending mass incarceration while cutting spending. Newsom has already moved to close four prisons over the course of his administration. He projects that those shutdowns will save the state $3.4 billion by 2027. He wants to shut down five more state prisons and transfer inmates to county detention centers, which are already severely overcrowded.

As a result, the county detention centers have been doing early releases, of violent criminals. I'm not even kidding, that explains the headlines like this one from the Associated Press. California is releasing 76,000 inmates early, including violent felons. By the way, that includes repeat violent offenders and those who were serving life sentences.

It would be a real bad look if amending Prop 47 increases the number of convicted felons, while California literally has no place for said felons to serve their sentences, because Newsom shut those prisons down. This isn't about public safety or reforming the criminal justice system. It's about saving money by cutting government spending. You think they're replacing those prisons with successful diversion programs,

which tend to be more costly. Reforming criminal justice requires more resources, not less. But Californians united for a responsible budget said the state should shudder at least 10 more of its prisons. If convicted felons have nowhere to go to serve their time, the blame will be placed squarely on Newsom's horrible leadership, not a good look for a narcissist obsessed with making his way to the White House. So it's important to know what Newsom's actually up to and the disgusting games he plays

behind the scenes as he neglects the concerns of his own constituents in California and I's a presidential run. The guy is smarmy to say the least, and I could say a lot more, but it would probably get me in trouble because I'm not supposed to be using foul language on the show. So get to know Newsome, get to really know Newsome, because who he purports to be is very different from who he actually is as a leader. All right, well, with that said, let's move on to our final story in the first hour. I wanted to talk a little bit about what conservatives in some states are working on right now,

and you're not going to like it. No fault divorce is very, very bad. But I think the reform to no fault divorce is far simpler. It should be reformed by simply ceasing to exist. Marriage is much more than a contract. It's a covenant. There are a lot of problems with the current legal structure of marriage. I agree with that critique of the current legal structure of marriage.

No fault divorce is one of the worst things that ever happens to Western civilization. I think she's entitled to nothing during this proceedings. And I think the problem is no fault divorce. I still believe that children need a mom and a dad and that divorce is horrible. But in today's legal system, my beliefs don't matter. We got to get rid of no fault divorce. Well, Timpool, you might be getting your wish because there are Republican lawmakers who are literally working on that type of policy.

as we speak. So conservative lawmakers in multiple states and on a national level are considering attempts to eliminate or restrict divorces in cases where fault cannot be proven. Right now laws exist on or in all 50 states that allows people to end a marriage without having to prove that someone in that marriage did something wrong like cheating or domestic abuse. The socially conservative though, and often religious members of society have a different idea, right? So right wing opponents of such laws are arguing that this deprives men of due process and it hurts families.

In reality, oftentimes couples that want a divorce don't want to accuse each other of terrible things. They just want to part ways and be done with it. And I don't really see how it's beneficial for society to force two individuals who know longer want to be in a marriage to continue being in a marriage, living under the same roof, and being miserable with one another. But nonetheless, many of you have already heard claims from conservatives like Tim Pool who think that it's a bad idea to allow people to have these no-fault divorces. And you're about to hear more. Let's watch.

What we're talking about in the American divorce regime is called no-fault divorce. And no-fault divorce is, one, a contradiction in terms. You can't get it. You can't break a contract if there's fault of anyone. And two, it's horrific for children and it's horrific for the spouses. Marriage is much more than a contract. It's a covenant. To truly go your own way alone and isolated is to give up on your duty, your legacy, your ancestors, your bloodline, your civilization, your happiness. Marriage is a commitment. That commitment is lifelong. There should actually have to be a really, really, really good reason why you are divorcing. And that's particularly true if you have children, because of course, marriage is designed as the fundamental building block

of institutional society, it is the place where children are reared. It is the place where you produce children in the first place, and children require stability. The traditional response to how you fix marriages, divorce is not allowed. Okay, but there's rare circumstances where like a guy is threatening to murder and beating his wife and his kids, and infidelity is one of these things. No fault divorce is an absolute tragedy. It is the catalyst for every other degenerate marriage and relationship problem that we have in society. She sounds like a good time. Listen, okay, great. Go ahead and pass laws restricting divorce. And let's see how much the marriage rate drops from what it already is. It's already dropped

considerably. But you're going to make it harder for people to divorce. You're going to have more people living under the same roof, having children out of wedlock, which is what conservatives don't want. Like the idea that a couple needs to prove that there's a good reason for them to divorce in order to be able to part ways is ridiculous to me. And this is coming from individuals who purport to want to protect freedom in America. But they're getting involved in literally the most intimate personal decisions that Americans can make about their personal lives. It is insane. In the case of Stephen Crowder, by the way, he was bitter after it was exposed that he's pretty abusive to his wife.

And yeah, she wanted to divorce. Who wouldn't want a divorce? And by the way, I just want to make clear, that case, I wouldn't say that it's a no fault divorce. Seems like there's some evidence indicating that that relationship was not a good one, potentially a very abusive one. And I hope that, you know, she's able to part ways with him and not have to deal with him ever again. Unfortunately, they have children together, but it is what it is. Now, here's Senator J.D. Vance talking about increasing divorce rates back in 2021. And this is one of the great tricks that I think the sexual revolution pulled on the American populace, which is this idea that like, well, okay, these marriages were fundamentally, you know, they were, they were maybe even

violent, but certainly they were unhappy. And so getting rid of them and making it easier for people to shift spouses like they change their underwear, that's going to make people happier in the long term. And maybe it worked out for the moms and dads, though I'm skeptical, but it really didn't work out for the kids of those marriages. And I think that's what all of us should be honest about, is we've run this experiment in real time. And what we have is a lot of very, very real family dysfunction that's making our kids unhappy. There are a lot of myths about the divorce rate in America. And it's enraging because it just persists and no one ever really looks into it.

So let's talk about what divorce in America really looks like. There was a period of time where divorces experienced a spike. So the divorce rate in the United States increased significantly. from 1960 when it was 9.2 per 1,000 married women to 22.6 in 1980. But by 2022, the rate had fallen to 14.5. Now, there's a reason for that, and it's because of the fact that, you know, people waited longer to get married. I think that has a lot to do with it, so you don't get married when you're super young and you don't even know who you are yet. I think that had something to do with it.

But the reason why there was that spike in divorces is because many of those marriages were in fact violent. There was domestic abuse within those marriages. And suddenly you have a situation in which women felt empowered to leave an abusive marriage. So before 1969, when California Republican Governor Ronald Reagan approved the country's first no-fault divorce law, yeah, that Ronald Reagan, he did that. Women were often forced to stay in abusive marriages. Between 1976 and 1985, states that passed the laws saw their domestic violence rates against men and women fall by about 30%.

The number of women murdered by an intimate partner declined by 10%, and female suicide rates also declined by 8 to 16%. And this impacted children as well, not in a negative way, in a positive way. Because they're no longer stuck in a household where they have parents engaging in domestic violence, obviously. Kimberly Well, who's a professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law, says that without such laws, meaning the ability to have a no-fault divorce, it's hard to prove anything in court relating to a family because you don't have any witnesses. It's very difficult to get evidence to show abusive children. How do you do it? Do you put your kids on the stand? And there were also huge implications

for the economic well-being of wives, many of whom stayed home and didn't make money on their own. If they could not prove that their husband had been abusive or persuade him to grant a divorce, they would not be able to take any assets from that marriage or remarry. And that's according to a study that was published in the quarterly journal of economics. But some people in the alleged party for personal freedom, which is hilarious to be considering what they're trying to do here, basically want to go back to the dark ages. And they want to go back to an era where no fault divorces were not allowed, where they were banned. Republican lawmakers have discussed increasing restrictions on no fault marriage law,

I'm sorry, no fault marriage laws or eliminating them entirely in Louisiana. In Louisiana, in Oklahoma, Nebraska, Texas. In January, for instance, the Oklahoma State Senator Dusty Devers, it's a fun name, I guess, but he's a far-right Christian pastor who describes himself as an abortion abolitionist. Introduced a bill that would eliminate no-fault divorces in his state. Devers wrote last year in a Christian publication that making divorce too easy causes social upheaval. Unfettered dishonesty. Let's pause first.

You want to talk about unfettered dishonesty? What do you think people do when they're in an unhappy marriage and they can't get out of it? You think they're faithful to one another? You think they're honest with one another? You don't think they might want to live double lives because they're stuck in an unhappy marriage by force thanks to the state? Let me continue though. Lawlessness, violence toward which? women, how laughable is this, war on men and expendability of children.

To devalue marriage is to devalue the family is to undermine the foundation of a thriving society. Unfortunately, this guy's not alone. There are others who feel this way. In 2022, the Republican Party of Texas added this language to its platform. We urge the legislature to rescind unilateral no fault divorce laws to support covenant marriage and to pass legislation extending the period of time in which a divorce may occur to six months after the date of filing for divorce. Louisiana Republicans have workshopped a similar proposal and the Nebraska GOP writes on its website that no fault divorce should only be excessive. to couples without children.

I don't understand how children living in a household with parents who can't stand each other and who do not get along is good for the children. It is not good for the children at all. And if it's abusive, if it's an environment that is full of constant conflict, that's actually incredibly destabilizing for children. I don't understand how anyone can think this is a good idea. Federal lawmakers like J.D. Vance and House Speaker Mike Johnson, as well as former HUD Secretary Ben Carson, have also spoken out in favor of tightening divorce laws. At the Republican National Convention back in 2016, delegates considered adding language declaring children are made

to be loved by both natural parents united in marriage, legal structures such as no fault divorce, which divides families and empowers the state should be replaced by a fault-based divorce. Again, I really do think that the outcome of this, should these types of laws pass on a state level, it's very unlikely to happen on a federal level. But if they do pass on a state level, I would venture to say that marriage rates in those states will experience a dip, a decline. Because if you know that it's going to be more difficult to divorce your partner, should the marriage end up kind of falling apart, well, maybe you don't want to take that risk of getting married. And legislation banning no fault divorce is, again, unlikely to ever pass on a national level. But if red states manage to enact these bans, couples in those states could be out of luck.

Divorce laws generally include a residency requirement, which would make it difficult for people to even call. across state lines in order to get a divorce. And luckily so far, none of these efforts have succeeded. And Denise Lieberman, who's a professor at the University, at the Washington University School of Law, doesn't think they will, saying, quote, I do believe that the train has left the station. I mean, we've had no fault divorce now for 50 years,

but I didn't think the Supreme Court would overturn Roe v. Wade, which we had for 50 years, so I suppose we will see. So no one knows for sure. No one has the ability to predict what's going to happen in these red states that seem to have lawmakers hellbent on ending no fault divorces. But I do think this story is something that needs to be emphasized. Because while you have the Republican Party, you know, speaking in a certain way, using certain rhetoric that appeals to ordinary American workers who are looking for an economic populist message. Republicans are still the same people who they've always been in regard to their so-called conservative values. And those conservative values tend to translate into the state having a say on the most intimate personal decisions you can make about your life and your household. I can't ever support that. I think this is incredibly gross and I think it shows a certain

level of insecurity, male insecurity in the Republican Party, this notion of having to control the decision making of women in order to serve the best interest of men. That's the way this comes across. I don't think all conservative men are these insecure cowards. I do think that they're overrepresented in the Republican policymakers and lawmakers in this country, though. And that's a damn shame. All right, we got to take a break. When we come back, John Iderola will hopefully not be upset at me for cutting into the second hour.

And he'll join me to cover more of today's news. Don't miss it. I'm going to be a lot of Oh,