Episode Transcript
[00:00:20] Speaker A: Hi folks. This is Dick Flags and Daraka Lamore. Hall is with me. We're back with talking strategy, making history. We've taken some time off work, a lot of personal issues, baby raising and personal issues and new work, Daraka. And we're all of us, including everyone tuning into this, no doubt coping with the arrival of a new Trump time. So how are you doing?
[00:00:52] Speaker B: Indeed, I'm hanging in there, I'm sure, like a lot of listeners, processing and reeling and juggling disappointment and concern, anxiety with frustration and so forth. But yeah, making life and going through the day to day, which is full of challenges as well. So it's nice to be back on the air, such as it is, and back with you, processing the world, making sense of the world, arguing the world. And yeah, life goes on and so does the struggle.
[00:01:27] Speaker A: And I think we feel all, with all due modesty, that we have something to say. We hope we do. And we would love to get from all, as always, reactions from people to what we're doing. But the reason we think we have something to say is because we've got combined lot of years in the different ways of organizing and what AOC has just been calling the inside, outside theory. That's how she puts it. We both have been in the movements and in the electoral process. And that's really one of the main points that we try to do with this podcast is talk about how the left is engaged with people in the streets and with people in the voting booth, so to speak, how these two interweave. Lots of dilemmas. And the Trump triumph, if you want to call it that, is certainly a challenge to everything that we. In fact, the way I feel about the election results, it just undermines a great many suppositions, assumptions that I was making about how this would go. It's a 50, 50 election. I think we have to emphasize that now that the returns are mostly counted, this is not in any way a landslide. It's a, it's a razor thin margin. And it looks like Trump did not get the majority of the popular vote. Nobody did. He did Edge Harris in that popular vote, of course, and the House will be razor thin controlled by the gop. Anyway, I would like to discuss what some of those results mean and I think that's what we can do in this beginning of, let's call it our fourth season. We don't have a name yet for the season, but we probably will have one. And part of what challenged me was not only the results, but the fact that I'm a Social scientist supposed to understand stuff. And the fact that I didn't understand stuff led me to Hondur rather than simply anguish. And one thing I noticed was something that I've been calling people's attention to, which is Nebraska.
There was a senator senatorial race there that didn't get maybe the attention that it deserved. Guy named Dan Osborne came from nowhere. He was a union official in Nebraska, decide to run for U.S. senate against a Republican incumbent and he almost won. He lost by about four points on an independent ticket. He didn't run as a Democrat. The Democrats, quite wisely, I think, did not run anyone against the Republican and him. And I don't know how officially they endorsed, whether they endorsed his campaign. He said he wouldn't.
[00:04:22] Speaker B: No, they didn't.
[00:04:23] Speaker A: He wouldn't caucus when he got to the Senate if he won, he wouldn't caucus with either Democrats or Republicans. But he didn't, as far as I know, make very many concessions to right wing culture war policies. He ran on a pro worker agenda and emphasized that the working class needs to be at the table in America and they're not and that that's what he represented. And he got a lot of Trump voters support. So that's made me think, well, we need to know a lot about what kind of Trump voter would vote for Trump and for Osborne. Then I start to think further. So in Nebraska there was a ballot initiative which was for raising the minimum wage and I think also a paid sick leave provision. In Alaska there was an even stronger pro labor ballot initiative that passed that included those measures, but also included a provision that gave union organizing an easier path in Alaska than it had. And then the same in Missouri, a minimum wage increase.
All of these are red states. All of these are ballot measures that passed with Trump voters in their support. Considerable. I don't know what the percentage of Trump voters voted for these, but it's not a small amount, you know, like with at least 20%, probably maybe more of Trump voters voted for these measures now. So I'm thinking how do we put this together?
And if we assume that those Trump voters were likely to be working class, and I'm being very professorially sociologically social sciencey right now on purpose, then how do we interpret that? And I have an idea, I don't have the complete data for this, but it isn't simply that the messages were appealing, it's that. And it isn't that these voters necessarily like Trump in any way.
[00:06:34] Speaker B: But what makes you say that?
[00:06:36] Speaker A: Because what I think it is is that this is a protest vote.
And it's. I then thought back to Brexit and why Brexit shocked people in Britain, because a lot of workers voted for Brexit and it was interpreted as a protest vote, in other words. And many people in the British case were saying that they didn't even think it would pass, but they voted for it to shake up and get the voice of workers, people like them heard. And I believe this is pretty rational, actually, when you think about it, because the fact that working class voters went for Trump to the degree they did has shaken up the discourse, has put working class. That's what we're doing right now. We're talking about how, in Osborne phrase, how workers can get back to the table, get to the table. And to the table means participate directly in the decisions that affect them. The end, in terms of what government's doing and in terms of American life in general, is how I would interpret it. So it's a hypothesis. I don't know and maybe let you comment immediately on the plausibility or how much you like this, but it seems to me a way to think about future organizing is to say it isn't simply what the message that the candidates give at election time, it's whether people who are the targets of that message believe that the promises are credible. And that I'll add one final point here, and it's something that Bernie Sanders has been saying. If you don't couple a message of promise to workers with a message of attack on plutocracy, on what he calls the billionaire class, if you don't deal with the power structure as part of your messaging, then you are not as credible as you would otherwise be. In other words, you have to show that you're a fighter against elite power. And it's a populist message, so called, that I'm talking about. But it's more than a message. It's a. It means concrete evidence presented to people who are skeptical or who think the Democrats are just using them or who think the Democrats are for everyone but them. How do you get back not only credibility, how do you actually lead the country in a new direction? That's what I guess I'm saying is at the heart of what I'm thinking. Go ahead.
[00:09:23] Speaker B: So I'll start with an agreement which is I don't think that there's any other moral, principled or potentially effective strategy for building a strong and durable governing Democratic majority than going populist on economic questions or moving to the left on core economic rhetoric, policy all of it. Like, I, I'm very much convinced of that. But I don't think that the discussion that we're having right now about working class voters will inevitably produce that direction. In other words, I think everyone agrees, like looks at the data and I think there's very few people who would try to make the argument now that there's a like middle class and minority college educated plus minority voter path to like a big majority, I mean, let alone even a small one. This is why the how Bernie has been talking about these things and other folks have. I've been sort of calling in my head as like the Captain Obvious take, which it's like, there's no, of course we have to do this because it's like the voters that, you know, work for a living or even are poor cut hard for Trump in this election compared to the partisan vote spread in past elections. Like, those groups of people I think are attracted to Trump. I think they are attracted to Trump. I don't think that it, we can explain this election by just being like, oh, it was protest vote. People are just mad and so they threw their vote away. I really think that's a gigantic mistake. I mean, I think it's the mistake that we've been making since Brexit. And the rise, there's a new rise of the hard right is underestimating the extent to which people like what Donald Trump is selling. And we need an alternative to that that people like more. And we have a whole bunch of options on the table of how to like, cobble that together. One of those options is to offer an argument about the economy that's left wing, that's anti oligarch, anti rich, anti bank whatever, anti, you know, anti institutionalists. But the thing that I've been thinking about a lot is that and watching some of the reaction from like folks, veterans of the Obama administration, other folks, you know, very connected type folks, is that there are these other options out there for trying to win working class voters back to or to a Democratic coalition. And some of those are either like further marginalizing issues, rights issues of importance to groups like trans folks or migrants, or, you know, these things that get dismissed by white men as quote, unquote, culture war issues. So there's like, hey, we could backslide on those things and then they will see they will have more credibility with those voters. So there's that strategy and then there's this one that the left, I think, hasn't really gotten its head around since, you know, at least the 90s, which is a populist neoliberalism. Right. Is like, okay, we got to get working class voters back. We got to do that by dropping all of this like kind of socialist sounding shit, collectivist stuff that they don't like and get to stuff that they do like, like tax cuts and deregulation and making it easier to smart start small businesses or yeah, whatever. What have you lower the burden on working class and middle class people for the welfare state. You know, frame the welfare state like there's, there's. And there will be voters that will respond to that and like that. And.
[00:13:37] Speaker A: Well, a lot of that was already what. What. A lot of that is already what.
What Kamala was saying. She did a lot of that.
[00:13:45] Speaker B: Exactly, exactly.
[00:13:46] Speaker A: And it, and it didn't, it didn't. It went over like a lead balloon.
[00:13:50] Speaker B: Again, like I, I'm not advocating either of those positions, but what I'm saying is that, that it's really important that we understand. I think like, if you read like pieces in Jacobin right now and so forth, it's like they're not differentiating how there's a very nasty turn that politics could take in this country.
Absolutely predicated on getting working class voters back in the Democratic coalition.
[00:14:19] Speaker A: Right.
[00:14:20] Speaker B: And yeah, okay. I think that's really important to look.
[00:14:24] Speaker A: Out for, you know, and I think it's characteristic of fascism actually and historically that it begins to appeal to working worker.
[00:14:34] Speaker B: Bingo.
[00:14:34] Speaker A: Workers. On nationalism and authoritarianism, you know, has an appeal to people.
[00:14:41] Speaker B: Right.
[00:14:41] Speaker A: Of many classes who are, you know, want, you know, they'd like to be taken care of, so to speak.
[00:14:47] Speaker B: And when we compare it to European fascism, right. Like European fascism was far more explicit about class at all levels. You know, so the Nazis are, you know, pose as a kind of socialist and you know, Italian fascism is very anti capitalist in a lot of its rhetoric and so forth. Like this is the United States. It's a totally different environment, ideological environment when it comes to like thoughts about the economy and and so forth. The through line. The through line is that they're not appealing to workers as workers. They appeal to them as workers who are also white, American, male, what have you. Right. Those. And so that's. And that's why I think it's naive to think that the left can counter that by being like, we're just going to appeal to them as just workers and they'll come back to us. So you were talking about the race in Nebraska. Would you. It's okay if I respond or talk about that a little bit?
[00:15:53] Speaker A: Yeah, absolutely.
[00:15:54] Speaker B: Yeah, so that's actually a race I was following. I know some folks who were working on that campaign and were really bullish about just how, you know, this is a new great strategy. The Democratic brand is fucked. So we're going to do it this way and just like worker, worker, workers and we can just avoid all of the traps of the, of the culture war and blah, blah, blah. And you know, I think that's dumb. I think saying I'm going to be in the United States Senate and I'm not going to caucus with either of the parties, I. E. Like vote for who will control the United States Senate in a context where Donald Trump could be president and appointing like rapist fascists to the ag. And you're going to say, oh, I'm not going to caucus with either of them because they're both. Fuck off. First of all, so not interested in that. And secondly, you don't avoid. He may have avoided talking about these quote unquote culture war issues. You can't avoid voting on them. So like, none of that was interesting to me. Like, oh, I'm just gonna like, not talk about these things and just like, just talk about workers. And it didn't. And he didn't win.
And like, as with the Bernie Sanders example, right. This idea that there's a strategy to get to a workable political majority in the United States that includes progressives in a meaningful way, in a powerful way that we get there with like one off independence.
I just think it's foolish and like we should stop talking about it.
[00:17:34] Speaker A: Well, there's two parts to his strategy. So the part that you're objecting to, and I'm not surprised that you are, given that you're Daraka and have this strong commitment that we both share, and that's at the heart of this podcast, which is that fighting for the Democratic Party soul and remaking the party is a key part of social change. Not claiming to be independent of that. So that's the part that. Very dubious about what Osborne was trying to do. But in this, it could be that in a state like Nebraska where the. There's so little of a Democratic Party across the state that can reach people, I guess might.
[00:18:18] Speaker B: This is.
[00:18:18] Speaker A: But no, but let me, let me finish. It isn't that part that's interests me. It's the part that he had a, that he was foregrounding. I'm going to be a voice for the working class. Vote for me on that basis. That's the part that interested me because I couple it with the other measures that I mentioned that did pass, that were working, that were pro labor.
But I understand.
[00:18:43] Speaker B: Why is that like an innovation? People have been running being like, I'm for workers, I'm of the working class, I'm for working class people as Democrats for 56, 60, 70 years. Like what?
[00:18:55] Speaker A: It's an innovation. Only in the current context where the perception that's leading to support for Trump is that the Democratic Party has abandoned the working class completely.
[00:19:08] Speaker B: Right. So the, so the smart move is run as a Democrat. And don't be like that. That's how you change that. Like you change the perception by changing the reality. You don't change.
[00:19:19] Speaker A: Well, well, that's, that's an argument. That's the other argument.
[00:19:22] Speaker B: No, no, but it's the argument. It's the argument.
[00:19:24] Speaker A: No, it isn't. Doroco.
Hold on. Of course it is. Well, you're not letting me say it. So, so Bernie Sanders identified as an independent. There's no question that he is an ally of the Democratic Party. I'm not even sure he's a registered Democrat to this day. But he, he, he is able to speak to that part of the electorate which is pro Democrat in ideology, but doesn't believe the party is for them. And bringing that, bringing them back into the party fold, it seems to me, isn't an immediate thing. So if you have, I mean, I just think, you know, I'm just sort of suggesting, think, think about this not as something that you would personally favor, but recognize the possibility that it's not a negative for.
[00:20:18] Speaker B: Oh, it is a negative. It's a negative. That was a giant waste of resources and time and we could have had an over performing, left wing, pro labor, pro working class Democrat overperform in Nebraska and build on that to transform to like, help Jane Cleave, help others transform the Democratic Party into something that like, could win in Nebraska, but instead we had like one guy cowboy it.
[00:20:49] Speaker A: Yeah, okay.
[00:20:50] Speaker B: And, and just like further this silly ambiguity that we have that there's any other major electoral political project to be done other than making the Democratic Party into a, you know, pro worker, among other things, political party like that. It's this idea that there's this intermediate stage where we, we let people like cook and hate Democrats but support us or whatever is killing us because there's a right wing version of it that's like courting Republicans and independents, more conservative folks by being like, hey, just like be in the middle and you can support us and whatever because we're for everybody. And Then the same idea on the left. It's too big a tent.
Like, we need to be clearer for our own purposes.
[00:21:43] Speaker A: Maybe we should invite Jane, Cliff back, Clay back to talk with us about all of that.
[00:21:48] Speaker B: Sure, I'll invite Osborne on, or just any of his staff. Like, I don't, I'm like, I'm so sick of watching the left talk about everything except like fixing the Democratic Party. Like, we complain about it, we talk about walking around it, we talk, we, we love to write op EDS after we lose. Being like, well, this is why, and this is why you should have listened to me. But the thing that we don't like doing is talking about what we're going to do to change it to make it better.
[00:22:22] Speaker A: No, because there's still this habit of thought which is so immature and childish out there, which is the Democrats are this or that, the Democrats and not making the distinctions that we were, you and I were very carefully trying to make it the early days of this podcast of what is, how do we understand this thing called the Democratic Party and the dynamics within it and the struggles within it and the, you know, one of the points that I heard Bernie recently, just yesterday make and others make that I've been feeling for years is, you know, for example, the Democratic national tendency in the, in Democratic bureaucracy nationally to rely on political consultants to drive campaigns is part of what has been killing us in many different ways. It's something that we probably could get into on in a, in a future podcast, you know, so developing the details of strategy for changing the party is what you're advocating and that's what we're about on this podcast. So I'm just saying it's possible that at times the so called independent might be someone that we could say is part of the dynamic, but I think.
[00:23:43] Speaker B: It'S a bad part of the dynamic.
[00:23:44] Speaker A: I know that is. Yes, and I may not disagree completely, but I'm a little less vehement on this point than you are. And that's what gives spice to our conversation, doesn't it?
[00:23:57] Speaker B: Well, well, I'm vehement, sure. I mean, exactly. I, I mean I'm vehement because it's so circular and everyone loves to blame other people, but nobody wants to take responsibility. And the, you know, of course that's like an old adage. What is it like, defeat has no friends and victory has thousand midwives. Something. I don't know, I mixed it up. But they, of course, you know, you're going to always externalize blame for defeat, but the you know, I agree with Bernie Sanders argument about what the Democratic Party needs to be in order to avoid these kinds of defeats. A thousand percent, I agree. But it's like where Bernie Sanders a year ago was talking about how the Biden administration and Biden policy was like a step in that direction. He was out campaigning for Biden and then for Kamala Harris, and he was the leader of, and probably still is right, like the Democratic left, the strongest voice in that. And what did he do? He created a organization that was completely ineffectual in terms of building or moving the Democratic Party and like, you know, re left the party again formally. And then, and then we lose. And then he's back with like, hey, as I said all along, you need to do this, this and this. So I, you know, I'm. It's. It's not just that that pisses me off a bit personally, it or annoys me kind of stylistically. It's that I think it speaks to the problem of the left rather like people who would rather be sort of like right than responsible. And that has to change like static.
[00:25:52] Speaker A: Okay, so I'd like to get back to the question of how does those who want to change the Democratic Party build a working class strategy? And one example of what could have been done in this campaign that I think deserves a lot more mention I got from Nelson Lichtenstein, our friend who's a great labor historian. He said, why isn't Harris foregrounding raising the minimum wage as an issue? And given especially that there were these initiatives in various states that did pass strongly that favor the minimum wage. What if she had said as a foregrounded message, we are going to raise the minimum wage and, and say what it was going to be and then challenge Vance in particular, who claims to be a champion of workers. You know, do you support raising the minimum wage? That would have been interesting. That's just one example. A variety of policy measures that could have been part of the campaign. And instead this emphasis on giving special benefits to new homeowners, which is. Sounds good, but doesn't reach quite a lot of people probably, and was not, you know, didn't. This was very fumbled. We can see now. So Ada has joined us at this table talking about getting people to the table. And here it's wonderful to see you, Ada. She's now a year plus.
[00:27:26] Speaker B: Yeah, she's on her 13th month. Yeah, that's right.
[00:27:29] Speaker A: Yeah. And more darling all the time. So I wish people could see her. But you can't. I can't so anyway, let's talk a little bit. We don't, we're just introducing probably a series of further podcasts today. But immigration was what Trump ran on. And this is a vexing issue, you know, for the European Social Democratic democracy as well as for the Democratic Party here. And I wonder if you have any thoughts about any of that in terms of where, how we might move forward on that issue in a progressive direction.
[00:28:12] Speaker B: Yeah, I mean, I think that it ties, there's a whole bunch of elements tied together under the general category of, yeah, migration or immigration. But it's, it's really clear from the data, like all over the world that this kind of most contemporary wave of migrations, mass, mass migrations have, and refugee crises could say crises usually being, you know, the, the result of both some kind of, you know, natural event or historical event that gets a lot of people in motion and failed policy together. But the end result of all of this has been political realignment towards the right. And that's a global trend and one that no national level left has figured out how to withstand or reverse in any significant or sustained way. So on that sense, in the same way that, you know, this year in elections around the world, a rare pileup of election dates that have almost half the world's population voting this year, you know, incumbent parties that ruled when inflation hit did poorly. Like most of them lost power or at least a lot of seats. So there are these like structural headwinds that make it difficult right now, but they can't be, especially the migration thing can't be an excuse. We have to find a way to have a majority that includes at its core working people that isn't anti immigration for moral reasons first and foremost, but also because it becomes a kind of this weird treadmill of, you know, where like the left gets the support of newer immigrants and first generation folks, but we lose folks in the third generation or we get groups sort of voting against one another, et cetera, et cetera. The only way to like have this be a sustainable majority is if we're lessening the anti immigrant sentiment and discourse and countering the discourse throughout the society. Like we, we. It's sort of like the issue of crime where as long as we just accept that it's a tough issue for the left because right wing policies are more popular than left wing policies when it comes to crime prevention. If we just accept that and just adopt right wing ones or try to ignore the issue altogether, either one comes back to bite us in the ass.
[00:30:46] Speaker A: So in other words, you're saying.
What you're saying, I think, is what I was feeling too, which is gotta get away. We have to have a vocabulary, a way of speaking about immigration that recognizes that what I think the majority of Americans do favor, which is that we need. Not only is this a nation of immigrants, but. And not only do we need immigrants in many parts of our labor force, otherwise we would not have an economy, but that immigration is part of what strengthens the society. I think the majority of Americans see this especially in the areas where, I mean, in California, we are not only in the past a state of immigrants, we are fundamentally a state in which newly arrived people and their immediate descendants, their children are a large part of who the people of California are at this point. So the efforts to show that we're, you know, on the side of restricting immigration, you know, which again, I think this is an issue that, that the Harris campaign didn't really successfully obviously come to grips with, but we, and that same spirit, I think has to.
We need to maybe talk about. So the issue of trans issues were, I think, more important in this campaign than we might have thought they would be. And there was an ad that a lot of people have been talking about that that I saw one time that was played on a lot of the football games that Trump had that basically said with a lot of surrounding luridness. Harris, she is for them. They and Trump is for you. And that that slogan may have been the key to a lot of what led people to vote that way. So how can we, can we talk about why we, why we need to be compassionate and defending on the rights of marginalized people and at the same time not lead to that slogan sounding valid for a lot of people who are uncomfortable with immigration or with sexuality changes and stuff like that. How should we talk about that?
That's, that's not a small question. So.
[00:33:19] Speaker B: No, how should we talk about that? I mean, first of all, I want to, I don't know, in a way, de center this like, messaging question that we get really hung up on. Like, I don't, I don't have the answer for how. What phraseology to use at the doors or something like that to like, that's. Those are open, empirical, ab. Testable things that people way better at are doing that. I guess to me, on the strategy level, it's just that we do have to do both. Like, that's where I think the left needs to intervene in these conversations of pushing back on the idea that we have to have a trade off. Number one, this Crazy idea that, like the problem. Let's take the trans issue, trans rights issue. It is a complete fantasy, a fabrication. The idea that Democrats or even the left prioritized trans rights in this election campaign or over the last four years, or encountering Trump in some way to the exclusion of talking about economic issues or whatever like that is, it's just not what happened. Now, I wanted to say before I think we could have a whole other nine episodes Monday morning, quarterbacking the campaign itself. Kamala's campaign itself saw all kinds of mistakes made. But the thing about Kamala that we've known here in California for her whole political career is she's not a strong policy person. Like, she's not, like, oriented around being strongly held on one, you know, policy preference over another. She's very flexible, for better or worse. At no point was she out there being like, the most important issue in America right now is bathroom access and blah, blah, blah, right? And there's a mythology out there being put out, you know, by folks with a. With this kind of overall agenda to make it seem as if that was. That was the trade off and it never was. So just that. That's the main thing that I have to say is we saw an intersectional election like that. That's the crazy thing for all this talk about, like, we need to get back to class and making it sound as if all this postmodern bullshit got in the way of us winning. The fact is, like, there's no way to explain what happened this election without talking about identity in a fairly sophisticated way. Right?
[00:35:55] Speaker A: Like that.
[00:35:56] Speaker B: Like, Trump got work working people and poor low income people to vote for him because they trusted him more on the economy. But also there was this anti trans stuff that they were attracted to for men. There was a reassertion of masculinity and masculine power. Like, it's just like such a, you know, we like the Latino shift that people are talking about that was so heavily gendered. Like, how can this not be intersectional? And about these complicated intersections of people's subject position in the world, to use some jargon. Anyway, I think that counterintuitively, maybe, or against the common wisdom right now, conventional wisdom, we need to be thinking about how to do something as complicated as addressing a working class white man's economic security issues with a real policy offer.
And also, you know, getting them to not eight trans people, you know, at the same time. Like, we have to do both. It's a little bit complicated. And I've got a squirming 1.12. One point, you know, one year old army. But so we can't let it be a dichotomy.
[00:37:20] Speaker A: Well, that was the point that, yes, that's what I wanted us to come to.
A shared view right here. And so the point of this episode, as I mentioned earlier, was to lay the groundwork a little bit for where we want to go for the subsequent ones. And all the topics we raised today, we can, we can plan to develop further. I wonder, do you want to say anything more about that? What, what you're hoping we can round up? We, we don't, we haven't scheduled anything much coming forward, but I'll mention a couple of things before we sign off. How would you want to set the stage for future podcasts if we can.
[00:38:05] Speaker B: All agree that, that what we need is a real appeal to working people, to voters who work for a living, voters who are struggling, voters who don't have a college degree. However we want to define working class folks, our bet is that we can bring them over with left wing policy ideas and preferences. The question is, what I'd like to explore this season is what are those and are they popular and can they be, is there a way and is a problem around them messaging or not or whatever. But what is the left progressive policy agenda that, that we think can form the core of a new Democratic slash progressive majority? And because I think there's a lot of, a lot of things taken for granted that you know, somehow if, if Kamala Harris had said she was for single payer health care, that the election would have gone differently, which is, it's obviously way more complicated than that.
[00:39:08] Speaker A: I have one thing lined up for my radio show, but it will be put on our podcast feed as well. And this is a conversation I've lined up with Jeremy Brecker who's got a brand new book called the Green New Deal from the Bottom up just came out and I wanted to get him on tape, so to speak. So it won't be a regular episode of the podcast, but it will be sort of, it will be available on our podcast feed. So that's one example. What is the Green New Deal? What's he, he's claiming in this book that on, on a local level the Green New Deal is being put into effect in many parts of this country. And that's the point of his book. And so I want to talk to him about that. I think we, in addition to what you said about policy ideas for the future and a framework for the left within the Democratic Party, we need to maybe see what the status is of the depth organizing effort that both of us were able to appreciate in our first season as a path. It's not just the messaging, it's how the party operates at the grassroots that is part of what I think we want to see going on. And so maybe we could get some updating on that as we go forward. Anyway, take care of Ada right now and we will be back together soon.
[00:40:48] Speaker B: Thanks so much.
I'll see you later.
[00:40:51] Speaker A: Okay. This has been talking strategy, Making History, Episode one of Season four and what the name of this season is. We usually have a clever name, but we don't have one right now.
If you have some thoughts on that, let me know. Anyway, we we have page on Facebook that we try to maintain and we have a patreon.com tsmh page that is a place where our best information about the podcast can be found. So hope you will be in touch with us in those ways on the Patreon site. You can become a sponsor of our work and we certainly would appreciate that. So thank you all for your attention and your work. And thank you, Ada and Dorothea.
[00:42:02] Speaker C: We we want the sailor and the tailor and the lumberjacks and all the cooks and the laundry girls we want the guy that dives for pearls the pretty maid that's making curls and the baker and the steaker and the chimney sweep we want the man that's slinging hash the kid that works four little cash and one union grand Come all ye toilers who work for wages Come from every land Join the fighting band in one union grand and four the workers will make upon this earth a paradise when slaves get wise and organized we want the tinner and the skinner and the chambermaid we want the man that works on souls the fellow that's diggin holes we want the guy that's climbing poles and the trucker and the mucker and the hired hand and all the factory girls and clerks we want everyone who works at one union grand Go ye toilers who work for wages Come from every land Join the fighting band all in one union grand and for the workers will make upon it.
