Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: Foreign.
[00:00:16] Speaker B: This is another episode of Talking Strategy, Making History.
I'm Dick Flax. I'm joined with my partner, the professor Daraka Larimore Hall. And today we're going to focus, Daraka, on your pretty extensive experience in the California Democratic Party scene. You've been an active player, but you were vice chair of the party on the state level as well as chair for quite a while of the Santa Barbara County Democratic Party among your other Democratic Party roles.
And I couldn't help but notice your pretty extensive mini essays on Facebook bemoaning really the situation in the party and focused in particular on this very messy governor's race. People undoubtedly have heard that there's multiple, I think eight candidates for the Democratic nomination in the primary and two in the Republican slot. And one of the media big issues is we could end up unbelievably with two Republicans winning in the primary.
But that's hardly the main complaint that you had, is, is it?
[00:01:33] Speaker C: Well, it's a consequence of the main complaints I'd say that I have. Yeah. Well, thanks, Dick. So, and it feels a little bit weird to, you know, talk about things that I post on Facebook. Feels very, you know, I don't know, 2010, but to do a little self promotion, actually it was a post or comment even on Facebook on somebody's discussion about Alexandria Ocasio Cortez running for president that I got contacted from by the nation to participate in a debate in their, on their, in their pages about whether it would be a good, good move for AOC to run for president or not. And I took the wet blanket no side and that's available on the nation's website.
So I guess some people actually read this stuff when I'm ranting pathetically late at night on Facebook. But yeah, with that being said, we are in a really weird position in California right now.
And I'd say the, the general way to describe it is being at a frustrating juncture of dominance by the Democratic Party and a real exhaustion and lack of big ideas or ambitions by California Democrats. So to take the governor's race as a starting point, this is a year and a moment, especially with Trump's unpopularity with the, the you know, disaster and ongoing in, you know, enraging interventions by, you know, both ICE and the National Guard and on California city streets like Californians really don't like the Republican Party and they're very supportive of voting for Democrats, so much so that they passed a referendum to redraw maps in California congressional maps to basically guarantee the Democratic Party, five more seats in Congress, and everyone knew that that's what they were voting on and they voted for it. And that's pretty remarkable. So we're at a moment where I think anybody nominated, anybody supported by the Democratic Party could win the Governor's race to succeed Gavin Newsom, which maybe we could talk about that a little bit later, share our thoughts on the portent of Gavin Newsom on the national scene. But anyway, we are just at a moment of tremendous party strength and somehow can't get behind, consolidate around a, an inspiring, exciting, progressive, you know, big thinking Democratic nominee for governor. And that's just a tremendous failure, I think, by the Democratic Party writ large, including our sisters and brothers in the labor movement, the NGO side, the activist side, like everyone, I think is to blame for this. And as you point out, it's not because there aren't a lot of candidates running as Democrats in the governor's race. It's because none of them have, you know, garnered the support of some kind of decisive bloc within the party coalition to be a clear front runner. And the consequences of that, in our broken, stupid electoral system in which the top two vote getters in the first round of voting, the so called primary, go on to the second round, go on to the, the general election, no matter what party they're from, means that, you know, though there actually are more than two Republicans running, there's like 30 plus candidates on the ballot. There are two who are currently polling in many polls at first and second and then a range of like six Democrats splitting up, you know, from 10 to 1% splitting up the Democratic vote, which, yeah, could very well mean that there's a Republican, a guarantee of a Republican governor in one of the bluest states and of course, and that would be, yeah, a humiliating and catastrophic defeat for us. And we have no one really to blame but ourselves as a, as a party, in a party community for being here. So let me pause there.
That's my general thinking and I'm happy to literally like drill down into it.
[00:05:59] Speaker B: Well, you said the problem was a lack of a really inspiring figure on the ballot, but is that really the heart of it? I kind of feel it's that the six people that are running enough to have some voting support on the Democratic ticket side, all of them are quite competent and could be attractive candidates, I think so. My feeling is there's been no significant effort to organize a grassroots support for candidates on the part of those who lack sufficient name recognition. The people who are in the lead are people who, people have heard of because they have some kind of statewide visibility.
Those are two members of Congress, Katie Porter and Swalwell. And then is there a third candidate in that first tier?
[00:06:49] Speaker C: Yeah, Tom Steyer.
[00:06:50] Speaker B: Tom Steyer. And he is just. He's the one candidate who's bombarding the airwaves with an endless stream of annoying commercials. But the thing that bowed him that's interesting, this billionaire is that he's running on a very populist, progressive kind of platform. At least that's what his commercials are about. So he. People ask are asked who they want to support. Support. He gets support. But no, most people haven't even made up their mind. I haven't made. I have no idea who I want to vote for.
[00:07:21] Speaker C: Do you have an idea? Well, I do. I mean I, I have a candidate, Tony Thurmond, who I endorsed early on. He's the current secretary of Public Instructions or schools. Schools chief, which we directly elect in California. And a solid progressive, a man of color, a black and Latino man with a really interesting immigrant story.
Yeah. And is running on supporting the wealth tax and but hasn't cracked 1 or 2% in the poll. So I also have the dilemma of in a real primary I could just vote for the Democrat I liked the most and know that a Democrat will face a Republican Republicans and minor party candidates. In a general. I don't have that. So I have to think about more strategically about people who could crack that number two spot and make sure there's a Democrat in the general. So I'm also in a dilemma and let me say I agree with you in term that, you know, ultimately the problem is no movement coordination leadership to yeah. Build something grassroots and engaging around a candidate.
I think that's what makes candidates inspiring. It's a dialectic between sort of their own qualities and the moment and the movement taking advantage of that and that that's how you get candidates who actually have tremendous flaws as politicians or leaders or whatever at the head of exciting, important, decisive, influential social movement kinds of campaigns. I'm looking at you, Bernard Sanders. So the.
So I agree. But you're totally right that both of those things are going on.
And another dynamic that folks who maybe haven't been paying attention to all of the back and forth or debate around this or don't live in California, is that the top the three candidates who according to polling do seem viable in terms of making it into the top two are white candidates. And the candidates, the numerous candidates of color that represent a kind of pretty broad ideological range as well are all clustered down at the bottom of the pack. And that is also disappointing and curious and something we should talk about. But what that the question that begs is then is there a mechanism for thinning this field that also reflects the various bases of the party? It's kind of an example of whiteness floating to the top out of just kind of inertia or built in things like having held office or having billions of dollars of your own money to spend to boost your name recognition. It's all also very sad that in the most diverse state in the nation, a majority minority state, that we're still looking at the prospects of a white governor if they're going to be a Democrat.
[00:10:36] Speaker B: Well, we have three candidates of color that are reasonably, if not quite progressive. One is Thurman, that you mentioned, Betty Yee, who you might she was also vice chair of the Democratic Party. Was that at the same time you
[00:10:51] Speaker C: were or it was not. It was afterwards. And she was very much a part of the the purge of progressives and the sort of backward turn in the party, which is doesn't match her policy record or her rhetoric or ideology was. So it's kind of one of those things of it's the downside of getting too close to leadership and you meet them and you see how they don't walk their talk.
[00:11:18] Speaker B: But, but let me just finish. So, so she, she's an Asian American. She'd be the first.
She's a candidate who would.
We haven't had a woman governor. We haven't had an Asian American governor. So Betty has and she's, she is very liked by people who are active in the party. Right. At the Democratic state convention, I think she ran near the top of favorites among the delegates to that convention. And yet she has no poll support. And then the third is Becerra, who's also a statewide official in California, very credible figure representing Latino. I'm not even mentioning Villaragosa, who I think doesn't deserve.
[00:12:02] Speaker C: Well, we have to. He's also a candidate of color. He's a dirtbag former mayor of Los Angeles and speaker of the assembly who did a real heel turn real Breaking Bad over the last couple of decades. But yeah, you.
Anyway, go ahead, finish your thoughts. Yeah.
[00:12:18] Speaker B: So my point is these are people with credible beginning they're credible candidates. Both.
[00:12:23] Speaker C: They're all credible. All of these. Exactly. That that's.
[00:12:26] Speaker B: And they, and they have a real they have an initial base, let's say Thurman in the education world presumably as well. Like so he might have thought that's his base. Ye maybe feels she's got an Asian American base. I don't know if she has really. And.
[00:12:43] Speaker C: Oh, for sure.
[00:12:43] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:12:44] Speaker C: I mean they all have some like ethnic and racial sort of paths though we've seen with John Chung a few years ago, who was a candidate who really underperformed when he ran for governor, that like, it's not enough, especially in an Asian American path. There just aren't the numbers to get you super far in the primary. But, but it's very helpful when it comes to organization and fundraising and initial support. So the. And so they by again, a regular political playbook in California. This is a field of viable candidates that have pockets of support, paths to viability and victory.
Remarkably, a ton of them already have won statewide elections. Right. They're already people who've been elected by the entire electorate of the state and yet they can't break from one another or up into this upper tier. And I should say, right. Like the front runners here are polling at like 10%.
So the other tragedy that we're not like, it's not like we're using polls as some kind of true stand in for Democratic will. We're talking about the lowest common denominator. And let's talk a little bit about that front runner who is currently Eric Swalwell. Congressman Eric Swalwell, who I am profoundly unimpressed with as a member of Congress with a mediocre legislative and voting record, a former prosecutor who sort of cut his teeth politically on trying to lock up more kids and then has these really unseemly ties to AI and a seemingly like, bro, yeah, tech bro attitude towards things like sports betting. I mean the guy like, like quotes what the betting markets say about his odds all the time as a reason to support him, which is just disgusting. He owns an AI company that does like, helps with political fundraising, scrapes fundraising reports to give politicians or organizations better lists of people to target with fundraising. But you know, it's a for profit company that he and his chief of staff started. I don't love that. And has been, yeah. Unreliable on things like ICE funding, Israel support.
Sorry. He's been a reliable ally of, of pro Israel forces when it comes to federal politics. There's just like nothing about him I particularly like. And because he's got 10% or something of the electorate in a poll, like there is some consolidation, elite political consolidation happening around him, but again, like not enough to point all the guns in one direction and make this, have him break through and get 20% and clearly be in the top two. I mean, it's just fucking disaster all around.
And one last thought, and then we can maybe broaden this. But one of the things that I was expressing on social media is that the set of institutions that are capable of steering this ship are the unions. Right? And the unions are all over the map with their endorsements for the governor's race. So just like every candidate has one or two. The State Federation of Labor. Because of that, the state AFL CIO endorsed four candidates for governor in order to, they say, make sure that there's no support or momentum for another Democratic candidate. We haven't mentioned man Mahan Mahon, former mayor of San Jose. San Jose, which lately is a city that just like spews out shitty corporate Democrats that luckily kind of fail at the state level. But this guy's got a lot of tech money behind him. He's running on some really dangerous, neoliberal, revanchist ideas and policies. And he's for some reason got to be on the Daily show and have a long interview. He's neck deep in AI garbage.
And labor is very concerned about him advancing. And so there was some logic in sort of trying to boost four other candidates. But, but like, what does that say to union voters? Like, vote for any four of these people? That is just like, mathematically not very significant for thinning the field. It's just all, it's just such a disaster. And again, to wrap it up, Democratic Party could elect whoever the hell we want to. Labor, I think, could have pushed whoever the hell they want to within the Democratic Party. And yet here we are.
[00:17:45] Speaker B: So one other organizational framework that could have, could be steering is the Democratic Party leadership on the state level as well. Right. And what's the situation there? You're, you're from, you're familiar with that. I mean, are they steering or are they just, are they trapped in this morass?
[00:18:04] Speaker C: Yeah, I mean, the party organization, I mean, so in California, if this were any other state or most other states, there would be like even less for the party organization to do in a situation like this. In California, we do have a very rare mechanism in which, rare, I mean, among state parties in which the party makes an endorsement, an official stamp of approval on candidates in the primary, so before the election starts. And so that is a way in which the party organization as a whole can direct its leaders, its, its chair in particular, to push other candidates to drop out, to steer party resources and coalitional resources towards a candidate in the primary. I love this system. It has its downsides, but I love it because it provides an opportunity for the activist base of the party to be involved in candidate selection in some way, which in a general primary system, they really don't. So. So, yes, there was an opportunity for the party to weigh in, but because there was none of this. The political organization, no clear choice, no nod or hint from labor, no. No even consensus among progressive organizations, nothing like that, then going into convention, it was clear, like nobody was going to pass the threshold, which is high. It's super majority or at least 60% rather, to be endorsed. So there was no chance of it. As you say, the results were very different than the current polling. The more progressive candidates and people that. That the party base know, like, Betty did very well. Swalwell did like, okay. I mean, it also was at the top, but like, again, considering the desire to, like, anoint someone, it was a total failure. And so without that mandate, it's kind of. There's only so much a party chair could do. I'm not a fan in any sense of the word of the current party chair, Rusty Hicks, but he. He wrote a. Did an open letter saying, hey, like, if you're before the filing deadline to be. Become an official candidate, if you're not above a certain threshold, you should maybe like, look in the mirror. Think about this. I have a thought.
I think maybe put a little heat on it. But all the candidates sort of responded with harrumphs and you and blah, blah. Now it's. It is degenerating into this kind of stupid thing where, yeah, Betty Yee put out a thing saying, like, it's not up to party bigwigs. It's up to the people, which is like, come on, you were a party big wig. You know how this works. Also, you. You're polling at like 1 or 2%. So what is the. What are the people saying?
It's all like, now every. It's a stupid season, and so everybody's scrambling. I mean, I'll say, as much as I like Tony Thurmond, all of the ads I see from him are attacking other candidates. He's been ruthlessly savaging Styer again, as you say, who's running on a very progressive platform, but is a billionaire. And nobody's a nobody becomes a billionaire. Ethically. Sorry. So he's pointing out his ties to private prison investments and so forth. And then he's. Now he's. Who else? He's been going after Swalwell. He's been. Yeah. Anyway, most of his ads, but he's also the candidate who has been foregrounding, maybe this is a good segue.
He's the candidate who's been foregrounding the proposal to have a billionaires tax in California and to use that to shore up and expand education funding.
[00:21:52] Speaker B: Okay, so let's, we'll talk about that in a second. But it just occurs to me in thinking after, after I read what you had written about this on Facebook, I thought, well, what could be the, the remedy for this, and one obvious thing has been from history, is that the progressive wing of the party organized itself statewide sufficiently that they could have their own conference or convention or whatever you want to call it and really get behind candidate and push for that and an agenda along with that.
And I know you advocate that, but that's not been in the cards either. So there's something problematic. It's like the power of the party itself in California may be part of the problem, is that instead of there being a real hunger for change, there's a sense, well, we've got something to protect because we have this super majority in the legislature and so forth. But stagnation is the danger, I think. Is that not the case?
[00:22:57] Speaker C: No, you're totally right. I mean it's every political party everywhere that is electorally super successful. So the Swedish Social Democrats, the Social Democrats in Vienna, the Democratic Party in Chicago, like if you are just always guaranteed electoral victory, that comes with the cost of innovation, organizing, being creative, all kinds of problems. And as you say, holding on to power as a goal starts to eclipse the, the programmatic and ideological parts. I mean. Yeah. So Michelle.
[00:23:36] Speaker B: And one consequence too is that since the party is so dominant, corporate efforts are directed at the party to influence 100%.
And that leads us to this measure on the ballot, the billionaire wealth tax, which is innovative as a policy idea. Do you want to explain what its provisions are?
[00:24:00] Speaker C: You don't? Because I can't.
[00:24:02] Speaker B: Okay. Well, I can, I can make a stab at it because we, we had a roundtable here with the siu, one of the SEIU spokespeople. So I have a good sense this is a wealth tax, which means that. And it's directed at 300 people. There are 300 billionaires in the state of California that could be subject to this tax.
Their assets would have a one time tax. I forget what the percentage. It's not a permanent ongoing tax of their assets. It's a one time effort to raise.
And the remarkable thing is that with one small, relatively, I think it's 5% tax or something.
[00:24:45] Speaker C: Like that on something over. On wealth over a point, right?
[00:24:51] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:24:51] Speaker C: Important to say. Yeah.
[00:24:52] Speaker B: And on the wealth over a point and a certain point it would raise multi. Billions of dollars. Just that one time effort.
So that was in. That was created by SCIU Health. The health division of SCIU is behind this. I don't know.
Do you have a sense of other organization? It's gotten a good deal of support from other unions and organizations.
And you said education people see this as a benefit because some of the funding is supposed to go to education as well as health care.
[00:25:29] Speaker C: Yeah.
Again, so I don't know exactly the, the distribution details, but I do know that the. There's growing support for it across different sectors with a relationship to the public sector or across different parts of the labor movement and social movements that are concerned about public sector spending and budgeting and so forth. So that leads me to believe that the, that it's crafted in such a way that even if it's not, even if money isn't directly earmarked for things, and California's budget is just cocked and crazy with earmarking and directions and very little of it is discretionary, etc. But that billions of dollars of revenue into the state is going to help shore up and alleviate funding shortages in other parts of the budget, etc. So it's a good thing overall. And so.
[00:26:26] Speaker B: And taxing the super rich is a very popular idea.
[00:26:31] Speaker C: Extremely popular, extremely smart, worth winning the argument over rhetorically and so forth, which. So we've got Governor Newsom out there already militating against it or arguing against it publicly and as well as. Yeah. Other Democrats with ties to billionaires who are friends with a lot of billionaires. So I think it's a good clarifying issue.
It's a good wedge issue, so to speak, in terms of forcing Democratic politicians and elites as well as parts of the labor movement to put up or shut up when it comes to really addressing economic inequality. If you, you can't address economic inequality without going after the just obscene economic power and wealth of the, the, the top, oh, 1%. I mean it, it's really staggering.
[00:27:27] Speaker B: I think if, if the planet and our own society last into the future, the, one of the, one of the things that will be looked back on is the insanity of the rich at this point in history, which rivals the Gilded Age at the end of the 19th century. By insanity, I mean opposing tax measures that are obviously necessary to make the country work, to make the society work, to support decent living standards, to support programs that people absolutely need for their own life to oppose that kind of taxation and on grounds that are extraordinarily selfish. And Clay and using blackmail, saying we're going to leave the state. You won't be able to tax us even if you want to, because we're going to leave the state, which is largely mythological in terms of actual historical practice, that that doesn't really tend to happen. I've heard that argument for years in my life. Whenever tax the rich programs are proposed and sometimes they pass and they're going to spend lots of money to defeat this particular proposal. But on top of that, there's this nefarious proposal by the Jarvis organization to ban a very successful tax on the wealthy, which is the. Which is exemplified in la. The Los Angeles voters adopted a property transfer tax for. It's called the mansion tax. It taxes real estate transactions over $5 million.
It's a kind of sales tax. On that kind of transaction, it potentially raises up to $1 billion a year for affordable housing. That's the purpose of it. And for tenant protections. So it's a major, very progressive step.
And the Jarvis people are circulating a ballot initiative to ban such transfer taxes from being adopted. And this affects us locally because the city staff here is proposing a similar tax for affordable housing support to be on the ballot at the same time that this Jarvis thing is on, that may just kill our local effort to create a permanent affordable housing fund.
So these are real substantive issues on the ballot that affect people's lives fundamentally and that really represent a version of class struggle right now. And not much information is out there for the. That's part of our problem, isn't it? In California, we don't have the decline of newspapers, LA Times and other press means we don't get good information for people. People can't follow easily what's happening on state level.
And so people are not necessarily well informed. And then the. The advertising barrages which happen from moneyed sources affects things nevertheless. I mean, I sound very pessimistic, but on the one. And on the other hand, these measures are getting support. They're on the ballot, the progressive ones. And they're.
[00:30:45] Speaker C: Yeah. I mean, ballot. The ballot measure battles are always a mixed bag. Yeah, I wish we didn't have them. I think that it's been it. Everything. There's a bunch of things about California politics that are difficult and undemocratic that have their roots in progressive and populist political reforms that weren't very well thought through or informed by a good power analysis.
And the ballot measure system is a excellent example of that. It was touted and sincerely promoted in the Progressive era as a way to take government out of the hands of corrupt politicians who were very corrupt. And without thinking through that, those same corrupting forces, the same interest groups could use the referendum system with a lot of agility.
And they started right away. So, yeah, the. So. So the history is very checkered. Californians have voted in favor of racial discrimination many times. Californians seem to love the death penalty and like, won't abolish it at the ballot box. But they've taxed the rich a bunch and they've provided progressive funding streams and they've invested in green energy and they've done, yeah, a bunch of good things as well. So it's, it's a battleground for sure, but one in which we're outmatched because of, well, and just unlimited spending.
[00:32:17] Speaker B: And I think you agree with me that one of the big defaults of our side, the progressive side, is the lack of effect of a coherent statewide organization or network framework that allows strategy to be unified and so on and so forth.
[00:32:36] Speaker C: Yeah. Which may be a whole other episode, but yes, we're uncoordinated.
[00:32:41] Speaker B: We're two professors here, you and me. That's what we're using doing today as well as being people, people like yourself with a lot of deep experience in the real world, in other words. I'm saying we're hoping this is going to be helpful and educational to people to get.
That's what, that's the purpose of our conversation.
And I think we need to talk about Newsom in that connection. He is one of the front runners, maybe the front runner on paper again for the presidential nomination. I have not met anyone who likes Gavin Newsom in my life. And pretty startling about that.
[00:33:18] Speaker C: I think I've met. I think I've met five or six who were, who were unpaid. I've met plenty of people who love Gavin Newsom who are paid by him. But like, just sincerely, I love that guy, five or five or six. And a few of those live in Europe, so they really don't know.
But yeah, he's not. I don't find him likable in any, in any way. And I.
There was a book review of his running for president autobiography that I read recently. It was in the New Republic that was maybe the most savage review of a political autobiography I've ever read. It was really, really phenomenally well written. But what it pointed out, and I've read this in other reviews, is that the purpose of his book, very clearly stated. The thesis is, look, I'm not just a guy who had everything handed to him because my family was close to the Gettys, one of the richest families in the country.
And really it wasn't that at all in the world. Exactly. It wasn't that at all. I'm really complicated and interesting and bootstrappy and yet it's like the book is about his relationship with the Gettys. Like it's really clear that that is who he is and where he came from and how so. And, and I think that comes off in everything. He's never had a consistent political ideological project or, or profile. He is just everything that if you ask the average person what you hate about politicians, self interest, elitism, no principles, going with the, with the polls tied to special interests. Like and like a little bit too slick. It's, it's like him is his pictures in that fucking encyclopedia entry. Like he's central casting, as they say, for all of those things and so willing to rhetorically or on a policy level throw vulnerable communities to the wolves if, if it like makes him a friend or he thinks contributes to his brand. And he's done that since he was mayor of San Francisco.
[00:35:34] Speaker B: Well, on the other hand, people can. I agree with everything you've said, but I, but there is the, the side that gives him credibility at all is that he did some venturous, venturesome things including taking lead on gay. Gay marriage.
[00:35:50] Speaker C: What was his position? I, I know, I want to back up, this is part of his self mythology but let's like think about it. What, what was his position when he was so courageous on gay marriage?
[00:36:03] Speaker B: What do you mean? What was his position?
[00:36:04] Speaker C: Well like what, he was courageous and, and innovative and whatever. Ahead of the curve on gay marriage
[00:36:12] Speaker B: as a gay capital of the world. Yes.
[00:36:14] Speaker C: In San Francisco, was the mayor of San Francisco and he was like I'm gonna do gay or same sex marriages that are gonna be legally dubious because of what's going on at the federal level and like force the issue, blah, blah. Like was that a great thing to do? Absolutely. Did it take an ounce of political courage? Absolutely not. It was like the quintessential easy thing to do that will get me in the papers. I give him zero points for it as a like politician in comparison to other politicians.
[00:36:47] Speaker B: Yeah. So, I mean.
[00:36:49] Speaker C: And then. Go ahead.
[00:36:51] Speaker B: No, I would say one would have thought he had a great record comparatively as an environmentally oriented governor, but many of his positive things have been undermined by some real concessions on the, on the other side, without the, the slickness is part of what I think people are upset about. So you know, when they, when they hear him. But, and on top of which is the fact that he's from California, which is not a good indicator of success to run for office in the, in the national picture. And he.
[00:37:26] Speaker C: So. Right. So I mean, let me, let's put a, put a finer point on that, which is that being from California, being the guy who did same sex marriage as a mayor of San Francisco, etc. He's gonna be attacked and caricatured as everything that the right constructs about the cultural Marxist left, blah blah, blah, their view of us and the left and so forth being totally batshit. They will construct him as a real fire breathing progressive militant and just think about what that guy is going to do to prove them wrong. Like the, the steps he's going to take on a policy level and on a, on a rhetoric level to show that no, he's not that San Francisco radical liberal communist.
I, I think it's going to be just like staggeringly reactionary and just you just like watch him operate, like watch how he's been operating just in the last few days about Israel, Palestine, where he, he, I don't know, was in a mood where he wanted to attack left. So he referred to Israel as a pal, as a apartheid state and then got shellacked and came back on a podcast, talk about how much he adored Israel and took back what he said, didn't mean it, et cetera, et cetera. He just doesn't like Netanyahu or something, something. So like just imagine that being played out every single day on the campaign trail. And that's what we'd have in a candidate if we nominated him for president.
[00:39:06] Speaker B: Well, we've done him in. That's good. So anyway.
[00:39:08] Speaker C: Good. Yes. So yeah, look, look, look further afield. And I, I'm always self critical in these things and skeptical. Like maybe every other person who's running for president who's from another state, there's somebody there doing a podcast about what a dirt bag that person is. And this is just where we're at. But part of what I was saying in the article about AOC too is I, I'm just not that invested in the horse race for president for the next presidential election.
I'm much more interested in what's going on. Building on the ground, building in congress, building political power for the left, expanding the power of the left within the Democratic Party, making the party better. Those sorts of things because I think that's what will determine not just who becomes the nominee, but how good that nominee is. There's one thing that I've learned is just like all these people, all these politicians are malleable, even the best ones are malleable and are going to be looking at what this situation looks like politically in terms of balances of power, of groups and so forth, as they shape their campaigns. And that's where we should be the most active.
[00:40:19] Speaker B: The point I think you make in this Nation piece, which I highly recommend to people, is not only what you just said, which I strongly have felt most of my political life, that the left wing obsession with who's our candidate for president is misplaced. We need.
We're always. What we need is organization at a base level, at a grassroots level, and, and particularly now. We need an agenda that progress. We've never had so many progressively oriented people in Congress. So building that strength is. Is key to the future.
And AOC is you. You argue. I. If I understand your argument correctly, which I think I do, is that, that she's going to be more effective in con.
Would be saddled with the presidency or running for it.
[00:41:12] Speaker C: Let's run it for it. Yeah.
[00:41:14] Speaker B: I've heard a rumor that, that Bernie and AOC will run as a team for President, not because they expect to be elected, but as a mechanism for awakening people around. Various. Around an agenda. I don't know if that's a good idea or not.
[00:41:30] Speaker C: And I don't know if that sounds delusional.
[00:41:33] Speaker B: Yeah, it's innovative.
[00:41:35] Speaker C: No, I mean. No, I mean, who. I. I doubt that would happen. I don't. Why would they do that? What would that even mean? Run as a team in a primary? How do you run as a team?
[00:41:46] Speaker B: Yeah, you run well, that's it. How do you run as a team? You run as a team because you don't expect.
You don't want the nomination. What you want is to use the.
I don't know. I don't. We'll see what happens. I don't know where I read this, but it could be not true or not really. I don't think it's true.
[00:42:03] Speaker C: No, I didn't mean that you were delusional. I meant whoever wrote that, I think is. Was projecting, like, whoa, it was like a fanfic. Like, wouldn't this be cool if this happened? I don't see there.
[00:42:14] Speaker B: I mean, you. You were implying, were you not, that aoc, she should run for Schumer's seat, perhaps, or, Or Yeah.
[00:42:21] Speaker C: Or look, first off, let me say one thing that got cut from my draft. There were a couple of things that had to be cut for length or clarity or whatever. And one of the points it was I. I was really uncomfortable in general with being one of two men in this column, in this debate column, arguing about what this woman should do with her political career. Like AOC should do whatever the fuck she wants. And I was clear that if she did run for president, I would totally support her. Yeah. So that.
It just was really weird. Like, yeah, you're like a men's panel on. What AOC should is just awkward. So.
So, yeah, she can do whatever she wants in terms of her next moves. I'm totally agnostic. I want her as a powerhouse, and I want a better left.
I want the left to dominate one of the chambers, if not both of the chambers.
And that could be a long career in the House that leads to a speakership, or it could mean a moving over to the Senate and bumping off Schumer.
That's like, I'm totally agnostic about it. That's a tactical choice for that she would make if she wants to make it. And I don't know enough about the field in New York and other people looking at things to say to sort of like be an expert on what should happen over there.
[00:43:36] Speaker B: So, as I always want in life, I'd like to culminate our discussion in a hopeful vein. And the hopeful vein includes the emergence of AOC from Nowhere. This person proves herself to be a phenomenally effective voice and politician. Then we have Mamdani, similarly from nowhere, being remarkably, the left is always with some justice, charged with not being practical, not only not knowing how to govern and so forth. But we've got two people now who really being admired correctly, for their skill in. In the political process, as well as they're giving voice to the issues and the values that people are hungry to hear from politicians and rarely hear. And now they're hearing them much more. Well, I think that's. Not only is it these two, I'm impressed a lot with the kind of rising generation of. Of let's call them progressive figures in different. Including in our own county here, we have some excellent people running for local office.
And that to me, is very hopeful because you would think given every. Every kind of shitty thing that's been happening to us, people would be alienated not wanting to do it. And yet I'm seeing people are actually signing up to run for office because of the situation, and they're good. And they're. And there is something really, really positive about a lot of these people. And I think you and I have been talking about. We want to have another episode about the congressional, the national congressional candidates that people ought to be getting behind to in our strategy goal, which this podcast has of moving the Democratic Party in a leftward direction. What are the key races about that? That's something we want to do right as we.
[00:45:40] Speaker C: Yeah, I think that we can. We'll gin that up for next time.
[00:45:43] Speaker B: All right. So even though there was a lot of frustration in our conversation, I always. And I think, Daraka, you share this maybe with less romantic rose colored glasses that you don't have those glasses. I, I have a whole collection of rose colored glasses which I whip out.
So hope all is well with you, Daraka and you.
And we, we want you to comment with us. Go to our site on patreon.com tsmh this is talking strategy, making history.
Dick Flax, Daraka Larimore hall, thanks for being a listener here.
[00:46:25] Speaker C: Thank you.
[00:46:26] Speaker B: We're going to conclude this episode with a brand new recording by Bette Midler, a Woody Guthrie song that she has adapted for the current world that we're in, a song originally written during World War II. It's quite appropriate for no Kings 3, which will be coming up in just a couple of days. You will appreciate this song, so stay tuned.
[00:46:51] Speaker A: You know, I've been around a long time, but I have never lived through what we're living through now.
The great Woody Guthrie wrote this song many years ago. I changed some of the words to fit our times and I hope you'll sing it when you you're marching because sometimes people, sometimes you just gotta sing out.
All you F is bound to lose.
All you f is bound to lose.
I said, oh, you f.
You're bound to lose, you fascist. Bound to lose.
Hey there, let me put you straight. When you come for the rest of us, we'll fight you at the gate and you will lose, you fascist. Boundaloo.
We'll battle ice together until they cut and run just like in Minneapolis. And when the midterms come, you bound to lose, you fascists. Bound to lose.
All you fascist boundless lose.
All you fascist. Bound to lose.
I said all you fascist. Bound to lose.
You're bound to lose, you fascist. Bound to lose.
To hell with all the cowards who hide behind their mask. We're going to win the midterms. We're coming for his ass. He knows it too. That bastard's bound to lose.
Trying to distract us from the Epstein files. You got some beaten murderers protecting pedophiles that turn us through. You perks of Boundaloo.
All you fascist boundaloos.
All you fascists bound to lose.
Mister. All you fascists bound to lose.
You're bound to lose. You from fascist fou America. Get ready. Midterms are at hand. We gotta stick together, folks, and vote to save this land. It's time to choose those fascists bout to lose.
All you fascists bound to lose.
Hear that? All you fascists bound to lose.
Yes, sir. All you fascist bound to lose.
You bound to lose. You fascist bound to lose. Say what everybody say. All you fascist bound to lose.
I said all you fascists bound to lose.
Yes, sir. All you fascists bound to lose.
You're bound to lose. You fascist bound to lose.
