How can politicians better serve the American people? Sen. Andy Kim has some ideas
47:17 Share

This episode is brought to you by Dutch Bros. Big smiles, rocking tunes, and epic drinks. Dutch Bros is all about you. Choose from a variety of customizable, handcrafted beverages like our Rebel Energy drinks, coffees, teas, and more. Download the Dutch Bros app for a free medium drink, plus find your nearest shop, order ahead, and start earning rewards.

Offer valid for new app users only. Free medium drink reward upon registration. 14-day expiration. Terms apply. See DutchBros.com. This is On Point. I'm Meghna Chakrabarty. Last week, Democratic Congressman Andy Kim became New Jersey's newest senator. Please raise your right hand.

Do you each solemnly swear that you will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that you take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which you are about to enter, so help you God?

I do. Congratulations, Senator.

The three-time congressman was sworn in nearly a month early by Vice President Kamala Harris after sitting Senator George Helmy resigned. Helmy was appointed by New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy when longtime Senator Bob Menendez left office after being convicted on federal corruption charges. Menendez was convicted on 16 counts of taking hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes from New Jersey businessmen, as well as the governments of Egypt and Qatar.

Well, now Senator Kim was first elected to the House in 2018, and he served New Jersey's third congressional district.

In 2020, as he ran for re-election, he won overwhelmingly. He beat his Republican opponent by a solid 8% of the vote. But Kim noticed that something had changed in New Jersey's third. While he won as a Democratic congressman, in the 2020 election, Republican Donald Trump also won the district in the presidential race, though by a fraction of a percent.

That set Kim on a journey to understand his constituents much better, to learn why people voted both for him and for Trump. Now in the wake of the Democrats' 2024 presidential defeat, what Senator Kim learned could be of use to a party seeking solutions to its electoral loss. And he joins us now. Senator Andy Kim, welcome to On Point.

Thank you, Meghna, for having me. I just want to give you a heads up that I will be asking you about drones a little bit later. OK, this is it's an important issue to people and a big mystery. So I will not let our escape without talking about drones. But sure. But let's go back to the the 2020 race, because the reason why I was made aware of these listening sessions that you heard was you actually after the 2024 race.

presidential election, you put out this long Twitter thread explaining what you had done. So take us back to 2020. What did you first notice that made you decide you needed to listen to the people of your district much more carefully? Well, this is a congressional district that Trump won in 2016. He won it in 2020.

And in 2020, that was my first time being on the ballot when he was on the ballot. And the fact that I was able to win but outperform Joe Biden by around eight points or more

It was something that intrigued me. I was one of only seven Democrats in the entire country that won a district that Trump won that year. And why that number is important is because our House majority was only five votes. So that means if me and four others of these Democrats that won these Trump districts, if we fail to outperform partisanship,

It means that we would not have had the bipartisan infrastructure law or the Inflation Reduction Act or the Chips and Science Act or any number of other things that we got done. So it really showed me a lot about the fragility of that moment. So I really wanted to hone in on it. We estimated potentially over 20,000 people voted for Trump, voted for me.

And I wanted to just ask why, just really try to understand what is it that they're hearing? What information are they getting? And, you know, so we held a series of these listening sessions and focus groups with people who voted for Trump and voted for me. And just overwhelmingly, I'm happy to go into the details here, but just overwhelmingly what I found was,

just remarkably important is that every conversation started off with them talking about just how much they felt like politics is broken, how distrusting they are. And in fact, they would use this word disgust, how disgusted they were with politics.

And the fact that that's where the conversation started, I thought was such an important and poignant moment. Okay. Well, the details are exactly what we're hoping to hear from you, right? Because the disgust with politics, the really just sort of unhappiness with the general service of politicians. I mean, that's some, these are things that we've heard quite a bit over, especially over the past couple of years. So tell me like what specifically were,

Were your constituents telling you that they were disgusted with? Because I guess what I'm trying to get at is like people can emote, but underneath that, did they have, you know, really concrete specific reasons? Well, look, you know, at least here in New Jersey, and this was in 2020, a lot of it revolved around corruption. Yeah. You know, this sense that...

I guess the way I would sort of frame it is this question of who do your elected officials work for? Who are they fighting for? And perhaps one of the most important questions I think one can pull, this question of do you think your elected leader cares about you? And that's what I found really fascinating is you could share similar policy positions with your elected leader and believe in those, but if you don't trust them,

If you don't feel like they're working for you, you can see how eroding that moment can be. So that's what I really heard from people, this feeling that elected leaders – I mean right now there was a survey last year that said 84% of people in New Jersey believe that their elected leaders are corrupt. We live in the time of the greatest amount of distrust in government in modern American history.

And so I think it's important not to underestimate just how much people distrust politics and government right now. And so especially that sense of corruption, that sense of special interest, this idea that politics is just some club that is self-serving, you know,

elected officials are out for themselves to benefit their own ego, ambition, and personal fortune, and that they're working on behalf of their donors. They're working on behalf of big corporations. So it doesn't necessarily have to be direct corruption. It's just about, you know, also like, are they working for special interests and big corporations, but not for you? That's the sentiment that was just overwhelming. So this is really, really critical to understand because this question, do you think your elected leaders are,

care about you really gets to the heart of things. Were you able to ask folks, because these were voters who voted for both you and Donald Trump, that if they feel like Donald Trump cared for them, why did they feel that way? What was he doing that made them feel that way? So I think what I would kind of categorize that as is just, again, a deep distrust for the status quo, you know, our status quo politics.

And what I found fascinating when the conversation moved on to Donald Trump, and again, this was four years ago, but I think a lot of this feels very resonant to this moment, is even if they had concerns about his personal behavior, how he speaks, what he says, there was a sense that at least he's not somebody defending and perpetuating the status quo. They saw him as a disruptor.

They saw him as somebody that didn't come from politics. He never was in office before and was, you know, the way in which he engages, way in which he speaks. Yes, it's different, but that's actually something that they found as a plus. They liked that he wasn't cookie cutter. And what I found kind of fascinating was when the conversation came to me, you know, like there was this kind of recognition that,

I'm different as well. I'm not somebody that's been trying to protect the status quo. I talk a lot about reforms, a lot about campaign finance, and I don't take corporate PAC money. Probably the most popular piece of legislation I ever introduced is legislation that would ban members of Congress and senior government officials from owning and trading individual stocks. I never ran for office prior to my time running for Congress. And look, I'm a

Asian American, young Asian American man who represents a 85% white district that voted for Trump twice. I am not central casting of what you'd imagine, you know, a congressman from my congressional district to look like. I'm not central casting, honestly, of what you'd imagine a senator from New Jersey necessarily to look like. I'm the first Asian American ever in the U.S. Senate from the entire East Coast of America. But I think all of that

Actually, I thought that was going to be a weakness for me in terms of being able to build coalitions, but I think it's actually turned out to be a strength. But what I'm trying to show is that

Yes, voters want someone that's different. They want someone that will disrupt. But there's a different way to be different than Donald Trump. It doesn't mean that you have to go down that path to differentiate yourself, that people are looking for people that will stand up against corruption, take those actions. But they can do it in different ways. So you put this Twitter thread out originally on November 7th of this year.

And there's one point in the thread where you say, I learned never to underestimate the extent to which people distrust and despise politics, especially those people who do not engage regularly. And then, as you just said, you said in the Twitter thread, the main point you wanted to convey is that the hinge was on what it means to be different. You don't just have to be different like Trump. OK, in that case, you don't go so far in this Twitter thread as to say this, but it does seem like a quite...

damning judgment on the Democratic Party that when President Biden stopped his campaign, the party then very quickly rallied around someone who represented the status quo, the vice president. Was that a mistake?

Well, look, I don't think there were very many options at that point with so little time left. So when I look back on it, there's lots of different things that could have gone differently over the last two years. But it isn't just about the position that someone is in. Someone in that position as vice president or a U.S. senator or a congressperson, by virtue of how they're

engaging and talking to people, what kind of things that they're focusing on, those are differences there. But what I will say is, yes, I think she ran a three-month campaign. It is hard to, in that amount of time, differentiate from the status quo. This is something that's a long time coming. I'm writing about this

from four years ago. You can imagine how baked in a lot of these feelings are. And I think it was going to be difficult for the Democratic Party, no matter who is at the top of the ticket, even if Biden stepped aside much earlier and there was a primary, I think the

the party has real challenges when it comes to its brand, its reputation. And that's something that I, you know, I saw full force, you know, when people, when I was... Senator, you have to forgive me for just a second. I just have 15 seconds before I have to take this first break. But I'll definitely let you pick up that thought when we come back. So we're speaking today with New Jersey's newest senator, Senator Andy Kim. More in a moment. This is On Point. Support for the On Point podcast comes from Indeed.

Are you hiring? With Indeed, your search is over. Indeed doesn't just help you hire faster. 93% of employers agree that Indeed delivers the highest quality matches compared to other job sites. And listeners get a $75 sponsored job credit to get your jobs more visibility at Indeed.com slash on point. That's Indeed.com slash on point. Terms and conditions apply. Need to hire? You need Indeed.

You're back with On Point. I'm Meghna Chakrabarty, and we are joined today by Senator Andy Kim. He's a Democrat from New Jersey. He was recently made a United States senator. He's the first Korean American to serve in the U.S. Senate. He's New Jersey's first Asian American senator. Prior to that, he served three terms as a congressman in New Jersey's third congressional district. And what's interesting about that district is that while

His constituents voted for him as a Democrat for House. They also voted for Donald Trump in a couple of presidential elections. And that's what we're talking about with Senator Kim today. And Senator, if I may, I'm going to push a little bit more here because I think there's a lot of substance that you put out in those two Twitter threads.

I will be so bold as to say I'm hearing you be a little bit hesitant right now when it comes to directly addressing the Democratic Party. I understand. It's your party. But let me say this. When you say that, you know, whether the person is the vice president or a senator or a congressman or whatnot, there are different ways to be different. That is absolutely true. But we must we must do a postmortem on the Harris campaign, even though, yes, she only had 100 days.

However, the first part of those 100 days were very successful. I mean, there's so much evidence of that because she and Tim Walz were bringing something different. They were bringing something distinctly not the status quo in the emotion, momentum and thrust of what they wanted to do for the American people.

Then, however, I would say in the last month of the campaign, something shifted. She refused to separate herself from the policies of the Biden administration, even by a little bit. She started campaigning with Congressman Liz Cheney, whom I actually believe is an American hero in defending democracy. But voters, especially those low information voters you talked about, what they saw were two establishment politicians standing side by side.

So I'm just wondering if you are willing to say those were missteps. And if the next presidential campaign, when it comes around, what would you advise be done differently to sort of break this view that Democrats represent nothing more than this despised status quo?

Yeah, so I think the reason why I was responding the way that I did to your question is I'm still not certain that any Democrat could have came in under those circumstances and pulled off a win. So that's what I'm still trying to think through myself. Just given where things were at and how distrusting things were and how people were so frustrated by the summer of 2024,

I'm not sure that anyone was being able to kind of separate themselves and distinguish themselves and be able to deal with that just given just what we saw with the election results. So that's something I'm still grappling with. But isn't that wild? Senator, isn't that wild because –

I mean, instead, a critical number of swing voters in a few states trusted the convicted felon instead. They trusted the guy who facilitated the ransacking of Congress on January 6th, 2021. I mean, I'm not sure the bar for trust can get any lower than that. And yet somehow the Democrats couldn't clear that bar.

And, you know, again, to the point that I said earlier that you responded to, you know, we cannot underestimate how much people distrust. And in fact, you know, a number of people that I talked to, it was around the time when, you know, these judicial cases were coming up against Trump where there was a sense of

rallying around. People felt like some of the cases were political attacks, were things that were done because of the fact that he was running for president again. And those are the types of approaches that cause people to, again, really distrust that process. So there's that element of it. And I think in particular, for instance, there was a lot of

of effort by the Harris campaign and more broadly amongst Democrats to talk about how Donald Trump posed a threat to democracy, that we have to protect our democracy and a lot of that message. And what's interesting is as I've talked to people who voted for Trump subsequent to the election, a number of them, when I talk about that line, a number of them felt like that was a signal that the Democrats wanted to protect the status quo.

And that's something that we have to be very careful about. I do think it's important that we talk about protecting democracy, but we have to do it in a way that doesn't make it seem like we're okay with how things are now and we're worried about how Donald Trump is trying to change it. But, you know, it comes across sometimes, you know, as this approach of saying, look, we, you know, we don't want to see change. You know, we don't want to see things different. But, you know, right now we live in the time of the greatest amount of inequality, economic inequality in our nation's history.

People see that delivered by the same old, same old politics. So, you know, that's something that we have to grapple with is an overarching message. That is a really interesting point. So communicating to people that believing in protecting democracy doesn't necessarily mean defending the status quo. OK, so then how would you recommend Democrats begin to do that?

Yeah, well, look, first and foremost, I think it's really important to...

to really approach this moment with a lot of humility. I always try to say I practice a politics of humility, and that's opposed to what I call a politics of hubris. Too often people, and you see this right after election day, people kind of coming right out and saying, this is exactly why we lost or why the Democrats lost or why the results happened this way. I'm certainly putting out some ideas, but I'm not saying I have all the answers. We need to go out and talk to people.

We need to have these types of listening sessions. I'm going to be having more in my own state, but I've really been pushing the Democratic Party to do this more systematically across the country, to listen to people and hear from them and not assume that we can deduce this all on our own because that's that sense of hubris. What I find so interesting

so clear right now is just that people feel judged in their politics. They feel like elected officials are being paternalistic and telling them what they need to do and what's best for their lives without listening to them.

And what I find is that when you have that sense of hubris in you, when you talk to someone, they can tell. They can tell that it's not really a conversation. It's not a dialogue that goes both ways, that when you believe you have all the right answers and you know what needs to be done to fix this country…

then you're not actually listening to the other person. You're just engaging in an effort to try to convert that person to your position. And that's obviously a lot of what sometimes people feel when people knock on their doors leading up to election day and other things. Right now, as we are as far from the next election as possible, this is exactly the right moment to go out and try to engage people, try to talk to them in a way where they're not assuming that this is transactional, just about getting votes. Right.

and to be able to hear from them. Because I can tell you when I've done that, I can really get a sense of not just what's on their minds, but it is also a sense of respect. People right now feel so disrespected by politics and that leads to that distrust. So the way I always say it is like, if you're only having comfortable conversations in politics, it means you're not talking to all the people you need to be talking to.

We're not going to learn about the problems by just talking amongst ourselves and pollsters and researchers. We've got to go out and have what are undoubtedly going to be some uncomfortable conversations. But that's going to be how we start to find our path back. So let me ask you just in terms of practical things.

obstacles to this return. I mean, what I'm hearing you say is that there's like you're calling for a return to the pure purpose of representational government, right? It's to know and understand what your constituents want, hope and dream for, and then taking those desires and translating them into policy, right? In government, that's essentially what a democracy is all about. But let's lean on your experience as a congressman, Senator, who

For a long time, my understanding has been that because a House term is only two years, that as soon as you get elected, you're basically in the next election cycle right after that. And a lot of practical time is spent doing exactly the things you say shouldn't be done, which is talking to pollsters, talking to, you know, going to fundraisers, talking to potential donors, which, you know, and trying to do legislation as well. Where is the mechanism to have these face-to-face meetings?

town halls, meetings, opportunities to listen to constituents better? Well, in six years that I've been in the House of Representatives, you're right, I had a lot of tough races and had to make sure we're building up the resources to fund them. But I also, in that process, held over 80 town halls. And I would go out every single month. I made a promise to go out every month to be able to do a town hall. Most of them in person

And I'll tell you just a quick story. There was one that I did in a town that I lost by over 25 points. It was a brutal loss in that town. I showed up to do a town hall, and several hundred people were there. And I stood in front of them, and I said, whether you voted for me or not, you're my boss. My job is to serve you to the best of my ability. I'm coming before you right now, not as a politician, but as your congressman, and I need to hear from you.

And we had tough conversations. I got asked a lot of tough questions, but I listened to everybody. I never raised my voice. Afterwards, there was a line of people waiting to talk to me one-on-one. And there was a gentleman, an older gentleman in the back. He waited 45 minutes to come up and talk to me. And he came up to me and he said, I just want you to know I didn't vote for you. And then he said, and I was very hesitant to come to this town hall today. But then he stuck out his hand and said, but I'm glad I did, shook my hand and walked off.

And I can tell you, that was one of the most profound moments of my time in politics. And I've spent a lot of time trying to understand what happened. He waited 45 minutes to tell me three sentences, didn't even have a question.

And what I've come to deduce is I believe while I don't necessarily think I earned that man's vote just for showing up and taking some tough questions, I do think I earned his respect. And this question about trust, what I've come to believe is you cannot trust someone or something unless you respect that person or that thing.

And so for us, if we're trying to figure out how do we earn the trust of the voters, of the American people, you've got to earn their respect. And you don't do that by lobbying TV ads, bombarding their TVs, digital ads that are bombarding their screens. You've got to go out there and you've got to engage. And not just eight weeks before election day with a ground game.

So I think the House with 780,000 people, it's actually in some ways – yes, you're constantly running elections, but you're also closer to the people in that way. I now represent a state of 9 million people. It's much harder for me to think about how to be able to have those types of personal engagements with people.

something of this magnitude. Therein lies the difficulty of running for president, right? How do you try to engage over 330 million people? You cannot simply have enough town halls to do that. So that's why I'm saying, not everything I'm saying can be perfectly scaled or replicated, but it does give us a sense of how to be engaged. I'm Meghna Chakrabarty. This is On Point.

So a sense of how to be engaged, which also I think more profoundly what you're talking about is a shift in sort of the entire –

soul or purpose of politics in the Democratic Party. Because again, to recap some of the things you've said, you think you're advising, meet people where they're at. That makes a lot of sense. Talk about service, not politics. The politics of humility, as you said, listening, being empathetic, withholding judgment, right? And I think being okay with people saying no to you. I completely get that. These all make perfect sense to me. But

Do you think your fellow Democrats are willing to hear this? And I ask you that specifically because, I mean, many people might be saying, well, why should we be empathetic with voters when there's still a very, very strong basis of belief that many voters simply voted because out of racism, right? Like the first response to this Twitter thread of yours I'm looking for, and I get it, Twitter's not real life, but it's not real life.

But the first response from someone says, let's talk about white bigotry, sir. And it's the main reason that Trump won. That's what that person thinks. That's the first response to your thread. I mean, is that feeling, you think, common amongst Democrats? And how would you overcome that?

There's definitely a lot of anger, and that feeling is common amongst all of politics, not just amongst Democrats. I hear it from independents and republicans too. We are right now having deeper problems as a society.

We are losing touch with this idea that we're part of something bigger than all of us. We have so much – we've become this nation that's addicted to anger. The amount of contempt – and I use that word very specifically – the amount of contempt that I feel within our society right now, including our politics, is scary.

When we hear language from Donald Trump about the enemy within and other things like that, this is a dangerous moment for our country in that capacity. Empathy for somebody doesn't mean that I agree with them. It means that I am trying to understand them. I'm trying to see the world through their eyes, understand how they're coming to decisions. And I think that that is important.

And again, that doesn't mean that I agree with them, that I'm accepting that as a valid reason to be able to vote a certain way. But I'm recognizing their citizenship, their equal participation in our society. And if I want to...

I mean, I woke up in a congressional district every day where I recognized that the majority of voters in that district voted for Donald Trump. That is a unique experience and something that I have to grapple with. But I also have to understand that.

what I've come to see in the district and in the state. It's different than the politics that we see down in D.C. And that's something that I think is key. So often people in D.C., they get obsessed with this question, do we have the right message?

obviously a very important question. But they don't ask two other questions, which is who is the right messenger? And the last one, which I think is almost the most important, does the message you're trying to convey to people actually get to the people you're trying to talk to? And the answer to that is so often no. You know, people in my congressional district were not following, you know, the, you know,

Hakeem Jeffries or Speaker Pelosi, Chuck Schumer on Twitter. Like, you know, like, so we have to understand how are they getting their information? Well, as Americans, we're living in individually hermetically sealed information bubbles. I think you're hitting on something really important, that even if the Democratic Party adopted all of the recommendations that you're making, somehow the information barrier has to be overcome. And I don't know if anyone has the solution to that.

Yeah. Yeah. But look, I mean, it helps when you go and talk to them and you hear like, you know,

you know, what do you, like, what do you understand about these candidates? Like, tell us what you understand and where were you getting your information from, you know, doing that kind of research, doing that kind of analysis and, you know, hearing from them rather than just, you know, assuming that the same old, same old. I mean, you were talking earlier about how, you know, it felt like, you know, there was new momentum and

Kamala came into the race and energy on that front. No doubt that there was energy, but clearly we were misjudging how to be able to measure that sense of energy. People, when they look at it, they use certain things like small dollar donations.

size of the rallies and, you know, energy on social media. Clearly that was was wrong, you know, and our usual way of trying to understand momentum in politics was clearly wrong. Senator Kim, I'm just going to take it back from you here for one second, because once again, it's that clock. I've got to take a quick break. We're speaking today with New Jersey's Senator Andy Kim. We'll have a lot more when we come back. This is On Point.

This is On Point. I'm Meghna Chakrabarty. And before we return to our conversation with Senator Andy Kim, I just want to give you a heads up on something we're working on for tomorrow. Now, of course, the terrible murder of UnitedHealthcare's CEO...

has a lot of reverberations. One of them is that it's bringing attention back to the nation's largest insurers' use of AI in approving or denying claims and how use of that technology has landed UnitedHealthcare in court. So we're wondering, have you been denied claims even repeatedly by UnitedHealthcare,

for care that your doctor insists that you need. Has that happened to you? We're especially interested if you or a loved one is a Medicare patient in need of recap care and has run into obstacles with denials from UnitedHealthcare. So share your experience with us. You can do that. The best way is by recording a message on the On Point VoxPop app.

Thank you.

And Senator Kim, if we may, I want to just shift gears a tiny bit because I'd love to hear a little bit more about your story, your American story, actually. Can you tell us, you know, a little bit about your first months and years as an American?

Well, my parents immigrated to America 50 years ago, actually about 50 years ago to this year. So our family is celebrating our 50th anniversary in this country. My parents were born at the end of the Korean War. They're the only part of our family that moved here from South Korea. So it was a tough, lonely journey for a lot of that time.

settled in New Jersey because they wanted to have me and my sister have access to good public schools, a safe environment. And it's been a humbling experience representing in Congress the community where I went to kindergarten and now the state where my kids went to kindergarten. And that experience, it's something where my parents were never political. We never taught politics at the dining room table. We never really thought that it was

It was a place for us. We never really thought that we had that kind of voice and that kind of capacity. So it's been an interesting journey for me to get involved. I worked in diplomacy and national security for the country in a career capacity. Never thought that I would get involved in politics. And when I thought about getting involved, I had a lot of people tell me, you seem like a nice kid and all, but there's just no way that you can...

you know, represent. You can win these types of districts. I even had somebody tell me that I'm the wrong kind of minority to win statewide in New Jersey. Meaning what? So it's...

Meaning just that an Asian American with a population in New Jersey that's just I think 12% that you just can't build a coalition. And I just got that – I was so offended by that because it's a sense that I – as if I can only appeal to people that look like me. Was it a Democrat who told you that? It was a Democrat that told me that.

And it was someone who considers themselves to be a political expert. And it's just one of those things that just kind of – you can imagine how discouraging that is. And I've heard this throughout my life. When I was at the State Department working for this country, I was banned from working on issues related to Korea because I was Korean-American. They questioned my loyalty to this country.

So those are the types of things that have been struck. Is that a common practice at State? Not anymore because I was able to help introduce legislation that bans that practice. But for a while, yes. It was something that was particularly targeting Asian Americans as well as some other people with certain backgrounds.

And I just found that to be so offensive. They basically made me feel like they're telling me that I'm not 100% American, that this perpetual foreigner trope is something that they believe on a fundamental level.

It seems then ubiquitous across American politics because you just in the span of one minute, you talked about a Democrat saying you couldn't win because you're Asian to the State Department having a policy that wouldn't allow, I guess, people of various ethnic origins to work on regions that they may have distant family ties to. That is very...

disheartening senator yeah but look I mean what I will say is you know I I stayed in the race I I what I said like look I'm not gonna let other people try to define what I am or am not capable accomplishing simply because the color my skin in my last name and I am proud you know that on the 50th anniversary of my family coming to America that I was sworn is as a United States Senator the first Korean American ever in the US Senate in the 120 years that Koreans have been in this country

You know, it's not a barrier I set at the break. That was not the reason I ran. But as a father of a seven-year-old and a nine-year-old, two little boys that unfortunately have already experienced discrimination and racism in their young lives, you know, being taunted and called, you know, Chinese boy over and over again at school, like,

Like, I think it's hopefully going to move the needle. Like, I'm excited that a generation of New Jerseyans are hopefully not going to blink an eye in seeing an Asian American representing them in the U.S. Senate. But this, too, is part of the distaste that many people have with the status quo, right? Just if I could share just for a second, like, for example, I get invited to do talks or panels and the invitation says,

Because of your experience as a South Asian journalist, I'm like, stop, full stop right there. Right. I was born in this country. I'm an American first and foremost. Yes, my parents came from India. But why is that? You know what I have to say as a journalist uniquely filtered through some kind of South Asian lens, but it's utterly normalized in this country. So so let me ask, though.

Given that, when you talk about your legislative priorities, for example, first of all, what are they, Senator? And second of all, how do you talk about them in a way or how do you choose those priorities in a way that matches with this sort of recipe that you've given the Democratic Party on how to be more effective as political leaders? Yeah.

I remember when I first ran for Congress eight years ago, I had some consultants say, maybe don't talk about your immigrant family, that they came from Korea and things like that. And I was like, I'm pretty sure people are going to figure it out when they see me and hear from me. And then it was just one of those things where what I was trying to show, I still talked about, but what I tried to show is my story is not just a Korean-American or an Asian-American story. It's fundamentally an American story.

And trying to talk about that sense of my family's pursuit of the American dream, what it is that we try to deal with when it comes to opportunities and engagement. And now as a father, hoping for that for my kids. But I'll be honest, when I see all the craziness happening and the chaos right now in this moment, I worry about what kind of America my kids are growing up in. It doesn't necessarily feel like I have the same kind of optimism that my parents had for me and my sister.

you know, in terms of our ability to be able to progress beyond their means. And so I do focus on a lot of that, you know, that sense of, you know, just what do I want for my kids, you know, people's kids and grandkids, you know, this sense of just the nuts and bolts. I often call it like, you know, we just like, we're not asking for the moon. I'm not trying to make a billion dollars and build rocket ships to outer space. Like I want to just be able to

have a simple life. Just be able to focus in on the dignity and decency of family and hard work. So I focus a lot on trying to address high cost of living, trying to address just the stability or lack thereof in people's lives, the anxiety that they feel. It's

talk about it as if they can't breathe. It feels like it's just like death from a thousand cuts right now. So that's how I often try to engage on it and how I try to talk about it and how I try to use my family's story

to try to show the challenges that we've experienced and how I can empathize with people about what they're going through right now. So let's push this a little bit more into the realm of governance because your eloquence is heard in terms of how to engage with people and more effectively listen to them. But then, of course...

You got elected and congressmen, congresspeople and senators get elected to actually do legislation. Right. And so I wonder if do the Democrats find themselves currently in something of a painful position and specifically regarding this, that they're

As the Republicans have done under Democratic administrations where they have basically publicly they've said publicly, our goal now is to stop any Democratic legislative victory. Right. Mitch McConnell famously said that during the Obama administration. Do Democrats feel the same way?

Because let's do a thought experiment here. Say come January, when the Trump administration and Republicans, they're going to have to consider about the sunsetting of those 2017 tax cuts. They're going to want to renew them. If there's minor modifications that say maybe make life a tiny bit better for working Americans.

Would Democrats be willing to compromise and support those tax cuts or would they not? Because any victory for a Trump bill, could Democrats see that as a affirmation of Trumpism?

Well, look, we're definitely here to govern. And as I said, I represent everybody, not just the people that voted for me. But it also means that if there are actions that are being done in the tax cut, if that's going to be overwhelmingly benefiting big corporations and the wealthiest Americans, we need to call that out.

And we need to stand up against that. I still think a lot of the fundamentals in terms of the policies and the efforts, these are things that can connect with people. They just haven't been – we haven't had that storytelling, that approach that I think is able to really hit this home and solidify it. And we're not getting that message out there. So that's part of it.

And so, yes, I do think that we find areas where we can hopefully find some agreement. I'm hoping we can find bipartisan agreement on addressing the mental health crisis in this country, on addressing some of the other problems that we're facing. The work that we did on the Chips and Science Act to be able to invest in advanced manufacturing in a bipartisan way, I'm hoping that coalition is open to a 2.0 version in terms of what we can do. And I think that that's something that we can...

work with, but we certainly need to be able to tell our narrative about, you know, why it is that we think other actions that they're going to take are dangerous. And, and it's, look, it's, it's not just calling out on the Trump side. And this is something I wanted to really reflect here in the final minutes is like, you know, how I was able to win the Senate seat, for instance, like we haven't told the full story, but like, look, like there were very few people in Jersey politics that

14 months ago would have imagined or 12 months ago would have imagined that I would be sworn in as a U.S. senator. You know, there was a lot of problems with the machine politics in New Jersey and a lot of that pushed by my own party.

And so I just think in general what the Democratic Party needs to recognize or what all people need to recognize is we're entering a new era of politics here. This is a realignment moment, for to use a word that others have used. I agree with that. This isn't just a tinker around the edge kind of moment.

In New Jersey, there's a question. Will the Democratic Party in New Jersey move away from and take the reforms needed to rehabilitate a reputation that's been deeply broken by corruption, by cronyism? When you have politicians making money off their jobs, meanwhile, public transit, NJ transit trains are broken and not running. Like,

People look at that and say the Democrats are in charge here and things aren't working well. And instead we see handouts to companies run by donors and other things like that. We need more reforms in those ways and be able to show that we can govern. I'm Meghna Chakrabarty. This is On Point.

Senator Kim, you are right. We only have four minutes left. I have two important questions for you. People might remember that on January 7th, 2021, just a couple of hours after the Capitol was finally cleared of the insurrectionists, a photograph was taken of you that really became viral because it's profoundly moving today.

You're on your knees in the Capitol Rotunda on the floor cleaning up trash that was left behind by the rioters. It was the embodiment of an act of service for the love of the democracy that we're all privileged to live in. And I wanted to remind folks of that moment that you had.

Because now we're at a place where just a few days ago, the man who's going to return to the White House, Donald Trump, in a Meet the Press interview said on his first day in office on January 20th, 2025, he's going to pardon all the people who have been convicted in American courts of crimes associated with January 6th. I want to look at everything. We're going to look at individual cases. Yeah. OK. But I'm going to be acting very quickly.

Within your first 100 days, first day? First day. First day? Yeah, I'm looking first day. You're going to issue these pardons. These people have been there, how long is it, three or four years? You know, by the way, they've been in there for years, and they're in a filthy, disgusting place that shouldn't even be allowed to be open. Senator Kim, we only have two minutes left, and I do want to ask you about drones in a second, but I just want to get your thoughts on that is also part of our political reality now. Yeah.

Just yesterday when I entered the Capitol, I actually ran into the family of Officer Sicknick who was killed due to what happened on January 6th. And it was profoundly powerful. They're from New Jersey. I've talked to them before. And that's so often what's being pushed aside, like what actually happened on that day.

And, you know, just the idea that with so much going on in our country right now, so many real challenges that people were thinking about when they voted on November 5th, the idea that this is what's going to be prioritized on day one rather than, you know, putting all of our energy into lowering costs for people and helping them with their daily lives. It just shows you how, you know, how challenged we are with this moment in politics. Yeah.

So now, sorry to have to make this very sudden turn towards drones, but I did promise you that because there's still a lot of questions out there. Like, what's going on with all these drones popping up at various places on the eastern seaboard? How is it possible that we don't know? I mean, I thought we had some pretty good technology in this country that could identify aerial objects over critical places in U.S. airspace.

Yeah, well, clearly we need more when it comes to detection capabilities. But, you know, I think this is something where, you know, we're going to see a lot more drone usage. It's just becoming so much more popular. And, you know, I don't think we've been really...

As a society sort of aware of this as so much as an understanding of how we can identify, you know, I went out with local police and, you know, they pointed out some things that they saw in the sky that were a concern. At least for my purposes, we were able to go back and look at flight data and be able to attribute almost everything to air manned aircraft that was out. I don't discount people were seeing drones because again, there's a lot more usage, including at night as, you know, as the rules changed a couple of years ago that allow for night flight.

usage of drones. So, you know, I think what's key is we want to make sure we're protecting our critical infrastructure, other issues. The last thing I'll just say is it kind of gets back to what we were saying earlier about distrust in government. Yeah. You know, and that's something that we continue to see, unfortunately, popping up in different manifestations. Well, in this case, it could be easily solved if the FAA or Homeland Security just came out and said, here's exactly what these things are. And we know there's still people that won't believe them.

Well, transparency is the first step. Senator Andy Kim of New Jersey, it's been a great pleasure to talk with you. Thank you so much for joining us today. Thanks so much for having me. This is On Point.