It's the Corruption, Stupid
01:12:18 Share

This podcast is supported by U.S. Bank. At U.S. Bank, when they say they're in it with you, they mean it. Not just for the good stuff, the grand openings and celebrations, although those are pretty great, but for all the hard work it took to get there. Because together, they're proving day in and day out that there is nothing as powerful as the power of us. Visit usbank.com to get started today. Equal Housing Lender, member FDIC.

From New York Times Opinion, this is The Ezra Klein Show. So our last episode was with Faz Shakir, Bernie Sanders' former campaign manager. And it was about the question of whether Bernieism was a way forward for the Democratic Party. But I said at the beginning I was going to make that a pairing, that we were going to have two very different perspectives on what Democrats should do next. So here is the other. And it is, as I promised, very different.

Rahm Emanuel is America's ambassador to Japan. Before that, he was mayor of Chicago. But it's what he did before that that interests me. Emanuel was Barack Obama's chief of staff in the first two years of Obama's first term. This was when Obama passed the stimulus bill, the Affordable Care Act, the Dodd-Frank financial reforms. It's fair to say that we could not have accomplished what we've accomplished without Rahm's leadership. You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.

And what I mean by that, it's an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before. And before that, Emanuel led the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2006. This was the midterm election following George W. Bush's reelection in 2004.

And Emanuel masterminded the campaign that won the House back for Democrats for the first time in 12 years. Americans voted for a change in the last election, and today we got it. The new 110th Congress convened with the Democrats in charge of both houses for the first time in 12 years. And for the first time ever, a woman is Speaker of the House. From every country, the American people have sent...

A resounding and unmistakable message of change and new direction for America. And before that, Emanuel is one of Bill Clinton's top advisors and top fundraisers. There's an old saying that if you want to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs. The American people were hungry for leadership, and I'm proud that in providing that leadership,

President Clinton broke a few eggs. Here's what you cannot take away from him. He has been at the center of most of the biggest Democratic victories, both electoral and legislative, since the 90s. The people who love him in the party, and there are many, they say, what this guy knows is how to win. And having lost in 2024, Democrats want to win. And so Emanuel's name is popping up a lot. David Axelrod, Obama's former chief strategist, said that Emanuel should be the next DNC chair.

Steve Israel, a former top House Democrat, he said the same. Emanuel and his allies are clearly pushing him back into the frame. There's a campaign going on right now. But there is a lot of detractors, too. Emanuel is a very controversial figure in the party. There are large factions that see the Clinton and Obama eras as good for Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, but not that good for Democrats down ballot.

And Emanuel is not from the wing of the party that believes the American public is waiting for democratic socialism. He's from the wing of the party that believes Democrats are often out of touch, that they listen to what gets said in the faculty lounge and dismiss what gets said on the street corner. That the most important thing Democrats have to do in any election, particularly congressional election, is demonstrate through the candidates they run, the things they say, and the things they choose not to say.

that they're listening to the people they claim to represent. I've said before that I think the analog to be thinking about after 2024 is 2004. The last time a Republican president who won his first term by losing the popular vote got reelected in much more convincing fashion. And Rahm Emanuel was the guy after that 2004 drubbing who led the Democratic comeback in 2006. So I wanted to have him on the show. What did he learn in that campaign?

And what does he think Democrats should do now? As always, my email, EzraKleinShow at NYTimes.com. Rahm Emanuel, welcome to the show. Thank you. So let's just start here. Why do you think the Democrats lost in 2024? I mean, look, at a certain level, when 70% of the country thinks the economy is bad, it's

And by equal measure, 70% think the country's headed in the wrong direction. That is a structural equation for an anti-incumbent election. Then there's, I think, a second part which takes understanding, and that is the top of the ticket performs worse than the congressional wing, which is not the norm.

And then there's kind of this moment in time, and you can look at other places where, you know, you and I are sitting here when a right winger just went to the top in the Romanian election. People call it populism. I actually call it an anti-establishment. And then I dial my clock all the way back, Ezra. Look, I think there's two seminal moments that explain the last 20 plus years in American politics.

won the Iraq war, where the American people were deceived into a war of choice. We lost thousands of young men and women. Thousands of young men and women are maimed for life. And we spent a trillion dollars in a failed endeavor and a war of choice and were lied to. And nobody, and I mean nobody, ever held accountable.

Six years later, the financial industry, housing crash, near depression. People lose not their lives like in the Iraq war, but they lose their livelihood, their homes. So you have people losing lives, livelihood, and the elite and the top of the society, totally unaccountable, and never act like they did anything wrong. People out of the foreign policy establishment, they're on boards, institutions, universities, bankers yelling for their bonuses.

And the American people are fed up. And then you fast forward through COVID. And I think that what happens is the Democrats go in the prior years, President Obama, the 06 election, et cetera, from anti-establishment to the establishment and the elite with the whole, the way we dealt with COVID, the way we dealt with science and talked to people. And I think that is a deeper current. It's unique to the United States. The first two examples, not totally the financial. And to me,

That explains a lot of what I call the anti-Brussels, anti-Washington, D.C. You say no one was ever held accountable, but that's passive voice. You all never held anyone accountable. The administration that comes after the Iraq war and the financial crisis is the Obama administration. You're the first chief of staff. Who was going to do it if not you? That's what I was going to tell you. There's a famous, in about March, after the stimulus, a very fair question,

Because we were having this debate after we passed children's health insurance, Lilly Ledbetter legislation and the stimulus bill, and a number of other things on national service and protecting kids on tobacco. We have this big Saturday debate. President Obama had three major initiatives, cap and trade, health care reform, and financial reform. And this is generic at 10,000 feet. Everybody, there's nuances here.

We have a massive debate. The domestic side of it said that you got to start on health care right now. It has to be first because every day you lose on health care to do it. You're not going to get there. Not wrong about the legislative politics. The economic team worried that if you push financial reform first, the banks won't lend and it will hold the economy back. I was arguing for Old Testament justice.

It's been written about, about just taking a banker in the middle of the public square and literally beating the hell out of them through financial reform. Because the system, the society, needed not only the catharsis, but we needed not only legislative reforms, but I think the whole system needed somebody to be held accountable. And my argument about financial reform was the bankers would be on the other side fighting you. I mean, the financial industry. In healthcare, to get it done...

And there's a memo to this effect is you're going to need the health care industry, the lessons out of the Clinton administration on your side of the table. The interest groups had to be brought over or neutralized. And that was a big debate. President Obama, you weigh kind of using the clock for health care or the fear about the economy. And you have to weigh these equities and never 100 percent. And you're right.

And not a baker and not a foreign policy establishment person. And that kind of populism we talk about, I refer to as anti-establishment and anti-elite. And then the Democrats in 06, 08 win. And because not only the type of candidates, the quality of candidates, but also because we were against what the establishment had done.

I think we don't realize how COVID flipped the script and we become the establishment. We become the elite. And there's a series of other things that are additive to it. And you're not wrong to raise that question. I think there's a political price to pay that literally, you know, when we were doing financial reform after health care,

Bankers are yelling about their bonuses. They deserve bonus. Washington shouldn't tell them. And we're bailing the industry out to the tune of $800 billion. And in those days, that was a big number. So you're not wrong on that level. Can you really channel anti-elite or anti-establishment sentiment here?

through the people of the establishment. And look, I'm talking to you. You're a former White House chief of staff. You're the ambassador to Japan. You've worked in finance. You've worked for presidents. You have led the DCCC. There can be a tendency to say that there's an anti-establishment mood and Democrats need to pick that up.

But does that mean a personnel changeover? Right. Like your brother is a major health advisor and was a significant voice, Ecomanual, during the pandemic. Your other brother runs WME. Right. Like when we talk about an anti-establishment mood, is it something that then requires a new generation of figures to channel that? Yeah.

Well, that's kind of a self-interested question from here. So yes and no. In the short answer, I mean, you look at Donald Trump and he's captured. I would not call the president-elect by any imaginations of what it is has to be an authentic voice of populism. Yet he has sold himself as that person. And he does it not just on economic basis. I will be your instrument of your revenge. And he's not. It just has to be authentic.

He's not exactly character A that you would point to. And I can give you the characters or individuals, rather not characters, in Europe, et cetera, that also don't, quote unquote, fit that mold that you're talking about and yet still have a voice that people attach to. That may tell you the depth of their anger, that they'll look past a lot of contradictions to get there. Fair question. But then I go back to what, when I was DCCC chair, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chair in 2006.

I can't tell you how many times I got told by members of the caucus, the people you're recruiting at that time, these were veterans of the Iraq-Afghanistan War, members of the intelligence community, national security apparatus, sheriffs, football players, different people, small business owners. And they said, well, these aren't real Democrats. I said, well, they actually reflect, as every election does, but the election has a story, a narrative behind it. They reflect this moment in time, and they are real Democrats.

They may not come out of your mold, but they reflect the reality of their congressional district, which I think tells that story. So part of the biography has to be authentic, but it's not 100% an explanation for electoral or policy success. It's a core piece, no doubt.

And I think the feeling has to be authentic. And we're talking for two reasons. But one reason is one night, a few weeks ago, I'm sitting in my chair reading and I get a call from a number I don't recognize. And I pick it up and it's you. And with a lot of fury, you start telling me that you just feel Democrats have lost their way. But one thing you said that you can say what you want to say from the conversation, but one thing you said that has been on my mind is

is that there were lessons in the Bill Clinton era, lessons in the Barack Obama era, that you feel the Democratic Party has tossed aside. That there's, on the one hand, I think you're right, an anti-establishment mood that the Democrats and the Biden and the Harris era did not channel and could not even speak to. But on the other hand, one of the things you have been saying publicly, and I think privately, is that there has also been a

throwing overboard of what you see as both institutional and political wisdom.

That I think you understand yourself as a vessel for helping the Democratic Party put back in front. So tell me what that wisdom is. Well, let me get one thing off. This is like therapy. So let me get one thing off. That's podcasts. Do you take Blue Cross Blue Shield off? No therapist does. That's the problem. Democrats. I mean, think about it. The harshest criticism of President Clinton and President Obama's tenure come from Democrats. Fact. Fact.

Bill Clinton, first Democrat to get reelected since Franklin Delano Roosevelt. That's a fact. Second, from 1968 to 1988, 20-year run, outside of Jimmy Carter, the Republicans run the presidency and they run on law and order under Richard Nixon, welfare queens under Ronald Reagan, and Willie Horton under George Herbert Walker Bush. Bill Clinton from Arkansas comes along and solves the riddle

of these holes, what we would call cultures, but crime, drugs, immigration, and welfare. Now, we can go through the policies, argue certainness of things, but he not only gets reelected, which is one measure of success, but he also sets in a period of time, I think it's six out of the last seven presidential elections, Democrats win the majority of votes. I'm not saying he's totally responsible for it, but it sets a pattern. And rather than learn the lesson

of how we solved a 20-year problem for the party that had weighed on Michael Takakis, weighed on every other candidate prior to that. We totally shun his presidency aside. The people that study it are the Republicans. They learn from it.

Now, the same thing, President Obama, through both talking about his community service in working with steel workers and communities, how he then addressed the saving both Chrysler and GM and the auto industry, and not just the industry and the jobs, but the communities that relied on that single plant in, you know, a Youngstown, Ohio, or in a Rockford, Illinois, or in a Saginaw or Flint, Michigan. And he could relate to it.

And we say, oh, well, that economic recovery was just so low and small. It wasn't big. It wasn't bold. One Ohio got reelected, passed major health care. You don't do 100 percent. And we look at this and then you can take this election and we're not only losing working class whites, we're losing working class blacks and Hispanics. And it is under a tenure of a president who clearly most pro-labor people

president since either John Kennedy or Harry S. Truman. And I've said this to you privately, I've said it publicly, there is more to people than the collection of their wallet and their checkbook. They care about where their kids go to school. They care about whether their wives, spouses, or partners, or children can drive a car without being carjacked. And yelling at people

Well, crime is coming down. Doesn't work. Let me tell you something. I mean, as a former mayor, nobody walks around going, you know what? I feel 22% safer in 2024 than I did in 2023. Crime's a feeling, a sense of a place of mind. And rather than telling people you don't see the data, which is how we come off, we should be saying here's our agenda to ensure that we keep reducing crime. And here's what we're going to do next. We're going to work on carjacking, car thefts.

which is actually what is going up, not coming down. Now, think about this. Pre-COVID is another example of an issue and where I think our party goes wrong. Pre-COVID, Democrats historically run somewhere between a 15 to 22 point advantage on education. From COVID forward, the only two things you hear from Democrats on education is we're going to shut the school down.

We're going to close the front door of the school. And after COVID, we're going to blow open the bathroom school door. That's it. Not what you're going to do on math, not what you're going to do on reading, what you're going to do to drive graduation. And now what is the net result? Not only are parents pulling kids out of public schools, we're barely breaking even on the issue of education. And a president is running for election saying, I'm going to shut down the Department of Education. And we don't have a credible voice or a credible box to stand on.

We took a singular issue that we were the voice on and Republicans were 20 points behind us on, on average, and we've lost it all. And we don't even look at why is it? We were very strong pro-labor as a party. Joe Biden gets credit for that. We lost working class votes. And these are parents. They live in a community. They send their kids to school. They send their kids to a park facility, a library.

They're driving in their community. We don't actually, in the name of fighting for working, but we don't actually hear them. We don't listen to them. We know we tell them how to eat their peas.

It's hard for me to hear you say that. And I think these are also lessons from your mayorship, which is not really where I want to focus on in this conversation. But a lot of the angriest criticism of you was around shutting down schools and what those schools meant to communities. Did that change your sense of what it means when a school is not functioning, what a school means in a place? No, I mean, there's no look. It was an angry part. I mean, I talk about it and we did things like this.

drive our graduation rate up. But that was the hardest, one of the hardest decisions I made as a mayor. You had schools that were built for 800 with 200 or less kids. And it was incredibly hard because it was not just a school, it was an anchor in the community. Not only couldn't you afford it, but the kids, the schools were three, four, five, six, seven years in a row failing. And the school meant something emotionally, physically, and I get it, very tough.

But I, you know, I think what's tougher, letting a kid, because it was politically hard, stay in a failing school. In the end of the day, eight years later, while other mayors have opposed what I did, they haven't opened up the schools. One of the measures of success you mentioned with both Clinton and Obama, and I think correctly, is re-election. Let me say one thing. I don't mean to interrupt you, sir.

I made that decision in my first term and got reelected. I'm not saying it was easy, but there is a measure there in the both on the academic side and the political side. Well, that actually sets up what I'm going to ask, which is one of the measures you've mentioned here is reelection, right, for Clinton, for Obama. And one critique you hear of both of them is that, yes, they got reelected.

But under them, the Democratic Party down ballot got annihilated. So Clinton – under Clinton, Democrats lose the House for the first time in 40 years. Under Barack Obama, huge wipeouts in 2010, very, very rough election in 2014.

And Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has made a version of this argument against you that, yes, what they were able to do was successfully manage their own political capital. But they were not able to build a strong and healthy Democratic Party. And one of the reasons the Democratic Party subsequently turned on their brands of politics, more so on Clinton than Obama in my view – obviously Joe Biden was Obama's vice president –

Is that the party felt that what they did worked for them, but not for the future of the Democratic Party. There's a legitimacy to her observation and a conclusion. I don't think it explains everything and I don't think it's 100 percent accurate, but it's a valid critique. One, you already start under Ronald Reagan seeing what are called Reagan Democrats, that movement.

And the South, which had been a bastion for Democrats that we remembered, was shifting earlier than President Clinton. But it was a wipeout and it doesn't explain everything.

I had disagreements with Bill Clinton. He thinks it was the assault weapon ban. I don't think it was passing the assault weapon ban that caused the loss. President Clinton and I, having been responsible for seeing that legislation through, had a 20-year run in debate on whether the assault weapon ban was responsible for 94. And

He does get reelected and Democrats do make gains. And by the way, in 1998, he breaks a 100 year kind of norm, which is in the six year presidency. A presidency just gets blown out. Actually, the Democrats pick up House seats. So her critique is not wrong, but it's not 100 percent accurate to what happened.

It's more kind of devastating what happens from a Democrat than when President Obama is done. I think we have the lowest House and legislative seats in about 100 years. I do think American politics is fundamentally different. This is my view. Other people can argue. After the war and the financial meltdown.

And it's never getting above. You can't get a president today above 60 percent. You can't get, you know, right track, wrong track has been politicized. Economic sense, right track, wrong track in the sense of the direction of the country. Economic sentiment about whether the economy is healthy or not healthy has been politicized. And the legitimacy and delegitimacy of Washington is in a place that's different than it was pre-2000.

Now, to the effect on the party, a lot of efforts under President Obama are to build outside the party, not inside the party infrastructure. And that has its own consequence as well. And so it's a critique. And as I've already said, it's somewhat accurate, but somewhat inaccurate. Because I do think as you start from Bill Clinton's election forward, did create on a national level a favorable environment for Democrats because he finally took

what we call this bag of issues, this cultural set of issues, and took them off the Democratic back and allowed us to get heard on a whole host of economic issues that we hadn't been heard on before.

AI is coming to your industry, if it isn't already here. But AI needs a lot of speed and computing power. So how do you compete without costs spiraling? Upgrade to Oracle Cloud Infrastructure, or OCI. OCI is the blazing fast and secure platform for your infrastructure, database, application development, and AI workloads.

As a parent, you want what's best for your teen. You want them to grow and thrive in this world. But you also want to make sure they're staying safe. That's why Instagram is introducing teen accounts.

This then gets to the other reason I wanted to have you on the show, which is after 12 years, the person who wins a house back is you. You're the chair of the DCCC in the 2006 election, which is a huge, huge Democratic wave victory. And you're the chair of the DCCC in the 2006 election, which is a huge, huge Democratic wave victory.

And I've been thinking a lot about 2004, which is maybe where I want to start, because 2004 to me felt the most for Democrats like 2024 of anything, at least in my memory. Yeah.

George W. Bush, it was known by then that the Iraq War was sold on lies. It was known by then that the Iraq War was proving to be a disaster. There's a sense that who Bush was hadn't been fully understood in 2000. He was an accidental president. There were butterfly ballots in Florida. He had lost the popular vote. And then in 2004, when it is known, when the consequences of his policies are seemingly more clear, at least to liberals—

He wins in a much more decisive fashion. And thereafter, there's a huge backlash against and inside the Democratic Party that feels very similar to today. Democrats have lost touch with the heartland is one of the arguments.

They have been too liberal on gay marriage. There were these gay marriage ballot initiatives that were partially blamed for their loss. There's a sense that Democrats need to moderate. They need to move to the center. They need to regain a connection to an America that they no longer know or understand. And there's not just a confusion but a sense of alienation. That's at least how I would describe it. But let me ask you how you understood the 2004 election when it happened.

2004 felt more like a gut punch really to the solar plex because everything else you could kind of explain away. 2002, the Republicans win in a midterm first election post 9-11.

You could explain that 2000. You can say the Supreme Court, the Supreme National, the U.S. Supreme Court cheated the Florida Supreme Court from doing their responsibility and made a decision, quote unquote, only for this one case. To me, that was illegitimate. But by 2004, winning an election outright, no more trying to explain away the problem.

And in 2004, you can sit there and play out how John Kerry ran the idea that you could take a guy like President Bush

who skirted on his own responsibilities with the National Guard, and yet John Kerry serves in Vietnam, serves his country, puts on the uniform, etc. Part of his whole, not just biography, but his political legitimacy. And it turns out to be seen as weak on national security. And you can argue President Bush illegitimately attacked his character and his service. I think when you look back at the campaign, then

Then Senator Kerry totally mismanaged his campaign, talking about like on Iraq, I was for it before I was against it. Just major things that become character references and character points to him. So the way I look at 2004 is my conversation with Nancy Pelosi when she calls to ask me literally the first week afterwards to run the DCCC for 06 election. And I think that 04, there was no more hiding and making excuses to ourselves what we had lost.

You couldn't use a 22,000, you know, 500 ballots in Florida, not legitimate, etc. We had lost three elections in a row. And there was a fundamental problem, both on the quality of the people we were putting forward and the message we were putting forward.

Well, when you say we were it, right, this is one of the questions I think is interesting about 2004, and maybe it's an overly optimistic one for Democrats to look at. Because Republicans then, Karl Rove said quite a lot in this direction, believe they were building a realignment. They believe they were building a permanent majority of some kind. They thought that 2004—

foretold a reshaping of American politics. And two years later and then four years later, it doesn't look anything like that. And the fear that Democrats have lost touch and need to become, I don't exactly want to say Republican-lite, but I do want to say Republican-lite, is also not their path back to victory. No, that's not, I mean,

I'm not saying you're saying that. I'm saying that was a very common piece of punditry at that moment. Let me say this. There are issues in which you want to sand down the difference so there isn't a difference. And the reason you want to is to move them to your favorable terrain. But there's a reason I went out and recruited candidates on the national security front.

You know, if you're going to flip a Republican district, you're going to take all these cultural issues because the biography told a story. They had a legitimacy based on their experience and their story, their biography, their life's work made that swing voter culturally comfortable. That created a space for then the rest of the story to get it told. We both had an agenda that differed with President Bush. And I would just for the record say,

Last time the minimum wage got raised was right after 06 election. There was a actual strategic plan, both on the policy side and on the county recruitment side. And it was a hand in glove. And yes, I got, I mean, you can go back. I think you and I started to get to know each other. I was getting pummeled. I wasn't recruiting real Democrats, football players, sheriffs, you know, people that worked in the Air Force, armed forces of this country fought overseas. There were other people, small business owners.

All types of people were recruited. Why? Because there was a connectivity between the voters in that district that was and you got to go back. Those districts were created to be literally a firewall against Democrats. They were created. They were gerrymandered. So you couldn't pick the lock.

We picked the lock with candidates in districts that you were not supposed to be able to do it. Now it is the sixth year of a presently very unpopular war. And we prosecuted the war. And the war was built on a building blocks of deception. And it was a prepudiation in the sixth year of President Bush's presidency. And then we shouldn't over forget this in 04,

They did think, Karl Rove and others, that they were building a lasting coalition, realigning politics, and they overshot the runway on Social Security. He never mentions it. And then comes the first thing he's going to do is I have a mandate for Social Security. Well, bring it on. Let's go. Because it drew the contrast where you wanted the terrain to be on your side, and we minimized the terrain on their side. That's how you develop a strategy.

And not only did we win 30 seats in 06, we went back and won more seats in 08 in the presidential year and followed a similar playbook. And in 2018, it was replicated again in the first midterm of President Trump's first term. That candidate recruitment, the issues you focus on, how you kind of, where you move the shift, the campaign storyline to the most favorable terrain. It's not different than what President Trump

Clinton did by addressing the set of cultural issues. It's not different than what President Obama did in prosecuting both against Romney and then against John McCain in the earlier 08. There are certain issues you differentiate and you have clear contrast and there are certain issues in which you don't.

That's how you run a campaign. If you were thinking about that for right now, right? And we haven't seen the Trump administration, the second Trump administration begin. We haven't seen it take shape. We don't know if there will be an analog to social security. Okay, I got this question because I've been thinking, yes. But yes, what, as you sit up at night. Or as Henry Kissinger used to say, does anybody have questions for my answers? Yes, I have those. Here's what frustrates me.

Look, Donald Trump, I do agree that President Trump, I keep doing that, he's a president like Trump, is a threat to democracy. We have those voters on hello. If they think that the issue of threat to democracy, threat to the rule of law, if they're not a yes by now, they're never going to be a yes. We had them on hello. President Trump is going to turn the Oval Office into eBay.

He is going to sell it to every special interest, and you're going to be left paying that tab. And the Democratic Party is the thin blue line between the pharmaceutical industry getting everything they want or you paying everything you have. The Democratic Party is a thin blue line that will protect your kids from TikTok. And the Oval Office will become eBay. And whoever pays the highest price will get what they want, and you'll be left paying through the nose.

We should have turned what people think. This is what polling and focus groups are about. They do have a view of President Trump, both his character and his strengths, his weaknesses. We never prosecuted the case of how his not just character, but how he's going to run the Oval Office. And he did it. He used to say, oh, they give me lots of money. I'm going to give them, you know, like the oil and gas industry.

They gave me a billion dollars. I'm going to give them all the cuts and regulations. Here's a very funny line on this with Elon Musk. He said, I don't like electric vehicles, but now Elon Musk supports me, so I got to. Yeah, he was against TikTok before he was for it. And your kids are going to be controlled by the Chinese. We never prosecuted what the Oval Office is going to look like under Donald Trump and how much you're going to pay for it.

We process, like give you an example. Take what I think President Biden did successfully, which is get the ability to negotiate pharmaceutical prices down and negotiate with the pharmaceutical industry. And you got lower prices on insulin. We wanted to talk about the benefit we did. No, the first president took the pharmaceutical industry and beat the living crap out of them. And if we're not there, the thin blue line, you're going to go back to paying right through the nose.

And President Trump, as you just by example, oil and gas industry, EVs with Elon Musk, TikTok, it was a target rich environment. And we left it. We ran around around democracy and the rule of law, which I agree with. But guess what? We had those voters. It was the other ones we needed.

We talked about what made us feel so good about ourselves. Like we're all, this is the other thing. I mean, now I'm, I really do hope you take blue cross blue shield because I got to get this. It's like, think about this as a party, not just that we didn't prosecute the case that was fully present and actually fits with what people are worried about, about Donald Trump. We talked about what we cared about, not what they wanted to hear, but also think about how we talk about any issue that,

As a party, this is what drives me crazy. Take this, the caring economy. I have never met anybody who's described themselves in the caring economy. I've met social workers. I met daycare workers. I met nurses, RNs. I've never met anybody who says I'm in the caring economy. But we talked about it. You know, when you attack people, and I say this, my uncle was a police officer, etc. Defund the police. And they said, well, it doesn't mean that. Well, then don't use the English language.

If it doesn't mean what you said it was, don't use the English language. Okay? Start speaking in Japanese, French, but don't say what you just said and then tell me it doesn't mean that. Latinx and people that it's supposed to be appealed to, it doesn't represent them. We talk about people of color. Anybody who's been a mayor in a city knows that doesn't exist.

We use language to feel good about ourselves, not to communicate. We all think we're applying to be adjunct professors at a small liberal arts college. We come off exactly like who we are. It's insane. And the case against Donald Trump. Now, again, I want to be honest. I've been in Tokyo for three years. It pretty clear it wasn't democracy and the rule of law.

After the last eight years he's been in the public life, that was apparent. And everything that was, all the gold that you could have gotten out of that, you had. It was the other piece of the story that actually mattered to people's pocketbooks. And he will, and you can see by the cabinet that President-elect Trump is putting together, he will turn the Oval Office, not only to the special interests who are

President Biden fought, whether it was on oil and gas, whether it was pharmaceutical prices, took on every one of those special interests who had had control of Washington. He broke their hold. And Donald Trump is going to let him back in. And not only back in, you're going to pay for it every day. And we never prosecuted the other piece of it. The American dream is unaffordable. The American dream is inaccessible and it's unacceptable to us.

The idea that people can walk around with multiple homes and a family can't get a home, can't afford a retirement, can't afford their kids' education is unacceptable. There's a whole case to be made. Isn't that a hard case to make when it's worst in the places where Democrats govern?

No, not at all. Because you're thinking about it because I don't want to criticize you on your show. I'm a fair target on my show, man. No, no, no. Because you're thinking linear. This is about where your heart is. This is about where your sentiment is. I mean, I want to go back to Bill Clinton. But as he said in the snows in New Hampshire, when his draft letter is out and

The hits on me are nothing compared to the hits on your kids are going to take if we don't turn this country around. Now, I didn't say to you one policy right there. It's a sentiment about where your heart and soul is. Somebody's got to stand up and fight for real change. Look, this is a contact sport. I knew all this would happen or I knew something like this would happen. This is not about me. I can handle this. What's the worst can happen to me? I

I go home to my family, my friends, my life, my job. This is not a big deal for me. It is a very big deal for the political process, and that's where I want to leave it. You know, I want to see this election fought out on what we're going to do to change the future of the people of this country. And most of the people do, too, and they are being robbed of the chance to do it. That's the point I want to make.

I mean, I have my own criticism of what are tough things and how Democrats make things more difficult than they need to be to get things done. As a former mayor trying to get a train station opened up and how many multiple environmental studies you have to do at the city level, the state level, the federal level. There is a need for reform.

And we got to be honest about it. But the fact that it's more what I'm talking about, whether it's owning a home, saving for your kids' education, saving for your retirement, being able to afford a healthcare expense without going into Chapter 11, that is not only a sentiment, but also where your heart and soul is. People are, yes, you are right, linear, Ezra. What are the policies to do that? But they really just want to know, do you get it? Do you know where they are? I used to, I mean, there was a whole thing we talked

started about what I called Congress on Your Corner. And I used to meet people at grocery stores, not town halls, but just where they live their lives, where they're shopping. And if they wanted to come over and talk about Medicare, Medicaid, veterans benefits, immigration issues, schools, some of my best policies that I introduced came from those times where I met people at a grocery store. Congress on Your Corner.

So when you say, oh, well, that's the worst in cities. I don't agree with that. It just kind of broad brush. That said, there's enough problems that we could be the party that reforms government, makes it more responsive to people.

What does the future hold for business? Can someone please invent a crystal ball? Until then, over 40,000 businesses have future-proofed their business with NetSuite by Oracle, the number one cloud ERP, bringing accounting, financial management, inventory, HR into one fluid platform.

With real-time insights and forecasting, you're able to peer into the future and seize new opportunities. Download the CFO's Guide to AI and Machine Learning for free at netsuite.com slash NYT. That's netsuite.com slash NYT.

I gave my brother a New York Times subscription. She sent me a year-long subscription so I have access to all the games. We'll do Wordle, Mini, Spelling Bee. It has given us a personal connection. We exchange articles. And so having read the same article, we can discuss it. The coverage, the options, it's not just news. Such a diversified disc.

I was really excited to give him a New York Times cooking subscription so that we could share recipes. And we even just shared a recipe the other day. The New York Times contributes to our quality time together. You have all of that information at your fingertips. It enriches our relationship, broadening our horizons. It was such a cool and thoughtful gift. We're reading the same stuff. We're making the same food. We're on the same page.

Connect even more with someone you care about. Learn more about giving a New York Times subscription as a gift. At nytimes.com slash gift. Get a special rate if you act before December 6th. I want to pick up on that idea of reform and corruption. Yeah. I was thinking this week and talking to people in politics who actually run in and win elections. And this kept coming up that.

In 1994, one of the absolute best issues for Republicans in retaking Congress for the first time in 40 years was reform. They ran on term limits, on unbalanced budget, right? They ran against Democrats as corrupt and out of touch. People really, I think, forget how much Barack Obama's 2008 campaign was a reformist campaign. I'll make our government open and transparent so that anyone can ensure that our business is the people's business.

Justice Louis Brandeis once said, "Sunlight is the greatest disinfectant." And as President, I'm going to make it impossible for congressmen or lobbyists to slip pork barrel projects or corporate welfare into laws when no one's looking, because when I'm President, meetings where laws are written will be more open to the public, no more secrecy. That's a commitment I make to you as President.

He ran against special interests, against cable news, against political consultants. He was somebody who ran as disgusted with the way Washington worked. In 2016, Donald Trump ran as a political reformer, a wrecking ball to drain the swamp. 2006, we ran against the house that Tom DeLay built. Because this all comes back to the American people.

They have to have confidence that Congress is here to work in the people's interest, not the special interest. They have to know, and I honestly believe, that you cannot advance the people's agenda unless you drain the swamp that is Washington, D.C. And then in this election, one of the things that happened was Democrats became—

Very much synonymous with the institutions. Joe Biden is both the president and has been in Washington for many decades. Kamala Harris is the vice president of that administration. And one thing that just did not exist in the Democratic campaign was any kind of reformist impulse. There was Donald Trump, who hates the way Washington works. A hundred percent. And the Democrats who were there to defend Washington from Donald Trump. Yeah.

Look, reform and as well as corruption aren't the same thing. And yes, they also are heads and tails of the same coin. This is also why in Europe you're getting people running races against Brussels. We don't fully, as I can say, this is a mayor, a former mayor of big city. Government is way too big and cumbersome and it is too hard to do basic things.

And we end up defending the rules rather than the results. We need to be the party that is for the results. And if the government is a problem or the rules and regulations that we have the right purpose but are becoming their own problem, we're defending something that is indefensible. Look, a classic example. If climate change, which I agree, is an existential crisis, you don't leave it just to FERC.

It's either an existential crisis or FERC is the greatest thing that ever existed. FERC being the group that does transmission line regulations and permitting. I'm just, thank you for explaining what I said. Democrats seem a lot of touch to me, Rom. Too many acronyms. I have a rule here as ambassador. One acronym per paragraph. Okay, that's it. No more. Look, I agree climate change is an existential crisis.

But you can't tell me it's an existential crisis. And the way FERC operates to agree to get a transmission line in, which has a seven-year backlog, is perfect. Never to be touched. We're going to defend FERC. I understand the role it plays. Are you telling me there's nothing we can do that guarantees an end result in two years so we can actually do what we said we were going to do, get transmission lines that can handle solar, wind, and other renewables? It's crazy.

And on the face of it, it's crazy. It's an existential crisis that will wait seven years for a result to build a transmission line from one city to another. My grandfather said, the great political philosopher Hermann Schmolowitz, what are you, Meshuggah? This is crazy. I did an L-stop near McCormick Place, a train stop in Chicago. We had to do an environmental study. After we were done, the state did an environmental study, another 18 months. After both of us were done, we sent it up to Washington. They did another environmental study. Really? Really?

And you're telling me there's nothing we can do? It took three years to put a train station on an empty lot. It's crazy. One reason this is a hard case for Democrats to make is there's nothing they did. And specifically here, this has been a frustration for me because I focus much too much probably on environmental permitting and siting.

Look, the Biden administration, the administration you're part of is ambassador. Their signal accomplishment is the Inflation Reduction Act, which is primarily built around decarbonization investments and alongside that, the infrastructure bill. And health care. I think that's an important thing that was in there, but I'm going to say the climate investments were the big piece of that. I got it. And they did not ever put forward, even though they know and they have said publicly that a huge problem is getting this stuff built quickly. Right.

They did not ever put forward their own significant permitting reform plan, bill, anything. They supported the Joe Manchin plan that eventually emerged, which was a mixed bag to say the least.

But because it would split their own coalition, because permitting reform is a difficult issue for Democrats because a lot of the environmental groups don't like it, they never came out and said, this is what we think we should do to truly speed this up. The party should have done what I don't, and I'm not here to try to relive Bill Clinton, the Al Gore. It worked. The Al Gore Commission that reformed government.

It did actually cut bureaucrats in Washington rules and regulations, and it funded adding 100,000 community police officers throughout the country, which actually is starting in 94. If you take 10 years after 94 versus 10 years before 94, you can look at the difference between crime rates. It worked on reforming government. It also worked on funding public safety and other initiatives that Democrats cared about.

We should be against government rules. Now, let me side note, this is not the core of your question. People always say democracy is broken. It's not. It's very successful at the state and local level where people have trust in their government and feel it touches their lives and they have a connection to it. It's broken in Brussels and in Washington. The farther government gets away, where only rules and regulations are what we care about and processes. We never, ever talk about the results.

We defend a status quo that is broken. We're insane doing it politically, and it's not actually accurate about what it's trying to accomplish. And then there's a side piece. I laughed when I was snickering here. You can't tell when President Obama becomes a senator. I'm a congressman with Illinois and Chicago.

Marty Meehan, my colleague in the House, and Senator Obama, Russ Feingold, John McCain, we worked on a lobbying and ethics reform legislation. And it passed it. And I'm unfairly, I think it was Chris Shays was the Republican in the House who worked with us on it. It was bipartisan, et cetera. Yeah. Fighting, and it was coming on the heels. We fought against it.

All the corruption that, you know, you talk about public corruption, but a lot of people also saw the war and the way it was prosecuted at that time as corruption. It wasn't this distinct piece of

of government rules, regulations, money, lobbyists, access, etc. They also thought the way Washington worked, how we got ourselves deceptively into a war was corruption. And so we worked on that together and it was what President Obama ran on because we had worked on it when he was a senator and I was a congressman. It was the legislation we introduced and passed. And again, whether it's the integrity of public service

or whether it's also the knowing that the system and the rules and regulations are not producing the results we want, we, as part of the establishment, have adopted the voice of defending the establishment when it's failing. It's like makes no sense policy-wise, and it's absolutely a dead failure politically. Why do you think Democrats have done that?

You're asking me Democrats and it's like a lot of us, but... Why do you think that has happened? No, I know it's, you know, I think it's happened because we're comfortable in being the establishment. We're comfortable with what we have built and defended. Even Franklin Delano Roosevelt talked about constantly reforming, constantly changing. If it doesn't succeed, throw it out, try something else. I want to tell a little anecdote to illustrate a point.

In the balanced budget negotiations in 1997, when we get to kids' health care, President Clinton had pediatric care, eye and dental care paid through Medicaid expansion to take kids whose parents worked, made more money than Medicaid, but get them health care. The Republicans had only pediatric care, no eye and dental, but it had to be a new program outside of Medicaid because they hated Medicaid.

Final, blah, blah, blah, blah. Bruce Reed, Gene's brother, and myself, we negotiate. It would be the president's health care plan, pediatric care, eye and dental, but it would not be in Medicaid. And a number of Democrats voted against it because we weren't screaming about Medicaid. I said, you know, I got to say this as a son of a pediatrician. I know a lot of people think I'm a son of something else, but people never talked about how they got paid. They cared about whether the kids had eye and dental care. That's what the priorities are.

And we were a defender of how it was going to be funded rather than what the result was. The result of kids' health care plan was to get kids health care, not to fight about which government program paid it or whether there was a new one. I get the point. It's very important if you work at the Brookings Institute in Aspen. It is not important if you're a working mother and you're single and you're trying to figure out how to get your children health care and make sure they have sunglasses so they can read the blackboard. That's what matters. And we were, we lost,

people, because it wasn't Medicaid expansion. And again, it's legitimate. It's just not more important than the end result, which was health care for children. I think the critique is that... I think this show is very good for my emotional health. I'm happy to hear that. We try to provide many levels of service here at the Ezra Klein Show. I don't think you actually get full benefit for what you're doing. So, yeah.

The critique I hear is that the reason the Democratic Party does not want to change more or does not focus more on changing the way things work is that many of the people in it benefit from it and they benefit from it.

in ways that are legitimate and straightforward, right? They work for programs that they want those programs to be funded. They use powers like the ability to sue under the environmental litigation. They often use it for good reasons, but then they don't want it foreclosed on them, even if it's having bad effects elsewhere. And there's a view that there's corruption in the Democratic Party, too. There's views that Nancy Pelosi did not want the

to change the rules on insider trading of individual stocks among members of Congress. But there is a sense that Democrats are in this system, making money, having good jobs, being inside the revolving door, and that you can't trust them to change a system they benefit from, all the way from the staffers moving from place to place up to people like Rahm Emanuel and Nancy Pelosi who have done pretty well in politics. Well, look,

I think the problem is you're conflating both reforming ethics and reforming the government the way it works. So I would just say to you, Ezra, that while they fit together, they're separate issues. The fact is,

The Democrats have always been the party, not always, we have ups and downs on this, but fighting corruption. I can say that in my tenure as mayor, three different ethics packages. And I can continue to do that. And we have to be a party that is never satisfied, never the defenders of the status quo, always wanting to change something to make other people's lives better. And that's been our voice for

Going back to whether it's Kennedy, Roosevelt, Truman, whatever, Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, pick your president. The fact is being satisfied with the way things are is not where people are. But I think the argument here is that people in the Democratic Party benefit from the way things are.

And they raise money from the way things are. And that's a tough thing about this system. You need money to run these elections. I was reading a bunch of old pieces, New Yorker profiles of you, pieces about the 06 campaign, about the just difficulty of raising money in that campaign, the decisions you all were making for this $100,000 or that $500,000. And the argument that has been made again and again is that it just – in order to win in the system, you almost have to become a party, right?

That is a defender of the system and that that's something in the end that in his own strange way, Trump with his own money, Elon Musk with his own money were able to exploit because people thought they were outside the system and as such not corrupted by it. True and not true. That's why you prosecute a case that the Oval Office is going to become eBay and sell out. You know, that's why you prosecute that case.

Because, you know, if you're telling me that we're the only people, individuals, that's quote-unquote making money on the system, which I don't accept to critique, then you make it about the other side, which actually, if you go look at the polling in the focus groups, was more believable. One thing I wonder if Democrats are underestimating the danger of is the Vivek Ramaswamy-Elon Musk Department of Government Efficiency.

And you've got Musk, who has an incredibly loud megaphone through X, which he owns and controls.

And, you know, it's sitting outside the government. It's not exactly what power it will have. They're putting people like Marjorie Taylor Greene in charge of important dimensions of this, which suggests to me they may not approach this in the most strategic and careful way. But nevertheless, you have something that can have incredible levels of media attention and publicity around it where Republicans are in a very high profile way going at at least what they call government inefficiency.

What have you thought watching that thing stand up? And how do you think Democrats should respond to it? I would say welcome it. And I would say 100% ready to meet with you. Let's go and have a full agenda that puts them on their back foot. And they have to make a choice between what they say they're for and what their actual interests are. The part of a political strategy is you put people in, you know, as Yogi Berger used to say, when you get to the fork in the road, take it. And so that's what would be my approach.

Not fight it. People want to reform something, change something. I'm 100% for it. Let's go. Couldn't be more excited. Ready to meet today. And then I would put it down on the table and I'd have a full agenda, 10 items that is proactive, not waiting, not in the receiving. Say, don't say, show me stuff. Here's what we want to get done. And then go right at the soft underbelly of the other side.

The flip side of that commission is that all of a sudden you have Ram Swamy, who's on this show and has made the point that it is you, Medicare and Medicaid, are mistakes. You have Musk, who is tweeting out Ron Paul clips. It reminds me a little bit of Bush and Social Security privatization, where you have Trump, a candidate who did not run on massive spending cuts to government.

who has now appointed people who have – who get attention on them in a way other people who are in his actual government will not, who seem very excited about cutting ideally trillions of dollars in government spending. The new person Trump is appointing treasury secretary has also talked about the need for very significant spending cuts. The Trump for a long time operated –

outside of the long-running Republican desire to slash deep into government operations in ways that were often pretty unpopular. And in his first term, Republicans spent more money and didn't pay for it and cut taxes and didn't pay for it. And now all of a sudden in the second term, it seems like there is a return, but under a more Trumpist banner of the Hackensack side of the Republican Party.

Is that an opportunity for Democrats? Yes. They have inherent contradiction. They have people who want to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and they have a president who doesn't. That's like, go. Let's go for it. Let's go have this debate. Ready. And if they want to go after poor kids and nutritional programs, let's have it. They want to go after the subsidies we give single people who are small business owners getting access to health care and have premium support. Let's have that. I'm ready.

I will tell you this one anecdote, and I'm named by President Obama, Chief of Staff. So one of the things I first do when we get to Washington is I ask Senator McConnell, then the minority leader, for a meeting, and he brings his leadership. And Senator McConnell says, I think we should work on Social Security. And remember, this is 08. The economy is literally going headfirst into a depression.

And the idea that the first thing we're going to work on is Social Security. So I said, well, why don't we do this? There's a lot of ideas kicking around. Why don't you propose some legislation on Social Security, what your ideas are for reform? And I will tell you, we'll be open to hearing about them. But you're a big leader. You have a big platform. Make your changes. We're going to work right now on getting the economy away from a depression. And he kind of had this wry smile, knowing exactly what I was saying.

So if others in the Republican Party and President Trump's appointees want to propose cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, put it out there. Be my guest. I got some ideas of how to expand health care coverage for people. You have ideas about how you want to cut it? Fine. Let's have that debate. You've been floated by David Axelrod, among others, for Democratic National Committee chair. Is that a job you want?

I think I want the Democrats to get back being the majority party and fighting for the families and their children. Whether I'm going to finish up my job in the next month here in Tokyo, I have three things I got to get done. Feel very good about the tenure here in the alliance. And when I get back to America and back to my home in Chicago, I'll make my decision of what I'm going to do the best way I think I can do that. Whoever is DNC chair next,

What should the DNC be? Political parties are something very different than they were three generations ago, two generations ago. They go back and forth right now. Laura Trump is the co-chair of the Republican National Committee. So that's become a much more personalist party. When you look at the Democratic Party and you've been a Democratic Party man for many, many years now and serving in many different dimensions of it.

What do you think the party should do? What role should it play in people's lives? What is a political party in the year 2024 and what should it be in the year 2030? Well, you got to deal with the here and now and then you got to plan for the long term. So one is within a year, you're going to have a very important election for governor of New Jersey and governor of Virginia. And you're going to have state house elections.

Now, you've got to make sure you have the resources for that and the ability to support the candidates who get the nomination and to make the most of what will be one year into President Trump's tenure. And one of the things I think Democrats have to do, if I was a DNC and working with the party chairs, but I'm not that, is...

We are going to have every position, every county, somebody's going to have a name on the ballot. Because if it's a referendum election, you want to have people in poll position. And you've got to have the infrastructure to do that. Both the old shoe leather plus digital, not one or the other. But then there's the ideas. We have spent eight years telling everybody what we're against on Donald Trump. We're very anti the Trump. We haven't filled out the profile of what we're pro-America.

Now, I'm a product like everybody else is of my tenure. You could go back to President Clinton's three covenant speeches. He filled out that he was not just against 12 years of Reagan and Bush, but here's what we got to do, as he would say, to build a bridge to the 21st century so everybody can get across that bridge.

So you have to not just build an identity opposing Trump. You have to also build an identity of who you're fighting for, why you're fighting, who you're fighting against, and what you're fighting for the end result to be.

And a party can help build that. Now, in past times, when Bill Clinton was head of the DLC, that was the intellectual energy, the Democratic Leadership Circle, for that kind of intellectual work. So a party has to do both of those, not only win elections, not only help root coup candidates, not only fund them, not only have the infrastructure, but then have the intellectual healthy debate about where we're going to go as a party and how we're going to do that.

You talked about finding candidates in 2006 that defied the stereotypes of Democratic Party and helped pick the locks in Republican districts, candidates who had a different profile on national security or law enforcement. Given what this moment is, given the types of places in which Democrats are struggling, more rural districts, working class voters, who are those candidates now? If you were either overseeing or advising candidates,

a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chair working on candidate recruitment. Who are you looking for? You know, it's interesting if you look at some of the frontrunners in both the New Jersey governor's race and the Virginia governor's race. I think Gottheimer in Jersey, Spratmerger in Virginia, both have been independent enough that they've taken on their own party. It's part of their character. It's part of their profile. They're not just a yes person. They have fought, whether it's leadership or interest groups.

Well, there's going to be a primary. They got to win it. But it's interesting to me that those are some of the names battling around. I think independence is a streak that I'm going to look for, that if I was sitting here and I could like, give me somebody that ran against the grain, said publicly what people are thinking, but didn't have the courage, but they did. So their independence as a quality is,

That gives them kind of the anti-establishment, the anti-elite tone. I'm sitting here at 10,000 feet two years, you know, we're not about three weeks away from the last election. To me, independence, saying things that are politically correct, willing to take on not just X interest group or whatever, but even your own party's interest group or leadership. To me, that's the gold mine I want to go work in.

Democrats are watching with a lot of alarm at nominations like Hegseth for defense and

nominations like Tulsi Gabbard for national intelligence. They were very obviously worried about the Matt Gaetz nomination that has been since withdrawn or replaced by Pam Bondi. There are things Donald Trump is doing and will do that have more of the flavor of authoritarianism, more of the flavor of installing loyalists in key roles where the government could be weaponized. And on the one hand, I think that is the most dangerous set of things I see him doing.

at least seeming to be interested in. And on the other hand, those may not be the things that most Americans care about or even really believe you on, right? Those are not pocketbook issues. Those are not necessarily corruption that will line his pockets. And so there's going to be, at least sometimes, this choice Democrats need to make between the things that scare them most and

And the things that if you're watching a focus group or thinking about what will help in a forthcoming election, you really want to make the center of your message over and over and over and over again. How do you think about that tradeoff when you are trying to oppose or block someone who does seem to have authoritarian at least pretenses? You know, President Trump and his team, it's going to be a target-rich environment of things you're going to oppose. But not everything has to be opposed.

And you're going to have to be disciplined about you pick and choose where you're going to have the fight. If you fight everything, part of his strategy is to so overwhelm the system, you're going to drown in it. When it comes to a cabinet, this may be the old chief of staff of me, if you're on the other side of this, you're going to have to pick where you're going to, you can't do the whole cabinet and you can't do all of them. You can't do just you want to do national security.

And so you have to, if you're Democrats organizing this, you're going to have to look at the whole field. What makes Republicans most uncomfortable? They're not going to break from the president on all of them. What puts them in the weakest position, not only vis-a-vis the White House, but what puts them in the weakest position vis-a-vis the American people? And then that person and that fight becomes character defining of the other side and character defining for your side. So I look at this.

And I look at Tulsi Gabbard as a place, when you look at all the information and they'll run a process that's going to make the Republicans in the Senate very, very uncomfortable, very uncomfortable. There's a tactical win there and it will expose certain things. And so you have to think of it both tactically and strategically. And then which fights do I want to beat the more prominent, not just about the people, but about other things. I happen to think

that we want to be the party that positions that Donald Trump and the Republicans are now the establishment. They're pulled into a whole set of special interests, and you are not in their line of sight except for your pocketbook. Look, you're going to have an attempt to politicize the Federal Reserve. You're going to have a massive discussion, a raising of tariffs, and you're going to talk about another couple trillion dollars to the national debt and deficit. I think at a certain point, there's a possibility that the credibility of the United States could get hit.

Not only is inflation not going to go down, it's going to continue to go up. And I think we can make an argument that you're going to be paying the cost for these individuals and the special interests that they represent. You talked about autocracy and threat to democracy. We have people on that. It's what they're going to do to your wallet and your children that I want to protect. And there's going to be a set of events when it comes to cost and affordability that is going to be real.

And you're setting it up not just for that individual fight, but from here all the way through the midterm up to 2028. And I could be wrong, and maybe somebody else has a different view that it is about democracy. They can make that argument. I think we just have an election that proved that. I think this is about people's pocketbooks. And I think it's about who the Republicans are fighting for and who we're fighting for, not just the end result, but who we're going to fight for. And then always our final question. What are three books you'd recommend to the audience? Uh,

Gary Wills' Gettysburg, Daniel Mendelsohn's Lost, and Julian Barron's The Noise of Time. Rahm Emanuel, thank you very much. Thank you.

Thank you.