Building a Better Democracy: Lessons from the Current Political Climate with Kaivan Shroff
Today, we delve into the complexities of democratic representation and the pressing question: when is representation insufficient? As we navigate the tumultuous landscape of our current political climate, particularly with the resurgence of Donald Trump, we examine how activism intersects with institutional decay. Our guest, political strategist Kayvon Shroff, brings a wealth of insight into the dynamics of power, policy, and the urgent need for effective civic engagement. Together, we explore strategies to not only safeguard democracy but to invigorate it amidst a backdrop of complacency and disillusionment. Join us as we challenge conventional wisdom and strive for a more equitable future in our political discourse.
In a compelling dialogue, the podcast episode traverses the tumultuous terrain of modern American democracy, where the stakes have never been higher. Host Taylor Darcy and political strategist Kayvon Stroff dissect the ramifications of Trump's second presidency and the looming threats to democratic norms and values. Stroff articulates a growing concern over the disempowerment of minority voices, particularly in light of potential Supreme Court decisions that could upend decades of progress in voting rights. The conversation pivots towards a critical analysis of the Democratic Party's approach—or lack thereof—to countering the rising tide of authoritarianism. Stroff's insights challenge listeners to reflect on the role of representation versus empowerment, urging a reevaluation of how communities can foster resilience and agency amidst adversity. As they navigate these complex issues, the dialogue serves as both a cautionary tale and a clarion call for renewed civic engagement, reminding us that true democratic participation is rooted in the collective effort to shape the future. With a blend of wit and gravitas, the episode ultimately calls for a proactive approach to nurturing democracy, emphasizing that the fight for justice and equity is far from over.
Takeaways:
- The podcast delves into the intricate dynamics of power, policy, and representation within a democracy that faces unprecedented challenges.
- Listeners are encouraged to engage actively in civic duties, such as voting and community involvement, to fortify democratic structures.
- The discussion highlights the urgency of addressing the ramifications of institutional decay and the need for innovative strategies in response to current political crises.
- A prevailing theme is the necessity for a holistic understanding of democracy that transcends mere representation, emphasizing the voices and experiences of marginalized communities.
- The speakers underscore the importance of building a broad coalition within the Democratic Party, advocating for diverse perspectives and approaches to galvanize support.
- The conversation concludes with a call to action, urging listeners to transform hope from a passive sentiment into a proactive strategy for political engagement.
Links referenced in this episode:
Transcript
Perfect Union pending, where we dig beneath the headlines to reveal how power, policy, and people collide and how we defend democracy in real time.
Speaker A:I'm Taylor Darcy, your host, and today we're joined by someone who understands the shifting terrain of identity, representation, and structure in a democracy under pressure.
Speaker A:Kayvon Stroff is a political strategist, commentator, and di sapora organizer who has spent years professor, probing the questions most people avoid.
Speaker A:When representation isn't enough.
Speaker A:What's next when activism meets institutional decay?
Speaker A: How do you keep Hope alive in: Speaker A:With President Trump's return and institutions showing strain, we're living through a moment of urgent choice.
Speaker A:Who holds power, who is empowered, and how do we resist complacency and a democracy that many feel is slipping.
Speaker A:Let's dive in.
Speaker A:Kevon, welcome.
Speaker B:Kaivon, great to join.
Speaker A:I totally.
Speaker A:I knew I was gonna mess that up.
Speaker B:No worries.
Speaker B:I thought I'd just fix it at the start.
Speaker A:No, no, I apologize.
Speaker A:Kaivon, you're good.
Speaker A:And I even said, I have a friend whose name is Kai, so I should have got that right.
Speaker A:And it just messed me anyway, so, Kaivon, we're now several months into the Trump administration's second term.
Speaker A:From your vantage, what's the single greatest Democratic risk we're facing right now?
Speaker B: e rightly concerned about how: Speaker B:You know, obviously we have this redistricting effort, but even more concerning, perhaps, is the idea of the Supreme Court totally doing away with what's remaining of the Voting Rights Act.
Speaker B:And obviously, that would really change maps and really disempower the voices of minorities across the country.
Speaker B:So I think that's the immediate next concern.
Speaker B:And obviously, I think a larger concern is one thing I'm seeing is Democrats trying to figure out how they can respond to Donald Trump, but without, ideally, without becoming, you know, closer to some of the ills of what Trump has done.
Speaker B:And I'm seeing a lot of people elevate certain voices, whether it's, you know, the podcast bro sphere or, you know, sort of influencers.
Speaker B:We're seeing run for office that doesn't feel like it actually is the solution.
Speaker B:And if anything, seems like maybe it's creating a bigger problem, the long run.
Speaker A:Do you feel like that, I mean, do you feel like that the Democrats response has been meeting the moment, or do you feel like they've kind of been hanging back?
Speaker B:Well, I think it's a tough question to answer.
Speaker B:I think people feel that Democrats aren't meeting the moment.
Speaker B:And I don't think they have met the moment necessarily.
Speaker B:I think up until this shutdown battle, there was definitely a lot of concern, I think, among the base, even the loyal base that likes Schumer and likes Jeffries, typically people that were strongly supporting Kamala Harris and like Joe Biden, just an absolute frustration with the lack of fight that they were seeing.
Speaker B:And so I think it was really important that Democrats dig in on this shutdown, and it looks like it's playing out well, at least according to the polling for now.
Speaker B:I think also, though, people fundamentally misunderstand what people in Congress are elected to do, and that is to make and vote on legislation.
Speaker B:And so, of course, we need inspiring voices and leaders in the party, but there are so many spaces and places to get some of that that it doesn't all fall on, you know, Hakeem Jeffries doesn't all fall on.
Speaker B:You know, I've seen people bashing Kamala Harris even as, you know, isn't she the.
Speaker B:The leader of the party?
Speaker B:Well, people didn't vote for her.
Speaker B:She's now a private citizen.
Speaker B:She's on a book tour.
Speaker B:So people don't know where to look.
Speaker B:But I think part of that problem is we.
Speaker B:We shouldn't be looking around for a singular voice and savior to come in and solve all these problems.
Speaker B:And, you know, it's not going to be a Zoran Mandani, it's not going to be a James Talarico in Texas.
Speaker B:We have to have a broad tent, which people talk about all the time, but then kind of don't practice that, in that they want to beat everyone over the head with their preferred candidate and their preferred ideology, whether they're, you know, more moderate or more to the left of the spectrum.
Speaker B:And we're seeing those proxy fights happen, not only in New York City, where it's pretty clear Mamdani is going to win, but in Maine with that primary involving Graham Platner and now Janet Mills.
Speaker B:So definitely interesting times for the Democratic Party, but also a lot of opportunity to really rebuild and go forward with something new and exciting.
Speaker A:Yeah, I think it's important that we recognize Donald Trump for who he is at this point.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:That he's.
Speaker A:He's a part threat, but he's also part.
Speaker A:And I use the stress test as my.
Speaker A:My metric and say, you know, it's a democracy as long as you can keep it.
Speaker A:Excuse me.
Speaker A:And I think that there's a real, you know, opportunity here that we can build.
Speaker A:For lack of a better way of saying it build back better that that we can move forward and have a, a real decision about how we want our democracy to, to withstand.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:We can take Trump out of the equ.
Speaker A:When, when we take Trump out of the equation, how can we Prevent a Trump 2.0?
Speaker A:What, what are your thoughts on, on the shutdown?
Speaker A:How, how do you feel about that?
Speaker B:Well, I think it's interesting.
Speaker B:You know, most people in the country aren't actually in touch with what's happening for the shutdown.
Speaker B:I don't think it affects their daily lives.
Speaker B:They don't think about it every day.
Speaker B:Of course, there are hundreds of thousands of people that are affected by it.
Speaker B:And I do think some of the visuals of, you know, obviously Trump spending hundreds of millions of dollars on this ballroom as you have federal workers lining up in food lines is crazy to see.
Speaker B:But I also think, you know, it's broader than the shutdown.
Speaker B:Soon the cuts from Trump's BBB bill, his own BBB bill, will be coming into effect.
Speaker B:And I don't think voters are going to parse, you know, this is impacting me because of the shutdown and this is because of the Republicans budget bill and cuts.
Speaker B:And so all of that happening at the same time around the holidays as people are already feeling the economy not well, you know, people are spending less, they're, you know, at the grocery store still seeing those high prices that Trump campaigned on bringing down.
Speaker B:Electricity's at record highs.
Speaker B:So I think all of it happening together is a bad picture for Donald Trump.
Speaker B:He's cratering actually with young voters where he made some gains in the last election.
Speaker B:He's cratering with Latino voters, which he made some gains in the last election.
Speaker B: ted for Donald Trump, even in: Speaker B:And it really is a sort of politics where you lean into populism, you lean into all these big promises, but when you start to not deliver on them, you lose that support just as quickly.
Speaker B:And I think we're seeing that with Donald Trump failing to deliver on so much of his agenda.
Speaker A:And I don't, not just failing, but intentionally doing the exact opposite.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:He hasn't made a good effort when people, from what I understand, when people were voting for him, their goal was I want to get immigration under control, but he wanted to get out the criminals, not My neighbor next door that is doing the right thing for the right reasons and he's taken it and gone very extreme into anybody and everybody, regardless is possible victim.
Speaker A:We're separating mothers who are still breastfeeding their children from their children and sending them abroad.
Speaker A:And so we have US Citizens that are going to be without parents because of the fact that Trump was trying to make good on this promise.
Speaker A:But that isn't what most of even only the most extreme maga are saying.
Speaker A:I voted for this, right.
Speaker A:When it comes to that type of thing.
Speaker A:And it's really quite horrific if you think about it because you're like, I voted to, like I didn't.
Speaker A:But they voted to render people outside the country.
Speaker A:And the level of money that they spent on defending a bad decision with Zorn, not sorry, not Zoran Bondani, Kilmar Abrego Garcia has just been a real travesty.
Speaker A:The fact that that money could have been going towards, you know, people, actual citizens.
Speaker A:Right, Actual people.
Speaker A:Rather than trying to double down on a mistake that, okay, they made a mistake, you know, people make mistakes.
Speaker A:There's nothing.
Speaker A:It would have, it would have played better in my opinion if they would have said oops and then, you know.
Speaker B:Went back to making a lot of mistakes though.
Speaker A:But yes, oh yeah, no, no, no, I get that.
Speaker A:But I mean specifically K. Grego Garcia that they could have gone back and said, oops, we made a mistake, he's not here legally or whatever and we're going to make it right and we're going to fix it and we're going to just drop it.
Speaker A:And if they would have gone quietly, it wouldn't have cost the millions of dollars that I'm sure it's costing to fight this battle.
Speaker A:From your organizing lens, are communities like yours being treated as blocks to be mobilized for election outcomes or as strategic part in long term civic building?
Speaker A:How is what you do connecting with the bigger picture that we're working through right now?
Speaker B:Well, I think I've been focused on in the last several years really comms and messaging.
Speaker B:And I think that one of the things that folks lose sight of is that the messaging has to be towards an end.
Speaker B:And I think that a lot of times Democrats are sort of putting in the FaceTime and they're going and meeting these influencers or they're dumping millions and millions of dollars on these influencers.
Speaker B:Now I've yet to see really the proof that Democratic influencers have made an impact on changing hearts and minds electorally.
Speaker B:That's not to say they haven't made an impact raising awareness or registering voters or rallying the base.
Speaker B:But I think what Republicans do a lot better is they find key figures, celebrities, influencers, and they get them interested in just one or two issues and pull them into the broader sort of magazine.
Speaker B:And Jillian Michaels is a good example of that.
Speaker B:A fitness influencer who sort of got pipelined into the far right by RFK Jr. And I say that because Joe Rogan, all these shows, these are guys just talking about every topic on earth for hours and then they sort of let some political ideas creep in.
Speaker B:Whereas the Democrats seem to be much more focused on Democratic content creators that only talked about Democratic politics and talking points.
Speaker B:And that really creates an echo chamber where you feel like, oh wow, this creator, young 20 year old kid, just got, you know, X million views.
Speaker B:But if it's all among Democrats and if it's the type of message that actually isn't going to convert, you know, a more moderate or an independent or a never trump voter to actually show up and vote, then it's not that valuable.
Speaker B:Whereas, you know, I think one of the things people miss with Charlie Kirk and I wrote a piece for MSNBC on this is that he actually was a massive organizer doing on the ground, local, hyper local organizing work where they have thousands of chapters, you know, everywhere they're doing daily activities, daily tabling, coming up with events, registering voters year round, not just when Charlie Kirk shows up to campus.
Speaker B:And it's much less about those Viral, you know, 30 second awful moments we see in those debate clips that people tend to notice no turning point for.
Speaker B:It's really about the infrastructure they've built and I don't think Democrats have built that yet.
Speaker B:So last year I was working with a group called Gene for America that was trying to do that.
Speaker B:It's honestly much harder to, I think convince donors that it's interesting and exciting to build a 10 year pipeline to try to win the next generation.
Speaker B:Which is what Turning Point did.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:So what I hear you saying is, is that we need to reach voters that are outside of our sphere.
Speaker A:And the broosphere podcasts are doing a better job of that because they're talking about the random things, they're talking about the things that they do.
Speaker B: way overhyped debrief of the: Speaker B:And so when you're in power, they're not interested and excited by you.
Speaker B:And that's happening to Donald Trump, too.
Speaker B: that's rallied behind him in: Speaker B: what you think you lost on in: Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:You got to look forward.
Speaker B:So to dump all this effort and energy and start listening, by the way, to a bunch of random YouTubers who aren't the most thought out, frankly, on politics and strategy of this nature is a huge mistake, in my opinion.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:But I also have to say, you know, some of the best ideas can come from the most random places.
Speaker A:You know, I, I think there was someone who was.
Speaker A:It was one of the.
Speaker A:Oh, who was it?
Speaker A:It was someone from the Bulwark who was dishing on Cenk Uygur.
Speaker A:And whether you agree with them or disagree with him or not, he was very dismissive to what Cenk was saying, regardless if it was a good idea or not a good idea.
Speaker A:And I mean that in he wasn't attacking the idea, he was attacking Cenk.
Speaker B:What was the idea?
Speaker A:Oh, I cannot remember.
Speaker A:It was so dismissive.
Speaker A:I just remember that he wasn't even entertaining the idea simply because Cenk Uygur was having it.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:And again, it wasn't the point of the idea.
Speaker A:The idea was irrelevant to the topic, but it was just the idea that we can't have ideas coming from someone who's on YouTube.
Speaker A:And I would push back against that and say, just because we can disagree with an idea doesn't mean we can't have an idea that comes from YouTube that comes from, you know, a non traditional media source.
Speaker A:And I think that, you know, we need to, if we're supposed to be a big tent party, we need to have a big tent.
Speaker A:We need to allow those types of ideas in.
Speaker B:I agree as well.
Speaker B:I would just push back to say, like, why are we getting our ideas from media though, right?
Speaker B:Like, why aren't we elevating the local leaders and organizers and people on the ground, regardless of background?
Speaker B:It's not really about elitism or gatekeeping.
Speaker B:It's just like the loudest, most viral voice that has an incentive to say certain things is often not really going to be coming up with the ideas that are actually, you know, first of all, operationalizable and second, you know, compelling to people that actually show up and vote in those local races.
Speaker B:And some.
Speaker B:And that's not to say that never happens, but I mean, even just, you know, I was seeing there's a new viral podcaster, Jennifer Welch, who I actually was a fan of that I've had it podcast those two, all right.
Speaker B:Before they got political.
Speaker B:And they're hilarious, and I see them on TikTok.
Speaker B:But, you know, she's out there saying that the Democrats are basically MAGA light.
Speaker B:And I totally disagree with that.
Speaker B:I think it's not productive.
Speaker B:It's not helpful messaging.
Speaker B:And frankly, do I understand why she's saying it?
Speaker B:Because it's one of the most popular viral things to say that both parties are terrible and like, that the Democrats, you know, fail.
Speaker B:So, yes.
Speaker B:Like, is it brilliant messaging?
Speaker B:Is it helpful?
Speaker B:Does it get us anywhere?
Speaker B:No, but I understand why it's popular.
Speaker A:Right, right.
Speaker A:And yeah, I do enjoy her podcast, their podcast as well.
Speaker A:Yeah, she's funny.
Speaker A:She calls Donald Trump kanks.
Speaker A:And I guess.
Speaker A:And you're right, I think, you know, but.
Speaker A:And I would push back a little bit and say sometimes those fringe ideas can be at least a source of an opportunity that we weren't normally going to get.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:If all we do is listen to Democratic messaging, then we're going to keep getting the same thing we've got.
Speaker A:And so having these ideas that might not be the most applicable or the most practical are a way to at least explore the ideas that are possible.
Speaker A:You know, kind of like, to me, it goes against the, you know, people say, oh, failure is not an option.
Speaker A:No, that's not accurate.
Speaker A:Failure is an option.
Speaker A:It's just not an option we want.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:And so, you know, we need to push back on those types of things, that failure is an option.
Speaker A:And we found that out when, you know, when Kamala was saying, when we fight, we win.
Speaker A:Well, we fought and we still lost.
Speaker A:Right?
Speaker A:We fought and we still lost.
Speaker A:And, you know, as unfortunate as that is, we had to come, you know, a bit face to face with our humanity and say, why did we lose?
Speaker A:You know, and, you know, people try to put it in.
Speaker A:In one category or another and say, well, we lost because of this, we lost because of that.
Speaker A:And I would say it wasn't one thing.
Speaker A:It was many things that combined equal a loss.
Speaker A:Right?
Speaker A:And then you get the crazy people on the left that are like, well, I think it was.
Speaker A:There was fraud.
Speaker A:And I'm like, do you know how hard it is to commit fraud in an election and have it meaningfully change the outcome of an election?
Speaker A:It's very, very difficult.
Speaker A:Statistically unlikely.
Speaker A:Possible, yes.
Speaker A:But statistically unlikely.
Speaker A:So what?
Speaker A:Given that we're currently in the battle for our democracy, what would you suggest to the people to say, you know, what can we implement now to push back against the oligarchy as well as against Donald Trump?
Speaker A:What are some things that we can do?
Speaker B: s obviously we're headed into: Speaker B: ple are already talking about: Speaker B:And I think that we need to talk about new ideas and the future and what are the policies of the future, not just talk about opposition to Donald Trump.
Speaker B:And I think that's nothing new to say.
Speaker B:But when I'm talking about this, I'm focused on issues like AI, Right.
Speaker B:Where I think Ro Khanna actually has done a decent job.
Speaker B:I don't agree with him on a lot of things, but he's actually done a decent job of taking complex regulatory issues around AI and saying, well, look, at the end of the day, I want to be able to pass a law that says you need a driver in that truck because otherwise all these people in your community are going to be out of work like that.
Speaker B:And Republicans are working to make that happen.
Speaker B:Who do you want to own the future?
Speaker B:Do you want it to be rich people in my district in a rich part of California, just like the last time we had digital innovation that changed the world, or do we want everyone to get a piece of that pie?
Speaker B:And I think just talking like that is highly effective.
Speaker B:I don't hear it often or enough from Democrats.
Speaker B:I hear a lot about Trump.
Speaker B:And of course we have to talk about Trump.
Speaker B:It's not either or.
Speaker B:It's really a both and situation.
Speaker B:But I do think some of those more interesting ideas do matter and we don't focus on them enough.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A: talking about doing a Project: Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A: ey were full on doing Project: Speaker A:And if you had to name three real world actions a citizen can take today to strengthen democracy, given the turbulent moment that we're in, what would they be?
Speaker A:What three ideas would you suggest?
Speaker B:Well, I think obviously register to vote.
Speaker B:There's tens of millions of Americans that sit out election after election.
Speaker B:And I think a lot of times we're trying to fight for how do we convert, you know, the most problematic MAGA supporter, which we're never going to win over.
Speaker B:And it's much more likely that we can win over those people that just haven't participated.
Speaker B:Number two, I would say go out in your community in person and be part of something.
Speaker B: had viral attention after the: Speaker B:They focus on sort of those winnable flippable seats.
Speaker B:And she was just saying, you know, that after Covid, I think a lot of us organizers lost the discipline of showing up in person and trying to do things in person.
Speaker B:And I know accessibility is really important to think about as well, but there is something to showing up in person, building community, being able to have those, like, side conversations, you know, I mean, I know we were both talking before we started about how we've done a million degrees in school, but I did Covid for a couple years of school, and you really do miss out on, like, building those relationships that, like, in the quiet moment in class, you're whispering to your neighbor, because you don't do that stuff on Zoom.
Speaker B:You just don't.
Speaker B:And so, and also, I think it makes it much harder to build trust, but it makes it much harder to test out an idea when everything's, you know, gotta be written down and posted publicly or said, you know, on a forum with everyone watching you.
Speaker B:So I do think that doing that's really important.
Speaker B:And then I think third, you know, picking an issue and trying to really be an advocate for that issue and how you can, and maybe one ideally that, you know, impacts you and your life, I think, as well, and how you can share that story, it doesn't have to be online again, you can go do that in the real world.
Speaker B:Those are three things I think anyone can do.
Speaker B:And obviously not everyone has time or access to do all of those things, and people can just do what they can.
Speaker A:Yeah, I think it's important you bring up a good point, because I teach online, and teaching online is very different than teaching in person.
Speaker A:It's a lot harder to teach online than it is.
Speaker A:And I think we need to respect that, that people don't learn as well online as they do in person.
Speaker A:There's a certain energy to being in front of a room or in front of a classroom where you get to see their reactions and that type of thing.
Speaker A:And I think getting out there and being part of the public, being close to your neighbor, it means that now we have emotionally invested interest in the success and the outcome of other people's lives.
Speaker A:Even if it's something small that we wouldn't have had had, we have stuck in our little caves that we have walls that surround us.
Speaker A:So I think that that's very, very important.
Speaker A:We often talk about short term electoral wins versus long term Democratic health.
Speaker A:What do you think about that in today's context is, can we do both, or are we stuck with picking one and hoping for the best?
Speaker B:Well, I mean, I think there's no choice.
Speaker B:You have to pick the short term wins, or you won't have the long term at all.
Speaker B:So, you know, I understand people who have a principled moral opposition to redistricting, but it's like, what do you want us to do?
Speaker B:Just get clobbered and have less seats?
Speaker B:It doesn't make any sense.
Speaker B:So, you know, would we all love to be in sort of the old times or be adhering to those older norms and precedents?
Speaker B:Of course, on some things, but it's just not the reality that we're in.
Speaker B:And I think even more so, you know, I know you're an attorney.
Speaker B:To watch this Supreme Court, I think, is one of the most interesting things, because this Supreme Court really is a corrupt Supreme Court that is abusing so many parts of what has made the court a storied institution that really earned the respect of the whole world.
Speaker B:And it's interesting because people blame a lot of this moment on Maga and Trump, and I absolutely agree.
Speaker B:But John Roberts is just as guilty.
Speaker B:John Roberts is just a big part of this, and he's a stuffy, old, boring guy.
Speaker B:Right?
Speaker B:He wouldn't egg as the person really cheerleading and spearheading one of the downfalls of our major, you know, a major bulwark of American democracy.
Speaker B:And at every turn, he's pushing that forward.
Speaker B:So I do think these are normal times, and they're not normal times anywhere.
Speaker B:They're not normal times at Harvard Law School.
Speaker B:They're not normal times.
Speaker B:The Supreme Court, they're not normal times, you know, in any local community.
Speaker B:So I think we just have to be of that mindset, and we have to really stop with the, like, let me virtue signal that I'm into civility and all this stuff.
Speaker B:I mean, even just the amount of attention, you know, obviously a horrible tragedy to have somebody murdered anytime, anywhere, especially when it's out of political violence.
Speaker B:But the focus on Charlie Kirk, to rewrite history, to have mainstream media and even some Democrats sort of browbeat everyone into claiming it's a good guy.
Speaker B:He's like, he's a terrible person, horrible guy.
Speaker B:He lived his life that way.
Speaker B:And I mean, we should be allowed to say those things, you know, and to silence people from speaking that truth, from being able to call Donald Trump a dictator, a fascist when he's doing all the things that people that earn Those labels do.
Speaker B:And by the way, when he spent all his time out of office cozying up to every authoritarian in the world to learn the playbook, I think we can't give in to that.
Speaker B:That's a very sort of institutional, out of date way of thinking.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:And I think that comes back to meeting the moment that we are in too.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:That's a part of it.
Speaker A:I'm not saying it's all of it, but we need to make sure that we have the elected leaders that are not so stuck with the institution that we miss the opportunities that this moment's creating.
Speaker A:Should we want to keep the institutions?
Speaker A:Yes, but I don't think they're going to end in the same way that we're expecting them to.
Speaker B:Well, I think Pete Buttigieg made a good point, Right?
Speaker A:Oh yeah.
Speaker B:We like the institutions that were.
Speaker B:Because without them it's worse.
Speaker B:Should we go back to that?
Speaker B:Who knows?
Speaker B:We got to think of something new and better.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:And that's really what this podcast is all about, is thinking about those new and better things.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:How can we have a more perfect union but with the ideas that are current?
Speaker A:I think one of the issues that I have with a lot of, especially the Supreme Court, aside from their corruption, is this institutionalism, but also this contextualism where they're talking about, well, this is what the founders meant when they did it.
Speaker A:Well, yeah, but we're almost 250 years past that.
Speaker A:Things have changed.
Speaker A:We need laws that adapt.
Speaker A:The Constitution was never meant to stay the same.
Speaker A:That's why they provided the ways for amendments to happen.
Speaker A:That's why they provided Marbury versus Madison where we have judicial review.
Speaker A: ayed the same as they were in: Speaker A:Nobody in their right mind would argue that that's ok.
Speaker A:But yet we have a Supreme Court that is saying no, that's what we're gonna do is review this law in the way that it is.
Speaker A:They had muskets back then, we don't have muskets now.
Speaker A:And yet we're still holding onto a second Amendment that shall not be infringed is the only thing that the right winger crazy people hang onto.
Speaker A:They don't pay attention to the well regulated militia part.
Speaker A:They ignore that in its entirety.
Speaker A:And you go, but what about that?
Speaker A:And they say, well, da da da da da.
Speaker A:And I mean Clarence Thomas was, you know, instruct that.
Speaker A:And it's like, but then you're not Really a contextualist.
Speaker A:You're.
Speaker A:Whatever we want for the moment, you know, that fits our narrative and fits our paradigm, which is what happened with Roe and Dobbs and all that good stuff.
Speaker A:And that was not good stuff, just to be clear.
Speaker A:But so, you know, we were talking about the moment and the shutdown and people, what are your thoughts on how can we move forward?
Speaker A:You know, do you, do you think we should get rid of the filibuster?
Speaker B:I think, you know, it's an idea.
Speaker B:One of the things that people are focused on is obviously what goes around comes around.
Speaker B:And I do think, you know, with that in mind, I think I'm open to getting rid of the filibuster at this point.
Speaker B:I think, you know, if Democrats get power back, they need to use it and they need to also, I think, play by that philosophy a little bit of what goes around comes around and do some of the things, you know, Republicans use power when they have it.
Speaker B:Democrats have fought with really a hand behind their back.
Speaker B:And we even just have a new story about, about just how the Biden DOJ took such pains to slow walk all of the investigations around Trump world.
Speaker B:And ultimately, I do think that was a failure.
Speaker B:I have to say, as much as we can, we value independence in the Justice Department.
Speaker B:We value all those things.
Speaker B:But don't overdo it.
Speaker B:I mean, obviously crimes were committed there, right?
Speaker B:Obviously, they had tons of evidence there.
Speaker B:Obviously, no matter what they did, the other side was going to claim that it was a witch hunt, that it was partisan and blah, blah, blah.
Speaker B:Now they took attack to say, well, we want this to be unimpeachable.
Speaker B:Nobody thinks that way or works that way anymore.
Speaker B:Nobody does.
Speaker B:Good faith.
Speaker B:Oh, yeah, they really gave us a fair shake.
Speaker B:Like, we're not going to complain about this and go on Fox News and attack the DOJ as partisan.
Speaker B:So crazy to keep operating that way, for sure.
Speaker A:And that's part of the meeting the moment, right?
Speaker A:Like that's.
Speaker A:You have to approach the situation with what it is, not what you hope it to be.
Speaker A:And if Donald Trump played by the same rules as everyone else, then that would be applicable.
Speaker A:But he doesn't.
Speaker A:And you can't fight someone even metaphorically if you're playing by two different sets of rules.
Speaker A:You know what I mean?
Speaker A:Like, that just isn't the way that you do.
Speaker A:You have to play by the same.
Speaker A:You have to play by the same rules.
Speaker A:And yeah, it was an article that I was reading about Jack Smith, how he, you know, one of his critical errors was filing in Florida rather than in D.C. and you know, it comes back to.
Speaker A:Yeah, but we're looking at it hindsight, right.
Speaker A:Like we have the luxury of seeing what we see from the cheap seats, so to speak.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:And you know, he was trying to make an unimpeachable decision.
Speaker A:You know, Merrick Garland didn't help because of the way that he slow walked things through and that we should have, you know, it should be, you know, he should have been serving part of his sentence rather than serving as the president.
Speaker A:And while that's important, we have to recognize that that's not what happened.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:It's unfortunate, it's sad that we have to deal with this, but I also like to think of it as an opportunity.
Speaker A:What I was talking about with stress test, you don't know what you miss until it's gone.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:It's the proverbial until you're faced with the decision of what you want or you're going to lose it.
Speaker A:Now we have a whole group of people that we're creating an activist society.
Speaker A:We're creating people that are now interested in democracy, that they're showing up to rallies, they're showing up to things that they weren't showing up to because, well, the people that were activists had it taken care of.
Speaker A:We didn't have to do it.
Speaker A:Now they have to.
Speaker A:And so we're creating a new generation of people that are involved in culture and society in a way that we hadn't had for generations.
Speaker A:And I think that those are important things to remember that yes, the is not what anybody wants, but at the same time we wanted a more engaged society and that's what this is doing for us.
Speaker A:So for better or for worse, there is some positives that are coming outcome of this where I hear of people that their parents who were not necessarily hard maga, but they were maga lite.
Speaker A:They were, oh, I voted for Trump, are now anti Trump because of everything that he's doing.
Speaker A:And they're showing up to protests, they're showing up to rall.
Speaker A:And you have to just like your heart has to beam with that because you know that we're getting people off the couch and into the game has value.
Speaker A:And I think that we can't dismiss despite what happened that, you know, maybe we come back and yeah, we have to endure this torture of Trump, but we're gonna come on the other side of this better, stronger and more involved than what we had been before.
Speaker A:At least until it gets too easy again.
Speaker A:Right?
Speaker B:No, I love that you said that.
Speaker B:Because I think that one of the things that people 10 to do, and I understand it, is just focus on the negativity all the time.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker B:And that's not really sustainable.
Speaker B:It might be a little realistic, which I give them credit, but I do think finding the things to celebrate, you know, even just the poll numbers we're talking about for Trump, but I do think some of these marches, you know, I've been seeing a lot of people sort of bashing the no Kings demonstrations as, you know, sort of pointless and more of like parades for, you know, not diverse group of people.
Speaker B:I don't know that's all true, but what I do know is true is actually we've seen in Trump's second term, more geographical diversity in who's showing up to anti Trump protests, including more representation in pro Trump areas.
Speaker B:And so every time that we see that, that's a huge win, and that does matter.
Speaker B:And in defense of no Kings, you know, I went to the one in the city here in New York, and there is something about showing up with millions of people all at once to say, you know, we're here.
Speaker B:We care about these norms, we care about our democracy, and show that physical presence as well.
Speaker B:When you have people coming into these cities and terrorizing communities and all of that, I think there is absolute value in that.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:And I mean, getting people out of their houses and into arma in arm.
Speaker A:I like what you were saying with the, you know, the whispering in between tests, you know, seeing that we're more similar and we have more commonality than we thought we did with even the immigrant population that some people may never interact with.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:Like, I live in San Diego.
Speaker A:We have a huge immigrant population here.
Speaker A:I don't speak very much Spanish, but I should.
Speaker A:And I say that because the Mexican food here is amazing.
Speaker A:And it's not just about the Mexican food, but it's about the culture that exists here in San Diego.
Speaker A:And so these are my friends, these are my brothers, these are my sisters, these are my people that, yes, we have different skin colors, but we are very much in the same community.
Speaker A:And the idea that my neighbor is getting hauled off is an unacceptable thing.
Speaker A:And so I was able to go to the first no Kings, but I wasn't able to go to the second no Kings.
Speaker A:But the idea that now, yes, people could say it's a parade, but at the end of the day, there's still people showing up, we're still saying, no, that's not okay.
Speaker A:And we're standing up for Our neighbors.
Speaker A:We're standing up for people that the marginalized.
Speaker A:To me, that's the most despicable part of this, is that Trump isn't picking on the people that can fight back.
Speaker A:I mean, now he is, but with Letitia James and James Comey and, you know, and Bolton and all of that stuff, he's picking on people that can fight back now.
Speaker A:But he wasn't.
Speaker A:And I think it's interesting because you're like, who's the bully here, right?
Speaker A:Like, you picking on the people that can't fight back.
Speaker A:That can't.
Speaker A:And when I say fight, I don't mean anything violent.
Speaker A:I mean, you know, in the courts and all of this other stuff.
Speaker A:And I think it's important that we as a society have stood up and said, that's not okay, that we are not going to let the people, they can't fight back down.
Speaker A:Are we being completely successful?
Speaker A:No.
Speaker A:I mean, we still lose, but, I mean, Trump's lost something like 95 of his court cases that he's done.
Speaker A:I mean, that's.
Speaker A:But that's not what's in the news, right?
Speaker A:Like, what's in the news loses all the things that he wins.
Speaker A:And you're like, but he's lost so much.
Speaker A:This is why I'm doing this podcast.
Speaker A:And one of the reasons is because people need to know that.
Speaker A:People need to know that Trump is losing more than he's winning, and he's just basically throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks.
Speaker A:And, I mean, I think it's also a little quite ironic and coincidental all at the same time, which is hard to do.
Speaker A:Only Trump could pull that off.
Speaker A:Is that in response to no Kings, the most recent one, he.
Speaker A:He decided to tear down the entirety of the.
Speaker A:Of the East Wing.
Speaker A:And, you know, if.
Speaker A:If you can't see that as retaliatory, I don't know what's.
Speaker A:What's going on in your head.
Speaker A:And I don't mean that to you.
Speaker A:I mean, in general, because, you know, he.
Speaker A:He said, oh, I'm not going to touch the East Wing.
Speaker A:And then right after no kings and 7 million people protesting him, he tears it down anyway.
Speaker A:And you're like, it's both sad and rewarding in that we're getting enough underneath his skin, right?
Speaker A:Like, we're not.
Speaker A:He's not just.
Speaker A:He's not not paying attention to it.
Speaker A:He wouldn't admit that.
Speaker A:But nobody tears down the entire east wing of the White House without it, for, For.
Speaker A:Without a reason other than because.
Speaker A:Because I wanted a ballroom, right?
Speaker A:Like that just doesn't fit.
Speaker A:He is very much retaliatory and I think, you know, 100% truth.
Speaker A: 's so pissed about losing the: Speaker A:He won that.
Speaker A: ld not handle having lost the: Speaker A: e thinks voted against him in: Speaker A:And I think when you're that, that big of a vindictive person, that that's all you have, right?
Speaker A:Like you can't do anything else than be vindictive.
Speaker A:Kaivon, what other.
Speaker A:What gives you hope these days?
Speaker B:Well, I do think I'm pretty excited about the next generation of Democrats and I actually don't mean that in the typical way where I feel like, you know, and not to name check certain people, but we all know David Hogg and those figures in the party that just say younger, younger, younger, younger, but they can't tell you anything beyond that.
Speaker B:And I think that's actually detrimental because if anything, we absolutely do need some younger leadership.
Speaker B:And the younger leadership should be there because they represent a lived experience of a young person in America today that has grown up without a lot of the norms that even, you know, I'm 31, I'm 30, 32 next week that even I grew up with, you know, learning in school and treasuring and, you know, wanting to be a lawyer and all that for those reasons that I cherished of, you know, the system of our democracy, a lot of Gen Z, Gen Alpha, they're not growing up with any of that.
Speaker B:And so they've had different life experiences.
Speaker B:They're growing up at a very divisive time, very sort of less optimism, less outlook.
Speaker B:So those are reasons that they should say I'm a great candidate.
Speaker B:Here's why I want to lead for my community.
Speaker B:Here's how I do things differently.
Speaker B:Given that experience, I'm not seeing that from some of the more media heavy young people that are just, you know, influencers running for office, which I'm not supportive of.
Speaker B:But what I do see is we actually now are at a time where, yes, we had the 80 plus year old cohort of Chuck Schumer having to hire some 20 year old to tweet out Taylor Swift lyrics.
Speaker B:Now we have 50 year olds, 40 year olds who are incredibly accomplished, incredibly digitally savvy as well.
Speaker B:And so Instead of shopping out, I think, their comms to, you know, some younger influencer to kind of relate to people they themselves are doing.
Speaker B:And that's Jasmine Crockett.
Speaker B:Right?
Speaker B:That's a great example.
Speaker B:She's a criminal defense attorney.
Speaker B:She was in her local, you know, she served in state government as well.
Speaker B:And now she's in Congress.
Speaker B:And yes, she goes viral.
Speaker B:And yes, she has those moments.
Speaker B:And yes, people pay attention to her.
Speaker B:She's also highly competent.
Speaker B:She has a real resume.
Speaker B:She's actually accomplished things.
Speaker B:So I think we actually don't need to engage in the false choice of those that can do comms and communicating and digital and those that actually, you know, have some chops and muscle behind them them.
Speaker B:We're about to get really a great crop of a lot of those figures.
Speaker B:And just a plug for one of my favorite leaders that I think it's that village, Shannon Watts.
Speaker B:You know, she's somewhat in her 50s, and she's built a movement of moms demand action.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:She used digital tools, she used social media and all that savvy.
Speaker B:But what she did is she mobilized thousands of people across the country to deliver local.
Speaker B:Deliver local wins, and also work with legislature, work with the Biden White House, get the Office of Gun Violence Prevention, get the bipartisan Safer Community act, all of that.
Speaker B:So I want us to stop kind of engaging in that.
Speaker B:Well, so and so's boring or whatever.
Speaker B:Yes, we need new people.
Speaker B:We don't need to get rid of everybody.
Speaker B:I don't think there's an age timer that, you know, the minute you hit that day, you're out.
Speaker B:I don't think that's productive.
Speaker B:I don't think it's realistic either.
Speaker B:So, you know, I am hopeful for that next crop to come in and really be empowered, work.
Speaker A:In fact, James.
Speaker A:Yeah, James Talarico, he has.
Speaker A:Is outstanding in the messaging department.
Speaker A:He's.
Speaker A:He's kind of a Pete Buttigieg, if you would.
Speaker A:A little different, obviously.
Speaker A:But I thoroughly enjoy listening to his speeches and whatnot.
Speaker A:And it's funny because I thought he actually was a Baptist minister, and it turned out that he's in training for that, but he's not actually that yet.
Speaker A:But he was making so much sense.
Speaker A:It was like, yes, finally someone who's saying the quiet out loud about white Christian nationalism and coming out forcefully against it.
Speaker A:And I think that we need more people that are messaging that are saying, look, we're not against Christians, we're not against Christ followers.
Speaker A:I had John Fugelsang on the Podcast a week ago.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:For his book Separation of Church and Hate.
Speaker A:And he's like, there's a very big difference between Christian, big C, little C Christian, and then Christ followers.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:Like, where are we at in that category of things?
Speaker A:And I think it's important to note that the real followers of Christ aren't out there anti immigrant.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:Anti.
Speaker A:Fill in the blank that we are.
Speaker A:And I tell you that because James Tallarico, you know, has this.
Speaker A:The look of the Baptist minister, but the voice of a Democrat as well as someone.
Speaker A:Because they genuinely believe that we are evil.
Speaker A:And when we've.
Speaker A:When I've interacted with.
Speaker A:I've interacted with a lot of MAGA online, mostly on Twitter, to kind of push back against their false narratives and whatnot and to, you know, call them on their hypocrisies.
Speaker A:And the number of times that they just, they think we should die because we're evil, that because we're Democrats, we're automatically evil is the point.
Speaker A:And it just blows me away when you're like, but have you even talked to us?
Speaker A:Do you even know anything about what we believe and what we don't believe about?
Speaker A:They always come back to abortion.
Speaker A:And we can definitely avoid.
Speaker A:We don't have to talk about that.
Speaker A:I've talked about that plenty with others.
Speaker A:But the idea that that soul thing is evil goes against the very nature of conservativism.
Speaker A:The fact that if we're looking for a smaller government and we're saying, but it's okay as long as the government's in your bedroom, we're okay with the government being big enough to be in your bedroom.
Speaker A:And yet you're saying you're conservative.
Speaker A:Those two don't seem to work well together.
Speaker A:And they can't.
Speaker A:No one has ever been able to answer that.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:Like, how do those two things reconcile with each other?
Speaker A:But anyway, thank you so much, Kaivan, for your time.
Speaker A:I sincerely appreciate it.
Speaker A:Any last minute thoughts?
Speaker B:No.
Speaker B:Enjoy the conversation and I'm excited for what you're building.
Speaker B:We need more of it.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:Thank you so much.
Speaker A:I sincerely appreciate your time and I look forward to, you know, maybe we'll have you back on and talk more about things in the future.
Speaker A:So thank you so much.
Speaker B:Thank you.
Speaker B:Have a good one.
Speaker A:You too.
Speaker A:That's Kaivan Shroff challenging us to move beyond hope as a feel good slogan and toward hope as a strategy and structure.
Speaker A:If there's one takeaway, Democratic participation isn't enough without shifting who holds power, how decisions are made and whose voices matter.
Speaker A:In the show notes, you'll find links to Kaivon's recent writing, dysphoria, organizing networks and civic engagement tools.
Speaker A:Check them out, share them, and if you're part of a community feeling the pressure at this moment, we want to hear from you.
Speaker A:This is perfect union pending.
Speaker A:Thank you for being here.
Speaker A:Until next time, stay inquiry led, stay courageous and keep building democracy from the bottom up up.
