Erik Fleming hosts Harvard Law professor Guy-Uriel Charles on America Unfinished, discussing the audacious idea of being "one people," the evolution of voting rights, and proposals like proportional representation to protect political voice.
Economist Rick Roberts explains the economy in plain terms—inflation, Fed policy, interest rates, AI, energy and tariffs—while the episode closes with the host's reflections on policing, the death penalty, and the moral stakes of justice in America.
00:00:00 --> 00:00:06 Welcome. I'm Eric Fleming, host of A Moment with Eric Fleming, the podcast of our time.
00:00:06 --> 00:00:09 I want to personally thank you for listening to the podcast.
00:00:09 --> 00:00:12 If you like what you're hearing, then I need you to do a few things.
00:00:13 --> 00:00:19 First, I need subscribers. I'm on Patreon at patreon.com slash amomentwithericfleming.
00:00:20 --> 00:00:24 Your subscription allows an independent podcaster like me the freedom to speak
00:00:24 --> 00:00:28 truth to power, and to expand and improve the show.
00:00:28 --> 00:00:33 Second, leave a five-star review for the podcast on the streaming service you listen to it.
00:00:34 --> 00:00:39 That will help the podcast tremendously. Third, go to the website, momenteric.com.
00:00:40 --> 00:00:43 There you can subscribe to the podcast, leave reviews and comments,
00:00:43 --> 00:00:47 listen to past episodes, and even learn a little bit about your host.
00:00:47 --> 00:00:51 Lastly, don't keep this a secret like it's your own personal guilty pleasure.
00:00:52 --> 00:00:57 Tell someone else about the podcast. Encourage others to listen to the podcast
00:00:57 --> 00:01:02 and share the podcast on your social media platforms, because it is time to
00:01:02 --> 00:01:04 make this moment a movement.
00:01:04 --> 00:01:10 Thanks in advance for supporting the podcast of our time. I hope you enjoy this episode as well.
00:01:15 --> 00:01:20 The following program is hosted by the NVG Podcast Network.
00:02:00 --> 00:02:06 Hello. Welcome to another moment with Eric Fleming. I am your host, Eric Fleming.
00:02:07 --> 00:02:11 And so today's episode is going to be called Audacious Provocation,
00:02:12 --> 00:02:17 and you will understand why as we dive into the interviews.
00:02:19 --> 00:02:25 I have Guillermo Charles, who is a Harvard Law School professor.
00:02:25 --> 00:02:33 He is the co-author, co-editor of America Unfinished, along with Alexandra Notapoff.
00:02:34 --> 00:02:41 And so you've heard from Alexandra earlier, and now I guess we're kind of closing
00:02:41 --> 00:02:49 out the America Unfinished series of interviews with Professor Charles as he comes on.
00:02:50 --> 00:02:55 And again, I'm really, really honored that we were able to make that happen.
00:02:55 --> 00:02:58 Shout out to Lyssa for making that happen.
00:02:59 --> 00:03:04 And, you know, hopefully we can get a lot of those people back on the podcast
00:03:04 --> 00:03:07 to talk about different issues.
00:03:08 --> 00:03:11 Then we're going to have a friend of the podcast, Rick Roberts,
00:03:11 --> 00:03:16 come back. Rick is an economics professor at Monmouth University.
00:03:17 --> 00:03:20 He worked for the Federal Reserve for a long, long time.
00:03:20 --> 00:03:24 And the students are really blessed to have somebody like him teaching.
00:03:25 --> 00:03:28 And we are blessed to have somebody like him come on the podcast repeatedly,
00:03:29 --> 00:03:34 to explain all this economic jargon that's out there.
00:03:36 --> 00:03:41 You know, he makes it plain. And so I hope this interview continues that tradition
00:03:41 --> 00:03:44 in making things plain, especially as we're leading up to the elections.
00:03:45 --> 00:03:50 So I just want to also give a shout out to Leonard Young.
00:03:51 --> 00:03:58 Mr. Young is over the MBG Podcast Network, which a moment Eric Fleming is a part of.
00:03:59 --> 00:04:04 And he let us know that there's going to be some upgrades and changes.
00:04:04 --> 00:04:08 If you follow them on social media, you're seeing the rollout now.
00:04:09 --> 00:04:16 And, you know, I'm honored, you know, that our podcast is part of that new rollout.
00:04:16 --> 00:04:20 And just really, really privileged to be a part of that network.
00:04:21 --> 00:04:24 And so just want to make that mention.
00:04:25 --> 00:04:31 Www.momenteric.com. That's the website for the podcast.
00:04:31 --> 00:04:36 You can use that to support the podcast financially.
00:04:37 --> 00:04:42 You can use that as a reference point. You can use that if you want to be a guest.
00:04:43 --> 00:04:47 It's a very, very versatile website, but you'll learn a little bit about me and.
00:04:49 --> 00:04:53 And, you know, you can find episodes and, you know, check and see who's been
00:04:53 --> 00:04:57 on the show, all that kind of stuff. It's really, really cool.
00:04:58 --> 00:05:03 So please, please, please take advantage of that resource if you want to dive
00:05:03 --> 00:05:07 into more about what A Moment with Eric Fleming is all about.
00:05:08 --> 00:05:12 All right. Now that I've done all that, it's time to go ahead and kick this episode off.
00:05:13 --> 00:05:18 And as always, we kick it off with a moment of news with Grace G.
00:05:25 --> 00:05:30 Thanks, Eric. Death Row inmate Krista Pike is critically ill after surviving
00:05:30 --> 00:05:33 two botched lethal injection attempts in Tennessee.
00:05:34 --> 00:05:39 New Jersey Lieutenant Governor Dale Caldwell resigned following an ethics investigation
00:05:39 --> 00:05:42 into sexual misconduct allegations.
00:05:42 --> 00:05:47 The family of Renee Good sued the Trump administration after an ICE agent fatally
00:05:47 --> 00:05:52 shot her earlier this year during a Minneapolis immigration protest.
00:05:52 --> 00:05:57 New York Governor Kathy Hochul appointed State Attorney General Letitia James
00:05:57 --> 00:06:03 as special prosecutor to investigate the alleged 2024 gang rape of a Cornell University student.
00:06:03 --> 00:06:09 The U.S. Justice Department will not reopen a criminal probe into former Federal
00:06:09 --> 00:06:10 Reserve Chair Jerome Powell.
00:06:11 --> 00:06:17 President Trump rejected an Iranian proposal to end regional fighting and reopen
00:06:17 --> 00:06:19 the Strait of Hormuz within seven days.
00:06:20 --> 00:06:25 Passengers aboard a Fly Dubai flight safely reached Israel after customers and
00:06:25 --> 00:06:32 crews overpowered a radicalized co-pilot who stabbed the captain in an attempt to crash the plane.
00:06:32 --> 00:06:38 The Senate passed the bipartisan Protect College Sports Act to establish national
00:06:38 --> 00:06:42 regulations for athlete compensation, transfers, and antitrust protections.
00:06:43 --> 00:06:48 Former Dallas police officer Amber Geiger was granted parole after serving seven
00:06:48 --> 00:06:54 years of her 10-year sentence for the 2018 murder of her neighbor, Botham Jean.
00:06:54 --> 00:07:00 Former Florida Deputy Eddie Duran was acquitted in the 2024 fatal shooting of
00:07:00 --> 00:07:03 U.S. Air Force Airman Roger Fortson.
00:07:03 --> 00:07:07 The Supreme Court temporarily reinstated a Trump administration policy,
00:07:07 --> 00:07:13 allowing rapid deportations of migrants to third countries, pending formal arguments in December.
00:07:14 --> 00:07:20 President Trump seeks to unilaterally withhold more than $800 million in Congress-approved
00:07:20 --> 00:07:24 spending on immigration, race, and education programs.
00:07:24 --> 00:07:30 A severe nor'easter killed one person while causing widespread coastal flooding
00:07:30 --> 00:07:34 and over 100 power outages across the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic.
00:07:35 --> 00:07:40 And Pennsylvania's measles outbreak grew to 977 cases.
00:07:41 --> 00:07:44 I am Grace Gee, And this has been a Moment of News.
00:07:51 --> 00:07:59 Thank you, Grace, for that moment of news. Now it is time for my guest, Guy Uriel Charles.
00:08:00 --> 00:08:05 Guy Uriel Charles is the Charles J. Ogletree Jr. Professor of Law at Harvard Law School.
00:08:06 --> 00:08:11 He also directs the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice.
00:08:12 --> 00:08:18 He writes about how law mediates political power and how law addresses racial subordination.
00:08:19 --> 00:08:25 He is the co-editor with Alexandra Nadapoff of the book America Unfinished,
00:08:25 --> 00:08:31 250 Years of Law and Governance, an essay collection from Harvard Law School faculty.
00:08:32 --> 00:08:36 Ladies and gentlemen, it is my distinct honor and privilege to have as a guest
00:08:36 --> 00:08:40 on this podcast, Guillermo Charles.
00:08:50 --> 00:08:55 All right. Gheiriel Charles. How are you doing, Professor? Are you doing good?
00:08:56 --> 00:08:58 I'm doing well. Thank you so much for having me, Mr. Fleming.
00:08:58 --> 00:09:00 Well, I am honored to have you.
00:09:01 --> 00:09:08 And this has kind of worked out as a bookend, because I had Alexander Natapoff
00:09:08 --> 00:09:12 on to kind of kick off, and I've had the privilege of interviewing some other
00:09:12 --> 00:09:14 contributors to America Unfinished.
00:09:14 --> 00:09:18 So now, since you were the co-editor, we'll close it out with you,
00:09:19 --> 00:09:25 and it just worked out that way normally how i start off the interviews is that
00:09:25 --> 00:09:29 i i issue a quote for the guest to respond to,
00:09:30 --> 00:09:36 and the first well i do two icebreakers so the quote is first and the quote
00:09:36 --> 00:09:42 is once people have that sense that their voice is being recognized then,
00:09:43 --> 00:09:47 they then are more willing to move to consensus.
00:09:47 --> 00:09:52 Once people feel that their ideas are respected, I think that you will find
00:09:52 --> 00:09:54 a move toward cooperation.
00:09:54 --> 00:09:58 People are much more conciliatory once they feel they've been respected.
00:09:59 --> 00:10:04 That's the threshold we need to get to, the idea of respecting different viewpoints.
00:10:05 --> 00:10:08 Hmm. So he's like for me to react to that quote. Yeah.
00:10:09 --> 00:10:12 Sure. I mean, I think there's a lot to be said in that quote.
00:10:12 --> 00:10:15 I mean, in many respects that you could kind of think about,
00:10:15 --> 00:10:18 that's what democracy is really about.
00:10:18 --> 00:10:23 Democracy is about the fact that you have people with different views,
00:10:23 --> 00:10:28 and then they're trying to figure out how is it that people who are very different
00:10:28 --> 00:10:29 from each other, no matter,
00:10:30 --> 00:10:34 where it is that they're coming from, they just have different views about.
00:10:35 --> 00:10:39 How to go about the world, what the meaning of the good is, and how to get there.
00:10:40 --> 00:10:44 And the first step that is really important is that people have voice,
00:10:44 --> 00:10:50 meaning that they get to express their ideas and their understanding.
00:10:50 --> 00:10:54 And if they don't have that voice, if they don't feel like they're being,
00:10:54 --> 00:10:59 that they have an opportunity to be heard and that they in fact are being heard,
00:10:59 --> 00:11:02 then they will be unwilling to cooperate.
00:11:02 --> 00:11:07 So it will basically be okay fine if you're not going to listen to me i'm not
00:11:07 --> 00:11:11 going to listen to you and then now we basically have a fight
00:11:11 --> 00:11:17 over who is strongest because some some way somebody has to have their way some
00:11:17 --> 00:11:21 faction has to have their way some group has to have their way and then it just becomes
00:11:22 --> 00:11:29 a determination of who is strongest and who can use whatever conception of force can come into play.
00:11:29 --> 00:11:36 So I think that quote says a lot about what it means to be in a civilized society.
00:11:36 --> 00:11:41 And the first step of that is people need to be heard.
00:11:41 --> 00:11:45 And then you have a chance at getting their cooperation and you have a chance
00:11:45 --> 00:11:48 at maybe even getting compromise.
00:11:49 --> 00:11:53 But you don't you don't get it without the opportunity to be heard.
00:11:53 --> 00:12:01 And in fact, feeling that and understanding that your voice matters and that it counts. Yeah.
00:12:01 --> 00:12:08 Usually I try to find a quote from the guest, but that quote was from Lonnie
00:12:08 --> 00:12:12 Guineer. And I thought that was very, very appropriate based on what you were talking about.
00:12:13 --> 00:12:19 In your essay. So, Mal, the next icebreaker is what I call 20 questions.
00:12:20 --> 00:12:26 So, I need you to give me a number between 1 and 20. Mm-hmm. All right. Eight. Okay.
00:12:27 --> 00:12:33 What is one thing you hope the current administration will do or not do during
00:12:33 --> 00:12:34 the remainder of their turn?
00:12:35 --> 00:12:36 Well, the not do is pretty easy.
00:12:37 --> 00:12:40 The not do especially with the midterms coming up,
00:12:41 --> 00:12:46 or the version of the not do is similar with the will do will do is respect
00:12:46 --> 00:12:52 the results of the election the not do is not interfere with a free and fair election okay,
00:12:53 --> 00:12:58 so i've heard alexandra's side of the story so now i want you to tell me your
00:12:58 --> 00:13:01 version of the origin story for america unfinished.
00:13:03 --> 00:13:09 Sure the the book came I'm a bad because first, and that up off,
00:13:09 --> 00:13:16 walked into my office one day and then said, Hey, I have an idea and then express what the idea was.
00:13:17 --> 00:13:19 Maybe we've been colleagues and friends for a very long time.
00:13:19 --> 00:13:23 And quite frankly, even before she, you know, said, you know,
00:13:23 --> 00:13:26 kind of like, I have an idea. It's a little bit crazy.
00:13:26 --> 00:13:28 You know, I was like, ah, it doesn't matter. I'm in.
00:13:29 --> 00:13:36 And then she articulated what the view was. Look, this is an important moment.
00:13:36 --> 00:13:41 We talk a lot about academic freedom. We talk a lot about with our students
00:13:42 --> 00:13:45 what this moment means and how to respond to it.
00:13:46 --> 00:13:51 And the thought was, look, we should do something together as a faculty that meets the moment.
00:13:51 --> 00:13:57 So the moment, you know, it can be is really in the eye of the beholder.
00:13:57 --> 00:14:00 So, yes, it is the 250th anniversary.
00:14:00 --> 00:14:07 But yes, also, it is a question about what does rule of law mean today?
00:14:07 --> 00:14:15 Yes, it is the role of the Supreme Court in the sense that the court and its
00:14:15 --> 00:14:19 rulings for some people have gone beyond the pale.
00:14:19 --> 00:14:26 Well, yes, it is about executive power. Yes, it is about the role of the United States and the world.
00:14:26 --> 00:14:29 Yes, it is about the end of the Voting Rights Act.
00:14:30 --> 00:14:35 And in some ways, the end of the civil rights framework and what it means to
00:14:35 --> 00:14:41 be a person of color, a black person in the United States of America in 2026, right?
00:14:42 --> 00:14:45 So it all depends on what you mean by the moment.
00:14:45 --> 00:14:50 And wherever it is that you're coming from, person of color or not,
00:14:50 --> 00:14:52 liberal or conservative.
00:14:52 --> 00:14:57 You're concerned about the court, lawyer or not, average citizen who's kind
00:14:57 --> 00:15:03 of worried that the people in power are not listening to you.
00:15:03 --> 00:15:07 So for a lot of people, whatever the moment means, a lot of different things,
00:15:07 --> 00:15:09 depending upon what their vantage point is.
00:15:10 --> 00:15:17 But it's clear that for many people, for a lot of people, there is a question about the moment.
00:15:17 --> 00:15:21 There is a question about a crossroad and how do we think about that crossroad.
00:15:22 --> 00:15:25 And particularly for those of us who are lawyers and law professors,
00:15:25 --> 00:15:31 the role of law and rule of law, the role of law and legal governance,
00:15:31 --> 00:15:34 the role of law and the American constitutional system.
00:15:35 --> 00:15:41 And so it did seem to be fitting to bring the faculty together and to think
00:15:41 --> 00:15:47 about what we, especially we as Harvard Law faculty, have to contribute to,
00:15:47 --> 00:15:51 whatever one's interpretation is of the moment. Yeah.
00:15:52 --> 00:15:58 Why is the concept of one people the most audacious provocation of America?
00:15:59 --> 00:16:06 So think about the difficulty of carrying out any enterprise,
00:16:06 --> 00:16:09 right? Whatever it is that you want to do, all right?
00:16:10 --> 00:16:17 And the idea of doing it as a collective action, so within a family,
00:16:17 --> 00:16:19 choosing a restaurant, right?
00:16:20 --> 00:16:27 All right. Sometimes those mundane tasks sort of reveal the difficulty of collective
00:16:27 --> 00:16:30 action because everybody has a different view.
00:16:30 --> 00:16:36 Everybody has different preferences and we're all wedded to those preferences.
00:16:36 --> 00:16:40 Right. And then we can escalate the task to greater levels of difficulty.
00:16:40 --> 00:16:46 So restaurant to vacation to moving. All right. Right.
00:16:46 --> 00:16:52 Assuming that the whole family has a choice and a say, and then go beyond the
00:16:52 --> 00:16:58 family to a workplace, go beyond a workplace to local governance,
00:16:59 --> 00:17:01 go beyond that to a house of worship.
00:17:02 --> 00:17:10 So making a set of collective choices in whatever unit, whether small,
00:17:10 --> 00:17:14 medium, or extremely large, is extremely difficult. Okay.
00:17:14 --> 00:17:21 Now imagine doing whatever the collective choice is with a bunch of people.
00:17:21 --> 00:17:24 So it's not just the family. It's not your family.
00:17:24 --> 00:17:28 It's now you bringing in some other families from the neighborhood.
00:17:28 --> 00:17:32 Okay, well, imagine not just some families from the neighborhood,
00:17:32 --> 00:17:36 but some families from the city, right?
00:17:36 --> 00:17:44 Or even broader than that. The point is the task of doing something collectively
00:17:45 --> 00:17:49 is really, really hard, even with people who agree with one another.
00:17:50 --> 00:17:56 But now think about doing a really hard thing with people who are very different
00:17:56 --> 00:18:02 from each other and who have different views about how to do that hard thing.
00:18:02 --> 00:18:07 And that hard thing that we're talking about is self-governance or democracy.
00:18:08 --> 00:18:15 Which in many ways is a relatively new human invention, because for a lot of
00:18:15 --> 00:18:21 human history, we've been ruled in large part by whatever force.
00:18:21 --> 00:18:28 So the force of the king, the force of the of the religious leader or whatever
00:18:28 --> 00:18:35 force, but not this idea of we are going to mutually submit to one another
00:18:35 --> 00:18:38 to decide where we want to go
00:18:38 --> 00:18:42 and that everybody gets something resembling an equal say.
00:18:43 --> 00:18:48 So that idea, that first step is a really difficult one.
00:18:49 --> 00:18:54 And then the next step is, oh, we're going to treat our differences as if they don't matter.
00:18:55 --> 00:19:00 Even though we are really different from one another, we're going to collectively
00:19:00 --> 00:19:02 think of ourselves as one people.
00:19:03 --> 00:19:09 And even 250 years later, we saw the Vice President of the United States talking
00:19:09 --> 00:19:10 about heritage Americans.
00:19:11 --> 00:19:15 And the real question is, who is an American? Even 250 years later.
00:19:16 --> 00:19:22 Some people want to debate this idea that, well, in order to be a true American,
00:19:22 --> 00:19:28 you have to have a certain look, a certain history, a certain way of speaking.
00:19:28 --> 00:19:32 So from the point of the essay is to note that from the very beginning,
00:19:33 --> 00:19:39 you had differences in America, and basically people regarded those differences
00:19:39 --> 00:19:42 as immaterial, and that we're going to treat
00:19:42 --> 00:19:47 those differences as if they didn't matter, that we are one people.
00:19:48 --> 00:19:54 And this idea you could build out of many, one, for the task of self-governance
00:19:54 --> 00:20:00 is, if you really think about it is not just a provocative in terms of like,
00:20:00 --> 00:20:02 are we really going to do this?
00:20:02 --> 00:20:07 Right. Are we really going to allow other people or if we're going to define
00:20:07 --> 00:20:11 other people to have a say in our destiny?
00:20:11 --> 00:20:17 So are you going to give a vote to your neighbor as to how you run your family?
00:20:18 --> 00:20:22 Right. That just is a crazy idea. And the idea that, oh, we're going to treat
00:20:22 --> 00:20:28 differences as that they don't matter, that we truly really are one people and that we're going to.
00:20:29 --> 00:20:33 Do this exercise in self-governance together, right?
00:20:33 --> 00:20:37 That's a provocative concept because for a lot
00:20:37 --> 00:20:45 of human history, we've really divided ourselves, not just into our tribes, into our clans,
00:20:45 --> 00:20:53 but in narrowly as much as possible, as opposed to the American idea of taking difference
00:20:53 --> 00:20:55 and saying those differences are not going to matter.
00:20:56 --> 00:21:01 We're going to treat those differences as if they're irrelevant and really say
00:21:01 --> 00:21:07 that we're one people who are going to mutually submit to one another for the
00:21:07 --> 00:21:09 purpose of self-governance.
00:21:09 --> 00:21:12 That, in many respects, is radical and crazy.
00:21:13 --> 00:21:17 But that's the American experiment. Yeah, that's what they wrote down, right?
00:21:17 --> 00:21:24 That's the declaration. And I was teasing Professor Natapoff about how come
00:21:24 --> 00:21:28 the focus, her focus is on the Gettysburg Address and not the preamble to the Constitution.
00:21:29 --> 00:21:32 So, of course, it was refreshing to me to see you refer to the preamble,
00:21:33 --> 00:21:38 because I think that that is as much of a guide, but, and you refer to it as
00:21:38 --> 00:21:40 a credo document, and I totally agree with that.
00:21:41 --> 00:21:43 But like you said, they wrote that down.
00:21:44 --> 00:21:50 That's the objective. So, yeah, it may be a crazy idea, but that was the goal that you set.
00:21:51 --> 00:21:53 And that leads me to my next question.
00:21:54 --> 00:21:59 Why should we not limit our evaluation of the American project by its deficiencies?
00:21:59 --> 00:22:05 Well, I mean, I think we should recognize the deficiencies of the American project.
00:22:05 --> 00:22:11 There's no doubt about that. And it has had legendary defects.
00:22:12 --> 00:22:18 And at the same time, we should recognize the successes of the American project.
00:22:18 --> 00:22:23 And at the same time, it has had legendary successes.
00:22:23 --> 00:22:29 Right. So you take a fledgling a group of people, 250 years later.
00:22:31 --> 00:22:38 They declare 250 plus years ago that they're breaking away from an eminent power.
00:22:38 --> 00:22:45 250 years later, and much less than that, they become and they are recognized
00:22:45 --> 00:22:48 as the superpower in the world.
00:22:48 --> 00:22:54 Within that, they have brought together people from all parts of the world, right?
00:22:54 --> 00:22:57 Some who are obviously imported against their will.
00:22:58 --> 00:23:04 Undoubtedly, without a doubt, that has been a long problem and a key deficiency
00:23:04 --> 00:23:06 in the American enterprise, right?
00:23:07 --> 00:23:13 While at the same time, those people who were formerly enslaved have gone on
00:23:13 --> 00:23:20 to play critical roles in all aspects of the American experiment, right?
00:23:20 --> 00:23:27 From running the country to being governors and senators, but also to being
00:23:27 --> 00:23:32 leading people in legal institutions and economic institutions and,
00:23:32 --> 00:23:37 tech institutions, to being the core of the federal workforce,
00:23:37 --> 00:23:43 to being the core of the state government, to also being individuals,
00:23:44 --> 00:23:49 who in various aspects make the country work, not to mention the role that they
00:23:49 --> 00:23:55 play in setting American culture, not to mention the role that they play.
00:23:56 --> 00:23:57 In American entertainment.
00:23:58 --> 00:24:04 So there are various aspects of a people who were once regarded as second-class
00:24:04 --> 00:24:08 citizens being a core fabric of the American experiment.
00:24:09 --> 00:24:14 So we must recognize both the deficiencies. We have to be honest about that.
00:24:14 --> 00:24:16 But we also have to be honest about its successes.
00:24:17 --> 00:24:23 And both enable us to determine how far we have to go and in what direction
00:24:23 --> 00:24:25 we need to keep pressing. Yeah.
00:24:26 --> 00:24:32 You make the argument that mutual and collective flourishing is the metric for
00:24:32 --> 00:24:35 assessing national and constitutional success.
00:24:35 --> 00:24:40 My question is, can that truly be achieved in a capitalistic society?
00:24:41 --> 00:24:45 Well, sure. I mean, I think it can be achieved in a capitalist society and in
00:24:45 --> 00:24:50 other societies. That is the question we have to ask ourselves. And this is a point.
00:24:50 --> 00:24:57 And I'm making a provocative point. I'm making both a normative point and descriptive one.
00:24:57 --> 00:25:04 That is, we ought to understand the success of the American enterprise from
00:25:04 --> 00:25:08 the vantage point of how well does it work for everyone, right?
00:25:09 --> 00:25:14 We shouldn't understand it from the vantage point of how well does it work for some, okay?
00:25:15 --> 00:25:20 And now, secondarily, we can also say, even within a capitalist society and
00:25:20 --> 00:25:23 system, that But overall,
00:25:24 --> 00:25:30 when you look at the various successes and even in some of the places in the U.S.
00:25:30 --> 00:25:37 That struggles the most, overall, we do better than many, many parts around the world.
00:25:38 --> 00:25:43 So the American experiment as a general matter has not only worked for Americans,
00:25:44 --> 00:25:49 but in some respects it has also worked for non-Americans and people overseas given the
00:25:50 --> 00:25:53 technology that has been developed here, the medicine that has been developed
00:25:53 --> 00:25:55 here, the various approaches,
00:25:57 --> 00:26:02 to governance that has also been developed here that has been exported and shared elsewhere.
00:26:02 --> 00:26:08 So now, that doesn't mean, for example, that we can't do better in terms of,
00:26:09 --> 00:26:15 leveling off the burdens that are disproportionately borne,
00:26:16 --> 00:26:21 by folks on the bottom end of the socioeconomic class ladder, right?
00:26:21 --> 00:26:25 So it is, should be a task.
00:26:25 --> 00:26:31 It is and ought to be the task of assuring that our sisters and brothers who
00:26:31 --> 00:26:38 are less well off, that we're providing a type of safety net and support network.
00:26:38 --> 00:26:42 And if you want to call that democratic socialism or you simply want to call
00:26:42 --> 00:26:49 that soft capitalism, whatever you want to call it, I think there's something to be said for it.
00:26:49 --> 00:26:55 But I think judging by the numbers, it's pretty clear that.
00:26:56 --> 00:27:02 From that aspect that capitalism has done some work, while at the same time
00:27:02 --> 00:27:05 it has its costs, and we have to be honest about that as well.
00:27:06 --> 00:27:14 But the basic idea is whatever our economic system is, we should assure that
00:27:14 --> 00:27:19 it works as well, that it works collectively, right? Right.
00:27:20 --> 00:27:25 And I think there's a lot to be said for dealing with the rough edges of our
00:27:25 --> 00:27:27 current economic system.
00:27:27 --> 00:27:36 You know, you're a sports fan, I am sure, even in what is supposed to be a cutthroat
00:27:36 --> 00:27:40 capitalist, supposedly meritocratic framework,
00:27:41 --> 00:27:43 there are soft edges.
00:27:43 --> 00:27:49 The rough parts are smoothed out, right? Meaning that there is a salary cap
00:27:49 --> 00:27:50 in a lot of sports leagues.
00:27:50 --> 00:27:56 There are various rules to assure. So in some sports leagues,
00:27:56 --> 00:28:01 The group that finishes at the bottom gets to draft first, right?
00:28:01 --> 00:28:04 That doesn't happen in every major sports league, but it happens in some.
00:28:04 --> 00:28:09 There are attempts to level the playing field because we also recognize that
00:28:09 --> 00:28:15 you can't have true competition if it's simply purely cutthroat, right?
00:28:15 --> 00:28:20 So even within a capitalist framework, one has to think about how do you smooth
00:28:20 --> 00:28:23 the edges? How do you level the playing field?
00:28:24 --> 00:28:28 And that still is that one version or another capitalist. But if you want to
00:28:28 --> 00:28:30 call it something else, perfectly happy with that.
00:28:30 --> 00:28:35 Yeah, it's like revenue sharing, a lot of things. That's why even though I'm
00:28:35 --> 00:28:37 a sports fan, you are correct on that.
00:28:37 --> 00:28:43 I am a big fan of baseball because you can look at a team like Pittsburgh and
00:28:43 --> 00:28:47 they have like the lower salary every year, average salary.
00:28:48 --> 00:28:52 And then they can show up one day and beat the Dodgers who are paying everybody
00:28:52 --> 00:28:53 a hundred million dollars. Right.
00:28:54 --> 00:28:58 So, you know, it's it's like you said, it's that possibility.
00:28:58 --> 00:28:59 And that's why I love that answer.
00:29:00 --> 00:29:03 I love the way that you initially responded to us. Of course we can.
00:29:03 --> 00:29:07 You know, because capitalism doesn't have to be cutthroat.
00:29:08 --> 00:29:11 I think, you know, there's certain elements of it. But I think when you're talking
00:29:11 --> 00:29:16 about uplifting a nation and the people in that nation.
00:29:18 --> 00:29:22 The wealthiest nation in the world should be able to make sure that all of its
00:29:22 --> 00:29:24 citizens are taken care of.
00:29:25 --> 00:29:29 That's correct. That's right. I mean, so, for example, in the U.S.
00:29:29 --> 00:29:34 Context, there's some things that we think of, say, universal health care or right to education.
00:29:34 --> 00:29:41 And we want to say that that is against either the capitalist system or the American ethos.
00:29:41 --> 00:29:44 And I think that those are things that are false.
00:29:44 --> 00:29:49 The right to universal health care or right to education are all compatible
00:29:49 --> 00:29:51 with a capitalist environment.
00:29:52 --> 00:29:58 And we do have and we see elements in our capitalist system.
00:29:58 --> 00:30:04 We have antitrust laws as one example. We see elements that enable fair competition,
00:30:05 --> 00:30:08 that allows for upward mobility.
00:30:08 --> 00:30:14 And so the idea that our definition of fairness or capitalism or meritocracy
00:30:15 --> 00:30:21 means only cutthroat, I think that is inconsistent with our history and our practices. Yeah.
00:30:22 --> 00:30:26 All right. So, you believe the race-based model of the Voting Rights Act has
00:30:26 --> 00:30:29 run its course. Why do you believe that?
00:30:30 --> 00:30:36 So, if you think about when the VRA was first enacted, let's say for two reasons.
00:30:36 --> 00:30:41 So, let me just outline the reasons for you. When the VRA was first enacted
00:30:41 --> 00:30:47 in 1965, the world, the United States looked very, very different.
00:30:47 --> 00:30:53 For the most part, you had a very dominant racial majority.
00:30:54 --> 00:31:00 White Americans were somewhere around 90, 88% of the population.
00:31:01 --> 00:31:07 Then you had a large racial minority, African Americans, and then the smaller
00:31:07 --> 00:31:09 groups of other racial minorities.
00:31:09 --> 00:31:17 And for the And for the most part, the problem of voting was of the majority
00:31:17 --> 00:31:19 doing everything that it can.
00:31:19 --> 00:31:23 This was specifically the history of the South, but not just of the South.
00:31:23 --> 00:31:29 Doing everything that it can to deny or deprive the minority of voice, right?
00:31:29 --> 00:31:31 So you can't even vote.
00:31:32 --> 00:31:36 And if we allow you to vote, we're going to dilute your vote.
00:31:36 --> 00:31:41 And make it as ineffective as possible. That was the history.
00:31:42 --> 00:31:46 And the government could not be trusted. You couldn't trust the Mississippi.
00:31:46 --> 00:31:50 You couldn't trust Alabama. You couldn't trust North or South Carolina,
00:31:50 --> 00:31:54 because as soon as you turned around, they were going to pass a new law.
00:31:55 --> 00:32:02 Specifically aimed at trying to either deny vote to Black people or dilute their
00:32:02 --> 00:32:04 votes if they couldn't outright deny it.
00:32:05 --> 00:32:11 So they would employ literacy tests to make it either harder for Black people to register to vote,
00:32:11 --> 00:32:18 by giving them a harder test or simply denying them the right altogether by
00:32:18 --> 00:32:22 saying, look, you didn't pass the test, whether you pass it or not.
00:32:22 --> 00:32:28 Or if you got a, if you went to court and you got a judgment against the registrar.
00:32:29 --> 00:32:34 Or the county board, they resigned en masse, and so you couldn't enforce the judgment.
00:32:34 --> 00:32:36 That was the story.
00:32:36 --> 00:32:41 And at the same time, you had a constitutional framework that understood
00:32:41 --> 00:32:46 racial discrimination as being the problem of the 20th century,
00:32:46 --> 00:32:51 if not the problem of the 19th century as well, leading into the 20th century.
00:32:52 --> 00:32:58 And the constitutional law at the second half of the 20th century, was,
00:32:59 --> 00:33:04 protective of the framework of the VRA in order to address the problem of racial
00:33:04 --> 00:33:08 discrimination, specifically against African Americans, not just African Americans,
00:33:08 --> 00:33:12 but as it turned out, of course, Native Americans as well,
00:33:12 --> 00:33:14 and Latinos as well. All right.
00:33:15 --> 00:33:17 Come into the 21st century, we have a very different country.
00:33:17 --> 00:33:25 We have a country that, you know, and depending upon how the demographics go, in 20, 25 years, well.
00:33:26 --> 00:33:31 Could be a majority-minority country, meaning that the majority of people in
00:33:31 --> 00:33:37 the United States in 25, 30, 40 years, again, depending on where the demographics
00:33:37 --> 00:33:40 go, are likely to be people of color.
00:33:41 --> 00:33:46 So you don't have an 89, 88, 90% white country.
00:33:46 --> 00:33:50 You have a bunch of racial minorities. So African-Americans,
00:33:51 --> 00:33:56 12, 13% of the population. Latinos are now the largest minority group.
00:33:56 --> 00:34:00 Asian-Americans are the largest growing minority group.
00:34:00 --> 00:34:06 So you have a very different country than you did before, whereas before the
00:34:06 --> 00:34:12 problem was the South in particular intending to discriminate on the basis of race.
00:34:12 --> 00:34:18 Now, you still have a voting problem, but it really is a bunch of groups competing
00:34:18 --> 00:34:23 for power and using the rules to,
00:34:24 --> 00:34:28 manipulate the rules in order to maximize their ability to hold on to power.
00:34:28 --> 00:34:34 But as importantly, you no longer have a constitutional framework and a constitutional.
00:34:35 --> 00:34:37 System that is responsible.
00:34:38 --> 00:34:44 Of racial discrimination that sees racial discrimination as a problem that then
00:34:44 --> 00:34:46 recognizes that we need to make,
00:34:47 --> 00:34:52 allowance for racial equality to give Congress the power to resolve the problem
00:34:52 --> 00:34:54 of racial discrimination.
00:34:54 --> 00:35:00 And so what some have viewed as the race-based exception to,
00:35:00 --> 00:35:03 if it was an exception, you could argue that it was an exception.
00:35:03 --> 00:35:07 It was simply an expression of racial equality, but whichever side of that that
00:35:07 --> 00:35:11 you're on, that framework is no longer there.
00:35:11 --> 00:35:14 You have a Supreme Court that doesn't believe that racial discrimination is
00:35:14 --> 00:35:19 a problem, has implemented a colorblindness view of the Constitution.
00:35:20 --> 00:35:25 So what that means is you can't have a Voting Rights Act that is race-based
00:35:25 --> 00:35:31 because the court has functionally outlawed that framework. So you need something else.
00:35:31 --> 00:35:35 And my project, which I started with the co-author, You know,
00:35:35 --> 00:35:40 I've been writing about this for 15 plus years. We've been seeing that this
00:35:40 --> 00:35:42 is that this is where the writing on the wall was going.
00:35:42 --> 00:35:45 And so say, hey, you need a different model.
00:35:45 --> 00:35:49 And now it's very clear that that's the writing is actually on the wall and
00:35:49 --> 00:35:51 that you, in fact, need a different model.
00:35:51 --> 00:35:57 And so you can't go back to the race-based framework, partly because it will
00:35:57 --> 00:36:03 be hard to define what voting discrimination is when you have a world.
00:36:04 --> 00:36:13 Of smaller racial minorities, but also because of where the constitutional jurisprudence is as well.
00:36:13 --> 00:36:15 Yeah, that's...
00:36:17 --> 00:36:21 I get where you're coming from with that. And, you know, one of my rules is
00:36:21 --> 00:36:26 that once you've been a guest, you got an automatic open invitation to come back.
00:36:26 --> 00:36:30 So that might be something we might need to come back to because I really,
00:36:31 --> 00:36:39 I really, I understand, but I'm a little concerned. But we'll deal with that later. I mean.
00:36:42 --> 00:36:45 If you want to talk about it now. No, no, no, no. We are limited time and I
00:36:45 --> 00:36:48 got a bunch of other questions, but I, but I, but I get what you,
00:36:48 --> 00:36:53 I get what you're saying. I get your argument and, and, and I'm not necessarily against it.
00:36:53 --> 00:36:56 I just, I want to flush that out a little more.
00:36:56 --> 00:36:59 At some point, I'm happy to. All right.
00:37:00 --> 00:37:05 What is proportional representation and how can it guard against racial discrimination?
00:37:05 --> 00:37:13 Sure. So, I mean, the simple way of thinking about it is when,
00:37:13 --> 00:37:17 let's say there are 10 of us in a room,
00:37:18 --> 00:37:23 okay, we're trying to decide how to divide a pie, the pie.
00:37:23 --> 00:37:30 And, you know, and one version of the world is, hey, let's cut the pie into 10 equal pieces.
00:37:31 --> 00:37:36 And everybody gets what we're decided as a fair share, proportional share.
00:37:36 --> 00:37:45 There are 10 of us, cut the pie into 10 equal pieces, and we all get, you know, 10%, right?
00:37:45 --> 00:37:51 Okay, the other idea is, hey, we're trying to divide the pie,
00:37:52 --> 00:37:59 and what I'm going to try to do is I'm going to try to get as much of the pie as possible.
00:38:01 --> 00:38:05 So if I can get 30% of it, I'm going to try to get 30% of it.
00:38:05 --> 00:38:08 If I can get 40% of it, I'm going to try to get 40% of it.
00:38:09 --> 00:38:18 That means that if I get 30%, I'm leaving 70% to be shared by the remaining 9 out of the 10 people.
00:38:19 --> 00:38:28 Okay, so our current system basically allows for groups to get more than their
00:38:28 --> 00:38:30 fair share of political power.
00:38:31 --> 00:38:36 If I can draw a district, a map, let's say I'm a political, I'm political party
00:38:36 --> 00:38:40 A and you're a political party B, you represent political party B.
00:38:40 --> 00:38:42 We have two political parties in our, in our jurisdiction.
00:38:42 --> 00:38:48 If I can draw the map to get me 60% of political power or 70% of political power,
00:38:49 --> 00:38:55 the current rules enable me to do so. The only thing that will stop me are the politics, right?
00:38:55 --> 00:39:00 Either the limits on if I draw them, if I do it too much, people are going to
00:39:00 --> 00:39:07 revolt or there might be a backlash because, you know, what if there's a political
00:39:07 --> 00:39:10 wave that comes and I cut the slice too thin?
00:39:10 --> 00:39:14 Okay, but there are no legal rules, right?
00:39:14 --> 00:39:20 So under the current framework, it's first past the post, single member district,
00:39:20 --> 00:39:27 which means that, hey, I could draw the map to maximize my political power and get more.
00:39:28 --> 00:39:31 Than I would be proportionally allowed to. All right.
00:39:31 --> 00:39:34 The idea of proportional representation is basically simple.
00:39:34 --> 00:39:41 You should get the amount of political power that represents the proportion
00:39:41 --> 00:39:49 of the ideas and preferences that you have in the district and the jurisdiction and the state, right?
00:39:49 --> 00:39:53 So if you're 10%, then you get 10%.
00:39:53 --> 00:39:59 If you're 30%, you get 30%. If you're 40%, right? So it's a different idea of
00:39:59 --> 00:40:06 fairness. It is fair political power is what your population is represented
00:40:06 --> 00:40:08 in the jurisdiction and the district.
00:40:08 --> 00:40:13 And what it does is, and this is how it protects against racial discrimination,
00:40:13 --> 00:40:16 is basically, let's say, African-Americans are.
00:40:17 --> 00:40:22 They are, they represent 20% of the population. They vote as a block.
00:40:23 --> 00:40:27 They, they, they form a certain type of ideology.
00:40:27 --> 00:40:31 Well, if you're, if the system by which you divide political,
00:40:31 --> 00:40:36 you determine political power is one of proportionality, whatever that group
00:40:36 --> 00:40:38 is, is what it's going to represent.
00:40:38 --> 00:40:43 So, so you don't even have to think be race-based. You simply have to say,
00:40:43 --> 00:40:47 okay, well, what are the groups in our society, right? There are 10 of us.
00:40:47 --> 00:40:52 All right. So now we divide the pie, 10 equal pieces. And that's the basic idea
00:40:52 --> 00:40:54 of proportional representation.
00:40:54 --> 00:41:01 It's an idea of fairness in terms of how you allocate political power or how
00:41:01 --> 00:41:04 you translate vote into seats.
00:41:04 --> 00:41:08 Yeah, because there's different variations of that. And that's also something
00:41:08 --> 00:41:12 we can come back and get into a little later. But I wanted to pick your brain when I had the chance.
00:41:13 --> 00:41:16 But there's variations of that. Like in Maryland, for example,
00:41:16 --> 00:41:19 when they redistrict, they only redistrict Senate districts,
00:41:19 --> 00:41:26 and then each Senate district elects four delegates to serve in the House of Delegates in Maryland.
00:41:27 --> 00:41:32 The Democratic Party, when they decide how many delegates states can have,
00:41:32 --> 00:41:39 it's based on what percentage did that presidential candidate the election before get.
00:41:39 --> 00:41:44 So if the presidential candidate only got 45 percent then you know in the scheme
00:41:44 --> 00:41:49 of things you can't have more delegates in your state than a state that gave
00:41:49 --> 00:41:53 the president 60 or 70 percent right so,
00:41:54 --> 00:41:58 i i see where that's going and one of the things i had noticed was like the
00:41:58 --> 00:42:04 states like wyoming or north dakota somewhere like that they only have one congressperson,
00:42:05 --> 00:42:09 don't touch them but it was like states that have multiple, that's where that
00:42:09 --> 00:42:12 proportional representation would be tested on.
00:42:12 --> 00:42:16 Yeah, that's correct. I mean, so the basic, I mean, there are different,
00:42:16 --> 00:42:23 ways to do proportional representation. But the real basic idea is the result
00:42:23 --> 00:42:28 is to proportionately approximate and turn,
00:42:29 --> 00:42:33 votes into representation or seats in the legislature.
00:42:34 --> 00:42:38 Now, there are some things, you know, some groups are going to get a minimum.
00:42:38 --> 00:42:46 So, for example, Even if we did the House of Representatives or we.
00:42:48 --> 00:42:52 Amended the Constitution and changed the Senate, you're still going to have
00:42:52 --> 00:42:56 to give a certain minimum to a particular group.
00:42:56 --> 00:42:59 So you have to determine what is that level of threshold, right?
00:42:59 --> 00:43:02 So that threshold, you're going to give some voice to the smaller groups,
00:43:02 --> 00:43:05 and you should have to determine where that is going to be.
00:43:05 --> 00:43:08 But basically, the idea is.
00:43:11 --> 00:43:16 The more votes that you have, then the more seats that you should get.
00:43:16 --> 00:43:22 And there should be proportionality between votes and seats.
00:43:23 --> 00:43:26 As I said, there are multiple mechanisms of how you get there.
00:43:26 --> 00:43:32 There are different systems. There's what I've called open list, closed list.
00:43:32 --> 00:43:36 You could do a mixed member system. So there are lots of variations,
00:43:37 --> 00:43:45 but the basic idea is one of fairness, and it defines fairness as proportional power. Yeah.
00:43:46 --> 00:43:50 All right. So let's get to this election before I let you go.
00:43:51 --> 00:43:54 Are you worried about Todd Blanche, Pete Hegzeff, Kash Patel,
00:43:54 --> 00:44:00 and Markway Mullen using their respective agencies to impact the upcoming midterms,
00:44:01 --> 00:44:03 or are they just saber-rattling?
00:44:03 --> 00:44:05 You know, I think that's a great question.
00:44:06 --> 00:44:14 You know, you've posed this question perfectly because there are many times
00:44:14 --> 00:44:18 in which it really does seem like this is saber-rattling.
00:44:19 --> 00:44:24 And that to the extent that either ICE would show up,
00:44:25 --> 00:44:34 or National Guard or armed forces would show up all in violation of federal law, that that would be,
00:44:35 --> 00:44:36 a threshold.
00:44:38 --> 00:44:40 That just cannot be breached, right?
00:44:41 --> 00:44:45 So, in some ways, it really does seem like saber rattling.
00:44:45 --> 00:44:49 Now, on the other hand, you know, we still remember January 6th.
00:44:49 --> 00:44:56 We also have heard the president saying that the federal government should take
00:44:56 --> 00:45:01 over state elections and state election apparatus and maybe even seize ballots.
00:45:02 --> 00:45:06 So you want to be on guard, but also recognizing.
00:45:08 --> 00:45:13 That what some of the things that we're worried about are so beyond the pale,
00:45:14 --> 00:45:19 that they seem fantastical, that it would just be crazy to worry about them.
00:45:19 --> 00:45:23 That to the extent that people are talking in crazy talk, that's not possible
00:45:23 --> 00:45:25 within the American context.
00:45:25 --> 00:45:29 So it's really hard to know which side to be.
00:45:30 --> 00:45:35 Now, I think I think the one thing that I would say is you can't take anything
00:45:35 --> 00:45:42 off the table while trying to also be very realistic about what could happen.
00:45:42 --> 00:45:49 OK, if the Democrats achieve the majority in both house in both houses of Congress,
00:45:49 --> 00:45:54 should they focus on laws that lead to mutual and collective flourishing that
00:45:54 --> 00:45:56 will be vetoed by this president?
00:45:57 --> 00:46:02 Or should they pursue measures of accountability that may further divide the nation?
00:46:02 --> 00:46:07 So, all right, another tough question. This time, I will give you a much more direct answer.
00:46:08 --> 00:46:12 Because the last question, I think, is hard to know, because I think there's
00:46:12 --> 00:46:14 a lot of saber-rattling.
00:46:14 --> 00:46:16 But here, I actually have a view.
00:46:17 --> 00:46:24 And I don't think this is the moment for what some would call accountability.
00:46:24 --> 00:46:30 I think the nation is still too divided. You know, so the most that I think
00:46:30 --> 00:46:33 Congress, if the Democrats take over Congress, I think the most that they could
00:46:33 --> 00:46:35 do is provide information.
00:46:36 --> 00:46:40 All right. So I think that's important. So maybe hold holding hearings so that
00:46:40 --> 00:46:46 people will know, maybe even something resembling a truth commission,
00:46:46 --> 00:46:50 not the reconciliation part, but just a truth commission.
00:46:50 --> 00:46:52 Look, let's just find out what happened.
00:46:52 --> 00:46:56 But in terms of other things, and of course, there are some legal limits.
00:46:56 --> 00:47:00 The court's decision in Trump versus the United States imposes some limits on
00:47:00 --> 00:47:04 what the federal Congress can
00:47:04 --> 00:47:08 do in holding the current president and his administration accountable.
00:47:09 --> 00:47:15 But I also think politically that is likely to backfire, that I think what they
00:47:15 --> 00:47:21 ought to do is to show the nation that they can govern and the nation's best interests.
00:47:21 --> 00:47:25 So let's address the economic pain that people are feeling.
00:47:26 --> 00:47:34 Let's attempt to impose some limits on a president's ability to start a war.
00:47:35 --> 00:47:41 Let's address some of the worries that people have about how do you deal with
00:47:41 --> 00:47:49 technology and the importance of AI and technology, but also some of the fears, whether it is on,
00:47:50 --> 00:47:53 the relationship. between AI and the economy?
00:47:54 --> 00:48:00 Will AI displace humans across various job categories, right?
00:48:00 --> 00:48:03 So how much of that it is that we should be worried about and what is it that
00:48:03 --> 00:48:10 we need to do about it and anticipating where some of these problems are going to be, right?
00:48:10 --> 00:48:16 So there are lots of substantive areas in which that demand good governance.
00:48:16 --> 00:48:19 And I think that's where the focus ought to be. Now, you know,
00:48:19 --> 00:48:23 I don't get paid to provide political advice, so one might take those with a
00:48:23 --> 00:48:27 grain of salt, but I think it would be a mistake to try to.
00:48:28 --> 00:48:33 Impose what for some will be accountability, what others will view as retribution,
00:48:33 --> 00:48:37 especially in a moment of significant economic pain.
00:48:37 --> 00:48:41 Yeah. I, you know, I'm, I'm one of those people that believe we can walk and
00:48:41 --> 00:48:47 chew gum at the same time, but I think what the, the, the, the,
00:48:47 --> 00:48:49 the approach that you have,
00:48:50 --> 00:48:54 it just kind of reminds me of in, in the political parties,
00:48:54 --> 00:48:59 when, when they have their conventions, their main function now is not to nominate
00:48:59 --> 00:49:03 a candidate because that's already been decided by the primary elections,
00:49:03 --> 00:49:05 but it's to create a platform.
00:49:06 --> 00:49:11 And I think what the Democratic, if the Democrats have control of both houses
00:49:11 --> 00:49:15 of Congress, I think that should be a national platform committee.
00:49:16 --> 00:49:22 I say, these are the ideas that the next president should do because they can
00:49:22 --> 00:49:25 pass the bills and Trump's going to veto everything that they bring out.
00:49:26 --> 00:49:30 But if they set that platform, then I think the next president,
00:49:31 --> 00:49:35 Democrat or Republican, probably going to be a Democrat, would say,
00:49:35 --> 00:49:39 OK, this is the agenda that's been out there.
00:49:39 --> 00:49:44 And then that president can, you know, decide which part of that agenda they're
00:49:44 --> 00:49:46 going to push for during their term in office.
00:49:47 --> 00:49:51 And I think that'll be more useful than, you know, which I think,
00:49:52 --> 00:49:55 you know, but on the same time, as well as having a truth committee.
00:49:56 --> 00:50:02 If you decide, okay, well, Mr. Hegzeff, the way that you handled the situation
00:50:02 --> 00:50:07 in Iran, you're not capable of a job if you want to impeach somebody like him.
00:50:08 --> 00:50:13 I think the American people are kind of like, okay, even if it's under the delusion
00:50:13 --> 00:50:16 that it's like, well, impeaching him will make my gas prices lower.
00:50:17 --> 00:50:22 I don't think that'll be as divisive as, say, going after the president himself.
00:50:22 --> 00:50:25 So, but that, I mean, that's debatable.
00:50:26 --> 00:50:29 And I don't get paid to give anybody a little bit of advice either.
00:50:30 --> 00:50:35 But, you know, I think it's a discussion that needs to be held by those people who are running.
00:50:35 --> 00:50:39 And then especially who they select as their leadership once they get in there.
00:50:40 --> 00:50:44 All right, Professor, I'm going to let you go. But I got to give you this challenge
00:50:44 --> 00:50:46 before you get out of here.
00:50:47 --> 00:50:49 And the challenge is to finish this sentence.
00:50:50 --> 00:50:51 I have hope because.
00:50:52 --> 00:50:56 That's great. Okay. I mean, I have hoped for a lot, a bunch of reasons, but,
00:50:57 --> 00:51:03 You know, I have the privilege of teaching some amazing and incredible students,
00:51:04 --> 00:51:12 and the vast majority of them are serious about doing something to change the world.
00:51:12 --> 00:51:17 And I think when you have a group of dedicated young people who are serious
00:51:17 --> 00:51:20 about changing the world, that gives hope.
00:51:20 --> 00:51:27 I have hope because in many respects, I think the ideals of the American experiment,
00:51:27 --> 00:51:33 are noble ideals, and those ideals still inspire.
00:51:34 --> 00:51:39 I also have hope because I'm a student of the civil rights movement.
00:51:39 --> 00:51:47 And when you think about where Black people were on the eve of the Civil War, or where you think,
00:51:48 --> 00:51:55 where they were on the eve of the 1960s revolution of the various statutes,
00:51:55 --> 00:52:02 the 64 Civil Rights Act, 65 Voting Rights Act, 68 Fair Housing Act, etc.
00:52:03 --> 00:52:11 And you think about the amount of religious faith as well as political faith
00:52:11 --> 00:52:16 that it took to march against violence, right?
00:52:16 --> 00:52:23 Literal state violence, knowing what your ancestors endured and that they've
00:52:23 --> 00:52:28 been enduring for decades, if not for a century,
00:52:28 --> 00:52:35 but to still be able to say we shall overcome, not as.
00:52:35 --> 00:52:39 Both as a faith description, right?
00:52:39 --> 00:52:43 Sort of like, and we shall overcome as, hey, we are going to because I'm predicting
00:52:43 --> 00:52:46 it, but also because we're going to make it happen.
00:52:47 --> 00:52:56 So given that history, I think that one should continue to have hope.
00:52:57 --> 00:53:01 So, you know, so for many reasons, I think we have age.
00:53:01 --> 00:53:05 I think what the civil rights movement teaches us is something both about faith,
00:53:05 --> 00:53:10 but also about agency that in many respects, we create some of,
00:53:10 --> 00:53:16 the reality, the political reality, the change that needs to happen and the
00:53:16 --> 00:53:20 recognition that that justice does come.
00:53:21 --> 00:53:25 Right. So sometimes I'll talk to my students and I will tell them about from
00:53:25 --> 00:53:31 at least from my the way what I take is inspiration from the black experience and growing up,
00:53:32 --> 00:53:38 and in that environment, both its cultural aspect as well as its religious aspects.
00:53:38 --> 00:53:42 So the idea that joy comes in the morning, right?
00:53:42 --> 00:53:47 So yes, even though that there are things going on in the darkness in the middle
00:53:47 --> 00:53:52 of the night, but you can have hope because tomorrow will be different,
00:53:52 --> 00:53:57 both as a function of faith, but also as a function of agency. Yeah.
00:53:58 --> 00:54:00 All right. So Professor Guillory-O-Charles.
00:54:01 --> 00:54:05 How can people outside of enrolling in Harvard Law School get in touch with
00:54:05 --> 00:54:08 you, and how can people get America Unfinished?
00:54:09 --> 00:54:13 Well, I think my hope is that Professor, well, I'm sure Professor Nadevoff said
00:54:13 --> 00:54:18 this, which is that the MIT Press, fantastic press.
00:54:20 --> 00:54:26 Will make America Unfinished free access after six months of publication.
00:54:26 --> 00:54:28 I think it's in February.
00:54:28 --> 00:54:32 And so that means that anybody in the world could just go on the web and grab
00:54:32 --> 00:54:38 whatever it is that they want, read it for free, don't have to pay anything for it.
00:54:38 --> 00:54:42 So if you don't have, I think it's $26 to buy the book now, just wait a few
00:54:42 --> 00:54:44 months and it's going to be free.
00:54:44 --> 00:54:48 And part of the idea is to make this as freely available for everyone.
00:54:48 --> 00:54:51 The thing about being an academic, especially a legal academic,
00:54:52 --> 00:54:54 my information is all over the web.
00:54:54 --> 00:54:56 So my email address is there.
00:54:57 --> 00:54:59 My work is there.
00:55:00 --> 00:55:07 So being a legal academic means that it's very easy for people to find my work
00:55:07 --> 00:55:10 as well as my information to get in touch if they need to.
00:55:10 --> 00:55:15 Well, Professor Charles, it's been an honor to meet you and to talk to you and
00:55:15 --> 00:55:16 to have you come on the podcast.
00:55:17 --> 00:55:22 And I'm serious. It's like, you know, you have an open invitation to come back.
00:55:22 --> 00:55:28 So I hope that you accept that invitation and we'll get together again sometime soon.
00:55:29 --> 00:55:31 All right. I look forward to it, Mr. Fleming. Thank you so much for having me.
00:55:31 --> 00:55:35 It's also my honor and pleasure. All right, guys. We're going to catch you all on the other side.
00:55:55 --> 00:56:00 All right, we are back. So now it is time for my next guest, Rick Roberts.
00:56:01 --> 00:56:05 Rick Roberts is a specialist professor in the Department of Economics,
00:56:05 --> 00:56:10 Finance, and Real Estate at Monmouth University, teaching courses in a variety
00:56:10 --> 00:56:13 of areas, importantly, macroeconomics and money and banking.
00:56:14 --> 00:56:19 Rick is a former 20-plus-year executive of the Federal Reserve System.
00:56:19 --> 00:56:22 Across his tenure, he headed the New York Central Bank's,
00:56:23 --> 00:56:29 Credit Risk Management during the 2008 financial crisis, led the payment system's
00:56:29 --> 00:56:36 risk area, chaired key system committees on counterparty risk identification and mitigation,
00:56:37 --> 00:56:43 and oversaw the preparation of FOMC monetary policy briefing materials for the
00:56:43 --> 00:56:46 president of the Kansas City Reserve Bank.
00:56:46 --> 00:56:51 Moreover, he took a brief break from the Fed in the early 2000s to start and
00:56:51 --> 00:56:54 run a boutique subprime mortgage hedge fund.
00:56:55 --> 00:57:00 Rick has published a variety of articles on topics, including monetary policy,
00:57:00 --> 00:57:03 money and banking, and the U.S. economic outlook.
00:57:04 --> 00:57:10 His 2016 book, Firewood Held, was a top 20 business book in China.
00:57:10 --> 00:57:15 He holds an MBA with honors from Columbia University and an economics degree
00:57:15 --> 00:57:18 with high honors from Pennsylvania State University.
00:57:18 --> 00:57:23 Ladies and gentlemen, for the third time, I have the distinct honor and privilege
00:57:23 --> 00:57:28 to have as a guest on this podcast, Rick Roberts.
00:57:39 --> 00:57:43 All right. Professor Rick Roberts, how you doing, my man? You doing good?
00:57:44 --> 00:57:50 Eric, how are you? Good to chat. Yeah, I know that this is the school year and
00:57:50 --> 00:57:55 you're trying to get exams and grades together and all that.
00:57:55 --> 00:58:02 The kids are worried, but this is usually a fun time of year for you, isn't it? It is. It is.
00:58:02 --> 00:58:06 The beginning of a semester is always fun, particularly the fall semester.
00:58:06 --> 00:58:09 You know, new energy on campus.
00:58:09 --> 00:58:13 Everyone's enthusiastic. And you're right, we're coming up on the first exams
00:58:13 --> 00:58:17 already, the first midterm. So time flies when you're having fun,
00:58:17 --> 00:58:20 I guess, right? That's exactly right. That's exactly right.
00:58:20 --> 00:58:23 All right, look, so I'm going to do something a little different because you're
00:58:23 --> 00:58:28 a regular on the program, but I do want to start with a quote,
00:58:28 --> 00:58:30 but I'm going to do it this way.
00:58:31 --> 00:58:35 President Trump said, when asked about the nation's economy,
00:58:36 --> 00:58:41 I've done a very bad job of explaining how good the country is doing.
00:58:41 --> 00:58:46 The country's doing better than it has ever done. Is he right?
00:58:48 --> 00:58:53 Well, I'm sure he and his supporters think he is right.
00:58:53 --> 00:58:57 The evidence on how the economy is doing is mixed.
00:58:58 --> 00:59:04 I'd say, you know, in terms of the job market, the labor market clearly has
00:59:04 --> 00:59:08 weakened under Trump, particularly recently.
00:59:08 --> 00:59:13 I mean, we shouldn't get fooled by a low unemployment rate, meaning that the,
00:59:14 --> 00:59:16 you know, the job market is great.
00:59:16 --> 00:59:21 You know, I think in July and August of this year, employment is down by,
00:59:22 --> 00:59:25 I think, a combined 60 jobs or so.
00:59:26 --> 00:59:29 And the payroll growth has been, you know, minuscule.
00:59:30 --> 00:59:34 So we're not looking at a, I guess what I'd call a recessionary labor market,
00:59:34 --> 00:59:38 but we're certainly not looking at a booming one either.
00:59:38 --> 00:59:42 And there's some causes to that we can get into a little later.
00:59:42 --> 00:59:46 But, you know, if I'm talking at a high level in terms of how the president's
00:59:46 --> 00:59:50 economy is doing, one area I pull out is the labor market. And I'd say,
00:59:50 --> 00:59:55 you know, it's not as great as you might think looking at the unemployment rate.
00:59:55 --> 01:00:01 And then inflation, you know, God, I think last time, last couple of times I've
01:00:01 --> 01:00:07 been on over the last few years, it's, you know, it remains uncomfortably high.
01:00:07 --> 01:00:11 The inflation problem isn't solved by any means,
01:00:11 --> 01:00:18 and we remain substantially above the Fed's target of 2%, which frankly,
01:00:18 --> 01:00:22 they haven't met for, I think, going on five years now.
01:00:22 --> 01:00:29 So the Trump economy, in terms of employment, not bad, but not as great as he
01:00:29 --> 01:00:31 might want you to believe.
01:00:31 --> 01:00:38 Inflation, you know, still sticky, still too high, still, you know,
01:00:38 --> 01:00:42 a thorn in the side of most Americans and a painful thorn, if you will.
01:00:43 --> 01:00:49 And, you know, that's continued bad news, although not all of President Trump's fault.
01:00:49 --> 01:00:53 Okay. So why is 2%?
01:00:54 --> 01:00:59 Why is the 2% inflation rate to target of the Federal Reserve under Chairman Walsh.
01:00:59 --> 01:01:09 Yeah. So historically, and maybe this goes back to the 90s under former Chair Greenspan, but 2%,
01:01:10 --> 01:01:15 was chosen, not quite a number pulled out of the air, but pulled out of the air.
01:01:16 --> 01:01:21 Against the backdrop that some other countries were also targeting, 2%.
01:01:21 --> 01:01:28 2% is thought of as a, you know, a low level that allows for some price increases.
01:01:28 --> 01:01:35 After all, we want our economy to grow and a growing economy has increased demand.
01:01:36 --> 01:01:40 You know, as people make more money, we're making more goods so they can buy more.
01:01:40 --> 01:01:44 And that naturally pushes up inflation a little bit, increased demand,
01:01:44 --> 01:01:49 but not too high where It starts to be, as it is today, a major,
01:01:49 --> 01:01:55 you know, thorn in the side of most consumers or many consumers anyway.
01:01:56 --> 01:02:02 You wrote on September 11th that the Fed should wait to vote on interest rates
01:02:02 --> 01:02:06 until after the PCE price index was released.
01:02:07 --> 01:02:15 The PCE price index increased 0.3 percent in August, which was less than expected.
01:02:16 --> 01:02:20 So my question is, is that good news for consumers, banks, or both?
01:02:21 --> 01:02:25 Well, yeah, that's a great question. What I was saying in that article,
01:02:25 --> 01:02:29 which as it happens to be the case, isn't always the case, however, that, you know,
01:02:30 --> 01:02:37 I was dead on with was that the Fed was about to raise interest rates because
01:02:37 --> 01:02:43 primarily they said inflation was too high and they were looking at data that said it's too high.
01:02:43 --> 01:02:49 And that article was saying, look, I don't want to be too common sense oriented here, but.
01:02:50 --> 01:02:55 The new inflation numbers are coming out in two weeks, and they're going to
01:02:55 --> 01:02:59 be recalculated to correct for some errors in the prior data.
01:02:59 --> 01:03:04 So, you know, what's the rush to raise interest rates? Why don't we just wait
01:03:04 --> 01:03:10 two weeks, get the new data, and see what the data suggests inflation is running at?
01:03:10 --> 01:03:13 That's what I was saying. The data did come out, as you mentioned,
01:03:13 --> 01:03:15 and the data were softer.
01:03:15 --> 01:03:20 You know, inflation was not as high as what the Fed had thought it was a couple
01:03:20 --> 01:03:26 of weeks earlier. So, you know, in my opinion, and this may be too much inside
01:03:26 --> 01:03:28 baseball, but I think they raised interest rates.
01:03:28 --> 01:03:31 They were too quick to raise interest rates there. They should have weighed
01:03:31 --> 01:03:34 it. And had they weighed it, possibly they would have sat tight on interest
01:03:34 --> 01:03:40 rates, which are, as you know, very high and going higher. Yeah.
01:03:41 --> 01:03:47 What is the practice of forward guidance and has it outlived its usefulness?
01:03:47 --> 01:03:51 And the reason why I'm asking that is because when Chairman Walsh,
01:03:52 --> 01:03:58 I guess that's how you pronounce his name, he was speaking to folks in Jackson Hole, Wyoming.
01:03:59 --> 01:04:08 And he was basically, he was making the argument that forward guidance was needed after 2008. Yeah.
01:04:09 --> 01:04:15 To get out of that recession. But as of now, we don't need that anymore.
01:04:15 --> 01:04:17 So what's your take on that?
01:04:18 --> 01:04:24 I mean, I tend to agree with my former colleague from the Fed,
01:04:24 --> 01:04:27 although we were at different locations, Chairman Warsh.
01:04:28 --> 01:04:36 Forward guidance came about largely during the financial crisis.
01:04:37 --> 01:04:45 And it was intended to tell the market, look, here's what the Fed is doing today.
01:04:46 --> 01:04:51 And here's what we're going to be doing over some horizon in the future in terms
01:04:51 --> 01:04:56 of interest rates. So look, things are bad enough. And they were back then, right?
01:04:56 --> 01:05:02 You recall, as I do, the great financial crisis, things were bad enough.
01:05:02 --> 01:05:04 So the Fed was more or less saying, look, work.
01:05:05 --> 01:05:10 Don't be worrying about what we're going to do over the next two, three years or so.
01:05:11 --> 01:05:15 Count on us keeping interest rates low. We're not going to raise them.
01:05:15 --> 01:05:18 We promise we're not going to raise them. And you make decisions.
01:05:19 --> 01:05:23 Sound decisions, based on knowing that we're not going to raise interest rates.
01:05:23 --> 01:05:26 We normally don't tell you what we're going to be doing that far out.
01:05:26 --> 01:05:32 But in this situation, times are bad enough that we think we need to let you
01:05:32 --> 01:05:34 know so that you can plan.
01:05:34 --> 01:05:40 And in doing your planning, hopefully prudently, you'll help us dig out of this
01:05:40 --> 01:05:48 hole, you know, the Great Recession there during the 08, 09, 10 time period.
01:05:48 --> 01:05:52 So, you know, the Fed did something new. They told the market,
01:05:53 --> 01:05:56 here's what we're doing today. And they always do that, right?
01:05:56 --> 01:06:00 They have a meeting eight times a year, and they announce what they have done
01:06:00 --> 01:06:02 in terms of interest rates and why they did it.
01:06:03 --> 01:06:07 But up to that point, they were normally quiet about what's going on after that.
01:06:08 --> 01:06:12 In this case, during the financial crisis, they said, look, we cut interest
01:06:12 --> 01:06:15 rates, and normally we don't say what we're going to do in the future here,
01:06:15 --> 01:06:19 but times are bad enough that we're going to tell you what we're doing. And they told them.
01:06:19 --> 01:06:24 And that came to be known as forward guidance. So it was initially thought of,
01:06:24 --> 01:06:28 at least in my opinion, as something that was temporary and offered,
01:06:29 --> 01:06:32 you know, in the midst of a crisis, right?
01:06:32 --> 01:06:36 Well, the crisis eventually passed, but the forward guidance continued and the
01:06:36 --> 01:06:38 market kind of got hooked on it.
01:06:39 --> 01:06:43 You know, the market wanted to know what the Fed's going to be doing over the
01:06:43 --> 01:06:46 next couple of years. And.
01:06:49 --> 01:06:55 You know, it's a crazy game, even on both sides, because the Fed doesn't know,
01:06:55 --> 01:06:58 what it's going to be doing in a couple of years. It kind of depends on what
01:06:58 --> 01:07:02 the economy is doing and so forth. So they really can't say. They're just guessing.
01:07:03 --> 01:07:08 And the market takes that guess and kind of runs with it like it's gospel sometimes.
01:07:09 --> 01:07:15 And Warsh's opinion is, you know what, we shouldn't be telling them what we're
01:07:15 --> 01:07:18 going to be doing in the future because we have no clear vision of what's going
01:07:18 --> 01:07:21 to happen in the future. And we react to what's happening in the market.
01:07:22 --> 01:07:28 So, you know, Chair Warsh feels that he's going to, there's a need to pull back
01:07:28 --> 01:07:31 on forward guidance or basically eliminate it.
01:07:31 --> 01:07:36 And that's where, that's the environment we're in right now. Dan.
01:07:36 --> 01:07:41 All right. Like when President Trump advocates vociferously for lower interest
01:07:41 --> 01:07:47 rates, is he doing that for political reasons or personal wealth reasons?
01:07:47 --> 01:07:52 Because he's he's a different kind of dude, regardless of how you feel about him.
01:07:53 --> 01:07:56 He's basically the wealthiest man ever to be elected to office.
01:07:56 --> 01:08:01 So he's of a different class than most people that serve.
01:08:02 --> 01:08:06 So is his motivation based on,
01:08:07 --> 01:08:11 you know, trying to get him and other Republicans elected or reelected?
01:08:11 --> 01:08:17 Or is his mindset what's good for me and the people in my economic class?
01:08:18 --> 01:08:25 Right. It's at least the former, you know, wanting to get elected and the folks
01:08:25 --> 01:08:27 in power to stay in power.
01:08:27 --> 01:08:32 And, you know, there's, you know, evidence, you know, supporting the latter
01:08:32 --> 01:08:36 as well in terms of how those, some of these decisions would,
01:08:37 --> 01:08:42 you know, benefit his wallet and maybe the wallets of his friends.
01:08:42 --> 01:08:49 But it's at least the former. And in that way, you know, politicians want to
01:08:49 --> 01:08:53 be reelected, right? Want to be reelected. And who votes them in?
01:08:53 --> 01:08:58 It's you and I. And so they need to keep us relatively happy.
01:08:59 --> 01:09:05 And, you know, if you think about it, most people, most of the voting public
01:09:05 --> 01:09:08 prefer lower interest rates, right?
01:09:09 --> 01:09:13 Maybe they'll be able to pull the trigger on that house they've been eyeing
01:09:13 --> 01:09:17 instead of renting, you know, for years and years, or maybe they need an upgraded
01:09:17 --> 01:09:21 car. And if the interest rates are lower, maybe they can afford the monthly
01:09:21 --> 01:09:24 payment and so forth. You know, very few people go to bed at night.
01:09:25 --> 01:09:28 Praying for higher interest rates, right? If anything, you know,
01:09:28 --> 01:09:34 they're neutral, but maybe on balance, they prefer interest rates are lower, right?
01:09:34 --> 01:09:37 Their lifestyle might improve as a result.
01:09:37 --> 01:09:41 So lower interest rates keep the public happy.
01:09:41 --> 01:09:45 And to the extent that the folks in power can say, you know,
01:09:45 --> 01:09:51 I'm responsible for that, you know, they would maybe have an inkling to vote
01:09:51 --> 01:09:54 for those folks in power as, you know, keeping rates low.
01:09:54 --> 01:10:04 So I think politicians in general like lower interest rates and Trump is not unusual in that regard.
01:10:04 --> 01:10:11 What's unusual about President Trump is the way he voices his opinion about
01:10:11 --> 01:10:12 probably all things, right?
01:10:12 --> 01:10:17 And also the Federal Reserve and interest rates and things like that.
01:10:17 --> 01:10:25 He, you know, in today's age, he's, you know, just blatantly stepping up to
01:10:25 --> 01:10:30 the microphone saying that, you know, former pal wasn't, former chair pal was an idiot.
01:10:30 --> 01:10:33 We need lower rates and, you know, he should be fired.
01:10:33 --> 01:10:39 Tweeting out some negative things where, you know, and having been in the Fed
01:10:39 --> 01:10:42 for many years prior to Trump, you know.
01:10:43 --> 01:10:48 I feel really confident that all presidents have a preference for lower rates
01:10:48 --> 01:10:54 and all in their own way communicate that to the Federal Reserve.
01:10:54 --> 01:11:00 But maybe in prior times, it would be, for example, maybe President Obama's
01:11:00 --> 01:11:03 chief of staff would pick up the phone and call the,
01:11:04 --> 01:11:09 chair Bernanke or chair Yellen's chief of staff and, you know,
01:11:09 --> 01:11:12 and voice some concerns and nobody would hear about it.
01:11:12 --> 01:11:16 You know, it was done quietly behind the scenes where president Trump is more
01:11:16 --> 01:11:21 out front and being, you know, a little less hidden and, you know,
01:11:21 --> 01:11:23 and more powerful with his words.
01:11:24 --> 01:11:29 So he wants lower interest rates, certainly because that will help Republicans
01:11:29 --> 01:11:31 in the upcoming elections.
01:11:32 --> 01:11:36 And, you know, but as your, your second question about me, I don't know if it
01:11:36 --> 01:11:40 was tongue in cheek or not, probably not, is that certainly,
01:11:40 --> 01:11:45 you know, there's some financial windfall that results from, from that as well.
01:11:45 --> 01:11:51 Yeah. I think he's because that's a unique position. It, and you can interpret
01:11:51 --> 01:11:55 it as tongue in cheek if you want to, but, but, but seriously,
01:11:55 --> 01:12:00 I, you know, we've never had a president that's been as wealthy as him.
01:12:00 --> 01:12:07 And so, you know, I don't know his financial acumen.
01:12:08 --> 01:12:15 As far as, you know, how that benefits him and his investments and all that kind of stuff.
01:12:15 --> 01:12:20 But it's a unique situation where it's like, like you said, we've never had
01:12:20 --> 01:12:26 a president that just blatantly said, hey, y'all need to lower these interest rates, you know?
01:12:26 --> 01:12:33 And it's like, so is his, you know, is his motivation like, okay,
01:12:33 --> 01:12:38 you know, I'm going to be like any other politician or is his motivation,
01:12:38 --> 01:12:40 look, I got skin in the game.
01:12:41 --> 01:12:45 So that's, that's why I'm pushing it. That's why he's being loud about it.
01:12:45 --> 01:12:49 So that's, that, that was kind of the, and I wanted to pick your brain on that.
01:12:49 --> 01:12:53 Yeah, I got, yeah, for sure. And I think that's, you know, the feeling if we
01:12:53 --> 01:12:58 just cut the world into Democrats and Republicans, which, you know,
01:12:58 --> 01:13:01 we really can't, but just for our little chat here, we can.
01:13:01 --> 01:13:06 I would say that, you know, Democrats say, you know, his reasons for pushing
01:13:06 --> 01:13:10 lower interest rates are, you know, involve both of those categories.
01:13:11 --> 01:13:16 And maybe Republicans might say just category one, just the election stuff.
01:13:16 --> 01:13:24 You know, they'd be a little less adamant that it has to do with his financial windfalls. Yeah.
01:13:25 --> 01:13:31 All right. So this is a question I think every voter is trying to decipher.
01:13:32 --> 01:13:37 If the Strait of Hormuz was open tomorrow and all tariffs were removed today,
01:13:38 --> 01:13:41 how long will it take for the inflation rate to lower?
01:13:42 --> 01:13:48 It's going to take a while. You know, it would, we'd see some near-term drops,
01:13:49 --> 01:13:51 in the price of gasoline and so forth.
01:13:51 --> 01:13:57 But these oil prices don't just impact, you know, where we most immediately
01:13:57 --> 01:14:02 think of it and have been hit maybe most immediately in the pocket at the gas pump, right?
01:14:03 --> 01:14:07 It impacts other goods and services, most goods and services,
01:14:07 --> 01:14:12 really, because, you know, the price of oil goes up and then oil is a,
01:14:12 --> 01:14:14 it certainly hits your gas tank, right?
01:14:14 --> 01:14:19 But oil is also used as an input to many manufacturing processes,
01:14:19 --> 01:14:24 whether it's, you know, as simple as, you know, to heat a plant or maybe petroleum,
01:14:25 --> 01:14:27 inputs into making a product, that type thing.
01:14:28 --> 01:14:33 Transporting your goods. Once you make it, you got to ship them off to the store
01:14:33 --> 01:14:35 and deliver them by Amazon and so forth.
01:14:36 --> 01:14:41 You know, that all takes gasoline. And so goods become more expensive as well.
01:14:41 --> 01:14:48 So the oil price increase phenomena, if you will, has impacted direct oil prices,
01:14:48 --> 01:14:53 but then kind of these second order effects into, you know, goods and services
01:14:53 --> 01:14:56 in the economy because of some of the reasons I just mentioned.
01:14:56 --> 01:15:02 So the quick ones that we'll adjust will be at the pump.
01:15:03 --> 01:15:07 It would be more of a near-term improvement if the straight opens. Yeah.
01:15:08 --> 01:15:12 And then, of course, prices are going to go down in world oil.
01:15:12 --> 01:15:18 And the reason is because it's a basic supply and demand issue, right?
01:15:18 --> 01:15:22 All of a sudden, the supply of oil increases.
01:15:23 --> 01:15:27 If the Strait of Hormuz opens, it will increase noticeably.
01:15:28 --> 01:15:34 And whenever the supply of anything increases for a given level of demand,
01:15:34 --> 01:15:37 usually you see prices down, right?
01:15:37 --> 01:15:42 If you have too many products on the shelf and not enough demand to get rid
01:15:42 --> 01:15:45 of them, so your supply is up, how do you get rid of them?
01:15:45 --> 01:15:49 You lower the price. So whenever in economics, whenever supply goes up, prices go down.
01:15:49 --> 01:15:55 So we'll see prices go down first at the oil, at the pump, and then more slowly,
01:15:55 --> 01:15:57 we got to unwind these price,
01:15:58 --> 01:16:03 increases that have been embedded into goods and services already because of
01:16:03 --> 01:16:05 some of the reasons I mentioned earlier.
01:16:05 --> 01:16:10 They use petroleum as inputs to their production, you know, the transportation
01:16:10 --> 01:16:13 to get their goods delivered or to the store shelves, et cetera.
01:16:13 --> 01:16:19 So maybe, you know, if it's a permanent opening, and there's many things that
01:16:19 --> 01:16:23 impact the price of oil, but assume that that's a meaningful impact,
01:16:23 --> 01:16:26 it would be first at the pump and then later at goods and services.
01:16:27 --> 01:16:33 All probably will work their way into the system within a year or so, I'd say. Okay.
01:16:33 --> 01:16:37 So not in time for the election. is what you're saying. Not in time.
01:16:37 --> 01:16:41 Although, you know, if they're smart on either side of the aisle,
01:16:41 --> 01:16:46 and it happens to be Republicans now, but they would be, hopefully, get that open.
01:16:46 --> 01:16:50 And then, you know, just at the time when people are filling up their tank on
01:16:50 --> 01:16:55 their way to the polling, to the voting booth, they notice a sharp drop, right?
01:16:56 --> 01:17:05 So the timing of a gasoline price decrease could, you know, favor those in power.
01:17:07 --> 01:17:09 If it happens while the voters...
01:17:10 --> 01:17:15 Figuratively anyway, are on their way to the voting booth.
01:17:16 --> 01:17:21 Yeah, because I tell the story a lot. It was a guy that was our Attorney General, Mike Moore.
01:17:22 --> 01:17:26 And some people may be familiar with the movie The Insider, which was about
01:17:26 --> 01:17:29 the tobacco companies and how they were doing that.
01:17:29 --> 01:17:34 And so Mike Moore was kind of the lead state's attorney among all the other
01:17:34 --> 01:17:38 state's attorney generals that filed a lawsuit.
01:17:39 --> 01:17:44 And Mike would never run for governor. He served for like 16 years as attorney
01:17:44 --> 01:17:47 general and people were trying to get him to run for governor. He would never run.
01:17:48 --> 01:17:52 And he basically said, what would happen? I get out there and run.
01:17:53 --> 01:17:57 Somebody on their way to voting decides to buy a pack of cigarettes and realize
01:17:57 --> 01:17:58 they're higher than they were.
01:17:58 --> 01:18:02 They're going to blame me. And so I can't win. And he would never run for governor
01:18:02 --> 01:18:06 because of that fight he led dealing with big tobacco.
01:18:06 --> 01:18:13 That's interesting. I definitely understand if for some reason those oil prices
01:18:13 --> 01:18:17 drop and people go to their gas pump and they're like, oh, okay,
01:18:17 --> 01:18:20 well, maybe they're getting to act together and they might decide to vote for
01:18:20 --> 01:18:21 the Republicans. Right.
01:18:22 --> 01:18:24 Yeah. That's great. Yeah. Yeah.
01:18:25 --> 01:18:29 What would be the economic impact if diesel exports were banned?
01:18:29 --> 01:18:33 And that's been, speaking about the Republicans, there's been a lot of Republican
01:18:33 --> 01:18:38 candidates, especially in states like Iowa and Kansas, who have really been
01:18:39 --> 01:18:41 pushing the administration,
01:18:42 --> 01:18:45 to ban exporting diesel fuel.
01:18:46 --> 01:18:49 In hopes that it would lower the prices.
01:18:49 --> 01:18:51 But what would be the impact of that?
01:18:52 --> 01:18:55 So I think, you know, the idea is
01:18:55 --> 01:19:03 that leaves more supply domestically for domestic buyers of diesel fuel.
01:19:03 --> 01:19:08 And, you know, when you have more of a supply of anything, normally the price
01:19:08 --> 01:19:11 will moderate or maybe decrease.
01:19:12 --> 01:19:15 So, you know, I think that's the thinking there.
01:19:15 --> 01:19:20 I'm not a huge fan of intervening in markets like that, but,
01:19:21 --> 01:19:27 you know, the administration is in terms of, you know, limitations on exports,
01:19:27 --> 01:19:30 tariffs that have been implemented.
01:19:31 --> 01:19:36 So I would tend to stay away from that, although, you know, there would be a
01:19:36 --> 01:19:40 short-term gain in terms of probably lower prices.
01:19:40 --> 01:19:45 But over the long run, you know, whenever you get the government monkeying around
01:19:45 --> 01:19:48 too much in markets, I mean, there's always a need for the government to keep
01:19:48 --> 01:19:50 an eye on markets and sometimes get involved.
01:19:50 --> 01:19:55 But if they're involved too much, too detaily micromanaging things,
01:19:55 --> 01:20:00 it's usually a bad outcome over the long run, sometimes with a short-run benefit.
01:20:02 --> 01:20:08 You know, Trump's tariffs have, you know, they're a legitimate inflation concern,
01:20:08 --> 01:20:12 right? He imposed all these tariffs, and most folks...
01:20:13 --> 01:20:21 Including myself, said, you know, these are going to be paid by consumers one way or another.
01:20:22 --> 01:20:27 And, you know, as it turns out, they have bled into prices for U.S.
01:20:27 --> 01:20:31 Consumers, and that's part of the inflation problem today.
01:20:31 --> 01:20:36 I think the New York Fed did some research here recently about who ultimately
01:20:36 --> 01:20:38 bore the cost of all these tariffs.
01:20:38 --> 01:20:44 And, you know, the evidence points to substantial pass-through of those costs
01:20:44 --> 01:20:47 to U.S. importers and consumers.
01:20:48 --> 01:20:52 So if, you know, if we're trying to get inflation back to 2%,
01:20:52 --> 01:20:56 you know, deliberately raising the cost of imported goods is,
01:20:56 --> 01:21:00 you know, is not a, it's an additional headwind, I guess I'd say.
01:21:00 --> 01:21:03 It's going to, you know, flies in the face of trying to get inflation down.
01:21:03 --> 01:21:05 It pushes inflation the other way.
01:21:05 --> 01:21:11 Yeah, yeah. All right. How has the rapid progress of artificial intelligence,
01:21:12 --> 01:21:16 impacted economic growth? And is it a good thing?
01:21:17 --> 01:21:19 Well, I think the news...
01:21:20 --> 01:21:27 Is out on is it ultimately a long-run good thing, but it certainly seems promising
01:21:27 --> 01:21:33 with a lot of caveats in there, as any new technology typically has.
01:21:34 --> 01:21:37 You know, we need to be careful with it. Do we need, here's a place where,
01:21:38 --> 01:21:41 you know, in my opinion, there's probably, you know, and I'm,
01:21:42 --> 01:21:46 more, as you may know or do know, tend to be more of a free market guy than,
01:21:47 --> 01:21:49 getting the government involved in every single little thing,
01:21:49 --> 01:21:53 but in, you know, with AI, there's probably a need or there is a need for the
01:21:53 --> 01:21:58 government to get involved to, you know, put some guardrails in there to.
01:21:59 --> 01:22:03 You know, at least regarding safety and some of the concerns that we have that
01:22:03 --> 01:22:09 are coming out here recently in terms of, you know, AI going berserk and causing all sorts of problems.
01:22:09 --> 01:22:15 So, you know, I see the AI gurus coming out and saying, oh, you know,
01:22:15 --> 01:22:20 basically trust us, You know, we want things to go well and we're going to be
01:22:20 --> 01:22:22 very careful as we proceed.
01:22:22 --> 01:22:27 And, you know, having as an old timer and been around for a while here,
01:22:27 --> 01:22:31 I've seen a, you know, a number of situations over the years where it's the
01:22:31 --> 01:22:35 old trust us, we understand, we're going to be careful.
01:22:35 --> 01:22:39 And, you know, ultimately it ended up blowing up.
01:22:39 --> 01:22:46 I mean, even the, you know, even the mortgages that became easy in the 90s,
01:22:46 --> 01:22:52 1990s and so forth with little regulation and, you know, they all blew up and it led to the,
01:22:52 --> 01:22:54 in part to the financial crisis and so forth.
01:22:54 --> 01:22:58 So I think there's a role for government there to get in and check AI a little
01:22:58 --> 01:23:04 bit, not to stymie it, but to, you know, put some important guardrails in there.
01:23:04 --> 01:23:06 And maybe we're moving in that direction.
01:23:06 --> 01:23:12 I hope so. In terms of the economy itself, I mean, I think we expect and are
01:23:12 --> 01:23:17 starting to see productivity increase. We've seen economic productivity,
01:23:18 --> 01:23:19 you know, the output per year.
01:23:20 --> 01:23:24 Person, you could think of it as, increase with increased use of AI.
01:23:25 --> 01:23:31 And, you know, that's a good thing. Of course, whenever there's a productivity
01:23:31 --> 01:23:36 increase or an increased use of new technology, even when computers,
01:23:36 --> 01:23:40 came out, personal computers and smart computers and so forth.
01:23:41 --> 01:23:46 You know, whenever this improved technology comes along that makes things more
01:23:46 --> 01:23:50 efficient and we're more productive and this, that, and the other thing.
01:23:50 --> 01:23:58 Don't forget, just on the other side of that nice story are people who are being displaced, right?
01:23:58 --> 01:24:05 Jobs are being killed that were held, that were formerly held by people involved
01:24:05 --> 01:24:08 with these goods that are getting replaced, right?
01:24:09 --> 01:24:16 So, you know, AI is moving the economy along, but let's not forget who's getting left behind there.
01:24:17 --> 01:24:24 At a minimum, it's folks that are losing their jobs because of AI or are no longer able to get jobs.
01:24:24 --> 01:24:31 For example, some new college graduates are finding it more difficult to get
01:24:31 --> 01:24:35 entry-level jobs because guess what? AI is now doing the entry-level jobs.
01:24:36 --> 01:24:43 So there's a lot of real stories that we can't skip over just looking at economic
01:24:43 --> 01:24:45 productivity numbers and you
01:24:45 --> 01:24:49 know, running around, giving people high fives, we're excited about it.
01:24:49 --> 01:24:53 Sure. That's good news, but there's some bad news on the backside and we need
01:24:53 --> 01:24:57 to take care of those folks, you know, whether it's through retraining,
01:24:57 --> 01:25:02 giving them a new skillset or other programs of that sort.
01:25:02 --> 01:25:07 So it's kind of a two-sided coin right now, but I think over the long run,
01:25:07 --> 01:25:14 we'll figure that out and AI will end up being, you know, a net plus for sure. Okay.
01:25:16 --> 01:25:23 Among registered voters in an August Reuters-Ipsos poll, 37% of poll respondents
01:25:23 --> 01:25:27 said Democrats had a better plan, policy, or approach to the U.S.
01:25:27 --> 01:25:31 Economy, compared to 36% that picked Republicans.
01:25:31 --> 01:25:37 So my question out of that is, does voter confidence have an impact on the economy?
01:25:38 --> 01:25:42 It does. It's a great question. And yes, it does.
01:25:43 --> 01:25:47 Just, you know, you can think if you and I were business owners, for example,
01:25:48 --> 01:25:53 if we're feeling positive about the economy over the next five years,
01:25:53 --> 01:25:59 three to five years, we're apt to maybe do that expansion of our,
01:25:59 --> 01:26:03 operations or our plants to grow our business, right?
01:26:03 --> 01:26:11 And so forth. So I think, you know, most people's actions today are based in
01:26:11 --> 01:26:15 part anyway, on what they think is going to happen in the future, right?
01:26:15 --> 01:26:20 If you think, geez, I'm not sure about the economy.
01:26:20 --> 01:26:24 I might get laid off, you know, Joe and Sally up the street,
01:26:24 --> 01:26:27 you know, Joe lost his job. Sally got laid off.
01:26:27 --> 01:26:33 Maybe let's hold off on that new car or let's hold off on that vacation,
01:26:33 --> 01:26:36 right? It's based on your decision today is based on what you think is going
01:26:36 --> 01:26:38 to happen in the future in part anyway.
01:26:40 --> 01:26:45 So yeah, I think, I think consumer and businesses views of the future most definitely
01:26:45 --> 01:26:49 impact, impact the economy. It's a great question. Yeah.
01:26:50 --> 01:26:54 All right. So we're going to close it out with this. And I don't know if I,
01:26:54 --> 01:26:58 if I ever posed this challenge to you or not before on the show,
01:26:58 --> 01:27:01 but I've been asking guests to finish this sentence.
01:27:02 --> 01:27:04 I have hope because.
01:27:05 --> 01:27:10 I have hope because the United States is based on, you know,
01:27:10 --> 01:27:12 democratic principles.
01:27:12 --> 01:27:18 And, you know, every so often with presidents, it's every four years,
01:27:18 --> 01:27:21 we go back to the box to vote.
01:27:21 --> 01:27:27 We've had a period of time to look at the individual in office's policies and
01:27:27 --> 01:27:30 their impacts and so forth. And, you know, we can vote.
01:27:30 --> 01:27:35 Do we like them? we vote yes for him or her or their successor.
01:27:35 --> 01:27:38 And if we don't, we can vote no and go with the other team. So,
01:27:39 --> 01:27:43 you know, we have that coming up, whether or not we're in love with what's going
01:27:43 --> 01:27:46 on or not in love with what's going on.
01:27:46 --> 01:27:50 I always have hope that, you know, the world's not going to end in a short period
01:27:50 --> 01:27:53 of time. We're going to have an opportunity at the ballot box,
01:27:54 --> 01:28:00 minus any shenanigans, to, you know, change things if we think they need to be changed.
01:28:01 --> 01:28:05 All right. Well, Professor Rick Roberts, I am I'm really glad that I was able
01:28:05 --> 01:28:09 to get you today and to have this discussion.
01:28:10 --> 01:28:15 And I really wanted to stress the points about how voter confidence impacts
01:28:15 --> 01:28:22 things, because a lot of times people think they don't really have a say so in the process. But if.
01:28:24 --> 01:28:31 People feel that things are okay, then they're going to do things to show that.
01:28:31 --> 01:28:35 They're going to buy the more extravagant gift. They're going to take the trip.
01:28:35 --> 01:28:41 They're going to make a major decision on a purchase, whether it's a house or a car.
01:28:42 --> 01:28:47 And a lot of people don't get that disconnect. And so I'm definitely glad that
01:28:47 --> 01:28:52 you addressed that. And then the other thing was, you know, about the straight,
01:28:52 --> 01:28:54 because a lot of people are upset.
01:28:55 --> 01:29:00 That we're at war, and especially now that it seems to be impacting what's going
01:29:00 --> 01:29:02 on with them, the same with the tariffs.
01:29:03 --> 01:29:10 And so I just, I definitely wanted somebody with your expertise to address those things as always.
01:29:10 --> 01:29:14 And I really appreciate the fact that you follow the rule that you have an open
01:29:14 --> 01:29:18 invitation to come back, because I think this is your third appearance on the podcast.
01:29:19 --> 01:29:23 It is. Yeah. So I just, anytime you come on, my man, I am really,
01:29:23 --> 01:29:25 really appreciative of that.
01:29:25 --> 01:29:30 And I tend to learn things every time you come on. So thank you.
01:29:32 --> 01:29:34 If people want to reach out to you, how can they do that?
01:29:35 --> 01:29:38 You can find me at the business school at Monmouth University,
01:29:39 --> 01:29:43 rroberts at monmouth.edu.
01:29:44 --> 01:29:50 So now, while I was citing that article, are you a regular contributor to that?
01:29:50 --> 01:29:53 And what is the name of that publication?
01:29:54 --> 01:30:00 Oh, I do. You know, and you know me, if I see something that's bothersome where
01:30:00 --> 01:30:04 somebody's regularly getting something wrong, if it's important enough,
01:30:04 --> 01:30:08 I'll write an op-ed. I tend to crank a lot of those out here recently.
01:30:08 --> 01:30:14 And I do publish in, I have a fairly regular column in Real Clear Markets.
01:30:15 --> 01:30:18 So that's out there. If you just search Rick Roberts or Richard Roberts,
01:30:18 --> 01:30:22 Real Clear Markets, you'll find my author's page.
01:30:23 --> 01:30:24 And I'm probably every week or
01:30:24 --> 01:30:29 two, I'm publishing something out there of interest to the general public.
01:30:30 --> 01:30:34 Yeah. So I definitely wanted to highlight that. Well, Rick, thank you again
01:30:34 --> 01:30:36 for coming on, man. I appreciate it.
01:30:36 --> 01:30:42 Anytime, Eric. I always appreciate you and your audience and your insightful
01:30:42 --> 01:30:45 questions. They're always spot on. Thank you, sir.
01:30:45 --> 01:30:48 All right, guys, and we're going to catch all on the other side.
01:31:00 --> 01:31:07 All right, we are back. So I want to thank Guillermo Charles and Rick Roberts
01:31:07 --> 01:31:08 for coming on the program.
01:31:09 --> 01:31:20 Professor Charles made a compelling argument about one people and reminding
01:31:20 --> 01:31:23 us that that is our mission and our goal in the United States.
01:31:24 --> 01:31:30 And I appreciate Professor Roberts for coming back onto the program and doing
01:31:30 --> 01:31:36 what he always does and making economics simple to understand for all of us.
01:31:37 --> 01:31:41 It's always a blessing to have people come on.
01:31:41 --> 01:31:46 It's really a blessing to have people repeat as guests.
01:31:46 --> 01:31:53 So I look forward to the day when I can have Professor Charles back on And I
01:31:53 --> 01:31:57 always look forward to having Professor Robert on the podcast.
01:31:59 --> 01:32:06 All right. So real quick, I got some thoughts about, you know,
01:32:06 --> 01:32:11 if you remembered in Grace's news segment,
01:32:11 --> 01:32:18 two significant things happened as regards to law enforcement shooting black folks. Right.
01:32:18 --> 01:32:23 The young lady, you remember, who went to the wrong apartment and shot the man,
01:32:24 --> 01:32:27 in his own apartment while he was eating ice cream, both of them, Jean.
01:32:28 --> 01:32:32 She's getting out of jail. She was sentenced to 10 years. That was the lady,
01:32:32 --> 01:32:36 you remember, the black judge, the female judge, came down and hugged the woman
01:32:36 --> 01:32:38 and gave her a Bible and all that stuff.
01:32:39 --> 01:32:43 She sentenced her for 10 years. She could have been in jail for 48 years.
01:32:44 --> 01:32:48 That's what the prosecutors were going for. And they only gave her 10.
01:32:49 --> 01:32:52 And so after seven years, she's out, right?
01:32:55 --> 01:33:02 And then the deputy who killed Airman Fortson in Florida, he was acquitted.
01:33:03 --> 01:33:09 So he's not going to jail at all in Florida, right?
01:33:10 --> 01:33:16 And so, you know, it's just, I want to keep y'all abreast of stuff like that.
01:33:16 --> 01:33:21 And then in the shadow of, you know, the grand jury in Mississippi not finding
01:33:21 --> 01:33:28 any criminal charges in the death of Nolan Wells, just keep these things in mind.
01:33:28 --> 01:33:35 And, you know, it would be nice to get to a point where we just look at each
01:33:35 --> 01:33:40 other as Americans and do things that's for the common good.
01:33:41 --> 01:33:51 But, you know, we've got to get to a point where law enforcement and people
01:33:51 --> 01:33:54 of color are not adversaries.
01:33:55 --> 01:33:58 There used to, you know, there was a brief moment in time. Let's say that.
01:33:59 --> 01:34:04 There was a moment, there have been some moments in time where the tensions were not as high.
01:34:05 --> 01:34:11 But in my lifetime, and this is, you know, somebody who's been in law enforcement
01:34:11 --> 01:34:15 and been an advocate monitoring law enforcement, right?
01:34:17 --> 01:34:24 But tensions are very, very high, and we've got to take steps to figure out how to mitigate that.
01:34:25 --> 01:34:32 And, you know, it's through training, through getting rid of implicit biases,
01:34:32 --> 01:34:33 all those kind of things.
01:34:34 --> 01:34:37 We've got to figure out a way to do better.
01:34:38 --> 01:34:45 That's just where we are. So I just thought I'd highlight that.
01:34:46 --> 01:34:51 The other thing I kind of want to touch on that has always been a sore spot
01:34:51 --> 01:34:54 for me has been the death penalty in the United States.
01:34:55 --> 01:35:03 We had the situation where the young lady was, forget her name,
01:35:03 --> 01:35:04 she committed a very heinous act.
01:35:05 --> 01:35:12 Her and her love interest, and another woman kidnapped a woman in Tennessee
01:35:12 --> 01:35:17 and brutally tortured and killed her all because of jealousy, right?
01:35:18 --> 01:35:26 And so the other young lady that was involved that was an accomplice got off,
01:35:27 --> 01:35:33 because she basically turned state witness against this woman and her boyfriend.
01:35:35 --> 01:35:41 And then, you know, this woman and the boyfriend confessed that they did do what they did.
01:35:42 --> 01:35:50 So the boyfriend got life without parole, but this lady, she got the death penalty.
01:35:52 --> 01:35:57 And, you know, through all of the appeals and all that stuff,
01:35:57 --> 01:35:59 she was scheduled to be executed this past week.
01:36:00 --> 01:36:03 And Tennessee screwed it up.
01:36:06 --> 01:36:10 And it was a lot of machinations going around legally. Last minute,
01:36:10 --> 01:36:12 you know, he always tried to get the stays.
01:36:13 --> 01:36:19 And it looked like it was going to normal thing.
01:36:19 --> 01:36:24 It's like, stay Supreme Court. Nope, we're not staying at Peel Court.
01:36:24 --> 01:36:27 Nope, we're not staying at Supreme Court. Nope, U.S. Supreme Court.
01:36:27 --> 01:36:28 Nope, we're not staying at.
01:36:29 --> 01:36:35 Go ahead with the execution. But then the federal appeals court said, hold up. Wait a minute.
01:36:35 --> 01:36:44 We might need to check or, you know, hold us up because there was a concern
01:36:44 --> 01:36:47 about her mental acuity, right?
01:36:48 --> 01:36:52 But then the U.S. Supreme Court overturned that, and so they went ahead with
01:36:52 --> 01:36:54 the execution, and then they couldn't do the execution.
01:36:55 --> 01:36:57 They botched it twice.
01:36:59 --> 01:37:07 You know, now she's in critical condition. I think she's on a ventilator. in Tennessee.
01:37:09 --> 01:37:13 Which always gets me to the point is, why do we do this in the first place?
01:37:13 --> 01:37:19 Why do we feel that we got to kill people who kill people?
01:37:20 --> 01:37:28 Why? It's the most amazing paradox that all of these Christian nationalist people
01:37:28 --> 01:37:34 or these evangelicals or whatever, it's like, oh, yeah, I for an eye.
01:37:34 --> 01:37:37 Yeah, we should kill them. Yeah.
01:37:37 --> 01:37:41 And it's like, and they say it, and there's this big cross right behind them.
01:37:42 --> 01:37:47 And the cross was what they used to execute Jesus, right?
01:37:48 --> 01:37:51 That was the form of capital punishment in the Roman Empire,
01:37:52 --> 01:37:58 to nail somebody to a cross and leave them hanging up there for hours until
01:37:58 --> 01:38:01 they died of dehydration or whatever, right?
01:38:02 --> 01:38:08 It was torture and ultimate death. And that very symbol is what the Christian
01:38:08 --> 01:38:13 church uses as, you know, a testament to their faith.
01:38:14 --> 01:38:16 And it all depends on what part of Christianity. If you're Catholic,
01:38:17 --> 01:38:23 Christ is still on the cross. If you're Protestant, the cross is bare because
01:38:23 --> 01:38:26 Jesus overcame it, right? That's what you're taught.
01:38:27 --> 01:38:34 And so to use that as the symbol, the weapon that was used to,
01:38:34 --> 01:38:37 or the method that was used to kill Jesus.
01:38:38 --> 01:38:42 You embrace that in your religion and then you go out and say,
01:38:42 --> 01:38:47 yeah, we should kill other human beings that commit crimes.
01:38:47 --> 01:38:53 It would seem to me that the Christian church would be the largest group of
01:38:53 --> 01:38:57 folks against the death penalty, a billion plus strong worldwide.
01:38:58 --> 01:39:01 It would seem to me that would be logic based on.
01:39:02 --> 01:39:08 The symbolism, and the knowledge of the true story. But that is not the case.
01:39:09 --> 01:39:13 The most fervent Christians out here, especially those that are in politics,
01:39:13 --> 01:39:16 are like, oh, no, we need to kill them, shoot them, gas them,
01:39:17 --> 01:39:20 put the needle in them, whatever, right?
01:39:21 --> 01:39:22 And that's insane to me.
01:39:24 --> 01:39:32 And, you know, part of, I guess, was a testament to the influence that I had.
01:39:32 --> 01:39:37 It's that me and another gentleman who was Catholic, who was a fellow Democrat,
01:39:38 --> 01:39:45 white man from the, well, the hills area, I won't say the Delta, but close enough.
01:39:46 --> 01:39:51 You know, we co-sponsored legislation to end the death penalty in the state of Mississippi.
01:39:51 --> 01:39:55 And we were able to have a hearing, right?
01:39:56 --> 01:40:02 We actually got the judiciary in bank to meet and have a hearing on our legislation,
01:40:03 --> 01:40:05 because we were at a critical point.
01:40:06 --> 01:40:10 We saw what was coming. There were European countries that were manufacturing
01:40:10 --> 01:40:14 the drugs that are used for the lethal injection.
01:40:15 --> 01:40:19 And the European Union was like, we're going to stop doing it.
01:40:20 --> 01:40:24 And we're definitely going to stop exporting it around the world.
01:40:24 --> 01:40:26 And the primary customer was the United States.
01:40:27 --> 01:40:32 So seeing that the shortage was happening, this was the time for the iron to
01:40:32 --> 01:40:38 strike. Now, remember, this is over 20 years ago that we were having this fight.
01:40:39 --> 01:40:45 And today, in the year of our Lord, 2026, we are still botching executions in the United States.
01:40:45 --> 01:40:49 We are still trying to carry out executions in the United States of America.
01:40:49 --> 01:40:53 There was a period of time in my lifetime that there were no executions in the
01:40:53 --> 01:40:56 United States of America. Every state had outlawed it.
01:40:56 --> 01:40:59 There was no constitutional amendment. There was no.
01:41:00 --> 01:41:04 Federal law. It was just each individual state made a decision.
01:41:04 --> 01:41:07 We're not doing that anymore. Right.
01:41:07 --> 01:41:10 But now they were doing some other stuff like in South Carolina,
01:41:10 --> 01:41:14 they were castrating people, but that's a whole nother conversation. Right.
01:41:14 --> 01:41:19 And they weren't doing the chemical gastration. They were doing the old fashioned way.
01:41:20 --> 01:41:27 You know, I just I just think from a perspective of whether you're a spiritual person or not.
01:41:29 --> 01:41:35 Revenge is not justice. Because killing the other person doesn't give their family closure.
01:41:36 --> 01:41:42 Because they ask the members of the family to witness the execution. Why would you do that?
01:41:43 --> 01:41:49 You know, you think you're giving them satisfaction by watching another person die?
01:41:49 --> 01:41:51 The person that they love died.
01:41:52 --> 01:41:57 And now you want to give them satisfaction to watch the person that was accused
01:41:57 --> 01:42:00 and convicted of killing them, watching them die.
01:42:01 --> 01:42:08 You know, we satisfy our lust for revenge through movies and TV shows.
01:42:08 --> 01:42:12 You know, these action shows where the hero gets beat up or somebody in the
01:42:12 --> 01:42:16 family gets kidnapped and then, you know, they get the bad guys in the end.
01:42:16 --> 01:42:22 Even our superhero movies, right? It's like you got the good guy trying to protect
01:42:22 --> 01:42:26 the world from somebody that's trying to take over the world or the universe or whatever.
01:42:27 --> 01:42:31 That's where our fix comes in. But when we start applying that to public policy,
01:42:31 --> 01:42:35 that is a problem. That is a major problem.
01:42:36 --> 01:42:41 And even more so now, the fact that we seem to be inept in carrying it out,
01:42:42 --> 01:42:46 because this is not the first botched execution in the state of Tennessee.
01:42:47 --> 01:42:50 It's not the first botched execution in the United States.
01:42:51 --> 01:42:56 And that should be a sign that we need to stop that, that we need to stop.
01:42:56 --> 01:43:02 It used to be a time where executing people was public, right?
01:43:02 --> 01:43:07 Whether it was legal or illegal, right? The legal way was like there's a courthouse
01:43:07 --> 01:43:13 in Natchez, Mississippi, the old courthouse. You can go down and you could see from the street.
01:43:13 --> 01:43:19 It's like you take a tour and there's like a room where they kept a prisoner.
01:43:19 --> 01:43:25 And then, you know, back in the day, you know, they didn't have the electric
01:43:25 --> 01:43:26 chair. So they hung people.
01:43:27 --> 01:43:31 So you could see from the street that person, you know, when that person got
01:43:31 --> 01:43:34 hung inside of the building, in the room.
01:43:34 --> 01:43:38 It would drop to the floor and that person would hang and everybody would see it.
01:43:39 --> 01:43:42 And okay. Then when they had the electric chair that traveled,
01:43:43 --> 01:43:47 right, when they started using electrocution as the form of execution.
01:43:48 --> 01:43:51 The chair would travel to different counties.
01:43:51 --> 01:43:57 So there's a replica of the electric chair that used to travel the state in
01:43:57 --> 01:44:01 that same room. And so instead of hanging a person, they would sit the person
01:44:01 --> 01:44:04 in front of the window and electrocute them.
01:44:05 --> 01:44:09 So that the citizens could see that he was executed. And there are countries
01:44:09 --> 01:44:12 like Saudi Arabia. It's like a big event in Saudi Arabia. If they execute somebody
01:44:12 --> 01:44:17 in Saudi Arabia, it's like pageantry involved with it, right?
01:44:17 --> 01:44:19 And it's on national television.
01:44:20 --> 01:44:23 Now, they claim it's a deterrent to crime there, but I think it's more of the
01:44:23 --> 01:44:28 culture rather than them cutting somebody's head off, right?
01:44:29 --> 01:44:33 Now, I would not want to do anything to warrant my head being cut off,
01:44:34 --> 01:44:37 but they still have thieves and you know,
01:44:39 --> 01:44:44 You know, they cut their hand off, right, for stealing. That's what they used to do.
01:44:44 --> 01:44:49 I don't think they do it now, but they used to do it. But I think crime is deterred
01:44:49 --> 01:44:54 in those kind of situations because their incarceration rates are not that high
01:44:54 --> 01:44:56 and all that. And it's because of the culture.
01:44:57 --> 01:45:01 If you go to Dubai, which I have not, but I have witnesses, people that have
01:45:01 --> 01:45:03 gone, there are no homeless people in Dubai.
01:45:04 --> 01:45:10 So that's going to be a decrease in crime because you have, you don't have people
01:45:10 --> 01:45:15 desperate trying to find a place to stay or eat or whatever. Right.
01:45:17 --> 01:45:25 So culture has a lot to do with crime and the need for greed and all that kind
01:45:25 --> 01:45:27 of stuff. That plays a major role in crime.
01:45:29 --> 01:45:36 You know, and man, if you go by the biblical documents, man has been killing
01:45:36 --> 01:45:38 man since Cain and Abel, right?
01:45:39 --> 01:45:46 And even then, even then, God did not strike Cain down. He exiled him, right?
01:45:47 --> 01:45:52 Sent him to the land of Nod. He put a mark on him. So they know,
01:45:52 --> 01:45:53 oh, that's the dude that killed his brother.
01:45:54 --> 01:46:00 But God didn't strike him dead. So where do we get the moral authority to kill
01:46:00 --> 01:46:02 people who commit a crime?
01:46:03 --> 01:46:09 And now we're not even getting to that point. Fast forward to Airman Fortson.
01:46:10 --> 01:46:17 Whose only crime was that he was at home when the police knocked on the wrong door.
01:46:17 --> 01:46:19 He wasn't expecting anybody to come.
01:46:20 --> 01:46:24 And he had his gun by his side.
01:46:25 --> 01:46:28 He didn't have it pointed at anyone. He just had it.
01:46:29 --> 01:46:34 Now, Florida is a southern state, so people have the right to carry their guns,
01:46:34 --> 01:46:36 especially in their house, to protect their house.
01:46:36 --> 01:46:41 So if somebody is coming into their house or knocking on the door because,
01:46:41 --> 01:46:46 you know, the deputy's attorney was like, well, you know, he shouldn't have had the gun.
01:46:46 --> 01:46:51 Did that man say he was the police until he opened the door? That was the question.
01:46:51 --> 01:46:56 Because if the man had identified himself as the police, he wouldn't have had the gun.
01:46:57 --> 01:47:00 He's military. He respects the authority.
01:47:01 --> 01:47:05 So if he had been identified as a police officer, he would have answered the
01:47:05 --> 01:47:09 door and he'd probably be still alive today. But because that man didn't identify
01:47:09 --> 01:47:13 himself as a police officer, which I still don't understand how a jury in two
01:47:13 --> 01:47:15 hours didn't cover that.
01:47:17 --> 01:47:20 Since he didn't identify himself, that man didn't know who that was.
01:47:21 --> 01:47:29 And I'm sure that's not exactly the safest place because your environment dictates how you act.
01:47:30 --> 01:47:35 Because if he was in a ritzy kind of condominium, he probably wouldn't have
01:47:35 --> 01:47:38 answered the door with a gun on the side. Just a thought.
01:47:39 --> 01:47:42 But because he did that, he got executed, right?
01:47:44 --> 01:47:51 And we're given license. The family Renee Good is suing because she was executed, right?
01:47:52 --> 01:47:55 Alex Preddy was executed, right?
01:47:56 --> 01:47:58 People are being shot down in the streets.
01:47:59 --> 01:48:03 Some have lived. Some have bullets still in their body because they're in detention
01:48:03 --> 01:48:06 centers when they should be at hospitals getting surgery.
01:48:07 --> 01:48:12 But that was an attempted or botched execution, right?
01:48:12 --> 01:48:16 This whole mentality, this judge dread mentality, where it's like I'm the law
01:48:16 --> 01:48:22 and the executioner of the law on the street, is a problem in the United States
01:48:22 --> 01:48:25 of America. It's all right for a comic book. It's all right for a couple of movies.
01:48:25 --> 01:48:28 But that's not how we're supposed to operate in the real world.
01:48:29 --> 01:48:37 This whole mindset that I got to kill people to exact justice from people is a flawed premise.
01:48:38 --> 01:48:44 And when I talk about the legal executions, I'm talking about the lynchings, right?
01:48:45 --> 01:48:51 Whether it's black people or whether it's Jewish people like Leo Frank here in Georgia, right?
01:48:52 --> 01:49:00 The lynch mobs, the mindset of this nation when it deals with justice has to change.
01:49:01 --> 01:49:08 You are given weapons in law enforcement to defend yourself or somebody that's in harm's way.
01:49:09 --> 01:49:13 It is not designed for you to go out and kill folks because you have authority.
01:49:14 --> 01:49:19 But there are some people who don't understand it. That's why we have these
01:49:19 --> 01:49:21 news stories, all right?
01:49:23 --> 01:49:27 And like I've said before, if it was commonplace, it wouldn't make the news.
01:49:28 --> 01:49:32 Like when people do good stuff, that doesn't make the news all the time because
01:49:32 --> 01:49:34 people are expected to do good things.
01:49:35 --> 01:49:39 It's when tragedy happens, unique situations happen.
01:49:40 --> 01:49:43 That's what makes the news, right?
01:49:44 --> 01:49:52 So it's not an everyday occurrence, but one occurrence is one too many.
01:49:53 --> 01:49:59 Do I need to repeat that? It's not an everyday occurrence, but one occurrence is one too many.
01:49:59 --> 01:50:05 And we got to get out of this mindset that we got to kill people to exact justice.
01:50:06 --> 01:50:07 There are some people that depict
01:50:07 --> 01:50:13 Lady Justice as having the scales in one hand and a sword in the other.
01:50:14 --> 01:50:18 But most depictions of Lady Justice just have the scales.
01:50:19 --> 01:50:25 When you see the statues that have the sword in the scales, that's a mindset, right?
01:50:26 --> 01:50:31 It's not about killing people to get justice. And we got to stop it.
01:50:32 --> 01:50:35 We got to stop it. We got to stop it.
01:50:36 --> 01:50:40 This blood lust just has to stop, you know?
01:50:41 --> 01:50:48 It's like, again, entertainment purposes, we get it. It may not be right. but we're entertained.
01:50:50 --> 01:50:53 But in real life, not so much.
01:50:53 --> 01:50:59 It's not entertaining for the state of Tennessee to try to execute somebody,
01:50:59 --> 01:51:05 and now they got to pay for that person to be in ICU because they screwed up.
01:51:06 --> 01:51:09 Something that they shouldn't have had the authority to do in the first place.
01:51:10 --> 01:51:16 We punish people. They are properly adjudicated for their crime.
01:51:17 --> 01:51:24 We don't get the license then to commit another crime against humanity and then label that justice.
01:51:25 --> 01:51:31 Pontius Pilate didn't even want to have it. He washed his hands of it.
01:51:32 --> 01:51:40 But we want to be fully engaged in it. That makes no sense. None.
01:51:41 --> 01:51:46 And until we get back to that mindset, whatever was going on in the 70s where
01:51:46 --> 01:51:51 they decided, yeah, we're not going to do that anymore, we're going to have issues in this country.
01:51:52 --> 01:51:59 We've got to set a standard in this nation that we give a damn about our fellow human being.
01:52:00 --> 01:52:03 The more we do that, the less we have to deal with crime in the first place
01:52:03 --> 01:52:05 because we're teaching a mindset.
01:52:05 --> 01:52:08 But when we have a president that doesn't give a damn about the law,
01:52:08 --> 01:52:11 and we've got members of his cabinet that doesn't give a damn about the law,
01:52:11 --> 01:52:14 we've got members of his family that doesn't give a damn about the law,
01:52:15 --> 01:52:21 there are literally children being raised with that as an example.
01:52:21 --> 01:52:23 Well, the president of the United States did it. Why can't I do it?
01:52:24 --> 01:52:28 He called that woman a pig. Why can't I call it one? He's rude.
01:52:28 --> 01:52:33 He's obnoxious. Why can't I be rude obnoxious? Right?
01:52:34 --> 01:52:41 Can you imagine if Barack Obama had any of the characteristics that Donald Trump had?
01:52:42 --> 01:52:47 I would be doing this podcast from another country. They would be ran every
01:52:47 --> 01:52:48 black person out of this nation.
01:52:49 --> 01:52:53 Can you imagine if Barack Obama said on January 6th.
01:52:55 --> 01:53:02 2021, let's go up to the Capitol. And we started talking about lynching and
01:53:02 --> 01:53:05 killing members of Congress, storming the building.
01:53:06 --> 01:53:08 That's what Senator Johnson said from Wisconsin.
01:53:09 --> 01:53:12 He said he wasn't worried because it was white folks. He said now it was black
01:53:12 --> 01:53:14 folks. He had been scared.
01:53:15 --> 01:53:18 He said that. Go look it up. He said it.
01:53:18 --> 01:53:22 Can you imagine how many bodies would have been killed? How many bodies would
01:53:22 --> 01:53:26 have been strewn about that Capitol building and if it was black folks doing that.
01:53:27 --> 01:53:31 So why do we tolerate white folks doing it? Why do we tolerate a bloodlust?
01:53:31 --> 01:53:36 Why do we tolerate bad behavior from certain people when we know better,
01:53:37 --> 01:53:39 when we're raised better? Why do we do that?
01:53:40 --> 01:53:42 For power, for money, for greed?
01:53:43 --> 01:53:49 Because we want to covet something and then we mainstream it and say it's politics,
01:53:50 --> 01:53:51 capitalism, and justice.
01:53:52 --> 01:53:54 Greed is not capitalism.
01:53:55 --> 01:54:02 Rudeness is not a sign of power, and executions are not a form of justice.
01:54:03 --> 01:54:10 Stop sanguashing stuff. Stop defending the indefensible. Stop.
01:54:11 --> 01:54:18 If America is going to achieve its desired goal to be the example for the world,
01:54:19 --> 01:54:22 then we got to stop defending the indefensible.
01:54:23 --> 01:54:28 We got to stop settling. for what we can get and demand better for each and every one of us.
01:54:29 --> 01:54:35 That's where we are. And I hope that people, you know, take that to heart when
01:54:35 --> 01:54:42 they go vote on November the 3rd, the first Tuesday of November in 2026,
01:54:43 --> 01:54:46 or early voting, which would probably be better.
01:54:47 --> 01:54:53 But I just want us to really, really reexamine our soul as a nation.
01:54:54 --> 01:54:59 And stop defending the indefensible.
01:55:01 --> 01:55:02 All right, that's all I got.