Ambassador Rahm Emanuel joins the show to discuss California suing the Trump Administration on tariffs, Trump's attacks on institutions of higher education, the destruction of American credibility, and what to do when Americans can no longer achieve The American Dream.
IG: @ThisisGavinNewsom
Email: ThisisGavinNewsom@iheartradio.com
Phone: 855-6NEWSOM
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Today I initiated a lawsuit against the Trump administration on
behalf of the people of the state of California, asserting
that Trump does not have the unilateral authority to impose
one of the largest tax increases in US history. Impacts
of these tariffs are disproportionately being felt here in California,
the number one manufacturing state in America, state that will
(00:22):
be significantly impacted by this unilateral decision by the President
of the United States. I'm looking forward to talking about
that more with my next guest. We'll talk trade, we'll
talk tariffs, We'll talk about what happened in the last election.
Is this two thousand and four all over again? Are
Democrats ready for a big comeback? And what does the
(00:43):
future hold to My next guest, is he running for
president of the United States. This is Gavin Newsom and
this is Rob Emmanuel Ron. Thanks for coming on the show.
And before we get started, there's so many issues that
I want to get to in a relatively short period
of time. We'll talk obviously about the state of the
(01:05):
Democratic Party, the state of our union, tariff's issues, obviously
related to your service and time in Asia. But top
of mind this week is so much of the attention
on Harvard University and their pushback, which generated a lot
of interest, including from your old boss, President Obama, who
(01:26):
tweeted out a very positive statement on behalf of Harvard,
asserting that it's time to assert universities to assert themselves
more aggressively as it relates to what Trump's trying to do.
I'm just curious what your thoughts were on Harvard and moreover,
what's happening with higher education and respect to the Trump administration.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
Well, I'm of a couple of minds on higher education,
and one is I mean, I don't think anybody's pointed
this out, but you know, Donald Trump started his kind
of introduction into public life in one way or another
with Roy who is Joe McCarthy's right hand man. And
the attack on university is infamous back in the McCarthy era,
(02:08):
squashing both the role of the university has played in
our book life and also academic freedom. And that's one element.
The second element is, you know, having been in Japan,
but I knew this without going to Japan. The American
university system, I mean California, you know this firsthand, and
(02:28):
it's role that it plays from a research and development
on cutting edge technologies, new entrepreneur not only entrepreneurs, but
new entrepreneurship, new ideas with business models. I met somebody
from Stanford the other day in the AI space who's
now got a company that's an example of what is
so unique, and people Japan, israel I can give you
(02:51):
all over the world in Europe all admire what we
have built year over year over year. And not only
is the political freedom happening, but we're actually now billing
the goose laid the golden egg for America's economic competitiveness.
And then, third, if you think of the future on
the international level as a battle not of a Cold
(03:11):
war in the sense of ideological Soviet Universus the free world,
but as a technological battle and competition between the United
States and China, we are really, you know, latterly disarmed.
And then fourth, and finally a governor, I take offense
as an American and as a Jewish American, the idea
(03:33):
that you're going to use anti Semitism or the what
universities had as a culture. And I think there's a
legitimate point to address that and reform that. But using
anti semitism to uh literally destroy our academic institutions in
university and the and they that's how they're getting the
goods through customs. So quote unquote dealing with anti Semitism,
(03:56):
and you know, you know, you and I are talking
on passover the we could pass over the idea that
the Jewish Commune would find any comfort with one person's
opinion as opposed to the rule of law. I got
two thousand years of history that tells you that doesn't
turn out well. So I said, I can go at
this like five different angles. And I'm hoping Harvard and
(04:21):
not just Harvard, but other universities, other law firms, other institutions.
And I would say that to the Supreme Court, you're
going to find out whether that black robe is a
Halloween costume or you actually earned it and understand it
because he's challenging you. There's nothing sacred, So everybody's gonna
have to decide, you know, and reach deep down. Harvard
(04:43):
has other universities are going to have to do the
same and decide that, you know what, there's something set
of principles here that are more important than accommodation.
Speaker 1 (04:54):
And I appreciate the reference on the rule to law,
particularly as it relates to Supreme Court. But I'm just curious,
I mean interesting, you sort of an origin story with
roe coin with Roy that I hadn't really considered. But
what I mean is there something?
Speaker 2 (05:08):
I mean?
Speaker 1 (05:08):
You know, he talks often Trump, doesn't he about how
highly educated people are. He's always impressed with people's looks.
He's impressed with their education.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
Well, looks has nothing to do with how educated you are.
Speaker 1 (05:19):
No, no question about that. But what is I mean?
So it's an interesting thing to me, just as an
observer someone watches obviously Trump closely, this notion that higher
education some establishment plot. Is this a political agenda? Is
this a total twenty five agenda?
Speaker 2 (05:35):
They're getting their goods through customs here? Look, First of all,
the whole idea of tenure for professors was built coming
out of the McCarthy are so you could not be
prosecuted for your political views. That's the orgy of it.
That's where ten years as a concept is nurtured. If
(05:56):
I'm reading history correctly, that's where it comes from. And
professor were given a ability to be protected professionally and
not being prosecuted for any political expression or views. And
now were there things that university's got way off track
on one hundred percent. Were there reforms that were needed
(06:19):
to be done, Yeah, that and there's not a university
president or a board revery. They wuldn't tell you that
was true. Destroying the academic and only freedom, but also
the research elements and trying to coerce their behavior. Now
we're going to do the worst of McCarthyism. And I
don't think it's a coincidence. I think it's actually direct.
(06:39):
Donald Trump's mentor in public life is Roy Cohne, who
was also Joe McCarthy's mentor and sidekick. And so we're
living in a period of time, and I don't think
I don't think I'm being dramatic or hyperbolic, but that's
the period of time. These institutions, not just Ivy League
(07:02):
but public university as well, have a history of them
having stood up, having their voices heard and pushed back.
And I know you want to stay in this area,
and I just so I just say this. I find
it offensive that you're using quote unquote anti semitism that
was perpetuated on the universities to really deal with your
(07:24):
political agenda. So let me just say this, Like the
student at Columbia. I disagree with his views on AMAS.
I disagree with this what happened on obviously, what happened
on October seventh. You want to deal with him in
some way? Have him forced him to do community service
as an intern at the Holocaust Museum for a year now?
All he was expressing his views which I find at
(07:46):
port and I think the American people will see it.
Killing twelve hundred citizens because they were Jewish is not acceptable.
Cutting a fetus out of a woman is not only
on acceptable, it's a crime, Okay, And you want to
identify with that. We can handle that as a country
without having to destroy either Columbia University, Harvard University, or
(08:07):
a public university.
Speaker 1 (08:09):
Well said, So, No, look, I appreciate that, of course.
I'm I'm serving on the UC Regions board as a
lieutenant governor governor. No more precious system from my perspective
in terms of conveyor belt for talent for this country
and the research and development component of that. And you're
extending beyond that, I mean the NIH grants and all
the other efforts to really wreck the systems, put.
Speaker 2 (08:31):
The research aside. Could you reform it? Yes? The universities
were skimning some dollars. That's an easy way to reform,
but don't throw out the goose that lays the gold
in that. The second is as it relates to academic
non academic freedoms, things that were done to Jewish students,
Jewish culture, Jewish life on universities that would never be
(08:53):
accepted to any other minority group, and that true had
to be dealt with, and the university is being forthcoming
about that would be helpful, But don't use anti semitism
or the attack on the Jewish community at a university
to as your way of getting your goods through customs
to actually fulfill a political agenda that was articulated in
(09:14):
Project twenty twenty five early before.
Speaker 1 (09:17):
That's right, so let's you know, and just sort of
segue from Harvard. I mean, there are a number of
Harvard graduates that happened to be members of the Supreme Court,
and you reference the Court. And obviously another big story
in the last few days has been referenced in the
Oval Office visit with President Mukelly of El Salvador and
the conversation that was very publicly held in the Oval
Office related tissues around the Supreme Court's Nino decision and
(09:43):
the defiance apparently the defiance of PAM BEYONDI, the Attorney
General and obviously the president himself, including the President of
El Salvador as it relates to that ruling. I mean,
how concerned are you? People have talked about a constitutional crisis,
They talk about red lines, They talk about the foundational
principles of our founding fathers, three independent branches of government.
(10:05):
When you defy or apparently defy as Supreme Court ruling,
have we crossed that red line? Are we on the
other side of this? Are we being hyperbolic?
Speaker 2 (10:14):
Well, I don't think you'd be good. But look, I
think we're going to find out whether the black robes
that the members of the Court where are a Halloween
constitule or they represent the dignity of the Court and
its opinion as a coequal branch government. They were not
ambiguous as related to the individual and that the United
(10:35):
States acknowledged they wrongfully sent to the Alsa Ouvadoor prison.
Now the Court is either going to show that not
the Court's opinions are the final verdict. An opinion now
need to be executed by the executive branch and if
he defies them and they take no step in that. Uh,
(10:55):
you know, there's a lot of ways to deal with
I mean, you know, individual citizens that are held in
contempt of the court. There's a lot of different ways
to deal with this. And look, I go back to
when Chief Justice Roberts was being confirmed by the Senate.
He said that judges are like umpires. That was his words,
(11:16):
they call balls and struts. Well you called this one. Now,
Either you're going to allow your opinion as an umpire,
which I happened. I think is a horrible metaphor, but
you used it, and you're going to let your opinion
hold the day, or basically it's a fungible opinion. It
(11:38):
doesn't matter what you said. Now, I'm not a lawyer.
I don't know if you are a governor. But I
studied the Constitution and I always understood there were three
branches of co equal branches of government, not one above
all others. We're going to find out something about the court,
not just the president.
Speaker 1 (11:55):
Amen. The best of Roman Republic, Greek democracy, independent co
equo branches the government, popular sovereignty, sort of fundamental principles
we've been celebrating for two hundred and forty plus years. Look,
we've also been sort of reflecting in the last few
weeks the years and years that Donald Trump himself and
(12:16):
back to I think the origin story, and I think
it's really interesting and insightful how you began the conversation
as relates to Roy Cohen in the history of McCarthyism
and relationship to this moment, and so much I think
about Trump goes back to sort of indelible ideological perspectives
that he's had for years and years and years, and
(12:36):
I don't think we give more enough credence to that,
including on the issue that connects to you in a
more modern term and your ambassadoral time in Japan, and
that's the issue of tariff's where Trump, I think, in
the eighties put out a full page add if I
recall around how unfair trade policy was and how Japan
at the time was cleaning our clock. And here we
(12:57):
are fast forward with all these terror policies. So are
you surprised that we're where we are? Obviously you have
strong opinions about the recklessness of it, but from an
historic perspective of that perspective of that prism, is it
surprise you he's what he's advancing.
Speaker 2 (13:14):
What he's advanced. So let's deal with a couple of
things that I think are all in there. One is
it doesn't surprise me either he said he was going
to do the tariffs. What surprised me is the erraticness,
because it was the one constant thing he said in
the campaign, one constant thing, as you said, in his
public life, and it's been the most erratic, not thought
(13:37):
through most I mean as opposed to kind of the
Project twenty twenty five stuff that he didn't mention. That's
been unbelievably like there was a strategy. Here is what
he did mention, and it's just every day is a
new day. Look. It's the largest tax increase in American history.
Cool Stoff. Two. It's a corrupt system because whoever goes
(13:58):
to Marrow Lago gets a cut, gets a cut, as
you're seeing on car.
Speaker 1 (14:03):
Pause on that. I think that's the most under reported
part of this. The regressive tax side is one thing.
What this means for crony capitalism is another.
Speaker 2 (14:12):
This is the worst of as I said when he
first got elected but wasn't inaugurated. Here he's going to
turn the Oval Office into eBay, and it's the highest bidder,
and if it ain't nailed down, he's gonna sell it.
And it's crony capitals. Here is my another p and
it's affecting the dollar. It's affecting this your four one K.
But here's the other piece. Twenty years ago, China was
(14:35):
on the rise in America was seen as stagnating to climb. Right,
g does a couple of things that is the worst
economic damage anyone person to do, and he did it
to China. He busts the housing bubble, he busts the
municipal debt bubble, He cracks down on the private sector.
(14:55):
Foreign investment fleas, foreign entrepreneurs flee, entrepreneurs and stop, and
the economy goes into what people were referring to as
a Japanese style deflation, and youth unemployment shoots way up.
The United States is on the rocks, money is flowing in,
unemployment is down, manufacturing is coming back. And China's strategy
(15:22):
in that scenario is We're going to export our problems
through manufacturing all across the globe. Chile lose its only
steel plan, South Africa is about to lose their steel plan.
Countries that are aligned with China, Brazil, Mexico file wto
cases against China. We're the safe harbor. We're the adult,
that is the United States. What happens we do these
(15:43):
tariffs are erratic and then all of a sudden, China
looks like a place of stability, and we look like
the chaos agent. Rather than China being isolated in the world,
aligning with the United States, the United States gets isolated
and we have turned. We had China and they knew it.
They said, this doesn't require interpretation. China said, you're isolating us.
(16:05):
We took advantage of China's on goal they did to
themselves economically through their mercantilism, what their wolf warrior was
on the diplomatic front, and we used it strategically better
than we actually assumed we could do. And we just
committed the worst on goal and snapping the literally ripping
(16:26):
the victory from the jaws at the feet. And now
we're the isolated party. And what's worse. And let me
say this is a father with two children, one full
time and the other reserve enlisted in the armed forces.
Nineteen seventy nine, Governor was the first time the United
States deployed a sanctioned it was on Iran and used
(16:51):
its economic power and the power of the dollar, so
we didn't have to do something kinetic Milternally, we refined
this and really become experts going through the War on Terror,
and we had built up the capacity. And one of
the things that China and Russia hated was the United
States through the dollar, could economically punish you in a
(17:15):
way that it didn't have to require the US military
to do it, but we could use our economic power
and our power of our dollar. We have destroyed, destroyed,
not inhibited, one of the most important tools we have
developed over fifty years to punish an adversary without putting
men and women in the United States uniform at risk.
(17:38):
This is, as my grandfather would say, a shanda. It's
a crime committed against ourselves. It is ridiculous. Now, most
importantly the American people, I give them a lot of credit.
It took them. They didn't go to Harvard, they didn't
go to Columbia.
Speaker 1 (17:55):
They didn't they didn't even get a four year degree.
Speaker 2 (17:57):
Most of all, we knew that a tariff was a
taxed on day one, and they knew they were going
to get hosed right, figured it out without going to
business school, knew it up front, rejected it, and he
is showing political the political peril of his own position.
Speaker 1 (18:12):
Yeah, we completely betrayed them, right, I mean by definition
number one, day one bringing down prices, number one promise.
Speaker 2 (18:19):
Look the one look, we have our own problem with Democrats.
Will get to that and the rest of this podcast.
But the one thing you can say about Donald Trump,
He'll portray you insteady in the back and he's doing
it all and the American people are going to punish
the Republicans for this, and you saw it in the election.
Speaker 1 (18:38):
So let me and I definitely would look forward to
talking about the political implications. But let's just talk about
the practical. I mean, because you've yeah, I mean you've
you've experienced firsthand, up close, our efforts, particularly during the
Biden administration. I really applaud those eforts, particularly with Japan
and Korea, and in relationship to China. You were very vocal,
(19:01):
very vocal, more than any ambassador, which took some courage,
I thought. Against China, you've seen this sort of geopolitical shuffle.
I mean, what are they saying? You know, Trump's now
saying We're respected around the world. What are they saying
in the halls with our allies? I mean, how consequential
is this to trust? And how long is this wound?
Speaker 2 (19:24):
Going to festiv I would say to you Governor, first
of all, in eighty days he's destroyed eighty years of
credibility in the United States, a big hit on our credibility.
You can look at into Pacific, you can look at
the Middle East. You can do in Europe, if can
look at Africa. No one reason is more outweighs another.
The most important thing post Donald Trump is somehow restoring
(19:47):
trust and credibility to the United States. Work. People are
ridiculing the I say, I said, if you don't just
then word. But also indeed I worked tirelessly and I
give the President and the Nationality Apparatus credit. With my
colleague in South Korea in the historic coming together at
(20:08):
Camp David between the President, the President of South Korea,
and the Prime Minister of Japan, we all three countries
have a complicated history. We came together saw the future
is more important than the past, and embraced it and
shaped it. Two weeks ago, China brought together the foreign
(20:28):
ministers of Korea and Japan. With them, they announced an
economic partnership to the ground and develop Korea that was
essential to the our export controls against the semiconductor industry
in China. Samsung, the shining corporate semi conductor company in Korea,
announced an agreement with the Chinese company. Now nobody's respecting
(20:52):
the United States, nobody's trusting the United States. They're looking
out for their own self interests. That meeting China, Korea
and Japan never would have happened on the kind of
level it happened with the outgrowth that happened, and we
not committed and isolated ourselves with the tariff policy that
hit ally and adversary with equal force. So it's an
(21:16):
end goal. It's no other way to describe.
Speaker 1 (21:17):
It, would you extend? I mean, obviously there's a lot
of talk now in South Korea about the prospect of
a Korean peninsula where everyone is a nuclear power. Obviously
there's now renewed conversations, which is remarkable to me. You
would understand it better than anyone in Japan even I mean,
do you think that's an outgrowth of this moment or
(21:38):
is that a more complicated question that may pre date,
the recklessness of Trump's tariff announcements.
Speaker 2 (21:45):
So one is everybody used to say, oh about non proliferation,
it was expensive what we did. You're about to get
sticker shock on proliferation. You're here. We spent the year
and a half. I was having more on the sidelines
than this one vincent Korea not to go nuclear, but
divide with the United States and a whole process of
that fast forward. What happens is I think Korea is
(22:10):
going to look at the United States as an untrusted
ally and they're going to make a decision. With North
Korea's possession of nuclear capacity, China's capacity, they're going to
go nuclear and they're not going to put their faith
in the United States anymore. And if Korea does it, Japan,
So just close your eyes. Pakistan, India, China, North Korea,
(22:31):
South Korea, and Japan all in that region will be nuclear.
What could go wrong? It's insane. I want to go
double back on some of my skips, and I want
to say something about the tariffs. Heet asked if I
could governor. We're treating textiles, toys and technology as equals,
(22:52):
and I don't know the idea that we're going to
see technology or semiconductors, and I'm not saying they're more,
but they are slightly more valuable than a T shirt
from our economic capacity and strength. So if you're going
to have a policy making sure that America's own economy
is secure in slightly more self sufficient than where it was,
(23:13):
you don't treat toys manufactured in China, textiles manufactured in
Southeast Asia, and technology like semiconductors as if they're equal
economic capacity. And lastly, what's also lost in the spate.
Almost forty five percent of all imports into the United
States are things that go into our own manufacturing base.
(23:37):
So we're going to affect manufacturing, but not the way
that Donald Trump said. It will have an impact on manufacturing.
It will actually lead to unemployment in the manufacturing. I
don't know if you know this, and I'm sure you
do because you have your own industrial base in California.
There's five hundred thousand manufacturing jobs today with the help
(23:58):
want it signed around it. Yep, we're short workers. You
know this and I know this is going around. I
used to have CEOs come through here. I talked to
them in this today you do too. Biggest item besides
this regulation or that, that's biggest item, a workforce that
they can't find. Right, So if we started at home,
(24:21):
we would be Actually, there's five hundred thousand manufacturing jobs today.
We could have done something about with it before we
hit the tear off kaas.
Speaker 1 (24:28):
Look, I appreciate it. Also speaking of kids, I've got
four kids and they still love toys. I think eighty
percent of the toys under the Christmas Tree come from China.
They've doubled the cost of that. Obviously, if you're got
your four to one K as you said earlier, and
I think the focus on four to one K more
than the markets. I think even Carvo brought that up
in a recent op ed I thought was very wise
(24:50):
and connects with people on more a much more personal way.
But I want to highlight what you just said. California
is the biggest manufacturing state in America. People forget that.
Californiumber one and two way trade, number one and direct
foreign investment, and number one manufacturing state in America. Forty
percent of the goods movements in this country come through
two ports of entry in California, about fifty percent of
(25:12):
that from China itself. No state has more to lose,
more to gain as it relates to ag as it
relates to all of these industries and tech as you
noted AI, etc. So that's, by the way, why we
just filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, and we
did it on I think very sound grounds and it's
an interesting lawsuit for many different reasons. But we've got
(25:33):
to push back much more aggressively on the consequences of this.
Speaker 2 (25:36):
Let me say this without trying to go into a
witness protection plan, which.
Speaker 1 (25:41):
By the way is hyperbole but not necessarily in this
day and age. So I appreciate the cabin Yeah, do
you know a lawyer before? By the way, none at
SCAT and ARBs, none at Paul Weiss, none of all
these firms that have capitulated. You brought that up at
the top.
Speaker 2 (25:59):
Here's the thing is the analysis that we have a
problem where America did not invest in America or Americans
and it led to our economic independence being adversely not
only affected, but it also affected our civic life because
(26:21):
people lost confidence in America by Americans. That is not
a wrong analysis going about that. Terifs are the most
beautiful word in the English language and hitting everything ally
and adversary the same, not thinking to it through strategically,
not understanding the difference between toys and technology. From an
(26:42):
economic standpoint is actually the cure is worse than the illness,
and it's going to be affect people's family budgets, can
affect their employment, It's going to affect a whole host
of things and their economic security, their retirement security, their
education for their children. And so to me, your first
(27:03):
question kind of was I get the analysis of what
it ailes America or one of the things that ails America.
It's not wrong, but like all things Trump, he makes
the problem much more severe than address it. There you go, yep,
in every aspect. Take the academic institutions. Were there things
(27:27):
that they had done over the years that got them
off kilter one hundred percent? But using anti semitism to
execute a political strategy to silence universities and academics.
Speaker 1 (27:40):
No, that's exactly right. And so I know I'm with
you on what you're saying is you're not an anti
tariff absolutist. Do you believe in targeted terriffs?
Speaker 2 (27:49):
And along the lines of way, No, I didn't say that,
actual I know I want to be. I want to
speak what.
Speaker 1 (27:54):
Are you But you've been But you've been. You haven't
been opposed to tariffs in the past. I mean you've
you know the Biden administration triple them on Chinese steel
and aluminum.
Speaker 2 (28:03):
Here's my thing is, if we've got a problem, what
does it take to address and build an industry? Now, look,
my analysis going back then as a massive China is
the one that came up with self sufficiency as an
economic model. That's why there's exporting their mercantilism and crushing
all these countries around the world. They've decided how to
(28:25):
isolate themselves from the world rather than interact with the world.
And it's only on China's term. If you want to
apply a tariff, my view is, okay, what are the
things that we are going to do that tariff give
us a window of time. What are our investments, what's
our training? What are we going to do from a
research standpoint in semiconductors, in steel, or pick your industry.
(28:49):
I'm not for tariffs. They are a tool in a toolbox.
But tell me what we're doing with all the tools
in the toolbox. So you have an integrated cohesive comprehend
of strategy. If we don't train the workers for the
five hundred thousand jobs, I don't care what terrafs you do. Yeah, okay.
And if you're not going to fund some research, that's
take a look. You know. I'll just say this, fracking
(29:12):
as a technology came out of our universities. Look we're
now we went from a four hundred billion dollar import
to a forty five billion dollar export. That's a big swing.
Tell me what we're going to now. People are thinking
of using that hydraulic technology to do geothermal. Tell me
what we're doing, what the worth, the end line, and
what are all the pieces that fit into that. We're
(29:34):
just going by gut instincts of one guy who failed
seven businesses.
Speaker 1 (29:39):
So what you're saying I mean, And to be to
be more clear than the basis of that reaction, targeted
tariffs with an industrial policy, with a policy to back
it up, with a rationale to use it as a
tool for strategic national security issues or for legitimate questions
around imbalance of trade or unfair present People like the
(30:01):
Secretary of Commerce and the President who believe tariffs are
the economic toolbox, they're not.
Speaker 2 (30:07):
They are a tool in the toolbox, But you tell
me each sector, what is the strategy. What are we
going to do for training? What are we going to
do for infrastructure? What are we doing for research and development?
How are we going to take certain US companies and
build them up or invite foreign investors to build those up?
And I'll give you example. Take the shipbuilding industry Japan
(30:27):
and Korea unbelievably capable of coming in and investing in
helping build that domestic industry in the United States. Are
they banned? Are they part of that? Are they allies
that we're going to invite in to help us jump
start something that we've lost our muscle memory on. That's
a strategy. I want to I just what it is
we're going to do. What's the roadmap here? So everybody
(30:49):
knows how to contribute and knows what the goal line
is or what the end point is.
Speaker 1 (30:58):
This is an opportun unity to pivot a little bit,
but pivot with a little bit of self reflection. And
one of the things I really appreciated.
Speaker 2 (31:05):
It that's going to be hard for an e manual.
Speaker 1 (31:07):
That's well, I don't know, you've been pretty I was
about to compliment you as an emmanual.
Speaker 2 (31:12):
Self reflection on the podcast too. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (31:14):
No, I mean, well, you know we could we could
get in a deeper conversation. Yeah, all two of your
two other brothers. Yeah, we could talk about as well.
You already think you brought up the family in the
context of what was the word you used, wasn't misschi gosh?
What was it?
Speaker 2 (31:29):
Shonda? It's a it's a. It's an embarrassment. It's a shonda.
Speaker 1 (31:33):
I like it. I'm going to steal that.
Speaker 2 (31:34):
It's it's half sin, half comparison.
Speaker 1 (31:37):
It's good. It's the moment. But let me talk about
a different moment. I mean you and you were part
of it, and frankly, I think all of us where
a lot of us were parroting it to be Canada,
you know, as I sort of a Clinton Democrat back
in the day nafta the WTO. You know, people talk
a lot about the WTO sort of as a point
of emphasis that sort of led to this point, not
(31:57):
just an op ed in the nineteen eighties or add
by Trump as it relates to his positions on trade.
You know, what do you make of the Democratic Party
and our culpability for this moment and the hollowing out
of our industrial base and the need to jump start.
I mean what, Just take their arguments, the ban and arguments.
Take the arguments of Trump and the accolytes around him
(32:19):
that it's time to reindustrialize, it's time to bring those
supply chains home, it's time to really start focusing. Yes,
dare I say it on America first?
Speaker 2 (32:29):
Rom Look, I don't so I agree with that on
both America and Americans first, as a person who first
city to ever create free community college and make sure
high school isn't the endpoint of a public commitment to education.
And so, Governor, here's what I would say, And I'll
(32:49):
talk to both both NAFTIN and WT and WTO meaning
China into WTO, and they're slightly different, but of single spirit.
The mistake, it's a mistake, and we own a polity
American people, is we allowed Lacrosse, Wisconsin, Peoria, Illinois, Youngstown, Ohio, Saginaw, Michigan,
(33:10):
or Battle Creek, Michigan, or Terre Hoo, Indiana, to navigate
the world market on their own against China and much
bigger forces. We didn't. We didn't. If you go back
to NAFTA, President Clinton had proposed a billions and billions
of dollars of investment that was turned down by Congress,
ended up with like a job training program, like about you,
(33:33):
and basically said here, you're on your own. And the
truth is you and I and our kids we're going
to get the rewards of the system that we built.
That's not true for everybody. The American dream is not
has been unaffordable and inaccessible every year after every year,
and it's down now to about temper sent the children
(33:53):
of American families have access. All American people want is
a simple thing, a shot in the American dream, and
they got the shaft. And he left communities unprotected against China.
Peoria is not set up, and the people who live
in Burea to fight China on their own. And that's
just an observation. That's just a fact. And while trade
(34:15):
had benefits, the benefits were not equally shared and the
risk was not equally shared. And that's a fact. And
for too long it was ignored as a scream and
a yell. And you can explain something of Donald Trump
in that now on wto I same analysis, except for
I would say one coveyat when China was brought in.
(34:38):
It was part of in the same way that Russia
was brought into NATO and Russia was brought into the
G seven. It was a theory of the case. And
it's a kind of a sixty forty issue. It's better
to have him in the tent pissing out than outside
the ten person And to use an LBJ term not
it's not you know this as governor. I know as
a mayor's chief staff. Nothing's one hundred zero. That's what
(35:01):
you have AI for. These are judgment calls. It was
better to think that you can make China had invested
in the system we had. By twenty twelve, when she
becomes president of China, it's very clear they go from
strategic competitor to strategic adversaries much different. And it was
actually also very clear, and I say this as Congressmant
(35:23):
represented many companies as chief of staff, dealing with CEOs China.
Intellectual property theft and economic espionage is core to the
business model in a way that patents and rule of
law are core to ours. And in twenty twelve we
held out strategic competitor, ignoring things that we knew were happening,
(35:44):
and they went to strategic adversary and core to their idea.
You have Google based in California. Only one country was
stealing AI secrets from them. It's called China. They do
it all over our universities, they do it all over
our companies. It's core to them, and we ignored it.
Now twenty twelve, we should have blown the whistle, called
the game and said this is a different game. And
(36:07):
the only thing I would say is that we woke
up on Wolf Warrior the economic coersion ten years earlier
than trying to expected us, and we started making use
of that kind So was it a mistake in nineteen
ninety nine? I got to be honest, if it was
a sixty forty sixty five thirty five call, do you
(36:29):
let them stay out or you bring them in? And
when they started changing and not playing by the rules
they agreed to, they should have gotten called out earlier
and not just called out. The whistle should have been
blown and they should have been forfeited the game and
being dealt with differently. They're not a developing economy. They
were cheating and stealing their way to economic secrets. And
not only cheating and stealing, we permitted American companies to
(36:53):
give away research and development to get access to a market. Well,
I'm sorry, taxpayers pay for that research and development. We
own that as much as anyone company owns that R
and D. When we give you a tax credit, we're
an equity investor. We gave away our family jewels because
a bunch of company CEOs, all of us did. D
are most side of Pennsylvania, avenue governors everywhere, because what
(37:16):
they wanted access to the market. And the biggest mistake,
we commercialized our forms and national security policy. We commercialized it.
The business community had way too big a vote, a
big mistake, and now we have to make up for
that lost time. We were in the process of doing that.
And I think what we're doing treating allies is if
their adversaries adversaries, is the one day they become allies.
(37:38):
And as a total mistake, because we don't know friend
from foe.
Speaker 1 (37:42):
Here here and you say we start and this is
segue then to the Biden years, And you know, I've
been very vocal. I thought it was a master class
of policy making. I thought it was extraordinary legislative accomplishments.
Three hundred and sixty nine billion dollars in the IRA
fifty two to three. In the chips and science hack
one point two trillion, I think five hundred and fifty
billion more that new in the infrastructure, I mean the
(38:06):
punchline aside of Trump, I mean literally three hundred weeks
of infrastructure bloviation, and the Biden administration delivered seemed to
me an industrial policy that was worker centered to begin
to substantively address these trend lines and address these headlines
of today. Do you agree with that? And I'm not
looking you as as a former ambassador of the administration,
(38:28):
it's difficult to know. I'm not looking to get it
create any wedges, but it seemed to me a pretty
robust response to the concerns around the working class, to
the concerns around what's happening in the heartland. By the way,
the heartland includes California, which again the largest manufacturing state.
That is more hunting jobs, more fishing jobs, and more
(38:51):
forestry jobs, not just ag jobs than any other state.
Speaker 2 (38:54):
So I would say to you, look, it started dealing
with the fact that both of the industrial policy and
key sectors of the economy that were going to produce
both jobs and economic independence. We started to make investments
in America making up for we just the other question,
which is things that we didn't invest in, and we
(39:16):
allowed the the freedom of the market to take place,
and it affected both our competitiveness and most importantly, the
American people and their confidence in America because we lost
face with them. I do think there's you know, it
was robust, but what was one of the principal things
that undermined the president was inflation. And that was an
(39:39):
outgrowth of the robustness of the first Act, which is
and how big it was and you were.
Speaker 1 (39:46):
Which I neglected to reference. I referenced three of.
Speaker 2 (39:49):
The helpline point was the infrastructure.
Speaker 1 (39:52):
And not exclusively that, I mean it was partially. I mean,
to be fair, you had international.
Speaker 2 (39:56):
Out of COVID, there's a lot coming out.
Speaker 1 (39:58):
Of COVID, supply chains, the WORL in Ukraine issues, and
obviously international inflation that impacted the globe. But yes, partially
impacted America more than.
Speaker 2 (40:10):
The first bill. Everybody was, oh, it's big and bold,
and look I can say this, and a lot of
it was we were going to show president you know
about the competitiveness. We were going to show President Obama
the right way to do this.
Speaker 1 (40:23):
You think, meaning that Obama's bill wasn't big enough, your bill,
and we needed to show we could go bolder and bigger.
Speaker 2 (40:30):
I always now you're going to deal with talk about
self awareness. Nobody ever offered an amendment to make it bigger.
Everybody that's rewriting history, you know, some of us were there.
Nobody for a trillion dollars. It wasn't going to pass. Okay,
so nobody offered it. Everybody that's walking around all it
was too small, too timid. Okay, where was your amendment?
(40:51):
Call you for a trillion dollars? Okay, nobody did. Number two.
It was big. It was bold because we were having
a problem. Part of it was all there was a
political piece to this, and we should just be honest.
It was to show that, oh, we were different than
the timidness, which I don't think was timid. President Obama
dealt with on the heels of having this dealt with
(41:12):
TARP of what President Bush passed and signed, implementing that,
but also the Recovery Act, that was what the political
system could bear. Now, the inflation that kicks off under
President Biden is one of the pieces, not the only,
but is a result that big and bold came with
a price, not just economic, it came with a political price,
(41:34):
because inflation kicked off and it was known at the
time it would warned. But there was something considerations done
where politics was to be honest, more valuable. And I
think sometimes also if I could in the rewrite less
is more, it became a giant appropriation bill rather than
(41:54):
a strategically thought through and you can that criticism also
applies to certain things we did under President Obama's first bill,
also the recovery bill, which is became too big of
an funding bill rather than a strategic approach to either
the recession and or post COVID A present bien so.
Speaker 1 (42:16):
Rom is your point then that it then clouded over
some of the accomplishments on those other bills. There's sort
of three legged stool that I was arguing, we're not
insignificant the chips and Science ACKed and the Infrastructure bill,
and in making those investments intentionally in the IRA that
have benefited disproportionately rural and read parts of this country.
Speaker 2 (42:36):
There's no look, look, you got three or four. In
my view, there's telling people that the economy is great
when they're feeling stressed as if you're like tone deaf.
That's wrong.
Speaker 1 (42:53):
Two, that's on the politics.
Speaker 2 (42:54):
Okay. Ye Second, people ready breaking news, people like order
versus disorder. You're talking to the guy in clinton White
House who put together Operation Gatekeeper on San Diego and
the border looked totally out of control. I think American
people are actually more receptive on immigration, but they don't
like the law being broken and being so flavingly disregarded.
And we allowed it to happen. And then Third our party,
(43:20):
and I've spoken about this, got into a cultural cul
de sact. You know, Look, we weren't good on the
kitchen table issues. We weren't really good in the family room.
The only room we really did well in the house
was a bathroom. And I don't know if you know this, Governor,
but the bathroom is the smallest room in the house,
and that's the only place we were good. Okay. And
my view is we not only looked like we were
(43:40):
on the cultural purphery, we looked like that's what was
front and center for us. And I'm sorry, I've written
about this, I've talked about it. Stop the bathroom in
the locker room. It's not more important than the classroom
and the kitchen table. A lot of things get discussed
at that kitchen table. What's going on in the neighborhood,
(44:01):
who are the kids hanging with? How does technology affect
our children's isolation. They're in the basement. I can't get
them off off the telephone. There's a whole host of
issues that happened that happened in your kitchen table. They
happened at my kidchen table, and they go from the
kitchen table to the family room to night when you
have five minutes to talk to your loved one and
your partner about what we're going to do. So we
(44:22):
actually got totally sidetracked into a discussion. Now, as a party,
we're an accepting party, but we started becoming advocates. And
I'm sorry when two thirds of our kids can't read
at grade level the worst than thirty years, two curiods
that our kids can't do math at the worst level
in thirty years, that's the priority. You make it for
(44:44):
your own children, and we didn't make it for the
American children. And this really like, Yes, I was in Japan,
I couldn't have been a happier, but I was like
I was watching America from did I say, what do
you guys? And we lost our mind. This is a
p The Democratic Party is about the American dream, owning
a home, save you for your retirement, save you for
(45:05):
your kids' education, and making sure that grandma wasn't one
mills away from the chapter eleven and moving into the
house you wanted her blocks away. Okay, And the American
dream is not accessible, it's not affordable. That's the That
is what should motivate us as Democrats to speak to
now the opportunity for us, if I can go on
(45:26):
in a tirade here, By the.
Speaker 1 (45:29):
Way, you sound very much like I have lately. So
keep going wrong, keep going.
Speaker 2 (45:34):
Well, the Democratic Party. Look between now in twenty twenty six,
this is gonna be a referendum on Donald Trump, and
there's gonna be a lot of energy. It's not gonna
be about us. It's gonna be about him.
Speaker 1 (45:47):
But you're not arguing for that. You're arguing for something
bolder and bigger, beyond me.
Speaker 2 (45:51):
Here's what I'm arguing because with the day twenty twenty
six is over.
Speaker 1 (45:55):
Yeah, got to turn that page.
Speaker 2 (45:57):
But and if you want the American people to give
you the keys to the car, you got to know
how to drive. Yep, you got to know that you
have more. You have a Google map to the American
dream that you know how to share that car, not
get it off onto the shoulder of the road, and
you know how to take it. So not just new
some children and the emmanual children can one day own
(46:18):
a home. You have kids graduating college with thirty five
thousand dollars in debt and they're living in the basement
till the thirty five. This is not how you and
I grew up. Then you got grandma living upstairs and
where the kids used to live because she can't afford
to live on Social Security and Medicare, and she's skipping
(46:39):
medication and you're skipping doctor visits. This is insane. And
if we're gonna get the keys to the car between
twenty twenty six and twenty twenty eight, we got to
tell people you're not going to get the shaft anymore.
And I may not solve this problem, and I may
have my tongue hanging out of my mouth at the
end like a dog racer, but I am going to
work every day to make sure that more and more
(46:59):
American children and more American families have access to that dream,
and it has been and the reason our politics are
where they are and the reason we have Donald Trump
is that trust between the American people, the American dream,
and those of us who are stewards of it has
been broken, and we need to repair it. And that's
our number one goal.
Speaker 1 (47:18):
Well, I appreciate everything you said, and I also appreciated
your courage of saying which I was right there with
you calling our party brand, which was not very well received,
at least with my inbox. When I called our party
brand a toxic, I mean when you're twenty seven percent
and that you know we have a high water market
twenty nine percent on a CNN poll, only to see
(47:38):
twenty seven percent a few days later at NBC poll.
Where people don't trust us, they don't think we're we
have their backs on issues that are core to them,
which are these kitchen table issues.
Speaker 2 (47:47):
It is both the kitchen table issue and the family issues.
Speaker 1 (47:51):
And you mean family brought broadly defined in what in
what contexts done when we.
Speaker 2 (47:55):
Say, let me say a couple of things. Now, I'm
a product my experiences. President Clinton is infamous in the
ninety two election for the economy stupid, But there were
a set of issues coming on the heels of both
Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale and then Dacaucus where he talked
(48:16):
about ending welfare as we know it, a shorthand in
your state. Coming out of the Rodney King Sister Soldier moment,
that he was centered on a set of values that
all of us collectively had a consensus around, so that
the economic message about the middle class first could be heard.
And for President Obama it became deal with Father Wright,
(48:38):
his pastor who's made some very ugly comments. For President Kennedy,
it was going to Texas to give a speech and
say I'll be a president who's Catholic, but not a
Catholic president. There were threshold issues that were important on
the cultural front that allowed the rest of what we
had to say a permission slip to get hurt. That's
(49:00):
a political analysis. And I would say to you the
kitchen cable and the family room are of one piece,
and we got stuck as a party in the bathroom,
which I say jokingly but as serious it is the
smallest room in the house, and we're not going to
be heard on a set of issues. And you say
twenty seven percent. We earned that twenty seven percent the
(49:21):
old fashioned way. We turned our back on the American
people and they had they had hope in us, they
put their confidence in us, and we walked away from
that contract with them.
Speaker 1 (49:38):
Ron, what you just said, I think is really powerful
and important, and because in order for people to hear
the other message, they had to hear that what you
I mean, they had to hear that we were connected
on some of those other issues, meaning it's not just
an economic message. I mean, that was I think Biden's frustration.
He was talking about Bill back better. He was talking
(49:59):
about an ECONO message. He was talking about his worker
centered industrial policy. But it wasn't necessarily breaking through because
we couldn't break out, as you point, of the bathroom debates,
the pronoun debates, and all these other debates.
Speaker 2 (50:12):
I've said this before, so I'll say it here in
his Last State of the Union, if my theory of
the case is right. In the Last State of the Union,
when he was not reading off script, he said, when
he went off script, he said illegal immigrants people. All
of Washington's immigration groups started yelling at the white number
(50:34):
and they went to undocumented. Now, to me, that was
the slowest pitch over the center plate.
Speaker 1 (50:40):
He just said, look, no one's illegal. I remember it.
I remember it well, right, yeah.
Speaker 2 (50:45):
And he switched to the voices on K Street of Washington.
And to me, that was the easiest way of showing,
as I showed Kennedy, Clinton and Obama head different footprints
on this area of what I call a cultural landscape,
where he could have said, look, uh h, I said
(51:07):
what I said. I'm sticking by what I said. If
you don't like it, you can use whatever term you want.
And this is I find ironic from a bunch of
people yelling at you when you say, don't say defund
the police. They say it doesn't mean what it says. Well,
don't use English language. Set okay. If it doesn't mean,
I use English ariage convey what I mean, not what
I don't mean. So to me, we put ourselves in
(51:27):
a position where we're not seen or heard by the
American people because we disappointed them.
Speaker 1 (51:34):
So you're and I look, I appreciate the specific example
as it relates to Biden in that particular moment, as
relates to legal immigration versus undocumented, but broadly, how do
you sort of reflect there's a lot of dialectic within
the party or not within the party, within punditry. More
broadly than that, it's the weaponization of grievance the other
side so much more effective, making CRT D I E S,
(51:57):
G I R S, you know, DOJ anything with three
letters the issue of the day, and that they're able
to surround sound Sinclair Media, not just Fox Newsmax, not
just One American News, not just the Bogga sphere and
the manisphere, but their ability to shape shift and constantly
we're on the defensive in that respect, and they color
things in and even if we're trying to run away
(52:19):
from those issues, we don't even want to adult indulge
in those issues. We have an almost impossible time in
that media landscape of breaking out and getting back on
our message. How do you reflect on that? Is that
a component part or is it still we're not victims
and we need to take more accountability.
Speaker 2 (52:36):
Look, they do have a very powerful ecosystem, but you know,
even with the ecosystem, they lost Wisconsin. They lost they
lost over every special lection. So I mean one of
the things that you and I both know this, don't
over don't overinflate your opponent's power, and don't underestimate it either.
(53:00):
That have a powerful ecosystem? Yes do we sometimes? Are
we our worst marketers? Latin x one hundred thousand? You know,
defund the police? I can give you chapter in versu
of terminology. We you know, I'm not. I actually appreciate
the spirit. Okay, So don't get me. I appreciate the
spirit of those that are going around on protest calling oligarchs.
(53:23):
You're all over California. How many people in your you've
been to lieutenant governor, governor? How many times did somebody
come up to use that oligarch rather than or big, big,
big fat special interests? Okay? Why don't we use terms that.
Speaker 1 (53:37):
People diners understand?
Speaker 2 (53:39):
Okay, well I didn't know we were applying for our
ten year position. Okay, give me a break. So are
we our worst? Are we our worst victims? Yes? Do
they have a more sophisticated ecosystem? Yes? Do people like
his tariffs? No? Did we win in Wisconsin? Yes? Did
they lose a Scambia county where Pensacola is and it's
fourteen percent veterans, double the national average. The first time
(54:02):
since five decades a Democrat won that in a national election.
Trump wanted by nineteen, we wanted by three. Yeah, So
I don't overestimate the power of it. I think I
like to have that ecosystem, and I like to be
more strategic and more sophisticated about how we talk about
what's cord us. I wouldn't want to be a better
(54:23):
talker about the locker room in the bathroom. I'd rather
be a better talker and have a good ecosystem about
this is what we're going to do to improve readings course,
Here's how we're going to make sure that kids can
do math at math level. Here's how we're going to
do with the chronic apps and teism rate. So I'd
like to have that ecosystem if I was focused on
(54:43):
the right things, if I was saying, you know, there's
not to tout it, but you know, we created universal
pre king in Chicago. Never had it, universal kindergarten never
had it. Free community college for Bee students never had it.
So I like to have the ecosystem that tells that
story and why it's important that two thirds of the
twenty thousand kids that went to college for community college
(55:04):
for free for the first in the family ever went
that passport, that education. That's your visa and your passport
to the future. I think there's other ways you So
I want the ecosystem and I want the way to
talk about what we're doing in a strategically focused way.
Not that makes me feel better about me, but makes
them feel better that I'm actually in their sleeves, rolled
(55:27):
up like a beaten dog. Worker for.
Speaker 1 (55:31):
Rob are you. We'll segue a little bit off that
you you had deep experience with all things tactical in
political particularly not and you've had a remarkable career in
so many remarkable roles, working for three presidents too, in
sort of more lead and established stablished status. What but
(55:52):
the Congressional Committee what you were running that what nineteen
two thousand and six? Right, Yeah, And I bring up
two thousand and six in this context because after two
thousand and four, I remember everybody we got slacked. They
won the popular vote, the electoral vote. Democratic Party was toast.
Everyone was running saying we got to go to Applebee's
read you know what's wrong with Kansas. This is before
(56:14):
hillbilly elegy, the whole thing. And you know, we're too elite,
we're two out of touch and then all of a sudden,
two years later, you successfully went back the House, overwhelming
someone by Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House. And in
two thousand and eight, you guys went with the biggest
landslide since nineteen sixty four or fifty three percent of
the vote, And all of a sudden, you're on transition
team and chief of staff of some guy named Obama.
(56:36):
Is this two thousand and four all over again? If
we do it right? Or are we in a deeper,
darker wilderness at this moment from your perspective?
Speaker 2 (56:45):
So on an anecdote. So the day after we win
O six, you'll appreciate this. This is the day of
President Trump. A President Bush rather given that press conference,
said we took a thumping.
Speaker 1 (57:04):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (57:07):
I'm in my uh teat Democratic Congressional campaign community. I
love this story. Uh. And it's President Bush. And he
called to say, I want to congratulate you on a
great rate. You know, the racer ran etcetera, etcetera. And
I said, uh, I said, uh, mister President, I said
(57:27):
I want to thank you, and he goes, what do
you hear? I said, you did We did everything we
needed to do, and you did everything we wanted you
to do. That was he wouldn't fire Rumhall. It was
also that, you know, he goes, you know what, You're
as big a prick as they see. We started to
laughing our asses off. I said, here to serve, mister President,
and we were actually we're very respectful because I you know,
(57:50):
two years later, as you said, I'm chief of staff, etcetera.
I think this gets back to what I said to you.
Between now and two twenty twenty six, it's all about
Trump and it's a referendum him and the Republicans. But
we better do the intellectual work right now on that
window of time between twenty twenty six and twenty twenty
eight is going to come fast and furious, and we're
(58:10):
not going to be living off the fumes of Donald Trump.
We got to be livinged. We're not going to just
fight Donald Trump. We're going to fight for America. And
I'm spending my time intellectually. What is that fight for America?
Speaker 1 (58:21):
I love it so rob. So there's a simple question.
It's the last question. And I don't want any bullshit
from politician.
Speaker 2 (58:26):
I don't like this.
Speaker 1 (58:28):
Oh are you or are you not running for president
of the United States? Rom I want to know right now,
noneother bs the American people decide what is the answer.
Speaker 2 (58:38):
Here's here's the answer, which is if I think I
know the answer to that question, which is the question
I said, which is what is the fight for America?
And I haven't I have something to contribute to that,
I'll throw I'll deal with that. But if I don't
think I have something that over yourself, governor, my governor,
here are other governors that I think they're doing what
I would do and enunciating that because being Trump ain't
(59:00):
gonna get you squat in twenty twenty seven. If I
have something to say and I've never been shy about
saying it, and I don't think anybody else is saying it,
and I thought through my head how to do it,
I'll deal with that. I got a thought for something
first that I think the American people need to hear.
Speaker 1 (59:15):
Well, we heard a lot today and I really appreciate it.
Speaker 2 (59:17):
Like the record of show Comnor you were the first
to swear on this show, not me.
Speaker 1 (59:21):
I don't Bullshit's not even a swear word. Jesus.
Speaker 2 (59:25):
I mean, come on, I love you said, see you
brother back
Today I initiated a lawsuit against the Trump administration on
behalf of the people of the state of California, asserting
that Trump does not have the unilateral authority to impose
one of the largest tax increases in US history. Impacts
of these tariffs are disproportionately being felt here in California,
the number one manufacturing state in America, state that will
(00:22):
be significantly impacted by this unilateral decision by the President
of the United States. I'm looking forward to talking about
that more with my next guest. We'll talk trade, we'll
talk tariffs, We'll talk about what happened in the last election.
Is this two thousand and four all over again? Are
Democrats ready for a big comeback? And what does the
(00:43):
future hold to My next guest, is he running for
president of the United States. This is Gavin Newsom and
this is Rob Emmanuel Ron. Thanks for coming on the show.
And before we get started, there's so many issues that
I want to get to in a relatively short period
of time. We'll talk obviously about the state of the
(01:05):
Democratic Party, the state of our union, tariff's issues, obviously
related to your service and time in Asia. But top
of mind this week is so much of the attention
on Harvard University and their pushback, which generated a lot
of interest, including from your old boss, President Obama, who
(01:26):
tweeted out a very positive statement on behalf of Harvard,
asserting that it's time to assert universities to assert themselves
more aggressively as it relates to what Trump's trying to do.
I'm just curious what your thoughts were on Harvard and moreover,
what's happening with higher education and respect to the Trump administration.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
Well, I'm of a couple of minds on higher education,
and one is I mean, I don't think anybody's pointed
this out, but you know, Donald Trump started his kind
of introduction into public life in one way or another
with Roy who is Joe McCarthy's right hand man. And
the attack on university is infamous back in the McCarthy era,
(02:08):
squashing both the role of the university has played in
our book life and also academic freedom. And that's one element.
The second element is, you know, having been in Japan,
but I knew this without going to Japan. The American
university system, I mean California, you know this firsthand, and
(02:28):
it's role that it plays from a research and development
on cutting edge technologies, new entrepreneur not only entrepreneurs, but
new entrepreneurship, new ideas with business models. I met somebody
from Stanford the other day in the AI space who's
now got a company that's an example of what is
so unique, and people Japan, israel I can give you
(02:51):
all over the world in Europe all admire what we
have built year over year over year. And not only
is the political freedom happening, but we're actually now billing
the goose laid the golden egg for America's economic competitiveness.
And then, third, if you think of the future on
the international level as a battle not of a Cold
(03:11):
war in the sense of ideological Soviet Universus the free world,
but as a technological battle and competition between the United
States and China, we are really, you know, latterly disarmed.
And then fourth, and finally a governor, I take offense
as an American and as a Jewish American, the idea
(03:33):
that you're going to use anti Semitism or the what
universities had as a culture. And I think there's a
legitimate point to address that and reform that. But using
anti semitism to uh literally destroy our academic institutions in
university and the and they that's how they're getting the
goods through customs. So quote unquote dealing with anti Semitism,
(03:56):
and you know, you know, you and I are talking
on passover the we could pass over the idea that
the Jewish Commune would find any comfort with one person's
opinion as opposed to the rule of law. I got
two thousand years of history that tells you that doesn't
turn out well. So I said, I can go at
this like five different angles. And I'm hoping Harvard and
(04:21):
not just Harvard, but other universities, other law firms, other institutions.
And I would say that to the Supreme Court, you're
going to find out whether that black robe is a
Halloween costume or you actually earned it and understand it
because he's challenging you. There's nothing sacred, So everybody's gonna
have to decide, you know, and reach deep down. Harvard
(04:43):
has other universities are going to have to do the
same and decide that, you know what, there's something set
of principles here that are more important than accommodation.
Speaker 1 (04:54):
And I appreciate the reference on the rule to law,
particularly as it relates to Supreme Court. But I'm just curious,
I mean interesting, you sort of an origin story with
roe coin with Roy that I hadn't really considered. But
what I mean is there something?
Speaker 2 (05:08):
I mean?
Speaker 1 (05:08):
You know, he talks often Trump, doesn't he about how
highly educated people are. He's always impressed with people's looks.
He's impressed with their education.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
Well, looks has nothing to do with how educated you are.
Speaker 1 (05:19):
No, no question about that. But what is I mean?
So it's an interesting thing to me, just as an
observer someone watches obviously Trump closely, this notion that higher
education some establishment plot. Is this a political agenda? Is
this a total twenty five agenda?
Speaker 2 (05:35):
They're getting their goods through customs here? Look, First of all,
the whole idea of tenure for professors was built coming
out of the McCarthy are so you could not be
prosecuted for your political views. That's the orgy of it.
That's where ten years as a concept is nurtured. If
(05:56):
I'm reading history correctly, that's where it comes from. And
professor were given a ability to be protected professionally and
not being prosecuted for any political expression or views. And
now were there things that university's got way off track
on one hundred percent. Were there reforms that were needed
(06:19):
to be done, Yeah, that and there's not a university
president or a board revery. They wuldn't tell you that
was true. Destroying the academic and only freedom, but also
the research elements and trying to coerce their behavior. Now
we're going to do the worst of McCarthyism. And I
don't think it's a coincidence. I think it's actually direct.
(06:39):
Donald Trump's mentor in public life is Roy Cohne, who
was also Joe McCarthy's mentor and sidekick. And so we're
living in a period of time, and I don't think
I don't think I'm being dramatic or hyperbolic, but that's
the period of time. These institutions, not just Ivy League
(07:02):
but public university as well, have a history of them
having stood up, having their voices heard and pushed back.
And I know you want to stay in this area,
and I just so I just say this. I find
it offensive that you're using quote unquote anti semitism that
was perpetuated on the universities to really deal with your
(07:24):
political agenda. So let me just say this, Like the
student at Columbia. I disagree with his views on AMAS.
I disagree with this what happened on obviously, what happened
on October seventh. You want to deal with him in
some way? Have him forced him to do community service
as an intern at the Holocaust Museum for a year now?
All he was expressing his views which I find at
(07:46):
port and I think the American people will see it.
Killing twelve hundred citizens because they were Jewish is not acceptable.
Cutting a fetus out of a woman is not only
on acceptable, it's a crime, Okay, And you want to
identify with that. We can handle that as a country
without having to destroy either Columbia University, Harvard University, or
(08:07):
a public university.
Speaker 1 (08:09):
Well said, So, No, look, I appreciate that, of course.
I'm I'm serving on the UC Regions board as a
lieutenant governor governor. No more precious system from my perspective
in terms of conveyor belt for talent for this country
and the research and development component of that. And you're
extending beyond that, I mean the NIH grants and all
the other efforts to really wreck the systems, put.
Speaker 2 (08:31):
The research aside. Could you reform it? Yes? The universities
were skimning some dollars. That's an easy way to reform,
but don't throw out the goose that lays the gold
in that. The second is as it relates to academic
non academic freedoms, things that were done to Jewish students,
Jewish culture, Jewish life on universities that would never be
(08:53):
accepted to any other minority group, and that true had
to be dealt with, and the university is being forthcoming
about that would be helpful, But don't use anti semitism
or the attack on the Jewish community at a university
to as your way of getting your goods through customs
to actually fulfill a political agenda that was articulated in
(09:14):
Project twenty twenty five early before.
Speaker 1 (09:17):
That's right, so let's you know, and just sort of
segue from Harvard. I mean, there are a number of
Harvard graduates that happened to be members of the Supreme Court,
and you reference the Court. And obviously another big story
in the last few days has been referenced in the
Oval Office visit with President Mukelly of El Salvador and
the conversation that was very publicly held in the Oval
Office related tissues around the Supreme Court's Nino decision and
(09:43):
the defiance apparently the defiance of PAM BEYONDI, the Attorney
General and obviously the president himself, including the President of
El Salvador as it relates to that ruling. I mean,
how concerned are you? People have talked about a constitutional crisis,
They talk about red lines, They talk about the foundational
principles of our founding fathers, three independent branches of government.
(10:05):
When you defy or apparently defy as Supreme Court ruling,
have we crossed that red line? Are we on the
other side of this? Are we being hyperbolic?
Speaker 2 (10:14):
Well, I don't think you'd be good. But look, I
think we're going to find out whether the black robes
that the members of the Court where are a Halloween
constitule or they represent the dignity of the Court and
its opinion as a coequal branch government. They were not
ambiguous as related to the individual and that the United
(10:35):
States acknowledged they wrongfully sent to the Alsa Ouvadoor prison.
Now the Court is either going to show that not
the Court's opinions are the final verdict. An opinion now
need to be executed by the executive branch and if
he defies them and they take no step in that. Uh,
(10:55):
you know, there's a lot of ways to deal with
I mean, you know, individual citizens that are held in
contempt of the court. There's a lot of different ways
to deal with this. And look, I go back to
when Chief Justice Roberts was being confirmed by the Senate.
He said that judges are like umpires. That was his words,
(11:16):
they call balls and struts. Well you called this one. Now,
Either you're going to allow your opinion as an umpire,
which I happened. I think is a horrible metaphor, but
you used it, and you're going to let your opinion
hold the day, or basically it's a fungible opinion. It
(11:38):
doesn't matter what you said. Now, I'm not a lawyer.
I don't know if you are a governor. But I
studied the Constitution and I always understood there were three
branches of co equal branches of government, not one above
all others. We're going to find out something about the court,
not just the president.
Speaker 1 (11:55):
Amen. The best of Roman Republic, Greek democracy, independent co
equo branches the government, popular sovereignty, sort of fundamental principles
we've been celebrating for two hundred and forty plus years. Look,
we've also been sort of reflecting in the last few
weeks the years and years that Donald Trump himself and
(12:16):
back to I think the origin story, and I think
it's really interesting and insightful how you began the conversation
as relates to Roy Cohen in the history of McCarthyism
and relationship to this moment, and so much I think
about Trump goes back to sort of indelible ideological perspectives
that he's had for years and years and years, and
(12:36):
I don't think we give more enough credence to that,
including on the issue that connects to you in a
more modern term and your ambassadoral time in Japan, and
that's the issue of tariff's where Trump, I think, in
the eighties put out a full page add if I
recall around how unfair trade policy was and how Japan
at the time was cleaning our clock. And here we
(12:57):
are fast forward with all these terror policies. So are
you surprised that we're where we are? Obviously you have
strong opinions about the recklessness of it, but from an
historic perspective of that perspective of that prism, is it
surprise you he's what he's advancing.
Speaker 2 (13:14):
What he's advanced. So let's deal with a couple of
things that I think are all in there. One is
it doesn't surprise me either he said he was going
to do the tariffs. What surprised me is the erraticness,
because it was the one constant thing he said in
the campaign, one constant thing, as you said, in his
public life, and it's been the most erratic, not thought
(13:37):
through most I mean as opposed to kind of the
Project twenty twenty five stuff that he didn't mention. That's
been unbelievably like there was a strategy. Here is what
he did mention, and it's just every day is a
new day. Look. It's the largest tax increase in American history.
Cool Stoff. Two. It's a corrupt system because whoever goes
(13:58):
to Marrow Lago gets a cut, gets a cut, as
you're seeing on car.
Speaker 1 (14:03):
Pause on that. I think that's the most under reported
part of this. The regressive tax side is one thing.
What this means for crony capitalism is another.
Speaker 2 (14:12):
This is the worst of as I said when he
first got elected but wasn't inaugurated. Here he's going to
turn the Oval Office into eBay, and it's the highest bidder,
and if it ain't nailed down, he's gonna sell it.
And it's crony capitals. Here is my another p and
it's affecting the dollar. It's affecting this your four one K.
But here's the other piece. Twenty years ago, China was
(14:35):
on the rise in America was seen as stagnating to climb. Right,
g does a couple of things that is the worst
economic damage anyone person to do, and he did it
to China. He busts the housing bubble, he busts the
municipal debt bubble, He cracks down on the private sector.
(14:55):
Foreign investment fleas, foreign entrepreneurs flee, entrepreneurs and stop, and
the economy goes into what people were referring to as
a Japanese style deflation, and youth unemployment shoots way up.
The United States is on the rocks, money is flowing in,
unemployment is down, manufacturing is coming back. And China's strategy
(15:22):
in that scenario is We're going to export our problems
through manufacturing all across the globe. Chile lose its only
steel plan, South Africa is about to lose their steel plan.
Countries that are aligned with China, Brazil, Mexico file wto
cases against China. We're the safe harbor. We're the adult,
that is the United States. What happens we do these
(15:43):
tariffs are erratic and then all of a sudden, China
looks like a place of stability, and we look like
the chaos agent. Rather than China being isolated in the world,
aligning with the United States, the United States gets isolated
and we have turned. We had China and they knew it.
They said, this doesn't require interpretation. China said, you're isolating us.
(16:05):
We took advantage of China's on goal they did to
themselves economically through their mercantilism, what their wolf warrior was
on the diplomatic front, and we used it strategically better
than we actually assumed we could do. And we just
committed the worst on goal and snapping the literally ripping
(16:26):
the victory from the jaws at the feet. And now
we're the isolated party. And what's worse. And let me
say this is a father with two children, one full
time and the other reserve enlisted in the armed forces.
Nineteen seventy nine, Governor was the first time the United
States deployed a sanctioned it was on Iran and used
(16:51):
its economic power and the power of the dollar, so
we didn't have to do something kinetic Milternally, we refined
this and really become experts going through the War on Terror,
and we had built up the capacity. And one of
the things that China and Russia hated was the United
States through the dollar, could economically punish you in a
(17:15):
way that it didn't have to require the US military
to do it, but we could use our economic power
and our power of our dollar. We have destroyed, destroyed,
not inhibited, one of the most important tools we have
developed over fifty years to punish an adversary without putting
men and women in the United States uniform at risk.
(17:38):
This is, as my grandfather would say, a shanda. It's
a crime committed against ourselves. It is ridiculous. Now, most
importantly the American people, I give them a lot of credit.
It took them. They didn't go to Harvard, they didn't
go to Columbia.
Speaker 1 (17:55):
They didn't they didn't even get a four year degree.
Speaker 2 (17:57):
Most of all, we knew that a tariff was a
taxed on day one, and they knew they were going
to get hosed right, figured it out without going to
business school, knew it up front, rejected it, and he
is showing political the political peril of his own position.
Speaker 1 (18:12):
Yeah, we completely betrayed them, right, I mean by definition
number one, day one bringing down prices, number one promise.
Speaker 2 (18:19):
Look the one look, we have our own problem with Democrats.
Will get to that and the rest of this podcast.
But the one thing you can say about Donald Trump,
He'll portray you insteady in the back and he's doing
it all and the American people are going to punish
the Republicans for this, and you saw it in the election.
Speaker 1 (18:38):
So let me and I definitely would look forward to
talking about the political implications. But let's just talk about
the practical. I mean, because you've yeah, I mean you've
you've experienced firsthand, up close, our efforts, particularly during the
Biden administration. I really applaud those eforts, particularly with Japan
and Korea, and in relationship to China. You were very vocal,
(19:01):
very vocal, more than any ambassador, which took some courage,
I thought. Against China, you've seen this sort of geopolitical shuffle.
I mean, what are they saying? You know, Trump's now
saying We're respected around the world. What are they saying
in the halls with our allies? I mean, how consequential
is this to trust? And how long is this wound?
Speaker 2 (19:24):
Going to festiv I would say to you Governor, first
of all, in eighty days he's destroyed eighty years of
credibility in the United States, a big hit on our credibility.
You can look at into Pacific, you can look at
the Middle East. You can do in Europe, if can
look at Africa. No one reason is more outweighs another.
The most important thing post Donald Trump is somehow restoring
(19:47):
trust and credibility to the United States. Work. People are
ridiculing the I say, I said, if you don't just
then word. But also indeed I worked tirelessly and I
give the President and the Nationality Apparatus credit. With my
colleague in South Korea in the historic coming together at
(20:08):
Camp David between the President, the President of South Korea,
and the Prime Minister of Japan, we all three countries
have a complicated history. We came together saw the future
is more important than the past, and embraced it and
shaped it. Two weeks ago, China brought together the foreign
(20:28):
ministers of Korea and Japan. With them, they announced an
economic partnership to the ground and develop Korea that was
essential to the our export controls against the semiconductor industry
in China. Samsung, the shining corporate semi conductor company in Korea,
announced an agreement with the Chinese company. Now nobody's respecting
(20:52):
the United States, nobody's trusting the United States. They're looking
out for their own self interests. That meeting China, Korea
and Japan never would have happened on the kind of
level it happened with the outgrowth that happened, and we
not committed and isolated ourselves with the tariff policy that
hit ally and adversary with equal force. So it's an
(21:16):
end goal. It's no other way to describe.
Speaker 1 (21:17):
It, would you extend? I mean, obviously there's a lot
of talk now in South Korea about the prospect of
a Korean peninsula where everyone is a nuclear power. Obviously
there's now renewed conversations, which is remarkable to me. You
would understand it better than anyone in Japan even I mean,
do you think that's an outgrowth of this moment or
(21:38):
is that a more complicated question that may pre date,
the recklessness of Trump's tariff announcements.
Speaker 2 (21:45):
So one is everybody used to say, oh about non proliferation,
it was expensive what we did. You're about to get
sticker shock on proliferation. You're here. We spent the year
and a half. I was having more on the sidelines
than this one vincent Korea not to go nuclear, but
divide with the United States and a whole process of
that fast forward. What happens is I think Korea is
(22:10):
going to look at the United States as an untrusted
ally and they're going to make a decision. With North
Korea's possession of nuclear capacity, China's capacity, they're going to
go nuclear and they're not going to put their faith
in the United States anymore. And if Korea does it, Japan,
So just close your eyes. Pakistan, India, China, North Korea,
(22:31):
South Korea, and Japan all in that region will be nuclear.
What could go wrong? It's insane. I want to go
double back on some of my skips, and I want
to say something about the tariffs. Heet asked if I
could governor. We're treating textiles, toys and technology as equals,
(22:52):
and I don't know the idea that we're going to
see technology or semiconductors, and I'm not saying they're more,
but they are slightly more valuable than a T shirt
from our economic capacity and strength. So if you're going
to have a policy making sure that America's own economy
is secure in slightly more self sufficient than where it was,
(23:13):
you don't treat toys manufactured in China, textiles manufactured in
Southeast Asia, and technology like semiconductors as if they're equal
economic capacity. And lastly, what's also lost in the spate.
Almost forty five percent of all imports into the United
States are things that go into our own manufacturing base.
(23:37):
So we're going to affect manufacturing, but not the way
that Donald Trump said. It will have an impact on manufacturing.
It will actually lead to unemployment in the manufacturing. I
don't know if you know this, and I'm sure you
do because you have your own industrial base in California.
There's five hundred thousand manufacturing jobs today with the help
(23:58):
want it signed around it. Yep, we're short workers. You
know this and I know this is going around. I
used to have CEOs come through here. I talked to
them in this today you do too. Biggest item besides
this regulation or that, that's biggest item, a workforce that
they can't find. Right, So if we started at home,
(24:21):
we would be Actually, there's five hundred thousand manufacturing jobs today.
We could have done something about with it before we
hit the tear off kaas.
Speaker 1 (24:28):
Look, I appreciate it. Also speaking of kids, I've got
four kids and they still love toys. I think eighty
percent of the toys under the Christmas Tree come from China.
They've doubled the cost of that. Obviously, if you're got
your four to one K as you said earlier, and
I think the focus on four to one K more
than the markets. I think even Carvo brought that up
in a recent op ed I thought was very wise
(24:50):
and connects with people on more a much more personal way.
But I want to highlight what you just said. California
is the biggest manufacturing state in America. People forget that.
Californiumber one and two way trade, number one and direct
foreign investment, and number one manufacturing state in America. Forty
percent of the goods movements in this country come through
two ports of entry in California, about fifty percent of
(25:12):
that from China itself. No state has more to lose,
more to gain as it relates to ag as it
relates to all of these industries and tech as you
noted AI, etc. So that's, by the way, why we
just filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, and we
did it on I think very sound grounds and it's
an interesting lawsuit for many different reasons. But we've got
(25:33):
to push back much more aggressively on the consequences of this.
Speaker 2 (25:36):
Let me say this without trying to go into a
witness protection plan, which.
Speaker 1 (25:41):
By the way is hyperbole but not necessarily in this
day and age. So I appreciate the cabin Yeah, do
you know a lawyer before? By the way, none at
SCAT and ARBs, none at Paul Weiss, none of all
these firms that have capitulated. You brought that up at
the top.
Speaker 2 (25:59):
Here's the thing is the analysis that we have a
problem where America did not invest in America or Americans
and it led to our economic independence being adversely not
only affected, but it also affected our civic life because
(26:21):
people lost confidence in America by Americans. That is not
a wrong analysis going about that. Terifs are the most
beautiful word in the English language and hitting everything ally
and adversary the same, not thinking to it through strategically,
not understanding the difference between toys and technology. From an
(26:42):
economic standpoint is actually the cure is worse than the illness,
and it's going to be affect people's family budgets, can
affect their employment, It's going to affect a whole host
of things and their economic security, their retirement security, their
education for their children. And so to me, your first
(27:03):
question kind of was I get the analysis of what
it ailes America or one of the things that ails America.
It's not wrong, but like all things Trump, he makes
the problem much more severe than address it. There you go, yep,
in every aspect. Take the academic institutions. Were there things
(27:27):
that they had done over the years that got them
off kilter one hundred percent? But using anti semitism to
execute a political strategy to silence universities and academics.
Speaker 1 (27:40):
No, that's exactly right. And so I know I'm with
you on what you're saying is you're not an anti
tariff absolutist. Do you believe in targeted terriffs?
Speaker 2 (27:49):
And along the lines of way, No, I didn't say that,
actual I know I want to be. I want to
speak what.
Speaker 1 (27:54):
Are you But you've been But you've been. You haven't
been opposed to tariffs in the past. I mean you've
you know the Biden administration triple them on Chinese steel
and aluminum.
Speaker 2 (28:03):
Here's my thing is, if we've got a problem, what
does it take to address and build an industry? Now, look,
my analysis going back then as a massive China is
the one that came up with self sufficiency as an
economic model. That's why there's exporting their mercantilism and crushing
all these countries around the world. They've decided how to
(28:25):
isolate themselves from the world rather than interact with the world.
And it's only on China's term. If you want to
apply a tariff, my view is, okay, what are the
things that we are going to do that tariff give
us a window of time. What are our investments, what's
our training? What are we going to do from a
research standpoint in semiconductors, in steel, or pick your industry.
(28:49):
I'm not for tariffs. They are a tool in a toolbox.
But tell me what we're doing with all the tools
in the toolbox. So you have an integrated cohesive comprehend
of strategy. If we don't train the workers for the
five hundred thousand jobs, I don't care what terrafs you do. Yeah, okay.
And if you're not going to fund some research, that's
take a look. You know. I'll just say this, fracking
(29:12):
as a technology came out of our universities. Look we're
now we went from a four hundred billion dollar import
to a forty five billion dollar export. That's a big swing.
Tell me what we're going to now. People are thinking
of using that hydraulic technology to do geothermal. Tell me
what we're doing, what the worth, the end line, and
what are all the pieces that fit into that. We're
(29:34):
just going by gut instincts of one guy who failed
seven businesses.
Speaker 1 (29:39):
So what you're saying I mean, And to be to
be more clear than the basis of that reaction, targeted
tariffs with an industrial policy, with a policy to back
it up, with a rationale to use it as a
tool for strategic national security issues or for legitimate questions
around imbalance of trade or unfair present People like the
(30:01):
Secretary of Commerce and the President who believe tariffs are
the economic toolbox, they're not.
Speaker 2 (30:07):
They are a tool in the toolbox, But you tell
me each sector, what is the strategy. What are we
going to do for training? What are we going to
do for infrastructure? What are we doing for research and development?
How are we going to take certain US companies and
build them up or invite foreign investors to build those up?
And I'll give you example. Take the shipbuilding industry Japan
(30:27):
and Korea unbelievably capable of coming in and investing in
helping build that domestic industry in the United States. Are
they banned? Are they part of that? Are they allies
that we're going to invite in to help us jump
start something that we've lost our muscle memory on. That's
a strategy. I want to I just what it is
we're going to do. What's the roadmap here? So everybody
(30:49):
knows how to contribute and knows what the goal line
is or what the end point is.
Speaker 1 (30:58):
This is an opportun unity to pivot a little bit,
but pivot with a little bit of self reflection. And
one of the things I really appreciated.
Speaker 2 (31:05):
It that's going to be hard for an e manual.
Speaker 1 (31:07):
That's well, I don't know, you've been pretty I was
about to compliment you as an emmanual.
Speaker 2 (31:12):
Self reflection on the podcast too. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (31:14):
No, I mean, well, you know we could we could
get in a deeper conversation. Yeah, all two of your
two other brothers. Yeah, we could talk about as well.
You already think you brought up the family in the
context of what was the word you used, wasn't misschi gosh?
What was it?
Speaker 2 (31:29):
Shonda? It's a it's a. It's an embarrassment. It's a shonda.
Speaker 1 (31:33):
I like it. I'm going to steal that.
Speaker 2 (31:34):
It's it's half sin, half comparison.
Speaker 1 (31:37):
It's good. It's the moment. But let me talk about
a different moment. I mean you and you were part
of it, and frankly, I think all of us where
a lot of us were parroting it to be Canada,
you know, as I sort of a Clinton Democrat back
in the day nafta the WTO. You know, people talk
a lot about the WTO sort of as a point
of emphasis that sort of led to this point, not
(31:57):
just an op ed in the nineteen eighties or add
by Trump as it relates to his positions on trade.
You know, what do you make of the Democratic Party
and our culpability for this moment and the hollowing out
of our industrial base and the need to jump start.
I mean what, Just take their arguments, the ban and arguments.
Take the arguments of Trump and the accolytes around him
(32:19):
that it's time to reindustrialize, it's time to bring those
supply chains home, it's time to really start focusing. Yes,
dare I say it on America first?
Speaker 2 (32:29):
Rom Look, I don't so I agree with that on
both America and Americans first, as a person who first
city to ever create free community college and make sure
high school isn't the endpoint of a public commitment to education.
And so, Governor, here's what I would say, And I'll
(32:49):
talk to both both NAFTIN and WT and WTO meaning
China into WTO, and they're slightly different, but of single spirit.
The mistake, it's a mistake, and we own a polity
American people, is we allowed Lacrosse, Wisconsin, Peoria, Illinois, Youngstown, Ohio, Saginaw, Michigan,
(33:10):
or Battle Creek, Michigan, or Terre Hoo, Indiana, to navigate
the world market on their own against China and much
bigger forces. We didn't. We didn't. If you go back
to NAFTA, President Clinton had proposed a billions and billions
of dollars of investment that was turned down by Congress,
ended up with like a job training program, like about you,
(33:33):
and basically said here, you're on your own. And the
truth is you and I and our kids we're going
to get the rewards of the system that we built.
That's not true for everybody. The American dream is not
has been unaffordable and inaccessible every year after every year,
and it's down now to about temper sent the children
(33:53):
of American families have access. All American people want is
a simple thing, a shot in the American dream, and
they got the shaft. And he left communities unprotected against China.
Peoria is not set up, and the people who live
in Burea to fight China on their own. And that's
just an observation. That's just a fact. And while trade
(34:15):
had benefits, the benefits were not equally shared and the
risk was not equally shared. And that's a fact. And
for too long it was ignored as a scream and
a yell. And you can explain something of Donald Trump
in that now on wto I same analysis, except for
I would say one coveyat when China was brought in.
(34:38):
It was part of in the same way that Russia
was brought into NATO and Russia was brought into the
G seven. It was a theory of the case. And
it's a kind of a sixty forty issue. It's better
to have him in the tent pissing out than outside
the ten person And to use an LBJ term not
it's not you know this as governor. I know as
a mayor's chief staff. Nothing's one hundred zero. That's what
(35:01):
you have AI for. These are judgment calls. It was
better to think that you can make China had invested
in the system we had. By twenty twelve, when she
becomes president of China, it's very clear they go from
strategic competitor to strategic adversaries much different. And it was
actually also very clear, and I say this as Congressmant
(35:23):
represented many companies as chief of staff, dealing with CEOs China.
Intellectual property theft and economic espionage is core to the
business model in a way that patents and rule of
law are core to ours. And in twenty twelve we
held out strategic competitor, ignoring things that we knew were happening,
(35:44):
and they went to strategic adversary and core to their idea.
You have Google based in California. Only one country was
stealing AI secrets from them. It's called China. They do
it all over our universities, they do it all over
our companies. It's core to them, and we ignored it.
Now twenty twelve, we should have blown the whistle, called
the game and said this is a different game. And
(36:07):
the only thing I would say is that we woke
up on Wolf Warrior the economic coersion ten years earlier
than trying to expected us, and we started making use
of that kind So was it a mistake in nineteen
ninety nine? I got to be honest, if it was
a sixty forty sixty five thirty five call, do you
(36:29):
let them stay out or you bring them in? And
when they started changing and not playing by the rules
they agreed to, they should have gotten called out earlier
and not just called out. The whistle should have been
blown and they should have been forfeited the game and
being dealt with differently. They're not a developing economy. They
were cheating and stealing their way to economic secrets. And
not only cheating and stealing, we permitted American companies to
(36:53):
give away research and development to get access to a market. Well,
I'm sorry, taxpayers pay for that research and development. We
own that as much as anyone company owns that R
and D. When we give you a tax credit, we're
an equity investor. We gave away our family jewels because
a bunch of company CEOs, all of us did. D
are most side of Pennsylvania, avenue governors everywhere, because what
(37:16):
they wanted access to the market. And the biggest mistake,
we commercialized our forms and national security policy. We commercialized it.
The business community had way too big a vote, a
big mistake, and now we have to make up for
that lost time. We were in the process of doing that.
And I think what we're doing treating allies is if
their adversaries adversaries, is the one day they become allies.
(37:38):
And as a total mistake, because we don't know friend
from foe.
Speaker 1 (37:42):
Here here and you say we start and this is
segue then to the Biden years, And you know, I've
been very vocal. I thought it was a master class
of policy making. I thought it was extraordinary legislative accomplishments.
Three hundred and sixty nine billion dollars in the IRA
fifty two to three. In the chips and science hack
one point two trillion, I think five hundred and fifty
billion more that new in the infrastructure, I mean the
(38:06):
punchline aside of Trump, I mean literally three hundred weeks
of infrastructure bloviation, and the Biden administration delivered seemed to
me an industrial policy that was worker centered to begin
to substantively address these trend lines and address these headlines
of today. Do you agree with that? And I'm not
looking you as as a former ambassador of the administration,
(38:28):
it's difficult to know. I'm not looking to get it
create any wedges, but it seemed to me a pretty
robust response to the concerns around the working class, to
the concerns around what's happening in the heartland. By the way,
the heartland includes California, which again the largest manufacturing state.
That is more hunting jobs, more fishing jobs, and more
(38:51):
forestry jobs, not just ag jobs than any other state.
Speaker 2 (38:54):
So I would say to you, look, it started dealing
with the fact that both of the industrial policy and
key sectors of the economy that were going to produce
both jobs and economic independence. We started to make investments
in America making up for we just the other question,
which is things that we didn't invest in, and we
(39:16):
allowed the the freedom of the market to take place,
and it affected both our competitiveness and most importantly, the
American people and their confidence in America because we lost
face with them. I do think there's you know, it
was robust, but what was one of the principal things
that undermined the president was inflation. And that was an
(39:39):
outgrowth of the robustness of the first Act, which is
and how big it was and you were.
Speaker 1 (39:46):
Which I neglected to reference. I referenced three of.
Speaker 2 (39:49):
The helpline point was the infrastructure.
Speaker 1 (39:52):
And not exclusively that, I mean it was partially. I mean,
to be fair, you had international.
Speaker 2 (39:56):
Out of COVID, there's a lot coming out.
Speaker 1 (39:58):
Of COVID, supply chains, the WORL in Ukraine issues, and
obviously international inflation that impacted the globe. But yes, partially
impacted America more than.
Speaker 2 (40:10):
The first bill. Everybody was, oh, it's big and bold,
and look I can say this, and a lot of
it was we were going to show president you know
about the competitiveness. We were going to show President Obama
the right way to do this.
Speaker 1 (40:23):
You think, meaning that Obama's bill wasn't big enough, your bill,
and we needed to show we could go bolder and bigger.
Speaker 2 (40:30):
I always now you're going to deal with talk about
self awareness. Nobody ever offered an amendment to make it bigger.
Everybody that's rewriting history, you know, some of us were there.
Nobody for a trillion dollars. It wasn't going to pass. Okay,
so nobody offered it. Everybody that's walking around all it
was too small, too timid. Okay, where was your amendment?
(40:51):
Call you for a trillion dollars? Okay, nobody did. Number two.
It was big. It was bold because we were having
a problem. Part of it was all there was a
political piece to this, and we should just be honest.
It was to show that, oh, we were different than
the timidness, which I don't think was timid. President Obama
dealt with on the heels of having this dealt with
(41:12):
TARP of what President Bush passed and signed, implementing that,
but also the Recovery Act, that was what the political
system could bear. Now, the inflation that kicks off under
President Biden is one of the pieces, not the only,
but is a result that big and bold came with
a price, not just economic, it came with a political price,
(41:34):
because inflation kicked off and it was known at the
time it would warned. But there was something considerations done
where politics was to be honest, more valuable. And I
think sometimes also if I could in the rewrite less
is more, it became a giant appropriation bill rather than
(41:54):
a strategically thought through and you can that criticism also
applies to certain things we did under President Obama's first bill,
also the recovery bill, which is became too big of
an funding bill rather than a strategic approach to either
the recession and or post COVID A present bien so.
Speaker 1 (42:16):
Rom is your point then that it then clouded over
some of the accomplishments on those other bills. There's sort
of three legged stool that I was arguing, we're not
insignificant the chips and Science ACKed and the Infrastructure bill,
and in making those investments intentionally in the IRA that
have benefited disproportionately rural and read parts of this country.
Speaker 2 (42:36):
There's no look, look, you got three or four. In
my view, there's telling people that the economy is great
when they're feeling stressed as if you're like tone deaf.
That's wrong.
Speaker 1 (42:53):
Two, that's on the politics.
Speaker 2 (42:54):
Okay. Ye Second, people ready breaking news, people like order
versus disorder. You're talking to the guy in clinton White
House who put together Operation Gatekeeper on San Diego and
the border looked totally out of control. I think American
people are actually more receptive on immigration, but they don't
like the law being broken and being so flavingly disregarded.
And we allowed it to happen. And then Third our party,
(43:20):
and I've spoken about this, got into a cultural cul
de sact. You know, Look, we weren't good on the
kitchen table issues. We weren't really good in the family room.
The only room we really did well in the house
was a bathroom. And I don't know if you know this, Governor,
but the bathroom is the smallest room in the house,
and that's the only place we were good. Okay. And
my view is we not only looked like we were
(43:40):
on the cultural purphery, we looked like that's what was
front and center for us. And I'm sorry, I've written
about this, I've talked about it. Stop the bathroom in
the locker room. It's not more important than the classroom
and the kitchen table. A lot of things get discussed
at that kitchen table. What's going on in the neighborhood,
(44:01):
who are the kids hanging with? How does technology affect
our children's isolation. They're in the basement. I can't get
them off off the telephone. There's a whole host of
issues that happened that happened in your kitchen table. They
happened at my kidchen table, and they go from the
kitchen table to the family room to night when you
have five minutes to talk to your loved one and
your partner about what we're going to do. So we
(44:22):
actually got totally sidetracked into a discussion. Now, as a party,
we're an accepting party, but we started becoming advocates. And
I'm sorry when two thirds of our kids can't read
at grade level the worst than thirty years, two curiods
that our kids can't do math at the worst level
in thirty years, that's the priority. You make it for
(44:44):
your own children, and we didn't make it for the
American children. And this really like, Yes, I was in Japan,
I couldn't have been a happier, but I was like
I was watching America from did I say, what do
you guys? And we lost our mind. This is a
p The Democratic Party is about the American dream, owning
a home, save you for your retirement, save you for
(45:05):
your kids' education, and making sure that grandma wasn't one
mills away from the chapter eleven and moving into the
house you wanted her blocks away. Okay, And the American
dream is not accessible, it's not affordable. That's the That
is what should motivate us as Democrats to speak to
now the opportunity for us, if I can go on
(45:26):
in a tirade here, By the.
Speaker 1 (45:29):
Way, you sound very much like I have lately. So
keep going wrong, keep going.
Speaker 2 (45:34):
Well, the Democratic Party. Look between now in twenty twenty six,
this is gonna be a referendum on Donald Trump, and
there's gonna be a lot of energy. It's not gonna
be about us. It's gonna be about him.
Speaker 1 (45:47):
But you're not arguing for that. You're arguing for something
bolder and bigger, beyond me.
Speaker 2 (45:51):
Here's what I'm arguing because with the day twenty twenty
six is over.
Speaker 1 (45:55):
Yeah, got to turn that page.
Speaker 2 (45:57):
But and if you want the American people to give
you the keys to the car, you got to know
how to drive. Yep, you got to know that you
have more. You have a Google map to the American
dream that you know how to share that car, not
get it off onto the shoulder of the road, and
you know how to take it. So not just new
some children and the emmanual children can one day own
(46:18):
a home. You have kids graduating college with thirty five
thousand dollars in debt and they're living in the basement
till the thirty five. This is not how you and
I grew up. Then you got grandma living upstairs and
where the kids used to live because she can't afford
to live on Social Security and Medicare, and she's skipping
(46:39):
medication and you're skipping doctor visits. This is insane. And
if we're gonna get the keys to the car between
twenty twenty six and twenty twenty eight, we got to
tell people you're not going to get the shaft anymore.
And I may not solve this problem, and I may
have my tongue hanging out of my mouth at the
end like a dog racer, but I am going to
work every day to make sure that more and more
(46:59):
American children and more American families have access to that dream,
and it has been and the reason our politics are
where they are and the reason we have Donald Trump
is that trust between the American people, the American dream,
and those of us who are stewards of it has
been broken, and we need to repair it. And that's
our number one goal.
Speaker 1 (47:18):
Well, I appreciate everything you said, and I also appreciated
your courage of saying which I was right there with
you calling our party brand, which was not very well received,
at least with my inbox. When I called our party
brand a toxic, I mean when you're twenty seven percent
and that you know we have a high water market
twenty nine percent on a CNN poll, only to see
(47:38):
twenty seven percent a few days later at NBC poll.
Where people don't trust us, they don't think we're we
have their backs on issues that are core to them,
which are these kitchen table issues.
Speaker 2 (47:47):
It is both the kitchen table issue and the family issues.
Speaker 1 (47:51):
And you mean family brought broadly defined in what in
what contexts done when we.
Speaker 2 (47:55):
Say, let me say a couple of things. Now, I'm
a product my experiences. President Clinton is infamous in the
ninety two election for the economy stupid, But there were
a set of issues coming on the heels of both
Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale and then Dacaucus where he talked
(48:16):
about ending welfare as we know it, a shorthand in
your state. Coming out of the Rodney King Sister Soldier moment,
that he was centered on a set of values that
all of us collectively had a consensus around, so that
the economic message about the middle class first could be heard.
And for President Obama it became deal with Father Wright,
(48:38):
his pastor who's made some very ugly comments. For President Kennedy,
it was going to Texas to give a speech and
say I'll be a president who's Catholic, but not a
Catholic president. There were threshold issues that were important on
the cultural front that allowed the rest of what we
had to say a permission slip to get hurt. That's
(49:00):
a political analysis. And I would say to you the
kitchen cable and the family room are of one piece,
and we got stuck as a party in the bathroom,
which I say jokingly but as serious it is the
smallest room in the house, and we're not going to
be heard on a set of issues. And you say
twenty seven percent. We earned that twenty seven percent the
(49:21):
old fashioned way. We turned our back on the American
people and they had they had hope in us, they
put their confidence in us, and we walked away from
that contract with them.
Speaker 1 (49:38):
Ron, what you just said, I think is really powerful
and important, and because in order for people to hear
the other message, they had to hear that what you
I mean, they had to hear that we were connected
on some of those other issues, meaning it's not just
an economic message. I mean, that was I think Biden's frustration.
He was talking about Bill back better. He was talking
(49:59):
about an ECONO message. He was talking about his worker
centered industrial policy. But it wasn't necessarily breaking through because
we couldn't break out, as you point, of the bathroom debates,
the pronoun debates, and all these other debates.
Speaker 2 (50:12):
I've said this before, so I'll say it here in
his Last State of the Union, if my theory of
the case is right. In the Last State of the Union,
when he was not reading off script, he said, when
he went off script, he said illegal immigrants people. All
of Washington's immigration groups started yelling at the white number
(50:34):
and they went to undocumented. Now, to me, that was
the slowest pitch over the center plate.
Speaker 1 (50:40):
He just said, look, no one's illegal. I remember it.
I remember it well, right, yeah.
Speaker 2 (50:45):
And he switched to the voices on K Street of Washington.
And to me, that was the easiest way of showing,
as I showed Kennedy, Clinton and Obama head different footprints
on this area of what I call a cultural landscape,
where he could have said, look, uh h, I said
(51:07):
what I said. I'm sticking by what I said. If
you don't like it, you can use whatever term you want.
And this is I find ironic from a bunch of
people yelling at you when you say, don't say defund
the police. They say it doesn't mean what it says. Well,
don't use English language. Set okay. If it doesn't mean,
I use English ariage convey what I mean, not what
I don't mean. So to me, we put ourselves in
(51:27):
a position where we're not seen or heard by the
American people because we disappointed them.
Speaker 1 (51:34):
So you're and I look, I appreciate the specific example
as it relates to Biden in that particular moment, as
relates to legal immigration versus undocumented, but broadly, how do
you sort of reflect there's a lot of dialectic within
the party or not within the party, within punditry. More
broadly than that, it's the weaponization of grievance the other
side so much more effective, making CRT D I E S,
(51:57):
G I R S, you know, DOJ anything with three
letters the issue of the day, and that they're able
to surround sound Sinclair Media, not just Fox Newsmax, not
just One American News, not just the Bogga sphere and
the manisphere, but their ability to shape shift and constantly
we're on the defensive in that respect, and they color
things in and even if we're trying to run away
(52:19):
from those issues, we don't even want to adult indulge
in those issues. We have an almost impossible time in
that media landscape of breaking out and getting back on
our message. How do you reflect on that? Is that
a component part or is it still we're not victims
and we need to take more accountability.
Speaker 2 (52:36):
Look, they do have a very powerful ecosystem, but you know,
even with the ecosystem, they lost Wisconsin. They lost they
lost over every special lection. So I mean one of
the things that you and I both know this, don't
over don't overinflate your opponent's power, and don't underestimate it either.
(53:00):
That have a powerful ecosystem? Yes do we sometimes? Are
we our worst marketers? Latin x one hundred thousand? You know,
defund the police? I can give you chapter in versu
of terminology. We you know, I'm not. I actually appreciate
the spirit. Okay, So don't get me. I appreciate the
spirit of those that are going around on protest calling oligarchs.
(53:23):
You're all over California. How many people in your you've
been to lieutenant governor, governor? How many times did somebody
come up to use that oligarch rather than or big, big,
big fat special interests? Okay? Why don't we use terms that.
Speaker 1 (53:37):
People diners understand?
Speaker 2 (53:39):
Okay, well I didn't know we were applying for our
ten year position. Okay, give me a break. So are
we our worst? Are we our worst victims? Yes? Do
they have a more sophisticated ecosystem? Yes? Do people like
his tariffs? No? Did we win in Wisconsin? Yes? Did
they lose a Scambia county where Pensacola is and it's
fourteen percent veterans, double the national average. The first time
(54:02):
since five decades a Democrat won that in a national election.
Trump wanted by nineteen, we wanted by three. Yeah, So
I don't overestimate the power of it. I think I
like to have that ecosystem, and I like to be
more strategic and more sophisticated about how we talk about
what's cord us. I wouldn't want to be a better
(54:23):
talker about the locker room in the bathroom. I'd rather
be a better talker and have a good ecosystem about
this is what we're going to do to improve readings course,
Here's how we're going to make sure that kids can
do math at math level. Here's how we're going to
do with the chronic apps and teism rate. So I'd
like to have that ecosystem if I was focused on
(54:43):
the right things, if I was saying, you know, there's
not to tout it, but you know, we created universal
pre king in Chicago. Never had it, universal kindergarten never
had it. Free community college for Bee students never had it.
So I like to have the ecosystem that tells that
story and why it's important that two thirds of the
twenty thousand kids that went to college for community college
(55:04):
for free for the first in the family ever went
that passport, that education. That's your visa and your passport
to the future. I think there's other ways you So
I want the ecosystem and I want the way to
talk about what we're doing in a strategically focused way.
Not that makes me feel better about me, but makes
them feel better that I'm actually in their sleeves, rolled
(55:27):
up like a beaten dog. Worker for.
Speaker 1 (55:31):
Rob are you. We'll segue a little bit off that
you you had deep experience with all things tactical in
political particularly not and you've had a remarkable career in
so many remarkable roles, working for three presidents too, in
sort of more lead and established stablished status. What but
(55:52):
the Congressional Committee what you were running that what nineteen
two thousand and six? Right, Yeah, And I bring up
two thousand and six in this context because after two
thousand and four, I remember everybody we got slacked. They
won the popular vote, the electoral vote. Democratic Party was toast.
Everyone was running saying we got to go to Applebee's
read you know what's wrong with Kansas. This is before
(56:14):
hillbilly elegy, the whole thing. And you know, we're too elite,
we're two out of touch and then all of a sudden,
two years later, you successfully went back the House, overwhelming
someone by Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House. And in
two thousand and eight, you guys went with the biggest
landslide since nineteen sixty four or fifty three percent of
the vote, And all of a sudden, you're on transition
team and chief of staff of some guy named Obama.
(56:36):
Is this two thousand and four all over again? If
we do it right? Or are we in a deeper,
darker wilderness at this moment from your perspective?
Speaker 2 (56:45):
So on an anecdote. So the day after we win
O six, you'll appreciate this. This is the day of
President Trump. A President Bush rather given that press conference,
said we took a thumping.
Speaker 1 (57:04):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (57:07):
I'm in my uh teat Democratic Congressional campaign community. I
love this story. Uh. And it's President Bush. And he
called to say, I want to congratulate you on a
great rate. You know, the racer ran etcetera, etcetera. And
I said, uh, I said, uh, mister President, I said
(57:27):
I want to thank you, and he goes, what do
you hear? I said, you did We did everything we
needed to do, and you did everything we wanted you
to do. That was he wouldn't fire Rumhall. It was
also that, you know, he goes, you know what, You're
as big a prick as they see. We started to
laughing our asses off. I said, here to serve, mister President,
and we were actually we're very respectful because I you know,
(57:50):
two years later, as you said, I'm chief of staff, etcetera.
I think this gets back to what I said to you.
Between now and two twenty twenty six, it's all about
Trump and it's a referendum him and the Republicans. But
we better do the intellectual work right now on that
window of time between twenty twenty six and twenty twenty
eight is going to come fast and furious, and we're
(58:10):
not going to be living off the fumes of Donald Trump.
We got to be livinged. We're not going to just
fight Donald Trump. We're going to fight for America. And
I'm spending my time intellectually. What is that fight for America?
Speaker 1 (58:21):
I love it so rob. So there's a simple question.
It's the last question. And I don't want any bullshit
from politician.
Speaker 2 (58:26):
I don't like this.
Speaker 1 (58:28):
Oh are you or are you not running for president
of the United States? Rom I want to know right now,
noneother bs the American people decide what is the answer.
Speaker 2 (58:38):
Here's here's the answer, which is if I think I
know the answer to that question, which is the question
I said, which is what is the fight for America?
And I haven't I have something to contribute to that,
I'll throw I'll deal with that. But if I don't
think I have something that over yourself, governor, my governor,
here are other governors that I think they're doing what
I would do and enunciating that because being Trump ain't
(59:00):
gonna get you squat in twenty twenty seven. If I
have something to say and I've never been shy about
saying it, and I don't think anybody else is saying it,
and I thought through my head how to do it,
I'll deal with that. I got a thought for something
first that I think the American people need to hear.
Speaker 1 (59:15):
Well, we heard a lot today and I really appreciate it.
Speaker 2 (59:17):
Like the record of show Comnor you were the first
to swear on this show, not me.
Speaker 1 (59:21):
I don't Bullshit's not even a swear word. Jesus.
Speaker 2 (59:25):
I mean, come on, I love you said, see you
brother back
Host
Gavin Newsom
Popular Podcasts
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Decisions, Decisions
Welcome to "Decisions, Decisions," the podcast where boundaries are pushed, and conversations get candid! Join your favorite hosts, Mandii B and WeezyWTF, as they dive deep into the world of non-traditional relationships and explore the often-taboo topics surrounding dating, sex, and love. Every Monday, Mandii and Weezy invite you to unlearn the outdated narratives dictated by traditional patriarchal norms. With a blend of humor, vulnerability, and authenticity, they share their personal journeys navigating their 30s, tackling the complexities of modern relationships, and engaging in thought-provoking discussions that challenge societal expectations. From groundbreaking interviews with diverse guests to relatable stories that resonate with your experiences, "Decisions, Decisions" is your go-to source for open dialogue about what it truly means to love and connect in today's world. Get ready to reshape your understanding of relationships and embrace the freedom of authentic connections—tune in and join the conversation!