Chapters
Shownotes Transcript
Listener supported. WNYC Studios. This is the New Yorker Radio Hour, a co-production of WNYC Studios and The New Yorker. This is the New Yorker Radio Hour. I'm David Remnick. In every modern American political party, there's tension between its centrist tendencies and its outer edges of things, between those who tend toward moderation and compromise and those who continue fighting over principle, an issue, or resentment.
This tension has momentarily disappeared in the Republican Party, where Donald Trump and his MAGA populism so dominate the party that center-right leaders like Mitt Romney have been eclipsed. But the picture in the Democratic Party is somewhat different. The fissure between centrists and progressives is widening. In 2020, Joe Biden won over the great majority of progressives and younger voters from the left of the party.
But many of those voters now seem to be disenchanted. And the party leadership fears that they could sit out the 2024 election. The war in Gaza is one issue that is driving a particularly deep wedge. And it's not crazy to think that this issue, along with the candidate's age, perception of the economy and immigration, could cost Joe Biden the White House. Now, of course, it's still early days. But I wanted to see how this is playing out in the halls of Congress.
And I spoke the other day with Pramila Jayapal. She's the chair of the Progressive Caucus, a group of about 100 legislators on the left. Jayapal has been in Congress since 2017, representing a district in and around the city of Seattle. Oh, you sound terrible, David. I'm sorry. Just a little bit of a cold. I survived.
Congresswoman, you are, if anything, a political realist as well as a progressive. And you have said on more than one occasion that the 2024 race looks, if not dire, then close to it. The polls for Joe Biden are bad.
I think that it is dire, not necessarily because of the polls. I'm not always one that looks too closely at polls because people say all kinds of things to pollsters. They do a completely different thing. We've seen that over and over again. I feel that it's dire because it is a very fragile coalition that's
that has to come together in order to elect Joe Biden in these critical states. And when you look at why we were successful in 2020, it was because we got turnout not only from
you know, swing voters in suburban areas, very important to get those voters as well. But we also were able to turn out black voters, brown voters, young voters in record numbers. And that coalition was driven by two things. It was driven by the reality of the danger that we were in with Donald Trump.
It was also driven by a very progressive agenda that Joe Biden put out. If you remember, we had the Sanders-Biden unity task forces. We were able to put together an agenda that said to people, look, this isn't just an opposition agenda in opposition to Donald Trump. It is a proposition agenda with really significant things that are going to make a difference in your life today.
And my concern is that our coalition has fractured and we haven't yet put out that proposition agenda. We don't have that yet. Well, couldn't you make the argument that, in fact, both of those factors are still in place? The danger of Donald Trump?
And the fact that Joe Biden has actually come through on a progressive agenda in large measure. In 2020, you were quoted saying that Joe Biden might not be progressive enough, that he wouldn't go far enough in transforming the country. It seems that you're at least many of your concerns in that area have been allayed.
You know, I'm a strong Biden supporter. I am not running away from the president. And I want to be clear about that. I have said that he is the most progressive president we've had on economic, domestic economic issues. And I still believe that. I think he really has delivered and he delivered with the progressive movement's support, including very specific legislative accomplishments like the infrastructure bill and the Inflation Reduction Act. So it's not that I think that we're
We're not going to win. We have to win. My concern is that in the last year, the White House and the Biden campaign has taken a very different tack, which always happens in a second part of a four-year term. And people have sort of forgotten about what happened the two years before that.
Some of those things didn't happen as quickly as we would want them to happen. And people are really struggling. The two biggest things that people talk to me about every day are housing and childcare.
And they saw that we had democratic control of the House, the Senate and the White House, and we didn't get that done. And I can explain until the cows come home how the filibuster is there and the structural problems. But what people feel is the reality. And from the beginning, I've said we need to do things that people feel today. So that's one big problem. I think the other real problem that we're dealing with is.
I do think that the war in Israel and Gaza has been very challenging for progressives and for young people in particular. And also now the discussion we're having about immigration is going to be extremely difficult for,
for progressives, for Latinos, for AAPIs, for other immigrants. Well, let's get to all those issues. Bret Stephens, a conservative columnist for The New York Times, just published a very interesting column, I thought,
He's anti-Trump conservative, and what he did was make the case for Trump. And then he said that Trump had gotten three things right, most particularly immigration. He said, "Arguably the single most important geopolitical fact of the century is the mass migration of people from south to north and east to west, causing tectonic, demographic, cultural, and ultimately political shifts." Trump understood this from the start.
As he said, a nation without a border is not a nation at all. We must have a wall. The rule of law matters. And he goes on to say that many of Trump's opponents refused to see that unchecked migration was a problem. And some saw it as an opportunity to demonstrate humanitarianism. Others looked at it as an inexhaustible source of cheap labor. And they had the habit of denouncing anybody who disagrees with them as racist. That is a huge source of
of Trump's enduring support. Is Stevens wrong on this?
Well, I think he's right about it being one of the massive forces that's reshaping the world. I absolutely agree with the first part of the statement. I also agree that we need to have rules and laws around immigration that make sense and that we can't have just unchecked migration and unchecked admittance into the United States. So I am not a, you know, I am not somebody who believes we should just have open borders.
And what we have not had that Trump realized, and I have been saying this, by the way, for 30 years in different forms, first before I was really involved in politics and then as an activist working on immigrant rights issues, that Democrats are wrong to not...
focus on fixing immigration. The problem has been that, you know, we have had a filibuster in place, I believe, at this point in this partisan environment where you can't get 10 Republicans on anything these days, that it is absolutely critical to have a structural reassurance
So that we can pass immigration reform, because if we don't, we leave this very potent issue out there. And it is extremely easy to mobilize people on the issue of immigration because it brings in not only class, it brings in race, it brings in xenophobia, it brings in a lot of things that are politically explosive.
And so the longer we say we're not going to do real immigration reform, the more we have real problems about how we admit people
people that we need in our economy, how we deal with the fact that if the only legal pathway is to show up at the border—and Trump was smart on this, too, by the way. He did two things on immigration that I think helped his case and really hurt us. One, he decimated all of the government agencies that do any kind of processing of immigration. So even if you just need a passport or you need a visa or, you know, you're trying to get through the processing of people at the border—
we had very little resources. And Joe Biden has built that back up in a very strong and positive way, really in the best way he could have done. But it's not enough. Secondly, what Trump did was also take away all the legal pathways that existed. I'll give you an example. When Trump took away the ability for Congolese to come in, they started showing up at the
border. What happens when Joe Biden introduces a legal pathway so that people from Nicaragua and, and Venezuela and others can come, you know, can apply in their home countries instead of coming to the border. You see that border, uh,
applicants dropped by 99% in those programs. So we know what the solutions are. The Republicans have refused to do anything that helps. They won't give money. They don't vote for border money, even if it's to process people and have an orderly process or to secure the border with the things that border agents tell us they want, which is surveillance tools and drones and things like that.
I mean, the things that are on the table right now in the Senate negotiations around the supplemental bill
There's lots of reasons why I oppose them, but one of them is you're not going to stop people from coming to the border by doing exclusionary enforcement only or expulsion tactics, which is what Stephen Miller and Trump pushed their entire four years. Understood. So is there any prayer of, is there any ability for Joe Biden to make an impact between now and the election in any demonstrable way?
So that as a campaign issue, it's taken out of the hands of Donald Trump. Seems unlikely. I think it's challenging. I mean, there are definitely things that could be done. The president's border supplemental has many things that would really help.
And the fact that Republicans don't want to give it to us is instructive. And that has to be the continuing talking point that we slam Republicans with over and over again. I saw that, Roger— They're not giving you anything between now and November. They're not going to give us anything, I don't think. Why would they? But—
Yeah. And by the way, whatever we give them, anyone out there who thinks that they're going to turn around and stop attacking us on the border or say, hey, Joe Biden did a great job on the border is really missing the picture. So they're going to slam us anyway. Let's talk about all the ways in which Republicans have been cruel to immigrants, because we know that on this one issue, Americans actually agree with us. They don't like the way that Donald Trump treated immigrants. They do not like it.
So they might be upset about the issue of immigration, but they don't like what he did. There's a bigger issue here with how we promise people that Democrats can deliver. And we can't because of this Jim Crow legacy filibuster that stops us from doing any number of popular policies from gun reform to immigration reform.
Presidents always write these kind of grandiloquent memoirs about how they were right and everybody else was wrong and they were the hero of every anecdote. Okay, fine. We know what that is. It's very rare that we get a sense from inside, not from journalists, but from you, about what it's like to live the life of a legislator in an era like ours, which is, I must tell you,
from the outside, looks insane from day to day. Yeah, it is insane, actually. You've got a lot of people to deal with. How do you deal with the Matt Gaetz's of the world? Well, you know, it's so funny because I have this strange relationship with a lot of the members of the Freedom Caucus because... I've got all day for this.
Because it is a... This is an area where we work together on... Actually, you know, on war powers. We work together on civil liberties. We work together on antitrust. Because in some ways, we are talking about populist ideas. And the problem, I think, with a lot of my own party is that we are very late to populist ideas. If you look at the $15 minimum wage...
You can see it with states that voted for Donald Trump, like Florida, but also voted for a $15 minimum wage. And we have not recognized the power of economic populism to really cross so many boundaries. But wait a minute. I saw the president of the United States do something I've never seen in my lifetime. He went out and stood on a picket. Correct.
Exactly. In the automotive workers strike. I've never seen that. I've never seen it either. And I lauded him for it because we had been pushing for him to do that. Obviously, Sean Fain was the most important person in that discussion and the workers that were on strike.
I think the big achievement of Joe Biden is not necessarily the individual bills that we have passed. Those are huge achievements. It is the fundamental shift and transformation of how we think about the economy and government's role in creating a more just world where people can thrive, not just survive. But why are the polls so low? It doesn't add up somehow.
Because people have to feel it in the moment. And this was an argument that I made directly to the president when we were really pushing back on passing the infrastructure bill without the rest of what was built back better. And what I said to him is, Mr. President, you have to understand people have to feel it.
different when they wake up the next morning. Childcare will make you feel different. Housing will make you feel different. A road or a bridge is extremely important, but if people can't get out of the house or they don't have a house, then it's not going to matter. And so those pieces of infrastructure, which we often don't think about as infrastructure, but we should,
are the things that people have to feel a difference for. And it's, you know, and even some of my great labor friends who were, you know, very worried about whether we were going to pass the infrastructure bill have come back to me and said, oh, God, I wish you had passed child care with that because we don't have enough people who can come back to these jobs. And I'm like, right. We were right. Progressives are always right, David. That is the fundamental argument here. Are conservatives always wrong?
Not always, because I work with a lot of conservatives on things. Even a stop clock can be right twice a day. I see. I see. I'm speaking with Pramila Jayapal, a Democrat in Congress who represents a district in and around the city of Seattle. Jayapal chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus. This is the New Yorker Radio Hour with more to come.
I'm Maria Konnikova. And I'm Nate Silver. And our new podcast, Risky Business, is a show about making better decisions. We're both journalists whom we light as poker players, and that's the lens we're going to use to approach this entire show. We're going to be discussing everything from high-stakes poker to personal questions. Like whether I should call a plumber or fix my shower myself. And of course, we'll be talking about the election, too. Listen to Risky Business wherever you get your podcasts.
What is the nature of the conversation in the Progressive Caucus like when it comes to Joe Biden? What's the level of frustration? What's the level of enthusiasm when you're talking to all your progressive colleagues behind closed doors, quite frankly?
Well, you know, I never comment about conversations with other members. Look, I think that it is, it's the conversation we're having here. People do understand. And we all, particularly those of us who were here during the first two years of his presidency, understand.
we feel a deep respect for how much we collectively were able to get done. It's not that it was just Joe Biden and it's not that it was just Congress and it wasn't just progressives. And I'm fine with that because in the end, he did the things that we were all pushing for and he led us in a way that couldn't have happened from anybody else except Joe Biden.
And so I just have enormous respect for that. That doesn't go away. But the frustration right now is that the Joe Biden of the first two years does not feel like the Joe Biden of this last year. And that's due to a lot of different things. It's the time of an election cycle. It's the staff changes that have happened. It's the realities of the
particular political moment, but I have just been trying to mostly privately, but sometimes publicly, be clear that this coalition that we're going to have to put together requires a lot of attention. And those of us who have
The ability to mobilize people and be the ones who are making the arguments to people about why we need Joe Biden, not there. These voters, I call them swing voters, our biggest base of swing voters, because they're not swinging to Donald Trump, but they will swing right out to the couch.
And we can sit it out. They'll sit it out. What I worry about is for young people in particular and for folks of color, there's a real sense of needing to be seen and heard.
And particularly on big moral issues, and I think about the war in this context, this is not something that you can kind of say, well, this person's much better for you in the long run. So, you know, just get over whatever your moral concerns are about this. I mean, it's just very difficult. Let's talk about the Middle East. We have seen...
all kinds of furious argument about this on campuses, on the airwaves, everywhere. And in some ways it breaks down, as you mentioned, a lot of people of color are particularly deeply opposed to what the Israelis are doing. We've heard the word genocide used.
As we speak, there is a proceeding at The Hague, led by South Africa, accusing Israel of genocide. Do you think that's a proper charge?
Well, what I think is important is the process. I have not used that word because I think it's a very technical word in a legal definition. I understand and I have read a lot, not only from pro-Palestinian scholars, but also from Israelis who believe that the proceeding, the due process of the charge is very important. And I can't
I can make a lot of arguments for that. Go ahead. Whatever the result might be. But I do think it's important to understand that, you know, there's a lot of different feelings on this, even within the Progressive Caucus. I should be clear. I have to say, as somebody who's followed your career very closely and with admiration—
You are 99% of the time very straightforward in the opinions you give. I sense you tiptoeing here. I am tiptoeing because it is probably the most complex issue that I have had to deal with in Congress. And I certainly didn't come to Congress to deal with this issue. Politically or morally? Politically. There is no political space. Do you feel that you can't be honest?
What I would say is there's so many sides and facets to this conversation. As you know, I've called for a ceasefire. I was one of the early people to call for a ceasefire. And even in my district sometimes where, you know, the vast majority of people support my call for a ceasefire, I may have somebody who says, well, why do you only start talking about it as of October 7th? What about everything that happened before? And so I think that...
This is just a very difficult issue because we don't all operate from the same facts. And we have very different emotions coming to it, depending on what generation you're from, depending on whether you've lived in one of those places, depending on how you feel about how Muslims or Jews have been treated in the United States. And so all of that comes together. How do you see it? Do you see Israel's existence as a settler colonial state, as we often hear?
You know, I almost don't want to get into that conversation because I think it's a very lengthy conversation. I think what I'd like to say is that I believe, as I've said before, what happened in Hamas's attack was horrific. I also believe that what Israel is doing right now is horrific. And the collective punishment of Palestinians is
is something that does not get in the United States Congress I'm talking about. It does not get the attention. I just asked my staff to pull numbers for me, and I don't have them for you yet, of how many resolutions, pieces of legislation, amendments we've had that deal with Israel from a lens—I don't know how you want to put it, but, you know, from a particular singular lens—
either condemning Hamas, condemning what's happened or lifting up Israel's right to exist. And then how many we've had about Palestine. You cannot talk about these things here in the United States Congress. I think that has changed. And I think part of what is going on is there's a backlash to some of the ways in which the conversation has changed about Israel and about Palestine today.
here in the Congress. What should Israel have done following October 7th? What would have been, in your mind, a proper response to that massacre?
I think what would have been very important is, and again, I do have to make very clear that I am speaking only for myself. The Progressive Caucus does not take a position because there's been some confusion about that and some conflict around that, frankly. So the best thing would have been to use the tremendous support from around the world that Israel had in that moment,
to actually talk about what it would look like to, first of all, get the hostages back. Secondly, to, uh,
have a longer-term strategy around how to take out Hamas, because we have our own experiences that show us that just going in might produce short-term deaths of one leader. It doesn't mean that in an ideological movement like we have with Hamas that you're necessarily going to take out whatever the next iteration is, and that in fact you can do tremendous harm by going in
and creating so much destruction and death of innocent civilians that you actually turn people against you, which is exactly what's happened. But also then to have a very clear plan of what the solution in the Middle East is going to be and how we're going to get there. Because frankly, that is the only thing that...
ever that is going to get us to any kind of a solution. And I feel like that is not even discussed. Everything that we have witnessed and that the United States under Donald Trump was part and parcel of, including the expansion of settlements in the West Bank, including the violence against settlers, including an increasingly right-wing Israeli government continuing to be, you know, led by Netanyahu back and forth, back and forth. Um,
All of that and the United States sort of aiding and abetting of that was part and parcel of really undermining our legitimate ability to say that we were fighting for a two-state solution. But the United States has for many, many years been involved in negotiations for two-state solutions and has been party to various offers. Palestinians have...
agency too in this cumulative ongoing disaster. No, absolutely. I mean, but I do think, of course, that we need new leadership in both places. That is part of the challenge. We need a different, I believe, we need a different prime minister in Israel, and I believe we need a different leadership for the Palestinians. But I think that the fact that we today are really focusing on the short-term first and
is actually putting at peril any long-term success in the Middle East. A personal question. You and your husband were home watching a movie, and next thing you know, there are people outside your door threatening you. And this seems to become, has become part of life for a lot of public officials. Do you think the coming year is going to see even more of this? Yes, and it is...
Really terrifying. Are you getting reports? Do you have information that you can share? Well, I just think that the minute Donald Trump really enters everybody's consciousness in a full way, the minute he's on stage, on TV, as a real presidential contender, or even in these trials, what he says is going to be very influential. There is a complete disregard of...
Of any former standards we used to have, I don't even want to call it civility because it just sounds too weak. But the violence that's being promoted by Donald Trump, the racism, the classism, the xenophobia, the sexism, all of it is entwined with a very violent language. We saw it, of course, with January 6th. But it isn't just that. I've read a lot of research on this. There are a lot of people who like dictators. Right.
That is true around the world who find that to be very appealing to have somebody who's just strong and tells you what to do. And it doesn't matter how cruel they are. So we have to understand that. I think the counter to that.
I know this is going to sound corny, but I think the counter to that is love and generosity. And I think we've got to be able to translate care for people and a belief that we can make government make a difference. But in terms of the threats, and I have to tell you, I sometimes am not completely sure that it's worth it. You know, it is a real struggle to
Yeah.
And that's true for me. I'm here because I want to save our democracy. I think we did that on January 6th. I think we did that when we ensured that Joe Biden became president. And I think we're going to have to do it again and again.
until we make some fundamental shifts in the policies that we pass that allow a dictator like Donald Trump to take advantage of people's fear and lack of stability, uncertainty, unease, wondering whether they're going to be able to provide for their family or take care of themselves. Congresswoman, thank you so much. Thank you.
Pramila Jayapal has been a member of Congress since 2017, representing the 7th District of Washington State. I'm David Remnick, and that's The New Yorker Radio Hour for today. Thanks for listening. See you next time. The New Yorker Radio Hour is a co-production of WNYC Studios and The New Yorker. Our theme music was composed and performed by Meryl Garbus of Tune Yards, with additional music by Louis Mitchell.
This episode was produced by Max Balton, Adam Howard, Kalalia, David Krasnow, Jeffrey Masters, and Louis Mitchell. With guidance from Emily Botin and assistance from Mike Kutchman, Michael May, David Gable, and Alejandra Decke. And our segment about Walt Disney was produced by Jonathan Mitchell. The New Yorker Radio Hour is supported in part by the Cherena Endowment Fund. My name is Madeline Barron. I'm a journalist for The New Yorker. I...
focus on stories where powerful people or institutions are doing something that's harming people or harming someone or something in some way. And so my job is to report that so exhaustively that we can reveal what's actually going on and present it to the public.
You know, for us at In the Dark, we're paying equal attention to the reporting and the storytelling. And we felt a real kinship with The New Yorker, like the combination of the deeply reported stories that The New Yorker is known for, but also the quality of those stories, the attention to narrative. If I could give you only one reason to subscribe to The New Yorker, it would be... Maybe this is not the answer you're looking for, but...
I just don't think that there is any other magazine in America that combines so many different types of things into a single issue as a New Yorker. You know, like you have poetry, you have theater reviews, you have restaurant recommendations, which for some reason I read even though I don't live in New York City. And all of those things are great, but I haven't even mentioned like
The other half of the magazine, which is deeply reported stories that honestly are the first things that I read. You know, I'm a big fan of gymnastics and people will say, oh, we're so lucky to live in the era of Simone Biles, which I agree. We're also so lucky to live in the era of Lawrence Wright, Jane Mayer, Ronan Farrow, Patrick Radden Keefe. And so to me, it's like I can't imagine not reading these writers.
You can have all the journalism, the fiction, the film, book, and TV reviews, all the cartoons, just by going right now to newyorker.com slash dark. Plus, there's an incredible archive, a century's worth of award-winning work just waiting for you. That's newyorker.com slash dark. And thanks. ♪