The Ugly American Brand Returns
Well, it certainly didn’t take long for President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance to revive the Ugly American brand.
As the seventh week of Trump’s second term comes to a close, the United States, the world and the global financial markets are reeling from his decisions and walkbacks. Trump is not just a flimflam man. He’s a flipflopping flimflam man. It’s mind-boggling how much has happened since I recorded my last podcast a week ago.
On Friday, February 28, a shockingly inappropriate exchange between Trump, Vance and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy broke our 80-year-old transatlantic alliance with Europe in less than 10 minutes. Trump has been trying to extort mineral rights from Zelenskyy in exchange for help brokering a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia. Zelenskyy is justifiably distrustful of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has broken multiple deals with Ukraine, and of Trump, whose administration recently met with Russia to discuss a Ukraine deal … without Ukraine’s presence. Prior to the meeting, Trump also lied about Zelenskyy being a dictator and the aggressor in the war with Russia. At the White House meeting—with press cameras rolling—Zelenskyy asked for security assurances from the US, before signing away precious mineral rights. Trump became combative and morphed into Godfather Vito Corleone: I told you we’re going to talk about that later. I am holding all the cards. You have no cards. I’m giving you an offer you can’t refuse. (He didn’t actually say the last line but the mob boss vibe was there.)
Vance went junkyard dog on Zelenskyy, and a right-wing alternative media journalist heckled him and asked why Zelenskyy wasn’t wearing a suit. After a shouting match that lasted several minutes, Zelenskyy was booted out of the White House. The US also recently voted with Russia and against Ukraine in the UN. Over the weekend, our former European allies solidified their alliance with each other and Ukraine and … without us. All of a sudden, the US is allied with Russia against the rest of Europe. Long-time anti-communist, anti-Russia Republicans in Congress are sprouting fur hats and decorating their desks with Russian nesting dolls. (OK, they don’t have fur hats and Russian nesting dolls, but I do wonder when they’ll start pounding their desks with their shoes like Nikita Khrushchev.)
Here is a link to the A View from the Left Side (AVLS)podcast website, where you can see all of the segments and hook up with AVLS via your favorite podcast network. A View from the Left Side is on multiple podcasting services such as Apple Podcasts, Spotify, I Heart Radio, Podcast Index, Podcast Addict, Pocket Casts, Deezer and others. YouTube podcast videos and original Legislative update videos can be found on my YouTube Channel and Substack.
It’s the Economy, Stupid
On Monday, March 3, Trump announced his long-anticipated 25% tariffs on goods from Mexico and Canada and an increased tariff from 10% to 20% on goods from China. The latest round of tariffs started on Tuesday, March 4. Canada and China immediately retaliated. Canada announced a reciprocal 25% tariff on US goods, and China said, Bring it on and added they were prepared for any type of war the US wants. Let’s step back from the ledge, here. How about we step back from the edge of the cliff and cut back on the machismo? This is not working.
Proof that it’s not working is: global financial markets tanked after his tariff announcement.
March 11, 2025 UPDATE: In Stocks Fall Again as Trump’s Latest Tariff Talk, the New York Times reports that on March 10, 2025 the US Stock Market had its worst day of 2025. As stocks continue to tumble on Tuesday, Trump talks about recession AND increased tariffs on Canadian metal to 50%. [Why aren’t we talking about the president’s mental competency?]
Also on Tuesday, March , Trump gave a 99-minute address to Congress that was filled with lies, putdowns and bullying. Among other things, he lied about the economy’s performance under President Joe Biden and bragged about how great it has been in the first six weeks of his new term. Left out of the speech was any mention of the massive 24-hour stock tumble since the tariffs were announced—the Dow Jones industrial Average down 1.4%, the S&P 500 down 1.75% and Nasdaq was down 2.6%. These are small percentages, but they represent a lot of money. He’s also ignoring backlash from angry American consumers who are organizing targeted boycotts against Trump-friendly corporations, protesting at Tesla dealerships and hounding Congressional Republicans at local townhalls.
The ‘Stable Genius’ at Work
Earlier in the week, pundits were remarking that Trump is the first US president to purposely start his own recession.
Late on Thursday, CNN reported that Trump signed an executive order pausing the tariffs against Mexico and Canada for one month. Today, March7, the New York Times is reporting that thanks to Trump, US stocks had their “worst week in months”.
Another first, Mr. President. You are a “stable genius.”
Casting off our long-term allies, jumping in bed with Russia, starting a trade war with our biggest trading partners, crashing Wall Street, tanking world financial markets, pissing off consumers—and lying about all of it during a joint session of Congress on primetime TV. Wow, Trump had a big week!
Oh, I almost forgot to mention that – also this week—we learned that several states have measles outbreaks. The upside of the measles outbreaks is that DOGE has rehired some of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) staff they fired. Perhaps we do need a few public health people!
So much winning!
Ugh … pass the anti-depressants before RFK Jr. outlaws them.
Shadow Group [DOGE] Dismantles ‘Shadow Government’ [Deep State]
For years, the right has been railing against the “Deep State”. Also known as the “Administrative State”, the Deep State is comprised of professional staff who write the rules and procedures to implement the laws passed by Congress. BUT in the right-wing media, these often well-educated bureaucrats are portrayed as an evil unelected shadow government that actually controls the country.
Now, Trump has tasked Elon Musk’s DOGE, a shadow group of unelected allies, to decommission the old Deep State. Besides hacking away at government programs, firing bureaucrats and snooping on us, we know little about what Musk’s young computer geeks are doing. Ironically, the Trump administration has hired a nontransparent shadow group -- DOGE -- to kill off the former shadow government group -- the Deep State.
Is the election of Trump part of a larger antisystems revolt?
Did some frustrated voters see Trump’s bombastic behavior and imposing strong-man persona and say to themselves, “Stuff is f’d up. I’m voting for this guy because he will shake shit up” and roll the dice for change?
Democrats Shouldn’t Defend Systems that Are Broken
I agree that some systems—like immigration, for-profit healthcare and elections controlled by money and gerrymandering—have been broken systems for years. There has been ZERO political will on either side of the aisle to fix these problems and many others.
When the Democrats defend institutions and government programs that should be reformed they look weak and out of touch. I see the antisystem revolt as part of the upheaval and discontent that accompanies a shift in socioeconomic cycles, as described in the book The Storm before the Calm. If this is indeed the end of the Ronald Reagan trickle-down economics era, new economic strategies will be necessary to pull us out of Trump’s mess and help the US move forward in the future.
Where are our strategies for the new world order? Democrats should be suggesting reforms to fix broken systems, instead of just reacting to the unfolding chaos of Project 2025. We need our own Project 2029, and we need to be writing it … yesterday. [The text above is my introduction on the podcast.]
Podcast Time Stamps
| The Ugly American Brand Returns | 0:29
| It's the Economy Stupid | 4:02
| The 'Stable Genius' at Work | 5:51
| Shadow Group [DOGE] Dismantles 'Shadow Government' [Deep State] | 7:14
| Is Trump's Election Part of a Antisystems Revolt? | 8:14
| Democrats Shouldn't Defend Systems that Are Broken | 8:38
| Podcast Interview: Today's Guests | 9:55
| Strategic Alliances Crumbling | 11:31
| DOGE Is a Challenge to Constitutional Order | 17:05
| Are We Watching an Antisystems Revolt Unfold? | 23:51
| Egg Prices and Where the Democrats Went Wrong in 2024 | 27:49
| Disinformation and the Media Landscape | 40:27
| Do the Dems Need 'Better Stories' or Better Listening Skills? | 42:42
| Institutional Change | 50:23
| The Resistance Can't Be Invisible | 57:54
| Arizona Politics | 1:02:23
| Diversity Equity and Inclusion | 1:09:37
| 2026: Can Dems Keep the Statewide Offices They Hold and Oust Ciscomani? | 1:14:49 | Parting Thoughts | 1:27:03
Podcast Interview: Today’s Guests
[Interview Transcript]
Season 3: Episode 5 of a View from the Left Side—New Strategies for a New World Order—was recorded on March 5, 2025. Today’s episode features a wide-ranging interview on these and other topics with three long-time political authors from Blog for Arizona. Tucson lawyer and former prosecutor Michael Bryan founded Blog for Arizona more than 20 years ago. B4AZ has been published continuously since then. Retired lawyer and former newspaper journalist, Larry Bodine is the past chair of the Legislative District 18 Democrats in Pima County and has been on the Board of Democrats of Greater Tucson for five years, including three years as president. Phoenician David Gordon has had a career in education and is a successful science fiction author, in addition to being a prolific political blogger. His experience in science fiction writing probably informs his coverage of the Arizona Legislature.
Strategic Alliances Crumbling
Pamela Powers: Thanks, you guys, for joining me for my podcast today. We have, with us, Mike Bryan, David Gordon and Larry Bodine all from Blog for Arizona. And we're going to jump right into it and talk about politics on multiple levels. Obviously, there's a lot going on. And rather than me picking an item, I'm going to let you guys say what you think is the most important challenge we have now going on in our Brave New World, in the United States since January 20, 2025. Mike, we'll start with you.
Michael Bryan: Yeah. The thing that disturbs me the most thus far is the refashioning of the world system and the United States' place in it. The fact that Trump has just basically ignored our traditional alliance structures, in favor of his personal predilection for whatever mumbo jumbo he's got going on with, dictators around the world, you know, divorcing the United States and pulling the United States out of these long term relationships that have been ... that have built our place in the world and built our prosperity over the past 80, almost 100 years now, I think is perhaps the most disturbing aspect, of the second Trump presidency. It occurred to me, of course he could do damage to our alliances, but entirely turning his back, on our traditional alliance partners, has weakened our position in the in the globe vis-a-vis authoritarian regimes, across the board. I didn't expect there to be absolutely no pushback against it in the Republican Party. Rather, they seem to be cheering it on, despite the fact that traditionally the Republicans have been very strong on national defense and very adamant on the fact that politics stops at the shore and apparently no longer. So that I think is perhaps the biggest change that this second Trump presidency has brought to the world and perhaps the most ... possibly the most long lasting and damaging aspect of it.
Powers: David, do you want to go next?
David Gordon: Yeah. And I want to piggyback on what Mike just said about how the world view, you know, how there has been no pushback from traditional circles. I just wrote an article for the blog. You may have seen it yesterday where I equated, Republicans with the characters from an old Twilight Zone called It's a Good Life, where you have the Billy Mumy character,
a six-year-old, running roughshod over this town, and all these guys are so scared of him that they say that, “It's good you killed the crops. No problem. It's good you put him in the cornfield. I mean, this is a good life.” And that's what these Republicans seem like. I mean, these were people that, once upon a time, four years before … five years ago … were relatively sane, but now they just bend the knee, because they're like, “don't hurt me”. You know, that's my thinking.
Powers: And literally “don't hurt me”. They have the Proud Boys going out and hurting people, right?
Gordon: So they're worried about Elon Musk funding a primary, you know, and, yeah, I mean, not a lot of brave people in the former party of Lincoln. I mean, you got Liz Cheney, you've got Adam Kinzinger, you've got the former lieutenant governor of Georgia. These are people that appeared at the DNC convention. Larry and Michael were there. They saw them. But these guys [cowardly Republican politicians] … they sold their souls donors and they are not putting the country above their own interests.
Powers: Larry, how about you?
Larry Bodine: Well, I agree with David that, Republicans have sold their souls basically to donors and what's happening is there's a lot of pushback. And, you know, the Republicans won't say anything up front about this, you know, in public. But behind closed doors, there's a lot of pushback against raising the debt ceiling, passing all these tax cuts that will increase the deficit. And what's happening is Republicans are going home and holding town halls, and they're facing like these furious town hall meetings where people are just outraged that the cuts to the weather service, the national parks, all the things that we rely on and enjoy. And what's happened is Trump's popularity in at least 2 or 3 polls has just cratered. And it's to the point that, James Carville says, you know, the public should keep the pressure on the Republicans. And, you know, it's there's going to be a collapse in the Trump regime in about 30 days, or so, they're not going to get a budget bill passed. They're not going to do all these outrageous things like he thinks. Trump thinks he can revoke the Constitution by just saying, “Oh, you know, we'll just going to get rid of birthright citizenship.” That's an executive order. And he's also facing opposition on the U.S. Supreme Court. In fact, just today, the Supreme Court ruled against Trump and, said, that Trump had to unfreeze all the money that had been taken away from the foreign aid program. So, I think there's a lot of fury out there, a lot of anger. And it's it's building up and something's going to give.
DOGE Is a Challenge to Constitutional Order
Powers: Yeah, I think this is unsustainable what's happening. There have been so many changes and so much pushback. Not just pushback against Trump and the Republicans, but people saying, “Democrats, come on, what are you doing? What's your what's your plan.” And things like that, you know, but I guess for me the biggest thing is that we've got a shadow government running. You know, my opinion is that I don't think Trump is really making the decisions. I did a podcast just last week in which I asked, “What's his diagnosis?” I mean, I don't think that he's mentally capable. And we need to see his medical records for mental health and physical health. And in fact, there was an interview that I saw the other night with, Heather Cox Richardson. And she was saying, “Well, we've watched him decline in his mentality, and which is visible in his speech, over the last couple of years with the campaign, you know, and she was even saying there's somebody else who's calling the shots. And, you know, she gave a few examples of things that he's done with executive orders, which he never really talked about on the campaign trail. So, I mean, we know about Elon Musk, who's unelected, along with his DOGE team, and, you know, they're hacking away at the government and looking at our data and firing people and things like that. So, that's sort of one part of a shadow government, but I think that there's other people calling the shots. So what do you guys think of this? And who's actually running the show in this administration?
Bodine: Well, I think you're right on the nose, Pam. Trump is too senile and too stupid to begin with. And, the people, who are all Project 2025, also wrote all of the 70 executive orders that he's issued. And what's driving it is, basically, money grab. For instance, Musk has rolled out this new Grok 3 AI technology, which apparently is taking the market by storm and, it can compile more information than any other program that any other company offers. And it so it makes total sense that, well, he wants the records from Social Security, the Treasury, the IRS so he can dump it all into this AI program and, use it to control people, you know, tell people who don't agree with them that, you know, if you don't get on the boat and grab your share of the money while you have a chance, we're going to run somebody against you in a primary.
Bryan: I think from, from my perspective, which is more of a constitutional and legal perspective. You know, DOGE is a challenge to the constitutional order, and it's clearly unconstitutional by any conventional reading of the of our Constitution and the precedence of the Supreme Court. up until now. The question is whether or not the Supreme Court is going to go along with this grab. I agree with Larry, but it's not just a money grab. It's a power grab. The executive branch is trying to wrest control of budgeting away from the legislative [branch], which is, you know, assigned to the legislative [branch] specifically in our Constitution. There is not only the Constitutional principle that, you know, the legislative [branch] controls the money, the budgeting, of the United States, but also, the fact that there has been a long string of cases, as well as legislation on what they call impoundment. Impoundment is when the legislative [branch] passes a spending bill, and says you, the executive and the other branches of government have to spend money on “X” [not the social media platform X]. If the president says, “Well, I don't want to spend money on ‘X’” and withholds that money, that's called an impoundment. And there's an anti-impoundment act passed by Congress, reauthorized, I think in the last ten years, universally, and in fact, impoundment was the reason why Trump was impeached the first time. He tried to withhold Ukraine aid, that the legislative [branch] had passed, about $400 billion, if I recall correctly. And that was the reason he was impeached. And now he's doing the exact same thing, through DOGE and through his executive orders … trying to reorder the spending priorities and shut off funds that he doesn't like or DEI or whatever the hell excuse he's come up with. But regardless of the excuse, it is unconstitutional. And so the question will eventually come before the Supreme Court, and the question is whether the Supreme Court is going to give him a constitutional pass, just as they did in, in the US V Trump case, where they essentially said that he's above the criminal law and can't be criminally prosecuted for anything he does as part of his official duties. We'll see if the Supreme Court wants to basically break the Constitution, break 250 years of precedent, break 250 years of separation of powers in our government, break the anti-impoundment act, and allow President Trump to decide, what he's going to spend and what he's not going to spend. That's the question. And it's unanswered.
Gordon: My thoughts on DOGE were we knew all about it. Trump tried to plead ignorance. But going to your point, Pamela, he brought in the people that wrote the damn thing [Project 2025]. I mean, his budget director was the architect of it. Several other people in the Oval Office and Cabinet … they're all fans of 2025. For some inexplicable reason, voters believed this idiot when he said, “I know nothing about it,” and all that. And going to, Michael's point about him going for, cutting programs … and you had the press secretary going off, “Well, we found all this waste foreign abuse.” Translation: It's programs they don't like that they call waste, fraud and abuse. And, you know, sometimes they even make shit up. Excuse my French, Pamela. Like $50 million for condoms in Gaza. Or if I got that … they threw out two figures. Yesterday at that farce called the Joint Address to Congress he talks about people older than the country itself getting Social Security. I mean, I mean …
Bryan: That's been debunked so many times.
Are We Watching an Antisystems Revolt Unfold?
Powers: Yeah, I know it. I, I didn't watch the state of the Union or the address to Congress or whatever it was called. But, you guys make really good points and, I had forgotten that he was impeached for impoundment last time. Everything old is new again, right? Yeah. In fact, I wanted to ask you guys a little bit about this whole idea of an anti-systems revolt. Jeet Heer from The Nation has written about this. And so, he's talking about this in relationship, for example, to what we saw with young men, in particular, doing during the election where they were listening to podcasts and alternative media—like, you know, we are all alternative media—and revolting against institutions that don't seem to be working. And I agree, there's a lot of parts of the government that don't work as well as they could, but there was this anti-systems thing and sort of the anti deep state, which is kind of ironic because now we also have a nontransparent sort of a shadow government with Elon Musk. And so what do you think about this idea of anti-systems feeling? Because if that's the case, in my opinion, then Democrats ought to hook into this. It's like don't try to make excuses for the current system as it is because lots of parts of it are not working—like healthcare or immigration.
Bryan: Yeah. The anger is real, and it's legitimate, and it's warranted. You know, the working class and middle class in America haven't had a raise in 30 years. Our standard of living is not going up. And that was part of the promise of democracy combined with a free-market system was that, you know, you'd be better off than your parents. And that's no longer the case. People can't afford homes. They can't afford to raise a family. Our reproduction rate has plummeted. The number of children that we're having is plummeted because just too goddamn expensive. And so, yeah, people are frustrated and they're legitimately angry at what has happened as a result of the system that we currently have. They don't make fine distinctions. They just say there's something going wrong. Somebody needs to fix this. And in the last election that was, you know, pretty clear. I mean, there wasn't any kind of mandate in my view. It was a very, very, very narrow win. But it was a win by Trump. And there was a reason for it. Kamala Harris … bless her soul … her program … her policy mix to address the issue was all stuff that she knew she could do within the system. It was all, you know, tax credits for this and that … things that she could do through budget reconciliation. She didn't attack the system or try to give a big picture critique of the system and say, “This is how we need to reform the system. We can get money out of politics. We can stop corporations from spending unlimited [cash on campaigns]. We can stop gerrymandering.” You know, the big picture things that would make a real difference to how policy is adopted and whose concerns and issues and interests are listened to in our political system. Instead, she focused on this very small ball. Whereas, you know, people saw Trump basically creating IEDs [improvised explosive devices] and throwing them into the system. And they were like, “Well, yeah, that guy is going to do something to make things really change.” And so they took a bet, and it was a bad bet. It was a foolish bet. It was a bet on an insane person. But nonetheless, it was a bet that he was going to do things to shake things up. And, you know, that's in fact what has happened. But a lot of the things he's doing, you know, people were like, “I didn't vote for that,” and reasonably so.
Egg Prices and Where the Dems Went Wrong in 2024
Bryan: And Democrats are probably going to continue to lose unreasonably. When you look at this objectively, this is the sane person, sane team of people in Kamala Harris and the governor of Minnesota … Tim … I forget his name even. Yeah, Tim Walz versus this crazy, inexperienced team under Trump. Trump and Vance … Vance has been in the Senate for a hot minute. He knows nothing. He's absolutely politically talentless. You know, he's just … weird, as Tim Walz said, and people still bet on it. It was a very close election, regardless of the fact that just on its face it was “let's continue doing things competently that people find useful and helpful to their lives” versus “I want to destroy everything.” Just like a crazy person and the fact that we lose to that is just deeply embarrassing. And I, I attribute it to the fact that people want to blow the system up. They want real serious systemic change. And Democrats have not offered it … haven't even tried.
Powers: Right. Right. Go ahead. Larry.
Egg Prices and Where the Democrats Went Wrong in 2024
Bodine: Well, Mike, let me disagree with you a little bit. You got to bear in mind that, you know, Trump won by 1.5%, and I've been to a lot of meetings trying to where smarter people than me analyze the results. And what took place was that Kamala didn't have time to get a campaign off the ground. Joe Biden hung in there too long. He should have bowed out a year earlier than he did. So, that completely took the wind out of the Harris campaign. Coupled with the fact that …
Bryan: Sure. But my point is, it shouldn't have even been close.
Bodine: Right, I agree, but the other thing that happened was there was a small decline all across Arizona and other areas … a small decline in voting by Democrats, and it was that slight change that allowed Trump to basically squeak in. And, you know, I don't think people are so much as upset about the system. But on the other hand, nobody voted for Elon Musk. You know, no one voted to cut off Ukraine at the knees. This isn't what people wanted. No one who voted to annex Canada or Greenland or Gaza. And in fact, the new budget bill the Republicans are considering, they want to take over Washington DC. You know, none of that stuff is going to happen. Here's where Democrats should put their eye on the ball. And that is focus on the cost of groceries, the cost of rent, the cost of a mortgage, the cost of getting a car. You know, the price of eggs is really the hot political item. I mean, that's what people were upset about. It's everything just gotten way too expensive. And they blamed it on Biden. And it was just enough to discourage a small percentage of Democrats not to go to the polls. And this is the result we got.
Gordon: Right. I have a few points, and Michael and Larry have heard these from me before. So, forgive me for being repetitive. I think in the last election, frankly, Democrats have no one to blame but themselves. Either they stayed on the couch or some of them, like Larry said, the voter turnout on the party. I think also Democrats did not … When you have a person who is a convicted felon get the popular vote, there's a communication problem somewhere. When you have a person who's been impeached twice, the first time around, you have a communication problem. When you have people voting for the party that did screw you over the last 40 years with Reagan policies, Bush policies, Trump policies, both Bushes, I mean, every source of voter discontent can be traced to a Reagan, a Bush, a Bush II or a Trump policy. And these people, you know … we won't use the s-word … but let's say uninformed people have been suckered time and time again because they went for the person they perceived as the stronger person. I think Democrats should have stuck with Biden. I really do. I think some of the people that stayed home may have been turned off by fair-weather Democrats, who turned on him on a dime. You didn't see Republicans dumping Trump after he screwed up the debate with Harris. You didn't see Republicans dumping Trump after two impeachments, 34 convictions and enabling a domestic terrorist attack on his own capital. I mean … you have Democrats dumping on Biden for one bad debate performance. I would have voted for Biden if he was on a respirator. I mean, come on, guys, gets real here. But Michael makes a good point. I think Democrats do need to have a better vision. I mean, it's all well and good to oppose the Republican budget because there's nothing to really support. Although I will say the idea of tax cuts on tips and over time … I mean it’s superficial, it's shallow, but it's something I think Democrats should embrace when they put their own vision together. They need to have an alternative vision to tell people what they're for as opposed to what they're against. And, let's see … just trying to think. The Michigan senator yesterday … going to Larry's point about message … the response to Trump yesterday … two good things, it was short and she based her comments in reality. But apparently she addressed some of the issues that Larry brought up about the affordability issue. And, you know, when we get to … when we talk about state politics, you have [Representative] De Los Santos and [Senator] Priya [Sundareshan] talking about an affordability agenda at the state Capitol as well. So, Pamela, well, what do you want to do now?
Bryan: Yeah, I got something I'd like to say to what both Larry and David said there. Well, I think it's important, but it's merely emblematic … this whole affordability complaint. People are sick of inflation. Yeah. Things are too expensive. Yeah. But that also illustrates an underlying issue that their wages aren't growing. You know, the fact is that if people's wages were keeping up with inflation, it would not be an issue. So, I think while you can use the price of eggs as an issue emblematic of that larger complaint, it is merely emblematic. It could have been anything—like the price of gas, the price of rent, you know, whatever. But just saying, “Look, we're going to address affordability” is addressing the symptom, not the cause, and I think that's kind of the center hollowness of Democratic politics right now is that we aren't talking about the cause. And when we talk about the cause, we can talk about some of the systemic issues that have caused this decline in our purchasing power, this decline in our wages, this decline in our expectations. And I think that's important for voters because they often say that elections … well, this election in particular … runs on vibes. You know, most voters don't do a close historical analysis of Republican policy versus Democratic policy over the last 40 years. They don't even do a close analysis of what the two parties are offering. What they do is they do a “gestalt analysis” of what's in the atmosphere, what things feel like, what their friends are talking about, what they're talking about at the watercooler, what's going on on social media and they make their decision on that. And if our gestalt that we were offering the voters was, “We know this system is fucked, and we're going to do something about it” as opposed to, “Oh, yeah, the system’s not perfect. We're going to make a couple of tweaks here and there.” You know, I think it would not have been close. It should not have been close. And it wouldn't have been close if we had been talking about the real issues, as opposed to getting distracted by the shiny objects of whatever is the Republican talking point. Oh, eggs are expensive. Oh, gas is expensive. Ignore that. Say, “Yeah, we know. We sympathize. We're there. We are the middle class. We are the working class. And we understand this, and this is what we're going to do about it. There are big changes that need to be made, and we're the ones who will do it. They aren't. They’re in the pocket of billionaires. The billionaires like it exactly the way it is … and even rougher on you. And if you think they're going to make your lives better, I got a bridge to sell you, buddy.”
Gordon: Right. Well, Michael, you and I had this discussion before … but the Democrats should have done in the campaign was say, “This is what we've done and this is what we want to do to better your lives.” And included in that would have been like, “And now go with the living wage.” One of the things Reagan did right in 1980 and God help me for praising the Republican campaign, they ran as a team. Democrats need to run as a team: “If you give me more senators, if you give me one representatives, we could get that minimum wage increase across the country. We don't have to rely on the Manchin’s or the Sinema’s anymore.” You know, they should have … I agree with Michael … They should have done that. I do agree there was a lot of small ball there. It was popular policies, but they didn't they didn't throw the long ball. I do agree … I do agree with that. But getting back to, you know, the, the cooler talk and all that now that not a lot of people around the cooler were thinking, “Don't we remember what life was like under the … under this guy the first time?”
Powers: Yeah. I, of course, backed Kamala Harris, but I think one of the things that I was really disappointed about, and I think this really lost her a lot of votes was when they asked her if she was just going to do what Biden had done and then she couldn't come up with anything that she would do differently. I was like, “Oooohhhh, nooo.”
Bryan: Yes, it was a younger version of Biden …basically … she was running, as you know. I agree with David that we shouldn't have changed horses. We should have gone with Biden. You know, his polling was looking terrible. The Trump Party was feeling all complacent and jubilant because the polling was indicating they were way out ahead. They were definitely going to win. And things got shook up by the Harris change. But I don't think necessarily in any kind of positive way. You know, if we’d just stuck … and I think sexism has a lot to do with it. I don't know if America is ready for a female president or not. You know, the two times that Trump beat Democrats, he's been running against a woman. But the one time he didn't, he was running against Biden, who I will point out is a man. So, if we just stuck with Biden, I think we would have had a very good … a better chance of beating him with the agenda that we put forward, as opposed to any kind of … If I was in charge of the agenda and the message … we probably could have won with the message we had if we'd had a male candidate, in my view, and an incumbent. Harris was untested and a lot of American public opinion reflected the fact that they weren't comfortable with Harris because one, she was a woman and two, she hadn't been president before, whereas both Trump and Biden had been president before. So, I think I agree with David, and I said so at the time on the blog that we shouldn't do this. We should stick with Biden.
Powers: Now, I think that the big mistake for both parties really was to not force those guys to do debates. Both of them, you know. They stopped any challengers to Biden, and so he never really had to do a debate … you know … months before he did that one with Trump, which was disastrous.
Disinformation and the Media Landscape
Powers: So, this kind of gets into the whole idea of disinformation, though, and also the use of the media. One of the reasons that they said that Trump won was that he wasn't relying on the mainstream media as much as he was podcasts and alternative media and social media on his platform and things like that. But, also, you know, just the whole level of disinformation. The stuff that was thrown out there that was completely false. And so it's kind of difficult to run against something like that. And so, how do we fight against that sort of disinformation campaign? Because that's not going away. And in fact, it's getting … it's getting broader. It seems like.
Bodine: Yeah. Well, you know, we're fighting disinformation right now with this podcast and, you know, the problem with Kamala Harris is she was Biden part two. And Biden's record was just welded right onto her. There was no way to get out from under that. However, I've got to tell you, you know, I went to the protest where more than a thousand people showed up last Saturday outside the Tesla dealership at Oracle and River Road. And there were just mobs and mobs of people who are exceedingly well informed. They were incredibly angry. Everybody had a sign to carry. It just completely blotted out the intersection. People were honking horns. And there's a lot of pent up anger now. And it's just a question of focusing that and demonstrating that … Look, Trump is not going to raise people's wages. Trump is not going to be any help to the unions or to the ordinary working person. And I think we just need to get down to brass tacks and focus on kitchen table issues. You know, it's like Carville and Bill Clinton said, “It's the economy, stupid.” Yes, the price of eggs is an emblem, but it's the wrong kind of emblem. If you're an incumbent running for reelection.
Do the Democrats Need ‘Better Stories’ or Better Listening Skills?
Bryan: Well, I think it comes down to our storytelling skills. The Republicans have proven over and over and over again that they know how to tell a better story. The reason why that debate with Trump and Biden was so devastating to Biden was because they've been telling a false narrative all throughout the campaign … that Biden was on a mental decline. He was basically on a respirator in a hospital room and couldn't even think straight, which is utter nonsense. I mean, the man is of a more advanced age, and, you know, as you get older, certain facilities [faculties] decline. Certain words don't come to you as quickly as they did before. And Biden has the speech impediment, and you know that exacerbates the issue for him. In some circumstances, he will pause and think about the word that he's supposed to do, and it can get a little spacey looking, and they took that kernel of truth, and they spun it into a story that was believable and was confirmed live on camera at that moment. And that's what really hurt us was that they had that preexisting narrative in place that they could plug into. And it was disinformation. Absolutely. And your question was, how do we fight the disinformation? We have to become better storytellers about the candidates, about our agenda, about the history of this country, about the purpose of this country, about the aspirations of its people. We have to tell those stories, and we have to tell them in compelling ways that fight the disinformation, that counter the disinformation counter narratives that they are so good at creating. And, you know, that's what it comes down to. That's how the human mind works. We make sense of our world based on the stories we tell ourselves and each other. And we [Democrats] neglect that fact when we just say, “Oh, we need better policies.” No, we need better stories.
Bodine: Well, as David pointed out, in his article. David actually watched the address to Congress by Trump, and it was just a torrent of lies: “Biden's economy was a disaster. Inflation was at an all-time high. There are people over 250 years old getting Social Security benefits.”
Bryan: Why would we expect anything else at this point from Trump? We know that's what he does.
Bodine: It's just a firehose of disinformation. And as Steve Bannon pointed out, the strategy is to “flood the zone” … just to flood the zone with disinformation and just create such a torrent of it that it's impossible to overcome.
Bryan: It's just not a river … It's not just a river of shit, though. It's an alternative story about the United States: that it's a that it's “a nation in decline and that only Trump can save it. That everything about the United States is wrong, and Trump has the answers.” That's the story. Like utter nonsense. But people … a certain number of people … a lot of people apparently believe that narrative of national decline. What we have to tell is the story … the real story of the United States … the fact that we are a massive success, we continue to be, and we will continue to be. And how the Democrats contribute to that success story.
Gordon: I think I agree with both Michael and Larry. I agree Democrats need to do better at telling us stories. I mean, at least their stories will be based on reality, not fairy tales. But I think what Democrats need to do, where Republicans did excel, was going to more non-mainstream sources. I mean, they made the big deal of Joe Rogan, but Republicans went to sports shows and other venues. I wrote an article one time and said if Terry Bradshaw offered a leading Democrat a chance to go on the NFL halftime show, you go. If Martha Stewart offers an opportunity to cook bread, you go. I think it's both outreach, and like Michael says, being able to tell the story … and not a 20-page policy paper … something similar with no more than three or four bullet points to get the point across.
Bryan: You know … there are no bullet points in a in a good story. Well, it's a narrative. There's a beginning, a middle and an end. There's a narrative and there's a point to it. There's an ethic. There's a history. There's a culture being communicated in this story. And that's what we've lost sight of, is that that's what drives politics is narrative, not fucking bullet points.
Bodine: Well, you know, there was a lot that came out of the Trump campaign that nobody really believed, you know, like our immigrants in Ohio eating people's pets. You know, that, he felt that that story just fell off after it came out.
Bryan: But it's a great story. But it's a great story …
Bodine: But nobody believed it.
Bryan: But it’s a compelling story.
Bodine: I was the only people on Saturday, and nobody believes it. Half the country doesn't believe the BS that is coming out of Trump's mouth.
Bryan: But half does, and that's the problem.
Powers: That is the problem. You know … so it's interesting because I'm beginning to think he actually believes the lies that he's telling. You know, that he's just lost it and thinks Zelinski started that war. “You shouldn't have started that war with Russia.” You know … I mean there's part of me that thinks that he's repeated these things so many times that he now believes those things, which is even scarier, if he's, you know, not with it. So, yeah, the disinformation thing is really, really difficult, but I think also in addition to telling better stories, I think the Democrats have to do some more listening. I mean, if you look at the map of the country and the votes, we have the “coastal elites” and some random counties here and there. But, you know, there's a big swath of the United States that is red. I don't know if you've ever read Bernie's book It's Okay to Be Angry about Capitalism, but I finally read that just a few weeks ago. In the first part of it, he kind of goes through like his campaign style, and since he wasn't taking [corporate donations] or doing all kinds of phone calls to big donors, he was visiting lots of smaller places and having town halls and talking to people and things like that. And, you know, we need to get to those small towns. I grew up in a small town, and I was so excited when I saw the video Obama Has a Beer in Amherst, Ohio. Nobody came to Amherst when I lived there, you know. And so they really need to reach out more and not just say, “Okay, we're going to win it with these particular states, and then that's going to be enough.” So, I think we need to do more listening, in addition to better stories and better outreach and alternative media. I mean, if we have an anti-systems revolt, they see the mainstream media as being a system that's broken. In some ways, it is broken. And so, you know, that's why he may tell these crazy stories, but there's lots of podcasters and bloggers and people like Steve Bannon pumping up those stories. And also AI bots pushing this stuff out on X and [other platforms]. And so it's massive. But yeah, we need better stories, and we need better listening as far as I'm concerned.
Institutional Change
Powers: And so, one of the things that I wanted to ask you guys about is another book that I recently read was this book called The Storm Before the Calm. And this guy George Friedman is an economics forecaster. The book was written and published in 2020 and it even says in there that in 2025, shit's going to hit the fan. It's like, how did you know? And, so basically, what he's saying is that when we have these institutional changes … that our history has regular predictable cycles. Every 80 years, there's an institutional cycle change, and every 50 years there's a socioeconomic cycle changing. And so right now we're kind of at the end of the Reagan era with the trickle-down economics. And so, if this is like a cycle, then this really speaks to the Democrats coming up with some new ideas because he says in the book that at the end of each cycle, there's a “failed president” who tries to use old ideas to solve new problems. Well, he [Trump] is using old ideas, and besides using trickle down economics and deregulation and making the billionaires even richer, he wants to go back to the 1860s with reproductive rights and maybe the 1890s, when Carnegie had those steelworkers shot, and so he's really going backwards in time. And so, what do you think about this … being sort of the end of an era? And what can the Democrats do to capitalize on this idea? We need a plan for after Trump … or even now. We need to start talking about big ideas.
Bodine: One of the things that's a pointed out about Friedman is that the end of the cycle is marked by a “failed president.” And I think that's what we've got on our hands here. You know, I think the Trump regime is just going to collapse. They're already facing opposition from the US Supreme Court. Republican elected officials are just getting fury from the people. This is we're in a situation now that nobody wanted and nobody asked for. And, you know, … just applying a sledgehammer to all of our favorite programs, you know, like the Park Service. Why would you cut the Park Service? You can't get into the Grand Canyon now because there's a 20-mile line going into that. This is where people go on car trips with their moms and dads and go on vacation. This is going to start hitting home really soon. And they way it will come up are the attempts to cut Medicaid because Medicaid is widely used in rural areas in the country. That's where most of the Medicaid recipients are, and those are Trump voters. And if you start cutting the benefits of Republican voters, you're going to lose support immediately. And it's time for Democrats to come in and say, “Hey, we're the party of a good economy, a healthy stock market, rising wages, that's what we're all about. And, well, you know, you can believe all of BS, but we're shooting it straight to you.”
Bryan: I think Friedman's telling a comforting falsehood there, with his idea of cyclical nature. I mean, any kind of cycles in history are stories. They're fabrications, you know. They're ad hoc “just so” stories. And I think being comforted by or mollified by an idea that we've reached a cycle in history and things are going to inevitably turn our way is a mistake because there's one thing that will turn things our way, and that's our work, our getting out there and doing the work of organizing and politics and storytelling and reimagining our system of government for a new age. You know, we are entering a new era. We have social media. We have AI. These are tools of communication and human organization that we have not had in the past and that we have no idea how they're really going to ultimately impact our society. And during these periods of inflection … of crisis, if you will … it takes a nation. It takes everybody to get out there and to work together to figure out how to do it. You know, the analogy I make to this time period is perhaps the Progressive Era between like 1890 and 1920, in the last century, where we had one system of government that was used to a certain kind of societal organization, and, and it had been exploited by the wealthy and the best-organized to take an inordinate amount of the economic pie and social power. And it took both parties organizing around progressive ideas to come up with systemic changes to the way we organize ourselves and the way we do governance in order to contain those selfish forces and redirect those the new aspects of human nature that have been empowered by the new technology of industry into a system that could benefit everybody more equally. And it's going to take that again, you know, it's going to take a lot of work. It's going to take a lot of imagination, and it's going to take all of us. And so relying on some sort of automaticity of historical cycles, I think is a mistake. You need to get out there and consider what you can do in your local community, what you can do in your area of expertise to make this society more equal, to make it more equitable, to make it more fair, and to make it more humane. And put that to work because, you know, it's going to take millions of little solutions, not just one big solution to make this society transition into this new era. And make democracy and free markets work in this new era.
Powers: David, you want to say something?
Gordon: Yeah, I think, no matter what, whether this is a cycle or whether it's not, Democrats have to go to where the voters are. They have to do the outreach. They're not going to come to you like some sort of osmosis. And you need to have the story. And you need to have the policy, you need to have like a New Deal or Great Society type program and story to tell them. And I go going back to what Larry said, alluded to, Democrats are the party that gave Social Security. They're the party gave Medicare. They're the party that gave Pell Grants. They're the party that helped start the EPA and the environmental movement. They're the party that, in the last administration, gave you clean energy programs and the infrastructure law and that wonderful multibillion dollar plant in Phoenix that's creating all those nice jobs. So, I think I go to Michael Larry's point. I mean, we need to go to them. It could be cyclical, but we shouldn't wait for it to happen. We need to be proactive.
Bodine: Yeah, I couldn't agree more.
The Resistance Can’t Be Invisible
Bryan: All this stuff comes from the from the bottom up. I mean the idea that Democrats are going to you know hire the right consultant. They're going to tell us what to do is absolute nonsense. These solutions come from the bottom up. If you look historically at how these eras of reform build and coalesce around these big ideas like the Great Society or, you know, agricultural reform, land reform, anything that's really improved a lot of American people as a whole. It starts at the bottom, you know, the Progressive Era began with The Grange, which was an uprising by farmers who were being absolutely hammered by industrial change in this country. It came from everyday people working in city governments across the country … those progressive ideas and those experiments that were utilized in order to scale up some of those solutions. It is always come from the bottom. The best ideas …
Gordon: And muckraking journalists.
Bryan: Yeah. Yeah, absolutely.
Bodine: You know, and just a, a pen to your point. I mean, now's the time to get active. Now's the time for people, who are tired of this … this is crazy shit show that were involved in, to look up your legislative district. There are 30 of them in Arizona. Contact the chair and go to one of the meetings and find a way to become active. I'm seeing more and more and more people signing up to become Democratic Precinct Committee People (“PCs”). And in fact, in LD 18, we have half of the precinct committee people in the entire county, and we knock on doors, you know. We come to meetings. We've started publishing a Fightback Bulletin so that everybody on our mailing list of thousands of people know … here's an event at [Southern Arizona Republican Congression Rep.] Juan Ciscomani’s to office. Here's an event, you know, protesting at the Tesla dealership and stop sitting on the couch and stop brooding. I mean, we all know that we're being lied to and find out a way to plug in and get active, and that'll make all the difference.
Bryan: Yeah, and the resistance can't be invisible. I mean, you have to understand that our current media ecosphere responds to certain things better than other things. You know, the fact is that going to a town hall and making a fuss has an enormously outsized effect. I mean … that's how the Tea Party started. That's how this whole craziness with MAGA started was that narrative that was picked up by the traditional media and run with. And you have to understand that to tell that story of resistance and the unpopularity of this administration's policies. You have to play to that prejudice, you know. Show up. Protest. You know, like Groucho Marx apparently said, “Showing up is 90% of life.” So get out there. Get active. Get angry because that's what's going to change the narrative and change the momentum. So, Larry's absolutely right. You need to get out there.
Powers: Yeah. You guys already … I didn't even have to ask my last question about what people should do. You guys just did it. I think so, too. I mean, you know, they [protests] don't necessarily get reported in the mainstream media. In fact, I don't always listen to Democracy Now! With Amy Goodman because sometimes she's just too depressing. But the other day, she had a whole rundown of different types of protests that were going on, and they mentioned the Tesla protest in Tucson. But there were a number of things that I hadn't read anywhere else. And I read multiple news sources. And so, yeah, people need to voice their concern however they can—if Buy Nothing days or showing up at Tesla or not buying things from certain billionaires who are pulling the strings in the government, like the owner of Amazon and stuff like that. And so, I think that's the only way that we can get noticed is to push back, however we can.
Bryan: Notice what has it has worked in the past. Notice that movements and resistance grow from events … from things that the news can cover. So, try and make your whatever you're trying to do as media friendly as possible because that's how you're going to get noticed.
Powers: So, I'd like to shift gears a little bit unless you guys have something else to say about the national government. We could mix in … go ahead.
Gordon: If I may just quickly, and the outreach has to be everywhere, I mean, simply it has to be everywhere. I just did an interview. It's coming out tomorrow with the new party chair and one of his comments was, he wants to focus. You could tell, for instance, he wants to focus on Ciscomani and Schweikert because those are the two gettable seats. Well, the Democrats … there are Democrats in Gosar’s district. There are Democrats in Biggs’ district. There are Democrats in Crane’s district. The surest way to depress turnout is not to pay attention to them.
Powers: Yeah, exactly. In fact, I've looked at voting data in other years and often, people [Democrats] who have safe seats don't really do a lot of campaigning. Right? And so you'll see that we're winning those safe seats like Grijalva’s seat or Galllego’s former congressional seat with very low numbers, whereas even their [Republican’s] safe seats, man, they're blasting the doors out on those votes, even on their safe seats, and so when we're just targeting, we're shooting ourselves in the foot as far as I'm concerned. So, yeah, I agree with you on that. You know, we need a 30-district, 50-state strategy—not just, “Oh, we're going to win this one seat and that we’ll be fine.” That hasn't helped us out any.
Gordon: Right.
Arizona Politics
Bryan: Okay. Well, it's Blog for Arizona. Shall we focus on some Arizona issues?
Powers: Yes, yes. Look at in fact, you guys I think are following this stuff closer than I am. And so, what's the Legislature up to? And I don't know who wants to go first on this.
Gordon: If I may … like I said … Democrats are championing an affordability agenda and some of their … admittedly it's small ball … but some of their legislation is starting to get through. I just I wrote a couple pieces. The ADLCC [Arizona Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee] put out a press release last week highlighting some of the issues that will help people in terms of the cost of living, which is good. There's a lot of flack right now over decent funding for children with disabilities because our Republicans friends want to screw that and but not touch the ESA [Empowerment Scholarship Awards] welfare for the wealthy program for the private school vouchers. And Hobbs just put out a new proposal on Proposition 123 for education, and because they're competing there. And also there's the tug of war, you know, [Senate Minority Leader] Priya Sundareshan’s a part of this and the governor on ground water. Republicans are putting up measures that seem to favor more corporate interests. The governor has a bipartisan solution that's not getting a hearing like that.
Bryan: Yeah. I guess the short answer to what's going on in Arizona is: nothing good. Certainly nothing coming from the Legislature is any good. Ninety percent of the bills … of the hundreds of bills … that are dropped in Arizona Legislature are absolute trash. Stuff from the American Legislative Exchange Committee, or ALEC, tends to fight culture wars and defund public institutions, defund public education. I think probably the most disturbing thing and the most troubling thing and the most, consequential thing is essentially the Republicans are trying to pass, what they call the Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights or Tabor, kind of lite version here in Arizona with automatic, cuts to certain income tax rates if there's a budget surplus, and they're probably going to try and get that in front of voters, in the next cycle in 2026, and they'll probably succeed. And so that's a big messaging issue to stop that kind of nonsense because it's brainless. It does nothing but harm us because structurally Arizona over-relies on certain kind of taxes and under-relies on others. Specifically, we over-rely on sales tax to a greater extent than a lot of other states. And so if you have a good business cycle one year you might have excess revenues, but that doesn't mean you have excess capacity to cut taxes permanently. That just means you're having a good year. And so what they're trying to institute into our Constitution is automaticity—saying anytime we have a good year, we're going to cut taxes. And that's just going to be a disaster for everybody, especially public education, which is sort of what the main job of the state government is. That's a huge part of our revenue expenditures—public education—and they're doing everything they can to undermine it, especially with these ESA vouchers. I mean, we're spending almost $1 billion basically subsidizing the wealthy … the wealthiest people's private school tuition. And it's at the expense of every public education institution and child out there. And that's still more than 90% of our children who go to public education, and they're trying to … they're doing their best to kill it because they understand that a poorly educated public is an easily led public and easily dominated public. And I guess the second thing is they're trying to push back on the Arizona voters who recently in the last election passed a constitutional amendment to protect abortion rights. And so they're trying to do everything they can to obfuscate that point and chip away at the right that voters have granted the women of Arizona. So, I think those are the big picture items that we're going to be looking at coming out of Arizona. And we can thank God we have a Democratic governor. The question is whether we'll still have a Democratic governor, when she runs for reelection.
Bodine: Well, that's a good point, because right now there hasn't been anything good to come out of the Republican legislature in 20 years. And that trend is certainly continuing. And, yes, thank God that we have Katie Hobbs, who has issued more vetoes than I believe any other governor in the history of the state. And that's going to continue. And you can see the frustration in the Republican Legislature because they're constantly putting things on the ballot for voters to vote against their own self-interest … a record number. That's why we had a three or four page ballot in 2024 with all of these propositions. Most of them went absolutely no place. [We’ll have] more than the same and it points up the fact that 2026 is, a very big year, not only is Katie Hobbs up for election, so are the attorney general, Kris Mayes, and our Secretary of State Adrian Fontes. We need to keep these people in office and vote out people like Tom Horne, who was just single handedly been pumping life into the ESA program that [provides school] vouchers for the rich … that nobody voted for.
Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
Gordon: You know, and I if I may, and bring up Tom Horne, he supports abolishing the federal Department of Education because it's doing … and I mentioned this in the email … he wants to do away with … when diversity, equity and inclusion become dirty words in mainstream America? I mean, you know, I don't get it. I mean … and you have [State Senator] John Kavanagh, our buddy, constantly supporting these bathroom bills. I mean, you know, how's that going to help eighth graders be proficient in math or English? And we're only … we're not talking about hundreds of kids here on this bathroom issue. We're talking about maybe a dozen, if that, across the country? I mean, I've seen the numbers. It's minuscule. And they're making a major issue out of this. I mean, Trump devoted time to this. He even had some kid, who got hurt, I guess, from a transgender athlete in a game … that's like … and he devoted time to that and State of the Union speech. And, I don't know that. I mean, to me, these are innocent children.
Bryan: Yeah, well, it's also a story that most people, you know, they hear it and they say, well, that's unfair to have a boy compete against a girl in sports or, you know, that I’d feel icky about that …if there were a man in my bathroom and I'm a woman, you know, that that would make me feel icky. So, you know, they're not important public policy issues, but they are important cultural issues, and that's what they, you know, want to distract us with because they don't they don't really have an agenda other than other than cutting taxes and destroying public education.
Gordon: Getting back to Michael on the icky factor, if I may. How did Democrats overcome the icky factor? Because he he's right. I mean, I'm 58. I have to admit, when someone says that, I gotta admit I do pause. I'll be honest. It's how I was brought up. I'm sorry.
Bryan: I had the answer to that, David, I'd be a millionaire.
Gordon: Right. Okay, okay.
Bodine: Well, and if there was any doubt as to the importance of DEI, all you need to look at the Brigham Young University game where the Arizona students were sitting there … hurling curses. You know … curse the Mormons. You know, I don't want to repeat the slur, but, boy, if anybody needed DEI, it's those students in the stands. And there's no overwhelming, desire to get rid of, the I mean, it's the same as a Civil Rights Act. What's wrong with diversity and inclusion? You know, that's what people want. They don't want people being discriminated against. And that's going to be a downfall for Republican state legislatures as well as Trump.
Bryan: White men. That's the answer. Who's threatened by it? White men threatened by it. People exactly like us. Republicans want to appeal to …
Gordon: I'm sorry. At that address last night, the whole Joint Chiefs, they're all white men because they got rid of the women leaders of the Navy and the Coast Guard and the black Joint Chiefs chairman and Trump's cabinet … there's maybe one token black, the head of HUD. You know, because I think that's what Trump thinks. Black people want. I really think that. I mean, but it's all white people pretty much.
Powers: Yeah, it's interesting because David Brooks had an article in The New York Times recently about the DEI and the wokeness and DOGE and how they're going after certain programs and things like that. And I had read earlier that said the health care workers that they have fired are predominantly African-American. We do have a lot of public health programs that are trying to make sure people get into [healthcare] services, and they access abortion and contraception and things like that. And they're working in poorer states. And so, yeah, there would be a lot of black people [and other people of color] in those programs. But he [Brooks] said that in addition to sort of ferreting out people of color that by going after anything that looks like DEI, they're also being able to eliminate the “elites” from government … the well-educated progressives. And so they're trying to get rid of progressives and any programs that help people who are not white men, and they're kind of have a win-win going on here because they're not only hurting the people who benefit from these programs, but they're also hurting the progressives—or, you know, maybe the left leaning people who are the bleeding heart liberals—who are trying to take care of these people. And so I think it's a fascinating argument because I hadn't heard about that. I've heard multiple people talk about DEI, and there's some people on the left who are saying that the [corporate] DEI programs were just false statements that corporations were hiding behind. And if they had unions in those corporations, that would be better because they [the unions] would ensure that there's equity and diversity in the corporate workforce.
2026: Can Arizona Dems Keep the Statewide Offices They Hold and Oust Ciscomani?
Bryan: I totally agree. So, you know, we've kind of lost focus on Arizona, though. So, if I can end it back there, I'd like to make a suggestion that one of the things that I think we could be doing because we can't really advance an agenda through the Legislature. And so, you know, as admirable as it is for the Democratic Caucus to put forward an alternative agenda, I think the strength of what we have in Arizona is that we hold three of the big, statewide offices. And one of the things we could be doing with that is promoting ballot measures. We could run some initiatives that, you know, really target what the Republicans are trying to do versus what we stand for. One of the things I think we should absolutely do is run a prop to make it illegal to fund public schools just to no private money for public schools, period. End of statement. Put that in the Constitution as unambiguously as possible because there already is a provision, that implies at least, that you shouldn't be spending public money on private schools, but it's been interpreted a way essentially by the, by the state Supreme Court. So what we need to do … I think one of the strongest things we could do is to make that straight up illegal and to run a campaign straight at that. You know, because that is one of the most egregious things and most unpopular things that the Republican Party is doing here in Arizona is spearheading this push to underfund and unfund public education by making these vouchers available not just to private schools but parochial religious schools as well. And we just need to take that straight on. And if Fontes and Mayes and Governor Hobbs would take that on as a project and champion that at the state level and use their bully pulpit to promote that and to target that, I think we could have a lot of success because, quite frankly, Hobbs doesn't have a lot to run on. You know, “I vetoed more bills than any other Arizona governor” is not a great campaign slogan. But if she had an issue like championing public education for the 90% of the kids who get it in this country … in this state … I think that's a very popular issue. And the vouchers are, quite frankly, unjustifiable. They're very unpopular when people understand where that money goes and how it's spent. And if we focused on that issue, I think we could have a major victory for Hobbs, and we could keep a hold of those statewide offices. But I don't see any movement to do that … to developing a real message, and a real accomplishment for this Democratic administration that we have here in Arizona. And so I'd like to see, you know, the state party do better in terms of, you know, actually picking a fight that they can win.
Gordon: I agree with Michael, if I may. I hope I'm not interrupting you, Larry. Two things, Michael talked about parochial schools. Also Turning Points. Yeah. The Charlie Kirk outfit. They're using the voucher system for their indoctrination centers also, I, you know, I agree with Mike on picking a fight. You know, last year when she caved ... Okay, well, I think she caved on the budget. [Bryan: You're right. She caved.] Okay, I think I think Hobbs needs to be like Bill Clinton in ‘95 and ‘96 and say, “These are my budget priorities. I will veto anything.” And. And he won that debate, and he goes to reelection.
Bryan: Yeah. She should have done that her first year. But you know she absolutely didn't. And she stopped anyone from really standing up or understanding the budget I mean if I were her the first thing I would have done is I'd say, “Number one, you're going to go back to regular order. You're going to have hearings in committees on all aspects of this budget. You know, we're going to have a full and fair public hearing about this budget proposal. Number two, if it does not include my priorities and exclude certain things that I say are no go, I'm going to veto it, period” in a statement. “And you guys don't have the votes to overturn me,” and just put her, put her head in the sand and stayed on that position. The public would have gone with her. The press would have gone with her. They would have respected her. But she ditched it the first year. And so she, you know, momentum gave her the reason to ditch it the second year. And now the third year and the fourth year. And before you know it, she's going to have a budget that it might as well be under a goddamn Republican governor.
Gordon: Well, that's why she needs to put her foot down now. Better late than never.
Bryan: Yeah, maybe.
Powers: So, do you think that they're going to have another budget like the other ones that they had where everybody gets to pick their pork barrel project and stick it in, whether the people want it or not?
Bryan: If that’s what they need to keep their … Yeah. If they need to keep their caucus together on spending priorities then then yeah. That's the reason we got it last time was … basic log rolling. You know, it's the only way they were able to keep their caucus together to pass a budget. They may be more unified this year. There's been more and more MAGAfication of the Republican Caucus. So, you know, maybe. But if they don't need to do that in order to pass, their extreme budget, through the House and the Senate, then they won't do it.
Bodine: Mike and David, the activists in the Democratic Party are very much in support of what you're talking about. In fact, at the last organization meeting of the Arizona Democratic Party, they cashiered the old chair because, you know, she didn't get the vote out. She didn't get the message across. She didn't come up with a strategy. And now, Democratic activists have voted in Robert Branscombe. He's the new chair of the Democratic Party. I hold a lot of hope with him. He's on a big listening tour. I know he came to LD18 and several other legislative districts as well. And he's getting input, and you're going to see a guy fight back.
Bryan: So, I wish him well.
Bodine: I’m putting my hope in Branscombe.
Bryan: State party chairs don't really have all that much power to set agendas. It's really the elected officials and the candidates that do that. I mean, mainly the point of a state party chair is to raise money for state party operations.
Bodine: Well, that's pretty …
Bryan: I thought the previous chair did a fine job of that. But, you know, I mean, it's fair to hold her responsible for losses in Arizona. That that's fair. But you know, I don't know how important that position really is. I mean, it looms large in our minds, but in terms of its actual impact on state politics, I question whether or not it really is all that important.
Powers: David, you had something to say?
Gordon: No. Like I said, I have an interview with Branscombe coming out tomorrow [in Blog for Arizona]. And, yeah, he seemed … you know … he seems like he has his foot on the ground with what he wants to do. And I think he knows what needs to be done. But, you know, Michael's right. I mean, it's the candidates you recruit. It’s the candidates you put up.
Bryan: I mean, the party chair … it’s the party chair’s responsibility mainly is to fund the party … to raise the funds … to rally the troops … to rally the faithful to open their pockets and fund the state party operations.
Gordon: Right. I mean, you know, would David Schweikert be the representative. If the Democrats put up one of the other probably better candidates? I won't name names. One of them … one of them just announced she's running again. And, yes,
Bryan: David's a notorious moderate.
Gordon: You know, I take a little issue with that. Yes, I am well, on some issues, but I'm as liberal on some things as you are, Michael. You know, you have Joanna Mendoza now running, for the nomination [against Congressional Rep. Juan Ciscomani in CD6]. I don't know if [former State Senator and CD6 challenger Kirsten] Engel is going to make a comeback. Maybe two times is enough for her. [Bryan: Probably.] You know, but JoAnna Mendoza is impressive. Engel was, too. What's that?
Bryan: She fits. She fits the district very well. [Gordon: Yeah.] I mean, you know, straight out of central casting. You couldn't ask for a better candidate than … than a vet, a marine veteran. [Gordon: Right.] You know, a business owner. You know, a Hispanic woman, a Latino lady. You know, she's fantastic, and she's a good speaker. She knows how to run a campaign. She's run others’ campaigns. So, she has a good view from behind the bleachers, as it were. And so, I think she'll be an excellent candidate. And she's an excellent choice to take on Ciscomani.
Gordon: And she starting early like Gallego did.
Bryan: Absolutely. Yeah. You have to start early.
Gordon: Yeah.
Powers: So, speaking of candidates, I heard that Senate President Warren Petersen is going to run for attorney general. What do you guys think about that and Kris Mays?
Bryan: Has he ever even practiced law? But then again, I guess the guy Hamadeh, who ran last time, hadn't really practiced all that much law either and ended up being a congressman, I guess. But, nonetheless, you know, I would question his qualifications and, you know, Petersen is just kind of a schmuck.
Powers: Okay, well, he was one of the main “stop the steal” guys with the Maricopa County faudit. In fact, I think he got his law degree [from ASU] just like six weeks before the January 6th [insurrection]. And so, yeah, he hasn't really practiced as a lawyer. He's only been in the Legislature with a safe district. So. But yeah, I mean, that's scary—the idea that he might become attorney general. I love Kris Mayes, and so you we really need to figure out how we keep those three in office. All three of them are great.
Bryan: Well, Mays is doing great job. Mayes is doing a great job of keeping herself in the press. Mayes is doing a great job of standing up for people's rights, pushing back against the Trump administration. Mayes is making all the right moves for reelection, if she decides that’s what she wants to do.
Gordon: And she's going on Fox News. She's going on Midas Touch. She's going out to the social media outreach. Now, my dream candidate, guys, is [Republican Congressman Rep.] Andy Biggs for governor.
Bryan: Well, he's announced that he wants to do it now.
Gordon: So, you know, I mean, but maybe the best thing Democrats could do is contribute to his campaign so he can get the primary. So I don't know.
Bryan: Yeah. Talk about anti-charisma. Oh, my God, that guy. Oof.
Gordon: Yeah. But …
Powers: Isn’t he the one that won the Publisher's Clearing House or something?
Gordon: Yeah yeah yeah yeah.
Bryan: He won a couple million and parlayed it into a political career. Good for him. He thinks that makes him like some kind of champion of free markets or something. I don't I don't get it.
Gordon: Yeah.
Powers: Who's running against Fontes? Have you guys heard anything about that?
Bryan: I've not heard of anybody interested in that.
Gordon: No. Maybe …
Bryan: I think the big … the big race is going to be governor and, I guess now, lieutenant governor, because we have one of those now, so I imagine we're going to see a team, emerging on the Republican side, for challenging, whoever our candidate for lieutenant governor will be. I assume our government … our governor is going to run for reelection. I assume that she'd be renominated, but that could be … that's questionable. I mean, I've heard rumblings from both Mayes and Fontes people that they have both considered. I don't know whether they've ruled out, but they both considered challenging Hobbs in a in a primary for the governorship. So that might happen. Who knows? Both of them perceive our governor as being weak and a weak candidate, more specifically.
Bodine: You know, we can only hope that the Republicans, turn to Kari Lake again or another candidate like Kari Lake.
Gordon: Well, that's Biggs, Larry.
Bodine: You know, somebody pure MAGA who just comes right out there, and…
Bryan: That's Biggs. You know, he's got his nose so far up Trump's rear.
Gordon: Yeah. I mean ... I know … I agree, and Michael and I have the same off-the-record sources, who make the same points, you know, so, on that and, hopefully they'll keep their mouth shut by the general election.
Powers: So, this is this been fun. I'm going to give you guys each, like, a couple of minutes to kind of wrap up and give your parting thoughts on this. But it's been fun, and I really appreciate you coming on the on the podcast.
Bryan: We'd love to do it more often. Good fun.
Gordon: Yeah. There's …
Partying Thoughts
Powers: Any parting thoughts?
Gordon: You're the elder statesman [to Bryan].
Bryan: Why don't you guys go ahead? Go ahead, and then I'll pick up slack wherever you guys may not have touched on something that I want to talk about.
Bodine: Well, okay, but let me renew my urging for people to look up their legislative districts, get active at your local LD. That's how you find like-minded people. That's why you find opportunities to protest. That's where you find opportunities to meet like-minded people. And, you're going to see a lot more pushback. And it's time for you to get off the couch and join that pushback. You know, we have, we have new Democratic leadership in the state. And, yes, I mean, they do fund the Democratic Party, but, well, the money that they get goes to Governor Hobbs, Adrian Fontes and Kris Mayes [and other campaigns]. And we just need to get more on, you know, kitchen table issues, the price of rent, affordable housing, the price of a mortgage, the price of groceries. This is the stuff that people face every single day and makes them decide whether they're happy or that the country is going in the right direction. And so the more the Democrats can focus on pocketbook issues, the better.
Gordon: Okay, I'll go. I think they're moving forward the next couple election cycles. There are four main things that the party needs to do. One, I think, goes to Michael and Larry's point. It needs to be a bottom-up campaign. How many legislative seats were lost because people only cared about the top of the ticket and didn't pay attention to the LD slots? You need good quality candidates that will run well in the districts. We talked about JoAnna Mendoza being like out of central casting. You need a strong vision, message and story. You need to campaign everywhere on terra firma and social media to better inform the voters. I mean, you can't like … Trump was successful, and these MAGA guys were successful because they campaigned where we didn’t. And like I said in my comments, if Terry Bradshaw invites you on an NFL halftime show, you go. If Martha Stewart wants you on a cook show, you go. I mean, these guys did. We need to do the same thing.
Powers: Mike?
Bryan: I think what I would add is political parties, and especially the Democratic Party, kind of have a bias towards normalcy. We kind of run our campaigns as if these are normal times, and they're not. They’re as far from normal as it's possible to get. And so one of the things I think is really important is that we position ourselves as a party to pick up the pieces. If Trump smashes the crockery entirely and totally bombs the Republican Party out, because that’s, to my mind, like the best outcome that we can hope for out of this whole thing is that we could have an absolute earthquake, politically, as a result of this presidency. And so if we're going to see that in ‘26 in the midterms, we have to be well positioned to that. That means contest every seat, every seat, regardless of how hopeless it seems. We need to have real good quality candidates who can step up and really do a job of campaigning hard, campaigning smart, and actually win the seat and actually run the offices that that we're up for. And and so I think that that means for the people who would be likely to listen to this podcast, you know, they're they're political junkies. They're political veterans. They are people who are really interested, in the political future of this country. And my encouragement to them is run for something, you know, regardless of what it is, run for it. If you live in a noncompetitive district, file to run because this is the time that we need to be positioned, to actually pick up the broken pieces. And we could have a landslide. And we need to be prepared for it. And that means having good quality people, in every race … every race, everywhere. So that's my message is: if even if you don't think you're the right person, if you have the kind of skills and intelligence and awareness of the political issues, that you think could possibly be relevant to, to running this country, get out there and run because, you know, that's that's going to that's going to be the most important thing is that we have candidates on every ballot for every position.
Powers: Oh, definitely. And, you know, there was a headline in The New York Times that the Democrats need a Project 2029. We totally need a Project 2029. So anyway, I really appreciate you guys being here. It was a lot of fun. And you have to come back again, you know.
Thank you for listening to A View from the Left Side today. For now, this is Pamela Powers signing off. If you like this podcast, please subscribe, like it on social media, make a comment and share it with your friends. In the meantime, please take care, be healthy and stay vigilant. See you next time.
Share this post