Perry Bacon: This is Maurice Mitchell, everybody, who’s the national director of the Working Families Party, which I’m guessing people who are listening probably know what that is. So thanks for joining us. First question I wanted to ask you was—I’m a word person. I’m in journalism. “Authoritarian,” “fascist,” “dictator,” what is the term you use [to describe] what we’re experiencing now? Maybe that doesn’t matter.
I think the language is important, but in a hierarchy of importance—there’s a five-alarm fire, right? So I don’t want to be outside of the house and be having an abstract conversation when there’s a burning house and there’s kids inside about, Is this a five-alarm fire or four-alarm fire? How hot do you think it is? These are important—but relative to the urgency of the moment, all of us, anybody who doesn’t want that kid to burn in that fire, needs to take a bucket as quickly as possible to put that fire out and make sure that no fires happen in that house again.
Mitchell: Yeah. Things are different because they won the election, right?
Mitchell: Oh, absolutely things are worse because when Trump and MAGA was in this outside movement and when he got to the White House, he surrounded himself with people in the Republican Party, but people who still operated with some of the guardrails that most people have traditionally operated with. Over those years, they were able to build the infrastructure for MAGA as a governing project, right? So over these years, all of those right-wing think tanks now became MAGA think tanks, and all of those politicians became MAGA politicians. And he was actually able to create a cabinet-in-waiting so that he could actually govern the way that he wanted to do in Trump 1.0. And we said that that would happen. And the thing is, it’s not—they were saying these things out loud. And some of us, you included, all we simply were saying is believe the things that they’re actually saying. Steve Bannon goes on every day and broadcast his tactics and strategy. And so we’re just saying, Yeah, we believe that they actually believe the things that they are saying and that they plan to execute it. And that’s what they’re doing in Trump 2.0.
Bacon: Let me ask a question in the news right now and about our response. Trump is trying to get Lisa Cook off the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. I think Hakeem Jeffries, the House Democratic leader, put out a statement and said, They’re trying to throw a Black woman … noted that she’s a Black woman as well. And some people on Twitter were left of center were like, We shouldn’t lean into the fact she’s a Black woman. It seems to me they’re doing racist things and they’re doing authoritarian things and they’re doing economic injustice things—and we should talk about all those things. But how do—is it all of the above? I want to ask you how you feel about this.
In fact, it’s ironic because there’s some people on the left that want to reduce everything to class. And then there’s people who are, I would say, traditional liberals that want to reduce everything to identity. And at least in the Democratic Party coalition, I attribute that to 26 years ago the triangulation that Bill Clinton did where they tried to cleave off the social rights that have been the bread and butter of Democrats for generations and the economic rights, deprioritizing the interest of labor in the Democratic Party coalition in order to create space for corporate America and Wall Street. When they did that, they created that separation. It’s funny because many of them now are the ones that critique “wokeism” and identity politics. Their cleaving of those rights are actually the source of inside of the Democratic Party where they created this need to have people lean into identity outside of economic ranks. And so it’s funny the architects of that cleavage are now, years later, wagging their fingers against identity politics people. But you created a market for people who are focused on identity outside of economics.
Bacon: If you’re the average American living through this, what should you do? You don’t have a lot of power individually, but there are protests you can go to and you can vote a year from now. But what should you do right now?
But if we’re not your cup of tea and if there are no local organizations and if you can’t find a national organization to plug into, then that means you might need to start your own. And all that means is finding like-minded people, maybe neighbors, maybe friends, maybe classmates, maybe people in your group chats to roll as a crew. So instead of you just going to that march, decide we’re going to do this together. Instead of you just deciding to take some action, figuring out what local action you could take. And it could be really small. It could start off as, You know what, once a week or once a month, we’re going to get together and we’re going to read some articles about what’s going on so that we all could learn together. That is meaningful and a step in the right direction. The fundamental thing is don’t go alone. Don’t go alone. Find an organization, find community. And there’s so many organizations that you’ll likely find one.
Bacon: Let me make sure I connect it. So Lisa Cook is getting fired up here. In a lot of local places—you may be in a city where your congressman’s already a Democrat, your mayor’s already a Democrat, your state has a Democratic senator, you voted for Harris. How does the local action shape the broader environment?
At the Working Families Party, we endorse close to a thousand people because we understand how important that is. On the state level, where Democrats have power, what are they doing with that power? I think it’s inexcusable for Democrats to be wagging their fingers, rightfully, against Trump and the federal government, but then sitting on state power or local power and not advancing a full-throated working people’s agenda. That’s one of the reasons why we engage in so many primaries, right? That primary in New York is about the fact that Democrats aren’t on their job, and there’s a huge divide inside the Democratic Party around what to do in this moment. And so even if you’re in a place where there aren’t any MAGA folks in office, there is meaningful work to do. Because if you have governing power and you’re not part of MAGA, you can’t just rest on your laurels and you should be using those powers not just to defend. Of course we should play defense, but we also need to play offense.
Bacon: Talk about what’s happening in New York. What have you learned from that primary? I guess, let me ask it more directly, what are we learning from the fact that the Jeffries, Schumer, Gillibrand.… To be fair, Letitia James, Nadler—there are people who have endorsed him. It’s not as if no one’s endorsing him. It’s just more—that a lot of people are not. What do we make of that, and what does that tell us?
We have a different argument. Our argument is based on the fact that poll after poll after poll shows that working people across identity, across ideology want government to do more, not less; want government that’s not corrupt; want government that actually invest in their community and themselves. So [they] really want a robust government. We consistently see that. And so what we did was we followed the people. And Zohran is a perfect example of that. It’s a very disciplined campaign focused on affordability because again and again and again, what people are saying is, I’m in a crisis of portability. Rent is way too high. The ability for me to own a home seems unreachable. Paying for basic goods every day is just way too much for lifesaving medicine, for health care. And it’s odd to me that based on all of that data—and some of that data comes from the “moderates” and centrist—that you would translate that into, Alright, let’s convince the population that we should do less.
And those same messages a few weeks later were successful in Arizona—Adelita Grijalva. That competitive congressional primary was one with the same coalition: labor and community, the Working Families Party, and focusing like a laser on affordability. And then a few weeks later in Detroit and Seattle and Tucson. Those same messages and that same coalition and the Working Families Party won really hard-earned victories. And I think what we’re establishing is in every region—even in rural Oregon, we’re having victories. In big cities like New York, in rural Oregon. When I take a step back, and you asked me about what does it mean, I think we’re at a crossroads about who should lead the pro-democracy movement. And they have an argument. And their argument, I think, is an argument of a past and a system that frankly doesn’t exist anymore. And those folks—if they want to write themselves out of history, be my guest. The future is demonstrated in the coalition that’d be built around Zohran and many of the other candidates.
Mitchell: Absolutely. And I would say I agree deeply that the primary fight is the fight against the authoritarians, the fascists, the white Christian nationalists. And how you pursue that fight is critical if you want to win that fight. We’re not interested in engaging in factional warfare. We’re interested in winning the main fight and being part of the united front that does that—but how you do that matters. I don’t think we should just sit on our hands and allow the people that led us into the loss in November lead us into this next fight. I think we should have a serious conversation about what the battle plans look like, and that’s what primaries allow us to do. And the proof is in the primary victories. At WFP, we’re not writing breathless op-eds in The Washington Post or The New York Times about a factional battle inside of the Democratic Party. To me, that’s small.
So yeah, absolutely, the primary struggle is against global fascism. How you pursue that struggle matters, and we’re engaging in good faith and in a productive way to argue that the way you pursue that struggle is through engaging working people in a language that they understand on the issues that matter most to them and focusing like a laser on that.
Mitchell: No. No, absolutely. And that’s another, I think, debate that we’re winning. You don’t need to deny or tuck in or disappear your values. You don’t need to give up on some of the most at-risk or marginalized communities. I think it is a complete fallacy. What people desire in their leaders is authenticity and fight. People don’t require from their leaders a one-to-one agreement on everything. I think there’s this attitude of, These are “hot-button” issues. These are controversial issues. We don’t want to get pulled into a conversation about trans kids. We don’t want to get pulled into a conversation about immigration. And so let’s basically neuter ourselves of all of our values and focus on affordability in a way that is dishonest so that we could win over the working class. Basically, throw these communities under the bus, right? That is the argument. We disagree with that, and I think the proof is in the fact that all of the candidates that I talked about led with affordability—and were keen to focus like the laser on affordability—but also led with our values. There there was a fight, [they] engaged in those righteous fights. And what we’ve seen is that that’s actually inspired people—because that’s what leadership is.
Bacon: We don’t have any exit polls on this kind of thing, but you assume there are some Zohran Trump voters. The thing you’re hinting at is people want authenticity and respect and so on. There are people who are not reading the checklist of, He’s for rent control and I’m against rent control. I don’t like grocery stores because I’m a capitalist. Your guess is that this is not how most people [operate]. They’re looking for leadership. They’re looking for, Does this person get where I’m coming from, [that] affordability crosses ideology?
Bacon: Open to it.
They’re not off the board, and I’m not willing to, as a movement, write those people off. I am willing to write off the cult. The 13, 14 percent—I’m not going back and forth with them. But that leaves the majority of working people who are being swayed by some right-wing arguments, and we need to make sure that we’re having a better conversation.
Mitchell: Yeah, a lot of the definitions that people use are so imprecise. A lot of times, when people say the working class, it’s code for something else. So I think it’s worth talking about. Sometimes when people say the working class, they’re talking about white working-class men or white working-class men in the Midwest.
Mitchell: Yeah. And you can think about this individual—has been furloughed—is sitting in a diner somewhere in the Midwest thinking, whatever. I’m not talking about that. Sometimes, they talk about noncollege people—people who have not gone to college—and they use education as the definition. I’m not talking about that. My mother is a retired 1199 nurse. She is a working-class person for sure. And most nurses have to go to secondary education. So if you use college-noncollege, then you’re automatically excluding my mom, which doesn’t make sense ’cause she’s surely part of the working class. Sometimes people use income. And there are people who are very much the working class—like a working-class plumber—who draws a pretty good income. So if you use income, you’re going to lose that person. And then of course, race. Some people, when they say working class, they’re talking about white people. And as we know, the working class is very, very, very diverse—more diverse and also more gender diverse today than it was before.
Bacon: You’re talking about New York City, where even people with three degrees might have an affordability problem. Really, in urban areas, affordability is an issue pretty much. Unless you work on Wall Street, New York is not cheap.
Bacon: There’s a great report WFP did on the working class, and I’ll post it publicly to make sure people see it because it was really good and taught me some things too. Last question: I was making fun of people—there was a memo sent out by one of these firms basically defending the idea to call the National Guard—calling the National Guard being in D.C. a distraction or a tactic or a stunt and downplaying it. But I’ve got to admit, my friend Senator Warren, who I love, used the term “diversion” to talk about Lisa Cook last night. I assume there’s some strategy here, but I do not feel like we’re living in a world of distractions and stunts and diversions. I feel like a Black woman who was the first Black woman on the Federal Reserve and who also was representing an independent agency got pushed out and maybe fired—it feels like a very important thing to me. Not a diversion, not a distraction, not a stunt. The National Guard being in D.C., not a diversion, not a stunt. I’m bothered by this language, but maybe I’m missing something. So help me understand ’cause you are reading these poll, you do politics in a way that I don’t.
Bacon: You mean democratic small ‘d’ as in democracy?
Bacon: And you can be an authoritarian and be popular. He happens to be an unpopular one and that’s a good thing. So it’s a bad thing in that he’s lashing out, but it’s a good thing in that we’ve made him unpopular or he’s made himself unpopular or whatever it is. It is better to have an authoritarian with a 40-percent approval rating than an 80-percent approval rating, I would assume.
Bacon: And his base is a majority of people in many states.
Bacon: If that base is as big and bold, we can prevail.
Bacon: OK. Maurice, thank you for joining us. I think there’s a lot of insight here. I appreciate it. Take care.
Mitchell: It’s good to be with you.
Hence then, the article about transcript we can prevail over trump by building a broad coalition was published today ( ) and is available on The New Republic ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Transcript: “We Can Prevail” over Trump By Building a Broad Coalition )
Also on site :