How A'shanti Gholar is Getting More Women of Color into Office

LISTEN ON: APPLE PODCASTS | PANDORA | SPOTIFY | NPR ONE | MORE

A’shanti Gholar is the founder of the Brown Girl's Guide to Politics and the President of Emerge America--a national organization devoted to getting more democratic women into office. You'll hear how A’shanti went from watching CSPAN as a kid, with her mom, to working for President Barack Obama, the DNC and the NAACP before joining Emerge America as national political director. (She became their president in January, 2020 shortly after we produced this episode!)

TAKE ACTION:

Fair Fight

All On The Line

READ

Toolkit: Read A’shanti’s Toolkit to get more women of color in elected office... and how to break through all the “isms.”

PUV7Xvow.jpg

TRANSCRIPT: We do our best, please let us know any errors!

A'Shanti Gholar:                 I grew up in Las Vegas, Nevada and I have a very interesting story about how I came to politics. I was just watching TV one day with my mom and she left the room and I changed the channel and I discovered C-SPAN. And I saw all of these people arguing and fighting about making the country better and that's when I actually developed my love for politics. But even at that young age of watching C-SPAN, I didn't see a lot of people that looked like me, a lot of women, a lot of women of power.

Lauren Schiller:                  I'm Lauren Schiller and that is A'Shanti Gholar. She's the founder of the Brown Girls Guide to Politics and the national political director for Emerge, a national organization devoted to getting more democratic women into office.

A'Shanti Gholar:                 And I really got my serious interest in politics when I was in high school. I had that amazing government teacher that you hear about, she was super well connected and she had the candidates come in for a statewide Senate race. One of the candidates I actually loved, enjoyed everything that he said, his stances on the issues. The other candidate, I had an issue with the fact that he voted against raising the minimum wage. And for me it was a very important issue because I have lots of friends that work part time jobs either to make extra money to support being a teenager or to bring extra money home. And I thought they should make more money and that people in general should make more money.

A'Shanti Gholar:                 And I asked the candidate why he voted against raising the minimum wage. He said he didn't. I said, "Yes you did. I can look up your votes." And he argued with me just saying that he didn't raise the minimum wage. And after the class he called my government teacher and he said to her, "She was right. I didn't vote to raise it, I just didn't like the fact that she called me out." And it absolutely infuriated me and I thought, "Well, is it because I'm a girl? Is it because I can't vote? And I'm young." But even though I was young and I couldn't vote, and I was a girl, I was a young girl who couldn't vote but could volunteer.

A'Shanti Gholar:                 So every moment that I had to spare, I volunteer for his opponent and his opponent ended up winning that race by less than 500 votes. So even at that young age in high school, I saw the power that people had in politics to really get involved and make a change. And when I got in college, that's when I started getting heavily involved with college Democrats, young Democrats, and really just being a volunteer has led me to the profession that I have today which back then being a young girl watching C-SPAN, I didn't even know it was possible. So I'm one of those people who actually gets to wake up every day and do the things that they love.

Lauren Schiller:                  Amazing. And that goes to show you, don't bald face lie to a room full of high school students who are going to one day rise up and fight against you.

A'Shanti Gholar:                 Right. I think so many times when politicians go to speak to young people, they just think they can BS their way through or that we're not paying attention. But we are very much aware because we're not voters but the things that you do still do impact us because it's impacting our parents, it's impacting other key people that we care about and those things really stay with people. I've talked to so many young people who'll just be like, "Yeah, so-and-so came to talk to my class one time and I knew like, "Man, if I could vote, I definitely wasn't voting for them and now that I can vote I still don't vote for them." So it's also going to impact you down the road when you want to run for higher office or if you're running for reelection.

Lauren Schiller:                  Today we're going to hear how A'Shanti went from watching C-SPAN to working for president Barack Obama, when she was in the Department of Labor. She also worked for the DNC and the NAACP before joining Emerge and she'll tell us what it will take to get more women of color elected to office. This is Inflection Point, with stories of how women rise up. We'll be right back.

Lauren Schiller:                  I'm back with A'Shanti Gholar who got inspired to get into politics by watching C-SPAN. So just out of curiosity, have you been on C-SPAN? Could someone have have spotted you at some point on C-SPAN?

A'Shanti Gholar:                 This is really funny. I spoke at the Truman National Security Project about two years ago now telling our story itself, and I talked about this C-SPAN story and C-SPAN was recording it. So I am actually on C-SPAN talking about my love of C-SPAN as a young girl.

Lauren Schiller:                  I love it. Wow, that's an amazing hall of years, in a good way.

A'Shanti Gholar:                 It was really good to see that Tweet. I'm like, "Okay, but this is kind of cool."

Lauren Schiller:                  I mean, what's so great about that is that it's just a testament to young with a vision, imagining yourself as some... Wondering where the people are who look like you and then sparking your imagination that maybe you could be making that change and start to change the face of C-SPAN for starters but a lot of other things.

A'Shanti Gholar:                 Yeah. And I tell people all the time, it is has taken a while to get used to being in this role because even doing the work that I do at emerge, we say all the time, other women will be like, "Will you run for office, will you run for office, will you run for office." And for me it was always, "Oh so-and-so is doing this, so-and-so will do that. And you have to take your own advice and actually get out there, get comfortable and be the one to do what you really love and step up in this space and make change.

Lauren Schiller:                  I also, I'm always curious, I mean when you stood up to that politician in that classroom, was that just, you felt comfortable doing that? Was that something that you always felt comfortable doing or did someone have to kind of, I don't know, push you in that direction?

A'Shanti Gholar:                 I definitely didn't feel comfortable. I was just angry. But that's what we see with women, when we get really angry, no matter what age we are, we push back. And when my government teacher actually told me he had called, I was just, "Oh Lord, I'm in so much trouble now because I was arguing with this man. We'll see what happens." But she actually said she was really proud of me for standing up and pushing back and she told the whole class the next day how he had called and apologized and I never knew what political party she was involved in. But when I ran for secretary of the Nevada State Democratic Party, she was there at the convention and she said, "I saw your name and that you were running and I had to show up and support you and I still tell my students about what you did to this day."

Lauren Schiller:                  Here for those kinds of teachers. Wow.

A'Shanti Gholar:                 Just love her.

Lauren Schiller:                  So let's talk about the state of things right now. What are the statistics around women of color in office right now? I mean we talk a lot about, we need to balance the equation. We need to get to 50/50 in government between men and women, but specifically thinking about representation of women of color in office. Where do you think stand?

A'Shanti Gholar:                 Well we want to start with the big picture. There's 520,000 elected offices in this country. Women most certainly don't occupy 50% of those offices we're somewhere between 20% to 25% and when you get to women of color, it's extremely low. In Congress, there are only 127 women serving, 47 of them are women of color. When you look at statewide executive offices, there are 91 women serving, only 17 of those are women of color. When you look at state legislators, 2,133 are women and only 543 of those are women of color. And when you look at women of color mayors, it's really less than 20 who are mayors of large cities. So we still have a very long way to go. And for me when we talk about parity, parity really would be 51% for women since we are 51% of the population, but even when we reached that parity, that doesn't mean we're going to have parity in every single state.

A'Shanti Gholar:                 That doesn't mean we're going to have parity in all of the elected offices. That doesn't mean women of color, LGBTQ women, women with disabilities are going to have parity. One of the things I always say is this work really has no end date. There's so much that we have to do. And even now when we talk about all the historic gains that women have made, it still won't be until 2085 that we get that parity. And that means that we still have to be at... Women have to be winning at the same rate as they are now. So there's still so much more work to be done.

Lauren Schiller:                  And when you say the year 2080 and parity, do you mean just simply 50/50 women and men?

A'Shanti Gholar:                 Yeah.

Lauren Schiller:                  Okay. And so again, not accounting for all the various iterations of women and men out there, right? Or looking across the gender spectrum or women of color, et cetera. So given that that's the case, I mean if you were to provide a perspective on where things stand right now in terms of our representation. If we're not at parity, how are you feeling about who we do have an office, taking into account the needs specifically for people of color? And I realize when I asked that question that it's like a really wide group of people, so I'm not even actually sure how to ask that question.

A'Shanti Gholar:                 When I think of the women that we have currently in elected office, I am just so proud of the representation that we have. At Emerge we have our trailblazers list and I tell people, "I love this list, but I also hate this list because it's the first woman, first woman of color, first LGBTQ woman." And it's fabulous because these are women who are breaking barriers at the same time why do I still have that list in 2019 because again, there's so much work to be done and I think of Congresswoman Lucy McBath, everything that she has done, given the fact that she lost her son to gun violence, she turned that into empowering herself to be a champion for all families who had been victims of gun violence. And now she's sitting in Congress fighting for them.

A'Shanti Gholar:                 I think that Congresswoman Deb Haaland and Sharice Davids who are the first two indigenous women and they didn't get elected until 2018. Think of London Breed the mayor of San Francisco, the first black woman in that office. I think of Leslie Heron and Danica Roem, LGBTQ women who are breaking barriers. I feel an intense sense of pride when I think of these women and everything that they do and how in particular they are inspiring other women. Congresswoman Xochitl Torres Small in New Mexico, she's one of our Emerge alums. She flipped her seat and I was very fortunate enough to be at a dinner with her and she talked about how this woman came running up to her in the airport and just said to her, "I watched your race, it inspire me so much. Now I want to for office because I saw you do it." And that woman probably won't take the Emerge program but she was inspired by seeing these women.

A'Shanti Gholar:                 And at the end of the day, that is what we need and that is what makes me get out of bed and do this work every day knowing that these women, the work that they are doing in their elected office is literally inspiring other women to step up and do the same.

Lauren Schiller:                  Yeah, I love that virtuous circle. I mean, it's so important and so critical. So I mean in terms of having greater representation, I mean the issues that just keep bubbling up and I be like, I can't even believe, it's hard to believe... I'd like to believe that any of these issues could just be solved. But like you said, it's an ongoing process. But thinking about what's been happening in the news lately around police brutality, the unfairness in our criminal justice system, like racial disparities that are tied to all of those issues. Does it take getting more people of color, women of color into office to change the systems that perpetuate this?

A'Shanti Gholar:                 100%. You hit on a big issue for black women in particular, which is criminal justice reform. And when you look at prosecutors, 90% of prosecutors are white men. So when we talk about changing the criminal justice system that means that we have to change the face of criminal justice reform. And that means we need more women and women of color in these roles. And I'm a part of a group called the 2020 bipartisan justice coalition, which is made up of black Republicans, black Democrats who are dedicated to seeing the criminal justice system change. And we just had an event where we honored all of these great black women prosecutors who were literally doing amazing things and one of them was our Emerge alum, DA Rachel Rollins out of Massachusetts.

A'Shanti Gholar:                 And the things that she is just doing in a short period of time to make this community actually feel that they can trust the person who is in this role. A lot of people don't know the power that district attorneys have. This is literally the person who can decide if a kid who has an ounce of marijuana gets off with a warning or it's going to go to jail for several years, they literally have that big of a impact on people's lives and we need people in those roles who look like us, who can relate to us and who really know our stories instead of the awful myths and stereotypes that exist about black and brown people. It's the same thing about having women at the table in general.

A'Shanti Gholar:                 Nevada is the first female majority state legislature. And if you look at the bills that they pass, it runs the gamut. But everything is so women friendly because you had women who are making the decisions as Senate majority leader Nicole Cannizzaro is an Emerge alum. And even when we talk about women's issues, we still need to realize these are family issues, these are community issues, these are everyone issues. And we need women from different backgrounds, socioeconomic, racial, ethnic, to be helping draft those laws because when we're not helping draft them, then they have a very negative impact on us when they're implemented.

Lauren Schiller:                  Yeah. And back to the DA, I mean that's a campaign the HCLU actually has had a campaign running for a while about get to know your DA that you as the voter have power in terms of who holds that position, how often does that person... This is just a fundamental question, but how often does that particular position come up for a vote? Isn't it different by area?

A'Shanti Gholar:                 Yeah, it is very different by area. But it can be every two to four years. And the reflective democracy campaign did a lot of work on this too, and they have some great statistics on who DA's are. But even when we're talking about DA's, it still has to be law enforcement in general. Sheriffs are elected, judges are elected. We need to be focusing on the entire gamut if we want to see the full change in the criminal justice system.

Lauren Schiller:                  Yeah. And especially with what's happening with the federal level on the judges that are being placed.

A'Shanti Gholar:                 Exactly.

Lauren Schiller:                  That do not get voted in. We need some counterpoints there.

A'Shanti Gholar:                 Yeah.

Lauren Schiller:                  Just to put it lightly. (silent) I'm curious about the relationship between movements and politics. And in particular... I was reading about something that happened that you were involved in related to black lives matter and the democratic platform and just thinking... There was a DNC resolution that you championed endorsing black lives matter and then they responded that they don't endorse the DNC and actions speak louder than words. And it was a whole kerfuffle if again, understatement. I mean maybe you can talk about that a little bit more. I mean you were involved in that, but I just found it really interesting that in an attempt to support it kind of backfired and I feel like everything needs to work together so we can move forward. So I'm curious if you could kind of talk about that and specifically and more philosophically, if you will.

A'Shanti Gholar:                 I have no regrets about that resolution. That resolution passed unanimously by the DNC and we had wanted to show our support for the movement and there's always going to be that tension between the movements and the institutions. Even if you look back to the civil rights movement, there was also that tension that existed and I think a lot of it had to do with the fact that a lot of people in the black lives matter movement felt that the political party system was failing them. That a lot of their elected officials were failing them and they didn't want the resolution or they felt that it wasn't enough.

A'Shanti Gholar:                 But the DNC as a body that is how we support our work. And I continue to work with those people in the black lives matter movement who were interested in working with the DNC in figuring out how we could work together. And for me, those are the things that happen. I didn't take it too harshly or too personally, but at the end of the day it did spark conversations and that is what we need to happen. And I know other black women who I work with in this space, in the political space, they had conversations after the resolution paths, there are still conversations that happen and it's two different worlds that you're really trying to get to know each other. And even when we're around the table coming together, that tension exists. And I think it's just part of how it all works.

Lauren Schiller:                  Yeah. What is at the heart of that tension?

A'Shanti Gholar:                 I mean, I think when you think about it, black lives matter came out of police killings of young people and there were elected officials who were not holding people accountable, particularly police officers. In that case we're talking about people who are in the law enforcement system. So there's not going to be that sort of trust. You also have a lot of people who had never engaged in the political system at all with their political party. So there wasn't going to be that level of trust at all. These are all things that you have to build. I tell people all the time with the work that I do, being a political director and my background in community engagement, you have to show up, you just can't expect people to show up for you.

A'Shanti Gholar:                 And for the black lives matter movement, they hadn't seen people in the democratic party showing up. And that is absolutely fair and in a lot of instances it is absolutely correct. So that's where a lot of the mistrust came from. And those are just things, relationships that you have to build over time.

Lauren Schiller:                  Yeah, I mean in part I wonder, and not just specific to the black lives matter movement, but all movements and activist groups, like is it their job to just kind of never be satisfied? The goal is never quite achieved. There's always more that can be done and politicians by contrast are constrained by a number of things that movement makers and activists are not necessarily constrained, bureaucracy being one of them, who's going to give them money being another. Anyway, the dynamics seems really interesting particularly because these leaders of these activists movements and our voters kind of how you as someone who's in a position in an elected office navigate those waters. It's fascinating.

A'Shanti Gholar:                 So for me when this comes up and people are like, "Oh, so-and-so is just never going to be satisfied." And even when they say these things to me, I tell them the only candidate who's going to 100% agree with you on any issue is you, literally, so you need to be running for office. If you want the perfect candidate in your eyes then you are the perfect candidate, you need to be stepping up and running and challenging people and making the change.

A'Shanti Gholar:                 But at the same time, there does need to be that level of accountability that we do need to hold our elected officials accountable because so many people are just getting reelected and reelected because no one ever runs against them. No one ever shows up to the city council meeting and the country evolves and people evolve and issues evolve. So I think that's why there's always going to be the conversations of wanting more and doing more, but I think that's healthy for democracy.

Lauren Schiller:                  Yeah. Well, I was reading an article about AOC, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and how she had to kind of tamp and down her fire in order to get things done. Now, this is one article and one newspaper that everyone's mad at right now, the New York Times, but that she came in hot and she still is arguably, but that she's had to kind of take a more tempered approach recognizing that there are other factors that she has to navigate. So anyway, but we're all like excited about what she's been doing yet we want our politicians to get things done. So do you have any thoughts on that dynamic?

A'Shanti Gholar:                 This is something that comes up 24:17all the time and we hear women talk about it where they say, "Okay, I'm literally moving from being an activist to being an elected official and oh my gosh, this is so different." And it really is when you are in that other person's shoes and you have the activists thinking on your door not wanting all of the change. And I think it's a new role and it's growth and I still think that you can accomplish things because I tell people all the time, the best elected officials that I see are those who started off as activists, those who really had an issue, something important in their community that they wanted to change and then they ran for office themselves and they learned the system, but they also learned how to make the system work for the things that they wanted to do.

A'Shanti Gholar:                 And I totally see that happening with the Congresswoman, I think a lot of people are saying, "Oh, she's tampered herself down. She's calmed down." "No, she's figured out where the bathrooms are. She's figured out how things work in committee and now she's making all of it work for her." And that's what you should do when you're a Congresswoman.

Lauren Schiller:                  Yeah, and that is how you get things done ultimately, right, is you got to figure out who are the players and where's the bathroom.

A'Shanti Gholar:                 And I tell people all the time, if the Congresswoman, the other Congresswoman were just so horrible and terrible and rebels as everyone likes to say that they are then Speaker Pelosi wouldn't have put them on the committees that they are on because they are on some serious pretty impressive committees because she knew at the end of the day those are bad ass women that were going to get things done and that's why she puts them there.

Lauren Schiller:                  Yeah, I actually, I heard... While we're on the topic of Nancy Pelosi who there are so many things to talk about related to her right now, but I heard her give a talk where she talked about what she looks for in a candidate, which is, I'm going to paraphrase, but that they've got vision, they have a plan to get it done, they have the ability to connect with the people who can help them get it done. And just kind of identifying what those three things are in there may have even been a fourth. And it just seemed, it was like, "Oh yeah, that seems pretty fundamental like what do you want to do? How are you going to get it done? And who are you going to get to help you?

A'Shanti Gholar:                 Absolutely. One of the first things that I ask women all the time is, why are you running? You have to have your why especially as women, we know why we are running and going to say something about the men's right now that they normally don't like when I say, but women, we definitely want to know why we're running, this is what we want to get done, this is how we're going to do it. And for men, they'll wake up and they'll be, "Wow County commission sounds great. I'm just going to go ahead and do that." So as women we put all of this pressure on ourselves, but it is that thinking that makes us really great candidates.

A'Shanti Gholar:                 And we put out amazing platforms and our platforms really do reflect the community because we're going around learning. We're not expecting that we know everything about every single issue. We go to the experts and speaker Pelosi is absolutely correct, those are the great things to look for in a candidate, particularly the vision, what are you going to do and how are you going to get it done?

Lauren Schiller:                  Yeah. And the whole... It is always a challenge to talk about what men do it this way and women do it that way, but there are patterns and that your point that you just made, which is that the way that women tend to approach things might be the better way, just leaping in without necessarily having the expertise that you might need, seems like foolhardy, but yet they're sort of first to the gate and they're first to raise their hands so that they're getting the positions. But I feel like this approach of thinking about what you can bring and why you want to do it and taking a minute, it seems like if I were to evaluate, which is better, that feels like the better way to say it.

A'Shanti Gholar:                 As women we like to be prepared, that's in our DNA.

Lauren Schiller:                  Yep. Is that really an... I'm going to ask a scientist about that.

A'Shanti Gholar:                 I can say for the alums in the Emerge network, it is definitely in their DNA.

Lauren Schiller:                  I'll be right back with A'Shanti Gholar. Join our supporters and make a tax deductible donation towards our production at inflectionpointradio.org. Just click the support button. I'm back with A'Shanti Gholar. So back to my question, my sort of like two by four question about women of color. I mean can you talk about what... You've got the Brown Girl's Guide to politics, your podcast and your website. When you say brown girls, what and who do you mean?

A'Shanti Gholar:                 When I say brown girls, I mean women of color and women of color is not synonymous with black women. A lot of people when they hear women of color, they automatically think black women. But when I'm talking about black women, I say black women. So when talking about women of color, I'm talking about black women, I'm talking about Latinas, I'm talking about indigenous women, Asian women, women who identify with being black or brown. And I did the brown girls guide the way that it is focusing on all women of color is because despite the fact that even being women of color, we do have our differences. I know in politics we still face the same types of sexism, discrimination, racism. I get in a room with so many women and we just started sharing stories and a lot of them are the same from being the only brown girl in the room to doing more work, but being paid less to being the most credentialed, but having the lower role in the company.

A'Shanti Gholar:                 These are all things that women of color deal with, not only in politics but just in daily life. And for the BGG, I wanted it to be an outlet for us to openly talk about these things because I wanted us to give advice not only to women who are also in politics who are dealing with this, but aren't fortunate enough to have the circle that myself and other women have. But also for the young women who are coming up in politics like I was one day and wasn't able to see myself. I want them to be able to see all of us and know that there are women who are working in this space what are working to make it better for them. And that is something that I know my friends and I really concentrate on is after we leave an organization, a role, a company, we always ask ourselves, have I made this better for the young women of color who are coming after me? And we always want for that answer to be yes.

A'Shanti Gholar:                 So for me, overall, the BGG is a love letter to all of these women just to know that even though you may not be feeling that you're seen and heard, that there are other women that do see you, hear you and value you.

Lauren Schiller:                  So What barriers are you seeing? I mean you just mentioned a whole bunch of barriers that women of color run into in politics and in the workplace and in life. What specifically might women of color face when running for office?

A'Shanti Gholar:                 The first thing is we talked about a little bit, women of color we are just such strong advocates, we're out there in our community, in public leadership. That needs to be translated into black women candidates and encouraging them to run for office. There's just so many stories out there. I'll give an example where a woman, she was a principal, she was considering running for school board and people told her she wasn't qualified over a white man who had no educational experience, who wanted to run for school board. Those are some of the things that women of color face. We need to make sure that we're also not thinking that people of color can only represent people of color. This is such an antiquated idea that we are only limited to representing people that look like us and we have to get out of that mindset because so many of the women of color who were elected to Congress, they do not represent districts where the people look exactly like them.

A'Shanti Gholar:                 So we are capable of doing a lot more for entire communities. We don't only have to represent our specific communities and we also have to look at things such as gatekeepers and at the end of the day, gatekeepers, those are those people who want to keep other people in power because it protects their power. That absolutely prohibits so many women of color from entering politics and that leads to financial constraints or raising money. It's already harder for women to raise money, it's harder for women of color because they are just not seen as quote unquote viable, which is a word I really dislike because when you're saying viable, what you're really saying is straight white man.

A'Shanti Gholar:                 And so that prohibits women from being able to raise a lot of resources initially. And then back to what we think about when we talk about viability, we just got to get over what we think a traditional candidate looks like. Because at the end of the day for women of color, we wake up every day and we're playing in a system that was not built for us, that never imagined our participation, politics was made for white land owning men, which we are definitely not. So even though we're almost in 2020, we still have to realize that our elected officials need to look like the people in this country.

Lauren Schiller:                  Yes. So the other thing that you told me when we were preparing for this conversation was that women of color can also run up against the other people of color saying, "Well hey, we got to cover it because we already got a black guy in that position."

A'Shanti Gholar:                 Absolutely. I hear from so many women of color who say, "Yeah, I was told not to run because there's already a man of color running." So this is what I say with women of color. We have to face the sexism and the racism that exists. And when people are doing that, no matter who they are, saying that we already have a person of color in the race, be it a man, be it a woman, we don't need anyone else. What you're saying is that you really think people of color are a monolith and we're all the same. And that is absolutely not true and that is people's implicit bias showing. That they think, "Oh, there's one, we're good. It's covered, we don't need any more." Just like we want to see multiple women running for positions. We also want to see multiple women of color running for that same position.

A'Shanti Gholar:                 These are the things that only make us better. And frankly that's what it should look like. We never say anything when there's multiple white men running for office, but the minute there's multiple people of color, hands up, we got a problem. We can't be doing that. We just need the one person to be the sole representative of the community and that's not how it works at all. So that does create additional barriers, not only for women of color, but just people of color in general, that when they are recruited to run or if they do decide to run on their own, they do get tokenized in this system.

Lauren Schiller:                  Yeah. I mean, can you imagine what things would look like if that was what white people heard? "Oh, you don't need to run, there's already a white person running for that office."

A'Shanti Gholar:                 Exactly.

Lauren Schiller:                  It's like bizarre.

A'Shanti Gholar:                 It goes back to what I said earlier is we don't say anything when white people want to represent a district that is majority people of color. But when a person of color wants to represent a district that is majority white people, there's a problem.

Lauren Schiller:                  What do you tell individuals like me that we can do to break down those barriers when we see them happening?

A'Shanti Gholar:                 You got to call it out, and I'm just going to be very honest right now is when it comes to the racism, the sexism, the homophobia, all of these things that exist, we as those people experiencing it, we cannot be the ones constantly calling it out. We need white people to be the ones calling it out and saying, "Hey, this is not right. I see what is happening. Do you see what is happening?" Because for us, the minute we normally say something, we get attacked and we're just being too sensitive and people get upset, "How can you call me that?" But when it's coming from people that look like them, it's totally different.

A'Shanti Gholar:                 And I see this happen all the time, people will stop, sit back, listen and say, "I actually didn't think about that. Thank you for enlightening me." That's what needs to happen. You all need to be the ones to speak out because it's not on us as the oppressed to constantly speak up and fix these problems.

Lauren Schiller:                  Yeah, and also like let's lay our money down.

A'Shanti Gholar:                 Absolutely.

Lauren Schiller:                  I mean fundraising is another thing that you mentioned as being a challenge.

A'Shanti Gholar:                 It is. It is. And donate and that goes to when we just want to talk about donations, people always think that it has to be thousands of dollars because that's kind of how our political system is made right now where people think that you have to have millions of dollars to run for office. There are so many offices where people only need $10,000, $50,000, $100,000. That money is easily raised. So put an investment in those women, $5 $10 $15, those low dollar donors, they actually add up and that small amount of money can help fund canvassers, it can get people lit, it can do social media ads, it can even add up to being able to provide stipends for interns, which is something I'm really passionate about because I think that's an important way to get more young people of color involved in politics.

A'Shanti Gholar:                 Don't think that any amount is too small and even if you're not able to do as much as you want financially, talk about the candidates on your social media account, when you're at an event, when you meet people who happen to be in their district, get their name out there, is these little small things that actually end up adding up over the long run and can help women of color.

Lauren Schiller:                  Okay, so now we're about a year out from the next presidential election. We've got this big field, I mean we're recording in October of 2019 of democratic candidates for the president. We're presidential primary season. So what do black community leaders look for in a candidate? What should we be looking for as the priorities as we come up on this race and making big decisions?

A'Shanti Gholar:                 Yes. So I like to say we are already in 2020. I mean myself, just the number of emails I got from the presidential candidates today, I'm just thinking, "Oh my gosh, what is it going to look like in January? This is going to be insane." But we know that when it comes to women of color voters, in particular black women, they are the cream of the crop and when it comes to the democratic party, we are the base of the base of the democratic party and the black women's round table. In Essence magazine, they actually just did a survey of what the top life or death issues for black women are and as we talked about earlier, criminal justice and policing reform remains the number one.

A'Shanti Gholar:                 And like you said, we're recording this in October, so we were just coming off of another shooting of a black woman who was playing video games with her nephew at her home and she's now dead. The second issue is the Affordable Care Act. Keeping healthcare basically affordable and if anyone is watching the debates, we know that the candidates have plenty to say about that. Then next you have the rise in hate crimes and racism and then you have equal rights and equal pay and then gun violence and gun safety.

A'Shanti Gholar:                 So those are the top issues that black women in particular are looking for out of these presidential candidates. How they are going to address them, but when it comes to issues overall, and I like to just say this, we do care about the same issues as everyone else, we just have a different perspective of how we're looking at them and we want the candidates to have enough sense to realize they can write this great plan on a college affordability, but you're also going to recognize that black women hold the most student loan debt in this country? When we want to talk about violence against women and girls, are they going to address how indigenous women, the rate at which they are dying and how VAWA, the Violence Against Women Act really protected them and other women and is still hasn't been authorized.

A'Shanti Gholar:                 When we talk about entrepreneurship and opportunity, are you going to talk about how to make capital more accessible for women of color to open small businesses. So we care about the issues that all Americans care about. We just need for it to be addressed with that lens of intersectionality and I think that's a reason why you see certain candidates who started very much at the bottom with calling, rising to the top because they have realized that they have to have that in their policy platforms. And that's why they're getting so much attention from women of color.

Lauren Schiller:                  And did you, I mean I didn't hear reproductive justice on that list.

A'Shanti Gholar:                 It is. And so the full list, the other things, I mentioned some of them to quality public education, to reproductive choices, quality, affordable childcare, environmental justice and climate change.

Lauren Schiller:                  Yes. So they're on the list, they're just sort of more towards the bottom of the list.

A'Shanti Gholar:                 Yeah.

Lauren Schiller:                  Is that the survey's results?

A'Shanti Gholar:                 Yeah. So I gave the top one but literally everything I just talked about was on the list.

Lauren Schiller:                  So what... I mean are you hearing more about the items at the top of the list from one candidate over another?

A'Shanti Gholar:                 I think we are and I do think Senator Warren is speaking to these issues very well. And I noticed back in March, lots of women of color, especially black women, were starting to talk about her a lot more and it's the fact that she just kept releasing all of these plans, all of these plans. And in April we had the sheet of people presidential forum, which is founded by Amy Alison and I'm fortunate enough to be on the steering committee. We held it in... She's in Texas and she won the forum. The way she spoke to that room, she definitely resonated and connected with those women in a way that none of the other candidates were able to. It was quite impressive to see.

Lauren Schiller:                  I mean the last thing that I'm thinking about on the topic of Elizabeth Warren is that I read a piece about her that it wasn't looking like she was getting the support of black community leaders and this is about a month ago.

A'Shanti Gholar:                 Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Lauren Schiller:                  What is your response to that in light of the facts?

A'Shanti Gholar:                 It's really interesting though because if you look really at the support that she is getting from black community leaders, especially these black women, it's really impressive people. I mean she just rolled out the endorsement from Roxane Gay, which is amazing.

Lauren Schiller:                  Nice.

A'Shanti Gholar:                 Exactly. So in so many women, black women look up to her and then also who is meeting with her. And I think that is something a lot of people don't pay attention to. Just the fact who will even walk into the room with some of these candidates. And she has been really great at doing these black women round tables. And when I look, it's really the women in the community who are leading, who definitely have the ears of a lot of people who want to show up and they're not there to endorse her but just to hear what she has to say and question her on her plans is really fabulous.

A'Shanti Gholar:                 And I know Senator Booker, he's been doing a lot of those events as well. So the endorsements are important, but we still have to say... Who's even willing to show up to talk to some of these candidates because not everyone is.

Lauren Schiller:                  Okay. One quick thing before we continue. We recorded this in October of 2019 when Kamala Harris, the one woman of color in the presidential primary was still in the race. Senator Harris has since suspended her campaign, but I still thought it was important to share what A'Shanti and I talked about. Also right around this point in our conversation we had a little problem with our connection so I hope you'll just bear with us on that.

A'Shanti Gholar:                 We're all excited to se a black woman on that stage. A woman of color on that stage absolutely representing, and I always equate this moment to, this is probably how black women felt when they saw Shirley Chisholm run, to be able to see Senator Harris run and she is also fabulous on all of these issues and there is always additional barriers and standards that are put on women of color and that really sucks because it distracts from her campaign and for her to be able to roll out all of these great policies. I remember when she rolled out her policy for teachers, it made me smile because it reminded me of my government teacher and I was like, "Yes, she was a great woman." I wanted her to make more money. She should make more money and here Senator Harris rolling out a great plan that speaks to teachers.

Lauren Schiller:                  So what is the best advice that you've ever been given about how to get more women of color into office?

A'Shanti Gholar:                 The best advice is to definitely ask them to consider it because so many women, especially women of color, they really haven't thought about running for office. I like to say all the time, we are just so great at getting other people elected, but I want for us to see our name on the ballot to be able to go into the voting booth and vote for ourselves. And one of the things that we do at Emerge is we are really intentional about making sure that we're talking to women of color about running for office. That includes everything from the organizations that we partner with, such as Higher Heights for America, which focuses on getting black women more civically and politically engaged too.

A'Shanti Gholar:                 We did a training at the NAACP in Michigan and saying, "Hey, where are Emerge. We want you to think about running for office." So making sure that we're working with the groups, we're going to where the groups are to talk to women of color, not expecting them to come to us. And then also being intentional about it in our training programs, making sure that we're out in the community, talking to women of color, making sure that they know that we want for them to run for office. And then also any trainings that we can do to specifically speak to women of color.

A'Shanti Gholar:                 Our Arizona affiliate did a training just for Latino women that was conducted in Spanish, so also being creative about the opportunities to really make the training more welcoming and encouraging for women of color as well.

Lauren Schiller:                  That was A'Shanti Gholar, national political director for Emerge and the founder of the Brown Girls Guide to Politics blog and podcast. You can find a link to her podcast and her blog on my website. A'Shanti also shared her toolkit for getting more women of color in office, which you can find on my website at inflectionpointradio.org. I'm Lauren Schiller. This is Inflection Point and this is how women rise up.

Lauren Schiller:                  Today's episode was made possible by the generous support of the Harnisch Foundation and Eve Rodsky. That's our Inflection Point for today. All of our episodes are on Apple podcast, Radio Public, Stitcher, Pandora, NPR One, all the places. Give us a five star review and subscribe to the podcast. Know a woman leading change we should talk to, let us know at inflectionpointradio.org. While you're there, support our production with a tax deductible monthly or one time contribution. When women rise up, we all rise up.

Lauren Schiller:                  Just go to inflectionpointradio.org. We're on Facebook and Instagram @inflectionpointradio. Follow us and join the Inflection Point society, our Facebook group of everyday activists who seek to make extraordinary change through small daily actions and follow me on Twitter @laschiller. To find out more about today's guest and to be in the loop with our email newsletter, you know where to go, inflectionpointradio.org. Inflection Point is produced in partnership with KALW 91.7 FM in San Francisco and PRX. Our community manager is Alaura Weaver. Our engineer and producer is Eric Lane. I'm your host Lauren Schiller. Support for this podcast comes from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting

 
1.png
 

TOOLKIT

In this Inflection Point Toolkit A’shanti Gholar, tells us how to get more women of color in elected office... and how to break through all the “isms.”

Lauren Schiller: What is the first thing that people need to do to get more women of color elected?

A’shanti Gholar: The first thing is if you see a great woman of color that you know should run for office. If you know a great woman of color that should run for office, ask her to run for office. That is the most important thing. The second thing would be to support her when she does run for office. That means donating canvassing, phone making, being there for emotional support, helping spread the word. And then when you do see a woman of color who is experiencing any type of racism, sexism, call it out. Let people know that it is not okay because that's part of how we start to change the conversations in the country.        

LS: And what advice do you have for women who are running for office for how to handle it when they run into racism, sexism or other isms if especially if there's not someone standing by is going to call it out for them.

AG: The fact is they unfortunately, because as I say, it shouldn't be upon women, people of color to have to do this all the time, but we do have to call it out. We have to let people know when there is a discrepancy and how they're being talked about as a candidate versus the other people who are being talked about as a candidate and let people know. Also the things that they are saying about me are not true. It is based on stereotypes is based on myths. It is based on implicit bias and counter it with what is the truth about them as a candidate and stand up for themselves. Never let it slide.

LS: And, and just to tag onto that, if you know too, it should not be on them to have to call this out on top of doing the work of running for office. So if you have a potential ally who just isn't aware that they can be of help in alleviating these problems, is there a way to start that conversation with somebody who can be there for you?

AG: Absolutely. And it all starts with first being able to be honest with that person and also knowing that these are uncomfortable conversations, but if we want to make things better, we have to get comfortable with being uncomfortable and you just have to do it because when it goes unsaid, that doesn't allow for anything to change and most certainly doesn't help the candidate. And it doesn't help the people in the community that if they're going to have this type of person representing them, that would just really go low to the standards of racism, sexism, homophobia. We have to be very honest, we are seeing play out every single day, the impact of that rhetoric at the national level and we especially need to be able to cut it down at the state and local level to make sure that those types of individuals are not getting elected to office.

We are seeing every day the impact that that type of language has play out at the national level. And we need to be doing everything that we can to make sure that that type of rhetoric is not represented at the local level. And that has to start with us.

LS: And so for, for people, let's just say, so for white people who are able to stand up for the women and other people of color in their lives we need to be open to hearing examples of what's going on if we are experiencing blind spots because it's not our everyday reality. Right. I mean, and, and to be able to then act on it when we witness it. I mean, I feel like sometimes we just need to be woken up.

AG: And there's something that my friends and I say all the time, there's allies. Who are those people who say, well, I support people of color. I support women, I support the LGBT community. That's a great, but at the end of the day, we really don't want allies. We want accomplices. We want people who are going to be down in the dirt, in the trenches fighting with us. So if you really, really want to be that person, you need to learn how to step out of your comfort zone and to learn how to be an accomplice and realize that may strain some of your relationships in means you may have to take a very hard look at things that you have said or done in the past, but if you want to truly be that person, that's what you have to do. And I really, really recommend the book White Fragility, which is a fabulous book. I mean, I've read it as a person of color, so have some of my other friends. I think it should be really required reading about how you go from being an ally to being an accomplice.

LS: Thank you. And it's really excellent to have the language to apply to the action. I really appreciate that. What are other tools that can level the playing field for women of color running for office?

AG: Some of the other tools just include making sure that we are looking for women of color when it comes to positions. If you have the opportunity, if you're in the room or if you're hearing people discuss how, Oh, so-and-so is a running anymore or this seat is going to become open and they start talking about candidates, be that person to throw out, Hey, how we thought about so-and-so, who's doing great work? Oh well you know, this person has actually done a great job running these campaigns. Maybe they need to be the one running for office. The first thing is to start the conversation that we actually need to be including women of color when we are thinking about candidates to run for office, but that also needs to extend to appointments, to boards and commissions, which I think so many people forget about. They are constantly looking for people to serve in these roles and I think it's a great opportunity to get more women of color involved in those types of positions, which is a great stepping stone for running for office. Then the other thing is just to make sure too, going back to fundraising, anything that you can give that definitely helps out, but also if there are women of color running, just talk about them, tweet about them, Facebook about them. Just letting people know that there are women of color running is definitely a way to start leveling the playing field.

      

LS:  What can voters do to ensure their voting rights are upheld?


AG: One of the things that we have to realize is we are going into another presidential election cycle where we don't have a full protection of the Voting Rights Act. And that impacts everybody. When we look at the states that Donald Trump won, he didn't win those states by that many boats. If you look at it in some states it was 10,000 votes. That's literally a few votes every precinct. And those were also States where people in charge, elected officials actively worked to suppress the vote. And when we talk about loader suppression, the people who are impacted the most mainly include young people, especially college students, senior citizens, and people of color. That means closing down voter registration sites, especially around early voting, college voting sites, closing down DMVs. So people can't get the proper ID changing what type of ID that you need to vote. These are all things that have a negative impact.


But even if we want to look at something that happened recently in Iowa, they did a huge purge of voters. And one of the people that got purge was actually the head of a local league of women voters who has actively voted in the past three election cycles. So even though we know who is disproportionately impacted by voting's voter suppression at this point, it's really all of us that are under attack. It can be anyone. So one of the first things that we need to do is actually check and make sure that we are still registered to vote. Is that that that is unfortunately a real thing. We need to check and make sure have the laws change in our state around what documentation that you need to vote to make sure that you have it all together and then making sure that your polling location hasn't changed so that you have that plan on election day.


One of the things that I'm really excited about is there are two organizations that have really started up over the past few months view years to tackle this, but to really make sure that people can get involved in helping protect their voting rights. So one of the newer organizations is fair by 2020 which was started by Stacey Abrams in Georgia, who I personally am a huge fan of, and she started this to staff on and train voter protection teams in States across the country. And they're going to be targeting 20 States and it's really going to be focusing on voter protection infrastructure very early before we even see who the Republican and democratic nominees are. And what they are looking for is volunteers, people in this state, people who want to actually be employed to help work on these efforts. And I think it's going to be really fabulous to see all the amazing things that they're doing.


Another organization is the national democratic redistricting committee, and they have their effort called All On The Line, which is a grassroots advocacy effort where they're going state by state to build networks of activists who will fight for an accurate census in 2020 because we also need to talk about how the senses will play into your redistricting and January and gerrymandering and gerrymandering is a another form of voter suppression. So those are two groups that I think are doing great work. So if people are really interested in getting involved in broader voter protection efforts, I would recommend those two groups.   


LS: Thank you for that. And could you just give a brief definition of gerrymandering? 


Yes. So redistricting, every 10 years we draw the maps. So that determines who your elected officials are from Congress and state house. And in the majority of States, whoever is in control, they get to draw those maps. So if you realize that for this part of the decade, you're on this district and then the next part of the decade, you're in this district that happened because of redistricting. And we have seen that Republicans really work to limit the representation of young people and people of color when it comes to redistricting. By creating these districts where people of color, young people aren't just huddled together or they will split them to make it extremely difficult. An example of that is in North Carolina, for one of the HBCUs there, North Carolina a. And, T, they actually literally cut the district in half. So half of the school is in one congressional district, and then the other half of the school is in another country, Garrison, all districts. And they did that to dilute the voting power of those students. So that's also gerrymandering. So redistricting is, when we're drawing the lines, drying the maps in gerrymandering is how we make it extremely difficult for people to get fair and accurate, accurate representation, which is a way to suppress the vote.

 

Definitely check out my in-depth conversation with A’shanti in the podcast feed right now. She shares how she went from watching politics unfold on CSPAN to influencing policy working for President Obama, the DNC, and the NAACP.


How To Make America a Democracy Again - Dan Pfeiffer

LISTEN ON: APPLE PODCASTS | STITCHER | PANDORA | SPOTIFY | NPR ONE | MORE

You may know Dan Pfeiffer as a host of Pod Save America. You may know him as Senior Advisor to President Barack Obama. Or you may know him for his book, "Yes We (Still) Can: Politics in the Age of Obama, Twitter and Trump". His new book, coming in February is called "Un-Trumping America: A Plan to Make America a Democracy Again". In this episode he shares how he got into politics and what it's going to take to get America out of the political plight we find ourselves in today. This conversation was recorded on stage, presented by Cal Performances at UC Berkeley.

TRANSCRIPT. Please note, we do our best on these, please forgive or let us know about errors.

Dan Pfeiffer:                         Well, I grew up in a household where politics was talked about all the time. My parents had gone to college during the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights Movement. They had protested themselves. Even though they didn't work in politics, or go to fundraisers, or do anything like that, we talked about it all the time. It was a constant topic of discussion. So, it was always in the background in my life. I went to college in Washington DC. I got a little involved in politics with some local politics involving a dispute about parking, which meant a lot, because we needed a car to get to the grocery store outside of my college house. And did a little volunteering in presidential election. I really viewed politics originally as this very exciting opportunity to do something that I thought would be helpful and delay going to law school for a couple of years. I am 43 years old, and I have not been to law school yet.

Lauren Schiller:                  But you still have that application sitting on your desk somewhere.

Dan Pfeiffer:                         I've got several LSAT books. They keep moving from house to house with me.

Lauren Schiller:                  Well, you have a lot more life experience now. They'll probably let you in. That's Dan Pfeiffer. He may not have gone on to be a lawyer, but you may know him as a host on the wildly popular podcast about politics, Pod Save America, or you may know him as the senior advisor to President Barack Obama. So, do you remember anything in particular from those days growing up that was the most memorable thing your parents took you to, a meeting, or a march, or anything like that?

Dan Pfeiffer:                         Well, my parents always took us voting. My mom always brought us and would bring some of my friends as well into the voting booth with her. We would get to get off school, which was very notable, because we live in a weird country where election day is not a holiday. I distinctly remember when Ronald Reagan was reelected, because my mom was incredibly upset about it. When I asked her why, it seemed very apocalyptic, and I was very nervous for a long time.

Lauren Schiller:                  I'm Lauren Schiller, and this is Inflection Point. Dan Pfeiffer is also the author of Yes, We Still Can and the upcoming book, Un-Trumping America. He and I had a chance to speak on stage December 5, 2019 for an evening presented by Cal Performances at UC Berkeley. We'll be right back.

Lauren Schiller:                  Lauren Schiller:                  And we're back with Dan Pfeiffer. The first question that I had when I first learned that I would be joining you here tonight is how do you get to go work for Obama? How did you get involved in politics? You were at Georgetown. How'd you get from there to a very long stint in the White House?

Dan Pfeiffer:                         So, at Georgetown I moved off campus my junior year, and we had an extra room and a need for someone to pay more of the rent. One of my buddies brought his German partner to live in that room. His German partner was a guy named Chad Griffin, who was from Arkansas. He had gone to a small, Baptist college in Arkansas and had been an intern on the Clinton campaign, Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign. He then got a job in the White House when Bill Clinton won, worked for the White House Press Secretary at the time for 18 months, and then went to Georgetown to finish his career.

Dan Pfeiffer:                         He was the first person I had ever met who had actually had a job in politics. He had worked in the White House. He had traveled the world with Bill Clinton. He had this very cool perspective. He sort of taught me that this was a path you could take. I viewed it as a path that I could take for two years. My vision was I would graduate from college. I would go work on Al Gore's election, which was a year after I graduated. Al Gore would obviously win. If I was lucky, I'd get to work in the White House, like Chad, for a year, and then I would-

Lauren Schiller:                  Do you find any irony in the fact that this guy's name is Chad? I mean, I just had to ask you.

Dan Pfeiffer:                         Yes. We called him Hanging.

Lauren Schiller:                  You were hanging with Chad. Okay.

Dan Pfeiffer:                         Chad is someone some of you may know who he is. He went on to become the president of the Human Rights Campaign and led the fight for marriage equality in this country. He remained very, very successful in politics. And I went to work for Al Gore. He lost. I said, well, I do one more presidential election. Then I'll go to law school, because the Gore election was quite dramatic, considering Al Gore got more votes and did not get to be president. It turns out that that would be a trend in American politics. In 2004, I thought I would work on a presidential campaign. I ended up, for a whole host of reasons, working for Tom Daschle, who was the Senate democratic minority leader, who was running for re-election. We lost that race. I was like, I'm not ready to quit yet. I want to do one more race.

Dan Pfeiffer:                         Eventually, I went to work for a guy named Evan Bayh. He was a senator from Indiana. He had called me and asked me if I would come work for him, because he was planning on running for president in 2008. He was a very nice guy. He was sort of a rising star in democratic politics. He also was calling me, which was unusual, because I had just helped preside over Tom Daschle becoming the first Senate leader in a half century to lose his race. So, I was appreciative of the interest. I spent two years working for Evan Bayh. We were traveling to Iowa, going to New Hampshire, getting ready to run for president. We were planning it.

Dan Pfeiffer:                         In the fall of 2006, a guy named Barack Obama teases, as his book is coming out, that he is reconsidering his decision not to run for president, which caused a huge flood of interest. But on the Bayh campaign we were not going to let this get in our way. So, we decided we were going to announce. He was forming an exploratory committee. This was in December of '07, sorry, December of '06. He announces his exploratory committee. We go to Iowa. We have this great visit. We meet all these people. People are interested in him. Then our next stop is to go to New Hampshire.

Dan Pfeiffer:                         While we're in Iowa, it is announced that Barack Obama is going to deliver the keynote speech at the New Hampshire Democratic Party fundraiser in the middle of our trip. That doesn't seem good for Evan Bayh. We go to New Hampshire. I get to the airport to get on the one flight from the DC area to New Hampshire. There are 700 reporters. One of them comes up to me and says, "Dan, what are you doing here?" I said, "Well, I'm meeting my boss in New Hampshire." They said, "I didn't know you worked for Obama." We get there. Evan Bayh gets very small crowds, but it's still [inaudible 00:08:24] a good event, but there was Obama hysteria happening.

Dan Pfeiffer:                         On our last event, we're getting ready to go to the airport, and our driver, the staffer who was driving the van that Senator Bayh was in, asked the host, "What's the best way to get to the airport from here?" He's like, "Go out, get on the highway." He's like, "You know what? I would go back roads, because of the traffic from the Obama event." Evan Bayh dropped out of the presidential race three days later, which was very fortuitous for me, because Barack Obama was now planing to run for president and hiring staff. His senate chief of staff had been Tom Daschle's chief of staff, this guy named Pete Rouse. He called me and said, "Come meet with Obama. He's going to run."

Dan Pfeiffer:                         I had never met him. I had not actually even watched the 2004 convention speech. I didn't watch it in real time. So, in preparation for this meeting I watched the speech and I read his books and was pretty interested in the guy. I walked in there and within an hour I walked out having accepted a job to work on a campaign that did not yet exist. I didn't know how much money I was going to make, and I didn't know when he was going to force me to move to Chicago. It was a very impactful meeting apparently.

Lauren Schiller:                  Okay. So, you stayed for seven years, which is like ... Do you count working in the White House like people count dog years? You were there for seven years, so how many lives is that?

Dan Pfeiffer:                         It was a long time. When I left the White House, and that was in March of 2015, when I went to tell President Obama that I had left, at that point I was the last person who had started on the first day of the campaign and worked in the White House the whole time, except one. That person was Barack Obama.

Lauren Schiller:                  Wow.

Dan Pfeiffer:                         Which is a fact he pointed out to me when I told him that I was getting tired and it was time to leave. He said he was also tired. I said, "You work above the office, and you have a bed on your plane. I don't."

Lauren Schiller:                  Right. I believe you compared your hair.

Dan Pfeiffer:                         Yes. Not long before I left we had been in a meeting in the Situation Room. It was not a well attended meeting, which made me the highest ranking White House staffer in the room, which meant that I sat to the president's immediate right at the big table in the Situation Room. This was obviously not a very important meeting. I saw the president looking at me a couple times. I couldn't tell if he was trying to get my attention or something. I didn't really know. Then the next day we were flying somewhere, and so we would get ... I would meet him in the morning, and we would get on Marine One, the presidential helicopter, to fly to get on the plane.

Dan Pfeiffer:                         The president looks up from his Blackberry, looks at me again, and goes, "Hey, Pfeiffer. I noticed, when we were it the Sit Room the other day, that your hair's getting pretty gray," and I thought to myself, "Really?" I almost responded to point out that my hair was less gray than his, but then I remembered he was the president, and I bit my tongue. But revenge is a dish best served cold, because I put it in my book a few years later.

Lauren Schiller:                  Which is how I found out. We all have probably seen the West Wing and read the paper and so on, but I'm really curious. I mean, you went through a number of different jobs at the White House. You ultimately were promoted to the role of senior advisor. Can you just explain what that means? What is that job?

Dan Pfeiffer:                         It's different often based on who the person is, like the person who has that job right now is Jared Kushner. It's so funny that everyone laughed at that. I didn't even make the joke yet. Jared Kushner had that job. David Axelrod had that job. Karl Rove had that job. What it really meant, when I had it, was I technically oversaw communications, politics, and digital strategy and was sort of the liaison to the president's larger political universe, his former campaign staff, the political organizations around him, but what it really was was two things.

Dan Pfeiffer:                         One was I was sort of a political communications consultant on all projects in the White House. That was my job was to go to the policy meetings, to go to the decision meetings and help people understand the political and communications ramifications of a decision, not to decide what it would be necessarily, but to say, "If you do X, here is what is likely to happen. Republicans in the Congress will freak out. That could mean this thing we're trying to do will not get passed. This will upset the Democrats that we need to vote to preserve the Obamacare or whatever else."

Dan Pfeiffer:                         But the other thing that I think was the more consequential and important thing was I was one of the few people at that point who had been with the president the longest, and it was sort of my job to help interpret his wishes and desires for others on the staff, to help be able to make decisions based on my experience about what ... take the decisions off his plate. Right? I mean, not on big things, like policy decisions or anything like that, but on ... The question would be like do we have to ask him before we agree to do this? I would know he will be annoyed if we ask, and I would know if he would be annoyed if we don't ask. That was a big part of it.

Dan Pfeiffer:                         I was sort of an interpreter of presidential moods and someone that he could sort of speak directly to and trust and sort of be someone he could bounce ideas off of, outside of the context of larger meetings. I guess, therefore, I spent a lot of time traveling with, him in and out of his office, receiving late night emails and phone calls. I mean, it was an amazing experience, to be able to sort of see a person like that up close for that period of time.

Lauren Schiller:                  Okay. So, the time you were in the White House, how old were you?

Dan Pfeiffer:                         I was ... Let's see. 2008.

Lauren Schiller:                  11 years ago.

Dan Pfeiffer:                         I turned 32 right after Obama was elected. 33. I turned 33 right after Obama was elected.

Lauren Schiller:                  I can say, because I'm older than that now, and so are you, that that's pretty young. I mean, you were a young guy doing a really, really important job. So, were you in situations where you had to take an opposing view to somebody who had much more experience than you? Okay. You're looking at me like the answer is yes. So, how did you approach that?

Dan Pfeiffer:                         It was really hard in the beginning. I think I probably overcompensated by being a little more aggressive or louder than, in hindsight, was probably appropriate. It was challenging. There were a lot of really big personalities. You would have to have sometimes vigorous discussions with cabinet secretaries who wanted to do things that the president does not want them to do, and it would be your job to tell them that. There was a moment, and I write about this in my first book, Yes, We Still Can, where I had sort of been the point person on helping figure out the politics around this budget deal.

Dan Pfeiffer:                         The vice president, who is ... I am from Delaware, so my entire life, until three years ago, Joe Biden was either my vice president or my senator. He's a legendary figure in my state. He would speak at my high school, a very big deal. There was a situation where the president ... We were in the vice president's office. Large portions of the cabinet were there. The vice president had struck a deal with Senator McConnell about resolving this tax dispute. We were talking to the president of the United States on the speaker phone.

Dan Pfeiffer:                         I believed that the deal was not favorable enough to the president to protect his politics. I had this moment to decide, am I going to say that now, because I know how the vice president feels about it. I know how the treasury secretary feels about it. I know how the commerce secretary feels about it, and they're all in the room. I made the decision in the moment, which, in hindsight, was insane, but to tell the vice president that I disagreed. He was not mean about it, but he was displeased with me. No one came to my defense, except Barack Obama.

Lauren Schiller:                  Well, that is ... I mean, I can imagine that was a both very exciting time and a very stressful time.

Dan Pfeiffer:                         Yes. It was quite stressful. I look younger now than I did then.

Lauren Schiller:                  You do. We'll go back and look at pictures. One of the things that I've been thinking about is we're on the cusp of this new election coming up. It seems like a ripe opportunity for some more hope and change. I'm wondering what you've been thinking about in terms of the similarities between this upcoming 2020 election and 2008.

Dan Pfeiffer:                         I've been trying to find similarities, but there's been so much change in that brief period of time in American life, in politics, what issues are popular, what aren't, and how people get their information. You just think about it this way. When Barack Obama started running for president, the smartphone had not been invented. You did not watch videos on your phone. You got your news on the television or in a newspaper most likely. Facebook was something used by college students. Twitter was something used by people in Silicon Valley. Instagram didn't exist. Snapchat didn't exist. It was a very different world. But I was thinking about the difference between the Democratic primary electorate then and now.

Dan Pfeiffer:                         I think the biggest thing now, and this is because this is a reelection to choose our candidate running against Trump, that people are afraid in ways they were not afraid in 2008. Hope wasn't just Obama's message. It was that people were hopeful for a better future. We had had eight years of Bush, Iraq, Katrina, and all of the tax cuts for the rich, all of that. [inaudible 00:19:17] it was pre-financial crisis and was this hope for a better future. Now, the primary driving emotion is fear, because we've had three years now of this, and it is almost impossible to fathom what another five would look like. That is really I think changing how the candidates are acting, and it's really changing how the voters are acting.

Lauren Schiller:                  What do you think the winning slogan is going to be then? I was really banking on hope, but now I just feel depressed.

Dan Pfeiffer:                         I have been thinking a lot about this question, because I still believe the American people would like to find a leader who will unite them, not divide them. Right? That we as a country can be better than our politics is right now and that someone who can speak to those aspirations can be the most powerful candidate we have against Trump, but it has to be tempered by everything we've learned since the day Barack Obama was elected. Right? That the Republicans in Congress are not going to have an epiphany and come around, that our country is ... which has always had an imperfect democracy, but in terms of our democracy, it's been heading in the wrong direction for the last decade, that the rich and powerful have more power and the people have less.

Dan Pfeiffer:                         So, I think it has to be an aspiration of a realistic message. The way I have come to describe that is sort of the domestic, political version of how John F. Kennedy thought about foreign policy, which is we have to be idealists without illusions. We can speak to people's better angels, but we have to do it with full understanding of what we're up against, both Trump and everything that created an opportunity for Trump to be president of the United States.

Lauren Schiller:                  In terms of how that message gets out there ... By the way, we are going to get to the impeachment thing. I just want to say that out loud, because this has been a crazy week on that. But I feel like it's important just to think about how these mindsets have been solidified over time to put us in such polarized camps. It feels to me like social media has played a huge part in that and its ability to create camps and tribes and incite outrage, and the things that create the most outrage are the things that get the most shared. Therefore, you end up, even if you completely disagree with the message, you end up sharing it anyway, and so you continue to amplify it, but yet when you first started out in this business we'll call it, Twitter was this thing, this weird thing, where you would tell people what you were doing. Who cares?

Lauren Schiller:                  Now, of course, it's completely blown up and has become the new bully pulpit. We're now at this point where there's a lot of talk around, well, should the technology platforms be banning advertising, and how bad are they making it for us in a multitude of ways beyond that? What are your thoughts on how we can use social media for good I guess really is the point of this question.

Dan Pfeiffer:                         I think a couple points. I mean, long before Mark Zuckerberg created Facebook or the folks who created Twitter created Twitter, America had been on an inexorable path of polarization. Every president has been more polarizing than the previous one, dating back to the 60s. That has to do with a whole variety of sociological things, how people are moving, homogenous viewpoints among people of similar generations, or races, education, a whole host of things. What I think Facebook in particular and social media in general has done is catalyzed this process to the point that it has made it easy to eliminate the idea of an objective set of facts.

Dan Pfeiffer:                         We used to be polarized around two different responses to the same set of facts. There is acid rain hitting the earth. What are we going to do about that? Republicans would have one view. Democrats would have another view. Sometimes there would be some consensus in the middle around it. Or the economy is doing poorly. Democrats would say invest in the economy. Republicans would say cut taxes. But it was the same set of facts. Now, we are operating on completely different universes, which makes consensus nearly impossible. By creating filter bubbles to allow people to avoid learning things and by destroying the economic model of objective journalism, social media has taken out sort of the equilibrium that was holding us together.

Dan Pfeiffer:                         Now, on the question of advertising, so there's been this debate about should Twitter ban political advertising? Google limited it. There's been this pressure on Facebook to eliminate political advertising. Instead, their current plan is that politicians can lie and not be fact checked, which seems suboptimal to me and possibly advantageous to one side that may be less factual than the other. So, there's been this pressure on the left to say let's get Facebook to agree to also ban political advertising. I am deeply concerned about that, as someone who's been involved in campaigns, because Trump has a three year headstart on using Facebook to get data on his voters and potential voters. Our Democrats have not done any of that. They have spent all their time focusing on raising money among guaranteed Democratic voters.

Dan Pfeiffer:                         If Facebook were to make the decision to ban political advertising, which a lot of progressives want them to do, it would give Trump a mass advantage in 2020, but even more importantly, it would really hurt progressive challengers. Right? When Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was running against Joe Crowely, she didn't have money to spend on TV. TV is quite expensive. You can run small, cheap, digital advertising campaigns on platforms like Facebook. So, ultimately I think it would be a mistake for Democrats to push Facebook in that direction, because it seems on the surface like it would hurt Trump. It would actually hurt us more, which is probably why we're pushing for it, because that's a very on brand thing to do.

Lauren Schiller:                  Okay. What about truth in advertising? I feel like I should know the answer to this question, but in the advertising world, when you're advertising a product, let's say pancakes, you pretty much have to say the truth about the pancakes, but when you're advertising a candidate on TV, does the same standard apply? Then is it an even lower standard when it comes to social media, because no one's actually checking?

Dan Pfeiffer:                         It does apply on TV. It is a quite high bar, and it's left in the hands of the TV stations. I think that they have some concerns about in the end FEC accountability. On social media there are no rules, because we stopped legislating before Facebook was inventing, so we have no ... There are lots of bills that would apply these similar standards. None of them have passed, because it's not in the interest of one party to pass such laws. Yeah. It's not great.

Lauren Schiller:                  Okay. What about the mainstream media? I mean, a lot of your job was spent trying to figure out how to get the best press in the mainstream media, before social media became as big as it was. Clearly, perceptions of that have been changing, well, on both sides.

Dan Pfeiffer:                         This past couple years is the first time in my 20 years in politics where attacking the media was good politics for Democrats, probably because they've been doing this for years, liberal bias, et cetera. That's why Fox News exists. It has been their strategy for a long time. There's a lot of anger among progressives for how the media, and the New York Times in particular, covered Hillary Clinton in 2016. There was a lot of frustration among democratic voters that we have someone that they view as a racist liar in the White House and most mainstream media are unwilling to call him either a racist or a liar. But I think the fundamental frustration among Democrats with the media is that we misunderstand it.

Dan Pfeiffer:                         We live in this world where we think that well coiffed investigative reporters who look like Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman are going to take down presidents, that that is their job to do that. That is not their job. They don't view it as their job. It's sort of this all the presidents men view of politics. In Democrats, we love the media. We describe to newspapers, listen to NPR. I think generally we like to believe in a world where facts matter and referees can blow the whistle on lies, but the problem we have is the media does not view that as their job. The media is ultimately a business. I think most reporters do a very good job at what they do, but ultimately their job is not to help defeat Trump. Their job is to tell people things.

Dan Pfeiffer:                         As Democrats, we have not adjusted our campaign strategies to reflect the way that media works now. So, I think most campaigns, and this was particularly true in 2016, were very focused on what ... The way you get your message out in a campaign would be I'm going to run a television ad, or I'm going to tell the media things, and then the media will tell voters, but now we live in this super hyperactive media environment where people have a million choices. They can watch Netflix. They can watch things on their own time. They don't have to watch the news and read newspapers. So, it's much harder to get information from the candidate's mouth into the mind of voters.

Dan Pfeiffer:                         So, Democrats need to think not about what we tell the media, but how we get the information from the media into the minds of voters we care about. That is a very different communication strategy we've ever had before, and it really requires us almost disabusing ourselves of these romantic notions about the role of the media as the fourth estate, as these guardians of democracy, because despite the slogans in the TV ads they run to get us to subscribe to the media, that's not what they do. That's not a critique of them. It is just the fact of it's understanding who they are, the role they play, and how the media environment has changed.

Lauren Schiller:                  Well, I think part of the frustration, if that's the right word, is that there's no equivalent to Fox News on the other side.

Dan Pfeiffer:                         Are you familiar with Pod Save America? I'm kidding. We are not like that.

Lauren Schiller:                  Except for this podcast, Pod Save America. Has anyone listened to it? Well, in a way that is true, because you guys, you speak your mind. You have an opinion. Well, I mean, I guess the right would consider you a propaganda machine, but when I listen to it, that's not how I think about it, but maybe a viewer of Fox News doesn't think of them as a propaganda machine. Do you think they do?

Dan Pfeiffer:                         I don't know. No. Probably not. I think they have been convinced that all other media is biased and this is the one true source of information. In my 20 years in politics, I have been to at least one million meetings where someone said, "How do we get the democratic Fox News. It's incredibly challenging, because Pew, the research foundation, does these studies I think it's every year or two years about the media habits of the American people. Republics list ... They ask them like, "Where do you get your news?" It is overwhelmingly Fox News, the Drudge Report, and then Breitbart, these other things, but they live on a conservative media diet. Democrats are like CNN, NBC, the New York Times. They have a wide media diet that includes some progressive outlets who are ... I don't know. Progressive's not even the right word. They have some outlets, like NPR, that I think cover ... They're objective, but they often cover issues of interest to more liberal voters.

Dan Pfeiffer:                         I think this is a huge failing on the democratic part, because when Donald Trump says something, he has Fox News, he has Rush Limbaugh, he has Breitbart, he has the Daily Caller all pushing his message into the social media conversation in America. When Democrats do say something, we have no one doing that. I think a world in which the majority of media is, quote unquote, traditional, objective media is long gone. We really live in a world of information warfare right now, and we have no soldiers on the field. So, we need a gazillion more Crooked Medias, the company that created Pod Save America. We need lots of progressive voices helping shape the conversation in this country. Propaganda would not work as a democratic strategy because of the media diets of our voters. You would know we're telling you lies.

Dan Pfeiffer:                         So, it should be factual. It should be based in reality, but it should be progressive. It should draw attention to our issues, because there is this financial incentive for the traditional media, which depends on Facebook for a lot of their advertising revenue, to write things that are about what Trump is talking about, because that's what gets clicks, which is what gets advertising dollars. What Democrats have to do is create this alternative media ecosystem that is not dependent on the Trump media economics, but that relentlessly pushes out democratic media. This is a place where I hope our cadre of billionaires, and entrepreneurs, and business types will invest in progressive media outlets who will help carry the message out.

Lauren Schiller:                  Have you laid that challenge down?

Dan Pfeiffer:                         So many times, and no one responds.

Lauren Schiller:                  Come on, people. Is anyone out there that might be able to take that on?

Dan Pfeiffer:                         If you're a billionaire, we'll talk.

Lauren Schiller:                  All right. Meet us in the hallway.

Dan Pfeiffer:                         Even a millionaire.

Lauren Schiller:                  Well, one of the other things I've been thinking about is just how the messages get distilled on the right, simplified to such, I don't know, simplified to such simplistic terms. I'm trying to think of more adjectives here. I'm preparing for a conversation about the Green New Deal. I'm reading about what the opposition is to it. What I'm hearing is that these people who want to put forward the Green New Deal want to take away your ice cream and hamburgers. That's because they want to limit the number of cows that get slaughtered basically and how agriculture is done. But there's a much more complicated story behind it, but yet they've got this total knack for just simplifying it. They want to take away this or that from you.

Lauren Schiller:                  I ran across this piece of research that talked about if progressives could figure out how to talk about their ideas in the terms that might be used for more conservative values, that they might get more done or they might get more people on-board with that idea. Can we do that? I mean, can we talk in shorter sentences? I obviously can't right now, but ...

Dan Pfeiffer:                         I think there's two different issues here. One is can we communicate complicated ideas in easily understood fashion? Democrats must be better at that for sure. Most politicians are very bad at it, which makes you wonder how they won, but it is true. It is not a natural skillset. The Republicans can get away with some of this, because they're communicating through friendly media outlets to a friendly audience. Right? The hamburger and airplane thing, the ice cream thing, whatever [inaudible 00:35:47], particularly the Green New Deal, is complete BS. You could never have that conversation with a non-propaganda based reporter. If Nancy Pelosi stood before the Capitol Hill Press Corp and made an argument that ridiculous, they would savage her, and she would care about that, because she is a person who cares about truth. If you don't care about truth and you're only talking to Fox, you can say whatever you want.

Dan Pfeiffer:                         Now, I am very suspicious of this sort of linguistic silver bullet discussion. Right? Whenever Democrats have trouble and we're not winning elections, or whatever it is, we bring in linguists, and we're like ... Do you guys know who Frank Luntz is? He's this Republican pollster who famously made a lot of terrible things sound less terrible. People are always like, "Who's our Frank Luntz?" I am less concerned about the specific wording of the message, although it should be clear and inspiring, than the broader story we are telling. Right?

Dan Pfeiffer:                         Obama's great success as a politician is not that he had some amazing slogan, although yes, we can was a great slogan. It was that everything he did told a broader story about where the country was, where he wanted to take it, and why he was the right person to take it there. When we try to reverse engineer our ideas from what we think is most appealing to people is when we lose the forest for the trees. I am a big advocate in figure out your story first and your bumper sticker second. Right? It is almost impossible to come up with a brilliant, pithy, 280 character rationale for your candidacy if you can't give a 30 minute speech about why you're running for president. Right? Story first. Slogan second.

Lauren Schiller:                  Well, there was this piece of research done around if progressives talked in terms of more conservative values, that they'd get more done. If they talked about the things they want to advance in terms of family values and using some of the terms that you hear more on the right than you hear on the left, that those ideas that seem more progressive and to the left would be more adopted by people on the right.

Dan Pfeiffer:                         I mean, I've seen the research. I have some skepticism about it. What I do think is very true is in order to communicate any idea to persuade people to things, it has to resonate emotionally. Right? You have to be able to draw a connection to a set of values, because all policy discussion in politics in campaign season are largely about ... they are a proxy conversation for the values and character of the person you're electing. Right? It's not that I love their plan. It's that I trust them to stick to this plan, or if they have to change the plan, to make the right decision, because I trust who they are. Right? That is really important.

Dan Pfeiffer:                         It's also important to remember that Democrats and Republicans have two different strategies. Republicans win elections when fewer people turn out. They want to motivate a committed base of certain Republican voters to vote, people who vote regularly, and they want to persuade people in the middle or who are non-voters that all politics is terrible. It's a lesser of two evils. Don't bother. Right? Cynicism is their friend. So, fear works for them. For Democrats, our math is very different. We have to persuade some people in the middle, but we also have to convince people who vote infrequently or have never voted before to get involved in the process. So, where fear works for them, inspiration and hope works for us. So, we're often going to be operating playing two completely different games in order to achieve the same outcome, which is winning elections.

Dan Pfeiffer:                         Sounds nice.

Lauren Schiller:                  Does anyone here want to win an election in 2020? Okay. Actually, this idea of what motivates you, is it fear or is it hope, I mean, do you feel like we have people on the democratic slate who are raising their hand to run for president right now that are extremely motivating and are going to have what it takes to get people excited about turning out to the polls?

Dan Pfeiffer:                         I do. I do. I think we have a tremendous field of candidates. I was obviously disappointed that Senator Harris ended her campaign, because I thought she was someone who had perhaps the greatest potential of anyone running to replicate an updated version of the Obama Coalition. This is a hard time in the process. The primary process is about exposing the warts of all the candidates. You basically have to spend a year, year and a half engaged in this sort of absurd Kabuki theater before a single person casts a vote. We're very focused on what folks are not good at or where they might fail or why they might lose at this point in the process. Most people start voting and you get the validation of the electorate than I think they always ... I remember someone saying to me, when we were getting ready to run again Mitt Romney, and he was looking ridiculous, in 2012, and this person who had worked in politics before said, "As soon as you win the nomination, they put an S on your chest, because you have just accomplished an amazing feat." So, I think that will happen with our nominee as well.

Lauren Schiller:                  When you look at what happened with Kamala Harris' campaign, what are your thoughts on that? I was so sad to see it, and it felt like it happened so suddenly.

Dan Pfeiffer:                         Right at the time that I saw the news I was in my head crafting a column I was going to write about how this could be her moment for a comeback. Fortunately, I had procrastinated on Monday, so I hadn't-

Lauren Schiller:                  Dan.

Dan Pfeiffer:                         ... put in any words ... Well, it wasn't going to get out there. I don't think the deciding factor was my column on Crooked.com. They're just like waiting. When is that coming? Hitting refresh over and over again. They're like, "I guess we'll mail it in." Because I thought she had been through this very rough patch. If she could make a few changes, there would be an opportunity for, because I think she's a tremendously talented politician, for a comeback narrative. There's still 60 days until Iowa. When John Kerry won the democratic nomination in '04, his campaign was in the toilet and he rose up. John McCain, when he won in 2008, his campaign was in the toilet. All the stories that you've read about Kamala Harris' campaign were also written about those. I was like this could be she has potential here.

Dan Pfeiffer:                         But ultimately I think two things happened to that campaign. One is it was an imperfect campaign. They made mistakes. She was never fully able to articulate, despite how talented a communicator she is, articulate a specific rationale for why she was running, other than she thought she would beat Trump. I find that compelling. There was the famous Roger Mudd question of Ted Kennedy, which is, "Why are you running for president?" That's a thing you should be able to answer before you get in. But, having said that, I think it also speaks to the fact that Kamala Harris, senator from California, who had 20,000 people show up at her announcement not very far from here, raised a bunch of money, had this amazing, viral moment, like with Bill Barr, and with Brett Kavanaugh, and on the debate stage with Joe Biden, left the race two months before a single vote was cast. I think that says so much about the racial and gender prejudices that go into the concept of electability, which is we are so ...

Dan Pfeiffer:                         All of us are so scared of losing to Trump. This is the difference between 2008. According to every poll, any person you talk to, the single thing we care about most is who is most likely to beat Trump. We're reviewing the prism of the best way to beat Trump entirely through who can persuade some group of white men in Wisconsin to vote for a Democrat. That has provided a tremendous advantage to white candidates and white, male candidates in particular, because what happened to Kamala Harris was she made some mistakes and then she lost the perception that she could win and the bottom fell out. Now, Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg have all made mistakes of equivalent level to the ones that Kamala Harris made in her campaign, and they are doing fine, because they are bolstered by this idea that is incorrect that the best way to win is to persuade white voters in the mid-west and that the best person to persuade white voters in the mid-west is a white person and a white male in particular.

Dan Pfeiffer:                         Now, I would note that we had a president recently who won Wisconsin by 14 points, won Michigan by almost 20 points, won Pennsylvania by a bunch, won Florida, won Indiana once, won North Carolina once, won Virginia twice. That person was not some white governor from the mid-west. That was Barack Hussein Obama from the South Side of Chicago, from Hawaii via Indonesia with a father from Kenya. I'm deeply concerned about the fact that we are going to most likely have a debate stage in November that has seven candidates on it, all white, five white men, two white women. I think that is going to disadvantage the conversation, because Kamala Harris had started this conversation in the last debate, which I think is so important, which is persuading white men in Wisconsin is not enough. You do have to do that. That's what the math is, because we have an electoral college. But you also have to turnout communities of color. We need a candidate who can do both those things, and we have to view it through the prism of both of those things.

Dan Pfeiffer:                         I think it's really problematic that the facts that are influencing the race most are polls from Iowa, the state I love, because Barack Obama would not be president without Iowa. They gave him a tremendous gift and show of support, but it is a state that is very white. Those polls are influencing everything. They're influencing donations. They're influencing media coverage. They're influencing the polls in more diverse states, like South Carolina. If nothing dramatic happens here, we as Democrats, need to fundamentally rethink our primary process. As a larger political conversation in the media, social media, pundits, all of us as voters have to disabuse ourselves of the notion that the best way to win is to nominate a white man. We know this, because we won twice with a black man, and we took the House in 2018 by running women of all races all across this country. We have to remember the most recent lessons of history.

Lauren Schiller:                  Okay. I have one more question, and then I really want to talk about what's happening with the impeachment, which is there's this famous moment, and you do talk about it in your book, Yes, We Still Can, about how you got Obama on the set of Between Two Ferns with Zach Galifianakis. Does anyone remember that? Yeah. What I didn't remember at the time was that he was really there to plug Obamacare, Healthcare.gov. Right?

Dan Pfeiffer:                         Yes.

Lauren Schiller:                  But I'm wondering if there is a candidate on the democratic slate that you could see, if Between Two Ferns was still a thing, sitting there doing that. The charisma test basically. Right?

Dan Pfeiffer:                         What's that?

Lauren Schiller:                  It's the charisma test basically. Can you-

Dan Pfeiffer:                         I think every candidate has to run a strategy that is authentic to them. What would work for Barack Obama would not work for Hillary Clinton. What worked for Barack Obama would not work for Joe Biden, or Elizabeth Warren, or whatever else. Obama I think had a particularly natural sense of comedic timing. His correspondent dinner speeches were quite funny. He riffed, despite the many hours spent editing, and trimming down, and making essentially appropriate the Between Two Ferns script, the president basically tossed it out and did his own thing. The very mean jokes about Zach Galifianakis not being Bradley Cooper were all Barack Obama.

Lauren Schiller:                  Wait. Did you go to school with Bradley Cooper? Is that [crosstalk 00:49:25]?

Dan Pfeiffer:                         We didn't hang out. He was a couple years ahead at me at Georgetown. I did not know him to be Bradley Cooper. I knew him to be the guy that many of the women that I knew were particularly fond of. He was famous on campus, because he had very long locks in a ponytail, and he kind of had a European satchel he wore, and everyone called him Fabio. Years later, someone was like, "Fabio was in this movie called the Hangover." Look. I think the candidates this time have been very ... Elizabeth Warren just did an escape room with Desus & Mero on Showtime.

Lauren Schiller:                  I missed that. Okay.

Dan Pfeiffer:                         It is quite good. They almost didn't get out, which would have been devastating for the candidate with a plan I think, but they made it. Bernie Sanders was also on Desus & Mero and was really funny. I think Bernie Sanders could do a lot of this stuff. Elizabeth Warren showed a lot of chops there. Pete Buttigieg has done every media outlet humanly possible and succeeded on all of them. I don't think it could be just like Obama, but the candidates, because it's so hard to get attention in this environment, are doing a lot of really interesting things. So, I hope they continue that as president.

Lauren Schiller:                  Yeah. All right. Did anyone listen to any of the impeachment hearings? Yeah. I'm fascinated by ... I was under the impression that the Democrats were trying to slow walk this, and now suddenly it seems like it's going really fast and that the articles of impeachment will be filed before Christmas, which is just in a few weeks. What are your thoughts about how this is unfolding, why it's unfolding at that pace? If there any chance anything is going to go differently than we might expect along party lines?

Dan Pfeiffer:                         I have been an advocate for a long time that the Democrats should impeach Trump and that it should be a wide-ranging inquiry that looks at not just Ukraine and the things at the heart of the Mueller Report, but the fact that all of our tax dollars are going to his pocket via his hotels. There is a textbook example of an impeachable offense that comes out every day. We just discovered he gave a $400 million no-bid contract to a donor in North Dakota to build part of the fake wall. There is crimes everywhere, and we should investigate them.

Dan Pfeiffer:                         But I have to say, as I sit here now, that the way Adam Schiff has handled these hearings today was so flawless, and the evidence is so ... The fact that that man never once raised his voice at Jim Jordan, if we could nominate him for a Nobel Prize, I would do it. But the evidence is so overwhelming of what Trump did. The fact that what Trump did is literally the most obvious example of an impeachable offense that any constitutional scholar could conjure is that I think we should proceed at this pace, because what has benefited Democrats in this argument thus far is the facts are on our side, and the media's on our side. But I think, knowing Democrats as I do, and no one knows them as well as Nancy Pelosi does, if it lingers too long, we're going to start getting these moderate Democrats in purple districts calling Politico and venting their concerns to the media, instead of using an inner monologue like they should. We'll start to look divided. I think our unity is on our side. We should proceed as we do.

Lauren Schiller:                  Okay. That's to get it through the House. Then when it goes over to the Senate, is there any chance of it going ...? We can all guess that they're going to have some discussion, and then they're going to decide that they don't agree. Do you think it's going to go any differently than that?

Dan Pfeiffer:                         No. I think that's how it's going to go. There's actually something that's really interesting about this. I was accidentally watching CNN the other day. Joe Lockhart, who was the White House press secretary when Bill Clinton was being impeached, was talking about the differences between then and now. Even though that both of these were mostly partisan affairs, what Joe said that I thought was really interesting was that Democrats back in '98 criticized Clinton's conduct and the things he did, but decided it didn't rise to the level of impeachment.

Dan Pfeiffer:                         What is different now is the Republicans won't even criticize what Trump did. They cannot even admit the fact that ... it is a credible-ish argument to say, "Look. It's probably inappropriate what the president did. Rudy Giuliani was running off on his own. He seems like kind of a loon. The White House is not particularly well-run. But we have an election in 11 months, and you shouldn't remove our president from office for that." But they can't even admit that what the president did was wrong, because there must be a complete fealty to Trump and this Republican administration. The other thing I just want to say about impeachment is ... I don't know. Did you guys watch the hearing with the law professors?

Lauren Schiller:                  Yeah.

Dan Pfeiffer:                         There are two things I took from that hearing. One was the look on all the three professors' faces the Democrats invited as they're getting asked these questions, it's like if they in their constitutional law class asked a student to give them an example of an impeachable offense and they wrote out what Trump did, they would penalize that student for not being creative enough, because it was so obvious. They're just sitting there like ... You look and they're just like, "What are you people talking about? Of course it's impeachable. It's exactly what the founders meant is you can't try to extort foreign countries for political benefit. That's why we have it."

Dan Pfeiffer:                         The other thing that I thought was notable was the Republicans kept saying, "Look. Impeachments should not be partisan. They should be bipartisan affairs." I'm sitting there saying, "Well, you know who could change that? You." In fact, it is bipartisan, because Justin Amash, a Republican congressman from Michigan, supports impeaching Trump. What do the Republicans do? They kicked him out of the party. Sorry. I get very frustrated watching television.

Lauren Schiller:                  Do you have any thoughts on how it will affect the election outcome?

Dan Pfeiffer:                         If you were to ask me is it more likely to be positive for Democrats, negative for Democrats, or neutral, the answer is probably neutral, because we live in this terrible memory hole, where it was only two months ago that Trump used a Sharpie to alter a hurricane map in order to reverse engineer a tweet to truth, which is a federal crime. You are not allowed to alter weather maps.

Lauren Schiller:                  Is that true, that's a federal crime?

Dan Pfeiffer:                         Yes. Yes.

Lauren Schiller:                  Why isn't that in the ...? Do you think maybe that'll be in the articles?

Dan Pfeiffer:                         We could be here for years doing the various crimes. I don't know that people remember it. I do know, from some of the polling that we've done at Pod Save America, that one of the things that most annoys the voters that Trump needs to persuade, people who voted for Trump in 2016, but disapprove of him now, people who voted for Gary Johnson in 2016 instead of Trump, these sort of middle of the road, moderate Republicans or independents, the tweeting and the crazy, the chaos is a real problem for them. They're becoming exhausted by it. So, there has been this political advantage of keeping Trump at an 11 for the last few months. Right? Where he's having temper tantrums at NATO. He's going home with his tail between his legs.

Dan Pfeiffer:                         In working for Obama, like I mentioned this earlier, that in August of 2001, Obama's poll numbers were basically what Trump's are, not good. That is not a good thing. As the Republican primary was heating up and true giants of public life, like Herman Cain and Michelle Bachmann, were debating on stage, we had this very specific plan to focus Obama as a president, focus on the economy, all these things. Between Labor Day of 2011 and New years, Obama's approval rating went from 39 to 49. On election day in 2012, Obama's approval rating was 49. So, we basically won that election in the fall of 2011. This is the moment where Trump should be gaining strength and undoing the damage that's been done. By doing impeachment, Democrats have kept him occupied, and he is on trajectory to end this year at the same place he was in the summer, and that is a problem for him.

Lauren Schiller:                  You have a new book coming out called Un-Trumping America, A Plan To Make America A Democracy Again. Give us some scoop. What are we going to get out of that book?

Dan Pfeiffer:                         The book is based on the idea that Trump did not break our democracy. We have Trump, because our democracy is broken. Don't get me wrong. There is nothing more important than beating Trump in 2020, but that is not going to be enough. Democrats have to engage in an aggressive, proactive, strategic strategy to fix our democracy. We have to fix our problems in the Senate. We have to eliminate the filibuster. We have to make DC and potentially other places a state. We have to take on fixing our courts.

Dan Pfeiffer:                         We have to make ourselves the party that fights for democracy, because on the current path, even if Trump loses in 2020, on the current path America is on, because of voter suppression, gerrymandering, stolen Supreme Court seats, we are in a world where a growing progressive, diverse majority of Americans will be governed by a shrinking conservative minority of mostly white Americans. That is an unsustainable situation for our country over the longterm. Democrats have to take that on, because if you care about Medicare For All, Green New Deal, gun safety legislation, none of them will happen if we don't fix our democracy. There is not going to be a world where Mitch McConnell is going to all of a sudden give 10 votes for a true gun control proposal, or for Medicare For All, or Medicare For Some, or Medicare for one additional person. So, we have to recognize who the Republicans are, what they've done to our democracy, and we have to be the ones who fix it. That's what my book is about.

Lauren Schiller:                  All right. Is there a plan in there?

Dan Pfeiffer:                         Yes. Every chapter is an item of sorts.

Lauren Schiller:                  Okay. That comes out in-

Dan Pfeiffer:                         February 18th next year.

Lauren Schiller:                  And you can pre-order it?

Dan Pfeiffer:                         You can pre-order it now.

Lauren Schiller:                  Are you still donating?

Dan Pfeiffer:                         Yes. Thank you. You're doing such a great job of this.

Lauren Schiller:                  You're welcome.

Dan Pfeiffer:                         I am a naturally terrible book hocker.

Lauren Schiller:                  I was in marketing.

Dan Pfeiffer:                         You're great. What are you doing around February? I could use you for a month.

Lauren Schiller:                  We'll talk.

Dan Pfeiffer:                         In the presale period, between now and February 18th, I'm going to donate a portion of the proceeds from every book sold to Fair Fight, which is Stacey Abram's organization, to protect the right to vote. Thank you for that just-

Lauren Schiller:                  You're so welcome. I think it's great you're doing that. What would you like to leave everyone here with in terms of where they should most focus their energy, be engaged to make a difference for Democrats?

Dan Pfeiffer:                         I want to just say first that in my time in politics, I have never seen a wave of activism like I've seen since election day 2016. We have people, as Barack Obama would call them, young people and the young at heart, marching, knocking on doors, canvasing, voting, getting involved. That is why Nancy Pelosi is speaker of the House. That is why Obamacare is still the law of this land. It is why we have been able to stop a lot of the worst things that Trump wants to do is that people got involved in politics. They saw what happened in 2016, and they saw that you cannot ... that citizen is a full-time job in America. You do not get to take a day off. You have to fight every single day for your rights, for your community, for what happens.

Dan Pfeiffer:                         If I could encourage anyone to do anything, whatever time you have, full-time, part-time, while you're waiting in line at the grocery store, to hook up with an organization like Swing Left or Indivisible. Go work for a candidate. Volunteer your time. Register people to vote. Find five friends of yours on Facebook who preferably live in Wisconsin, and register them to vote. Use your social media platforms, if you have them, to push back on Republican lies. The ell democratic stories. Tweet, Instagram, Facebook, whatever about the candidate you care about, because Republicans are always doing that.

Dan Pfeiffer:                         Just get involved in any way you can that's comfortable for you, because if we do that, if all of you do that and we win this election in 2020, we keep the House, we take the Senate, we send Donald Trump packing to whatever federal institution he's going to spend his retirement, then I ... If we do that and then everyone stays involved, I think it would be such a beautiful irony if the election of the worst citizen in our country activated a generation of citizenship that extends well beyond this presidency. So, anything you can do to get involved will help.

Lauren Schiller:                  Thank you. That was Dan Pfeiffer. Our conversation was presented by Cal Performances at UC Berkeley. Dan is a host of Pod Save America, former senior advisor to President Barack Obama, and author of the book, Yes, We Still Can. As you heard, he has a new book on the horizon called Un-Trumping America. I'll put a link to both books on my website, InflectionPointRadio.org, where you can find future events by clicking on the events tab. I'm Lauren Schiller. This is Inflection Point, and this is how women rise up.

Lauren Schiller:                  Today's episode was made possible by the generous support of the Harnish Foundation. That's our Inflection Point for today. All of our episodes are on Apple Podcasts, RadioPublic, Stitcher, Pandora, NRP one, all the places. Give us a five star review and subscribe to the podcast. Know a woman leading change we should talk to? Let us know at InflectionPointRadio.org. While you're there, support our production with a tax deductible, monthly or one time contribution. When women rise up, we all rise up. Just go to InflectionPointRadio.org. We're on Facebook and Instagram at InflectionPointRadio. Follow us and join the Inflection Point society. Our Facebook group of everyday activists who seek to make extraordinary change through small, daily actions. Follow me on Twitter at LASchiller.

Lauren Schiller:                  To find out more about today's guest and to be in the loop with our email newsletter, you know where to go, InflectionPointRadio.org. Inflection Point is produced in partnership with KALW 91.7 FM in San Francisco and PRX. Our community manager is Alaura Weaver. Our engineer and producer is Eric Wayne. I'm your host, Lauren Schiller. Support for this podcast comes from the Corporation For Public Broadcasting.

Dan Pfeiffer:                         From PRX.

 

Screen+Shot+2019-12-13+at+5.17.33+PM.jpg