Latest / Real Patriotism / Rahm Emanuel on Social Media, and Why He Wants a Ban for Kids Under 16

Transcript

Rahm Emanuel on Social Media, and Why He Wants a Ban for Kids Under 16 · Real Patriotism

• 0:00
  Should there be a ban on social media
• 0:02
  for kids under 16 years old? An absolute
• 0:05
  ban. Well, Rahm Emanuel, who you may
• 0:07
  remember, he was mayor of Chicago and a
• 0:09
  longtime politician and ambassador to
• 0:12
  Japan, you may be running for president.
• 0:14
  And he says yes, that the way to handle
• 0:17
  the problems that social media has
• 0:20
  generated for so many teenagers is to
• 0:22
  ban it from them until they're 16. Uh,
• 0:25
  Australia has just announced a a plan
• 0:28
  and passed a law to do this. A lot of
• 0:30
  kids don't like it. But there is
• 0:32
  evidence that social media has been a a
• 0:36
  source of anxiety, depression, all kinds
• 0:38
  of bad things in the lives of young
• 0:41
  people. And Rahm Emanuel stepping
• 0:43
  forward, says the government should do
• 0:44
  something about it. And he's got the
• 0:45
  idea. How would this work? Uh, would it
• 0:48
  work? What would the social media
• 0:50
  companies comply with such a thing?
• 0:52
  Wouldn't there be free speech lawsuits,
• 0:54
  all kinds of things? We cover the
• 0:56
  waterfront on this provocative idea
• 0:58
  which is gaining steam across the
• 1:00
  political spectrum, Republicans and
• 1:02
  Democrats, saying we have to do
• 1:04
  something about this. We also got to
• 1:06
  talk with Romney. He's a he is a
• 1:08
  political animal and his analysis of
• 1:11
  where we are right now and what the
• 1:13
  midterm elections next year are going to
• 1:15
  look like. You want to hear that, too.
• 1:16
  It's a great conversation. If you like
• 1:18
  it, like and subscribe uh to the
• 1:21
  channel. It'll help us a lot. And now
• 1:23
  enjoy conversation with Raman.
• 1:31
  Wait, let me get let me get uh
• 1:38
  back to Google Chrome where I can see
• 1:40
  you. There we go. All right, good to go.
• 1:43
  We're recording.
• 1:46
  Okay,
• 1:49
  Rahm Emanuel, it's great to see you.
• 1:51
  Thank you very much for being here and
• 1:53
  for bringing such a great topic. Good to
• 1:56
  see you.
• 1:56
  >> Thanks, Terry. Happy New Year to you and
• 1:58
  the family.
• 1:58
  >> Thank you. You too. And um and let's
• 2:01
  just plunge right in. Uh this is this is
• 2:05
  something that matters to every family
• 2:06
  in the United States. Certainly matters
• 2:08
  to every kid. You have hit upon really
• 2:11
  one of those issues which we live every
• 2:15
  day, struggle with every day, but can't
• 2:18
  find an answer to, can't find the
• 2:20
  balance. And here's the news that you're
• 2:23
  making.
• 2:23
  >> You've got a proposal to fix it. So,
• 2:25
  you've said, and I want to quote your
• 2:27
  words here.
• 2:28
  >> You've said, uh, I'm just going to put
• 2:31
  on my glasses so I can There we go.
• 2:34
  >> That other piece of technology.
• 2:35
  >> That's it. This Ben Franklin level. Here
• 2:38
  we go. Quote, "No child under 16 should
• 2:41
  have access to social media." Why?
• 2:44
  What's the core harm you're seeing
• 2:46
  there?
• 2:47
  >> Well, first of all, you look at all the
• 2:48
  studies. is a great uh professor down in
• 2:50
  California, Southern San Diego. You look
• 2:53
  at Jonathan Hayes book etc. All of them
• 2:55
  come out universally least to
• 2:58
  depression, isolation, sense of
• 3:00
  desperation, anxiety, go through the
• 3:02
  list. Nobody's come out. What we need is
• 3:04
  more time on uh screens for kids. Now,
• 3:08
  we have uh if you take past issues that
• 3:11
  have been addictive, luring, etc.
• 3:14
  Like Chicago, we're down now from 30% of
• 3:17
  our kids smoking down to single digits.
• 3:19
  In Chicago, some of the lowest levels.
• 3:20
  We also had some of the highest
• 3:22
  restrictions. You've seen progress
• 3:24
  banning cell phones in classrooms.
• 3:27
  Attention up, some improvements.
• 3:30
  We know for a fact the damage being done
• 3:34
  to adolescence. The question is, are you
• 3:36
  going to leave it in the hands of a
• 3:38
  Terry Moran and a parent or you going to
• 3:40
  leave it in the hands of an algorithm?
• 3:42
  Is it the adults or the algorithm? And
• 3:44
  it's gotten to that kind of binary
• 3:46
  choice. And my point is parents, you and
• 3:50
  your spouse, Amy and I, we're very
• 3:52
  involved. We can set rules, but other
• 3:54
  parents, even good, you know, parents
• 3:56
  that are working hard, but also have
• 3:59
  agency. This is too powerful. Facebook,
• 4:02
  Tik Tok are more powerful than a parent
• 4:05
  from a social basis, from also an
• 4:07
  addictive algorithm basis. So therefore,
• 4:09
  this is empowering parents. And the
• 4:12
  reason it's touched a nerve is because
• 4:13
  I've never run into a parent in 30 plus
• 4:16
  years of political life, but starting in
• 4:17
  2012, that said, you know what? My child
• 4:19
  needs more time on on t on on telephone
• 4:22
  screen. And they feel powerless.
• 4:26
  >> That's what we hit upon. They feel and
• 4:28
  you know, I can say this somewhat
• 4:30
  jokingly, but seriously,
• 4:32
  >> the biggest debate between married
• 4:35
  couple is usually around money. biggest
• 4:38
  debate between an adult and their child
• 4:40
  is around that telephone
• 4:43
  >> these days
• 4:44
  >> and and debate is a is a a gental term.
• 4:48
  >> Well, I do that. Let me unpack that a
• 4:50
  little bit first on the research. Uh
• 4:53
  there is people do contest this and the
• 4:55
  surgeon general's report last year when
• 4:57
  we could trust surgeon generals. the the
• 4:59
  the warning is that we can't conclude
• 5:02
  that social media is sufficiently safe
• 5:04
  for kids, but that there needs to be
• 5:07
  kind of more. Now, to me, practically,
• 5:09
  you make sense. It It makes sense the
• 5:11
  problem you're describing, but you're
• 5:15
  using the big hammer of government power
• 5:17
  here, and we'll talk about what you want
• 5:19
  to do about it.
• 5:20
  >> Oh, you know, Terry, let me No, no, let
• 5:21
  me uh back up here. I'm The government
• 5:24
  should set a goal and restrict this. I
• 5:26
  actually think the social media because
• 5:28
  of the control of the algorithm and the
• 5:30
  control of the data they collect can be
• 5:32
  a partner in restructure. I mean they
• 5:34
  know whether you're 15 or 50.
• 5:38
  They have all the data where you eat,
• 5:40
  when you eat, what you're interested,
• 5:42
  what sports, etc. They have all that
• 5:44
  data.
• 5:45
  So they can be a partner in restricting
• 5:48
  this to 16 and younger. Absolutely. I'm
• 5:51
  not saying just the big big brother
• 5:53
  government. Well, how do you make that?
• 5:54
  You're going to ask the lords of the
• 5:56
  algorithm, right, is what the algorithm
• 5:58
  is what I call the these guys who
• 6:00
  designed these these delightful and
• 6:03
  sinister machines that to get our
• 6:05
  attention. You're going to ask them to
• 6:07
  give some some of that up.
• 6:10
  >> Ex in Australia, and again, this is
• 6:12
  early days of the new frontier.
• 6:15
  Facebook is flipping the switch,
• 6:17
  shutting them off because they know they
• 6:19
  have the data.
• 6:21
  So to me, look, did tobacco companies
• 6:24
  want to go behind the counter in a
• 6:25
  locked up uh shelf? No, they did.
• 6:30
  Okay. Did the telephone companies and uh
• 6:33
  no, the uh iPhone uh producers and all
• 6:36
  the other kind of hardware, did they
• 6:38
  want to be banned from the classroom?
• 6:40
  No, they did. So here in this case you
• 6:43
  have the federal government and you
• 6:45
  force the social media companies with
• 6:48
  their algorithm and with their
• 6:50
  information about every individual user
• 6:52
  to be a partner. Do I think you're one
• 6:54
  and done? You have to be vigilant. The
• 6:56
  teen smoking which started around the
• 6:59
  high30s took almost a decade to drop
• 7:02
  down to single digits. I don't think
• 7:04
  this is going to happen on Thursday but
• 7:07
  we got to start today to protect these
• 7:10
  adolescents. Well, spell it out. What
• 7:12
  does the law
• 7:13
  >> or the executive order if you're if
• 7:15
  you're president of the United States?
• 7:16
  What does it look like? Are there fines
• 7:18
  on the companies? Are you demanding that
• 7:20
  they redesign their their algorithm?
• 7:22
  Regulating their content is what they
• 7:25
  would tell.
• 7:25
  >> Well, this is something you you would
• 7:27
  work with a lot of experts and you'd
• 7:29
  work I mean I've done reading about the
• 7:31
  damage. I I have seen some legislation
• 7:34
  in Congress which is bipartisan. There
• 7:36
  was a restriction I think it was last
• 7:37
  year passed in the Senate around this
• 7:40
  space not exactly this it passed 97 to3
• 7:43
  Terry you tell me as a student of
• 7:46
  government and you and I have about 50
• 7:48
  years collectively
• 7:50
  what was the last thing that and NATO
• 7:51
  didn't pass 97-3
• 7:53
  okay it doesn't happen but everybody
• 7:57
  this has when it comes to concern around
• 7:59
  this it has no racial geographic gender
• 8:03
  or educational uh divide
• 8:06
  people of all walks of life say the same
• 8:08
  thing. So you designed it with a lot of
• 8:10
  experts in mind of using the algorithm
• 8:13
  to our social and uh goals. You use the
• 8:17
  technology that the data comp the uh uh
• 8:19
  social media companies have designed
• 8:21
  also with the federal government that
• 8:23
  there are penalties associated with it
• 8:25
  and breaking it. And I do and again I
• 8:27
  want to repeat this is not one and done.
• 8:30
  We have set up the law on Tuesday and
• 8:31
  expect results on Thursday. This is a
• 8:33
  generational effort and you have to be
• 8:35
  vigilant because people will try to
• 8:37
  figure out how to get around it. But
• 8:39
  over the time you will make uh progress
• 8:42
  in restricting teens who are not
• 8:45
  developed and don't have the kind of
• 8:47
  critical judgment to battle themselves
• 8:50
  against something that is alluring and
• 8:52
  addictive. They just don't. And that's
• 8:55
  there's a reason there's a reason you
• 8:57
  restrict tobacco. It's addictive.
• 8:59
  >> Well, it restrict other activities. It's
• 9:02
  addictive and it's not good for you.
• 9:04
  >> How aren't kids going to just be able to
• 9:06
  get around it? They're going to use a
• 9:08
  VPN. They're gonna they're going to hack
• 9:09
  it. I mean, is it really It's one thing
• 9:12
  to prevent a physical object from
• 9:13
  getting into the hands of a virtual
• 9:15
  object.
• 9:17
  >> Do I think kids will work on it? Yes. Do
• 9:20
  I think over a period of time we'll win
• 9:22
  this? 100%.
• 9:24
  >> I do.
• 9:27
  >> So, if you're going to essentially
• 9:30
  >> Oh, let me say it this Yeah.
• 9:31
  >> If if you don't do something and you're
• 9:34
  and you're basically paralyzed by what I
• 9:36
  call the paralysis of analysis, no. Then
• 9:40
  then there's then Meta, Facebook, Tik
• 9:43
  Tok, Instagram, Snapchat, they're going
• 9:45
  to win. This I really mean this is not
• 9:48
  just to be when it comes to an
• 9:49
  adolescence, it's either going to be the
• 9:51
  adults or the algorithms. And you got to
• 9:52
  decide which one do you want to empower.
• 9:54
  I'm making my decision.
• 9:56
  >> I'm I'm for the humans all the time. I
• 9:58
  think the algorithms uh really have kind
• 10:01
  of broken certainly our democratic
• 10:03
  discussion because they advantage the
• 10:06
  nastiest the most combative the
• 10:08
  >> I actually I actually I don't mean to
• 10:11
  interrupt but I am sorry no please do
• 10:14
  >> why they're incompatible
• 10:16
  algorithms and democracy you when I I'm
• 10:19
  elected official or was your goal to me
• 10:22
  or your admonition to me is bring people
• 10:25
  together work on
• 10:28
  The profit motive of social media is to
• 10:30
  separate people. Well, you can't have
• 10:32
  something with that type of force and
• 10:34
  that power pulling people apart and the
• 10:36
  political system is trying to bring
• 10:38
  people together.
• 10:40
  It's just different modus operandise.
• 10:43
  And if you want people to come together
• 10:45
  and not that you're going to ban social
• 10:47
  media, but understand that it is a force
• 10:51
  that is not in the pulling in the same
• 10:53
  way. It doesn't have the oil in the
• 10:55
  water in the same direction. It just
• 10:57
  doesn't.
• 10:58
  >> That's the story of our lives right now
• 11:00
  that that these people are making
• 11:03
  bundles of cash making a lot of people
• 11:05
  angry and unhappy and and harming
• 11:07
  dividing
• 11:08
  >> kids as well. Yeah. And that's but that
• 11:10
  raises the question of of the first
• 11:13
  amendment, right? I mean, you're you're
• 11:16
  is there a free speech problem? No.
• 11:18
  >> When you're there isn't
• 11:20
  >> not my boy. Look, here's my thing. I
• 11:23
  this may be, you know, my dad was, as
• 11:26
  you know, uh, a pediatrician. I was
• 11:28
  going to be an early childhood educator.
• 11:31
  There's a critical judgment that comes
• 11:33
  at a certain point in life. I don't
• 11:36
  think a 13-year-old or a 14-year-old has
• 11:38
  that critical judgment.
• 11:40
  >> And I'm saying that as both not the son
• 11:42
  of a pediatrician, somebody who want to
• 11:44
  be an early childhood educator. I'm also
• 11:46
  saying it as a father of three kids who
• 11:47
  have now gotten through their windshare
• 11:50
  of adolescence. Maybe that was my
• 11:52
  windshare, not their windshare, but got
• 11:54
  through adolescence. But look, there are
• 11:56
  things that you would allow a child at
• 11:58
  14 to do that at six you would. And
• 12:01
  expose them at 14 that at 16 you would.
• 12:03
  Well, there's things at 14 you would not
• 12:05
  expose a child to because they don't
• 12:06
  have the critical judgment that you
• 12:08
  would at 24 having gone through both
• 12:10
  adolescence and college. That is not
• 12:13
  hard to make that moral judgment as an
• 12:15
  adult. And I'm ready to make it if
• 12:17
  somebody else is too scared to. You know
• 12:20
  me, Terry. I'm not too scared. say, I
• 12:22
  wouldn't leave this to a 15-year-old who
• 12:24
  doesn't have the critical judgment to
• 12:26
  beat back the addiction of not only what
• 12:29
  social what uh Instagram has, but how
• 12:32
  they target information to you in a way
• 12:35
  that clearly leads to anxiety,
• 12:39
  loneliness, alienation,
• 12:41
  and a sense of uh social uh and other
• 12:44
  types of social impacts on their mental
• 12:47
  health, let alone their emotional
• 12:49
  well-being. Yeah, there are once again
• 12:51
  there are there are people who say the
• 12:52
  evidence isn't there yet. Just for me as
• 12:55
  as a father looking at at at uh younger
• 12:58
  kids. Uh I'm seeing what seems to me to
• 13:01
  be some worrying trends as they as they
• 13:04
  disappear into their phones. Right. My
• 13:07
  admonition to my children, my younger
• 13:09
  children, my older child has been that
• 13:11
  for their generation, the greatest
• 13:13
  challenge of their life is going to be
• 13:14
  to stay human. that
• 13:16
  >> these things will get a hold of them and
• 13:18
  draw them into an inhum I assume you
• 13:21
  read Jonathan hate's book and then
• 13:24
  there's also a professor at San Diego
• 13:27
  uh it's pretty clear her data had it
• 13:30
  2012 when Facebook buys Instagram the
• 13:34
  reporting for teenagers on sense of
• 13:37
  loneliness sense of isolation higher
• 13:39
  levels of anxiety clicks in now I get
• 13:42
  what I read this at least the summary of
• 13:45
  what the surgeon general general said uh
• 13:47
  a couple years ago,
• 13:50
  but nobody has ever a pointed that it's
• 13:52
  an affirmative, b they're either
• 13:55
  neutral, not sure, or way on the thumb
• 13:58
  scale of negative. Uh and I think the
• 14:01
  evidence is we don't need another
• 14:03
  generation to sit here in the area of
• 14:05
  paralysis of analysis. I'm into
• 14:08
  restriction.
• 14:09
  >> And I think you'd get the vast majority
• 14:11
  of parents on both sides of the
• 14:13
  political divide agreeing with you about
• 14:14
  that.
• 14:16
  Maybe this, let me just ask that
• 14:17
  political question. You think this
• 14:19
  unites uh this bridges the great chasm,
• 14:22
  the great divide of our politics?
• 14:24
  >> Uh yeah, I don't think it solves
• 14:26
  everything. I think on this one
• 14:27
  particular project you can work on, but
• 14:29
  look, I mean, I think the test on this
• 14:30
  is I've seen public opinion surveys
• 14:34
  both for Democrats, independents, and
• 14:36
  Republicans. It's it's over a majority
• 14:38
  in both categories. Two, as I noted it
• 14:41
  to you in the United States Senate,
• 14:43
  there was a restrictive bill a year ago,
• 14:45
  97 to3. Third, there's a bill in the
• 14:49
  House also restrictive on some other
• 14:51
  element has massive amount of bipartisan
• 14:53
  support. There's not a lot of issues in
• 14:55
  which Democrats, Republicans on either
• 14:57
  economic or social issues want to work
• 14:59
  together. Here's one.
• 15:00
  >> Yeah.
• 15:01
  >> And it would be a good exercise to try
• 15:02
  to figure out how to work together.
• 15:04
  >> Oh, it would be great. It would be
• 15:05
  great. The one I hadn't even thought of
• 15:07
  this. thing that I've been thinking of
• 15:08
  that might bring the both sides together
• 15:10
  is tax the billionaires. I mean,
• 15:12
  >> you know, some some kind of wealth tax,
• 15:14
  you could get 60 70% of of the people,
• 15:17
  but this hits home in a in in a very
• 15:19
  different way. But let me ask once again
• 15:22
  from the from the kids perspective, and
• 15:23
  you do hear this,
• 15:25
  >> you know, my wife, when I told her this
• 15:27
  was going to be our subject, and she had
• 15:28
  already seen what you'd proposed, she
• 15:30
  said, "Don't tell Helen, our
• 15:32
  13-year-old."
• 15:34
  She's very sensitive about not don't you
• 15:36
  take it away from me, right? I mean,
• 15:38
  it's that's definitional addictive
• 15:40
  behavior. But she's like literally I had
• 15:42
  to tell her I'll tell her at some point
• 15:44
  and she may watch it.
• 15:45
  >> Um cuz she's a smart cookie. But one of
• 15:48
  the things that she has said is that for
• 15:50
  a lot of girls especially, this is a
• 15:53
  place of solidarity. For a lot of them,
• 15:55
  I wasn't even aware of how much mental
• 15:58
  health content there is on social media
• 16:01
  and that it is in fact used by by a lot
• 16:04
  of teen girls going through a tough time
• 16:07
  that it's that, you know, there's two
• 16:09
  sides to the coin. Um, yes. I'm not I
• 16:12
  wouldn't I'm not going to argue with the
• 16:14
  exposure that your child has, but we do
• 16:17
  know overwhelmingly about uh this
• 16:21
  generation is an anxious generation
• 16:24
  and it has a level of loneliness, a
• 16:26
  level of isolation, a level of
• 16:28
  alienation and mental and emotional um
• 16:32
  not just stigma but also uh degradation
• 16:35
  that social media is the overwhelming
• 16:38
  factor in the contribution to that. Um
• 16:41
  and to me uh there's a judgment piece
• 16:47
  that either the adults are going to have
• 16:50
  that uh ethical moral sense of
• 16:53
  responsibility and exercise it or you're
• 16:56
  going to leave this to very powerful
• 16:58
  companies built on a profit motive that
• 17:00
  don't have your child's development
• 17:04
  and character development at the heart
• 17:06
  of the business model. They don't. And
• 17:09
  it's not hard to conclude that.
• 17:11
  >> No, no question. And I think that's
• 17:13
  there's tremendous appeal in backing off
• 17:16
  these enormously powerful corporations
• 17:18
  which are dominating our interior lives,
• 17:20
  our families. But just to double down a
• 17:22
  little bit on on what dear Helen uh
• 17:25
  says, and this is not her, but what do
• 17:28
  you say about a kid in a small town
• 17:30
  who's queer maybe or or whatever, just
• 17:32
  different and doesn't have a community,
• 17:35
  >> and these have built connections that
• 17:39
  people find healthful, that people find
• 17:42
  happiness in.
• 17:44
  >> Well, look, I mean that I'm not this is
• 17:47
  not a vote by a majority versus a
• 17:49
  minority. I that may be a very true
• 17:52
  anecdote.
• 17:54
  Um but I've also that I've also seen in
• 17:57
  rural communities where uh the social
• 18:00
  media is a net negative and that
• 18:03
  experience now again Terry we're either
• 18:07
  going to empower parents or we're not.
• 18:10
  We're either going to give them the
• 18:11
  tools every one of them that are
• 18:13
  fighting against Facebook monotomano on
• 18:15
  their own. This is aggregating people in
• 18:19
  a way to face off against the social
• 18:21
  media companies and the power of that
• 18:23
  algorithm that is controlling our lives.
• 18:26
  And we're adults with our own judgment.
• 18:28
  And before we started this, we both
• 18:30
  noted how it is more uh powerful
• 18:34
  sometimes than our own judgment. How
• 18:36
  we're lured to it. Well, if you're a 14
• 18:38
  or 15 year old, imagine what that does
• 18:39
  to you.
• 18:40
  >> Yeah. And that's
• 18:43
  that's
• 18:43
  >> again I this is to me I mean I've I'm
• 18:46
  not saying I could write a thesis paper
• 18:48
  on this but I've done enough reading and
• 18:50
  done enough reading both in the kind of
• 18:52
  more public space than the academic
• 18:54
  space. It's overwhelming where it comes
• 18:55
  down puts his thumb on the scale and
• 18:57
  it's you know you really think about it
• 19:00
  you have an adolescent they're 13 14 or
• 19:03
  15 and you either got to set a level
• 19:05
  playing field because you can't have
• 19:07
  five kids in one thing and one kid out.
• 19:10
  Two, every parent I know and I've talked
• 19:12
  to and I think I have a pretty good
• 19:14
  cross-section is talk about loss control
• 19:16
  in trying to protect their children both
• 19:19
  from the social harm but also the
• 19:22
  isolation that comes that you may not be
• 19:23
  in that group texted etc. And then third
• 19:28
  not allowing an algorithm to control
• 19:30
  that child's emotional well-being which
• 19:33
  is what it does today. It doesn't just
• 19:36
  give you some information or allow you
• 19:37
  to click into a community.
• 19:40
  >> Well, if you can
• 19:41
  >> control the judgment of that child and
• 19:44
  steers it in a way that a parent has
• 19:46
  lost control of being the moral guiding
• 19:48
  point for that child.
• 19:50
  >> And that's huge and that's huge for
• 19:52
  every parent. But if if you can I'm just
• 19:55
  trying to think this through. If you
• 19:56
  can, if you are proposing to regulate
• 19:59
  the algorithm so that it doesn't get at
• 20:03
  uh you know people kids under 16, why do
• 20:06
  you have to ban their access? Why not
• 20:08
  just regulate the algorithm so that the
• 20:10
  harms that it generates
• 20:12
  aren't aren't being perpetrated on these
• 20:14
  kids? Why why do kids have to give up
• 20:16
  their cell phones?
• 20:17
  >> Well, I didn't say give up your cell
• 20:18
  phone. I said give up uh the uh social
• 20:20
  media apps. Very very different. Yeah.
• 20:23
  And now I happen to believe, which is
• 20:25
  what I try to, you know, for the last
• 20:27
  year and a half, I would not put cell
• 20:29
  phones in class. Why do you not want
• 20:31
  them in class? Because between a teacher
• 20:32
  who's 20t away from you and an algorithm
• 20:35
  that's 20 2,000 mi away from you, the
• 20:37
  algorithm is beating the teacher right
• 20:39
  in front of you. Okay? And once you took
• 20:42
  it out, the teacher won control of the
• 20:44
  classroom and also the education of a
• 20:46
  child. Well, that's not too different
• 20:48
  outside the classroom.
• 20:52
  Well, I'm just thinking of of the educa
• 20:54
  of education, right? Like, which you're
• 20:56
  you've been big on. And let me just
• 20:59
  offer a weird perspective that
• 21:01
  nevertheless, I think has a kernel of
• 21:02
  truth.
• 21:03
  >> I'm I'm old. I grew up
• 21:06
  >> uh, you know, reading books, right? I'm
• 21:07
  a I'm a child of the book, big reading
• 21:10
  family. Mhm.
• 21:13
  >> And to be a fluent and literate person
• 21:18
  in the 21st century and beyond, you are
• 21:21
  going to have to be fluent and literate
• 21:24
  in these programs and in these devices.
• 21:26
  Is there are you stunting the
• 21:29
  educational growth is a silly question
• 21:31
  some ways, but you know what I mean.
• 21:33
  You're taking they got to get into the
• 21:35
  future in a strong way and will this
• 21:38
  them?
• 21:40
  Well, a couple things on that. One is at
• 21:42
  the Moran home, like the Emanuel home,
• 21:44
  you learn the value of an education. At
• 21:47
  school, you get an education. Not that
• 21:50
  you don't get one at home, but you learn
• 21:51
  really what you and your wife are doing
• 21:54
  is teaching your children the value, not
• 21:57
  the specific book behind you, but why
• 21:59
  those books are important.
• 22:02
  >> At school, they get that exposure and
• 22:04
  learn that. Um, I have absolute
• 22:08
  confidence that the next generation will
• 22:10
  be 100% more conversant on technology
• 22:12
  than Terry Moran and Rama will ever be.
• 22:15
  Even if you gave us another 60 years, I
• 22:17
  can't turn on a TV without yelling at my
• 22:19
  kids, figure this out. Okay, kids today,
• 22:22
  five can go like that.
• 22:24
  >> It's true.
• 22:24
  >> But the social media apps again, you got
• 22:27
  we have just this is not theoretical and
• 22:30
  it's not beyond our ability to grasp us.
• 22:33
  That algorithm is an addictive and
• 22:35
  alluring and is set up to be that way to
• 22:39
  bring a ch uh adolescent attention to
• 22:42
  them.
• 22:44
  And it is more powerful than the both a
• 22:47
  teacher and I would also argue a parent
• 22:50
  is a teacher than what a parent can do
• 22:52
  on their own. And either we're going to
• 22:54
  empower parents to be the type of
• 22:56
  parents they want to be to see their
• 22:58
  children grown and nurtured in the way
• 23:00
  they want or we're going to stand on the
• 23:02
  sideline and sit there and go like this
• 23:04
  at the next Aspen Institute. We have a
• 23:07
  generation filled with an anxiety and
• 23:09
  isolation and loneliness. What are we
• 23:10
  going to do about it?
• 23:12
  >> Well, at 14, you could start somewhere.
• 23:14
  At 12, you could start somewhere. But we
• 23:17
  decided to sit on the sideline because
• 23:19
  there was a bunch of companies that were
• 23:20
  really powerful that were all invited to
• 23:22
  President Trump's inaugural who had
• 23:24
  making money off of our kids.
• 23:26
  >> Yeah.
• 23:26
  >> And I'm just saying I'm blowing the
• 23:28
  whistle.
• 23:29
  >> Well, let me follow up on that and first
• 23:31
  the idea of getting something done. I
• 23:33
  think that's one of the reasons that
• 23:34
  that Trump has a following that he does
• 23:37
  that he got elected that this notion
• 23:38
  that of Aspen Institutes and studies and
• 23:41
  kind of tweaking and nudging around the
• 23:42
  policy edges. This is a clear policy
• 23:45
  which everyone will understand and
• 23:47
  debate. But I want to ask about those
• 23:49
  guys at Trump's inauguration. Right. Uh
• 23:52
  a few years earlier they were singing.
• 23:54
  They were the wokest executives in
• 23:56
  American life. Right. Right. They were
• 23:58
  all believe me. I mean all the media
• 24:02
  they they were and now they're just
• 24:04
  turned on a dime. They didn't believe a
• 24:06
  word of it. and they are now aligned
• 24:09
  with the president who has done what
• 24:11
  Biden wouldn't which is turn them loose
• 24:13
  in AI and all the rest of it. Have you
• 24:16
  talked at all to anyone in that
• 24:18
  industry? Can I mean you're going to you
• 24:20
  you're going to get push back on this
• 24:22
  whoever you know is president. Uh
• 24:26
  seriously, have you
• 24:29
  think that they're going to cooperate at
• 24:30
  all?
• 24:31
  >> Well, one n there's a larger political
• 24:33
  movie but says I'm going to take the
• 24:35
  hockey puck and skate here.
• 24:37
  >> Good. Look, one
• 24:40
  all these guys total disappointment.
• 24:43
  Corporate America who know that the a
• 24:45
  country based on the whims of one person
• 24:47
  versus the rule of law, they have been
• 24:49
  silent and timid souls. As Teddy
• 24:51
  Roosevelt said, the Supreme Court tried
• 24:54
  and timid souls.
• 24:57
  Major media
• 24:59
  that used to speak up about the
• 25:00
  importance of the first amendment have
• 25:02
  been intimidated. Terry Moran, you know
• 25:04
  that. Okay. So, come 2026,
• 25:09
  it's left to the judgment of the
• 25:10
  American people, and I'm going to bet on
• 25:12
  their good sense versus all the other
• 25:14
  elite who have failed miserably. And I'm
• 25:18
  and I'm cleaning it up for your Substack
• 25:20
  what I really think. So, I don't isolate
• 25:22
  although I think the leaders of the
• 25:24
  technology companies have been as bad as
• 25:28
  any other group. But I'm shock corporate
• 25:31
  America. Just take forget the rule of
• 25:32
  law.
• 25:34
  A country that's research universities
• 25:37
  are worldbased and every one of them
• 25:38
  have actually gotten technology out of
• 25:41
  our universities have been silent when
• 25:43
  their bottom line has been affected.
• 25:45
  They're also they are international
• 25:48
  companies based on brand USA which has
• 25:50
  been degraded by this president and not
• 25:53
  one of them have had the courage or the
• 25:55
  or their conscience to speak up. The
• 25:56
  Supreme Court is useless. the
• 25:59
  Republicans in Congress that used to
• 26:01
  talk about stuff. They basically have
• 26:03
  been silenced. So every one of them, so
• 26:05
  I'm like pro the American people are the
• 26:07
  only ones with judgment. They've
• 26:08
  actually election after election since
• 26:10
  November have issued a verdict that this
• 26:13
  is wrong. and all the leaders in
• 26:16
  different subgroups, business, academia,
• 26:18
  media, Supreme Court failures,
• 26:22
  >> you know,
• 26:23
  >> and and behind and the worst part is
• 26:25
  behind closed doors, they sit there and
• 26:27
  agree with you and then the door opens
• 26:29
  and all of a sudden they become timid
• 26:31
  souls as Teddy Roosevelt said. So
• 26:33
  they're like the three monkeys. See no
• 26:34
  evil, speak no evil, and hear no evil.
• 26:36
  I've lost total respect for them.
• 26:38
  >> And what is it? Seriously, what is it?
• 26:41
  People sometimes say, "Why, you know,
• 26:43
  why don't anybody why doesn't anybody at
• 26:45
  these press conferences or wherever
• 26:46
  where Trump calls somebody piggy or
• 26:48
  you're a terrible person, my dear
• 26:50
  colleague Rachel Scott, my former
• 26:52
  colleagueuh Rachel and and Mary Bruce
• 26:55
  and nobody else, none of those other
• 26:56
  reporters will say, you know, I used to
• 26:58
  do this. Helen Thomas, you remember
• 27:00
  Helen Thomas during the Bush uh
• 27:03
  >> I live through it all."
• 27:05
  >> Yeah.
• 27:05
  >> Yeah. Very I mean look I mean my
• 27:08
  favorite part about what you just said
• 27:09
  about the president of the United States
• 27:11
  called on Air Force One reporter Piggy
• 27:15
  that morning his transportation
• 27:17
  secretary says people better have good
• 27:19
  decorum in airports and airlines. I was
• 27:21
  say is there anybody like maybe he
• 27:23
  should send that memo to the oval
• 27:25
  office.
• 27:25
  >> Yeah.
• 27:26
  >> Here's a guy saying we need a different
• 27:28
  standard for our citizens who fly how
• 27:30
  they dress how they talk on planes etc.
• 27:32
  And they should have a different kind of
• 27:33
  behavior. And the president of the
• 27:34
  United States tells a reporter to shut
• 27:36
  up and calls her piggy by a name. Yeah.
• 27:38
  >> You want to hear that in a playground
• 27:40
  and nobody saw the irony in this thing.
• 27:42
  Yeah. So I mean look
• 27:44
  >> and nobody I just want to get to this
• 27:46
  question and nobody else in that press
• 27:48
  course stood up to them. We used to do
• 27:49
  that for each other.
• 27:51
  >> I'm well aware
• 27:54
  >> who sorry
• 27:55
  >> having worked in two administrations. I
• 27:57
  I knew you guys had a pack.
• 28:00
  >> We defend each other but no one will
• 28:03
  now. And you just went through that
• 28:04
  litany of major players, powerful
• 28:08
  people, major institutions who are
• 28:11
  unable to find the slightest ounce of
• 28:15
  spine. Why? What is it? Is he
• 28:18
  >> look I mean look, they set up a uh as I
• 28:22
  look at it, he makes an example of one
• 28:26
  and intimidates all.
• 28:27
  >> Right? Number two, if they would stand
• 28:30
  together, which is why you have business
• 28:32
  groups, the business round table, the
• 28:33
  chamber of commerce, he can't isolate
• 28:35
  you. So, you have to take flip the
• 28:37
  script. You can't be the isolated party.
• 28:39
  He has to be the isolated party. That's
• 28:41
  number one. They've chosen not to.
• 28:43
  They're all off going to make the money.
• 28:45
  They decided, you know what, the money's
• 28:47
  on is on being a complicit and
• 28:50
  complacent with a president who they
• 28:52
  know because I've heard him, every one
• 28:54
  of them say it that breaking the rule of
• 28:57
  law is dangerous for America, not just
• 28:59
  economically, but as a society. Two, the
• 29:03
  attacks on our universities, every one
• 29:04
  of them are on boards, on the research
• 29:06
  is going to be detrimental to the
• 29:08
  well-being and the economy. And it's the
• 29:09
  goose that lays the golden egg. But not
• 29:11
  one of them has spoken up. I mean, and
• 29:14
  and I will say this to the I said this
• 29:16
  privately to a US senator. I said, 'You
• 29:20
  know why you're going to be a
• 29:21
  Republican. I said, 'You know why you're
• 29:22
  going to be happy there's a Democratic
• 29:23
  president. He goes, why? You know, like
• 29:26
  I can't agree with any I said, because
• 29:28
  we're going to give you back your
• 29:29
  manhood.
• 29:31
  >> Good for you.
• 29:31
  >> You're I said, your manhood's in the
• 29:33
  lock box. I said, you all run around,
• 29:36
  boy, we got to be tough. We got to be
• 29:37
  strong.
• 29:38
  >> Yeah, you're a bunch of weaklings.
• 29:40
  >> Yeah. And I said, "You're gonna be happy
• 29:41
  when there's a Democratic president
• 29:43
  because you're finally going to take
• 29:43
  your manhood out of a lockbox and deal
• 29:46
  with it again."
• 29:47
  >> And all frankly, one of the worst trends
• 29:50
  in the history of American politics on
• 29:52
  an analogous thing is is the cabinet
• 29:54
  meetings where all those people, some of
• 29:56
  them were governors and they're just
• 29:58
  like this North Korea mice in there. I
• 30:00
  mean, it's it's
• 30:00
  >> I I was saying this to a former
• 30:03
  colleague of yours.
• 30:05
  the times I have walked into the Oval
• 30:07
  Office and said I did both as chief of
• 30:10
  staff and as senior adviser
• 30:12
  and I got hammered. I mean hammered and
• 30:16
  screamed and trust me when the president
• 30:18
  of the United States is in full red and
• 30:21
  screaming at you. It takes a level of
• 30:24
  fortitude but and then walked right back
• 30:26
  in and said no and fighting and
• 30:28
  disagreeing and saying here's what why
• 30:32
  you are an grown adult. You are an
• 30:34
  elected official. You have your own
• 30:35
  political base and you have basically
• 30:38
  given away your independence and your
• 30:40
  sovereignty not you can be loyal part of
• 30:43
  loyal I mean I've told President Clinton
• 30:45
  on different things and President Obama
• 30:47
  on different things said there's a
• 30:50
  consequence to this I'm telling you
• 30:52
  upfront you do what you're doing there
• 30:54
  is a consequence here now my job was to
• 30:57
  tell you the truth once you made a
• 30:58
  decision that's a separate thing if I
• 31:00
  thought it was a moral thing you walk
• 31:01
  out the door I didn't in those two cases
• 31:04
  because worked with I think two great
• 31:06
  presidents that said I used to get
• 31:08
  hammered and I mean hammered.
• 31:12
  >> These guys are these guys are elected
• 31:14
  officials. I don't I don't get it.
• 31:15
  >> Yeah. Well, and for the press, let me
• 31:18
  just button this down. If one person and
• 31:21
  I, you know, interviewed Trump, he
• 31:23
  barked at he gets yelled at. Exactly.
• 31:25
  You're going to get yelled at. So what?
• 31:27
  You know, I'm I'm I'm old. I'm not like
• 31:29
  a kid anymore. I don't mind getting
• 31:30
  yelled at. If one reporter
• 31:33
  stood up and said when he called
• 31:35
  somebody piggy or a terrible person,
• 31:37
  "Sir, you know, with respect, you're
• 31:39
  wrong, she's actually a really good
• 31:41
  person, and she's got a good question
• 31:42
  which I'd like to ask you as well."
• 31:45
  >> He'd yell at you, but the the impact of
• 31:48
  that standing up for just basic human
• 31:51
  decency,
• 31:53
  I think, would would harm him.
• 31:56
  >> Jerry, take what you're saying here. So,
• 31:58
  all the journalists left, that journal
• 32:00
  is still on.
• 32:02
  Academia one by one. Northwestern
• 32:04
  University just cut a deal with the
• 32:05
  president and Harvard sitting out there
• 32:07
  by themselves. Pretty strong but
• 32:09
  nonetheless is attack. The goal here. He
• 32:12
  isolates one, makes an example and
• 32:14
  nobody crosses the line. You got to flip
• 32:16
  the script and isolate the president.
• 32:17
  No, this is the line and we're all on
• 32:19
  this side of the line and we're going to
• 32:21
  stand together. Otherwise, it's going to
• 32:23
  be one, you know, you're going to hang
• 32:25
  separately.
• 32:26
  That's what's happening. And these
• 32:28
  companies, look, I mean, they've made a
• 32:30
  decision from a profit standpoint, but
• 32:33
  every one of them will tell you
• 32:35
  something different in private. In the
• 32:37
  same way, I just want to say this,
• 32:40
  Marjorie Taylor Green just the other day
• 32:42
  told you what they're saying in the
• 32:43
  Republican caucus in private about the
• 32:44
  president of the United States. Now,
• 32:47
  even if you reduce what she said by 50%.
• 32:50
  That's 50% more than what we know
• 32:53
  publicly that they're saying. and they
• 32:55
  they literally walk lock step in
• 32:57
  something that they know is wrong.
• 33:01
  And that gets back to like what we're
• 33:02
  talking about. Other people could say
• 33:04
  what I'm saying. I'm just telling you I
• 33:06
  think comes to our teens,
• 33:09
  Instagram, Tik Tok, Snapchat, keep your
• 33:11
  hands off them.
• 33:12
  >> All right. Well, let's let's pick up on
• 33:14
  that and another issue here and that's
• 33:16
  section 230 which is which is really a a
• 33:19
  shield for these companies at this
• 33:22
  point. prevents them from being held
• 33:24
  accountable for the content of the of
• 33:26
  their stuff. Don't you have to revise
• 33:27
  that? And isn't that I hear I see all
• 33:30
  these battles that you'd have to fight
• 33:33
  with multicillion dollar companies,
• 33:36
  right? They're some of the most
• 33:36
  powerful, richest companies in the
• 33:38
  world. H how is that actually going to
• 33:41
  happen in real life? You know, Tara, I
• 33:44
  think uh I again I put a little more
• 33:47
  stuff uh intellectual energy into the
• 33:50
  topic of uh social media apps and kids,
• 33:54
  but I think when you think about the
• 33:55
  whole space, and I'm doing this with a
• 33:57
  little less knowledge, but some
• 33:58
  familiarity,
• 34:00
  there's section 230 that you talk about,
• 34:03
  there's the fairness doctrine,
• 34:05
  and then there's a piece that I'm
• 34:07
  talking about of social media apps.
• 34:10
  They all are a piece of a bigger problem
• 34:13
  here. And uh I'm not the biggest expert
• 34:16
  in 230,
• 34:18
  but it makes sense to me. I'm not the
• 34:20
  biggest expert in uh read the history of
• 34:23
  what happened, but I think the fairness
• 34:25
  doctor served us uh for a period of time
• 34:28
  well and eliminating the fairness
• 34:30
  doctrine has been detrimental to the
• 34:33
  spirit of our democracy. And I do think
• 34:35
  then dealing with another generation
• 34:37
  limiting social media apps to our kids.
• 34:40
  Every one of them we've lo I mean what
• 34:42
  they scratch at is we have lost control
• 34:45
  of the public space and it's become
• 34:47
  privatized and profited by a few
• 34:49
  companies. That's what this is about.
• 34:51
  And I'm dealing with a piece of that.
• 34:54
  There is a bigger piece. I mean there's
• 34:56
  a shell in which this segment I'm
• 34:58
  talking about which is our kids exists
• 35:00
  in a bigger shell. And there's no doubt
• 35:02
  that dealing with, you know, section
• 35:04
  230, dealing with the uh reinstating the
• 35:07
  fairness doctrine would also enforce a
• 35:10
  level for our kind of public space that
• 35:13
  we don't have today.
• 35:15
  >> That's that's a whole package. That's a
• 35:18
  populist package targeting one of the
• 35:20
  great centers of power of in some ways
• 35:22
  oppressive power, the tech lords.
• 35:24
  >> Yeah. Yeah. You know, it's funny you say
• 35:26
  I'm going to bring back I was working
• 35:28
  for President Clinton. It's towards the
• 35:29
  end. I happen to be out in California
• 35:32
  and I'm not there's a venture capitalist
• 35:35
  on the you know the making major
• 35:38
  investments in what back in the 90s was
• 35:41
  new technology companies etc. We're
• 35:44
  having lunch and it stuck with me. I can
• 35:46
  We were sitting outside in the back vern
• 35:48
  of his house, Northern California. And
• 35:51
  he says, "You're going to find out that
• 35:54
  democracy
• 35:55
  and social media
• 35:58
  platforms
• 36:00
  are not compatible."
• 36:03
  And I got to be honest, being the so
• 36:06
  smart 38-year-old,
• 36:08
  thought he was full of crap.
• 36:12
  turned out he was precient and I didn't
• 36:14
  know the squat of what I was talking
• 36:16
  about and I think he's because here's
• 36:18
  what I and the reason is Terry what
• 36:21
  you're ask you know appropriately and
• 36:23
  what people want is for us to even if we
• 36:25
  have partisan difference come together
• 36:26
  try to solve problems
• 36:30
  the business model
• 36:32
  of all these companies is set to put
• 36:35
  people into little ghettos of
• 36:37
  communities and separate them so it's
• 36:39
  not the same now I get the PR are a
• 36:42
  stunt. Oh, building community. Give me a
• 36:45
  break. You're this this whole thing is
• 36:48
  to separate people and nobody made
• 36:51
  profit by finding people common ground.
• 36:54
  They made profit by finding division.
• 36:56
  It's a s it's a fact.
• 36:59
  So this is set up and it's a powerful
• 37:01
  thing called social media to put people
• 37:04
  into different camps opposing each
• 37:06
  other. You're asking elected officials
• 37:09
  that have multiple layers of government
• 37:10
  to bring people together. Their energy
• 37:14
  is in opposite common division
• 37:19
  and they're fighting each I mean they're
• 37:21
  really pulling at each other in a way
• 37:23
  and I'm sorry I mean I don't mean to bl
• 37:26
  they're not the total blame because we
• 37:27
  have a responsibility our own judgment
• 37:29
  etc. But when you think about what you
• 37:32
  want out of the public sector, what you
• 37:34
  want out of elected officials, what you
• 37:36
  want, you want them to take like here,
• 37:38
  here's a problem, it actually does bring
• 37:40
  Democrats and Republicans together to
• 37:42
  work on something. You have a whole
• 37:44
  separate entity,
• 37:47
  the media technology world set up that
• 37:49
  makes money dividing people and creating
• 37:53
  friction and tension. They don't make
• 37:57
  money bringing people together. they
• 38:00
  just don't. And so you got to realize
• 38:02
  there is a different uh kind of modus
• 38:05
  operendi here and our effort has got to
• 38:08
  be to figure out okay they're not just
• 38:11
  saying solving social apps is going to
• 38:13
  solve all our problems. We're all going
• 38:14
  to learn the words to kumbaya, but they
• 38:16
  are separate in their kind of force of
• 38:20
  nature. It is and you got to deal with
• 38:22
  it.
• 38:23
  >> And it is a force of nature because what
• 38:25
  they quickly decided and in fact there's
• 38:28
  in the history of these things, they
• 38:30
  they originally did genuinely think
• 38:32
  Facebook, oh, this will be a way for
• 38:35
  people to come together. And then as
• 38:38
  soon as the spark of negativity started
• 38:41
  cropping up, they realized that we're
• 38:43
  animals and that our our triggers for
• 38:46
  for resentment and jealousy and fear and
• 38:48
  hatred are much more powerful forces
• 38:51
  than hey, I really like I really like
• 38:53
  that song you wrote.
• 38:55
  >> Yeah. Look, I'm not saying that they
• 38:57
  weren't sincere and I'm not saying they
• 38:59
  weren't uh being forthright when they
• 39:01
  thought they were creating community.
• 39:03
  You've seen social media forms in the
• 39:05
  Arab Spring be the form of technology
• 39:08
  and the platform for bringing people
• 39:09
  together facing against power.
• 39:11
  >> Yep.
• 39:12
  >> That is true.
• 39:13
  >> But here in the United States, it's been
• 39:14
  a different force and especially with
• 39:16
  our teens. I'm starting as an adult,
• 39:18
  father of three, my kids are grown up,
• 39:20
  years are younger. We got to protect
• 39:23
  another generation or we're going to
• 39:24
  lose a generation. It's that simple. Uh,
• 39:27
  one of the challenges to this idea that
• 39:29
  I came across which which I want to ask
• 39:32
  you about that maybe it's it's more than
• 39:37
  than social media. Maybe we've been in
• 39:40
  in decline as the decline of solidarity
• 39:45
  among people in neighborhoods, right?
• 39:48
  The bowling alone phenomena that we just
• 39:50
  aren't together enough. We are separate.
• 39:53
  we've segregated ourselves into our uh
• 39:57
  sort of politically pure canton, you
• 40:00
  know, culturally pure can states or or
• 40:03
  counties. And that essentially
• 40:05
  >> what what social media has done is just
• 40:07
  come on what was already a society where
• 40:10
  the bonds of affection or whatever
• 40:13
  Lincoln called them are are are already
• 40:15
  fraying. And you're
• 40:17
  >> so you know the problem's deeper.
• 40:22
  uh the problem is deeper the media and
• 40:25
  otherwise intensify it to a breaking
• 40:27
  point. So that's one. Two, uh I don't
• 40:30
  want to say I but about six month. So
• 40:33
  2005 I write a book when I'm chair of
• 40:36
  the Democratic party in the house. It's
• 40:39
  called the plan. Bruce Reed and I write
• 40:41
  about it. One of the chapters about
• 40:42
  national service requiring it.
• 40:44
  >> Did something when I was mayor recently
• 40:46
  wrote a piece about six months ago in
• 40:47
  the Washington Post. I believe the last
• 40:50
  six months of high school, senior year,
• 40:52
  you should do mandatory universal
• 40:54
  service across the country and get kids.
• 40:57
  You know, I know what I was doing my
• 40:58
  last six months and it wasn't cracking
• 40:59
  the algebra book. Just saying. Okay,
• 41:02
  just put kids. Okay, I know what you
• 41:04
  were doing too, Terry. And you didn't
• 41:06
  get a better grade in algebra. Okay, so
• 41:08
  just the last 6 months, go clean a
• 41:11
  river. Go clean a park. Go teach a
• 41:14
  literacy program. Work with kids and
• 41:16
  people from different backgrounds, from
• 41:18
  different parts of your community,
• 41:19
  different parts of your city, and create
• 41:21
  that common experience. And I will say
• 41:23
  this having been in Japan
• 41:26
  and we were doing a naturalization on
• 41:28
  the Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier
• 41:30
  that if you served overseas, you were
• 41:32
  foreign citizen, you served our armed
• 41:34
  forces, you became a citizen, you earned
• 41:36
  it, which I happen to think President
• 41:38
  Bush started at 43 should be blown up
• 41:41
  into a much bigger program, a separate
• 41:42
  subject. But here were people on the
• 41:45
  ship that had a common experience.
• 41:47
  people from all walks of life of America
• 41:49
  and actually from all parts of the
• 41:52
  world.
• 41:53
  And yet the commonality of being on that
• 41:57
  uh aircraft carrier gave gave them a
• 42:00
  spree decor and gave them their
• 42:02
  citizenship and my view starting at the
• 42:05
  age of 17 for 6 months earn your
• 42:08
  citizenship
• 42:10
  contribute because I happen to think
• 42:11
  Terry Moran and Rahm Emanuel and our
• 42:13
  kids we won the lottery ticket of life.
• 42:16
  Yeah,
• 42:16
  >> we're Americans. So, recreate that
• 42:20
  experience. You want to go past it. Two
• 42:23
  of my kids have chosen to go past it and
• 42:25
  now are in the armed forces. One active,
• 42:27
  one reserve.
• 42:28
  >> Wow.
• 42:29
  >> Great. But find a point in life where
• 42:33
  everybody does something and that
• 42:35
  becomes the foundation where all this
• 42:37
  diversity becomes a strength. Because if
• 42:39
  you don't found that foundation, all
• 42:41
  that diversity is a liability. It's not
• 42:44
  an inherent strength.
• 42:46
  and Russia, China, and Iran are using
• 42:48
  that diversity against us. And to your
• 42:50
  core point,
• 42:52
  where's the community? Where's the space
• 42:55
  and experience that uh we don't all kind
• 42:59
  of pull back into our places of
• 43:01
  familiarity?
• 43:02
  Working across ethnic lines, educational
• 43:05
  lines, racial lines, sexual orientation
• 43:08
  lines will actually create common
• 43:10
  experiences that create community. So,
• 43:12
  I'm 100% for this. I mean, I can go on
• 43:14
  for hours as much as I did on social
• 43:16
  media. I'm a I'm forward universal
• 43:19
  national service. 6 months, your final
• 43:22
  years, your high school years. That's
• 43:24
  what you should do with your final six
• 43:25
  months.
• 43:26
  >> Yeah, I love that. And and u I want to
• 43:28
  follow up on it in a in a kind of
• 43:30
  bigger. I'm sensing something here, Ram.
• 43:32
  I'm sensing look, you you're a national
• 43:35
  leader. Want to be a national leader
• 43:37
  beyond this perhaps in in in office or
• 43:40
  not? Certainly
• 43:43
  we are all many I I would say most
• 43:45
  Americans want to get past this
• 43:48
  particular political moment.
• 43:49
  >> I agree
• 43:50
  >> where the the it's so rancid and it's so
• 43:54
  horrible and the language is awful and
• 43:56
  it seems the fights are always the same,
• 43:58
  right? Uh and what is the next political
• 44:02
  language? What is the next political
• 44:06
  pitch that that what what is the appeal?
• 44:08
  and what I'm hearing in the social media
• 44:11
  thing and in in community service and
• 44:14
  some of the things that you've said and
• 44:15
  you're almost kind of drawn sometimes in
• 44:17
  a cartoon level, oh, he's the centrist,
• 44:19
  but I'm hearing a a a kind of comm
• 44:22
  >> as if that's an evil thing.
• 44:26
  >> Being a centrist is an evil thing.
• 44:27
  >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I think people
• 44:29
  are wanting to fight. That shows how how
• 44:32
  bad we've gotten. But that beyond the
• 44:34
  that dull center, the centism shouldn't
• 44:37
  be dull. you're offering it sounds to me
• 44:41
  like a renewal, right? A renewal.
• 44:44
  >> I do look we I don't want to get into
• 44:47
  the greatest generation etc. But there
• 44:49
  was something that that experience
• 44:52
  people on the both in the Atlantic
• 44:54
  theater and the Pacific theater shared
• 44:57
  that paid a dividend all the way
• 45:00
  through. obviously breaks under Vietnam
• 45:03
  etc and other things and you could take
• 45:04
  that break and that divisive becomes
• 45:07
  even greater
• 45:11
  today because of geography education
• 45:16
  and technology
• 45:18
  that common experience
• 45:21
  and that common uh kind of space
• 45:25
  has been frayed to the point of breaking
• 45:28
  and I and I think um and Again, I want
• 45:31
  to be clear. Mike's made an individual
• 45:34
  choice. It doesn't have to be military.
• 45:36
  They, you know, going,
• 45:39
  you know, companies use this. I'll give
• 45:41
  you example. We had a volunteer day in
• 45:44
  the city of Chicago and companies came
• 45:45
  in and one company would paint and redo
• 45:48
  all the school. Why do they do that?
• 45:50
  Besides contributing to the community,
• 45:52
  their kids weren't going specifically to
• 45:54
  that school because it created an Aspree
• 45:56
  decor in the company. There's a value to
• 45:59
  that aspree decor. Well, if it's is
• 46:01
  important to the company, happen to be
• 46:03
  important to the city. And having people
• 46:04
  from one part of our city working and
• 46:07
  building and rehabbing and fixing up and
• 46:09
  cleaning up a school from another part
• 46:11
  of the community, that had its own
• 46:13
  value. And can I tell you it pointed to
• 46:16
  that? No. But there were friendships
• 46:18
  created, boundaries broken,
• 46:21
  and things that uh came out of that that
• 46:24
  had a dividend for the city and for that
• 46:28
  company and for the community that
• 46:29
  relied on that school for their kids.
• 46:32
  And so we need to replicate that at a
• 46:34
  scale. And I'll, you know, I I think it
• 46:36
  was like
• 46:38
  the fifth or sixth bill. It was in the
• 46:41
  spring of President Obama's first term.
• 46:44
  uh and I'm chief of staff and we had
• 46:47
  passed a bill through the house and
• 46:49
  senate. John McCain was a leader, Ted
• 46:51
  Kennedy was a leader and it was doubling
• 46:54
  the size of national service both
• 46:55
  Americaore that President Clinton had
• 46:57
  started and the Peace Corp that
• 46:59
  President Kennedy had said and uh it
• 47:03
  pays a huge amount of dividend to the
• 47:06
  country where people earned and worked
• 47:09
  contributed
• 47:10
  and they earned their citizenship and
• 47:12
  that cord and I say this my kids
• 47:16
  generation is much more publicly minded
• 47:18
  and much civic-minded but has not been
• 47:21
  organized in the purpose of something
• 47:23
  larger called America. I really believe
• 47:27
  this.
• 47:29
  I won the lottery ticket being an
• 47:31
  American citizen
• 47:33
  >> and you got to find a way where people
• 47:36
  feel that vested and contribute to
• 47:38
  something and it's going to pay a huge
• 47:40
  dividend to them individually and to us
• 47:43
  collectively.
• 47:45
  Well, that's such a great feeling right
• 47:48
  now in this conversation. And yet, I do
• 47:50
  feel like it's an island in an ocean of
• 47:52
  bile, right? In an ocean of of I,
• 47:55
  >> you know, I I don't I'm not usually a
• 47:57
  glass half full kind of guy, as you
• 47:59
  know, T. Uh I mean, I am Jewish, so I
• 48:01
  start from a very dark space. I would
• 48:03
  just say to you, there is a yearning.
• 48:08
  Maybe people won't articulate as we have
• 48:10
  in this conversation. People know we're
• 48:12
  offkilter. this thing is spinning out
• 48:15
  and uh now they uh the politics is hard
• 48:18
  but they are looking for something that
• 48:21
  creates a more uh sensible balanced and
• 48:24
  I would also say quieter moment for them
• 48:28
  that's like even when you go back to our
• 48:30
  original conversation about social media
• 48:32
  it's a sense of loss control
• 48:35
  >> that kind of common experience gives you
• 48:37
  back something that has I don't want to
• 48:39
  say more peaceful but more fundamental
• 48:41
  and a scratch scratches an itch that I
• 48:44
  think is out there. Could be wrong, but
• 48:46
  I don't think I am.
• 48:48
  >> Well, loss of control. One of the things
• 48:49
  that that is loss of control is is is
• 48:52
  people's ability to live and thrive
• 48:55
  economically with the with the prices of
• 48:57
  things. I I want to ask about the
• 48:59
  midterms this way. So, you know, here we
• 49:01
  are. We're we're a year out now less
• 49:04
  than from from the midterm elections.
• 49:07
  We've been through this before and
• 49:08
  you've seen sometimes when off-year
• 49:10
  elections
• 49:12
  seem to be promising for one party or
• 49:14
  the other. How are you reading? Are are
• 49:17
  you as optimistic as some Democrats are
• 49:19
  that that that you know come next
• 49:22
  November, you know, when when Trump has
• 49:25
  to really face the voters through a the
• 49:27
  midterm referendum on the party in
• 49:29
  power, Democrats are going to retake the
• 49:31
  House or or
• 49:33
  >> or or when push comes to shove and it's
• 49:35
  a national election. It's not a Virginia
• 49:37
  election. It's not a New Jersey
• 49:38
  election. It's a proper national
• 49:40
  election and Democrats ratings right now
• 49:43
  nobody knows what they stand for and if
• 49:45
  they do they don't like it that once
• 49:47
  again Trumpism wins.
• 49:48
  >> No. Well, first I want it to be a
• 49:50
  nationalized election and it will be a
• 49:52
  nationalized election. It will be a
• 49:53
  nationalized election as a referendum on
• 49:55
  the President Trump and the and
• 49:56
  basically rubber stamp Republicans. Now
• 49:59
  step back and why do I think it will be
• 50:01
  a big national election with the
• 50:04
  judgment being positive for Democrats?
• 50:08
  When one party controls both ends of
• 50:10
  Pennsylvania Avenue, there's a law of
• 50:13
  physics that kicks in. You saw it in
• 50:14
  1994. You saw it in 2006. You saw it in
• 50:17
  2010. And you saw it in 2018. Law of
• 50:20
  physics. A the party out of power
• 50:23
  massively energized voters. every
• 50:26
  election since November 2024. Massive
• 50:29
  Democratic turnout, not only in Miami
• 50:30
  that I was there Sunday, but also in a
• 50:33
  Georgia state rep seat just the other
• 50:35
  night. Number two,
• 50:38
  independence break or unaffiliated break
• 50:40
  two to one for the party out of power.
• 50:42
  You have seen that from Iowa, Wisconsin,
• 50:45
  Michigan, New Jersey, Virginia,
• 50:48
  Mississippi, Minnesota, Pennsylvania,
• 50:52
  everywhere. Number three,
• 50:55
  Republican voters in this case are
• 50:58
  depressed and they don't turn out. So
• 51:01
  the dynamics that have happened in every
• 51:04
  midterm when you've had a big turn or
• 51:07
  change of control, you have seen time
• 51:10
  and again in every part of the country,
• 51:12
  whether it's a state house seat, p a
• 51:14
  Wisconsin Supreme Court, a Pennsylvania
• 51:17
  Supreme Court, an Erie County executive,
• 51:19
  or you've seen in the governor's races
• 51:20
  in New Jersey, Virginia, everywhere in
• 51:22
  the country, you've seen the same thing
• 51:23
  play out. And I think that's going to
• 51:26
  happen. And I think the more it's around
• 51:28
  President Trump, the better
• 51:30
  >> because he's on the ballot.
• 51:31
  >> And people are going to express
• 51:33
  themselves from three different angles.
• 51:35
  >> Democrats are angry and they're going to
• 51:37
  show up in total droves.
• 51:41
  >> Unaffiliated V unaffiliated voters
• 51:44
  emotion is uncomfortable
• 51:48
  with the president. They think he might
• 51:50
  anal he might identify the right
• 51:52
  problem, but his solution is far worse.
• 51:54
  So they're very uncomfortable with a
• 51:56
  rubber stamp Republicans because they
• 51:57
  want to check.
• 51:58
  >> And the thing that I think is un
• 52:00
  unappreciated
• 52:02
  is that the Republican voters, MAGA
• 52:04
  voters feel betrayed by the president.
• 52:07
  >> It is not peak Trump.
• 52:11
  And I used to think this and I've
• 52:12
  thought about this. The least MAGA
• 52:15
  person in the Trump administration is
• 52:17
  Donald Trump.
• 52:19
  They want they want somebody that's
• 52:21
  focused on their pocketbook and all he's
• 52:22
  focused on is his pocketbook. He's
• 52:24
  sitting around there like a bureaucrat
• 52:26
  with a bunch of wealthy people and all
• 52:28
  he cares about is his wealth and his
• 52:29
  kids' wealth. Wickoff's kids wealth and
• 52:31
  look at Lutnick's kids wealth. He is a
• 52:33
  bureaucrat. Not somebody worried about
• 52:35
  your checkbook, but his. Number two, he
• 52:37
  said America first. And Marjgerie Taylor
• 52:40
  Green said this isn't America first.
• 52:41
  He's off chasing his Nobel Peace Prize
• 52:43
  of which he'll never get one. And so my
• 52:46
  conclusion is nobody a Republican who
• 52:49
  voted for Donald Trump a MAGA voter
• 52:51
  nobody likes to feel had and they feel
• 52:54
  had by this guy and that is not peak
• 52:57
  Trump that he's losing power and again I
• 53:00
  want to repeat I used to think that I
• 53:02
  think what's actually coming among MAGA
• 53:04
  voters a sense of betrayal you told us
• 53:07
  you were going to look at our pocketbook
• 53:08
  and your kids are getting rich you're
• 53:10
  getting rich your cabinet's getting rich
• 53:12
  and our my pocketbook and my checkbook
• 53:14
  is getting smaller Yeah. And there's
• 53:16
  >> And so I've come to the conclusion the
• 53:18
  least MAGA in the in Donald Trump's
• 53:20
  administration is Donald Trump.
• 53:22
  >> Yep. Yep. And they're watching that gold
• 53:23
  fungus creeping up the walls of the of
• 53:25
  the White House everywhere. But
• 53:27
  >> no, he But think about it, you know, in
• 53:29
  this whole kind of cost of affordability
• 53:31
  issue.
• 53:32
  >> Yeah.
• 53:32
  >> Utility rates are up, healthcare rates
• 53:34
  are up, housing rates are up, groceries
• 53:37
  up. You know what's not up? Your
• 53:38
  paycheck and your checkbook.
• 53:41
  >> And he's making all this money. his kid,
• 53:43
  a company the other day, his kid
• 53:45
  started, got a $700 million uh piece of
• 53:49
  business out of the Pentagon.
• 53:50
  >> Yeah,
• 53:50
  >> they're watching this every day. And as
• 53:52
  I said to Ezra Klein a year ago when I
• 53:54
  returned from Japan, watch the issue of
• 53:56
  corruption, it played big in Miami and
• 53:58
  it's going to play big around Donald
• 54:00
  Trump.
• 54:01
  >> All right. Well, on on that piece of
• 54:04
  political analysis, and you're sharp. I
• 54:06
  mean, look, I'm by I I'll buy it because
• 54:09
  you you know more about it than I do. I
• 54:11
  do think Trump is the dominant figure of
• 54:13
  our time. Although he is he's weaker not
• 54:16
  just politically but he's weaker
• 54:17
  physically.
• 54:18
  >> You know you say so look as a avid
• 54:21
  reader of history and presidential
• 54:23
  history. There are transitional
• 54:25
  presidents and transformational
• 54:27
  presidents. I don't like him. I don't
• 54:29
  like what he's done. He's a
• 54:30
  transformational president. And he's not
• 54:33
  only transformational the Republican
• 54:34
  party. There's a whole group of
• 54:36
  Democrats that if it wasn't for Donald
• 54:38
  Trump wouldn't have an original idea
• 54:40
  that they live, breathe fighting him.
• 54:42
  They can't think outside him.
• 54:45
  >> And what if you want in 2028 for the
• 54:48
  country to hand the keys to the car to
• 54:50
  you, you better figure out how to fight
• 54:52
  for America, not just how to fight
• 54:53
  Donald Trump.
• 54:54
  >> And that's going to be the open question
• 54:55
  on us as a party.
• 54:58
  >> Well, Rahm, this has been great. Uh,
• 54:59
  really great. It actually flew by. I'm a
• 55:02
  little bit late for you, but it because
• 55:03
  it was it was substantive, interesting,
• 55:06
  and fun, and there's nothing better than
• 55:08
  that.
• 55:08
  >> Well, let me say one thing to you,
• 55:10
  Terry, since I have three kids on the
• 55:12
  other side.
• 55:14
  >> You're if your kids are adolescence,
• 55:16
  you're going to go through the
• 55:17
  windshare, but it's okay when you get on
• 55:19
  the other side. I once said to my son,
• 55:22
  "You're going to be 15, I'm going to be
• 55:23
  54. One of us is going to make it and
• 55:25
  one is not." And when I tell the judge
• 55:27
  why, I'm getting off on manslaughter
• 55:29
  charges. Trust me.
• 55:32
  two story. I tell one story about my
• 55:34
  dad. 10 kids.
• 55:35
  >> Happy New Year.
• 55:36
  >> Happy New Year. One one story about my
• 55:38
  dad. 10 kids and every time you turn and
• 55:41
  one of them turned 13, he would say,
• 55:43
  "You're a teenager now. I'll talk to you
• 55:45
  in seven years." But remember remember
• 55:48
  what Mark Twain said at 14. I concluded
• 55:52
  my father was a fool. By 21, I was
• 55:54
  shocked what he learned in only seven
• 55:56
  years.
• 55:58
  >> That's great. All right, Ron. Thanks
• 55:59
  very much. See you buddy.