The following is a lightly edited transcript of the September 24 episode ofRight Now With Perry Bacon. You can watch this interview here.Perry Bacon: Good morning, everybody. I’m Perry Bacon. I’m the host of the New Republic show Right Now. I’m really excited and honored to be joined by a special guest today. It’s E.J. Dionne, who was one of my former colleagues at The Washington Post, a longtime columnist. He’s now a contributing writer at The New York Times. He’s also a professor at Georgetown. He’s also one of the smartest, wisest, most thoughtful people about politics for several decades now—so somebody, I think my guess is everyone who’s watching, will have read and will have liked. You’ve also probably seen him on TV, on PBS or MSNBC or heard him on NPR. So I could go on and on and on. E.J. also is a very nice, optimistic, humble, great person to be around. And that’s more unusual in high-level politics than I wish it were. So E.J., glad to see you. Welcome.E.J. Dionne: May I do this every day, Perry? That was the sweetest, kindest introduction I think I’ve ever gotten. And right back at you, as you know, I have been such a big fan of yours ever since you started out—since, to your benefit, you are a bit younger than I am. And I’m just so honored to be here with you. Thank you so much.Perry Bacon: So let me start. We were talking about something that I don’t know much about, which is that there were two congressional races last night that were decided. So talk about that a little bit, E.J.Dionne: Yeah. There was one last night and one a little earlier this summer. And what’s significant is not [that] the Democrats won them.Bacon: The one in Arizona was last night. Dionne: Correct. You know, the earlier, this summer for Jerry Connolly, the Democratic Congressman that died and James Walkinshaw was the Democratic nominee. In 2024, Jerry Connolly won big: two to one. Walkinshaw won by three to one. Last night in Arizona, the daughter of former Congressman Grijalva, Adelita Grijalva, won her dad’s district. But again, looking at the vote count so far, last I looked, about 87 percent in, she was running maybe 10, 15 points ahead of her father, even in a very Democratic district. So I think that tells you something that’s going on out there. By the way, the new congresswoman would be the 218th signature on the discharge petition to try to force a vote on releasing the Epstein files. We’ll see if any of the Republicans on that petition drop off. Otherwise, there’s going to be some action there. I mean, discharge petitions are very hard to execute. I’m sure that Speaker Johnson will try to stop it, but that’s significant. What does all this show us? The other thing, and we were talking a bit about this before we started, the polling number I pay a lot of attention to for any president is not just approval or disapproval. A lot of the polls ask, Do you strongly approve of X or strongly disapprove of X?And that number really shows a lot about where the energy is in the electorate. And I looked up yesterday the latest Economist/YouGov poll. What you’ve got is 48 percent of the country strongly disapprove of President Trump. Only 24 percent strongly approve. That’s less than half his vote. Two things about that. One, it shows that everything Trump has done so far has not only ignited his opposition, obviously, but it hasn’t really appealed to parts of his base. They may say they still approve of him, but there’s no enthusiasm there. And that number has been quite predictive, not directly, but indirectly predictive of turnout in midterm elections.And if you’re an incumbent president, you don’t want to go into a midterm with only 24 percent of the people strongly approving of you. So I think, you know, I think there’s a lot of despair and anger. And believe me, I’m somebody, I’m usually quite an optimistic person; a friend once accused me of being a “feliciopath,” which is a great term. And I share a lot of the alarm of a lot of people. But I think that we should have some confidence in the broad electorate, that a lot of people are looking at all this and they’re saying, This isn’t what we voted for. This isn’t what we wanted. And so I think,you know, Trump is losing the argument with the electorate. And we’ll see how much power he’s willing to exercise to try to push back against that.Bacon: It looks like in a lot of ways the polling is in this 2006–2018 zone, where the president is unpopular. The one difference being we don’t know if they’re going to try to gerrymander every seat possible to prevent a loss. But in a pure polling sense, they’re in real trouble right now. He is fairly unpopular. And even though the Democratic Party is not looking popular, polling-wise, in a midterm, usually it’s a vote against the incumbent if they’re unpopular. Dionne: Just on that point, Steve Kornacki did a great bit on MS— or NBC, I think it was, a few weeks ago, where he showed, next to each other, attitudes toward the Democratic Party, which were negative, and how people would vote in the midterms. And if I remember right, the Dems had a four- or five-point lead on the midterms.So a lot of that negative on the Democratic Party comes from Democrats who want the party to push back harder or this or that, but when push comes to shove, they’re still voting Democratic. And I think you’re seeing that in two of the three big races this November.And actually you’re seeing it in Zohran Mamdani’s race too. But in Virginia and New Jersey, Democrats, Abigail Spanberger in Virginia and Mikie Sherrill in New Jersey, are running well ahead. So people can be mad at the Democrats, dislike them, but still end up voting for them. And I think that’s going to be something we’ll keep an eye on for a long time.Bacon: Speaking of positive news, I want to emphasize free speech, and people have been silenced. There are people who have been deported, or people who’ve been arrested, for their op-eds; college students have. We’re not in a great environment. That’s said, it is great to see that Jimmy Kimmel was back within a week. His suspension was ended. ABC backed down. Disney backed down. Even the Trump administration on some level appears to have conceded they lost this fight. And what he said last night was, I think, worth quoting from. I think something he said, “This show is not important. What is important is that we get to live in a country that allows us to have a show like this”—and I’ll be honest, I was not, I’m not a huge Jimmy Kimmel watcher. I think maybe Stephen Colbert is a more interesting host, to be totally honest. But I’m proud of Jimmy Kimmel in this moment. I think he’s done something really useful. I think he’s been a forceful figure. I love the fact that people from all walks of life have combined—actors, Barack Obama, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, all these people, regular Americans saying: I will cancel Disney Plus because of this. We have seen a useful moment of resistance here that I’m really excited about. How do you feel about it, E.J.?Dionne: Did you ever expect that so early in your podcast, you would be praising Ted Cruz? That was an amazing moment. God bless Jimmy Kimmel, if I may say that. I think that you’re absolutely right in everything you underscored. I think, you know, point number one, he didn’t back down. He was polite. He said he didn’t want to offend anybody, which he obviously didn’t. But he was really strong: That De Niro Mafia routine was just so powerful—you know, just a powerful message got sent by that. And he did not use his script to grovel or to appease anybody but to come right out there as strongly as possible to defend free speech.And again, I think, you know, I’m now returning to my feliciopath roots here, but I think it is really significant that a corporate sponsor, the ABC, yanked him, just yanked him. And the backlash against that really mattered. And I think it shows that going forward, there is economic power that individual people have to send a message that: OK, if you’re going to play along with these authoritarian actions, you got a problem with a lot of the people who watch these shows, people who make these shows for these networks, in the case of ABC. And so, you know, I don’t want to exaggerate it. We still got a heap of trouble in front of us, but I thought it was very significant. And it’s hard to think how Kimmel could have handled that better. And, you know, I think it’s important that he did. I think the other thing we need to point out is, a whole bunch of stations, the Sinclair Nextar stations, didn’t carry him. I think there’s another fight we’re going to see going forward about what happens with those stations?How do people in local communities react to that sort of thing? It’s about, I think, a quarter of ABC’s affiliates. We’ll see. I think that’s the next kind of conversation we’re going to have. But this was a win.Bacon: And I don’t want to make this a Washington Post podcast, but I do want to note that our former colleague, Karen Attiah, who stayed on at the Post after they decided to impose their personal liberties and free markets ideology, and then they seemed to have fired her last week on what I think are sort of trumped-up reasons. So we are not, and she has actually made some great statements about the importance of free speech and civil discourse as well. So I want to emphasize that it’s not just Jimmy Kimmel.A lot of people are fighting corporations and the Trump administration to speak out, and we should rally behind all of them.Dionne: Yeah. And you know what’s important? I think it’s really important to stand up for people, whether you agree with them or not. I’m not referencing Karen here particularly. I’m referencing anybody. And, you know, I think that it is very dangerous—and you saw that in the days after the killing of Charlie Kirk, which was an awful, evil thing, and we should say that. And I think people do have a right to expect people to say that a killing is awful … and I believe that. But you cannot use an event like this as an excuse, which the Trump administration clearly wants to do, not only to go after individual people, which is bad; they really are talking about using it to go after opposition groups. You know, this executive order banning an idea, basically: antifa. And as somebody said the other day, aren’t we an anti-fascist country? Didn’t we fight a war to defeat fascism and are still proud of the men and women who fought in that war all these years later? Yeah, so I agree with you. It’s very important to stand up for everyone whose speech is threatened right now. And by the way, that would include our friends on the right.Bacon: Yes. Yeah, exactly. Whatever cancel culture means. And, you know, I’ve never been for people losing their jobs or particularly their freedom for whatever they write or what they say. The First Amendment should apply to everybody. I think that’s an important point. And I want to disagree with people, but be in spaces where we’re allowed to disagree without it being so threatening. And we’ve you know, this and this government really is opposed to that.Dionne: And just by the way, an important point you just made there, you know, this is one step beyond the cancel culture. Bacon: This is what I’m trying to say. Dionne: And we can have a whole conversation, and I tend to be a free speech absolutist, but this is using government power against people. And, you know,and I think that that is something, as Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and a few others showed, is something that conservatives should oppose.Bacon: So government funding expires September 30. Schumer and Jeffries did two things I think are important. One is they listed some real demands, particularly around health care policy, that they want to be part of this next government funding bill. And then two, they asked Trump for a meeting to discuss this and to formalize this.And Trump has said no to their demands. And yesterday said, no, I will not meet with you either. So, how do you feel? I know there was a lot of criticism in March about how the leadership handled government funding then. Do you think they are on the right track, Schumer and Jeffries, this time?Dionne: Yeah, I think that where we are now compared to where we were then, and where Chuck Schumer is now compared to where he was then, tells us a lot about what happened. The last time Schumer basically said, look, if we shut down the government, we will actually be surrendering more power to Musk and Trump to make these cuts, because shutdowns really end up conceding a lot of power to the executive. I think if I had been in Congress, I still would have voted to sort of have the fight then. But I got where Schumer was coming from. And I don’t know if you had this experience, but I talked to Democrats who were opposed to what Schumer did but basically said, Yeah, I get his point. This isn’t crazy what Schumer said. I think this time there’s a very different feeling. Why is that?I think one of the principal ones, and in some ways the most important demand in this shutdown, concerns what Trump and Russell Vought have done to bust up deals that Democrats and Republicans in Congress made and to say, You may pass it, but we won’t spend that money. Or we’re going to send rescission bills, and Republicans will pass it with a majority vote. They don’t need it.Bacon: Making the budget process essentially irrelevant even after you sign the deal.Dionne: Right so you know the point is if we negotiate something and it’s meaningless why should we negotiate and why should we vote for any budget when we know that what we vote for may not come to fruition because of Trump’s use of executive power? So I think that is central to it. And then I think they have been very wise to put the health care issue as what they are going front and center on, particularly because the people who get health care through Obamacare, because of the cuts in the subsidies that the Republicans have supported, are going to see their premiums go up a lot in about a month.And so their argument that we got to deal with this now has a lot of weight. And I think that apparently Trump walked away from the negotiations because Republicans in Congress told him to and said, We think we have the upper hand here. But I do think that really strengthens the Democratic hand.And they’re saying we don’t want a shutdown. We want to negotiate this. And here, President Trump is saying, we won’t negotiate. So how can we give our votes to something that we oppose because it doesn’t protect health care? We oppose because it probably may not mean anything anyway, and you won’t even talk to us.And so I think that is creating a kind of consensus among Democrats. And look, shutdowns are very hard to win. But here’s the last thing. Those numbers we talked about at the beginning, about Trump’s approval rating; it is easier to win a fight like this when the president is as unpopular as President Trump is now, so that there will be less of a benefit of the doubt on the Republican side of this fight, I think, now than there might have been if Trump were still reasonably popular, or at least not that unpopular.Bacon: We move to what I think is another element of what I think of as good news. I’ll be curious what you think. It looks like in New York, a few congressmen over the weekend endorsed—. I think Yvette Clarke endorsed Mamdani. You know, the governor did maybe a couple weeks ago. Hakeem Jeffries sounds like he’s getting closer to that space as well. I guess whatever you think of Mamdani, and I actually like what he said, he’s won the primary. He’s running with two people who are three people, but really two, Cuomo and Adams, who might be Democrats in name but are not people we should be proud of as Democrats to have an office. So to me, I want to see a consolidation around Mamdani. And I think that’s finally happening. He’s done a good job keeping the door open, and I think the party, even people to his right are beginning to realize he’s going to win and he can be a team player. And I think we’re seeing a good consolidation toward him, and I think that’s a positive step. And I saw Kamala Harris, you know, endorsed him—not in the most enthusiastic way—Dionne: Kinda sorta.Bacon: But how do you feel? I feel like we’re moving toward a resolution that’ll be positive here.Dionne: I think no matter what your politics are, you have to look at Mamdani and say, this is one of the most talented politicians we have seen come along in quite a while. I have sort of thought about him as a bit of a Clinton or Obama of the left in his political skills. And I wrote a piece about Mamdani where I said that the best pundits about Mamdani were the people in his middle school who gave him the award for the best smile. Because it’s really hard to say that a guy with that demeanor is some kind of dangerous radical. Bacon: I agree. Dionne: You know, his positions are left-wing, and he’s had to answer for some stuff that the national Democratic Socialists of America passed that, you know, I suspect you disagree with a bunch of that stuff too. You know, he’s got to answer for all that. But there’s there’s a talent there. And to me, one of the lessons of what Mamdani did lies in what he started to do when he was at 1 percent in the polls. And he made these videos. And it wasn’t just he made good videos. He went to Trump voters in the Bronx and asked them, why did you vote for Donald Trump?And how many people expect progressives, who are seen as very censorious of people who disagree with them, to go out and say, Hey, I care about what you think. I want to know. What did we miss here? And of course, it played a role in his shaping his strategy where they talked a lot about prices and his whole campaign has been oriented around the cost of living. Interesting fact, if you look, you couldn’t have—Mandani is very different from Abigail Spanberger and Mikie Sherrill, the Democratic candidates for governor in Virginia and New Jersey we talked about earlier. All three of them are running on prices.All three of them are running on the cost of living. And I think if, in the end, as looks likely right now, that three of them all win, it’ll be a real lesson that Trump has completely lost the issue that may have been most important to electing him in the first place.So, yeah, I basically share your view. And I think Mamdani has an interesting opportunity here. There’s another politician that I know you and I both really, really respect who was in the news a bit, and that’s Michelle Wu up in Boston. Bacon: She’s the mayor of Boston. Dionne: Who is a very successful progressive mayor, so successful that the guy who got into the runoff against her, Josh Kraft of the Kraft family that owns my football team, the New England Patriots, he got clobbered in the first round. He dropped out, and she’s going to be unopposed in this election. And I think there is a way to be a very practical progressive mayor.And if you listen to what the Mamdani people are saying, they are saying: Take a look at Michelle Wu if you want to know what we’re going to do. And Michelle Wu, who got over 70 percent of the vote in the first round there, is not a scary figure. She is a very competent progressive leader. And that’s, I think, what progressives need to show in cities around the country.Bacon: Final thing, and this is maybe not as positive—we’ll find something positive to finish on—but I want to talk about the Kamala Harris book and discourse a little bit. I mean, let me start with the… I mean, I guess some of the things she said, I’ll be curious, what have you been remarking upon?I mean, some of the things she said I think are just unfortunately, sort of realities. I’m not surprised Kamala Harris, Black woman, Black Indian woman, did not pick Buttigieg, a gay man, for vice president. I think she was sort of being honest about the realities. You know, Obama picked Biden for VP in part because Biden was an older white man. So I think she was acknowledging some realities there. And she’s been a little more candid about how politics works, but I’ve not been—Shapiro is, other politicians are, ambitious and maybe not overly trustworthy at times, you know, news at seven. So, you know, so I’ve not been that struck by anything in a negative way. But I’ll be curious—anything struck you so far?Dionne: Yeah, I’ve got the book sitting right in front of me here and I want to read the whole thing. But I was surprised by how candid she was on some of those things. And when you lose a race, in retrospect you say, well, maybe Pete Buttigieg would have clobbered JD Vance in that debate, which he probably would have. And I think she says somewhere that she wasn’t happy with Tim Walz’s performance in that debate. Which is another piece of candor you don’t expect in a book like that. You know, she went on Rachel Maddow and said it wasn’t because that’s how she felt about Pete. She admired him enormously. That was the point of what she was saying. But of course, it makes, anybody who cares about LGBTQ rights uneasy that somebody would even say that. But it was candor. And we always say we want politicians to be candid and then we bash them when they are. You know, in general, I guess I have this reaction, and I’ve had this with Republicans. I know I’ve called Republicans who lost races, and I didn’t agree with them on anything, but the whole world turns on you when you lose. So I have this little instinct that says, you know, this woman got this nomination, as she underscores in the title, 107 days before the election: Are there things that you and I might look back on and say she should have done differently? Sure.I can think of things that I would have done differently if I’d been running that campaign, which I wasn’t. But, you know, it’s so easy to dump on a losing candidate. So I have this little instinct always to kind of side with a losing candidate trying to … trying to defend themselves.I think that the most interesting stuff in the book, from what I have read that’s in it, again, I haven’t read the whole book yet, is how complicated the relationship was with Joe Biden in the end and with the people around Biden.And look, a lot of those folks are people I’ve known for years and I’m friendly with. We’re of the same generation, and I respect a lot of them. But I always thought that if they made a mistake, it was that they should have known that at some point Kamala Harris was going to be really important to them, either for Biden’s reelection or in this circumstance no one anticipated. And, you know, I think her beef that they should have done more to help her out for those three years, I think that’s a legitimate thing to discuss in retrospect, because I think there were ways in which she could have entered that race a little stronger than she was. I think the critique of her: that she has always struggled to make clear what are her policy bottom lines. I think she lost the nomination in 2020, in part, because she was really torn about whether she should run to the left or run to the middle. And I think that sometimes she conveys that uncertainty. And I think that’s something that hurt her in 2020 and may have hurt her a bit in 2024.Bacon: Even her Mamdani answer was a little bit like, I support the nominee. It was sort of like … Dionne: I know. I think if you’re going to do something like that, just do it.Just do it. He’s the Democratic nominee, and I’m proud to support him and move on.Bacon: Or talk about, he’s a great candidate. You don’t have to buy all of his policies on free buses or free grocery stores to say he’s a charismatic candidate. Young people love him. I support him. He’s a great figure in our party. So is Abigail Span—. There’s a way to say that that’s less kind of clenched-teeth, I think. Yeah. Dionne: Yeah. And, you know, it’s a way, you know, Governor Hochul, Kathy Hochul in New York sure as heck doesn’t agree with Mamdani on everything. I don’t think she’s going to sign a bill, which she would have to do if he were to raise taxes in New York City on wealthy people.And she made clear I don’t agree with him on everything. I think she made a very shrewd call in what she did, by the way. I think it was because she is going to need the left in New York, which is substantial—it’s not a trivial group of people—to support her for reelection.And she knows that if there are things Mamdani wants or does that are unpopular, she’s got time to distance herself between now and November. We’ll see how it plays out. And also, I think if Mamdani is going to win, it’s really better for the governor of New York and the mayor of New York, if they’re in the same party, to try to get along. And that’s always been one of the hardest relationships in American politics. Even when the mayor and the governor are of the same party, that’s a hard one. But we’ll see. I think this was smart political management on her part. Also, I don’t think she likes Andrew Cuomo, which I expect is a personal thing there too.Bacon: Last thing, we’ve mentioned a few of them already, but I do want to finish on: Who do the Democrats have coming up? Who should we be excited about? And without getting into a full 2028-who’s-going-to-win speculation, which I think it’s too early for that, I want to say there’s a lot of people who have distinguished themselves in a positive way this year. Mamdani we’ve mentioned. Michelle Wu we’ve mentioned, the mayor of Boston who’s done a great job, I think. I interviewed Greg Casar yesterday. I thought he was very impressive: House member, progressive caucus leader, but really thinking about how do we find progressive ideas that work in purple and red areas? I think Chris Murphy of Connecticut has really done a great job, from the beginning, of connecting authoritarianism with the economic-billionaire-takeover-of-Musk with the democracy questions that this administration brings. Chris Murphy’s been distinguished in a way I didn’t expect. Gavin Newsom, who, I’ll be honest, I didn’t have a very high opinion of when this started, really did on the redistricting fight and when the National Guard came, really has stood up and been very strong. And I’m maybe to the left of him on some policy issues, but he’s been a very strong figure. I didn’t know much about JB Pritzker before this year, but I think if I had to vote for somebody in 2028, I’d vote for him right now. If you remember when the National Guard was thinking about coming to Chicago, he was like, Hell no. Organized people and really made Trump decide, do I want to fight this guy or not? And unfortunately, I don’t want the National Guard in Memphis either, but it seems very clear Trump went into Chicago and wimped out when JB Pritzker said, Absolutely not. And that was a real moment of leadership.I’d say my governor, who’s running for president very explicitly, Andy Beshear, I like the way he’s been out there saying, essentially: Look, you can be in a red state, you can be a moderate person, but still support transgender rights and immigrant rights, so we don’t have to abandon everything we feel to be Democrats and to win because I’ve won. And so I named eight people; there’s been some great performances from Democrats this year. I’ve not loved everything Hakeem or Schumer have done, but I think they’re getting better. But I do want to highlight at the end that there are some Democrats who are, I’d say, over-performing. So I gave a long list there. Maybe you could talk to two or three of those, if you agree with me or not.Dionne: Yeah, no, broadly, I agree with that list. I think, you know, when you look at potential candidates the next time, I think the guys who used the summer best are Newsom and Pritzker. And I think they really gained stature with the Democratic primary electorate—and I don’t think just them, by being strong this summer.And I agree, Bashir, Cesar, and everybody you named. So I’ll just throw out a couple more. You said earlier about the importance…. My first column for the Times was about the need to make the threat, the authoritarian threat, central to American politics. And I argued, of course, economics is important. Of course, winning back working-class voters; everybody agrees that that has to be a central task of progressives generally, not just the Democratic Party. And that’s right. But the immediate threat before us is the authoritarian reach. And I decided it’s really better to talk about the danger rather than just to defend democracy because I believe passionately in democracy. Pat Buchanan once called me a “democratist,” which he meant as a negative. God bless him for saying that. I am one of those. But I think people understand better when you talk about, Do you want to yank a comedian from television at the behest of the government? Do you want the Justice Department to prosecute people who are not found to have committed any crime because the president tells you to, and fire prosecutors who don’t do that? Bacon: —and exonerate people who were [caught] with bribes on video, if they’re your friends. Dionne: Right, and not to mention, people who killed police officers and attacked the Capitol and all that. So let me just add a few names because one of the people I quoted in my column is Jamie Raskin, who I think really deserves to be on this on this list; who made a really great argument that, you know, the defense of democracy also means defending the material achievements of democracy. And we would not have had, you know, the National Labor Relations Act, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, civil rights laws, if we didn’t have a democracy. That democracy, you know, the Labour Party of Britain, under both its center leadership and its left leadership, has always used the phrase, “We are for the many, not the few.” And guess what? Democracy is good for the many. And that’s the way we have to think about it. So Raskin is somebody I would really salute. I think Governor Cooper down in North Carolina is going to become a very interesting figure because that Senate race is really important. And, you know, I think he is sort of very much in the Andy Beshear mode as a Democrat, I think, who makes moderate voters feel comfortable but is actually saying the things that are necessary and true about the dangers we face.But your list was so good, I’m not going to try to add to it too much because I broadly agree. I could name a bunch of other people, but we’ll leave it at that. It’s interesting; I am really fascinated by these disapproval numbers that the Democratic Party has.And I think it’s going to be interesting to see what happens to those numbers if Democrats put up a real fight around the budget as we get closer to the election. And I think that the party has to show that it can actually sort of create a coherent view of the world.But I think we also have to be realistic. These numbers are bad because Democrats are so angry that they lost the last election because of the danger that defeat created for the country. And it’s very hard to to unite around anyone when there is no formal leader of the party until the presidential process.The only other two people I’d shout out because they are really going to be important in about a month and a half are Spanberger and Mikie Sherrill. These are two women, national security Democrats, actually roommates. And I think if you have Sherrill, Mamdani, and Spanberger winning on this night, you’re going to have victories for the entire, every wing of the Democratic Party.Bacon: So my guess is that E.J. Dionne and Perry Bacon will think, Oh, that’s good, different kinds of Democrats can win. And then I worry our factions will be like, See, Mamdani won, and you can only win this way. I don’t worry. This could be a unifying thing.I wrote one of my early pieces on we need to think of ourselves as a coalition. Bill, Crystal, and Perry do not agree on maybe police funding or Israel policy, but we can agree on lots of things about authoritarianism. And I think appreciating that we can be a diverse party would be a useful thing. My worry is most people want their faction to win, and that’s kind of my kind of concern all the time.Dionne: As you know, I wrote a book before the 2020 election called Code Red, How Progressives and Moderates Can Unite to Save Our Country. And I think right now, both progressives and moderates or centrists or center-left people, however you want to call that group, they have to realize they can’t win on their own.And that there is a need for a big tent. And if you look at Trump’s approval ratings, there are a lot of Americans prepared to oppose what is going on. And there’s plenty of time. I think there should be, and there will be, a kind of philosophical policy and intellectual debate going on alongside.But I think people have to realize the big fight now is to oppose authoritarianism and advance democracy. And that’s where a lot of people, including some Republicans, but there ain’t many of them right now, and, you know independents, moderates, there are a lot of people who say, Yeah I might not agree with you Perry or me, E.J., but yeah I agree with you on this and that’s how you win in a democracy. Coalitions are big, and Democrats are a more diverse party in every way, and they have to accept that reality.Bacon: You said something about the party’s poll numbers. And I was talking to Amanda Litman for one of these. She runs the group Run for Something, which has been a very useful group. Her point was that we’re in this period where institutions are unpopular, whether that’s the police, the mainstream media, et cetera.And her point was like, maybe we should stop looking at the Democratic Party’s approval rating. Because the goal is not to elect the Democratic Party; the goal is to elect individual candidates in races, like Roy Cooper, who we’re trying to elect in North Carolina or House Member x. Ultimately, Pete Buttigieg, Gavin Newsom,Gretchen Whitmer; people are voting for against JD Vance, not the Democratic Party against the Republican. And I think that’s useful to think about. But I’d be curious. I get that. Gretchen Whitmer is part of the Democratic Party, but we’re trying to elect people, not parties. We’re not a parliamentary system. We actually do elect people, not parties. And I’d be curious, is that worth thinking about?Dionne: Well, I think two things about that. I think I mentioned at the beginning Steve Kornacki’s numbers, where there are people who give a negative view of the party and still are voting for them against the Republicans. So I think analytically that point’s correct.I don’t think it’s a bad thing, however, for the Democratic Party to look at itself. And, you know, you can have two kinds of internal debates. You can have a debate where you tear the party apart and make it a useless form of opposition.Bacon: That’s what I worry what happens often.Dionne: Yeah. And Democrats are good at that. Or you can have a debate and say, where have we gone wrong? What have we missed? Why is it that, you know, young voters, particularly young men are so alienated? Why did we lose so many of those Latino votes? How can we shore up support among working-class voters? Why are they unhappy? And there’s a very substantive debate to be had there about, you know, economics and culture and how they interact. So I think that using those negative numbers as a spur to useful self-reflection and self-criticism, that’s OK. Pretending they mean what they don’t, as your interlocutor says, is not a good idea. So again, I think you can keep those two ideas in your head at the same time.Bacon: OK, that’s a great note to end on. E.J., I always love talking to you. We always have good conversations; I’m glad more people get to clue in, get to hear your insights. So hopefully you’ll join us again. And E.J., you’re writing for the Times. And what else? You’re writing a book. Can you talk about your book you’re doing? Dionne: Yeah, thank you. My friend, the great historian, I thought that before he was my co-author, the great historian Jim Kloppenberg and I taught a seminar on the crisis of social democracy. And we are writing a history of social democracy. You know, that idea that in some ways grew out of socialism, in some ways grew out of liberalism. And it was dissident people who came together and said, as in Sweden and Norway and Denmark and Britain and all, and the U.S. in the New Deal era, came together and said, We’re not going to blow up the market, but we don’t want the market to be the sole determinant of our values or people’s opportunities in life. And this is a noble movement going back to the nineteenth century. And we’re writing about a history of it with eyes wide open about the challenges it is facing in all over the world. Although I noted this recently in another podcast, the social Democrats did just win an election in Norway. So maybe as Norway goes, so goes the world. I don’t think so, but I like to say that. And it’s about the challenges facing this movement, but it’s been a really complicated thing to write. Because we’re talking about 130 years and potentially 25, 30 countries and more than that. But we’re almost there. So it’s I think it is important, at least something I enjoy doing, but I also think it’s important that we never look at our own country’s politics in a vacuum. There are a lot of people around the world experiencing some of the same issues and problems. And you’re certainly seeing that in politics across the democracies right now.Bacon: And on that point, thanks for joining me, E.J. Great to see you. Dionne: Thank you. Take care.
The post Transcript: Kimmel Showed the Rest of the Media How to Fight Trump appeared first on New Republic.
