Hudson River Radio dot com.
It beats listening to nothingness.
Being Frank, where the only way to be is Frank. Hello everyone, and welcome to Being Frank. We're the only way to be is Frank. I'm your host, Frank Leborno, and i'd like to thank you for joining us on what we like to call the Intelligent Conversation Podcast, where no conversation is out of bounds and all points of view are welcome. We record live to tape, and I give you the date so you have some context and relevance.
It's the eighth of November, just a few days after the most consequential election, certainly of my lifetime, whether you supported him or not, admired him, or abhorred him. Donald J. Trump's victory in the twenty twenty four presidential race was
nothing short of remarkable and in some ways unfathomable. Remarkable because instead of being almost immediately disqualified for his many missteps, including any number of false accusations and claims inspiring a near riot at the Capitol, numerous indictments and convictions not only one, but did so handily comfortably winning both the electoral College and the popular vote. And he did in the country where registered Democrats significantly outnumbered Republicans and women
who generally support Democrats vote in greater numbers. It's also unfathoable because many of the communities who can normally be counted on by Democrats for their support, like Latino, black as well as young people, did not do so in the record numbers for this election cycle. Considering mister Trump's rhetoric, it seems as if they voted against their own best interests Now, is this an anomaly, a harbinger of the future, or a reflection of a deeply rooted malaise in American
politics and culture. It's an awful lot to unpack. But joining us now for some intelligent conversation on the subject is someone uniquely qualified to add an insider's perspective to our current situation. Jim Allion's career spans four plus decades as a researcher, resource manager, congressional staff, and a congressionally confirmed political appointee in the Clinton administration and the US Department of Agriculture, overseeing the US Forest Service and the
Natural Resources Conservation Service formerly the Soil Conservation Service. Under President Obama, Jim oversaw the Bureau of Land Management in the Department of the Interior. While working in Congress during the nineteen nineties, Jim helped develop the Farmland and Wetlands Protection Programs, the Forest Services Forest Legacy Programs, and the Urban and Community Forestry Assistant Programs, all of which benefit
landowners and communities in our region. Jim has also authored legislation to study the New York New Jersey Highlands, which has led to the concert of thousands of acres in the northeast. Jim and his wife, Jen Palmieri, was also known for her best selling books Dear Madam President, a podcast about women and leadership roles, and her frequent appearances on Morning Joe. Split their time between their homes in Annapolis, Maryland, and West Milford, New Jersey. He is also one of
my oldest friends. I have known this gentleman for sixty years and I'm proud to say so. Please welcome my good friend back to being, Frank Jim Lyons. Jim, thank you for joining us again.
Well, thanks for the invisentation, Frank, and thanks for acknowledging that we're both over sixty years old.
Yeah, well, somebody has to do. They should have know. But my intro and yours, by the way, I want to say, was very truncated. As with most of my guests, You've done a lot more. But if I read all of it, we'd spend the first half hour just talking about your qualifications. And we've got an awful lot to talk about today, an awful lot. You know. Let's start at the top, I guess, and work our way down in your mind. Was there a single deciding factor as to why this happened?
Well, it's obviously a question that will be debated for many, many years, you know. I think certainly, you know President Biden's first performance in the first debate, they had raised serious questions about his health and his well being, and and I think it kind of accelerated the debate and discussion within democratic circles about whether or not he was the right candidate to represent the party in the presidential elections.
I think you know that. And the accumulation of issues that presented themselves to this administration, and the difficulty they have had trying to get some of the issues that were priorities done in part due to interference or at a minimum of the lack of assistance on the part of Republicans. It's kind of accelerated the whole process. But I think most most important Democrats as well as other Americans saw and unfortunately will come to recognize the threat
that Donald Trump presented in the second term. And I think all of that, you know, weighed heavily on the president when he was considering his that his President Biden, when he was considering his path forward, and certainly among many in the leadership who were debating whether or not to encourage him to resign, which candidate might best represent the party in the presidential election and had to seed. And you can imagine how gut wretching that was for
leadership in the party. Joe Biden's been around for many, many, many years and has been incredibly successful as a legislator and also had a very successful run in the White House until his health started to fail. So it was tough, but decisions had made an Unfortunately, uh, you know, one of the factors that may wade into Trump's President elect Trump's being elected might have just been, you know, the
timing time was running out. They've they had established a pretty robust strategy, and the Democrats had to scramble put the pieces together and Kamala Harris, or Vice president and President's nominee, did a fantastic job, but in many respects that may have just been too late for lots of reasons.
Well, you know, Jimmy brought up, I think an interesting point where, particularly with the Bidens situation, I saw what you saw and was during the debate and was shocked by it and was willing to accept the fact that he may not be suitable to go forward out of one incident. Yet Donald Trump's had multiple incidents of confusion. I mean, we could go down the list from you know, eating the dogs and cats, you know, these outrageous statements,
literally physical missteps. He had difficulty getting into that garbage truck the other day, and yet he was continually given a pass where Biden was called out if you will, and Democrats responded accordingly, and then with every step that Vice President Harris made was also called out for impropriety, this, that, and the other thing. So it seemed to be a very unequal treatment, at least in the minds of the American people. That's one of those unfathomable things that I
was talking about in my introduction. How did we get there? Can you put a finger on and I put you on the spot. People can't see this, but I know I'm putting you on the spot a little bit. What happened there? What was And we could use goose and gander literally because maybe we can talk a little bit more about it. Is the role that sexism may play in American politics something we do have to talk about. But is what good for the goose good for the gander? Doesn't seem to be.
Well, this is one of the things that's in my mind incomprehensible. I mean here in his first run for the presidency. You know, his behavior, his treatment of women, you know, and frankly, his his tendency to exaggerate about his wealth not pay his bills. They were all known. Certainly in the New York metropolitan area. People understood that.
And you can talk to a lot of people will tell you horror stories about contractors who were never reimbursed by the Trump Organization for work on casinos on the Jersey Shore one one good example. It's just hard to understand and and and it's hard particularly you and I have people with law enforcement backgrounds in our background. I dare say my dad and yours would roll over in their graves if they saw the outcome of this presidential election,
it's just unfathomable. Yet here we are. It's it's just difficult to explain. Worse than that, as a result of the Supreme Court appointees that President Trump nominated and were ultimately affirmed by a Republican Senate. Either way, he'd get exonerated because because of the position they've taken with regard to the potential to incarcerate or at least to try a president. So this is the best of all worlds
and out come for him. It raises serious questions about the strength of our union, about the health of our democracy, and in what it is that Americans, all Americans seek in the person they would like to see in the most powerful seat in the nation. Serious questions.
Let's talk about messaging. Okay, you're aware, and you mentioned your wife, Jennifer Palmieri, who is now on MSNBC, a best selling author, etc. Was Hillary Clinton's director of communication. So you know all these things are knowledgeable, and as are you. But so we understand the importance of marketing, if you will. And messaging, Okay, what messages people receiving? And it seems somehow and I have a quote that
I want to read for you. Also that the Republicans the GOP managed to zero in and call it playing to people's fears or whatever, but delivering a message that seemed to resonate more so than the Democratics. The Democrats message. Let me read a quote that I got and we'll keep it anonymous from Facebook, and I thought it was very telling. And this gentleman said, people voted for an
improved daily economy for working class people. Daily living expenses are unmanageable for so many milk, eggs, bread, bread, mortgage taxes rent. I'm not saying I think the GOP will rectify the situation, but this is the sentiment here out in the USA that I encounter. Wall Street is great, but the kitchen table is where the stress on families
is a little spelling error there. And what's interesting is kind of the role reversal where that used to be the mantra of you will if the Democratic Party seems to have somehow been turned in messaging that it's the GOP that's going to do this for people. You know, we've always thought, you know, and it's no secret that the GOP economic policies trickle down reward the wealthy, and what comes down will stimulate the rest of the economy.
So therefore it's rewarding the wealthy that has somehow been turned around where now we're your best friend, We're going to put a chicken in every pot, and somehow they managed to get people to believe it. Now, just to finish that point, if you will give me another minute, where the Democratic message might be a little bit more of an esoteric nature. If you see what I'm following
with great ideals of equality of inclusivity. These are admirable ideals and points, but are they truly translating as this person said to American families in areas where those are high brow and they're great for intelligent thinkers. But I need to put food on my table and a roof over my head. And somehow the Republicans managed to convince people that they're the party to do it. Long winded, but please address that if you would.
Well, it's probably no surprise. I have no answer for that. It is baffling. I think the most people, not just Democrats, and I you know, I think part of the problem is that Republicans and and I've seen this on the floor of the House and the Senate as well as in campaigns. You know, they talk a good story about
how they're going to improve people's plight. But generally, and I'm sure people will argue with this, but generally, I think it's been the Democrats who have brought to the floor of the House and the Senate strategies that might better assist and enable more average citizens as opposed to the wealthy get by. But the Democrats don't seem to be able to win the war of words on these issues.
And the Republicans that do a very good job of demogoguing this and you know, and making making it sound like, you know, they're there to save democracy, to ensure people's well being, and and you know, God forbid save us from the onslaught on the Mexican border, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Uh, that really seems to resonate. And I've
talked to friends, friends in Congress. I'm a former student who's a Republican in Congress, and I won't reference that individual, but I would say in general, people can't quite explain it, can't quite explain it, and are not sure how to, you know, rectify the situation. Except these messages are amplified in many ways. I mean, you know, we now have, you know, on a regular basis, opposing views of the
world between let's say NBC and MSNBC and Fox. And you know, I have had occasions, and I have you know, relatives who are Fox fans. I've had occasions of you know, being at my house listening to a story and then driving a total of fifteen minutes to my nearest cousin's house and seeing reference to the same story and wondering, as I walk in the door and listen to the story, is that the same story? Was that the same issue?
You know? And there's no filter, there's no register or meter to determine, you know, what's more truthful or less truthful. We're left to judge. And I think one of the big challenges we face as a demo democracy is all the various sources of information that people can go to to become informed, not knowing in many instances where that
information comes from, whether it's accurate or not. I mean, most Americans are busy earning a living during their day, so they can't sit around and you know, kind of compare notes between one network and another. You know, they become familiar with a given pundit or you know, a given newscast. I mean, look at the following for Joe Rogan as an example. You know, I I question his authenticity and and reliability in terms of the information he
provides his popularity. Well, that's the point that he attracts a tremendous audience, a big Hispanic audience, in fact, I know from from friends and colleagues, and who are Hispanic? To be clear, And and I I ask myself, you know, where where does one go to get the truth anymore?
Do we even know what truth is anymore? But the consequences of the messages that are being sent through these different channels, these different outlets, two audiences who may in fact choose the stations or channels they listen to based on the nature of the news and whether or not it makes them feel good as opposed to bad. Regardless of the accuracy, I think, you know, just confounds and confuses and makes it difficult to understand what is true
anymore and what is reliable anymore? And where one can go to get the most accurate information possible. I mean, imagine if you had ten different networks reporting reporting on the stock market. I mean, there you have a number and it's put up every day, and people know whether the market is up or down. But imagine if you had ten different ways to interpret that number. What would
that do to investors? You know, how would they how how could they judge whether or not we have a strong economy a weak economy, whether or not and where they should invest or not. Well, I happen to think that the decisions we make with regard to aplat leaders are as important, if not more important, than the high then the highs and lows of the stock market, because ultimately those people, in the decisions they make, are going to impact that market. But yet we have one place
to go to get the numbers. We have dozens of places to go to get an interpretation of the state of our economy, the state of the union, and even the health you know, of the nation overall. And it's confound and confusing and to some degree, and I think this has been documented. You know, it's not all intended to provide news. Much of it is produced by the Russians and others to simply influence our thinking. We used to call that propaganda.
Yeah, you know, it's interesting and it's a perfect segue. I wanted to talk a little bit about social media and the plans and you see them all the time. I used a practical example where a good for a very intelligent woman a master's degree, et cetera. And posted something the other day about how no one was memorializing that the Vietnam War had ended on that date, and I said, I beg your pardon. That's because it ended in April. But you have to do a little research
for that. In the past two gen we've talked about cognitive dissonance, where people tend to gravitate to points they want to believe in Okay, that they feel are important that reinforce their own beliefs. So you have this constant barrage And I said, you know, that's a plant, as you mentioned, from Russian and Chinese, simply to create discord and rancor, if you will, between Americans. And it's been
very successful. And it's a question I had a little bit further down, but I think it's more pertinent to talk about now, and part of that is the fact that it creates this inflammatory rhetoric. And I think we're all guilty of it to a degree as a matter of fact. And if you follow my social profile, you know, and I have been and I've had said difficult things, and I don't necessarily apologize for them because I see
my role as a provocateur. If I see trouble, and I see a present, a clear and present danger now and I write things accordingly. But I also every once in a while have to catch myself that the rhetoric, the accusatory rhetoric, ratchets things up, and it just keeps going higher and higher. So your thoughts, how do we deal with this superheated environment where we in somebody we
resort to name calling. I try not to. Somebody called me a moron the other day, so be it might be accurate, but is it really necessary within any conversation? But yet it seems, Jim, that we're all guilty of it. It's not a one way street. How did we get there? How do we get out of it?
Well, you've alluded to this, Frank, But you know, people like to engage in this course, sometimes inflicting views and values. I mean it can be you know, over a political ideology, it can be over you know, the impression of you know, a company or you know, uh sports team. You know,
Americans love to discuss, debate, argue over these issues. The difference today is news is presented in many different forms through many different outlets, and there are no filters or mechanisms to determine the truth and accuracy of those things. And I'm not sure you could even create that's a mechanism, because beauty is in the eye and beholder, and one observes a particular action or activity. You and I watch football all.
The time, and then their own light. It's true, you.
Hear a lot of different interpretations. So I don't know
how I don't know how we fix that problem. My greatest concern though, is that many many Americans, particularly new Americans, you know, whether you know they're recent immigrants or they are young people, they you know, they they don't know the way things used to be when there were a few networks, and while they might have disagreed slightly about you know, a set of facts, you know, the differences were not as huge or gross, if you will, as
they are today. And I imagine it's incredibly confusing. So people probably pick, you know, their favorite network that provides information in ways that they either prefer or they think as accurate or as timely, and and they base you know, their decisions and judgments on that. But we do know, for example, you know that you know, the Russians are constantly sending messages. You know, the Clinton campaign had to deal with that issue, misinformation that was online coming from
the Russians, unfortunately proven after the fact. You know, information now is more subjective than I think ever before. And you know, how one sees things or interprets things is always subjective to some degree. But then there is a body of fact that should serve as a foundation for you know, messaging what I would characterize as truth. I think some believe today that you know, there is no
such thing as truth. It's all a matter of interpretation, and you know, and one's point of view and position I you know, allude to the fact that you know, I have a cousin who has Fox on twenty four to seven. I tend to watch MSNBC and maybe ABC and NBC and CBS from time to time. But I could not convince my cousin that something he's seen on Fox was twisted or maybe interpreted in a way that may not be factually correct. Sorry to offend Fox, but
they deserve it. And this is what makes it so difficult, I think, to sort things out. And there are so many outlets, it's even difficult to know where people are getting their information from anymore so, given that people go to the people that they think they can trust, whether it's a Joe Rogan or you know, maybe it's a you know, maybe it's a different pundit, et cetera, and you know, and and these individuals and through their programming,
have done an excellent job of attracting an audience. Oftentimes it's a mix of news and entertainment and opinion. I mean, how you can see that on on Saturday mornings when you're trying to figure out who's playing college football that day.
So I don't know how you fix that problem, Frank, but yeah, I think it is undermining our ability to understand what is true and what is not and what the consequences are of failing to understand, you know, what we could consider accurate, up to date and informed decision making.
You know, it raises a good point, and it's one that I discussed with my journalism students at Foredom too. Is the idea of journalists and journalism being totally objective, and that's not only accurate, nor should it should it be. Christiana'men Poor has a really great lecture series on that about impartiality. At times as a reporter, you can't stay impartial because you see things and if they are wrong. There aren't two sides of the story, there's only one.
A classic example of somebody who might want to justify the Nazis there is no justification. That's an extreme example, but just to make a particular point, and there are still some people are I mean, it's been reported that Trump at one point said, well, Hitler did some good things. There's an example of that. It's up to a journalist to stop and say no. There's a great little meme too. You know, a journalist doesn't look out the window and say, gee,
I wonder if it's raining or it's sunny. Your job is to open the window, put your head out, and report whether it is sunny or raining. It can be that direct sometimes, but I think that gets confusing sometimes for people where and you mentioned there's kind of a lack of professionalism. You know, professional journalists are trained to do their research, to present the research in a factual way.
But now, because you have so much pungitry, so much Internet activity with people, anyone can call themselves an expert and anyone who chooses to can take their stuff as literal. Are your thoughts on that?
Well, I'm at one point and I'll respond to that. You know, in my mind, you know the best example of the extent to which this dissonance, if you will, exists, in how and how it can so misrepresent the truth are the nine to eleven deniers who are still out there everywhere and believe you know it was you know, I made for TV movie or something. I mean, how atrocious and frightening, But you know that exists, and I just it boggles the mind.
In mind Alex Jones when he said I was at Sandy Hook the most difficult assignment I ever had, and I had some tough, dangerous ones. That town was devastated by that tragedy, devastated. For someone to have the audacity to say that was stage is just extraordinary. But people believed him.
Of course, well because he's got a following and people choose to believe him. You know, there is like I said, you know, there's no meter one can look at or go to to determine how accurate a statement is or not in that regard. I mean, you can you can understand degrees of accuracy in reporting something, but that's that's I think, a whole different It's a whole different ballgame, you know. I just I worry that we are we are the standard for journalism that used to be you know, truth, accuracy,
and timeliness, which was also an important element. You know, it seems to have yielded to viewership and commercial income and and you know other quote unquote values that are far from you know, I think the values that should dictate the information that's provided and most importantly, how it's interpreted, and that's you know, truth and accuracy. But but I think we're looking at the consequences of this right now.
It'd be interesting to poll people whether they voted if GAMLA or whether they voted for Trump about particular issues. And this has been done and and you know, get the interpretation of you know, what was said, and you know, I don't know how you get past that now. Of course, you know, we have the Russians and others who are continuing to you know, uh, to do things to undermine democracy, and that just shows how important truth is that they
do this all the time. I mean, look at what they did to Hillary with regard to information emails and other, uh you know, other propaganda that they used to influence the outcome of the.
And I know you're aware of it, you know, part of Jeffersonian democracy. And Ben Franklin said the same thing. Now you have your republic if you can keep it people. You know, democracy in the sense is like a contact sport. You've got to be involved for it to work. And it can't be just once a year, you know, for
a week or two. Democracy is hard. And I'm one of my fears is that when you have oligarchs and the word fascist has been bounced around, and not without reason and not without legitimate fear because of what mister Trump has said if he keeps his promises, and this is another thing that I don't understand, supposedly freedom loving patriots who are so willing to give up some of
their basic freedoms like freedom of speech. He's already said he will seek revenge against those who have come out against him, who was a Jimmy kim Well or something. With part of his monologue the other day said I'm a target. I have to say, honestly, with what we're talking about here, and I know you feel it to the same to some degree as well. I feared that programs like this, free speech, my blog, anything that might be critical of the president is going to be eliminated.
And yet people supported it. Supposedly freedom people, freedom loving people supported that, acting against their own best interests. I just can't wrap my head around that.
Well, Frank, I would, I would offer this as well. It's not just in the media we see this. I mean, I can tell you from my experiences working in Congress that you know, members would go to the floor, both parties, and they would spin a story, you know, in a way that would help rationalize their position or justify you know, an argument. And you know, to some degree all matters are subject to interpretation. But you know, I think it's reached a point where obvious lives are not called out.
In fact, it's a rule, you know, in the Congress that you're not allowed to criticize them ever on the floor in that regard. So so it makes it very very difficult to sort out, you know, the fact from fiction. And make no mistake about it, though fact and fiction have very very different impacts and implications for decision makers, for the public, and ultimately for our democracy.
We touched on it a little bit. The changing demographics of this country one of the things that I think has caused some I call it fear and loathing. I
stole that from Hunter Thompson. But to make a particular point that the you know, the the genetic you know, excuse me, the racial makeup of this country eventually will change in just a few years from primarily white to primarily dark, if you will, And that has created certainly fear amongst white groups that they'll leave, they'll lose some of them, the few gains that they feel they've made over time will be lost in this eglitarian pursuit, which
is faulty in its own thinking. But let's get back to the changing democrats demographics, and it was interestingly in this in this particular election cycle, Latino blacks and young people who were used to be very solidly democratic not so much anymore. If you look at the numbers and considering his rhetoric, they seem to vote against their own best interests. Why do you why do you feel that that happened?
If I had the answer, to that right, and I'll put you on the spot, Jims.
I know, I don't have you have the answers.
What I find interesting is how the rhetoric has changed. I mean, you know, there's you know, still a hue and cry, a demand if you will, by many who supported Donald Trump to build the wall, the stop immigration. Yet look at the extent of Latino support for Donald Trump in this election. I mean, it was to my mind startling extent to which he was able to garner that that kind of support. You know, I'm not sure what that says about an issue about the you know, like the wall and immigration.
You know, it suggests, if you will, and it may be a hard thing to say, but it certainly suggests we're in closed the door and many immigrants and many immigrants and then not only led to many immigrants through the course of years, Oh I came legally, and which isn't always entirely true. I mean, closed the door.
There's a history of that, There's no doubt about that. There is a history of that, you know. But you know, we should not forget as Americans that you know, with the exception of Native Americans, you know, we all have roots elsewhere and you know, people have you know, come to the United States, often fought hard, sacrificed greatly to get to the United States because one of the things they wanted to benefit from was truth, because they couldn't get it in their own country. And I fear we
are headed in that same direction. And I don't blame it on the immigrants. I blame it on the people in leadership positions who feel that using that kind of rhetoric, using that tactic is justified, irrational, and you know, and
it's incredibly troubling. I mean, I I think I saw some of the elements of that, certainly earlier element so that you know, it's in some of the time that I testified before the Congress, particularly while I was working for President Clinton, when the Democrats were in charge, and I recognized Democrats are going to be easier on Democrats than then Republicans are going to be on Democrats, and
vice versa. But you know, we we we would have pretty cordial and straightforward hearings, debate issues, no doubt about that. But in my second uh term, I shouldn't say that. When the Republicans took over the Congress in President Clinton's second term, or did the dialogue change, it got heated, or a lot of accusations, and serving as a witness
was less presenting information than being interrogated. And you know, I can't say that, you know, the Republicans sat down and decided that was, you know, the strategy or the tactic they were going to use. But I would tell you that. And again maybe it's because I was a Democrat, but the rhetoric was much stronger, much more heated, from
the Republican side. I had an experience after I left working for Congress when I was representing an organization and was asked on behalf of this nonprofit organization to come and testify on Capitol Hill about a particular issues had to deal with oil and gas lacing and the impacts on some threatened species in areas where the oil gas industry wanted to drill and conservation community wanted to preserve
some important areas for maintaining these species. To make a long story short, I testify to what I knew and understood about these issues, and the chairman of the committee, who apparently was not there for the entire meeting, came back to the meeting or appeared at the meeting, and when the sitting chair gaveled down the hearing to end the hearing yearher, the full committee came down to the witness table or was sitting, and I mean almost assaulted me.
I mean he just kept saying, you lied, you lied, you lied, and you did and I said, Congress know you too, I said, Congress, and I'm missus Chairman. This is the information as I understand it, and I'm glad to go back and review my sources and provide that information to you if it's going to help. But you know, I testified under oath, and I did mention the fact that my whole, my whole family or a policeman. So you know, don't accuse me of doing something that's inconsistent
with what I was brought up to believe. Right, he didn't give a damn.
You know. Another interesting thing, and when you look beyond the numbers too, with Harris and Trump, and you can't avoid it, considering, uh, Hillary Clinton, a white woman okay, lost the election through the electoral college but won the popular vote, okay. Barack Obama a black man, okay, and he won both. Okay. Now you have Vice President Harris who lost both. So certainly, the suggestion is that a certain level, when you compare those things, a certain level
of sexism and racism had to come into play. Is it fair to say, considering our history, is sexism racism kind of deeply rooted in our DNA that every once in a while bubbles to the top and then we have to deal with it because this again keeps repeating.
There was an awful video and then I'll let you get to the point, and I won't even mention his name, but it was one of these like stick your tongue out, stick your middle finger in the face of people who supported Harris, and basically glot voting that there's no such thing as a glass ceiling. It's a brick ceiling, and a woman is never going to be elected president of the United States. And he was damn proud to say it. No, I know he was being provocative just to get eyeballs,
but there are people who believe that. Jim, I think we need to address is and just flat out asking in our soul do we have is it partially blackened by sexism and racism?
I don't think there's any doubt about that. I mean, look at we refer to the population of the earth as mankind, right, that hasn't changed. And well, I mean I have two daughters, so I've seen some of what they've had to deal with. Interesting though, that today the president elect announced that the first woman would serve as the first woman to serve as chief of staff in a White House. Would would work for him? Now, she also ran his campaign, I believe, so there's there's a
natural connection there. But look, Democrats had many opportunities to do that and elected not to. I'm not so sure that Hillary Clinton might not have been the first to do that where she elected, but we we can only speculate because that never came about.
Now.
I think, you know there there clearly remains an imbalance, and I would also offer that that you know, there will continue to be I think an imbalance between you know, Americans who are white, Americans who are of a different race or ethnicity. You know, we are a conglomerate. But you know, all too often I think people go back to their corners and so to speak, and you know, fail to recognize that it we're all Americans and we have an obligation to help each other lift all boats,
as they say. I worry that that will get worse. Has nothing to do with who the chief of staff is, you know, regardless of man or woman. It has everything to do with the administration's policies and how they how they elected move forward. So I mean, these these are troubling times in many respects, but I think most importantly they're troubling times because I think we have made so much progress on so many fronts. We are a country of immigrants. Yes, we've had issues to deal with at
the border. No one's quite come up with the right solution. Now it sounds like we're going to just completely cut off the border, but it'd be interesting to see how, you know, how that resolves itself. You know, for example, I think it is well known, but you know, the the agriculture industry, which depends heavily on labor for harvesting crops. It's particularly true, you know, for oranges and the like in the southeast, or the apple crops in in Washington
State and in the Northwest. There are exceptions that allow migrant workers to come in and and operate. They don't they're not American citizens, but they are welcomed, you know, to do the work that they do. They get compensated, but then they're expected to return. And that used to be the case. Actually in northern New Jersey, where where I spent a lot of my time, you know, the
the area in what's known as the Warwick Valley. You know, that was the fruit and vegetable basket for New York City, and and there was housing everywhere for migrant workers and basically all that they harvested before we truck things from coast to coast basically you know, found its way into the markets in New York City. And those micro workers worked all summer long. You know, I get to know some of the I was younger then some of the
kids of some of these workers. They weren't very different from you and I, except they didn't speak very good English because they were never provided that opportunity. But they they made these you know, they made the growers up there wealthy.
Jim and I use the term it just seems to be so appropriate. The fear and loathing that is heaped upon these people were going to give you a practical example, an empirical example. Living here in Nayak, I love to walk, and in walking I passed two or three landscaping crews there was another construction crew who was working on the Carson mccullor's house who had lived in the Great author and they're re storing it and making it a writer's place,
et cetera. Anyway, the point being, they were all speaking Spanish, they were all working hard. Okay, they were all speaking Spanish. And after the day is over, they don't go out in town and create trouble and raided and rape women, their rapists and they're buying drugs. I see them waiting often with their lunch pails and their dirty clothes, waiting at the bus stop to go home to their families. The whole idea of deporting tens of thousands, if not millions,
of these people is just extraordinary. And Anthony Bourdain, the great late author and chef, said, in all his forty plus years of working in restaurants, he never saw a white man do dishes. So the idea that they're taking our jobs is again, was an idea that we managed to be sold but really has no real basis. In fact, what will we do to replace all these people who will be missing?
Well, it is unfortunate, but I was gonna say it's unfortunate, but you know, as you know, you know, eating they're eating dogs and cats. I mean, you know, it was one.
Of the largest Haitian communities, by the way, Niac Spring Valley outside of Miami. Love my Asian neighbors. My cat Tuxedo chose in and out all the time, he says, ah, and he's getting fatter and fatter, and maybe I should watch out.
I dare say, You're not going to find a lot of Caucasians who are willing to go out and work long days in the fields harvesting. You know, they're they're on a different track, and some find that worked. The meaning but it's I just worry about I wonder about how a president who claimed that immigrants were eating dogs and cats could be supported as he was by people, you know, with similar ethnic or racial backgrounds. I mean, I just it's it's sad.
That's the id in my opening. It's just hard to wrap your head around it. Jim, You'll be studied for years with people more than you and I I think, well, certainly me, I don't know about you.
Well, I just I just I just hope you know, a Trump presidency doesn't set us back further. You must feel like we've been making some progress, but you know, how, how can you provide support and assistance when when you benefit from demonizing those same people.
I want to talk about that what we can do going forward, because certainly, and again to quote a great movie, online, failure is not an option. We are still all Americans, we still have a country to live in, to run, et cetera. So again, we can't wring our hands and throw them up in the air in frustration. That's that's not a it's going to be not a successful strategy. Let's talk a little bit about that. Let's take a quick break. First half has been absolutely great. We'll come back.
My very special guest is Jim Lyons, Washington insider in many ways a good friend, and he's providing us with lots of intelligent conversation in our election host mortem. I'm your host, Franklebono. This is being Frank. We're the only way to be is Frank. We'll be back with more right after these brief commercial messages. Please don't go anywhere yet.
Hudson River Radio dot com.
This is Hudson River Radio dot com. Hudson River Radio dot com. This is Hudson River Radio dot com.
Hudson Riverradio dot com.
Welcome back to Being Frank, the Intelligent Conversation podcast. Thanks for sticking with us. I'm your host, Frank Bubuono, our engineer is Neil Richter, and our very special guest who will be back to in just a minute or so, it's mister Jim Lyons. You know, we bring our audience a fresh topic every week and stream from Hudson River Radio, located and beautiful and historic Stony Point in New York.
But remember, you can catch Being Frank anywhere you get your favorite podcasts like Apple, Spotify, iHeartRadio and all the others. And because every Being Frank is archived, you can listen to any of our programs any time you like. You can find the link to Being Frank on the Hudson River Radio Facebook page or at our website Hudsonriverradio dot com. Just click and you're there. Okay, we'll continue our discussion
now with mister Jim Lyons. It's an election post mortem with a very interesting perspective from a man who was in two presidential administrations and saw a lot of things from the inside, and we'll continue our discussion about the election. Jim, you during the break, you wanted to bring up a story of a man that you greatly admired during your time in the administration and how he was able to bring coalitions together. Tell us a little bit about that.
Story, sure well, Frank. What brought this to mind was my reaction to the allegations by now President Elector Trump that immigrants were eating dogs and cats as part of their campaign rhetoric. When I went to work on Capital Hill, I had the good fortune to work for one of the first Hispanic members of Congress. He was the first chairman of a major committee in Congress. His name was Kika de la Garza, and Kika was a serious but jovial guy, worked well across both sides of the aisle,
and was very supportive of me and others. I had just joined the committee. I worked for a subcommittee chairman, and he saw what I did, took me aside one day and said, Jim, I'd like you to come work for me. I'm impressed with you. Know what you've learned in such a short period of time. And we have
important issues coming up. And this was a farm bill that was going to come up, and it's the legislation that creates the framework for all the agricultural programs in the United States as well as programs such as school lunch program and nutrition programs. So it was an important piece of legislation. But it was quite an honor to be recognized by Kika and invited to be part of
his team, and we were very successful. This was the nineteen ninety five Farm Bill, and putting together a farm bill that expanded conservation programs, expanded nutrition programs, set new standards for food safety and health. Really visionary in his own way. So when I heard the comment about immigrants eating dogs and cats, I wanted to throw something at the TV because I thought, what an insult to one man I knew, who exemplifies the hard work, the creativity,
and the commitment to democracy that this gentleman had. In fact, his son I was in the Navy, the US Navy, obviously, and I remember one day, since I live out towards the Naval Academy outside Washington, d C. The chairman grabbed me at a hearing and said, Jim, would you drive me out to the Naval Academies to see my son who was stationed there for a short period of time. So he could have gotten anybody to give him a ride, and he could have, you know, got a limo to
take him out there. It was the most fascinating conversation, and I felt like I was having a conversation with somebody in Fort Lee, just that kind of human being. So to vilify and insult immigrants is in my mind, disgusting and like, you know, people from all back rounds, you know, ethnicity racist. You know, you've got to judge the person as a person and and make the investment of time and effort to understand those persons what they're dealing with. And that goes for white people, I know,
black people, et cetera. I think one of the things we share, Frank, is I think we've always treated people like that when we played ball together.
You mentioned our parents, and we were well parented who taught us respect for everyone, for all life and everyone. So it's strange about this, It's not.
That hard well, and I wish that we could just get past this, this tendency to use race and ethnicity as a political weapon and recognize the important value that individuals, regardless of their background, you know, and their experiences and certainly their ethnicity is That's not the way to measure people, and it should never be the way to measure people.
And I hope they'll our president elect will get past using it as a weapon and see it as a true asset, because that's what America is, a diverse community. And now we're a diverse community and we can accomplish great things together. But the best way to disrupt and destroy this great democracy is to decide to vilify certain individuals, organizations, races, ethnicity. It is just wrong.
Jim, what do you tell people who were hurting, who see this administration as a clear and present danger. As you mentioned, we're all Americans. We have to get through this together. What do you suggest how do we do this? Failure again, that's to belabor failure is not an option.
Well, the only thing you can do right now is try to allay their fears, because there are a lot of people who are afraid what the consequences may be, and try to help others understand that they need to look past the color of a person's skin or frankly, you know the language they speak. You know in my world, in your world, hear a lot of Spanish these days.
And I will tell you, I will tell you most of the people who are doing the labor that I see, and it's everything from construction to agriculture to you know, not just physical labor, but other work.
They tend to be people came from other countries, from other regions, and you know, yeah, we are all created equal to me, have different dialects, are come from different places. But let's treat people like human beings and respect them for what they can do. Recognize everyone makes mistakes, and try to help people get past those mistakes and be successful in their own right because we are a nation
of imigrant's. God damn it. You know, I have a lot of friends who are Native Americans, including one you've connected me with. Yes, up in North Jersey.
Harry was on our last episode always.
And uh you know, and uh yeah, And they have every right to be upset about the way we've treated the land, and you know that we didn't inherit that we took from them, But even he sees the importance of working together, of finding ways to collaborate to make this land and this nation better. And you know, enough
is enough. I hope, I hope the next Trump administration can get past using rhetoric, that rhetoric as a weapon and find ways to bring people together, you know, for the greatness of the country and what it can be.
Jim, we're just about at a time, but I want to give you a chance. I know you still actively involved open space sustainability. It's is big on your agenda. If you can quickly in about a minute or so, what are you up to?
Sure?
Well, Fortunately, with a generous grant from a donor, my wife Jennifer Palmery and I have purchased two hundred and twenty acres of land right on the New York New Jersey border.
It central to Warwick basically, but it is adjacent to the Appalachian Trail as well as to way Way on the State Park. And our goal there is to demonstrate how to use agriculture as a means to mitigate climate change, you know, we call them nature based solutions, but to grow crops, to manage forests, to maintain biodiversity, to mitigate climate change, and to focus on connecting not only the landscapes that are important for wildlife in that area, but
connecting people back to their land. We call it the Highland Center for Climate Conservation and Connectivity. And as we put this together over the next year or two. We hope to bring kids up from Newark, Jersey City, New York City, capitalize on a facility that is right nearby
in Warwick. We might be able to house some of these kids and give them exposure to the outdoors, help them learn about agriculture and conservation, and help them understand what they can achieve regardless of their ethnicity, their background, or where they happen to live the rest of the time.
Great worthy goal, Jim Lyons, my friend, one of my longest friends. Yeah, we gave up our age sixty. Can you believe that sixty years two fort lee boys who would.
Have sixty years old?
Friend, Well, I don't tell everybody plus plus plus anyway, my friend, always a pleasure. This was absolutely terrific And again I hope we sent the message that we can get through this stick together, love one another, serve one another. They are only cheesy terms if you allow them to be, and we won't. So thank you for being Frank and always your intelligent conversation. Jim.
It's always a pleasure, h pleasure, Frank. Thanks you know.
Of course, we offer special thanks to our listeners who take time to give us a voice in their lives. We offer fresh topic every week. Catch us wherever and whenever you get your favorite podcasts. Check us out on the Hudson River Radio Facebook page, Like us and leave us a comment too. We also ask you that you consider sharing Being Frank with others. You know always leave you with two little things a slogan and I think is appropriate, and a song also to enjoy to close
out the podcast. This of course comes from Ben Franklin, one of the greatest Americans, one of the greatest people in the history of the world, and he said, liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dreaded. I think very appropriate for our conversation today. Takes work. You gotta work at it. Our closing music is again from some of my favorites, the Ruse Bros, The Ruse Brothers, and a little tongue in cheek here it's called even the Devil Don't Want Him. I'm your host, Frank lebono for
our engineer Neil Richter. We hope to have you join us for the next Being Frank, where the only way to be is Frank.
Thanks everybody spreading lies using God.
It's his tool.
But you think he's wise, it's just his fool he's like to see spreading.
Far and wide.
I'm wondering how I don't get sick and die. Tell you why the devil don't want him? Even the devil don't have him?
Go devil, don't you?
Even the devil don't want him. If you, the devil won't have him.
That's why.
He grew up rich, kicking his feet to leave you in the ditch.
And then retreat.
God everything money could buy, and you could shoot him on fib.
Out anue, But he won't die.
Why the devil don't want him? Even the devil won't tap the devil. The devil don't want him.
Even the devil won't tab.
Use.
He never help you up, love to knock you down.
He thinks he's a saint.
But he's just a clown. He wants a parade so he can glow. He ain't gonna die, So you bet up a pot.
The devil don't want him. Even the devil won't have him.
The devil want to use him.
I tried.
The devil don't want him, even the devil.
Gonna have him.
Devil wanna use on him.
Come on.
Him, don't want me.
We're heavy.
We didn't choose.
In the deal, don't walk in.
This is Hudson River Radio dot com MHM