Hi, I'm Mollie John Fast and this is Fast Politics, where we discussed the top political headlines with some of today's best minds. We're on vacation this week, but that doesn't mean we don't have an amazing show for you today. Emily's List President Leafonza Butler It talks to us about electing pro choice candidates in twenty twenty four. But first we have Princeton professor Julian Zelizer here to talk about the historical president for third party candidates.
Welcome to Fast Politics, Julian.
Thanks, it's great to be with you.
Delighted to have you, your fancy historian. We love our fancy Princeton historians. We try to get them on as much as possible. I want to talk to you about the cage match that we are about to spend sixteen months or more covering, and that is what it very much looks like will be a rematch between Biden and Trump.
Is there any historical precedents for this?
Not really, This is very unusual to have this configuration, to have this matchup. You know, it's not just the matchup of these two guys who have run, but it's also the matchup of a president and former president who's indicted many times over, and so it's one of those very unique configurations that I don't know how it's kind of unsault.
It's funny because when we were texting before this, you said, well, what do you want to talk about? I said this and this, and then I said, you know what a candidate with multiple indictments running for president? And you were like, there's not a lot of president for that. I mean, is there there is some like hinky weird precedent, but not mock try it?
No, absolutely, Like So in nineteen twenty Eugene Debs ran, he was the Socialist and he was in jail, he had been put into prison for the Sedition Act, and he runs. You know, he doesn't win, but it's a campaign. And I think that's one kind of model people talk about. Rick Perry, who was the governor of Texas, was also indicted when he ran. His campaign was a little like DeSantis. You know, it was the next big thing until it wasn't,
and that wasn't why it failed. So there are those kinds of examples as well.
Yeah.
The thing that with Trump, which I feel like is really important to talk about is that he sort of takes advantage of the fact that there is no historical precedent.
Yeah, I mean that is true, or at least to create that impression. I mean, when there is no precedent, people just can't figure out where this all goes. Is not that normal roadmap people follow or in politics have about how this plays out because you literally don't know what's coming next. And by creating the idea of unprecedented, he shakes people up. I think he's trying to scare them,
and often they don't know exactly how to reactor. They're worried that things will unfold in ways you don't think they will.
Yeah, And that is such an interesting and to such an important data point when we're talking about this for a minute.
I mean we're seeing.
Now Trump is trying to kick down the can with all these indictments. See if he can kick the can down the road, trying to keep all this stuff from you know, be able to run without these things hurting his campaign. Obviously that will, you know, I mean, he can't control some of this, but.
He really can.
Like I mean, I think what's sort of interesting about Trump is that fighting accountability is something that he's quite good.
At No, he's good at it. I mean there's an element of Trump where he can survive these meaning he's had a long career politics where he's evading the law, he's evading problems, and he's figured out how to skirt the line. He also has a little bit of Richard Nixon and meaning not just what he does, but he loves to pit himself against an establishment. And Nixon did that all the time. When people attacked him, it was the system that was broken, not him. And it wasn't
simply him being attacked, it was his supporters. As Nixon said, the silent majority was who he stood for. And Trump does that as well. I think at some level he's been effective at each indictment coming his way. Somehow it becomes a way where he can rally support, he can define himself as an anti establishment person, and you know, he can also use all of this to threaten the people investigating him.
Yeah, it's such a sort of interesting thing.
I would like to get to Nick, get back to Nixon for a minute, because when you listen to Trump, so much of what Trump sounds like is like Nixon and Spureau I knew. Talk to me about where this Trump ist, racist, nationalist otherism comes from.
It's a mix. I mean, he is one of the few politicians who wants to emulate Richard Nixon instead of away from Nixon. It's fascinating, but I think his rage against Washington, his rage against coastal elites. Nixon did that
all the time. Nixon, even though he was as establishment as you could be he'd been vice president, senator, he always presented himself as this guy who was continually under attacked by the Harvard educated, you know, State Department kind of officials who didn't appreciate what he was and I think that was his mantra. I think Trump has picked that up. And then there's another element of Republican politics
that was there in the sixties. For sure. It's a kind of reactionary strand of American politics that's against civil rights legislation, that's against changes in the country that created more diversity, and those have allly intensified since Nixon was in office. Nixon was not as eager to totally jump
into that kind of politics as Trump is. But I think both strands have been there since the sixties and seventies, and Trump has just both brought them together and elevated them, and he does everything in broad daylight.
Yeah, but there's certain like they're coming for you, but they have to go through me to get to you. That kind of weird, like somehow I'm being prosecuted for your persecuted and prosecuted for your sins. It's like almost a kind of bizarro Jesus thing. I mean, is there a president for that? I mean, was that from the Nixon? Is that at George Wallace? I mean, where does that come from?
No, I mean in terms of actual investigations. Yes, Nixon until the end when he resigns in August of seventy four, he and many Republicans are adamantly defending the White House and they were arguing, this is just a partisan way shunt. It's an effort by Democrats to undercut what they hated, meaning that Republicans were the ones who won at the end of the sixties. And so he did make that argument until the very end. Bill Clinton did a little
of this, you know, when he was being impeached. One of the ways in rally support was to say this is partisan Republicans not untrue, such as Nude ging Ridge as the Speaker of the House, who were trying to go after not just him, but what he stood for. They were trying to reverse the legacy of the nineteen sixties.
So it is a strategy we've seen before. I don't think either Nixon or Clinton came anywhere close to what Trump has done and is able to kind of use the ways he's able to use these moments to his advantage.
I am struck by that.
We find Trump very like this sort of partisan rhetoric. Yes, it definitely, you know, we definitely saw Clinton had issues with this, We saw Nixon had issues with that. You know that they both sort of did to a certain extent. I mean, Nixon obviously is not comparable to Clinton and Clinton. You could say there's no one on God's Green Earth who doesn't think that Ken Star was a partisan. So I mean, yes, he definitely, you know, he definitely committed
a crime, but as also partisan leading. What I think is interesting I'm thinking about is like, so Ron de Santis or de Santis, because no one knows how you pronounce it, because he won't clarify.
And he pronounces it both ways.
Ron de Santis was saying in an interview, like the thing that he did, which I actually think is quite smart and is why he's much much more dangerous than Trump is. He said, well, you know this is a partisan because and he pointed to the Alvin Bragg which is the least very much the least strong indictment. Right, I mean there are real you know, the classified documents. I mean you have stuff where you really have him on tape saying like, I have a classified document here, let me show it to you.
It's a little bit smart. I mean, do you think it flies with the right or no?
Well, I mean there's two different strategies. The Santis strategy is in some ways more familiar. You kind of pick at the weakness of the case or theest parts of the case. You highlight those and you say that's what this is all about. And people are realiz know, the I think the Hull Alvin Bragg case, it's not as clear to people what the it is, and even legal people say it's a little weaker. And so that is a strategy you ignore the rest. Let's not talk about
the overturning the election that seems to be coming. Let's not talk about stealing classified die Let's talk about that one. I think it can be effective. I mean I think what DeSantis and other Republicans have is this incredible conservative media ecosystem which will amplify that message. They will make
the case after DeSantis has Trump's strategies different. It's just like flood the whole public with just a lot of smear, untruth lies, and just to characterize the whole thing, from brag to the January sixth investigation as one big partisan hit job against him. And I don't know which is more effective in this day and age. Look, the polls suggests Trump is onto something at least compared to DeSantis.
But I think both can work, and I think sometimes Democrats underestimate how these counter attacks can undercut some of the political damage. You'd expect either of these two candidates to suffer.
From all of this, right, I mean, the game here is to try to sort of kick the can procrastinate, make it seem like it's a false equivalency, like there was a political There's always this feeling, and it may just be among a certain group of people, but I definitely always sense that there's a feeling that the American electorate is getting dumber?
Is it getting dumber?
What is the phenomenon that we're seeing right now.
I don't know if we're getting dumber. I mean, I think we all of us live in this atmosphere where it's very hard to discern what's true and what's not, and overloaded with information, and the good news, there's a lot of that information actually makes us smarter. I think, you know, politics is less secret, we know more about
what's going on. It's hard to be as public. On the other hand, there's so much out there unfiltered, unedited that I do think it's easier to kind of trick people or distract people today than it was in the nineteen seventies or nineteen eighties. And secondly, I do think a lot of people are disengaged from politics, and so it's not the dumber, but they're not really as interested, sometimes justifiably in being totally engaged and sorting through the
kind of information that comes their way. And politicians relate both of those to kind of move forward or to di seminate ideas that just aren't true.
Yeah, and it is interesting.
I mean I think about this sort of fake news phenomenon.
This is not a new phenomenon fake news.
I mean, there is a historical precedent of fake news.
Will you talk to us about that?
All the things I didn't tell you I was going to talk to you about I am now talking to you about.
Sorry, No, I mean fake news is always the and there's the level of fake news where you know, conspiratorial ideas make their way into the public. In the nineteen fifties and sixties, there was you know, conspiratorial ideas about how Carthy the Karthy, or how the Soviets were putting fluoride in our water. There's a famous seating in Doctor Strangelove, which comes out in sixty four, where that's a main part of the story. And those were circulating ideas about
race and race riots. I mean that always was out there. It didn't get as mainstream as it does today. So there wasn't a Fox News that was the fake news, and I think that's the kind of marriage of two forces which has been pretty destructive.
But you had tabloid journalism.
I mean you had things like that, right absolutely, But again, the National Inquirer was not kind of hitting the same audience as the people who read the New York Times or the Washington that's no longer true. There's also been high level fake news, so you know, anyone who studies Vietnam and the war can go through that Lyndon Johnson Richard Nixon presidency and see how much misinformation the public was being called about what was going on in the wars.
Things that were just categorically not accurate, not capturing what was on the ground, ultimately led to a lot of the distrust we have today. I had a lot of the public sentiment that's susceptible to these other ideas.
Yeah, that is such an interesting thing.
I mean there were certain things like didn't the public not know how sick FDR was.
Yeah, they didn't know how sick FDR was. They didn't know about all of Jay John F. Kennedy's relation. So there's that level also of that wasn't hiding it, though, so much as there were things that reporters just weren't interested in covering, or they didn't think it was needed or right to cover. The fake news is different. Information's being pumped out that's just not true, and I think that in some ways is even more dangerous because the
hidden stuff could be found, They could be discovered. This becomes much harder to push back against.
Yeah, it really does.
And it's interesting because it is like that is the same thing with Trump. Right, this uncharted territory, the place where there just isn't pressed on you can't look back on it and say this is like Nixon, this is like this. I wonder, like with this third party candidate stuff, you clearly see a lot of people on the right nervous that their guy who is likely going to be the nominee unless something really huge happens, and even if something really huge happens, I mean I think it's going
to be the nominatee. That there's really a push on the right to get a third party candidate going because they know that's really the only way they can win.
We've seen I mean I remember, like I mean, you.
Think about all of the third party candidates. I mean, can we just have a two second on third party candidates?
Yeah, I mean third party candidates can cause damn and I think people underestimate what they can do. It is true that the odds of a third party being victorious are you know, as simile as they get, and we don't samples of it is other than the Republican Party. That's really it in terms of success. But third parties have a long history of damaging one of the other two. So the most famous recent memories obviously Ralph Nader in two thousand, who many people think definitely hurt al Gore
in Florida in particular cut some of his vote. George Wallace in nineteen sixty eight medically when he ran, he actually took Democratic votes away from Hubert Humphrey by kind of playing to racial backlash and fears in the newer they're and ethnic, white working class electorate. That hurt Humphrey in a very close election.
And Ross Barreau right are here.
In nineteen ninety two. People dispute kind of how it worked, but a lot of Republicans think his focus on the deficit and his issues hurt George H. W. Bush. So there's a long history of these parties being significant, not always, but those are some examples that we see. And so this year, I think both Republicans and Democrats have their eye on people like Joe Manchin. They have their eye
on primary challenges like Robert Kennedy Junior. And because we're in this unprecedented world, no one's is comfortable decisively saying this won't matter. Because through that in twenty sixteen, and it mattered.
Julian, Thank you so much. I hope you'll.
Come back, of course, always a pleasure.
Lafon's Butler is the president of Emily's List. Welcome to Fast Politics, Lafonza.
Butler, thanks for having me.
Very delighted to have you so explain to us a little bit about what your organization does.
Yeah, you know, Emily's List is a thirty eight year old organization that has worked to create the legacy of changing the face of politics.
We helped to.
Elect democratic, pro choice women to office at every level of the ballot. Our first race was helping Barbara Mkowsky get elected to the US Senate in nineteen eighty six, being the first woman elected in.
Her own right.
From there, the organization story really has taken off and has had great impact. From the first Year of the Woman in nineteen ninety two to the sort of second iteration of the Year of the Woman in twenty eighteen, it has been this organization that is the largest political resource for women in politics.
That is very cool. So talk to me about what you're working on right now.
Yeah, Molly, there is so much happening in the world in US politics right now. Some things that we are focused on now include the elections that are happening in Virginia this year twenty twenty three. The Virginia State legislature is going through its first elections after redistricting, and it is a critical state, bellwether state for what the kinds of conversations and issues that are top of mind for voters and elected officials in.
Preview for twenty twenty two.
Virginia is of utmost importance for an organization like ours because it is one of the few states on the Eastern Seaboard where a woman can still access or reproductive care beyond twelve weeks, and it is important that we elect a legislature that will help to make sure that that remains true. And the Governor of Virginia has already said that he intends to put forward anti abortion six
week ban legislation in Virginia. And having a democratic pro choice legislature which women will be incredibly important part, is a real, real priority for us, just like everyone else, Molly, we are looking forward and in preparation for twenty twenty four elections and helping women who are running deciding now if they are going to run for office, make those decisions, stand up their campaigns, hire their staff and sharpen their
messages and engagement to voters. And you know, we are very much focused on supporting Vice President Harris in twenty twenty three and twenty twenty four and beyond.
Our nation has never had.
A woman break through the doors of the White House until the election of Vice President Harris. And because of her presence, we are as a nation or having conversations about reproductive healthcare, We are having conversations about the black maternal health and maternal health generally. We are talking about the importance of childcare and sustainable childcare for working class
families across the country. And so her presence in the supporting the role then the agenda of President Biden is critically important to continuing to break through glass ceilings that have yet to be shattered by women and particularly women of color. I'm in elected office across the country and we are making that priority as well, so win in more seats in the Senate, getting to a democratic getting back to a democratic majority in the House, protecting the White House, helping to elect.
Governors, women who are running.
For governor's offices as well as mayor offices and other constitutional officers, and state legislatures.
We are really.
Mainly trying to do all the things to advance representation and voice of women in a diverse set of women all over the country as we work to protect a reproductive freedom and restore fundamental rights for all people in the US.
Can we talk about we had some of the anti choice Democrats and how are.
You addressing that? I mean, do you support anti choice democrats? Are you able to run against them?
I mean, I know we interviewed someone in Virginia who was running against who was primary an anti choice Democrat.
Talk to us about that.
Yeah, Look, we're very clear that we only support democratic pro choice women. We do not have a problem nor
do we shy away from challenging anti choice democrats. It is so essential to the mission of Emily's List that there is a share set of values with the American people with every candidate that we support, and you know, consistently over decades and at record levels now, it is clear that the American people are in favor of women and families being able to make their reproductive health decisions
with them, between them sales and their doctors. And that has been the legacy of Emily's Listen, so we were proud to be supporting las Cherie's aired in Virginia.
Yes, we had her on the podcast.
Yeah yeah, yeah.
She challenging the last anti choice Democrat who happened to be a man in Virginia by the name of Joe Morrissey. She defeated him in that primary, and we are have been supporting La Cherie in her public service for a number of years now, and we're proud to be standing
with her this time around as well. What we have learned over our thirty eight years in operation is that the way for women to really break through through democratic primaries in particular is to challenge and to create a real contrast between the positions of democratic pro choice women
and anti choice democrats. And the way and how we have gotten to historic representation number in Congress and in state legislatures for women across the country is you know, really being in those primaries giving voters a clear contrast and doing the work and investing, frankly, to help them to win.
I want to ask you about what it looks like in Virginia. Virginia is one term gubernatorial. You can't run for reelection, So what does the Virginia gubernatorial look like.
That's a part of the great work that we do here at emlisis. We are one of the organization, one of the very few organizations who works to recruit candidates and help to actually build the pipeline along with all of the other candidate services and supports that I've talked with you about thus far, and so helping to create that bench and pipeline of Democratic pro choice candidates is really a part of how we see the horizon of future elections and so sharpening the candidates that Emily's List
is working with. We have been present in a number of organizations and allies have been present in Virginia. There are many Democratic candidates, pro choice candidates who I think are going to be looking to run for governor in the state of Virginia, and we're going to be working to keep our eye on women who are ready and prepared to engage the Virginia voters and the commonwealth and talk about their vision for the future. But it's going to be I think it's going to be a crowded governor's race.
Oh yeah, I do think so.
I think voters are going to have the ability to make some clear choices around the differences between those candidates.
There still are anti choice Democrats in the party, but less and less, I mean, are primary in these candidates a priority.
It definitely is for women in this country who thought that their reproductive healthcare choices were theirs to make had right the first time in almost fifty years had a right taken away from them. You are right to note that there are still anti abortion democrats, I mean, just not long ago. It was a third rail issue in the Democratic Party, I think, particularly because people always thought
that role would always be there. No one ever expected that a Supreme Court would take a right away from the entire is a priority for Emily's List and the candidates that we support is that we put forward candidates who stand with the will of the majority of people in this country, and whether that is through a primary process or leaning heavily in the general election, whether it starts with candidate recruitment and helping to build a coalition,
a winning coalition around that candidate. We are determined that we have to do everything that we can to ensure that we continue to be a representative voice for the will of the American people, and increasingly the Republican Party is making sure that people understand that they are anti abortion, that they want to strip away women's rights, that they want to have the power and control to make decisions
about people's bodies, their families, and their freedom. Organizations like Emily's List and the candidates that we support have to stand in clear contrast to that.
Tell me about a candidate you're excited about. Oh, my goodness, there are so many blots, or give me two or whatever. I mean, just somebody who you're just as top of mind right now.
Yeah, top of mind for me is Prince Georgia's County Executive Angela also Brooks, who is running in the state of Maryland to be the next US Senator. In the state of Maryland, there are no women currently in the Maryland Delegation Congression Delegation, not one County executive. Angela also Brooks has been elected a number of times. She has a story and a lived experience that I think resonates in a state of Maryland, and she has just proven to be a fighter for the people of the state
of Maryland. And to be with her, to campaign with her, to make phone calls with her, to fundraise with her, is just a real source of inspiration for me at this at this moment top of mind. You know, her daughter is just graduated from high school and he is getting ready to go to college. And to know that she is balancing both public service and being a single parent is another opportunity for the legacy of Emily's List
to really be on display. Where we are saying, too and saying with women who have a passion for public service, that their voice matters in the decisions that face this country and the future and future generations.
I was hoping you could talk about how hard it is to get women to run for office.
It's a great topic.
And Molli, you know, I think in the life of Emily's List the reason why women hesitate to run for office has changed and evolved. I speak with our founder, a woman by the name of Ellen Malcolm, who her along with her like twenty five friends in her basement thirty eight years ago, decided that they were going to help women raise money to prove to the democratic system that was run by men that they could raise the
money to be taken seriously. And that was the greatest barrier that they identified for women candidates at that time.
We know now in the.
Twenty first century and a year twenty twenty three, money remains a challenge. There's data and research by the Barbara Lee Foundation and many others who have done the research to understand that women get less fundraising investment from people who would give men the maximum they give women fraction of that. We also know from those research organizations that misinformation and disinformation are disproportionately directed towards women and disproportionately
directed towards women of color. We know that the increased threats of violence and attacks are directed towards women. And so there is a lot of consideration that women today have to be willing to take on in order to run for office, in addition to the fact that it is so expensive. In the years past, it is men who would say, you know, I am going to run for office, and my wife is going to stand by me and our second gentleman. Actually, we get to see a very different example.
We get to see a husband.
Who is choosing to stand by his wife as she chooses to serve the country. We have women like Congresswoman Katie Porter, who all so is a single mom who has to make decisions about childcare and think very intensively about childcare as she is doing the work of representing
her constituency in her district. And so the difficulty that we face and convincing women to pursue their passion for public service has gotten much greater as the years have gone by and the dynamics of our political environment have shifted and changed. On average, I think the research says that a woman says no seven times before she actually is saying yes to running for office. And we know that there have been occasion where people where men just sort of wake up and walk down the stairs and
tell America that they want to be president. It is tough terrain to navigate, but I think the policies that come forth, the discussions that are able to be had because of the presence of women and diverse women at the table, really does move our country forward.
And that's the America that we want to pursue.
Thank you so much. This is so great. I'm so appreciate having you on.
Thank you so much, Molly. We appreciate being a part of it.
That's it for this episode of Fast Politics. Tune in every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday to hear the best minds in politics makes sense of all this chaos. If you enjoyed what you've heard, Please send it to a friend and keep the conversation going. And again thanks for listening.