Messaging Matters

are going to be in twenty twenty three. We go off on a conversation largely around how this is a prime opportunity with Democrats in the minority in the House. And again, folks, only by four votes are they in the minority in the House. But this is the prime

opportunity for Democrats to hone their messaging. And we talk about the real start contrast between Kevin McCarthy's acceptance speech, if you can call it that, after fourteen failed vote attempts that becoming Speaker of the House, which he has hollowed out because of his decision to give away everything including the kitchen sink to the far right, reaching quote unquote freedom Caucus and the speech that was given by

incoming Minority Leader Hakim Jefferies. And so, one of the things that you've heard me talk about regularly on woke F is the inability of Democrats to have a cohesive national messaging strategy that has us distill the very complicated policies and ideas that we try and put forth for the American people in something that is easily digestible. Now, look,

we know that hate is readily easily digestible. We also know that the truth need not get in the way of a good story as it pertains to the far right. But with Democrats in this space, have an opportunity because here's the thing, we know, no policies are going to be put forth. You could barely get a speaker chosen with the first four days of Republicans supposed to be

wielding the gavel, let alone any major legislation. I mean, one of the first things that Kevin McCarthy talked about was defunding the IRS and more investigations into the federal government, none of which is going to do anything for the average American. So what does a messaging strategy look like

by Democrats? What does it mean to consistently over the next two years, remind the American people who is actually voting for their best interests when it comes to lowering prescription drug prices, when it comes to looking at infrastructure, when it comes to our public school situation in terms of oh, I don't know, changing up full on curriculum to make sure that we continue with the white supremacy propaganda that we instilling young people instead of teaching them

the truth. When we look at all of these things, we know that it is Democrats that are fighting for the American people and Republicans that have aligned themselves with our foreign enemies, looking at you Russia, looking at the House, Republicans deciding that they don't want to continue to help Ukraine continue their fight for democracy and against Putin because

you know, putinist Trump's BFF. So I think that there is a major opportunity in the coming two years of the circus that we are in for for Democrats to really set an agenda, a stark agenda and clear narrative that shows the American people who the adults are in the room. So, coming up next my conversation with Kaivan Shroff. Folks, I am really happy to welcome back to woke f Kaivan Streff, who is a Democratic commentator and has is a cleated with Harvard Law, MPP from the Kennedy School,

NBA from Yal Sam political science from Brown University. He is an all around IVY leaguer and one of the smartest people that I follow on TikTok, who puts out some of the most thoughtful videos. So if you're not following him on TikTok, you should cavan. Happy New Year to you, Happy New Year. Agreed to be here, Happy

New Year, Same Republican bullshit. So I want to start off with, you know, essentially getting your thoughts on how you believe if you think I'll say this, if you think that the first couple of weeks of this new year are in how Republicans antics on the House floor their decision to want to gut the Ethics Committee and create what HACKEM. Jeffries, minority leader has referred to the

Insurrection Protection Committee in its stead. What do you make of how Republicans are setting the tone for the next two years. You know, I think they're really failing to set a clear tone and unfortunately, I mean well fortunately for the country. But we've seen, you know, just total chaos under McCarthy short tenure so far. Let's see how

long it lasts. But I think he's gotten so many narratives, especially the George Santo's narrative, that have really sort of taken away the opportunity to set a clear agenda and define what they want to do. At the same time, it's a little bit of letting them off the hook because I doubt they have a real credible agenda and so it's very hard to permeate that. And I think it's a good time actually for Democrats obviously on messaging,

because we would rather have won the House. But it's easier, I think, when you're in the minority to constantly be you know, criticizing and holding those who do have control accountable. And there's going to be a lot to say about this really corrupt regime that is in power in Congress. Right now. Let's talk about George Santos for a minute. So glad you brought him up, because it's like every single day there is another unearthing of another lie that

this man has told. And you know, I'm from Long Island, I'm from Eastern Long Island. So from Suffolk County, and he represents parts of Nassau County, and the New York Republicans have called for him to step down. They say that he is an absolute distraction, that he does not have the capability to be able to do the job right.

You have reporters hounding him this week and his response saying, the constituents put me here, and I won't leave unless I have one hundred and forty two random people tell me that life totally archery. Yeah right, And I was like, I got you know, I got one it as well on jan and forty two people telling him to step down. I want to talk about basically who George Santos is and how Kevin McCarthy as speaker, because he's so desperate for votes, refuses to acknowledge that this man is just

corrupt and a grift. Absolutely, and I think, honestly we're going to find out soon enough, but probably guilty of at least one or more crimes. And I think it's a very unique and great challenge for McCarthy to have to deal with because it really calls out that yes, he's an extreme example, and yes they needed the votes, but I think there's another reason that McCarthy and others in GOOP leadership aren't going after him, it's because where

do you draw the line. I mean, this is a caucus full of liars and sort of close to criminals, if not criminals. So you know, I think it's hard for them to come out and criticize somebody, even such an egregious case, because then the next one and the next one, and gates and right, like, we're right, you draw once you've opened the doors to all these sort of bad actors to be leaders in making our laws. Now, I think it is a total crock to say that this guy was elected and he's going to serve and

blah blah blah. This is not who voters elected. Voters elected a complete lie, a mythical individual. Nobody voted for George Santos or whatever his name is. So I don't think that that is a reasonable, you know, response. It's ludicrous, It doesn't make any sense. I think it kind of worked better on some of the more chaotic figures like Marjorie Taylor Green, where yeah, like I guess she was elected by you know, the constituents in her district, and that's who she is. She is crazy, but it's it's

a very different case. Yeah, And I think that that's right. I think you make a good distinction, which is that you know, and remember, there were calls to take Marjorie Taylor Green out of the off of the ballot in her district. There were calls and they lost, right she obviously she stayed on the ballot, she was able to run. And so these people knowingly are electing a QAnon conspiracist liar, right like, somebody who lies about reality, because that's not

where she's operating. I think that George Santos, to your point, is a completely different case because his constituents have no idea who they voted for, right like at all. You know.

One of the questions that I have, you know, as somebody who is so studied in our political landscape and climate and government, is this where do you think that where was the breakdown in oppositional research from his opponent and just Democrats in general, like every seat mattered, and what was what has been said was, oh, well, this wasn't a high profile you know, k Like, this wasn't a high profile election. It wasn't a high profile seat. And I'm like, but in such a narrow win that

Republicans had every seat did matter. So where was the breakdown in research here? Right? No? I mean I think there was some democratic opa research here, but and a little little bit of local news coverage. Actually, once people part of the story, they looked back and saw, oh yeah,

some people did sort of mention this. But I think it really speaks to and it's an indictment of our national media framework once again, where certain like how is this this is a critically important story and but four three or four weeks of time could have totally changed the results yea, the power of Congress really, and somehow it was missed. But you know, we got the New York Times today giving Kelly and Conway a platform to plug Trump, Like is that really what the New York

Times should be doing? Yet they missed this story. And so I do think, you know, there's this competition at the local level and national level in media, and we are seeing sort of and continue to see. Really this is a decades long problem, the decimation of local news yea, and very much competition from national players. But then they dropped the ball on stories like this, Like I don't think could possibly argue this was not under the purview of the New York Times to cover. Do you think

that Santos last the year? Do you think, you know, just just in your prediction, in your like shaking of the crystal ball, do you think that he makes it through even one year of his two year term? Or do we see indictments? I mean, he's being investigated by both the New York the Nassau County DAH and the federal government. Totally. I mean, I think it's laughable because another response of McCarthy was sort of, oh, if he

did anything wrong, he'll face ethics. But as you pointed out when we opened the ethics, he's in Congress, so that's that's comical. But um, I think, yes, I don't see him lasting the year if there are indictments that come down at the same time. And I think we're all a little tired of this, but we've seen how long this process of investigations can be, so I really

think it's going to be tied to that. And once there are criminal charges or more, um, you know, it'll be a different story and a harder to defend and maybe a little easier for some Republicans who are uncomfortable with what's going on to speak out. But you know, I'm not too hopeful that course correction here, Yeah, I'm not too hopeful either. I mean, I won't hold my breath because I don't want to pass out. But um, you know, one of the things that I think is,

you know, was really eye opening. I'll say this, for the fourteen failed votes that McCarthy had for speaker took. It took four days and fifteen votes for McCarthy to have this hollowed out speakership. Can you speak to some of the concessions that were made and why he is

now considered one of the weakest speakers in history. Well, exactly, That's what I was going to say, is he's basically speaker in name only, and the concessions, as I think everyone's predicted for years seeing this slow moving train wreck of the GOP Congress, is that they basically cowt out to every demand of the most extremist members of their caucus, and those people are have every incentive to continue to

create chaos at every turn. It's paid off for them, unfortunately, and I think we're going to see more and more of it. And I think what was particularly alarming about the fifteen votes. Is I think if you a decade ago said oh, this like sort of technical things happening in Congress and they're going to go through multiple rounds or a bunch of days, and it's going to go into the weekend, nobody on Earth would be really caring or watching that much. And suddenly you had everyone watching, right.

And my concern with that is that there is almost this reality TV payout where you know, good attention intention It allowed those people to kind of totally own the narratives and the media and write like, who knows fake conversations, have real conversations, but kind of play to a public audience. And we saw this little from Democrats too with Katie Porter and her book, but you know, it's just a totally different level. And I do think the incentives are off.

And what was really interesting is obviously the c SPAN cameras kind of had a little bit more control of

what they wanted to do. And I came across a piece and I'm blanking on the author, so forgive me, but basically saying, yeah, actually, this is terrible because we don't want this sort of false sense of like, oh now the cameras can do whatever they want, and there's more accountability when it's really just feeding into again that national media ecosystem that's really trying to create reality TV moments,

and that's not really accountability. It's really giving attention seekers a channel to seek that attention and have an impact in a really bad way. You know, I'm so glad that you brought up the cameras because I was going to be remiss in not asking you your thoughts on that physical altercation that we saw on the house of the floor at the floor of the house. Never in my life, right, never in my life have I seen in American politics. Now we've seen this play out. We've

seen a playout in Parliament. We've seen a play out in other countries where they literally have gone fisticuffs. We've never seen this in America. Haive on, what was your reaction to that, to that clip and to I mean, I my mouth felt. I was stunned. It was honestly, it did remind me and I might be getting this wrong, so forgive me my APUs history teacher, but I think there was like one example of some guy, like very early on, beating somebody else with a cane like either

in the house or the Senate. So I have to look that up after this, but I'm sure, but it really reminded me of that, and I was like, yeah, to your point, like we have not seen this in forever, but this really is who the Republican Party is. I mean, this is a pro violence, pro insurrection party. These are a bunch of frat guys that you know ended up in Congress. Let's be honest about that. I mean they have no policy positions and they're not very thoughtful now

care about their constituents. All they care about is you know, straight rich white guys and how they can protect that group of people and you know, hold onto powers. So of course you see this sort of ludicrous behavior. I mean it was just such you know, and I've said this so many times on this show, and obviously, like you also went into politics. There was such an esteem that I held when I worked on Capitol Hill, like I would see these members, it was it was it

was a kin. I would tell people if you were in Hollywood and you're seeing like the directors that you love and the writers that you love, like walking the halls and the actors and the actresses, there was this air of like, oh, my goodness, I'm walking the halls of history and to watch it devolve into like you're into a frat house, into just like this, this horrible, tacky, trashy behavior. I just it's it has brought the air and the esteem and any bit of regalness that our

government had is now just in the sewer. And I don't think that folks recognize how that damage will affect us for decades to come, what that has done to to our faith right in these systems and in these people. And I mean, like, who is going to have the institutional knowledge to put things back together? Because to your point, I don't think anyone or most people that want to do good work and want to contribute to our democracy see that it's a viable path to do so. So

they're not going to go there. Um so where are they going to go? Probably to the private sector or something like that. I meanwhile, you'll have sort of the worst group of people doing these things and staffing up these offices, and those will be the people around until

something major changes. Yeah. It just it really, you know, aside from the side show and the circus and we kind of laugh so that we don't cry, It is kind of heartbreaking, right for those of us who really believe in public service, who really believe in the ability of government to better the lives of everyday Americans, and then to watch it turn into a trashy reality TV side show is really it is heartbreaking. I don't I

don't know what else to say about it. As you as we watched, um, you know, finally Kevin McCarthy take the speakership after fourteen failed votes. We watch him give his speech, which was just breathless in its inability to read the room. Then we, in contrast, watch Hakeem Jeffries. I want to get your your response in thoughts to Hakeem's jeff Jakeem Jeffreys ABC's of Democracy. I love that. I love that. I actually thought it was so clever. At first, it was like, is it a little corny?

And it is a little corny, honest, but it doesn't matter, Like it was so wholesome. But it was actually so on the mark too, Like it came in a package that was very presentable and sort of unassuming, but if you look at the words used and the comparisons drawn, it was so clever and it was an easy thing. By the way, obviously we were talking about TikTok. You know, it was an easy thing for people to clip and share,

so that was genius too. So it was a great device, I think, and it really introduced him in a tone that is going to allow I think McCarthy to make the biggest fool of himself because he wasn't going out right. He didn't come with, you know, too much harshness or like energy to start with. I think we'll probably see a little bit more of that as things get more

and more sort of aggressive with this new Congress. But you know, it kind of was a totally open, neutral, like yes, going to call out facts and be president in this reality. At the same time, you know, I think he said, you know, like let's disagree without being disagreeable. It's not my personal favorite mantra, but I would think it serves in some cases, like perhaps this case on

his first speech sort of on a supernational stage. How do you think that How came Jeffreys as minority leader and this new leadership team are going to be able to take on um these kind of weaponized, violent, volatile Republicans in the House. How do you see this, this team, this group playing out differently than Pelosi did for you know, for for for over a decade. Well, I think it ties back to one of your earlier questions today, which is,

now Democrats have this moment. Right under Pelosi's leadership, they were actually racing against the clock to get as much done as humanly possible, and they did a lot. They did alish a massive amount. I think everyone is impressed with Biden's sort of first term on that aspect, and he obviously owes a lot of credit to Pelosi for that.

Now they're in the position of really getting to lean into narrative and communication and story because it is going to be harder for Democrats to push things through Congress. But there's that opportunity then to show the country how diverse and awesome the people that we've elected to the party are, and to really call out the bad behaviors and maybe in a more sort of strident way, because again, at the end of the day, it's not realistic that too much is going to come through on consensus. So

we'll see. I mean, maybe that won't be the case, but I highly expect it to be sort of a standstill with in terms of bi partisanship and so it kind of gives you this chance where you're basically getting to and it's not a nice phrasing maybe, but to perform, right like, they're going to get to perform now for the next two years and create the best show possible. And do you know, hopefully what frankly, Republicans are pretty successful at, which is getting that intention and getting those

narratives out there. Now, Democrats are in a position where they can kind of keep you know, poking the bear and seeing what they can you know, drive attention around, and I think that will be successful, especially you know, I think people are concerned if you ask, you know, who, if not Biden would run in twenty twenty four, which I don't really honestly think is a productive question, but they reflect on sort of is there a deep bench

for Democrats? And I think absolutely, especially from some of the governors we're seeing. But we're also going to be able to see over the next two years hopefully if done well, you know, emphasis on some great members of Congress that we have to offer who can be future leaders of the party. So I think now is a real time to focus on connecting with the American people. Last question for you is this you know, I think

that a lot of Americans. I think the midterm election showed that more Americans care about preserving our democracy than the mainstream media gave them credit for. They kept saying, you know, these are not the issues, it's the kitchen table issues. And I kept saying, well, if you don't have a democracy, you don't have a kitchen table. So I'm confused about the other things that would be taking your attention. But you know, as we continue to look ahead, this year is kind of the march to the real

beginning of the presidential cycle. As you have lifted up, what do you think about Americans attention and stamina as we head into the presidential And you know, do you think what, if anything, can Democrats do? You were talking about messaging and narrative to ensure Americans that Democrats are the ones that need to remain to be in charge and remain in charge in order to get the job done. Yeah, well, I actually think it is sometimes helpful when you're not

in power. It's easier to make that case because it's always easier to criticize than to do. And again with the caveat that Republicans don't really want to do anything productive. But I think that I appreciate Biden continuing to speak out about the decline of democracy because I think sometimes people are like, oh my god, not in another press conference about this topic like you did on jan six. But I thought it was great because you have to keep reminding people that this is a long term problem

that we have. It's not just a drum problem. We now have an entire political party in the country that's really dedicated to destroying our democracy. And frankly, all the institutions you mentioned, you know, media saying what matters and what doesn't matter. I mean, media is an institution that's incredibly complicit in the decline of our democracy. So they're probably not the best source to go to in discussing,

you know, the importance of democratic institutions. They are supposed to be one, and they are not fulfilling that commitment. So I think, you know, people understand that the bottom is close to falling out in this country. I think people are very afraid of increased chaos, potentially civil conflict

growing more and more. I mean, even in New York we're seeing you know, Proud Boys and what doing extremists attack drag performers, because like Elon Musk and sort of other powerful people have just amplified this type of hate beyond. So I think people are incredibly nervous and they're willing to pay attention because they really feel their lives or

at stick and they are. And then I think, second, it would be good to communicate the timeline a little differently to people because I think we keep focusing on the next benchmark, the next benchmark, the next benchmark, the midterms, election, whatever, and then there's up slightly positive outcome or we do a little better than we thought, and people are like, oh, not everything's better yet, right, This is going to take

a decade or two to course correct. So yeah, I mean it's fits and starts, and I think every individual has to look at what they can contribute and also how they can stay in this for the law run. So focus maybe on their you know, own personal health and you know sanity as they do that. I know, for people like you and me were constantly thinking about these issues and getting every news update every second, that

can be hard sometimes, you know. I mean I wouldn't not do it because I personally need to know if we're going to nuclear war, Yes, that's me, I think other people they would rather not know, frankly, so so I think that's my take on it, and I do think the messaging can be better, And I do think on one piece that I don't want to sort of kick off a whole new topic as we're rapping, but we talked about these investigations. Obviously there's some more on

the horizon. I do think that the Department of Justice has done a really bad job communicating with the American people, And I think there's a lot of people that can criticize or support what Mark Garland's doing. It's a very detailed, specific process, so I don't think all the pundits out there, like no matter their experience, really can speak to it.

But what we can speak to is what we've all seen, which is frankly, I think even the strongest Biden supporters or pro democracy people are frustrated at this point with what's been happening at the DOJ and the lack of

clarity and communication about the process. What to expect if you can't communicate about something, why you can't communicate it, but just share that information so that people have that foundational trust because you can't do all this work behind closed doors, and then when you release the port the reports, you know, suddenly nobody believes in the process that you've conducted because it's taken years and there's been so much murkiness around it. So I think that is one thing

that is so important. Yeah, and a final plus also, I think, yeah, this example makes it relatently clear that nobody cared about the status of Hillary Clinton's emails, none of which remark classified, and it really was a sexist attack under the guise of a national security issue, and it really cost her the presidency. And it's just an absolute disgrace. And I think the history books should absolutely

get that right. Kive on if we will have history books, you know, that's something as well, you know, if we if we will have them. But no, you're absolutely right

in terms of the transparency. Even if you can't, as the Department of Justice, speak to the inner workings of how things are unfolding, you can bring some level of fifty thousand foot this is what we've been up to, this is what we're doing enough for the American people, to your point, so that when these reports do come out, it isn't just it doesn't just fall on non listening ears, and then people who are already concerned about transparency and

concerned about corruption then don't feel like they've been brought along. So I think that even if it isn't the Department of Justice themselves, it is you know, someone in the administration being able to you know, give us the one on one class on how the Department of Justice moves even if it is and you know through examples from the past, and this is how we get to these points.

But thank you friend for joining. Your first appearance this year, and I hope it will not be your last on Woke a F but we will definitely come back to you to see how how things continue to shake out. Kivan, thank you so much for making the time for Thank you so much. Always great to be back. That is it for me, dear friends on woke f as always, Power to the people and to all the people. Power, get woke and stay woke as fuck.