Colin Seeberger: Hey everyone, welcome back to “The Tent,” your place for politics, policy, and progress. I’m Colin Seeberger.
Navin Nayak: Filling in for Daniella Gibbs Léger, I’m Navin Nayak, president of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Seeberger: Navin, it’s been a tough day. It’s been a tough week. How are you holding up?
Nayak: In some ways, better than I maybe would have thought given the circumstances, you know—I had some good donuts today, spent time with my kids, so figuring it out.
Seeberger: Yeah, we’re all figuring out our coping mechanisms, to be sure. Well, while we are all doing the best that we can, I also want to mention that I had a great interview this week. I spoke with journalist and author Ari Berman about how this election played out, implications for our democracy, and the dangers of minoritarian rule. But before we get to that, let’s also get to some news.
Seeberger: Oh, boy. OK, lots to unpack. So I imagine many of our listeners are rightly and understandably reeling from the election results on Tuesday night.
I won’t sugarcoat it. It was pretty much a disaster: a massive setback for our rights and our freedoms that we’ve become accustomed to in the United States. Progress is certainly not a straight line. Our history does tell us that. But over the course of our 250-year democratic experiment in this country, we’ve continued to become a more reflective multiracial democracy, a more pluralistic community in this country, where all people are created equal, as the founders wrote in the Constitution. And yet, we also have experienced setbacks. Obviously, in 2016. Yet again, here we are in 2024.
While you’re going to hear obviously a lot of pontificating over these next few weeks, what’s clear to me is that many Americans are significantly displeased with the direction of the country. They wanted change. And there’s going to, of course, be a lot of hand-wringing to figure out exactly how we got here and what the path forward should look like.
None of us, of course, have all the answers. We need to be humble about that. But I promise that here on “The Tent,” we’ll continue to work to find those answers and keep you informed along the way as we keep having honest interviews, honest coverage, and have really engaging people who are on the front lines of fighting back and trying to build a progressive majority for the future.
So Navin, now that the dust has settled a little bit, I do want to ask you: What happened on Tuesday night? Where are we? How does it compare to 2016, when you were involved with Hillary Clinton’s campaign? How does 2024 compare?
Nayak: I mean, in some ways, 2016 was much more of a gut punch in that we definitely thought on the campaign she could lose. There was no question we thought that. But losing by so little, by 70,000 votes in three states, losing when you won the popular vote by 3 million votes, losing when James Comey—I mean, it was so close that we could agonize over a lot of things both in our control and out of our control over the last few weeks.
This was different. I definitely thought Trump could win. There’s no question. I don’t know that I really thought there was a majority at any point that supported Trump in this country. It wasn’t that close. This wasn’t about flipping one state. And candidly, this is probably for Democrats the worst election since 1988, where it wasn’t just Florida in 2000, 537 votes, or even Ohio in 2004.
Democrats lost every single battleground state. They saw slippage in the nonbattleground states. And so even though it was less agonizing immediately, I think there’s a bit more of a shock, I think, and a sobering reality that’s settling in about where the country really is and the work we have to do ahead of us.
Seeberger: Yeah. I mean, one thing that I’m reflecting on is, I’m a millennial, and I grew up with war and the Great Recession and people not having equal rights under the Supreme Court. I identify as gay, and I just have a federally protected right as of 2015. And I think there’s this illusion that we have told ourselves over the course of the past few years that there is this continually expanding progressive majority that is predestined or is under an illusion or a spell cast by Donald Trump who is flooding the airwaves constantly drowning out other voices. And it seems like this is somewhat of a reckoning or a gut punch to check some of those priors.
So, as of this recording, the Senate is going to be held by the Republicans. They’ve got at least 52 seats secured. We’re still waiting to see how the House shakes out. We’re probably looking at a slim Republican majority in that chamber versus a 25- to 30-seat GOP majority. So that is certainly encouraging, but it’s a real possibility, at least, that there may be a Republican trifecta in Washington.
I think a lot of our listeners are concerned about the prospects of what a full Republican majority in Washington, D.C., could spell for them. Can you talk a little bit about why the slim margins in both the House and the Senate could be really important for putting some limits on some of the policy changes we may see, and/or whether you predict that the Republicans are just going to be a rubber stamp?
Nayak: I mean, there’s nothing to suggest except for, really, maybe the exception of three senators in 2017, protecting the Affordable Care Act.
Nayak: There’s not really a lot to suggest in the last eight years that Republicans are willing to stand up to Donald Trump. And that was when he didn’t have the support he clearly has right now. And so I have zero confidence that, yes, in theory, if it stays at 52 in the Senate, Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Susan Collins (R-ME) again become incredibly influential, and maybe there’s a small thing here and there that’s very parochial to them.
But, I have a hard time believing on anything that’s actually important to Donald Trump that they’d be willing to stand up to him. And I think there’s even less appetite for that in the House where people have shown that they can really be ostracized if they go against Donald Trump. And that was when he was out of power, that was over the last four years.
Nayak: So in theory, the Republicans have shown a real lack of ability to align and get things done and govern. And I do think in a perverse sense—and I obviously want to be careful—but having America see what they actually want to do without Democrats being the primary obstacle might be a really important tool for progressives and for America to understand the totality of their vision.
That comes with a lot of hardship for a lot of Americans if they’re successful, but it won’t be the infighting between two different parties. It is going to be America being able to really see what Donald Trump and MAGA want to do to the country.
Seeberger: Well, that’s bleak. So, I also need to ask you about something that may be more positive, and that is the role of blue trifectas in the states, right?
We’ve got supermajorities in California, or of course there’s Democratic legislatures in New York or Maryland, some of these other states. How do you see them being an important blockade to some of the policies that may come out from Trump administration 2.0, and what lessons do you think those states should learn about how red states operated when Democrats had unified control of government in Washington?
Nayak: Yeah, it’s a great question. I think there’s no question to my mind, blue state governors, Democratic governors, certainly in places with a trifecta but even not necessarily if they’re there or state attorneys general—are the bulwark against Trump.
And we saw that against the Biden administration in the first two years, that Republicans in the House and Senate had very little leverage. And it really was Greg Abbott (R) in Texas and Ron DeSantis (R) in Florida and attorneys general who were by far the largest side in the administration’s thorn.
And that is from two perspectives: One was both the litigation trying to create safe harbors for their priorities and their views, but then also from a communications standpoint. I think as we head into a second Trump administration, there’s no question in my mind that the voices in the states—whether it’s Gavin Newsom (D-CA) or Josh Shapiro (D-PA), Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI), Wes Moore (D-MD)—are going to have a disproportionate opportunity to chart where the Democratic Party should go, how to actually not only resist what Trump and MAGA want to do. And they do have to make sure that every day they’re putting their citizens first, whether that’s finding ways to protect rights and freedoms that Republicans are trying to take away, but then also aggressively figuring out in the right moments how to pick the kinds of fights that are actually going to help the American people understand what these choices are and what’s at stake.
Seeberger: You mentioned the future of the Democratic Party. Obviously this week’s election results are going to trigger a postmortem period for the party, right? A recalibration of strategies and tactics and whatnot. I am curious, one thing that has gotten a little bit of attention, but perhaps not enough as we are looking at what the Democratic Party will do over the course of the long term, much less responding to the results as they relate to the next four years, is: There is going to be a 2030 census, right? And the 2030 census shows that blue states are set to lose about 12 electoral votes over the course of the next decade’s maps. Meanwhile, states that were won by Donald Trump will be absorbing all of those. Democrats going into 2024 and throughout this decade are still able to get to 270 by winning the “blue wall”—well, what was the blue wall—and they will not be able to do that. By winning Nevada, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan still will not get them to 270, analysts are predicting right now in 2032 and beyond.
How do you think that Democrats should be taking into account the migration shifts that we’re seeing in this country? And how should that be informing their response to this moment?
Nayak: Yeah. And it’s a bigger question, in that we have been stuck in this protracted 50/50 world for at least a decade. And Democrats have for the most part been content to eke out slim Senate majorities, eke out the electoral college. And I think part of the answer used to be, before Tuesday, Texas, your home state, is coming the Democrats’ way.
And Arizona and Georgia looked incredibly promising at that. It was a real look at shifting demographics, these diversifying centers like Atlanta that are more Black, brown, Latino, states like North Carolina. But yeah, I think we’ve got to revisit that assumption, right?
I haven’t looked at the latest data, but as of yesterday, I think Kamala Harris was on track to lose Texas by 14 points?
Nayak: Twelve. That was a state that was supposed to be small, single digits. Florida was the center of American politics for much of the 21st century. It was consistently within a point in every election. Biden only lost it by three points. Trump won it by 13 points.
So, I think there’s some much bigger—I mean, the benefit of what happened on Tuesday is that anyone who’s in the weeds on tactics, that is not the problem here. The party needs to genuinely—the progressive movement at large needs to genuinely rethink how are we breaking into these states that have been out of reach or just, we thought, trending our way.
And I don’t want to assume that those states are lost forever or that this one election is consistently a trend, because Texas was until Tuesday heading in this direction. But it does speak to the fact that the reliance on—I don’t even know, it’s certainly not a wall anymore, but—the blue wall, I think we should assume it shattered. Not that we shouldn’t keep investing in those states, but it’s not the security blanket that I think Democrats thought it would be for the last 40 years. And there’s going to have to be more pathways that get opened up over the next several years.
Seeberger: For sure, for sure. Definitely, of course, something to keep in mind as we move forward. And on that note, that’s all the time we have for today. If there’s anything else you’d like us to cover on the pod, hit us up on Twitter, Threads, or Instagram @TheTentPod. That’s @TheTentPod. And stick around for my interview with Ari Berman in just a beat.
Seeberger: Ari Berman is the national voting rights correspondent for Mother Jones and a reporting fellow at the Type Media Center. He’s the author of three books on voting rights and democracy, including his latest, Minority Rule: The Right-Wing Attack on the Will of the People and the Fight To Resist It. He’s also written for The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Rolling Stone, and has appeared on MSNBC and NPR.
Ari Berman, thanks so much for joining us on “The Tent.”
Ari Berman: Hey Colin, good to see you. Thank you.
Seeberger: So, I want to ask you about your most recent book, which is focused on the concept of minoritarianism. Can you explain that concept to our listeners and how the MAGA agenda exemplified it throughout this campaign and in the election itself?
Berman: Well, it’s really about a shrinking conservative white minority trying to control a majority of power but not representing a majority of Americans. And I think there’s now this emerging conventional wisdom that because Donald Trump won the electoral college and won the popular vote for the first time in 20 years that the Republican Party is a majority party.
And I think you can’t necessarily argue with that for this election, but I think that ignores the ways that they tried to entrench minority rule in the run up to the election and how that remains the broader policy of Trump’s party. And you just think about from the fact that 28 states had new restrictions on voting since the 2020 election, because so many places weaponized Trump’s big lie after his attempt to try to overturn the election.
You think about the fact that the election deniers who tried to overturn a free and fair election were then placed in positions of power on county and state election boards in places like Georgia. You think about the fact that the Supreme Court issued all of these opinions that were at odds with public opinion on issues like abortion, but then also issued opinions that directly helped Trump—things like not having a trial about January 6. I mean, it wasn’t discussed much in the campaign because there was no trial. There was supposed to be months and months and months of talking about this in the run-up to the election and the Supreme Court basically said, “No, there’s not going to be a trial and Trump has the power of a king.”
So, I think in a lot of ways, minority rule remained the agenda for the party, and I think it will remain the agenda of the party because my expectation is once Trump and Republicans get into power, they’re going to do everything they can to entrench their power, which is what they did last time and also what Republicans have done at the state level as well.
Seeberger: Well, of course, it’s not just the agenda and its impact and support of presidential candidates. We also saw that minoritarianism also manifested in trickery and complexities around several ballot initiatives, including one in Ohio. It was a nonpartisan referendum focused on creating an independent redistricting committee to push back on gerrymandering. And another in Florida, where we saw 57 percent of Floridians came out and supported the state’s ballot measure to protect reproductive freedom and yet did not end up ultimately being passed because in Florida, you have to hit 60 percent.
What are some of the ways that minoritarians are rigging these ballot initiatives so that they can continue to hold on to power?
Berman: That’s right. Those are very good points, Colin. So, ballot issues in general have been one key way to fight back against minority rule. Because in places where there’s hypergerrymandered legislatures, like in Florida and Ohio, in places where there have been bad court decisions, either at the state and federal level, going directly to the voters is one of the only ways to overcome that.
And so in Florida, it was a very steep climb. Because Florida is one of the only states that requires 60 percent for ballot initiatives. And so you saw the graphic on the screen, and it said 43, 57, and it said 43 had the check next to it. And someone remarked on social media, this just personifies the rights of women in America. Even when they’re outnumbered, they outnumber their opponents, they somehow lose.
And that was a form of minority rule, because in pretty much any other state or any democratic process, 57 percent would be a large majority, not just a majority, but a very commanding one. And if they had gotten 50 percent for abortion rights in any other state, it would have passed. But it failed in Florida. It wasn’t just the 60 percent requirement. It was also the fact that the governor there, Ron DeSantis, did everything he could to campaign against this, including sending his election fraud task force to the homes of people who signed petitions in support of abortion rights, which was a very authoritarian tactic.
So, it’s interesting to me that the governor did everything he could to try to thwart this, and it still got 57 percent of the vote. Unfortunately, that wasn’t enough. It was enough in lots of other states.
Then in Ohio, it was almost crazier because they had an initiative on the ballot that would have created an independent redistricting commission. Because Ohio had passed several initiatives already at redistricting reform, and Republicans had undermined them and basically ignored them to gerrymander the state legislature and the U.S. House.
So they put this initiative on the ballot to create a citizens’ redistricting project. It had a lot of support. If you ask people generically, “Do you support this concept?”, it was passing by 30, 40 points. But what the Ohio ballot board, which is controlled by Republicans, did is they rewrote the initiative to make it seem like it promoted gerrymandering as opposed to combat gerrymandering. And that confused a lot of voters.
And voters said that they thought they were opposing something that they actually supported. And so you heard story after story after story of people going in there intending to vote against gerrymandering, reading the initiative, and then coming out the other way. And so it failed narrowly. It failed narrowly, but I think if they had any sort of accurate language that said, “This is actually something that’s going to create a fairer process,” there’s no doubt that it would have passed. So again, another example of a party rigging the rules to try to maintain their own power in the face of public support.
Seeberger: To that end, in his first term, Donald Trump was able to nominate three justices to the Supreme Court, and he really put these MAGA radicals on there, right? And, of course, in a second term, this may be something that he can continue to build on.
So, what is the Supreme Court’s role in enabling minoritarianism in our democracy? And, how has Trump’s politicization of the court made it do so?
Berman: I think the court played a key role in laying the groundwork for Trump’s assent in the first place and his eventual victory. You look at things like Citizens United, which flooded the system with dark money. I saw one stat that four billionaires gave half a billion dollars to Trump, which was more than all of his small donors combined. So basically, a small handful of people, including Elon Musk, had a hugely disproportionate role in propping up Trump’s campaign.
Then you think about things like the gutting of the Voting Rights Act and allowing so many states to pass new restrictions on voting that would have otherwise maybe been blocked. And that was something that definitely helped radicalize the Republican Party and put new obstacles in terms of voters. The fact that there was no trial over January 6 and Trump was given the power of a king—I mean, that not only helped him, but I think it will take away a lot of the guardrails in a second term.
So I think it’s very possible that Trump will have, when he’s done, five justices that are his appointees to the Supreme Court.
Seeberger: The 34-time convicted felon.
Berman: Exactly. The guy who honestly should have in any functioning democracy been disqualified from running again after he tried to overturn the election will probably get to appoint all five justices on the Supreme Court.
Now, what I’m hopeful is that he won’t shift the majority in the court. It will still be on some issues a swing court. Maybe Roberts and Kavanaugh and Barrett on some instances don’t go for the most extreme policies. I’m not hopeful about that, but we have seen that in various cases. But it’s going to be hard to reverse that.
And I think that we didn’t talk enough about the Supreme Court in the election. And I feel like such a broken record on this, because I say that every single election. But I mean, in 2016, there was a vacancy on the court, and more Republicans voted on the court than Democrats did, and that was a big reason why people held their nose and voted for Trump.
This time, there was an ability to try to get different justices on the court and have the court face some accountability for things like overturning Roe v. Wade. And I mean, now basically the justices are going to feel like there’s no blowback to what they do. Because if they overturned Roe v. Wade and then voters put in Donald Trump, obviously voters didn’t care that much about that issue or they would not have put in a president that flirted with the idea of signing a national abortion ban.
So I think probably the biggest consequence of Trump’s presidency is going to be what he does to the courts, how he considers remaking the courts, and how the courts continue to just entrench Republican rule in this country.
Seeberger: Well, on a mildly brighter note, we did see some victories on Tuesday night in these ballot referenda. We saw measures around democracy and abortion rights end up being victorious. I’m curious whether you feel that these ballot measures gave folks permission slips because in some cases they ended up ultimately backing Donald Trump or other MAGA candidates who may hold views that are contradictory to the policies that they strongly supported in several cases. I’m curious whether you feel like that created a permission structure for them to not worry about some of those topics. And if so, how should folks think about ballot measures as a political tool moving forward?
Berman: Yeah, I mean, that’s a really interesting question that I’ve been thinking a lot about in the aftermath of the election. I think Democrats put these things on the ballot in a number of key swing states in Arizona, thinking that it was going to increase turnout for them, and it didn’t. It did not increase turnout for them based on anything we can see.
That said, one of the things that is good about direct democracy and these ballot initiatives is that people will cross party lines and vote for them, but they don’t identify them with a D or an R. And so that’s why they pass in the first place. So if it was just like, Democrats put this in there and this is a thing to benefit the Democratic Party, it wouldn’t have passed in Missouri or Arizona or these other places.
And so it’s kind of hard to have it both ways, right? You can’t argue that these things should have broad bipartisan support, but then also argue that they should benefit only Democratic candidates. And I think what you saw was a few different factors. One: People, I think, felt like they supported abortion rights in places like Missouri, but also in more swing states like Arizona. But it wasn’t necessarily their biggest issue. Meaning that they might have supported abortion rights, but they might have been voting for Trump or other Republican candidates because of the economy or immigration or other issues.
And I think in D.C., no offense, we’re in D.C., but a lot of people think there’s a checklist of like 20 things that makes you support one party or the other. And that’s not how people think about voting, often. People think, “Yeah, I’m pro-choice, but I also don’t want an open border.” I’m not saying that’s what Democrats were saying, but I think that’s what was going on in people’s minds.
I also think that people—and you could blame Democrats more for this—they did not associate Donald Trump with overturning Roe v. Wade and a national abortion ban. Even though Harris tried to, I don’t think that was something that they thought Trump was going to do. They don’t believe that that’s something that he will do.
Seeberger: Voters do not believe that, is what you’re saying?
Berman: I don’t think that swing voters—I bet if you asked, because obviously a lot of Republicans voted for these bans, I bet if you ask them, “Do you think Trump is going to pass a national abortion ban?” They will probably say no, that they don’t believe he will, or else they probably wouldn’t have supported him and voted for this issue unless they just didn’t think the issue was important.
So, there was a failure in some places to connect Trump with this abortion ban in a way that maybe at the state level, state-level candidates were more directly connected to this. Now I think that’s going to end up being a mistake. I don’t know whether Trump’s going to do it, but I certainly think that Republicans are going to try.
Berman: And I think they’re going to be under a lot of pressure to try. And if you looked at Project 2025 and other things, that was something they want to do. And even if they don’t do a national abortion ban, it’s going to be a death by a thousand cuts strategy where they’re just going to go after every other thing short of a national abortion ban to make it virtually impossible to get an abortion in those states that already don’t really allow it.
Seeberger: Well, with an RFK Jr. overseeing the FDA [Food and Drug Administration], CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], etc., other health agencies, we will see how this ends up playing out. But I’m wondering if we can muster a glimmer of hope. Bear with me.
In your opinion, are there policies that could be achieved, whether in the coming weeks before the administration changes, or on a bipartisan basis, maybe in Congress, that could help protect against attacks on our democracy? What do you think folks who do this work really will be and should be prioritizing?
Berman: Well, there are still open vacancies on the federal judiciary. I would hope that they can fill as many of those as possible before Trump gets in there. So even if Trump makes appointments to the Supreme Court, there’s not 230 additional appointments to the federal judiciary, which we saw in the last Trump term.
And a lot of those people played pivotal roles. Like in Florida, it was a Trump judge who basically got him Aileen Cannon, who got him out of another major trial where it looked like he was clearly cut-and-dry guilty of taking classified evidence to Mar-a-Lago and putting it in the bathroom with the golden toilet.
So that’s one thing. Whatever they can try to do to Trump-proof the federal agencies, because that’s going to be a big thing with Project 2025, trying to weaponize the federal judiciary. States trying to do as much as they can at the state level. I just saw Gavin Newsom is trying to hold a special session in California.
But I think a lot of the fight back will be on the state level in places where there’s Democratic majorities. And Democrats still have majorities in a lot of significant places. They also still have Democratic secretaries of state and AGs [attorneys general] and governors in a lot of states as a consequence of the 2018 and the 2022 elections.
And then I would just say more broadly that I don’t think any of this is permanent, right? Anytime you hear this talk about permanent majorities—we heard it with Obama, now we’re hearing it with Trump—I think this was a reaction. People were angry at the party in power because of lots of different reasons, and they punished the party in power.
But Donald Trump is still unpopular. I think he’s going to continue to do a lot of unpopular things. I think there’s a very good chance that Democrats retake the House in 2026.
Seeberger: As of the time of this recording, the House of Representatives has not been called, Ari.
Berman: Yeah, well, that just shows you that they could still win it. But even if they don’t, it’s going to be very close, right?
Berman: And I think Democrats are going to look back and feel like they left a lot of seats on the table, that they underperformed in the House in places like Pennsylvania, where they feel like they’re going to be able to get some of those seats back. So I feel like there’s a good chance it’s a Democratic House in 2026.
I think that there’s going to be a lot of important state races. So I mean, yes, a lot of damage is going to be done. I don’t want to just brush that aside. But this idea that, “Everyone moved to the right, therefore, that’s going to be the map, that’s what it’s going to look like forever”—I’m not sure people necessarily thought through what they’re going to get with another Trump presidency.
I think one of the problems was that people forgot what the first president Trump presidency was like. People had very short memories about the chaos, the destruction, the lives lost, the overturning of elections. I think Trump’s going to be much more radical and much more emboldened in a second term. And I think there’s going to be a lot of blowback to things like if he starts trying to push a national abortion ban or tries to do mass deportation or outsources policymaking to the Christian right. I think a lot of that stuff is going to be very, very unpopular. And I think you’re going to see a pretty quick blowback. Also, a lot of his economic ideas, I’m not sure people thought through what tariffs and all that other stuff will mean. So again, I don’t want to downplay the damage that can be done, but I also feel like this is not a permanent realignment that we’re witnessing.
Seeberger: American democracy does swing on a pendulum. What happens over here one year may swing all the way back over there the next. I remember when Joe Biden was elected, people were like, “This guy’s the next FDR, he’s got an approval rating in the upper 50s, he’s going to be able to remake American society.” And lo and behold, it ended with Donald Trump being returned to the White House.
Berman: I think the thing that’s important to note is that voters are angry, and the Democratic Party can’t dismiss that anger. And I think that was something that voters perceive that they did. Voters would say, “We’re concerned about the economy. We’re concerned about immigration.” Democrats basically said, “You shouldn’t be concerned,” but people were concerned. And so there was a failure to meet voters where they are.
The other thing that I think is fascinating from a democracy perspective is that we looked at the exit polls, and of course it varied by state, but the national exit polls, the state of democracy was the top issue and people thought, “Oh, that means Harris is going to win.” But it meant that a lot of Trump voters were the ones saying they were concerned about democracy, because voters had different conceptions of democracy, right?
Yes, to us, when we think concerned about democracy, we think about preserving democratic institutions, the effort to overturn an election and all those things, the undermining of democratic norms. What Trump voters saw, rightly or wrongly, was a stolen election and a deep state going after their president and all these things. And a lot of those were manufactured issues, but they were issues to them.
Berman: And one of the things that I was concerned about throughout the campaign and just more broadly that Democrats were defending preserving American democracy. But American democracy isn’t working for a lot of people. They don’t perceive it as working for them.
So I think it should have been a message of preserving and reforming. And I think the reform part was missed, right? Like, let’s just not get back to the status quo. Let’s create something better that, that is more fair broadly, but that also delivers for people.
And I don’t think they felt like that. And I think that was one reason why they were more willing to vote for an authoritarian leader. Because if you don’t feel like democracy is delivering results for you, then let’s maybe try something else. And so, I think in general, the Democrats got way too into a status quo mentality.
And my whole thing was like, let’s talk about the flaws in American democracy. Let’s talk about why do we have an election that’s going to be decided by seven states instead of 50 states? Why do we have an election where we’re even talking about a popular vote? No electoral college split. Why don’t we have an election in which every vote matters equally?
I don’t know if it would have been an outcome, but it would have been a very different campaign. And then let’s talk about why so many popular policies didn’t pass. Let’s talk about why Democrats couldn’t restore abortion rights or pass gun control or do more in the economy. It was because of the filibuster, and it was because of Republicans blocking things.
And I think that people felt like Democrats got in there, they had their time, and they didn’t deliver, without understanding the structural realities of why democracy is broken. And so I think we still can continue to have that larger conversation. Like yes, in the next two to four years, it’s going to be all about preserving what we have. But if it’s all about preserving what we have and not about making it something better, I think the public’s going to continue to keep losing faith in the democratic system that they don’t think is working for them.
Seeberger: Wise words. Ari Berman, thank you so much for joining us on “The Tent.”
Berman: Thanks so much for having me.
Seeberger: All right, folks, I realize this was perhaps not the joyous conversation that you were hoping to listen to, but please go back and check out our previous episodes. Navin, it’s a tough time.
Seeberger: I do want to ask you, because I think we’re all in need of some self-care, how are you coping? What strategies are you employing to take care of yourself and protect your peace in this dark time?
Nayak: I mean, well, two things. One is that I really have the benefit of having young kids, and so my son today was excited to start building his Christmas list. We thought our daughter was going to be shattered on Tuesday, and she was mostly worried about her soccer game. And so, in that sense, the kids are a phenomenal distraction. Which, for them, they’re definitely disappointed with the outcome of the election. But they don’t have the patience to sit in it too long and want to move on to the next thing, which is helpful for me.
Nayak: The other is the second season of “Diplomat” is out. So we just started that yesterday, which was fantastic.
Seeberger: That is a good one. If you need another one, if you haven’t watched “Perfect Couple” yet, very fun. I am going to be joining our listeners next week from California, because I am taking a very much-needed vacation.
Seeberger: So, I’m looking forward to that. I also have to say, yesterday I sat down and I just started writing out, what are things that I’m looking forward to in the near future?
Seeberger: It was exactly the distraction that I needed. A reminder that this is not great, but I have things that are going to bring me joy in the days and weeks ahead.
Speaking of that, I want to ask you, I think a lot of people are responding to the results of the election by thinking about what more they can do, how can they plug in, what sort of activism can they get involved in? And I’m curious to hear from you, what are some ways that you think that folks can be most effective at plugging in and getting involved?
Nayak: Listen, you know, I think we’re all going to go through a different process in terms of coping here. And I think I was amazed that there were people the next morning who had the pitchforks and we’re ready to go man the barricades. And if that is where you’re at already, there are some phenomenal organizations that I think are going to be on the forefront of protecting not only our rights, but also the gains that have been made in the last several years. That includes organizations like Indivisible, MoveOn, who are already mobilizing and ready to be in this fight. I think, you know, the loss on Tuesday also was much different than we were anticipating. Trump didn’t, as we talked about, eek out a win. And so I think there’s going to be a lot of false answers about where we have to go.
And I think there’s going to be some great work people have to do in the coming weeks and months to really figure out how we build a progressive majority in this country.
Seeberger: That’s great. I know myself, I’m kind of thinking about like, who are the communities that are going to be most under attack in the years ahead? And what sort of direct service organizations, whether they serve immigrant communities who are under threat of deportation or LGBTQ people who are worried about having their or a loved one’s rights ripped away, right? And how can they be supported over the course of the next several years?
So that is something that I’m spending time kind of digging into in my own community. What are the groups that I can support, get more plugged in to, and dedicate my time, my resources to? So certainly lots of homework for all of us to take on over the course of the coming weeks, but appreciate you so much for joining me.
Seeberger: It’s been fun to have you on the show.
Seeberger: “The Tent” is a podcast from the Center for American Progress Action Fund. It’s hosted by me, Colin Seeberger, and co-hosted by Daniella Gibbs Léger. Navin Nayak is our guest host for this episode. Erin Phillips is our lead producer, Kelly McCoy is our supervising producer, Mishka Espey is our booking producer, and Muggs Leone is our digital producer. Hai Phan, Matthew Gossage, Olivia Mowry, and Toni Pandolfo are our video team.
Views expressed by guests at “The Tent” are their own, and interviews are not endorsements of a guest’s perspectives. You can find us on YouTube, Apple, Spotify, Google Play, or wherever you get your podcasts.