Hey guys, thanks for listening to Breaking Points with Crystal and Sager. We're going to be totally upfront with you. We took a big risk going independent to make this work. We need your support to beat the corporate media CNN, Fox, MSNBC. They are ripping this country apart. They are making millions of dollars doing it. To help support our mission of making us all hate each other less and hate the corrupt ruling class more, we need you to support the show by becoming a Breaking Points Premium member today. You get to watch and listen to the entire show ad free and uncut, an hour early before everyone else. You get to hear our reactions to each other's monologues, participate and weekly ask me any things, and you don't need to hear our annoying voices pitching you like I am right now. So what are you waiting for? Go to Crystalandsager dot com to become a Premium member today, which is available in the show notes. We love you, guys, enjoy the show. Good morning, everybody, Happy Monday. Welcome to Breaking Points with Crystal and Sager. We have an amazing show for everybody today. I miss saying that crystalk. I know, indeed we do. Guys, super excited, Welcome Breaking Points. Can't tell you how hard we've been working to get all of this together, how excited we are. I'm actually feel like a little nervous this morning, So you have to forgive us for all of that. Just give you a little bit of a sort of rundown of tour of how we're going to be doing the show. You can see we've got this new graphic along the side that kind of gives you a guide post to the type of stories that we're going to be covering today. So we've got a little intro for you this morning. We're going to look at a dem autopsy and some warning signs for them, Trump's Facebook band, the New York City mayoral race, Sager's Breaking Points, new name for our monologues, my Breaking Points. We've got the one and only Glenn Greenwald on. He's gonna address some of the attempts to smear him and also talk about the media, so you know you don't want to miss that. What are we doing here? What is sort of the ethos of what the show are? What are we doing? Why am I on this beautiful new set, this beautiful, really well designed desk. We what are we doing that? I love this desk. I always will listen what we're trying to do here. We said this in our mission statement, we said this whenever we announced, which is that we truly believe in making everybody really hate each other lesson hate the corrupt ruling class more. And I don't think there's ever been a more politically charged time in America. Yes, January sixth and all that happened, that was like the high water mark, if you will, But the scars of all of that are with us, and the Biden presidency is now as sclerotic as I think both of you and I predicted, and there's just this empty rot which we're constantly fighting over and asking questions about what comes next, and nobody who works in politics or in the media seems to know. These people are all reporting on January sixth commissions as if that's going to solve everything. We need to be focused on what's actually breaking a part in this country, and I think that that is the core ethos of the show. We want to tell people what the media is not going to tell them. We want to take them behind the scenes about how elite corruption works and really just connect it to the lived experience of your day to day life. People know they're being lied to, they know that the system is rigged, they do not know and have the ability to articulate why. And I really see that as the overall mission of what we're trying to do here. You know, we want to take the pieces of Rising that you all really responded to and that we thought were really important, and honestly, over the course of Rising it went through a few different evolutions and iterations. It had different focuses at different times, but one through line was those sort of breaking points that underlie all of what's happening, whether it's in our political system, whether it's in housing, whether it's in the rise of sort of conspiracy theories. All of these things are happening underneath the surface, and you know that that's going on, and yet no one is speaking to them in the media. And it's wild. You know, we say this thing about hate each other less and hate the elite more, and as you were just saying it right now, it's sort of mind blowing that that's the exact opposite of what most media. Most media. Most media is literally about making us hate each other and love the elites. Like that's the message that's being pushed time and time again. So when you see these metrics that show trust in the media declining and declining and declining, it's because people sense that and they really resistant it doesn't reflect what they're seeing in their daily life. So we want to bring you know. The other thing that you always told us you really responded to on Rising was the high level of production. I want to say thank you to everybody who's already subscribed as a premium member ten dollars a month. You get the whole thing uncut in your inbox, the full entire show early. Yeah. We also though if that's out of your reach, like guys, really don't worry about it. The clips are going to be up on YouTube. The audio is going to be free with breaks anywhere that you get normal pod cast. By the way, that was one of the top comments we would always get on Rising, Its like where's the podcast? I can't we listen to this as audio? Now you're going to be able to get that, And look, we really want to look forward. We have our reasons for leaving the Hill, but the bottom line is this is more true to our values. We believed in you guys. We thought that this was important to you and that you would give us the support necessary to continue the production values and the type of product that we want to put out into the world that you all have told us has been very impactful and you've really really showed up for us as we sort of like stepped into the breach. So guys, thank you, thank you, thank you, and we're so excited to be able to do this show with any out any sort of like corporate anything. It's just totally reliant on you all. I couldn't be more excited and I'm blown away. I mean, this is a final message to the suits, which is that we don't need you, which is that we have of enough people believe in your product. You can make something happen. And because of all the premium subscribers, we are going to be able to do this, and more importantly, we are going to be able to continually improve. So we heard your feedback which was that the audio wasn't at the level where you guys want. So because of you, guys, we were able to hire an audio person who is here on the set who's going to be helping and if you have any more feedback, I'll send it over to him and I'll be like, what's going on here, man, I'm just kidding. Look, really, what it is is that over the next several months, as we get the feel of the show and all that, we are going to make continuous improvements. And that's all that we're trying to do here. We did not expect to be able to do this at the level of what we are at right now, and the ability of us, I think, to try and actually have a chance now to fulfill our mission. I am just absolutely blown away. Also, can we address the elephant in the room? Well, I was just saying exactly that, which is a lot of consternation online about this one. We did switch side, and what it really comes from is a deep meditation on we want to get out of this partisan left right mindset, which no, just kidding. We just literally sat at these seats when we got on the set to start with, and now we're because we've done rehearsals in these seats, we're sort of attached to them. So you guys are all gonna have to relax and get used to Mommy and Daddy being on the different size of the table. I promise it's gonna be the emotional connection some of you have to MYE really fun, unbelievable. Yeah, truly. I also loved in the videos we released last week, they noted are my I still had like the goo from the hills is a metaphor that. Yeah. But now we got nice new breaking Points stickers, and I should mention we have lovely breaking Points smugs which are both Union made and Maine in America, and we'll give you guys details about where you can get those and all all of the products that you know, any merchandise we do. We're really committed to also sharing and reflecting our values. So union made and American made, but everything we ever produce will be Union made and made in America. Are solemn pledge to all of you. But I think that it is time to get to some of the news. So Democrats warning, let's go ahead and do that. We'll cue the directors there in the control room. What are we looking at? Okay, So there's a new big autopsy ound about the Democratic Party and how they fared in twenty twenty. And it's sort of a weird thing because Democrats won the White House. They won the Senate. They maintained control of the House, but it's still seen as like they wildly underperformed expectations, which they did. So a number of groups got together and went through to say like, Okay, here's what went wrong, and here are the warning signs for the future. Let's say this New York Times haar sheet up there on the screen. And basically, first of all, you need to know that one of the groups that was most involved with this was Third Way centristing tank. They hate the left. They take every opportunity that they can to trash the left. So keep in mind when you're reading the details here that there's like an ideological agenda behind it, and keeping with that, some of what they say is useful and some of it is clearly very ideologically motivated. So here where there's sort of top findings. Number One, voters of color are persuasion voters who need to be convinced. And this to me was maybe like the biggest takeaway is that Democrats were assuming that minority voters were just automatically in their camp and all they needed to do was worry about turning them out. So there was no persuasion pitch, there was no effort to actually go into these communities and be like, here's why you should vote for Joe Biden, here's why you should vote for the Democratic Party. They just took these voters for granted. That's the bottom line, which does reflect what Chuck Roach has been telling us forever about the total underinvestment in Latino communities. And what they also came up with was that no brainer. Democrats lacked an economic pitch that was effective. They didn't lean in. They leaned too much into just like Trump is bad messaging, which everybody can judge for themselves and could experience and witness for themselves whether the how ever they felt about Donald Trump. And so the fact that there wasn't a coherent economic message meant that Republicans were effective at portraying Democrats as like the Party of lockdowns, that they just want to keep you in your house forever and keep the schools closed and keep your masks on, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. The part where I where they it's funny because most of the report is very data driven. Yeah, and they've got all these charts and here's the turnout percentage in all of this, and then the part where they're like, oh, it was all the left's fault, it's all anecdotal. It's like, you know, we asked Abigail Spanberger and she said it's the left's fault. Right. I also would say, though, and we've talked about this before, there's no ability to distinguish between the sort of like economic left policy and the cultural left. And look, I'm from a values perspective. I'm totally aligned with both the economic and cultural left. But if you just look at the polling and look what lands, there's no doubt that the economic policies are more popular. And also, if your whole beef is like they lacked a coherent economic message, well, literally the only part of the party that has a coherent economic message is the left. Yes, so that part seemed to be very very thin, but it's interesting and they basically say, look, Democrats could really be in trouble in twenty twenty two. I think the parsing of it is very important because you're right, Look, I think the cultural left is one hundred percent to blame for both the current state of American politics in terms of the division and really in terms of the Democratic underperformance in twenty twenty and the only thing that saved them was really Trump in his complete and total idiocy. But if you want to see a picture of the future my own home state of Texas, let's put this up there on the screen. McCallen. Texas in eighty five percent Hispanic town on the border. And I mean when I say on the border, I mean literally on the border. That is what it is. Just elected a Republican mayor, which shows actually that the Republican gains in South Texas are going to stay despite the fact that Trump was on the ballot. So yes, Trump was on the ballot, the stimulus texts and all that, but something oceanic has happened down in South Texas. And I think that what it does show you is what we speak about all the time, which are there are Hispanic voters in South Texas who are like pro Medicare for all, pro life, pro gun, and anti PC anti establishment. What party speaks to them, Not the National GOP, certainly not the National Democratic Party, but on a localized level, this is what the future of politics looks like. I'm not gonna say it's for the future of GOP. What it is is that they are recognizing that the national brands of both of the parties are totally out of step with these brand new constituencies. Yeah, and I would say that the reason why the Republican Party, if anything, can be the mantle why some of this is going to be seen, at least in the emerging time, is they don't stand for anything, so the people down there can make it stand for whatever they need to in the future. The Democratic Party could too. I don't know. Well, I just you know, having lived in Ohio and Kentucky and then work in West Virginia, local politics is dead. Everything is nationalized now, and you really can't escape. Like if the Democratic Party brand is trash, there's no escaping it. If the Republican Party brand is trash, there's no escaping it. You're gonna be tarred with stop the steal at every single level. In the Republican Party, the suburban voters, yes, sure, well, and whether that's a good thing or a bad thing depending on where you live, but you're not going to be able to escape that. And for the Democratic Party, I mean, this is why they've lost all of rural America and why even candidates who you know, had a long history in some of these seats and were really well known among the population. That's why they haven't been able to make up any ground there or even have these sort of like outlier races anymore, because there's just this aura of contempt and condescension coming from the National Party that you cannot escape, which is why you know, all these and this is what's really depressing any sort of like individual candidate qualities are like oh, what platform does this particular candidate run on, or like what what's their bio? And how do they relate or how do they have deep roots in the district? All of that stuff matters almost not at all, right, right, you know, correct? And that's actually and so that's the national brand is everything that matters. And so you know, I think you have these two choices that are both like lackluster and anemic in very different different ways. And I do want to say on the like, you know, blaming defund the police for all democratic underperformance, I think that's very convenient for the democratic establishment. I'm not going to say that it didn't have any impact at all. But guess what Joe Biden could have run on a platform, right, he could have run on like, hey, here's what I'm actually gonna do for you economically. Here's the healthcare plan that I'm actually going to push for. He stopped even talking about the public option. Oh this is see what denomination. It's very easy for It's very easy for span Berger and these other Blue Dogs or for the Biden team or whatever to be like, oh, it was all the fault of these activists saying defund the police, because that keeps them from having to do a single moment of soul searching about the fact that they did not offer an economic agenda that was coherent for people, and they continue to not learn the lessons of twenty sixteen that it's not enough to just lean into like oh Trump is bad. Well there, yeah, and they're learning that the hard way. Look, I think defund the police is absolutely responsible for state of Florida and for a lot of South Texas. That being said, it's not the only thing. And you're right, which is that whenever you everything is very complicated. Coalitions are difficult, Which is that why do millions of people come out and vote. Many of them can't even really tell you themselves. We're like, oh, maybe I did it for this, maybe I did it for that. At the end of the day, sometimes it's about a gut feeling. But I do think that it does lie with this. Neither candidate of twenty twenty proposed any transformative way in order to change your life. So what did it come down to? Of Course, the default was culture. Right, if there was no argument around how you're going to remake American society, then of course we're going to default to defund the police or immigration or anything else that. Yes, we can say those are the top issues in people's lives, but also things are downstream from each other. When Trump is out there saying what he run his economic agenda in twenty twenty was I'm going to cut social Security and pass another large tax cut. That's literally what he said, Okay, oh awesome, And then Biden, I don't even know what the hell he was running on. I mean restore the soul of the America, which again doesn't actually mean anything. So in that particular case, it does, of course makes sense to me, which is that you're going to have a default cultural election. So we have cultural numerism right now in America where everybody's like, the cultural war rules everything. And I've said it here many times, but it's because we have the absence of political parties speaking to the actual economics and societal problems of the twenty first century. Now, in the year nineteen thirty two, you know what, they didn't have to argue about culture, and it wasn't just because it was a homogenous society. It was about what is the government role in the Great Depression? We were owed that this time around, and we've completely lost it. That's some of these books behind here are exactly about what happened back then, and it makes me so sad to see the way that our politics works today. This is actually what my breaking points are about today. I'm how to get used to saying that radar is very ingrained in my in my brain. But this is what it's about, because it's not just in the US. Across twenty one different Western democracies that Thomas Pakhetti and some of his colleagues studied, you've had this what they call multi party elite system. So on the right you have the financial elites, and on the left you have the education elites, like people who have college degree and higher degrees, and so that means you have every party dominated by various elites who continue to pursue pursue their own class interest, which means that economics is essentially taken off the table. And what all the fights are over is culture. And that's very easy, it's very convenient for like you know, the Democratic Party, the Republican Party establishment. They don't have to do anything other than say the right words and signal the right things. So that is the state of our politics. Does it have to be that way? No, even today there are exceptions. There are countries that are exceptions to that rule. But the more that you focus on just like this sort of like gauzy meaningless rhetoric rather than a concrete, actionable policy plan, the more you're just going to have these fights over culture. And that is what we see. It's absolutely correct. One of the core themes I think we're on a track in the future is just how much the culture war is ripping us apart and to what end and why? And I really do blame the people at the top. I do not blame the voters whatsoever, and I never will. Hey, guys, so remember how we told you how awesome premium membership was. Well, here I am again to remind you that becoming a premium member means you don't have to listen to our constant please for you to subscribe. So what are you waiting for? Become a premium member today by going to Crystalansager dot com, which you can click on in the show notes. The other story that we wanted to talk about is this new Facebook decision. This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. Let's put it up there on the screen, which is that Facebook has decided that they're going to uphold Trump's ban but he can maybe come back in twenty twenty three. I think this is just the most ludicrous thing. Either ban him or don't. I mean, at a certain point, this is all becoming ridiculous. They said it will look to experts to decide whether the risk to public safety has receded. Which expert are they the nut jobs who screwed up? Yeah? I'm the expert. Which is that let people generally say what they want. And look, you know, I don't think it's a secret. I'm not a huge Trump fan, okay, And I think he probably did do a lot of damage on January sixth. All of that being said, this is a farce, which is that take Trump out of it and make take a look at this from a pure power perspective. It is ludicrous to have a fake oversight board providing fake recommendations to a fake transparent company. Who's in charge here? It's Zuckerberg. He's the only one who makes a decision according to his own stock structure. What do I say all the time? Follow the money. He controls the company. He has a majority stake whenever it comes to a majority shareholder power. So this one person is the person who's deciding whether the president is going to be here till twenty twenty one or twenty twenty one till twenty twenty three. And I think this really scary part is the Trump campaign or the former campaign potential campaign has even said they view the Facebook decision as their ability in order to run again. So look, I mean, I particularly want Trump to run again, but it's not my place. It's above to the American people, and it's certainly not up to Mark Zuckerberg. That is the hard thing to separate. It's actually really nice not on these platforms, like on a day to day basis the fact that and it has worked. He just took his like crappy blog site thing down and no one, No one was going to it, no one was reading it. The media wasn't it covering That was apparently his big thing was the fact that it wasn't what he was putting up on this blog site was not getting covered by the media, and so they gave up on that thing. So it has actually really worked to not have him on these platforms. But yeah, I read the corporate speak memo that Facebook put out about their decision to ban him for at least two years, and it was all like, oh, this shows that were accountable, and this shows were really listening to the board, et cetera, et cetera. But you know, one of the really basic things that they don't explain is what exactly did he say on your platform that justified this band? Because the sense that I get is that this is much more about the totality of his actions than whether he actually violated their specific terms of service. So, okay, if you're in the business now of judging like the totality of a person and their actions in terms of whether they can have access to your platform, like, that's a whole other situation that you're putting. That's called democracy. That's democracy. Only America gets to decide the totality of the president's actions and whether they constitute something where he should be booted. And we did that. And here's the thing, is like I actually if and and to be honest with you, I don't know what he said on Facebook to know whether it was the same videos to Twitter, he's like, we love you. I could actually be persuaded that a short term ban could make sense if this sort of rule is being applied consistently to all political candidates, to all people, or if I don't know if political candidates should have a separate category to all world leaders. But it's very clearly not any sort of consistent standard or pattern, and none of those decision points are laid out. And then, I mean, the bottom line is always this, like, no matter whether this was the right or wrong decision, this ban or this length of time, et cetera, et cetera, the bottom line is that a single person should not have so much incredible control over our political system. And so, yeah, you've basically vested in Mark Zuckerberg the ability to determine which political candidates are going to be viable and which or not. And that is an outrageous state of affairs because Facebook. You know, we don't pay as much attention to it, and it doesn't get as much elite media attention at all. Twitter is basically the only thing that exists for elite media, and I fall into that trap as well if we're looking at Twitter. I don't even know how to log onto Facebook anymore. But Facebook, the Trump team says, was the most critical goal social media network for their success. They invested tons in Facebook, they were pushing tons of messaging there, So this was absolutely critical. And the fact that you have one guy who can just say like no and shut off, that's bigot. It is crazy. No, I think that's exactly what it is, which is that at the end of the day, the arbitrariness of this all is not acceptable and a democracy. And actually, before he left, Ajipai actually proposed something or it was working on something which I thought was very important, which is that the section two thirty debate gets very complicated very quickly about who's liable, etc. But it would be an amendment, and what it would do is it would force transparency of moderation. And what that means is that companies would have to publicly say exactly when and where they're going to remove something or not. As you said, Facebook should be required to point to the exact post time date and stamp they had all that data. I think we all know that and say, this is the reason this post right here, why Trump has been taken off. This is what might are in terms of service said. These are other examples where he applied it in a similar way. And what I mean remember Twitter and then their arbitrary ban of the Hunter Biden that was insane. That was completely insane. You are not allowed to censor a cup private news organization if they're libeling Hunter Biden. Hunter is welcome to sue them. Oh and guess what he hasn't you know why because every single one of those emails are true, and every single one of those stories are true. And what that means to me is that the arbitrary position of all of this moderation is what has to be slayed more than anything, like we have to create a situation and this is totally reasonable, which is we're not nationalizing Google or Facebook. We're saying, hey, guys, if you're going to take stuff off, which I don't think anyone wants to live in a one hundred percent unmoderated Internet, right, that's like child porn and death threats and suicide and all that. Nobody. No, we don't want to live in that world. We're just gonna say, hey, you got to publish your standards, You got to come forward, and you got to say to us, this is exactly when, where how that we decide that we're going to take something off or we're going to put something on. Okay, and this is again, this is a democratic thing. We can make this and write this into law. This is what Congress is supposed to be. What we talked about earlier, which is that who is actually asking the questions of the twenty first century? No one. Every time these goddamn tech companies get launched before Congress, what do we see some Republican who's like, what does my iPhone email send to the I kid? You not? I saw this guy ask why his campaign emails go to the promotions folder on Gmail. He asked that to the CEO of Google. The CEO of Google and the Sundak Pachai was like, I'll look into that for you. I'm like, I'm like, what are you doing? You're literally destroying my brain. I'm dumber for having watched you and then the same thing whenever Facebook, remember that embarrassing Facebook hearing. They were like, mister Zuckerberg, how do you make money? And he was like, ads senator. And then one of them asked him why something had been taken down, and Zuck goes, I believe you're referring to Twitter. So I'll leave that to my colleague, mister Dorsey. I'm just it is pathetic the way that these people are in serious. I mean should say none very few are actually serious. And yeah, and Republicans, for all their talk of like big tics, etcetera, etcetera, they have no they have no interest in actually curtailing the power having like real solutions to any of these problems. And I mean, I think platforms as large and as significant as Facebook is to just the basic workings of our democracy at this point, I do think they should be regulated like public utilities, Like this is beyond what we should have in the hands of one individual or a public publicly traded company. This is really really essential to just the basic functioning of our country and our democracy. And so yeah, you can't have someone who has so much power over which candidate can and can't run and can and can't have a shot at success. Do you actually think that that's true, that whether he's back on Facebook is going to determine whether Trump is going to run. I actually do because they need it. I don't think people can truly understand the sheer amount of cash and how important it is. Also, ask any of your boomer relatives. Boomers love Facebook. I don't really get it. They love their getting the news from Facebook, they love sharing stuff on Facebook. They really enjoy like sharing stuff around creating Facebook. This is very boomer phenomenon and something I truly actually don't understand. But I know that they use it, and they use it a lot, and so that is the base. I mean, that is where Trump his true power is in the know. Yeah. Go. We also know that since he's been off these platforms, like everything Trump has plummeted, That's right. I mean Google Search, Google Search on the cable news segments, the number of mentions on Twitter, the Google search traffic, that's the makety indicators went down to levels from before he even ran for president. So and then, like I said before, the fact that he had to take his like shitty blog post thing because just no one, no one was looking at I remember when he looked at those numbers and his all of his posts together had like a few hundred thousand engagements, which is like what we get in one segment, you know, I mean it really is like it was a pathetic number of level of engagement. Media wasn't covering it, etc. So, yeah, I think if he remains banned on these platforms, it will be very difficult for him to be able to run. Now, look, if he did run even without being on Facebook, would he win the GOP nomination? Yeah? Right? And then are you really going to be in a position where the Republican nominee for president is banned from these different platforms. That's just that seems completely insane. No, you can't have that. And look, like I said, I don't think Trump should be I think Trump was a terrible president and overall will probably be remembered it was largely a failure. However, that doesn't mean that it's up to me. It's up to the American people, and it's certainly not up to Mark Zuckerberg. I gave you my opinion, you know, I'm just sharing it. But I'm just one of three hundred and thirty million, and I think that people need to be a lot more humble whenever it comes to actual questions fundamental to democracy. But at the same time, Crystal, we've got some developments in the NYC mayworld. There's a lot going on. This race has basically become a total mess. New York City mayoral race coming to close very shortly. And all right, the latest thing, the polls are all over the map in terms of who is actually leading. So Andrew Yang for a long time is holding onto this lead. Now it looks like it's him. Eric Adams. Captain Garcia got the New York Times endorsement and she shot it up. It seems to be causing her to searge. And I have to think. I mean New York City at this point, like a lot of it has been gentrified to the point that it's like, you know a lot of affluent liberals who are very influential, who read the New York Times, so that endorsement carries a lot of weight. And then you have just a total sort of meltdown on the left in terms of picking a candidate sticking with that candidate. It really is a total mess. So the latest thing that you have is there was a second allegation of sexual harassment against Scott Stringer, who previously it seemed like a lot of progressives were kind of coalescing around Stringer as their candidate of choice. Then this first sexual harassment allegation comes out, which Ryan Grimm did the digging into and found like, there's a lot of holes in this person's story. But it was already a lot of the progressive groups had like run away from Stringer and unendorsed him and all of this stuff. The new allegation we can throw Ryan Grimm's tweet up here as well, so the new allegation also has similar holes. The New York Times reporting on it was such a mess, so they had to change like they're reporting on it and the way that they were indicating his response and how he was responding. So again, look, we don't know what happened, and this new allegation is from thirty years ago, so we really don't know what happened back then. But in any case, the left as a bandon Stringer, then it was like, oh, maybe Diane Morales who positioned herself as the leftiest in the field, and she's had a total implosion too. Number one, her campaign staff there were allegations of like a toxic work environment. They wanted to unionize, but it's really late in the campaign, and then they marched on her office and it became this entire sort of like navel gazing exercise. It also then came out, Oh, she's positioning herself as the sort of democratic socialist candidate, but her views are not left at all. At least they weren't until the minute that she thought it would be politically advantageous. Take a listen to this interview she gave where she laid out some of her views on things like charter schools and also on whether she voted for Andrew Cuomo or Cynthia nixcent tangalism For Democratic voters that you're going to be trying to appeal to, can you give folks an early sense of where you fall in this supposedly big tent party. Are there ways that you talk about what kind of Democrat you are? Should people know who you're supporting in the presidential race? You know, are there some markers you can give folks? Yeah, you know, I've been asked that question a couple of times, and I've been really resistant to the label, mostly because I don't check all the boxes in any one lane. I think, you know, people have tended to want to let me in the sort of progressive or the democratic socialist, but then we talk about schools and we talk about school choice, and then they go, oh, you know, maybe not right, because I do. I am a strong believer in school choice. And that's definitely a much longer conversation that I'd love to be able to unpack. But so I don't. I don't fall neatly into any one category. I don't think, and I'm hoping that that's actually going to be pretty appealing to New Yorkers. Just quickly on that. Do you have a favorite in the Democratic presidential primary? I am honestly going to vote for whoever the candidate is, the nominee is, and I haven't quite made up my mind. Okay, And were you supporter of Governor Cuomo or Cynthia Nixon in twenty eighteen. That's a good question. I I think I voted for Cuomo. Okay, she is sleep oh my god, extraordinary levels of cringe. Well, I won't say, like doesn't know she's going to vote for in the Democratic primary. School So this is the person who's positioning herself as like the lefty candidate and now total implosion. The latest effort to sort of coalesce behind a progressive candidate is Maya Wiley. AOC just endorsed her. We can throw that up on the screen. So that's Scott Stringer, you know, derailed by maybe possibly bogus sexual harassment or assault allocations. Diane Morales collapses. Now they're trying to coalesce behind Maya Wiley, who was you know, she has a big Russia gator over on MSNBC. Is that's who she is? How everybody knows her at this point? I think so anyway, that's the latest that's the latest choice. But it really is interesting and Ross Barkan had a great piece on this and how politics became just like neoliberal through and through in New York City. And it's basically like, you know, in New York City was a real innovator in these sort of like new deal projects with rent stabilization and with these big housing developments for affordable so all of that stuff. Then you have the New York City bankruptcy. That's right again what he trained nineteen seventies. And after that, you know, the focus in New York City becomes like, how do we make this an attractive target for capital and how do we make sure that we've got developers who want to come in here. And even Deblasio, who with some of his rhetoric tried to signal an end to that neoliberal era, that train is hard to slow down, and so he had some surface level reforms and also was just sort of like ineffectual in terms of just like his level of confidence and to get their job done. So he loses trust. And at this point there's really no one in the field who's proposing anything significantly different from the neoliberal era that, whether it's been a Republican or Democratic mayor, has dominated in New York City. There may be some differences around the edges, but that's the direction that this race is going in. So you know Yang looking shakier. Eric Adams is bored to the right than Yang is and has like active hostility and contact aoc contempt for the less that actually, well, he's just trying to distinguish himself that way. You have Maya Wiley who's sort of like again, I mean, she worked in the Deblasio administrate captin Garcia, the same thing worked in the Deblasio and these are technocratic type of neoliberal managers. And that's essentially what the choices come down. And you know, to the point that we were making earlier in the show about the cut cultural and the democrat or the economic left. I mean AOC in them endorse myle Wiley because of defund the police, not because of any other economic reason, which actually is very pathetic from that point of view, which is that there's no economic agenda. Really, this is New York City. I mean, this is the greatest city in America, like a beacon of America that shines throughout the world. And like you said, that's a veryous, dude point from Ross. I've never thought about it that way, which is that the bankruptcy and Ford telling them to drop dead basically made it. We're like, Okay, we have to make New York to playground of the rich because that's the only way we're going to make the same happen. Yeah, and it worked. I mean, what's the average home price of what's the average home price? We can go and ask some of these major candidates. They don't know. I mean in Manhattan, it's absolutely outrageous. And the bloombergization of New York City, where they explicitly were just like, look, we're going after the millionaires. That's going to be an entire tax base, and screw everybody else. I said, Manhattan it should be a luxury good I mean, and it is, and it's very expensive and everybody you basically import, you know, cheap labor from all around the rest of the boroughs and from the surrounding New York City area, and everybody has to commute like nine hours in just to go work at Starbucks or something like that. I think that's a pathetic situation for the biggest, one of the biggest cities in America, a beacon of our country itself. And from that point of view, it is a very sad state of affairs. I will say. I know the left is very down on Yang. If he wins, it still does change politics forever. I still truly believe that Yang is such a post almost post cultural figure who rises above like culture war in a way that I have not seen in politics in a very long time. It's also fascinating because he became famous by running for president. It wasn't famous before he ran for president, so that hasn't happened in a long time. I don't think it's just the left that's down on Yang judgment by the place he has lived quite a lot, and I really think it comes down to something simple, which is part of his magic that made him so compelling, is he just seemed like this normal guy who was trying to figure it out and super authentic and like war it all out there and would answer any question you want in the most direct way. Now he's teamed up with these Bloomberg consultants, and you can tell in what he says that this is what he's been told to say in order to win. And so to me, on the one hand, I see your point about the fact that he just you know, became famous and running for president and he really circumvented the traditional media and went on all these independent media platforms, et cetera, et cetera. So yeah, in that sense, but then if he wins, he did it by becoming basically a standard issue politician, and so it really muddles whether this is any kind of a breakthrough point or not. I'll put it this way. It's not the endpoint. It's V one. It's like the version one of what I want to see which is in the new style of why did he become famous in the first place? And I agree with you. Look, Andrew, by the way, if you ever watched this, you didn't become famous by being, you know, like a Bradley Tusk Bloomberg consultant. What you did was by showing. His greatest moment on the campaign is when he said we're all wearing makeup. This is theater in front of millions of people that resonated with everyone. And so look how he is as an actual mayor, and you know how he is even now as a candidate. I actually do think it's beside the point because that is v one in my opinion of what the future could look like. But you know, the sad thing is, I'm afraid if he does win, and at this point, like I don't have a dog of fight at this point, like I don't know who I even want to win or who I would vote for if I was there, et cetera, et cetera. But I think the learning from this, unfortunately, it would be if he did win, like, oh, he won by doing the normal politician stuff and like pandering to these groups that he knew were key to being able to have success in the city. I don't know if it's going to work out. The polls have been very dicey for him. It seems like Catherine Garcia's kind of surging or Adam's been very aggressive. Who knows if my Wiley may have a last minute, like you know, if there's a new coalescing around her. We really don't know, and these races can be very fluid up to the end. But but yeah, I sadly think that would be the takeaway, whether it's the right takeaway or not, that he played by the rules, got the political class consultantcs IN, had the right poll tested messaging, and that that was the key to success. So I'm not sure that the takeaway would be what we wanted to. We'll see. Wow, you guys must really like listening to our voices, because here I am again asking you to become a premium member at Crystalandsager dot com so you don't have to hear these please, And as annoying as I know this is, it's not a viiagric commercial like you're gonna see on cable news. So go ahead and count your lucky stars as you're about to notice the free show does not include the discussion after each of our monologues, which is one of our premium benefits. Help us beat the corporate media today. Get access to the full show. Take care, guys. All right, Sager, what are your breaking points? Wow? I love that. The reason I am sitting at this beautiful desk today is because of the Iraq War. All my politics start there, the outrage that I felt at watching American soldiers die for a despicable lie. It still sticks with me to this day. And of course those who ordered our sons into battle for nothing are most responsible, and those who carried the lie on their behalf when their job was to do the opposite, they bear a lot of the blame to I never thought I would actually live to see another screw up as bad as the Iraq WMD. But I was wrong, and that has become increasingly evident in the last several weeks as the evidence mounts that coronavirus may have leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Now a hypothesis which has been denigrated, debunked, dismissed, cast aside, all but written off by our corporate press for over a year, based upon a single premise they just hated Trump. Hating Trump is not good enough of a reason to cover up a true investigation into the worst pandemic in a century. And as more information enters the public domain, the worse the media looks. It's like September two thousand and four all over again. The truth is slowly dripping out, and instead of acknowledging their mistake and coming clean with the American people, the cover up only continues. That is the current state of the situation with the latest release of doctor Anthony Fauci's emails. Now, many Republicans and others have made a lot of the emails regarding Fuji's own lies around mass and the pandemic guidance. That's a whole other monologue in itself, but in my opinion, the original question remains the most pressing. Did coronavirus leak from the Wuhan lap? While we do not have the full picture, the initial one emerging from Fauci's emails are stunning. Fauci's emails show on January thirty first, twenty twenty, after COVID's genome was decoded, he received an email from the virus had quote unusual features and that quote one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features potentially look engineered. Oh really, the email continues, he and his team quote all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory. You know what something inconsistent with evolutionary theory means. It means man made. Now, the especially stunning part is that the author of that email in January of twenty twenty was himself the ringleader of a statement in March of twenty twenty which declare, unequivocally, quote, we do not believe any type of laboratory based scenario is plausible. What changed, Well, politics did the exact opposite of what science is supposed to be concerned with. It was in February of twenty twenty that Senator Tom Cotton first appeared on the Fox News channel and positive that coronavirus may have come from the Wuhan lab. Now, it spawned a million takes and debunkings from the mainstream media, and the theory was quickly recited by President Trump and Secretary Pompeo as well. The culture War is the best thing that ever happened to doctor Fauci and the scientists why because they all had an institutional interest in making sure that the potential truth never came to light that coronavirus was a result of gain of function research, a type of research they all spent their lives championing and directing millions of dollars towards in service of allegedly trying to stop a pandemic. The gravy train drives up if the lab Leaue hypothesis is true. So they were happy to be media darlings of the last year in service of standing up against Trump to cover up what could actually be the truth. Now. The email is particularly damning because it reveals not only did the top scientists involved in declaring coronavirus natural origin definitely disregard their own findings, but it shows that Fauci was not being clear with the American people. In this May twenty twenty interview with National Geographic, he states, quote, if you look at the evolution and virus and bats and what's out there, the scientific evidence is very, very strongly leaning toward this could not have been artificially or deliberately manipulated. Everything about the stepwise evolution over time strongly indicates that this virus evolved in nature and then jumped species. Oh really, the evidence strongly leans that way. Huh, well, not according to information he was directly aware of four months before that interview. And worse, the emails also reveal that in April of twenty twenty, doctor Peter Dazak, the person whose nonprofit funneled money from Fauci to the Wuhan Lamb, emailed Fauci saying, quote, I just wanted to say a personal thank you on behalf of our staff and collaborators for publicly standing up and stating that the scientific evidence supports a natural origin for COVID nineteen. Just a reminder, Dazak is the only American attached to the World Health Organization team who concluded that the lab leak theory was not true. When it was asked why this was his little response to sixty minutes, Let's take a listen. Do you audit the lab? And they said annually? Did you audit it after the outbreak? Yes? Was anything found? No? Do you test your staff? Yes? No, you're just taking their word for it. Well, what else can we do. There's a limit to what you can do, and we went right up to that limit. The more information that comes to light, the more we begin to see the makings of an immense conspiracy of public health establishment seemingly caught in a gigantic mistake in the media assisting them with a cover up because they hate Trump and more than a year's long gas lighting of the American people about one of the worst crises in modern memory. Now, in a normal country, what I just told you would be on the nightly news, but this is how NBC is covering it. You can't even make these things up. After a year of lies. The media cannot admit the truth because it shows just how badly they screwed this up. And luckily we're here to tell you what they won't. Thank you for tuning in to our very first Breaking Points monologue. It's just the first of many, and I think Crystal, it's me again. Guys. We hope that you're loving the show. If you have any questions, you know where you can ask them. Go to Crystalinsager dot com. Become a premium member and then you'll get to participate and weekly ask me anything. The link is in the show notes. What's absolutely stunning about all of this is that in the emails it directly contradicts the scientists themselves two months later, and it shows that Fauci was basically lying whenever he said that the evidence strongly points to something else. The evidence he was pointing to was the letter put out by the guy who emailed him in January of twenty twenty that this does not look of evolutionary theory. I also love the term. I mean, here's the thing. What happened in January twenty twenty, it wasn't a culture war. What happened by March of twenty twenty it was the culture war. I know what changed. It wasn't the science. And amazingly around all of this is you begin to see clearly how ideology mixes with their moneyed interest, which is what they need to protect gain of function research. And they rode this gravy chain for a year. They probably thought they were going to get away with it too. And here's the funniest part. Biden winning may have been the worst thing that ever happened to them, because it allowed us all to at least have an honest conversation and let people lose all of their stop losing their minds around whether this Lavely hypothesis is true or not. I really reserved judgment on Fauci for a very long time. Both did. I gave him a lot of better, gave him a lot about it. Even after the mask thing, We're like, all right, once grew up, all right, you know, like he seems like he's acting and he's really trying to act in every's best interests, the very top position, etc. But when you had at the beginning him lying about masks, then it comes down that he's like changing the numbers on herd immunity based on and he admitted this openly based on what he thought the public could handle at that moment. It's like, is not your job to be politician or to be a spinmaster to decipher what the mood of the American public is. It's your job to tell the truth. And then in this I see a very similar dynamic where he's playing games with what he thinks the public should hear or wants to hear. It's also interesting what you point out about the way that these like shiny objects of the culture war can be used to hide the truth. So the minute that you've got this narrative that the Lablaque hypothesis is like the trumpy conspiracy theory, and you layer on top of that this baseless insinuate like allegation that it's somehow racist and more racist by the way than the like, oh, Chinese people eat bats and other weird stuff. The minute you have those two things together, you have a sort of like airtight ability to keep the truth of or at least the allegation, or at least a real upfront investigation. You have an ability to keep that under wraps. That's why this whole episode is so revealing. Obviously, at the surface level, we need to know what happened as best we can. We may never know exactly because at this point so much time has elapsed. But if you want to prevent a pandemic, important to know how this last one started. But it's just such a commentary on the way sectarian divisions cloud our ability to see sort of basic facts. Clearly, the way that Trump made all of that so much worse, which is partly his fault and partly the fault of the people whose brains he broke, and who intentionally also used the fact that he was so awful and like actively intentionally weaponized that to cover for themselves and to escape any accountability themse And then you have this media story too, where you know, in the SERI in the over the course of just a couple of months, this theory goes from like discredited, debunked, fact checked all this stuff to like, oh, maybe there's more here than Times said debunked as of just a few months ago, Yeah, two months ago that they were calling it debunked in a headline. I do think that that is so incredibly significant. What else we cover here that the lead COVID reporter for The New York Times says that the lab leak theory itself has a racist origin. Yeah, okay, And all of this comes down to a simple fact. Did it come from the lab or not? It's a basic question it. As I've said before too, the Chinese are liars. I expect them to lie. You know what I don't expect I don't expect our government to be complicit in funding gain of function research which could have led to this large pandemic outbreak. That's something that we can control. And I love this too. What are we arguing about right now? All of American politics cleaves along the line of January sixth Commission or not. You know what actually bears investigation. Did this virus leak from a lab? It is a job of Congress. They have subpoena authority over the intelligence community. Now we have all these new stories. Oh, the intelligence community believe so and so was sick. Yeah, maybe I want to see the evidence. I mean, I don't trust these people as far as we can throw them. The only thing that the nine to eleven Commission was actually good for was declassifying a lot of the initial cables around some of the screw ups between the FBI, the CIA and the lack of coordination. I want to see the raw intelligence report from the people who determined this sickness came in November twenty nineteen for the WUHAN staffers. I want to see all of the stuff that is out there. It is of immense public import that we get this out there, not only to America, to the globe. If gain of function research just led to trillions of dollars shutdown of the global economy, everybody deserves to know. The other thing that was interesting about you email a little bit like of a side tangent from the focus of the lap leakue focus. But there were all these reporters who were like emailing and love, tell me the truth about Trump stifling you, tell me the truth about how you're being muzzled. Yeah, which is I mean, you can just see like they wanted to write that story and they're just begging for the good and he's repeatedly like, no, no, I don't feel like that, and no, I appreciate your concern, et cetera, et cetera. The other thing that maybe more than anything, struck me about these emails is just how cozy the a lot of the journalists who had a longtime relationship with him, like Donald McNeil, Like Donald McNeil felt they they had this very cozy relationship with him where they're emailing him and what feels like a very personal way as more friends than as you know, reporter and subject of said reporting. And so you can see how some of these failings of Fauci throughout the pandemic, they just get overlooked by the press. They don't dig into it, they don't ask hard questions about it. There's never any critical coverage because this is their buddy, and that's Fuji's not unique in that way. This is power literally, like this is standard operating procedure where the more that you the more that you have these chummy relationships in this town with people in power and authority, the higher you rise in these elite legacy media organizations. And I mean, on the one hand, it makes sense because that means you've got all these sources. You may be able to get scoops and stories that other people can't get, but it comes with a massive price of basically, you have to treat these people with kid gloves and be their best friend if you want to get those stories. And that means that when it is the people in power who are doing the bad things, the critical coverage doesn't come. Why, because you want to preserve your network, you want to preserve your relationship, you want to preserve your access. So I also thought the emails maybe more than anything, I thought that was kind of like the most fascinating point. I think you're absolutely right. I call it down payments on the future, which is that what you do, is what these elites do, is they build up credibility in relationships with reporters so that when the big one comes coronavirus, that it all pays off for everybody. The reporters have your phone number and you have they know they can trust you, and so you can spin them whoever they want. And that down payment could have cost America a lot in the last years. Yeah, and you're right, that's what Donald McNeil admitted to that. He admitted that out right, how long some ways are respectable? Yeah, I actually appreciate that. He said, Like, here was my thinking and why I dismissed this theory out of hand because I trusted doctor Fauci, because I'd worked with him, and I thought he'd always been a good actor, et cetera, et cetera. And so you multiply that by a thousand, and that's exactly what's going on behind the scenes at all of these organizations. Absolutely. Okay, Christal, what are your breaking points? Well, an Amazon delivery driver just won the million dollar vaccine lottery in Ohio. So as you may recall, that state is offering five one million dollar prizes to adults who get vaccinated, with winners who are selected randomly in a lottery. Here's what that delivery driver, whose name is Jonathan Carlile, said he would do with the money. You just want a million dollars? How the hell do you feel it's overwhelming? I don't know what to do. I'm just still dreaming. I know I got all it deals say, so this is the first thing that's going to happen. Jonathan goes on to say that he might also use the money to help him get a house, that he knows that he's going to have to keep working, and that he is in any way set for life, but it would provide what he described as a good bedrock. It's a sort of version of the American dream, the chance to be a winner, to change your life, to obtain all the trappings of American affluence. It's just that at this point it takes literally winning a million dollar lottery to be able to achieve that American dream. Just think about that. Jonathan Carlile works a brutally difficult job for literally the most successful company on the planet, founded by the richest man on the planet, and without winning there's a lottery, he can't stay current on his bills, let alone dream of buying a house for him and his girlfriend. So what happened? Why is grinding ever escalating inequality the norm in America? Why are we stuck in the neoliberal health cycle when we could be doing so much more for people at least. Some of the solutions to give everyone a life of basic dignity are well known and well available. Yet nothing ever seems to fundamentally change. Where is the class conflict that should be central to a wildly unequal moment such as this will new paper from renowned leftist economist Thomas Spaghetti, Amory Gethen, and Clara Martinez TOLDNANO offer some important insights into the forces that may be preventing significant structural change, beyond, of course, the obvious failings of the American political class. The paper is titled Brahmin Left Versus Merchant Right, Changing Political Cleavages in twenty one Western democracies nineteen forty eight through twenty twenty, and it explores a persistent trend in twenty one different countries where educated elites have been moving towards the left of center parties and financial elites have remained in the right of center parties. So that means that both sides the political spectrum are ruled by a different set of elites. So while working class people remain atomize split across the political spectrum, elites continue to defend their economic class interests, focusing political conflict around culture and identity issues rather than on issues of economic fairness and redistribution. As they put it in fancy academic language in that paper quote. A key result from this literature is that political support for redistribution should be inversely proportional to the strength of other political cleavages. Cross cutting class divides. The divergence of the effects of income and education on the vote documented in this paper to strongly correlated measures of inequality could in this context contribute to explaining why the rise of economic disparities in the past decades has not been met by greater redistribution or renewed class conflicts. In other words, the data compiled from twenty one different Western democracies shows that culture wars kill economic populism. It says that the places where sectarian strife are the worst and where identity and culture are at the center of political debate are also the places where inequality is highest and life is the most brutal. For the working class at least can feel comfortable in either party year because they will see their economic interest protected either way, politics collapses down to in group signaling and cultural posturing rather than policy. Things like this start to count as politics just take a look at this. It's a totally content free bs gesture just to signal to a Republican base in Ohio that this candidate will fearlessly own the Libs. Or you could consider the liberal equivalent of Mandel's nonsense there Hattap, by the way, to Thomas Frank for pointing this one out. Behold this sign which declares, in this house we believe black lives matter, women's rights or human rights. No human is illegal, science is real, Love is love, Kindness is everything. It's a sign you can buy from the modern day sweatship of Amazon for the low low price of seven dollars and ninety nine cents. You can find this sign and ones very similar to it in the yards of rich liberals all across the city. And look, I agree with all of these vague sentiments, but you can't help but notice that not one of them includes a concrete, actionable policy demand, and none have anything to do with economics. There's no healthcare, no living wage, certainly no union rights. Love is love and kindness is everything are very nice values that require only things from Nancy Pelosi that she is willing to offer, such as kneeling and kentake cloth in Piquetti's paper. He and his co author's note there are two actual exceptions to the trend of educational leits moving to the left of center party, and those exceptions are Ireland and Portugal. It's important to note how those two countries have bucked the trend. In those nations, new left wing parties found success after the two thousand and eight financial crisis, and they managed to keep class based concerns front and center rather than cultural or sectarian divides. At the other end of the spectrum is the US, where not only have education elites moved left, but nearly alone among Western democracies, financial elites have also begun consolidating in the Democratic Party. So deep are our intentionally stoked sectarian divisions, so class loyal are the Democrats, and so just completely insane are the Republicans that elites of all stripes have flocked freely to the Democratic Party without doubting for a single moment that their class interests are going to be protected. Instead, we have political skirmishes over the battleground of a January sixth Commission or personal mask wearing choices, as just a few examples. At its core, though, this paper really questions the feasibility of the American dream, the American dream that says anyone from anywhere can make it here, the one that says you don't have to win a damn lottery to pay your bills, buy a house, and lay down that stable bedrock of a middle class life, but also the American dream that says we can make a functional and just nation out of an idea rather than a singular ethnic identity. Are we doomed to watch cynical elites leverage our human differences for fun and profit while serving as a grand distraction from any sort of redistribution. Will we just endlessly repeat the cycle of letting the news media convince us that the greatest threat to our existence is not a rigged and corrupted system, but our neighbors who happen to have different political or cultural beliefs. Now, I reject the cynicism that says that this outcome of sectarian strife and skyrocketing inequality is inevitable, but it is certainly good to know what we are up against here the barriers that are in our way, and those barriers look a lot like the Democratic Party convincing us that Joe Biden not being Donald Trump is enough. It looks a lot like Republicans pretending their anti corporate because they tweet something about woke HR departments and all of us accepting these gestures and symbols as meaningful change when they are anything but. And Sager, the paper is not that long, and it's actually incredibly important because for the first time they compile data about where elites have shifted in these parties. And it's not just the US, and it's not just a last five years phenomenon. This has been happening over decades and decades. And then they tie it together to Okay, well, the countries that are outliers and have resisted this trend and have been able to maintain some sort of class politics. What is different about those countries and what they find is that they've had lefty parties that have centered class consciousness and class politics, and that is what has sort of rebuffed the trend. The US is the worst of all the countries in that it's not just the education elites, but it's also the financial elites who have started to coalesce into the Democratic Party. And then, weirdly though, you still have the Republican Party like doing the bidding of the elites who are fleeing them like the plagus that I've realized. It's an amazing situation. The Republicans are professional opposition. They're like a permanent rentier class who will use the cultural even of a portion of the population and sell that as arbitrage to the financial and basically oil elite in order to stand up for their interests. In our politics. They've still got the oil elite. Oh yeah, my home state. You know. It's fascinating to see it because what I'm realizing is America. One guys, this is what the American empire looks. We've exported our values to the entire Western world and ruined all of This is the final triumph of the Marshall Plan, which is that what we've done is that our empire across the Western world has inculcated these total westernization, globalization of the interconnected culture, and our politics have become exactly the same. In France, in Germany, across the European Union, I mean they literally connected themselves. And then here at home, Portugal and Ireland being the rarest of exceptions, they have very distinct populations, religiosities and other things. It's very very unique situation. But if you take which companies which are more pan ethnic, which are more you know, less homogeneous, and such larger, more integral to the global economy, especially like America, this is what happens. And I think it's stunning to see how our both of our party systems have become flocked towards these elites. And it's not an accident, which is that it's the greatest thing that ever happened to them, the ability to own both because it does essentially ensure that nothing will happen, and as long as nothing happens, the status quo continues. And I don't think that people appreciate how much that is actually worth to the American ruling class. People say all the time to be like, oh, well, you know, why would people donate to someone because nothing's happening in Congress. Well, first of all, some stuff does happen, you don't hear about it. It's usually tax breaks and extensions on the defense budget, stuff like that. But status quo is great. I mean, look at the tax rate, right like, look at the way that people move money around, look at the estate tax, and then what happened with the corporate tax rate. It's all at a historic low. Keeping things exactly where they are is an in kind donation to the billionaire class. Yeah, well, it really solves a puzzle. That is something we've been i think asking ourselves for a while now, which is when you have this state of affairs of a country that is very wealthy in the US, and you know, you just look over the past year at the trillions of dollars that billionaires have accumulated. As every one else was here, we can go through all of the statistics. It's going to be the worst year ever for opioid deaths, it's going to be the worst year ever for suicides. You know, you have and that's a little unique to the pandemic, but these are trends that have been mounting and mounting and mounting over years, to the point that certain demographics are seeing their life expectancy decline. Right, So you have this endemic misery, you have this mass inequality, you have just a blatant exploitation in corporate workplaces across the country, and yet you don't have a massive like public uprising or any responsiveness whatsoever, certainly from the political system. Because you do see occasional flayers you saw like the teacher strike, right, you saw certainly the Black Lives Matter movement over the summer, triggered by George Floyd's murder. But there was a lot of just like upset and grievance over all kinds of conditions going on there too. But you don't see the political system responding in any way at all. Why how can they get away with that? Like? How do they keep getting elected? I was just reading this bogus article from NBC News that was like, Joe Biden abandons the public option and the left is okay with that. It's like, okay, just because AOC is maybe not like maybe, doesn't mean that people in general are okay with this. And yet is he going to pay a price? No? Why? Because all he had to do was not be Donald Trump. That was it. The minute he's inaugurated and he exists and is alive and is not Donald Trump. For the hardcore, for the Democratic base, for about half the country, really, that was sufficient. That was all he had to do. And the Republicans have their own equivalent. And you know what the sad part was, this took a lot of reckoning For me. I never realized how important it was for Republican base how important it was for just Trump to be Trump. All they needed was for him to exist and piss off elite liberals. That signed, by the way, is literally my entire neighborhood. Yeah, got so sick of looking at it. And the thing is, and usually it's next to some sign which is like say no to high rise apartment buildings. Perfect, don't let them build anymore real estate next to my million dollar house. Can't have any affor I can't have. It's always hilarious and I could go into the hypocrisy of elite liberals all day. Really, what it is is that so many people. Max Alvares said this on Rising, which was they put Trump gave them cultural power. Told the story before driving through rural Nevada right before the twenty twenty election and there was this giant sign in the middle of nowhere, like nowhere hour from anywhere, and this huge sign and it just said Trump, fuck your feelings, and that was it, and it actually hit home for me. I'm like, for him, this man, woman, whomever they were, they truly felt nobody listened to me until Trump came. And it's all he has to do anything, He just has to merely exist in the White House and say screw you. That was his way, and I understand that that was a very powerful force. Seventy five million people who finally they're just like, no enough, Hollywood media. Everything's just bombarding your daily life. Is full of indignities from their boss class and more. But they don't have to do anything. And that's the worst part, isn't it. He doesn't have to do anything. He cut the corporate tax rate. Not only that, even as the people that hated him, you know, made these public displays of meltdowns and whatever that we're very satisfying to watch for all of us, right and by the way, they're flag down the street from me. It says, Trump twenty twenty make liberals cries exactly the same thing. But the sad truth is that he actually made those people that you hate more powerful than they've ever been before and richer than they've ever been before. And like you said, didn't have to do anything. All he had to do was like tweet some nonsense that made people men. And that was the total content of his promise and what he offered and fulfilled for his base, that was all that they needed to feel like, well, this is the guy, this is the one that I'm with. I wrote in a review of Thomas Frank's book that the charlatanism in the Trump administration is the single greatest gift to the oligarchy in modern American memory, and I think it will remain with us as long as he's alive, and probably for twenty years to come. All Right, we wanted to review the state of the media writ large with a great friend of us, a new friend of Breaking Points, I would say, the one and only Glenn Greenwald. He's of course com bounding editor of The Intercept. He has a fantastic substack that you're probably already subscribed to, but if you're not, you should do that. He's also author of a new book called Securing Democracy, Pulitzer Prize winner. Blah blah blah. Great to see Glenn. Good to see you, Glenn. Great to be with you, guys. Congratulations on the success of the new launch. I'm super happy for you and super happy to participate. Well, it's awesome and as usually, you have like an idyllic background, which makes us jealous of where we currently are. Actually, that's the first day that you guys back we're all proud of it, So I just wanted to make you feel a little less proud of accomplished. Take us down a notch, and that's what you do. He doesn't just do it for us, though, he does it for the entire media. So we have to start with this one. Glenn, you flagged this. I just thought it was incredible. CNNs Brian Stelter yesterday on a show Precious Time with the American Press Secretary. This is what he chose to ask her. Let's take a listen, Jen, thanks for coming on, reliable sources, my pleasure. Busy summer ahead, infrastructure, election reform. What does the press get wrong when covering Biden's When you watch the news, when you read the news, what do you think we get wrong? Well, look, I think some of our muscles of atrophied a little bit over the last few years, and there isn't a lot of memory or recent memory or longer memory on how long it takes to get legislation forward. I don't even know where to begin with that one. Glinn. How does one ask a question like that to the American Press Secretary. Well, first of all, I think it's important that any video that contains any clips from that interview have an adult's only designation on it because it's really not appropriate or suitable for anyone under eighteen. And the amazing thing is Sagar that as bad as that opening question was, I mean, the opening question that he had was basically a jen tell us what we do wrong? How can we better serve you? What can we do better for you? It actually descended from there. It got more sycophantic, you know, he asked her. One of the most interesting parts was he asked her, you have, you know, a seven year old daughter, which is already kind of creepy that he knows that that's at the forefront of his brain. He's like, I have a kiddergardener. So he's trying to like establish his personal relationship with there. And he's like, do you worry about the world the future of the world, giving that the Republican Party is so evil? And she was like uncomfortable with that question because it was just too adoring, and she actually went out of her way to say, I don't really see the world democrat versus Republican like you, Brian Stelter, the ten journalists do. So the White House Press Secretary was telling him that he was being too partisan and politicized in how he used the world. And I think what this really shows is over the last five years, CNN has transformed from an organization that used to pretend to be neutral and that in some ways did try to be, into one that has just completely given up the pretense to the point where you now have a CNN host who has seven or eight minutes with the spokesperson and a nominally the world's most powerful politician and refuses to ask her a single difficult question about any of the things the government is or is not doing, but instead is just desperate to become her best friend in an odd way that's so obvious it's actually uncomfortable to watch. I mean, this has been great for ratings, right Glenn. I mean, they're doing fabulously in the Biden are aren't they. Well, that's the other thing is, you know, I think people have forgotten that. In twenty fourteen and twenty fifteen, especially MSNBC but also CNN, there were constant articles about how Phil Griffin, the president of MSNBC, wanted to fire basically everybody who was on the air except for Rachel Matdow In part because the idea of turning MSNBC into a organ of the Democratic Party was starting to jeopardize the NBC news brand because so many NBC news journalists would appear on MSNBC and get contaminated by this overt partisan ethos that had been created there. But also obviously more important to Phil Griffin, nobody was watching, nobody was. I mean, the ratings were abysmal. They were all this close to getting fired, and the only person who came and saved them was Donald Trump. For four years, they induced enough mania and paranoia and psychosis in enough people to make their ratings sustainable, in fact, quite vibrant. But it was all based on this artificial sugar high that a lot of med organs fed on, which was scaring people enough about Trump to make them consume more news than they ordinarily would want to. And with him gone, it's like we've reverted back to twenty fifteen, where these people have nothing to offer. They all sound exactly alike. They're all upholding the same banal liberal orthodoxies. There's no independence, there's no dissidence, there's no deviation or from or questioning of orthodoxy. And how do you make people pay attention to what you're doing. If all you're doing is just uphold status, upholding status quote pieties, nobody is interested. And their ratings of both MSNBC and CNN are shockingly collapsing. I mean, CNN in primetime can't even get close to a million viewers, a million overall viewers, ten percent only of their audience is under fifty five, and even there among people under fifty five, these primetime shows are getting like one hundred thousand, one hundred and fifty thousand people watching, like a mid level YouTuber gets more than that. And the same obviously is happening with digital liberal outlets Huffington Post, BuzzFeed, Vice, Volterra Box. They're all the same, and therefore they're all disappearing, and everything's consolidating with the New York Times and the Washington Post because if you don't offer anything unique, no one's going to pay attention. It's stunning to me that they continue to go along with the strategy, though, Glenn, because I thought that they would at least try to innovate. But you saw Stelter. One of my favorite stories we covered here is he actually got higher ratings on his show when he was on vacation and they actually dropped whenever he came back. And you're watching this happen all across the ecosystem, and yet the reporting and the overall fawning over the Democratic politicians and more, it doesn't change. Why How can they continue to go on this road? Do they believe it? What are the structural incentives beyond that we're not seeing? Yeah, So I think it's a few things. First of all, if you train your audience to expect that you're only going to tell them what they want to hear, what is affirming of their worldview, and never challenge or question them in any way, you're essentially now captive to or imprisoned by your own audience. I have a friend who, or a former friend who is the host of a prominent MSNBC show, and that person once told me that they don't get showed by show ratings. They get segment by segment ratings. And they said, if we put somebody on who's critical of the Democratic Party, you can watch in real time the ratings collapse. People just don't want to hear it. They switch channels. On top of that, they get attacked on social media by their own audience. Brian Stalter asked one question that he claims made liberals angry, and I actually believe him, which is he asked JENSACKI, why doesn't President Biden have more news conferences? And he claims that all of the liberals who watched CNN were attacking him for even asking one like mildly. I wouldn't even call it challenging, but just like a question that implied that maybe Joe Biden is not perfect, and this is what they've trained their audience to do. So if you're a cable host, or if you're a cable executive and you see your audience vanishing, the last thing you want to do is to take the few remaining old people in nursing homes who are still watching and say things that might force even them to go away. It's a huge dilemma. It's like, do we stick to this failing strategy of feeding an ever shrinking audience the part is in tripe that they want to hear, or do we change course knowing we're going to alienate the few people who are still watching in the hope of trying to get something different. The problem is where where's that something different going to come from? They they're out with people who are now believers. I do believe, you asked me, Sucker, like, is this all synacle or is it true conviction? I believe that when you are in institutions long enough like this that subsume you in a certain political perspective, at some point you do start to actually believe that what you're saying is true, because no human being wants to consciously believe that I'm saying something I don't really believe from material or careers end. So I think part of it is also true conviction, which makes it even harder to get out of also in this mindset, and this is actually so, there's a big Daily Beast hit piece out on you, very lengthy, it's kind of all over the map. But there's one part of it that I found very revealing and that fits into this conversation, which is they're essentially accusing you of providing ammunition for Fox News, and they don't dispute that any of the things that you were talking about are legitimate critiques or you know that they got you know, MSMBC and CNN got certain stories wrong that you were pointing out, and then Fox News latches onto it and uses it for their own ends. But there's this e of like, you can't criticize the Democrats because you're giving ammunition to the bad guys. So we just have to stay silent, even if it's a legitimate knock. We just have to keep quiet because people who have nefarious ends in mind may use that in their own sort of propaganda and as a talking point. And I kind of understand the instinct, but it's the path to hell because the minute that you just sort of like blindspot everything that's a failing of your team is the minute that no one trusts you anymore and there is no sort of like baseline truth factor principle left. So I found it really interesting that that was sort of like their main critique of you as how dare you say anything that's uncomfortable for the Democratic Party, and that right wing actors might like, Yeah. I always find media criticisms of me or other people to be most revealing because in identifying the things that they think are incriminating about you, they're implicitly saying what they think the role of a journalist ought to be. So exactly as you said, by criticizing me for saying things that might find a favorable audience on the right or among Fox News. They're essentially saying that a journalist should never report anything or say anything that in any way can undermine the Democratic Party or make the Republican Party stronger, even if what you're saying is true. And I really think this mentality has done more to corrupt modern journalism than any other. I think we see it most vividly in this incredible debacle that I know you guys have discussed before, of how for an entire year, the liberal sectors of the US media treated the question of COVID's origin as a settled question, that it clearly was zonotic jumping from animal to human, and that anyone who raised the question of whether it might have escaped from a lab was a deranged conspiracy theorist, to the point where they ought to be banned from social media, when in fact that certainty was never warranted or even close to it. And now everyone's recognizing that they're both plausible theories, neither of which has yet been proven. And the question is why would that happen? And the answer is because it was Who were the ones saying that maybe there was a lab leak? And so that mentality that you just described, which is never saying anything that might help the Republican Party led the media to endorse a view of the world that was totally false, namely that the question of COVID's origins had been resolved with finality, that there was conclusive evidence in supported the zoonotic theory. It was the same thing with Russhigate. It doesn't matter if FRESHI Gate is true or not. Saying that it's true helps the Democrats. Saying that it's not true or questioning whether it is helps the Republicans, And therefore the role of a journalist is to make sure you do everything possible not to help Donald Trump. That's the reason also why they didn't want to report on the Hunter Biden archive. It didn't matter if it was authentic, it didn't matter if it was in a public interest. All that matter is that reporting on it would have helped the Democrats become weaker. And therefore the role of a journalist is to avoid anything that does that. And that absolutely is the pailing mindset in most of these failing outlets. And it's not only making them fail because nobody trusts them, but it's also corrupting the role of journalism and a democracy, which is not to serve one party or the other, but to unearth the truth. Absolutely right, Glenn. We really appreciate it. Thank you for being our very first Breaking Points. Guess we couldn't think of anybody better. We appreciate it. Man, appreciate you, Glenn. Thank you. Yeah, I couldn't. I couldn't think of anybody better either, And you know I'm a huge fan of both of you, so I'm wishing you huge luck and I know you're not going to need it, but congratulations again. That means a lot to us. Thank you, Glenn, appreciate it. Okay, how should be on this show? Oh shit, h let me retry this Jesus. Thank you for watching Breaking Points. Thank you for thank you Supercast, Thanks to everybody. Thanks for everybody for watching Breaking Points. Has been an incredible ride here and a special shout out to Supercast, who we are powered by in terms of all of our premium membership. If if you guys want to check out all of the awesome benefits that you get from being a premium subscriber, from being able to watch the show early, You get to watch it uncut, you get to listen to it wherever you get your pot or listen to it on your podcast app same thing, totally uncut. Then you also get to support Let me try this again, I'm sorry. Okay, good, okay, I let me try this one more time. All right, how should I do it? Supercast? Okay? Thanks so guys, Thank you guys so much for watching our first breaking point show. We are so so excited to be doing what we're doing here. It wouldn't be possible without Supercast, who we are one hundred percent powered by for our premium subscriptions. If you want to become a premium member today, you get to say number one, screw you to the corporate media. You get to help us support our work here, and in exchange, you get to watch the show completely uncut. You can listen to it as well, one hour early before everyone else, and we do weekly Q and a's as well. Make sure you watch out for that coming at the end of the week. Link right there down in the description. Go ahead and check it out. We love you guys so much. Thank you for watching, and we will see you back here tomorrow. Thanks for listening to the show, guys, We really appreciate it. To help other people find the show, go ahead and leave us a five star rating on Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. Really helps other people find the show as always special, Thank you to Supercast for powering our premium membership. If you want to find out more, go to Crystalansager dot com