 Good afternoon. Welcome to the future of democracy. I'm your host Sam Gill. Earlier this summer we had on the show Vanita Gupta, the CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, one of the historic leading civil rights organizations in this country, and she helped us to unpack the moment of real reckoning that was happening in the wake of the murder of George Floyd. Vanita was preceded in that role at the Leadership Conference by an iconic leader, Wade Henderson. Few have been as central to the cause of civil rights in this country over recent decades as Henderson, and over that time virtually every major piece of civil rights legislation enacted bears his fingerprints. During this turbulent and important moment, there seemed like no better guide to help us navigate the present and the future of the arc of justice in this country. We're going to go a little long today, and even that won't do the experiences of Mr. Henderson Justice, so please do remember if you have to drop off that this whole episode will be available on demand and as a podcast anywhere you get your podcasts. I want to get right into it, and so without further ado, it is my great pleasure to welcome to the show Wade Henderson. Wade, good to have you with us. How are you? I'm good. How are you? I'm well. Thank you. Thanks for the invitation to join you today. No, thank you. Thanks for coming on. I know we'll want to talk a lot about what's happening today in our country given a year that for many, I'm sure, will be defining for their experience of the country, but before we do that, just tell us a little bit about your life. Where are you from? Where did you grow up? Yeah. Well, actually, I look forward to talking about today, but I think there is great value in talking about the continuum of social change that's occurred in this country since the start of the 20th century. And yeah, I'm a native Washingtonian, Sam. I was born in the nation's capital and I was born at a time when Washington was still a racially segregated city by law. So I experienced from an early age the sort of contradiction of American democracy. On the one hand, we were the beacon of the world's greatest democracy, nation's capital. On the other hand, we were a uniquely southern city with a form of racial apartheid that was incredibly dehumanizing. You know, I started school the year that Brown versus the Board of Education became the law of the land. And while I don't remember that period, I do remember those general conversations of my parents and neighbors sort of talking about the change that was taking place and what sort of Brown symbolized. I didn't understand it was Brown per se, but I understood that change was taking place. And yet, you know, DC for the entire time of my public education experience remained a racially segregated city even after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And it did have a dehumanizing effect that helped to shape my worldview and helped to propel me to where I am today. Did you have a sort of a moment of awakening when you felt that your career was going to be to address this injustice? Was it a process of awakening? What was important to you? That's a good question, Sam. I mean, we all have had, and by we all, I'm referring now in this instance, to African Americans who were born into a racially segregated world. We've all experienced a level of injustice that invariably propels us to what we do. I'm almost embarrassed to talk about my experiences because they were tepid in comparison to people like John Lewis or others who, you know, spilled blood, CT Vivian for the kind of horrors that, you know, we experienced in this country. And yet, it was the dehumanizing effect of racial segregation that on, you know, from my perspective really, you know, was the irritant that I could never ultimately resolve. And I felt it in a profound way. I think a moment of awakening for me was at the 63 March on Washington. And I sort of defied my parents and when I was 15, it was, yeah, yeah, they were from, you know, in DC fearful that it was going to become a violent experience that had been the talk of the press. And yet I felt it was important for me to go and I went and the experience was illuminating. It was just an incredible moment. The atmosphere, seeing the men and women dignified, they're approaching the government for their vested rights as American citizens had a real impact on me. I don't remember the speeches per se, but I remember seeing John Lewis. I remember seeing Dr. King and, you know, being there was just an incredible moment for me. So that obviously had a real impact. I was a student at Howard University in the late 1960s and that experience also helped shape me. It was incredibly profound. But being there on the day that Dr. King was murdered and feeling the effect of his loss and knowing what that meant for the country and then watching the eruption of violence both in Washington and around the country had a real impact on me and a sense that, look, you have got to do something that ultimately in terms of your career, your life will help to address these issues. These injustices were, you know, they chafed on me and I couldn't really live with them comfortably. What was really a catalyst for me, though, is that I attended Sam a protest at the Supreme Court in 1969 in a case involving Adam Clayton Powell, who was an African American member of Congress, the most powerful congressman of his generation. He was from Harlem, but he was chair of the Education and Labor Committee in the House at a time when being a committee chair gave you great power and influence. He had been wrongly expelled from Congress and so his case went to the Supreme Court as Powell versus McCormick. Powell was Adam Clayton Powell. McCormick was John McCormick, the Speaker of the House and a case was brought and on the day of the oral argument, I was there in front of the Supreme Court protesting, one because we loved Adam Clayton Powell. We saw him as a spokesperson for, you know, a very progressive view of African American equality and liberation and he was also internationally connected and spoke to the emerging former colonial powers and that was really important to me. But he also was being defended by a professor at Howard Law School, Herbert O. Reed, and we had gone to the oral argument to show support for our law school professor. I was still an undergrad at the time, but there I met a lawyer who really was the number one attorney for Adam Clayton Powell. His name was Arthur Kanoy. He was a professor at Rutgers Law School and I heard him speak and he was such an incredibly powerful orator and he talked about injustice in such a fundamental way and he lifted up in his conversations always the importance of the 13th Amendment as well as the 14th and 15th Amendment of the Constitution, those Civil War Amendments and what it meant for American democracy and I was really floored by him and I ended up changing my decision. I was going to be a sociologist and was graduating from Howard in a year later, but I ended up deciding to go to law school and I went to Rutgers and it was an incredible experience. I was there at a time when the law school itself was going through a response to the urban challenges of Newark in 1967. They had established a diversity program called the Minority Student Program and it was a law school that had made a fundamental commitment to achieving a level of diversity in the bar because of the importance of lawyers in achieving social change and it was an incredible time to be there. Elizabeth Warren started school there the year I graduated but you know I ended up working at Rutgers as well and so I got to see just how wonderful the law could be as a tool for social change and that really helped to set me on the path that I'm pursuing so I want to come back to I want to pick up the story there but you mentioned John Lewis and having the chance as a you were a young man he was a young man to see him and you know it strikes me in the weeks that we've been commemorating his life and his achievements you know what a lot of our reflection as a nation has been around kind of John Lewis the finished product you know the the senior statesman what was it what was it like to be what was he like as a young man what what was what was it like to see him um as as someone who was I was giving blood you know as you mentioned who was really on the front lines of an active fight John Lewis was a radical John Lewis was one of the founders of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee which was one of the great student-led advocacy organizations of the 1960s John Lewis was at the cutting edge of the major social change initiatives of the early 1960s and beyond it was not an accident that Lewis spoke at the 1963 march on Washington and was the youngest speaker present he had earned that spot by symbolizing the power of young people to transform the nation you know it's it's it's young people who have brought this incredible combination of energy and courage and intolerance for you know injustice you know young people are the ones who believe so much in the fundamental ideals even if they show a certain cynicism on the outside their actions sort of belie that and seem to suggest a deep commitment to fundamental American values and Lewis symbolized that as much as anyone more than most and so knowing that John Lewis led the effort to you know really bring young people to the fore is really incredibly meaningful for me now you know we talked about his influences at the time and obviously women like Fannie Lou Hamer sure Ella Baker I mean you know women as well as men and who brought this courage and incredible capacity for truth to the fore it's what made John Lewis so so so profoundly important obviously when he came to Congress he evolved and became a congressman and he used his his his history of involvement and social change as well as his willingness to engage his colleagues across the aisle is what made him so special so you know it's now become fashionable to talk about a commitment to good trouble but before that became you know a catch phrase Lewis exhibited that in the work he did almost every day and so his his absence his passing is a real loss to the nation but it also symbolizes the kind of generational change that is inevitable and we are both you know memorializing his passing but also celebrating the voices of new leaders who are emerging today I you know I want to stay on this digression for just a minute more just because I think it has so much to do with sort of what the future of social justice could look like I mean I I find myself sort of torn between optimism and pessimism about generational change like on the one hand you know there the the new icons necessarily emerge the sort of Greta Thunberg's on the other hand you know a lot of young people seem to have more of a burn it all down it can't work for me attitude rather than I sort of interpret good trouble is hey we've got a we've got to create some crisis so that it will work for us the system will work for us and then the general election candidates you know are going to are on the older side the senate average age is on the older side like when you look at the world today where do you are you optimistic or concerned about the kind of generational change that will bring about that's a great question that's a great question look you know I'm a civil rights advocate right so I so by definition I come to a table with a certain level of optimism because it would be impossible to do what we do if we didn't have an optimistic world view about what we could accomplish and I think I compare that to the people who came before the men and women on whose shoulders we stand and I can't help but be humbled recognizing that they put up with so much more at such a higher level of risk than we face that I can't afford to the indulgence of being somewhat pessimistic now having said that secondly I believe that young people are really the the source of most change in social movements I mean that's I think historically pretty accurate not to say that they have always led the movement they have been a part of the energy that has helped propel the movement forward that was certainly true of that phase of the civil rights movement that John Lewis is most closely associated with and I think it's true today so I am very pleased actually that we are seeing the emergence of new leaders who are bringing perspectives different than those that we brought to the table and they are expanding our capacity for change at just one quick digression or example you know Vanita Gupta you introduced me by saying that Vanita Gupta the current president of the leadership conference you know stands on the shoulders of men and women who came before I got that but Vanita in her own right is a source of great change and advocacy skill and she is a generation behind me and I was extremely pleased to be able to open the door and to hand off this leadership role to someone who I believed had prepared all of her life for what she's doing now and I think looking at where the leadership conference stands on this continuum of activism convinces me that that's correct so at the end of the day saying no I'm not pessimistic I do think that you know what we are doing today builds on what came before I believe that and I think knowing a bit of our own history is an important element in preparing oneself for leadership both now and in the future but at the same time I'm prepared to accept the leadership of you know those who are generation ahead of me or behind me because look they have to test the waters on their own and they bring an assortment of new tactics to the table some that will be successful some that won't but they have to be given the opportunity to lead just as we were and you know it it's not always easy to engage in that transition but I think if you're committed to leadership in the future and I think more and more of my colleagues who were in positions of responsibility are you see that in the way they've transitioned leadership within their own organizations. One of the questions we got in the chat just to sort of close this digression out is how to how to motivate the emerging generation to participate in in activism whether that's sort of formal political participation through voting or or getting out I think we're it strikes me we're seeing different ways of motivation that are more or less effective what what do you what do you think is the key to getting this emerging generation. You know I wish I had a clear answer I mean I believe in the power of voting and I believe that voting is the language of democracy and if you don't vote you don't count I believe that and I believe that the voter suppression efforts are directly proportionate to what's at stake you see these efforts to deny voting particularly from communities that are most directly affected by the policies enacted by people in leadership who are encouraged not to vote and sometimes they you know fall prey to those arguments I think our big job is to convince people that voting and the system of voting is an important element not the sole element but an important element in pursuing change so I think that's number one but I also think we have to allow again those in in the leadership of these communities to begin helping to inform us we have to listen about what they think is necessary to bring about change and to engage people in the debates that you know are affecting their lives and we've got to figure that out now I think there are certain issues that lend themselves to that kind of involvement I think George Floyd's murder coming on the heels of Breonna Taylor's shooting and Ahmed Arbery's murder I mean those things brought again into sharp relief the level of injustice in our own criminal justice system and I think trying to seek and pursue reform in that area where people feel directly affected by the existing policy is one way to get folk involved and you see that in the incredible responses the demonstrations which have taken place around the country talk about and encouraged feelings Sam I was you know very surprised in the most wonderful way to see the level of community engagement around George Floyd's murder the diversity of the participants in these demonstrations both in terms of race and ethnicity but also in terms of generational diversity and that to me singles you know sort of signals a willingness to engage that was not always there and I think that has been one of the symbols of the impact of this movement secondly you know we've had over 4 000 demonstrations around the globe since George Floyd was murdered and that is also a symbol that the fundamental injustice the Black Lives Matter seeks to raise up is now being seen as a global challenge and one that I think has had a positive impact around the world so in both of those instances I take a degree of optimism for where it might leave ultimately I think that's right and I actually I'd also say one of my colleagues pointed out and I think there's some truth to this um the a kind of parallel to to the what the importance in the 60s was of engaging the moderate clergy which is that there's a segment of the that you're seeing showing solidarity that doesn't have the ardor of the activists but they're but they're they're expressing solidarity in an obligatory way and it's easy to say well you know they're just doing it because it's obligatory but I think you've got to set those norms and those convent that's what that to me is a part of what makes the emerging generations sort of see the shift that they need to be a part of and so actually I take optimism in that that alone doesn't drive a movement but I think it's a part of the fuel I think you're very right about that you know this is a unique moment Sam in another way as well and that is this concept of truth is being put on the table as something that we as a nation must be willing to engage if we're ever going to succeed and bringing about the change that we hope to see as Americans I mean I understand we are you know working toward a more perfect union I got that and I think that symbolizes it but look if we ever want to make this a country that really actually reflects its ideals a country as good as its ideals then we're going to have to confront the very painful truth of racial injustice in this country of systemic racism and we have to now there were moments in time where I think the country was was on the verge of doing that but faced setbacks that made it almost impossible you know and in 1967 Sam Lyndon Johnson one of in my view the nation's greatest presidents established a commission known as the Kerner commission named after the governor of Illinois at the time Otto Kerner to study the causes of riots that had occurred in the country in around 1967 but even before that but I think in Detroit the riot in Detroit saw 43 people killed in Newark New Jersey that same year 27 people were killed and there had been riots around the country to lesser or greater degree in terms of of impact and I think there was a real sense that the country was potentially coming apart that commission did something that was really quite incredible and it identified systemic racism structural discrimination as a key barrier for addressing opportunity in American life it was too shocking for the body politic to absorb president Johnson had commissioned had established the commission but was reluctant to pursue its findings it was a missed opportunity a missed opportunity there is an effort underway now by congresswoman Barbara Lee to set up something known as a commission on truth racial healing and transformation H con res 100 it's gaining a momentum it's got close to 150 cosponsors in the house but the point is it's a commission that is intended to address obviously these issues of racial conflict and long since the causes that have helped to produce today and when you add to that the fact that there is also a bill known as H res 40 H yes HR 40 it's a setup sponsored by Sheila Jackson Lee congresswoman from Houston and it's a commission to establish it's a bill to establish a commission on reparations a process of reparations in this country now both reparations and this construct of truth and racial healing are our alien to some and some may see them as fringe movements but they go to the heart of what this country must ultimately confront if it is willing to make progress from where we are now to where we'd like to be what why is it so hard why do you think this issue is such a tough one why do you think we have such a hard time embracing the truth that this is historic and embracing the truth that to be systemic means it implicates all of us yes I think sam's that sort of making a fundamental assessment of who we are as a people and the nature of our development it's very painful and when you think about the founding of our nation there are two not one there are two fundamental sins of american democracy one is enslavement we sleep we've talked about that and there are many reasons for it the other is genocide the impact on indigenous populations and the history of our engagement with the native american population here very shameful people have had real difficulty in confronting in an honest way how we came to be and I think that the cumulative effect of looking at you know what slavery has brought you know just Brian Stevenson has set up an incredible museum in montgomery alabama focused on lynchings and has documented well over 5 000 lynchings extra judicial murders people being hanged primarily african americans being hanged by local citizenry for sport and based on you know lies and mischaracterizations of racial attack I mean all of that is hard to deal with so I would say that kind of honesty that kind of honesty is hard to accomplish and unless individuals are confronted with the evidence that they can't refute they're not going to be willing to accept voluntarily a characterization of themselves that is so fundamentally inconsistent with the ideal that they have constructed to define who they are I mean the contradiction between who they really are and what they say they represent is very difficult for many people so I do think one needs to be a bit of a psychiatrist to analyze that completely but I think that's a big part of it but that's why this moment in time is so important that's why the george floyd murder which in years past would have been easily dismissed in the absence of video I mean without the video this would have been another accusation of a police citizen confrontation in which a black person or black man was killed by the police officers and while there would have been some local anger it would not have necessarily emerged as it has become the global phenomenon video in this instance made a difference and it was the fact that you couldn't look away you couldn't turn away from so there I think you know I wonder too in that now I have to I'm adopting sort of your more optimistic frame you know that part of the part of the horror of the george floyd video I think also gave some people who I think do struggle with not wanting to feel guilty for the system they're a part of the impassivity of the officer I think a lot of people looked at that and said I'm not that you know whatever I am I would I am not that and if I'm not that then what am I going to do yes to prevent that from happening and I you know again all you can hope is that opportunity comes out of tragedy and so I do you know I do I do hope that that moments like this these vivid moments give people a pathway to become more neither of us are psychiatrists you were going to be a sociologist but neither of us are psychiatrists some way I would hope that it gives people I think you're right shame was the key word in what I heard you describe there's a feeling of shame that overwhelms even people's sense of what's what's just and and you and shame is a visceral emotion you have to give people some other competing visceral motion that I think that they can attach themselves to yeah that's right I also think though there is a fundamental element in the national character now I'm you know stepping out on the limb here and I suspect there will be many who disagree but I think when the American people are confronted with evidence of injustice that can't be denied coupled with a level of activism that pushes for social change in the purest fashion people who are willing to risk everything to promote a concept and to promote change in that sense the American people respond now I think about what has happened now obviously you know it took a civil war to to end slavery but and and clearly we have been struggling since that time to really you know another 150 years to advance meaningful social change but ultimately ultimately the American people have been willing to confront some of these issues in spite of the shame and the the difficulty that flows from that and I think it's part of our national character based on the belief that these constitutional principles that we salute so frequently really do have meaning and that people believe in what they say as it relates to this country it is the one instance where American exceptionalism in my view has some validity I do think there is a belief that our constitution has a meaning that should govern how we respond to these profound social injustices and I hope this meet this moment will help to bring out a battle I agree I that's I to me I it there are risks there are vulnerabilities but to me that almost kind of religious devotion to that version of exceptionalism I think powers us at some point it's an article of faith that you think this is the better way to do it than some especially in the face of examples of autocratic examples that still have some version of prosperity so I mean I I think that is that is not to be surrendered surrendered lightly even as we critique it but let's go let's go back to the life for a minute so you've you've you've given up sociology in favor of the law a decision parents praise to this day so what what what came what came next for you yeah well you know I had an opportunity Sam when I was in law school to when I graduated to direct the minority student program or Rutgers before that I had spent some summers working in Mississippi as a lawyer with legal services and those experiences of being a lawyer with legal services and also working at Rutgers really sort of helped to shape me toward a commitment of engagement the first job that I had though which directed me toward my career in what I'm I'm retired from and what I'm still doing today I was with the American Civil Liberties Union I was with the ACLU Washington office at the time that President Reagan came into power and I decided leaving a job in Washington I was head of a group called the Council on Legal Education Opportunity which was an affirmative admissions program for law schools I decided when President Reagan came into power that I wanted to do something else I wanted to have a real impact on policy I took a job with the ACLU and I worked there for 10 years and the ACLU Washington operation taught me so much I learned my skill as an advocate on Capitol Hill I learned how to really help promote legislation particularly that had social justice impact and I got to see a variety of issues that you know not only involved the advancement of civil rights like the Fair Housing Amendments in 1988 but I got to work on a bill known as the Japanese American Redress Bill also the so it was known as the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 it really helped to establish the right of Japanese Americans in turn during World War II to reparations to compensation for their losses and I learned a great deal from that experience and I got to work on other legislation that made a huge difference afterwards I went to the NAACP and I headed the NAACP's Washington office I was the NAACP's lawyer and lobbyist in Washington it was a great honor for me because I was in the tradition of two people who had preceded me one a gentleman by the name of Clarence Mitchell who history will show as the hundred and first senator because he was such an incredible voice of the civil rights movement and is credited with having helped to advance many of the civil rights acts the major acts of the early 1960s the 64 Civil Rights Act the 65 Voting Rights Act etc and his deputy Althea T.L. Simmons a great woman advocate learned a great deal from her and you know I followed in that tradition and was at the NAACP that I helped deal with two issues that for me stand up one was the confirmation battle over Clarence Thomas's confirmation to the Supreme Court and fortunately we were able to steer the NAACP's opposition to Clarence Thomas's confirmation in a way that I think made a huge difference for the organization and for the community that we represented African Americans were confronting really for the first time in the modern civil rights movement one of the contradictions of whether someone who was an African American would by definition be supportive of the advancement of African American interests or should we ignore that a concept and simply support him because he is an African American and you may recall that when President George H.W. Bush appointed who was then judge Clarence Thomas to the court he was filling to fill a seat vacated by the legendary Thurgood Marshall and we believed that you needed to evaluate this jurist based on his performance not based on his race or who you thought he should be or would be when he was appointed to the court and that was an internal debate about that but we prevailed and we got the facts of his record established as the basis for our evaluation and I'm honored and pleased that we were able to get the NAACP and much of the African American community to oppose it but I was also there during the passage of the Voting Rights Act reauthorization and you know I did that and I left the leadership the NAACP at the time I was at the leadership conference but I got to work on the Voting Rights Act and that for me was one of the great victories of my professional life so I really enjoyed that. So I want to let's talk a little bit more about the Clarence Thomas confirmation because there's kind of a couple features of that that moment that presages some of what we experienced today I think one is if it wasn't the first it was certainly one of the early turning points in the circus-like coverage that can happen around certain political events where a lot of meaning is attached to whether this person I mean I guess Robert Bork probably on the judicial side was the first one but certain Clarence there was because of the Anita Hill contrary there was just so much around I mean Joe Biden it was a big moment for him and then also this you know certainly on frankly on the left and the right this the inability to escape the sort of internecine forces around the kind of nuance that you had to navigate where the sort of division kind of within the movement about what this meant is something now that is really perilous I mean you know one of the probably one of the big stories that's going to be written about the we were talking about this before the show the Democratic convention is one of unity that was not a foregone conclusion given given the way the progressive base of the party has expressed itself recently so so how to tell us just more about kind of like how you managed to navigate that yeah yeah actually it was incredibly painful Sam and it was a very difficult period for me professionally look this this happened about 30 years ago Clarence Thomas was nominated on the July 4th weekend and there was a certain cynicism to it that you know we have to simply establish as a point of fact regardless of one's views about George H. W. Bush now you know this is a guy who gave us the Americans with Disabilities Act and he deserves a lot of credit for that but he also made one of the most cynical appointments to the Supreme Court that's ever been documented and that was Clarence Thomas there had been a real craving on the part of the civil rights movement the African American community most especially to have a replacement akin to Thurgood Marshall take his seat on the Supreme Court we all knew how important it was to have an African American experience life experience reflected among the jurists and the absence of someone like a Thurgood Marshall met a tremendous amount in turn it was a great loss for how the Supreme Court's deliberations occurred when you know President Bush announced the appointment of Clarence Thomas it was met with an incredible reaction on the part of many in the African American community of his son it was instant opposition based on Thomas's positions at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission where he had been and also on the Court of Appeals it was not as if we didn't have a record to review in this instance there was a pretty extensive record that allowed us to really look at his role both as an administrator in the federal government and also as a jurist to help evaluate him and yet there were also many who believed he was an African American and for that reason he needed to embrace it and of course Thomas himself helped to create that aura of by arguing that look you know there is no monolithic point of view in the African American community and arguing that everyone has to think like Justice Marshall is to narrow a perspective to apply to a jurist the point however is that his application of constitutional principles was so restricted and so incredibly harmful to advancing the broader goal of equality for all that one could easily justify not supporting his candidacy again based on the record that was produced as head of the the NAACP's Washington office I had the responsibility of helping to correct and establish our point of view but truthfully Sam there were real problems because there were some in the leadership of the organization who took that view that you know Thomas would be terrific once he got on the court once you gave him lifetime tenure what you see as his sort of brusque side which has appeal to some of his Republican sponsors would evaporate and he'd become Thurgood Marshall number two on the Supreme Court that was always a view that I found a completely implausible and I think the record that had been created leading up to that point I made that impossible to accept and so there were great divisions our opposition was based entirely on that record at the time now the Anita Hill controversy added to you know the difficulty that we faced in opposition to Thomas' confirmation and I remember the challenge that was posed by that time and I think you know and looking back at that experience I understand in part the processes that helped to produce that outcome you may recall that after the Thomas the Judiciary Committee hearings with Anita Hill in the next Congress there was an effort to bring women to the Judiciary Committee for the first time Senator Feinstein and said the senator from Illinois first African-American female to the United that Carol mostly brought I was appointed to the Senate Judiciary Committee and and you know those changes occurred because of the reaction to the Thomas confirmation I think what is most important now and this is something that I'm actually writing on in the 30 years that Justice Thomas has been on the bench it's important to evaluate his body of jurisprudence and compare that to what was said about him before his confirmation to see if there is an alignment because there are lessons to be learned from the way in which that confirmation was handled and the experience within the African-American community and hopefully by writing that about it and talking about where we are it'll help to change the perspectives. Sort of along those lines I'm you know another big transformation that you participated in that you witnessed during your time at the ACLU the NAACP and then the Leadership Conference has really been the decline in people's perceptions of Congress as a body that can help to advance the country as a policymaking body and frankly has also been a period of decline of Congress's own investment in itself as a policymaking body you know it's been a period marked by delegation of a lot of authority to the executive by the attenuation of congressional staff. I'd love to know your reflections on the evolution of Congress and whether you perceived some of those changes as they were happening whether they had an impact on the work that you were doing with Congress. You know Sam unfortunately first of all you're absolutely correct by public perceptions of Congress they have diminished over the last 30 years and yet that criticism is in part based on the emergence of partisan division which has made it more difficult to accomplish proactive efforts for reforms just almost impossible to do it and part of the reason has been and look I just have this is going to sound partisan but I'm trying to be as open in my assessment as I can be. I do think a decision for example by Senator McConnell who is a self characterized you know master of death you know of legislation coming over from now is you know the brim reaper I'm saying that he can't move bills for me is an example of a failure to engage beyond the partisan divide so when Nancy Pelosi at all prepared the heroes act a bill that would have continued the $600 unemployment payments would have offered aid to cities and states that are impacted by COVID and offered assistance to the US Postal Service regardless of how you ultimately decided we had to draw the line to make the argument that nothing in that proposal warranted discussion and my view is a kind of blind commitment to partisan outcome against the interest that the American people share in common you know there was a study undertaken by rather reported on the New York Times a couple of days ago by economists at City University in New York who looked at the impact of COVID revenue losses in states and cities across the country the largest 150 cities both influenced or rather led by Democrats and Republicans depending upon the state I had impact that was you know equal in terms of the effect on local people to ignore that in favor of a partisan solution seems to me to be a part of larger problem that you've talked about and so yes I think we can point to individual periods where a commitment you know to partisanship over policy comes into effect in ways that are very disheartening I'll give you one example one of the issues that I worked on before I left the leadership conference was an international human rights agreement known as the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities it is a treaty that was based on based on the Americans with disabilities act it was the UN's effort to take the ADA formula and apply it globally and you have over a hundred nations that are now signatories to that effort the US is not one of the countries that has ratified this treaty and yet there are clear ample examples of why this human rights treaty is so important we have men and women with physical disabilities who are unable to travel abroad because other countries don't have the same sophisticated response to curb ramps and you know hotels with adequate place for wheelchairs that is such a simple commitment of American policy largesse to the rest of the world and yet we have not embraced it and we haven't embraced it in part because of a partisan aversion to working with the UN so when this issue really came up for treatment we had you know people who spoke out against it not because of the merits of the treaty but because they didn't want to engage and work with the united nations that kind of hostility toward collaboration with the rest of the world that kind of hostility toward legislative activity has made a huge difference which is why for example we have not um congress has not enacted the john lewis voting rights act which responded to the supreme court's decision of of 2013 you know five seven years ago that really gutted the voting rights act and made many of the voter suppression problems that we're battling today possible because the voting rights act had been severely hampered that kind of of mindless hostility has got to be challenged and i think in part that's why there is such energy around this upcoming election what are you we're getting sort of close to time and i actually i want to go a little deeper on this in particular um kind of the other the other one of the other forces we're seeing that's playing into this so i look i think i you know i the school that i come from and just as a point of disclosure it's the school partly taught by wade henderson about these things is you know congress is built for you've all levin the conservative commentator and i talked about this last week too congress is tailor made for you know in the case of covet you say three trillion we say one trillion let's negotiate you the treaty says every establishment you say you want to exempt some businesses let's do businesses over 50 employees it's not perfect but history marches on that's the arc of justice that's right and so certainly there has absolutely been this kind of partisan cynicism on the parliamentary side you know that it's more in our interests not to negotiate than to negotiate but there's also particularly in progressive social movements today in this country another kind of emerging critique that i'd love to get your take on which is the the sort of the revolution over incrementalism you know so where i defund is a good example of this defund the police could be seen as a way to shift thinking about what we invest in in order to help communities thrive but it's also been interpreted by some as we need to abandon having a police force or we're not coming to the table and how do you how have you thought about this the the the kind of critique from the left of what a well functioning parliamentary system can do that it's too incremental yeah yeah yeah well i think the issue of incrementalism as you've described it is very much on the table today now let me say i believe in two things one i believe in the power of coalition i think that it is almost impossible to really achieve the kind of broad social change that we seek unless there is a coalition of interest in place on almost every major issue i think that's right and i think that there has to be some willingness to collaborate to and you know i know this is heresy on a lot of people's party to make the argument that you have to be able to sort of reach across the aisle and you know form alliances look the truth is you need obviously in most instance 50 plus one in terms of votes to be able to achieve effort but without consensus without consensus you're opening yourself up ultimately to an erosion of the very gains that you have made because they are ephemeral they're based on political power at the time and not based on bringing people along with you and establishing a consensus necessary for change so it's worth investing some effort to be able to facilitate that and i think that's a part of a successful legislative collaboration and i also think you know that we have different roles to play i'm not upset by those who push for a more immediate level of change in fact i think they are necessary because without that sense of a dismissive view of incrementalism without the pressure for more immediate change the ability to achieve any result that's positive is definitely limited so i think you need interests as we have a progressive interest here that sometimes push for change because it is the right thing to do and even though there is a an unwillingness to make the entire to swallow the entire proposal it moves the process forward you know universal coverage is a clear example it's not that universal coverage is not right it's the goal we all want universal coverage guys the question is how do you achieve it and how can you make it a lasting part of the broader federal process now covid has certainly exposed the importance and need for that and i think it has given new energy to those who would seek to bring about that kind of change but i think it's because of people who have insisted that universal coverage be the standard under debate that that is actually happening so in my view there are different roles that we play in this process but i think all of it is necessary to bring about the change we seek well since the theme of the conversation has been one appropriately of hope um we should end on a hopeful note so what um looking back at the career you know you've been a part of you know every every bill i could name um is there is there one that stands out uh is there some achievement that stands out as something that really um that you look back on is the most significant thing you were a part of i look i think the reauthorization of the voting rights act in 2006 that was ultimately signed by george w bush with the almost universal support of uh you know republicans as well as democrats uh was in my view a highlight it was brought about by an incredible collective effort of progressive lawyers from various organizations that worked collaboratively in coalition to help develop a bill you had members of congress in the leadership particularly in the house and senate that helped to embrace this concept and to make it work and we had grassroots pressure from a variety of different sources that all worked collaboratively to produce the change so this bill that normally would have taken about two and a half to three years to move through congress happened in record time because of this uh collaboration and this willingness to move it was a highlight of my legislative career i added to that bill like the japanese american redress bill because um it is recognition that the concept of reparations has real validity and appreciation in congress it's the most recent example of that in my view and it applies to the circumstances of uh of slavery and the need to confront the truth about that so those bills have had a huge impact but i think you know it's hard to choose among your favorites because you you know you've got bills that have brought about such a huge level of change the americans with disabilities act that is the it's the equivalent of brown versus the boy for people with disabilities so we could go on but i look i i think that what gives me hope and optimism and we started a little bit on the same is i think there are people at the table today who are leading this broad civil and human rights movement that we've talked about that recognizes the crises that have been produced by the covid pandemic the emergence of this incredible problem of structural racism uh trying to rebuild the economy which is in tatters and looking at the risks to our own national security posed by the attacks on our election system and and how russia uh perhaps china are trying to interfere with our elections those crises when taken together are perhaps the most serious set of problems we as a nation have ever confronted the question now becomes how will we respond to that and whether we will see this not just as a challenge but also as an opportunity for change and i think you are seeing the emergence of new ideas to respond to some of these challenges in a way that actually will help us become a stronger nation a nation that is really capable of influencing policy around the world the you know climate change for example and our ability to respond to that is part of the challenge that this global pandemic has helped to underscore us i think it's really important and this is a good time i think a challenge but an important time all right everyone we will uh we will uh just want to let you know about a couple upcoming shows uh next week we'll have uh elai lair the president of r street and the week after that elivia sylvain a key scholar starting the future of speech on the internet as a reminder this episode will be up on the website later you can see this episode in any episode on demand at kf.org slash fd show and you can subscribe to the podcast anywhere you can get your podcasts uh email us at fdshow at kf.org or if you have questions just send them to me on twitter at the sam gill please stay for two for 30 seconds to take a two-question survey and as always we will end the show to the sounds of miami songwriter nick county check out his music on spotify until next week thanks everyone to stay safe