 I wanted to pick your brain for a little bit because you've been so successful and I kind of saw your strategy as a mini version of the strategy that Bernie Sanders was running on. Like he always stated that if he were to be elected president, unfortunately that didn't happen, but he would be the organizer in chief and he'd take the grassroots movement to the White House. And that's basically what you've done at the city council level. So I think that you being as effective as you have been, you have a lot of insight into strategy. So I wanted to ask you from an individual standpoint, as you know, just people who are consumers of political news, what we do to affect change? Should we sign up for organizations? Should we work for campaigns? And then I also want to pivot to at the congressional level because lately there's been a lot of talk about forced to vote and members of the squad potentially withholding votes to basically force a vote on Medicare for all. And this is over, but I still think that it's an important conversation to have because we're all trying to figure out what the correct strategy is going forward and how we actually can affect change. And you being able to affect change using the grassroots to kind of feel you, I think you have a lot of insight here. So can you kind of speak to that? Yes, I think that's a key question that people have to grapple with. How is it that we were able to win these victories? And is it true that you can only do this locally? You can't do this nationally? I think I would first of all reject that false dichotomy. I think it's a question of strategy, no matter whether you're talking about local movements and local demands or nationally issues like Medicare for all, like a Green New Deal and ending fossil fuel use nationwide. I think that we are at a time when a lot of Democrats also use similar sounding movement language where they will also say I'm part of a movement. They will occasionally also maybe show up at strike picket lines. And I think we have to understand that there is a fundamental difference between what the Democratic Party offers and what we have accomplished in Seattle as a socialist alternative elected office where, as you were saying, we have specifically used a movement approach for our office. And that means a very specific thing. And I really agree that Bernie Sanders would have been, you know, that is where people wanted to go. And the fact that the Democratic establishment fought him to the nail shows which side they are on really because he would have defeated Donald Trump. And not only that, he would have gone far, far, far the more by saying, you know, by, as he said, he would be an organizer in chief. And what we have done here is not just use the movement language in order to co-opt it and to sort of deceptively use the grassroots in order to carry on the status quo of corporate politics while uttering some kind and compassionate words. What we have done is in a concrete way used our office to build social movements to build larger movements alongside rank and file labor non unionized workers socialist and community members. And then that also goes into the question of force the vote and I'll come that come to that in a second but I just wanted to give a couple of concrete examples of what I mean when I say genuinely building movements. So when I was first elected in 2013 and I took office in 2014, the Democrats on the city council and we should keep in mind, it's not just the mayor of Seattle that's Democrat. All the other eight council members are part of the Democratic establishment. I'm the lone socialist. And so when I was elected, the Democrats on the city council made it very clear that in private conversations and also with their public statements often that we were not going to win the $15 minimum weight, which was the main demand that we ran our campaign on and that city hall ran on their terms and yet six months later we had won $15 an hour and those same council members had been forced to vote. Yes. And big business that had fought fiercely against the $15 minimum wage were forced to back down. At least on that demand. And the way we did that was soon after I was elected. I and myself and socialist alternative our organization, many left labor unions together we launched the 15 now grassroots movement. Now it was not a coincidence that we won 15 we established 15 now and that we won $15 minimum wage 15 now and socialist alternative and rank and file left labor organizers were the backbone of winning $15 an hour. So what we did to the 15 now movement was we launched action conferences, citywide, we launched neighborhood action groups, we activated ordinary people to come and fight for this, explaining to them why it is important that their involvement mattered and that it was not going to be possible for me alone to fight on this and win this that my real strength came from ordinary people marching on the streets. In the 15 now rallies, but also coming to city hall bringing this was pre COVID remember so you know people could actually come and organize inside city hall. And so we really completely change the dynamic in city hall it used to be this ivory tower, where pro big business council members would sit and have polite conversations without any workers, and not in the interest of workers we completely upended this kind of pro big business ivory tower and we brought the people's voice into city hall. It was a similar way in which we won all the renters rights we have won and also the Amazon tax that we won last year. I mean, again, it was no coincidence that we won the Amazon tax in the take of the black lives matter movement last year because it was that movement that really put pressure on the Democratic establishment and they had to make all kinds of promises which they have since walked back, but on the Amazon tax they were forced to actually pass a city council Amazon tax, because a specific tactic that we used in our tax Amazon movement was to have the threat of a ballot initiative but not just a ballot initiative in name, but a viable threat of a ballot initiative and we did that by collecting 30,000 signatures on the tax Amazon ballot initiative, 20,000 of which were collected at directly at the George Floyd protest at the rate of 1000 a day. That gives you the tremendous support we had in the grass suits, especially among black and brown working people for this kind of tax basically the idea that all these big businesses that are profited from this city, prosperity at the expense of workers need to pay at least a minimum tax in order for us to be able to afford social housing and Green New Deal programs and I will mention that we use the same strategy in tax Amazon movement that we did in 15 years which is we launched a grassroots movement that was genuinely democratically organized. We had action conferences, each of which was attended by hundreds of community members, labor union members, non unionized workers and even progressive small business owners, and we debated all the important points of the movement in those action conferences, openly, and all members of the action conferences, they voted on all those important points when was the last time the Democratic Party establishment, invited you or me to a grassroots meeting where we got to vote on the things that affected us. And so that is that example of a democratically organized movement, where even the informally appointed movement leaders were held accountable to the rank and file of the movement. That's what's important. So I think that shows how concretely this is different from the movement type language that many now progressive Democrats have started to use. And I think the challenge really should be that it's not enough to say you are on the side of movements, what are you actually doing to build those movements? And on top of that, I think this also requires and this is how we are also fundamentally different than the Democratic Party is that we use our position, not to, you know, on the one hand, say we are on the side of working people, then on the other hand, be giving a word to the establishment for all their betrayals. No, we don't do that. We speak, we use our office to speak openly about the betrayals that they carry out and force them to put pressure on them to then vote the right way because then when we build that movement using our seat, it extracts a political price from them for voting the wrong way by betraying working people. And I think that connects to the question on force the vote, because I don't contrary to how it was presented. I don't think that the reluctance and ultimately opposition to that kind of tactic where you know hold the Democratic establishment including Nancy Pelosi publicly accountable on Medicare for all. I don't think that the disagreement from the squad and some of the DSA leaders that it was a disagreement on individual tactics. Now, obviously, debates on tactics are completely fair and necessary on the left. Absolutely, we should be doing that. I don't think this was based on a tactical disagreement. I think this was based on a fundamental disagreement of the what we believe is a fundamental need which is to have head on combat and bold challenge to the Democratic establishment because we feel that this conflict is completely unavoidable if we hope to win any kind of reforms like Medicare for all let alone deeper change and I'll mention you know it's not as if Congress members like AOC don't understand what we're talking about. I mean when she was asked why why vote for the Trump impeachment. If everybody is on your side already what she said and I agree with her she said sometimes these votes create real political pressure that forces developments. Sometimes we vote for the historical record to let future generations know we did everything we could. I agree with every word of that. But what's missing here is on the on the same Congress members part the willingness to direct that same challenge to the edifice of the Democratic establishment and corporate stalwarts like Nancy Pelosi and I think that's where the real challenge lies. We don't have to really the test is not whether they are against Donald Trump they're obviously against Donald Trump and we all should be and we should be building the left to counter the rise of the right wing and right populism. But the only way we will be able to do that is if we also put our elective leaders to the additional test which is the key test is are you willing to take on the conflict with the Democratic establishment. Yeah I think you're really speaking to one of the main grievances that a lot on the left have with members of the squad and the way that I kind of gauge how to support someone running for Congress because I bring on a lot of people running for Congress is I look at their platform. And if they check all the boxes they support Medicare for all Green New Deal you know a decriminalizing drugs sex work all that. Then I think OK this is great. But I think that all of this event the events leading up to force the vote and also before that as well it kind of led a lot on the left to reevaluate what we look for in a leader and it does require more than just being correct on the policies. It really does require you to fundamentally challenge leadership and that's one thing that's lacking. I don't know. Like I don't necessarily believe that this is a character flaw with members of the squad. What I think is lacking and you can kind of like help me out with this in your take is I think that what's lacking is that there is this disconnect between members of Congress and the grassroots and you know after you use the grassroots to get you elected you fundraise you know using small dollar donations. Once you get to Congress the movement building is over like it seems as if like the movement has accomplished its goal. We got this individual who agrees with us elected. But then that's it. And I think that what you really demonstrate is that you have to keep building the movement like getting to Congress and using the grassroots. That's really only step one. That's just the very beginning because if you don't keep that movement activated and grow it then the amount of power that you have as a member of Congress will be diminished. Especially when you're facing you know these Democratic Party leaders who have a lot of institutional power who have the media on their side and capitalist forces on their side. So is that kind of like do you think that that describes the main issue because I would totally agree that my main criticism is that I want to see members of the squad really take on Democratic Party leadership. And it's a little bit frustrating because the only members of Congress that actually do challenge leadership seem to be the more conservative Democrats. And usually they don't they don't get marginalized in the way that we fear the left would. So do you think like if you could give any advice to members of the squad. Given your experience what do you think they would need to do to actually get us Medicare for all. Like are they being too savvy trying to play a D chess with leadership and you know butter up leadership and get them to not hate them. Like what do you think they need to do because I think this is really important because the ultimate goal the reason why we're putting folks in Congress is to actually get change. So what would be the main thing that you would change or the main piece of advice that you give to AOC Corey Bush and other members of the squad. I think it's first of all I think it's crucial that we are living in a time when in order to be in order to have any kind of progressive credentials. The times have changed enough and consciousness has advanced enough that even Democrats are having to check. As you said check all the boxes in now the Democratic Party has genuine elected representatives who consider themselves left or socialist and so I don't I don't question the genuineness of the intent of many of these Congress members who have been elected who are now called a squad. I think it was really a positive step forward that so many of them have gotten elected through not taking any corporate money you know that that really the campaign especially a Bernie Sanders in 2016 really set this you know it sort of set the watermark of what what actually constitutes even a basic idea of who's progressive, let alone who's on the left. And so it is it is actually a step forward for our movements that it has put that that much pressure on politics in the United States that now having to take only grassroots donations having to say publicly that I support Medicare for all I support the Green New Deal is a sort of a test for elected officials to get the support of the younger generation and of the left. But I think what it shows also is that you cannot just stop there. You also have as you said very it was spot on what you said which is that, as long as you have elected representatives, however genuine let's not question their intention as long as you have elected representatives who believe that once they enter office, they have to limit themselves to whatever is possible, while not making the democratic establishment angry at them. That is a dead end. As long as you have elected representatives who think that that is the way to go. It doesn't matter how well intentioned they are so I don't think we should be having a debate on whether or not is well intentioned I truly believe she is well intentioned. As you said earlier Mike this is a question of strategy for the left. So let's, let's not make this about, you know, I don't think the left should be engaging in debate about whether or not she is well intentioned the question is, is she willing to do what it will take to win Medicare for all and that's why, as I said earlier the question is not to her the question is to ordinary people what are how are we going to get organized in order to make sure that those elected officials who run as progressives, then go into office and don't think that this is about them trying to curry favor with Nancy Pelosi or any even the middle layer of the democratic establishment. And I think the other thing that you said actually is quite perceptive where you said that it seems to you that mostly the challenge that Nancy Pelosi gets such as it is comes from more conservative members of the Democratic Party, not from the left of the Democratic Party, and how they seem to don't get marginalized. Well, the reason the conservatives don't get marginalized is because they have the entire capitalist ruling class on their side. They are speaking for Wall Street. Yes, they don't get marginalized. And they are both precisely because they have the entire might of the billionaire class and the multimillionaires and the millionaires and also of the right wing on their side. So that poses a concrete question. What are we are elected officials going to have on your side. And that's the question that we have answered so successfully in Seattle, where we went in crystal clear with zero illusions that somehow I myself with just my personal qualities and my determination and my courage and my self sacrifice, I am going to win over the Democratic establishment. No, I mean, obviously personal characteristics are truly important. I won't. I won't minimize them. But the most important thing that's different about us compared to the squad, for example, is that we understood from day one that the other politicians, you know, the Democratic Party politicians on the city council have big business and the entire might of the ruling class on their side, which means the only way we will be able to change this completely ruthless status quo of balance of forces is we have to have forces on our side and where do those forces come from the actual movement, ordinary people on the ground. And so the only way we will win Medicare for all, for example, is if we have a similar strategy at the national level that we had in Seattle to win $15 in our Amazon tax and all the renters rights victories we have one where we understood that our role, our entire role is to unambiguously and unabashedly build the strength of movements and that in that includes calling out Democrats when they betray. So in other words, voting for Nancy Pelosi is a nonstarter. The left in Congress, especially now because numerically they hold the balance of vote for them. They should not be voting for Nancy Pelosi. They should be actually fighting building a real fight back against the Democratic establishment. But the only way they will be able to do it and not get marginalized is if they understand that they have to concretely build movement. So in other words, we built a 15 now grassroots movement. We built the tax Amazon grassroots movement. Similarly, we will need a Medicare for all grassroots movement where AOC and the squad members are actually calling for national actions, calling for a march to Washington, calling for action conferences in multiple cities throughout the nation where ordinary people, progressive labor unions, many other left leaders can stand on their side and really create a dynamic where far from being marginalized, the left in Congress could actually put serious pressure that Nancy Pelosi's establishment, not to mention the Republican Party would come to fear, but that is not going to happen as long as we have the left. No matter how genuine that is, thinking that they have, they have only so much room to maneuver and that they have to at the end of the day vote for Nancy Pelosi. Look, this, this is another form of lesser evilism and lesser evilism in my view is a permanent defensive posture for the left. If we, if we adopt lesser evilism, then that's logic is endless. No year, no month, no day will be the right time for you to go up against the establishment. So we have to dispense with lesser evilism and understand that, you know, 70 million people voted for Donald Trump. How are we going to win them over? It is by building mass movements around demands that they will agree with many of them will agree with us on Medicare for all green new jobs ending renter debt, which is now becoming a huge crisis ending student debt and really building that grassroots effort.