 Good evening. I'm Harold Pacius. We're on the air once again with Pacius on the news, and there is plenty of news to talk about. Before I begin, I want to introduce you to my guest who you've met before on this show, Ben Grant. Ben is a lawyer here in Maine, a prominent lawyer in Maine, very well known, a former chairman of the Maine Democratic Party as I am. I think he was one of the smarter ones. That's why we have him on the show. This guy knows a lot, and so that's why we like to have him on the show. He's becoming a veteran here. As you all know, I like to ask questions, and I'm as curious about Republicans. I am not a Republican, but I'm as curious about Republicans as I am about Democrats. In fact, I'm more curious about Republicans because I am not one. So I'm more curious. I like to ask questions. I have some very, very good spokespeople for the Republican point of view on this program from time to time. I've had some bad ones and the same with the Democrats. I've had some very good spokespeople for the Democratic Party and their point of view and some not-so-good ones. So Ben is one of the good ones. You're one of the good ones. So Ben, let's get started. We by chance, this program occurs on the first Wednesday of each month and it occurs one day after the election in Maine. Yeah, the field is clear for us to be some of the first pundits to talk about the elections yesterday. Exactly, exactly. Like that first snow when you open the door. There's no footprints out there. We get to do it ourselves. Yep, exactly. Well, let's start with the big one which apparently attracted the most people, which was question one. I'm not surprised because people in Maine think about the Northwoods. Most people in Maine have not been to the Northwoods, but they have this image of the Northwoods in Maine. So when they see a television ad with the trees cut down, they say, but this isn't right. This isn't right. So were you surprised at the outcome? I wasn't surprised by the outcome. I was a little surprised by the margin. I think when you look at a margin that big, you got to look more at the fundamentals that existed prior to the campaign and not necessarily what happened in the last year. Meaning, I think we all know that CMP was a very highly unpopular company in Maine and through either misdeeds or raids or what have you, people were generally frustrated with CMP as a company. It doesn't seem like they were able to overcome that with any sort of message about the positive benefits of the project. CMP was the messenger and they were a defective messenger. I think that's right. I think that's right. I mean, to the extent they lost the campaign, it was through the loss of the reputation over the last decade or so. So we had another one, food security. Do you understand that one? I can't say that I do. I mean, the principle is a good talking point, right? We want people to be secure with food and have a right to food. Now, what that means in a legal sense, I think that's really gonna be up for grabs in the next couple of years. We're gonna have courts deciding meal programs. I don't really know how the impact here is gonna be in a practical sense. I agree with you totally. If you look at the question, people looked at the question and said, well, I can't say that's a bad idea that people ought to eat and be able to grow food. What's wrong with that? They say, but you're a lawyer. I'm a lawyer. I haven't studied this. So it means to be fair to the proponents, I'm sure they're gonna engage in some education over the next few years to explain what it means and what new rights people have and how that impacts their day-to-day living. But from afar, it's a little curious to me. I do think it also highlights, just if we're talking about campaign strategy, what it means to run against a no campaign that's not really that well funded, right? You can win a lot of elections if you don't have a big opposition out there. And I don't think the opposition to that question was really that organized. The opposition wasn't organized because I know something about this because for 40 years, I have been the general counsel of the Main State Society for Protection of Animals. And they have pushed animal rights. They're not like the PETA based in Washington, D.C., which is radical, you know. I would never associate you with PETA. Yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly. That's fairly radical. But they have concerned themselves with animal welfare and helped to push through some of the animal welfare laws in Maine. They are concerned about it because, as you say, as a lawyer would say, well, now you've got something in the Constitution about this and what does it mean? And courts are going to interpret what it means. So if I have a right to vote, if I have a lamb in my backyard and I want to raise it and then I want to slaughter it and eat the lamb, do I have any restrictions? If I have chickens, there are certain rules and regulations about how many chickens can be put into a cage and what kind of conditions have to be in the cage. Now, if I'm just having those chickens grow so I can slaughter them and eat them myself, well, now you come after me, the state humane agents come after me and say, you've got 41 chickens in this cage and you only should have four. And look at the poor kitchens where you've broken the law. I have a constitutional right to raise these chickens for my own benefit any way I want. Now we have a court case, right? Well, yeah, certainly. And I think you highlight the key thing there is how does our system of food regulation going to work now with this new right? I mean, we have, I think, if you look globally, historically, a pretty secure and safe food delivery system in this country. I don't know that we want to have that undermined. So I think we got to, that certainly bears watching. I would say to folks, you know, lawyers are trained to look at the implications of new laws and amendments to the constitution. And there are many implications. Most voters who saw that on the ballot, most, not all, weren't really thinking about implications. A few lawyers were and maybe some others were, but, and those I know interested in animal welfare certainly were. I'm sure the yes vote on that was also held by this really trying time we've been through where there is a lot of insecurity in general. And you've seen a rise in homelessness and whatnot over the pandemic. And I'm sure people look at that and feel a lot of empathy for people. And, you know, that contributes to a vote. Maybe not really analytical vote, but a vote nonetheless. It's very interesting. This movement, this individual food security movement, I've read, this was online. You don't believe everything you read online. But again, we're lawyers and we try to be discerning. And we try to understand the sources of the information that we're looking at. But started this movement started in India. Its international office and base is in London. And there are only two states. Maine is the first and West Virginia is considering something similar to what we did yesterday. But we're the leader in the country now with this constitutional amendment. And it will spread to other states and they'll try it in other states and whether they'll be successful or not. We don't know. Some of it will depend if we have a couple of important court cases in the next year or two. Some of it will depend on that. But we did something that hasn't been done in America. Main leads. Main leads, exactly. So anything else, we're gonna get to the city of Portland races which people are paying attention to in a minute. Any other races in Maine? I understand a Democrat, one in Augusta in a district that has been for the last 10 or dozen years Republican. Yeah, I think that is a nice win back for the Democrats. I mean, Augusta had been a Democratic stronghold for a long time before that. It's only a late that it's been difficult for them. So that's a nice one to get under their belt. I know this is an issue you wanna talk about later too but the critical race theory issue came up in the Hamden School Board elections in quite a big way. And it turns out that the people who are not advocating that issue sort of what I would call the good guys and good girls they prevailed over. People trying to push that issue sort of unlike in the Virginia elections. So when you say they prevailed, is there, we'll talk in a minute about what is critical race theory? I could have more clear. There was a group of people in the Hamden area that were pushing for bans on critical race theory sort of in that, following that chain of logic from the Trump side of the right wing and those people were defeated. So I think that was a good sign for local politics in that area. That's interesting. Is Hamden kind of a middle of the road place or is it Republican? So it's become quite a bit more of a suburban town probably than when you were the chair of the party. It's a big suburb of Bangor now. So that brings me to something else I'm planning to talk about but you're a good person to discuss this with. When I was chair of the party, you know, the Democrats could count on the union vote and they could count in the paper mill towns, they would win, they would always win. I mean, and in Cape Elizabeth and Falmouth and Yarmouth and Freeport and Kennebunkport and York at a gun quit, the Democrats would always lose. And it was, I remember, I grew up in Cape Elizabeth and I remember when I went to register to vote, it had to be 21 at the time, I turned 21 and I told my father I was going to register to vote, I was a college student, I was a junior in college and he said, are you going to enroll in a party? And I said, yeah, I'm probably going to enroll in the Democratic Party. He said, you're in Cape Elizabeth. There are no Democrats here. And he said, you know, you just aren't any and things get decided in the primary. And so you got to think about what you're going to do in primaries because you can go and vote in the Democratic primary in Cape Elizabeth but it's going to have very little effect on the general election. So I thought about it and I actually did register as a Republican in Cape Elizabeth. And at that time probably the town of Cape Elizabeth was much smaller town, 3,300 people as opposed to 9,500 now, one-third the size, 80% Republican. And the same with every suburban town in Portland, not Westbrook, which was some, Milltown, but and it's totally switched. Yeah, it's not 80, 20 the other way but it's getting there for sure. Well, I tell you. I mean, it's definitely been a 21st century phenomenon. Yeah. I think probably the rise of George W. Bush is what started it going down that road but certainly accelerated by Obama and then Trump coming along. You see it nationally too where the Democratic Party's base has become more and more of an educated cohort of the electorate and the divide in education was pretty stark when it comes to vote outcomes which is why what you started alluding to about the union vote getting away from the Democrats attracts that same educational line as well. Yeah, and a lot of it has to do with information and, you know. Oh yeah, there's a lot more to it than just education. I don't mean to make it that simple. I mean, there's a lot of the rise of a lot of cultural issues that attract voters and, you know, basically the general treatment of labor by both parties over the last 25, 30 years as if you ask a core labor movement member and they'd say not great for me, the party when it's starting with NAFTA and other things since then. So, you know, there's been an erosion of policy support. I think Labor members would say there's been an erosion of policy support from all parties and then you add that into some of the cultural issues that certainly with the right fire lit underneath them can make Democrats look out of touch with rural working people, fair or unfair. That's how... You think that's not difficult for them to make Democrats look out of touch? No, no. Sometimes we make it easy for them. Other times they're just good at accelerating issues that we might not think of as wedge issues and making them into wedge issues. But all of it with the goal of making Democratic politicians look out of touch with, you know, rural working people. We've done it successfully. I mean, look at the map of the state house right now. There's no Democrat representing Rumpford, one of the last remaining big mills in Maine. There's no Democrat representing Milanochka. There's no Democrat representing Milanochka, which has been a Democratic bastion forever. No Democrat representing Lincoln. You know, go through all the... Scout Hegan, go through all the mill towns and it's not like it used to be in your day. Total flip. Total flip. But yeah, you look up at the coast. I mean, it's almost... It's like a blue wall. Well, the map tells... The red-blue map tells the story. This map of Maine in red and blue is amazing. Here we have this huge state for the Northeast huge, for New England huge, and the blue line is a very thin blue line running from the Atlantic Ocean in about five miles. It doesn't go in much deeper than five to six miles. There's a few pockets still, but it's, again, no way from us for sure. Yeah, it's just amazing. So when you look at the map, almost the entire state is colored in red. Yeah, by geography. By geography. So it's amazing. I have a friend who... She's from Lincoln, and she grew up there, and she and her husband have a camp in Lincoln, and my wife and I went up there a year ago before the general election. I think it was September. Two months before the Trump-Biden election. And we drove on Route 2 from Old Town... We get off the interstate from Old Town to Lincoln. And it wasn't just Trump lawn signs. Big banners, signs, flags. It was quite a movement. Yeah, he definitely stirs up a lot of passion on both sides. There's no doubt about it, and that's what drives voters. Yeah, and they... He... His message is, you know, you're forgotten people. These elitists, these highly educated people. They look down on you, and I'm your champion, and I think you're terrific. And it's heartening to them. You know, I took a photograph of the mill in Lincoln. Gone. The mill's there. Broken windows. Broken fences. Falling apart. Yeah. And there's a street that leads down to the mill. And I took a photograph of the street with all the Trump flags, and the background is this abandoned mill. And I think it really tells the story. It's amazing. I think it augurs something even more dangerous for the country, and that is a real divorce between policies, the policies of the government and what's going on in elections, right? I mean, we as Democrats and wonky types, we want to believe that if we enact policy A, B, or C, the people will see that that's going to help them in their lives. And I think there's been a wedge-driven between that connection, and that's really dangerous for us, where elections have become more about ephemeral things and a personality contest and, you know, the chase for clicks by the media, you know, whatever the new shiny object issue that we put in front of people, it really makes it challenging, right? How much of governing can you do and say this is going to help people and it's going to gain votes for us because we're doing it? People voted for Franklin Delano Roosevelt because of his policies. That's right. That's right. Got him out of the Depression, you know, the chicken in every pot model. I don't know that that works anymore. Well, it may not, but while we're on the subject, the Democrats could have already passed an infrastructure bill. Yes, definitely. They could have passed it, but they wouldn't. Yep. And they couldn't. The president wanted to. The Speaker of the House wanted to. But a hundred Democrats, so-called progressive Democrats, didn't want to. They wanted to hold it hostage to try to get the other bill through, which at the time was this $3 trillion bill and now is $1.75 trillion or whatever. Wouldn't the Democrats, in terms of the electorate, not in terms of their philosophy, these hundred people and what they want and their philosophy and objectives, but in terms of helping the Democratic Party, wouldn't it have been better to have already? Oh, 1,000 percent yes. I mean, it would have been far better for them politically to pass a worse bill quickly than try to hold out for a better bill that takes a longer amount of time. There's no doubt about it. I think the public really loses its taste fast for politicians when you have month after month of watching the sausage get made. It's not a pleasant process for people to observe. It just looks like bickering and fighting and the inability to get anything done. I was thinking about this. I thought you might ask about this. Looking back, the seminal sort of legislation was the 100 days. You mentioned FDR, the first 100 days. Looking back at it now, the important part may not have been what was done is that it was in 100 days. That's only a couple of months. I think if the Biden administration could have passed a few good things in the first 100 days, they'd been in a lot better position now. And they wanted to. They wanted to, yep. And it was Democrats. Because they were only dealing with some of the Republicans. I have some good Republican friends that occasionally watch this too. They don't want to pass anything. And Heaven, in 30 years, wanted to pass anything. I mean, they talked about it. Let me take a shot at the Republicans now. You won't hear me object. So, they talked about getting rid of Obamacare and coming up with a new health care program for America whenever you saw the outlines of one. There never was one. Never was one. Never existed. There hasn't been one single thing to help the American people done when the Republicans have controlled the White House, and the House, because their idea is to tear down government. The Democrats have the idea, and I share in it, that government can help people. The Republicans have the idea that government will only hurt people. And that's the basic problem here. So, if we're going to have anything to help people in government, if the public wants anything, it's only Democrats that are going to produce it. I think that's right. I think that's right. But the Democrats are their own worst enemy, because we're just discussing, they have these... Well, I mean, it's easy for me to sit back here. I'm not involved, obviously, but if I had any criticism to Levy, it would be the absence of realism about their political situation. If Biden won, right? That was great. We're all euphoric about that. But Joe Manchin controls the U.S. government right now. And he should have been solicited from day one, and everything should have been down in concert with him. However distasteful that might have been to liberals and progressives who wanted a lot more. I'm one of them. But I think you just have to have a level-headed clarity about what is your political situation and who is actually controlling things. You're one of them, except that you're practical and many of them are not. So you're not one of them that's impractical. Maybe that comes from also being a lawyer, too. Like, we're trained in the practicalities of getting things done. I mean, I represent the main AFL. Like, I'm as hardcore a labor believer as there is. But I also know that, you know, you can't put a round peg through a square hole. You've got to assess what's the best we can do under the circumstances that we have. And, you know, I think this is kind of a pipe dream that progressives, or any organization, really, could just swoop into West Virginia and move with Joe Manchin to do something based on public pressure. He's proven over his career. He's fairly immune to that. He needed to be brought in early and really given more of the reins. Again, as distasteful as that might have been, ultimately, he's going to decide anyway. So bring him in. Have him on the inside, making the initial decisions about what you're going to pass and how much it's going to be. That's how I would approach it. As you know, I work for President Johnson, who probably, well, certainly in our lifetime, had the most liberal programs of any president. Extremely liberal. But he was a Southern politician and understood conservatism, and he grew up in a rural area in Texas. So he understood all of these things. And so he thought he believed that government could really help people. He grew up in the Hill Country of Texas when there was no electricity and there was electricity in Houston and there was electricity in Dallas and in New York and Denver, but no electricity in his home counties. And it was the federal government that brought electricity to them. And it was the federal government that tamed the rivers that flooded. And it was the federal government that did TVA and all of these things. So he believed in the power of the government and he believed in the power of the government to help educate people. So he was a true liberal. He got all these things passed, but a big chunk of his party was Southern Democrat, which he himself was. And so when it came to civil rights, he needed the Republicans. And he was able to do that. But he had a party divided. He had a party that dominated the House and Senate, but they were Southern and Northern and they were split. But he knew how to get them. He knew how to get them. He knew how to get them. And he knew about symbolism. He wanted to do all of these things, but when he became president, by accident, when he became president, he needed Harry Bird, who was a very conservative guy, who was chairman of the Appropriations Committee. And Bird said, well, we have to have a tax cut. I'm a conservative, I want a tax cut. So Johnson had to figure out how to get Bird, give him something that he wanted, not as much of a tax cut as he wanted, give him a budget that Bird would find acceptable, and still have a great society program. And the interesting thing he did, Ben, is he understood symbols. He was an online politician. So when he became president, they stopped illuminating the White House at night. This is the honest of God to people who think this is crazy. He stopped illuminating people. Well, Chris, I think that the people's house, you've got to illuminate it to tourist scum and everything. That didn't take away your job. You weren't the lights guy, right? I wasn't the lights guy, but he wouldn't turn the lights on at night. And he said, the people want to know that I'm looking after their money. I'm not spending or wasting their money. It's symbolic. It's kind of like Reagan taking down the solar panels, right? Same idea. Same idea. So Johnson understood that symbolism, and I think some of these, the so-called, I call it the so-called progressives in the party, you count yourself as one, but I don't count you as one of the ones I'm going to describe. They didn't understand symbolism. They didn't understand that when you say defund the police, most voters, Democrat and Republican, black and white, most voters understand that there are certain police, a few policemen, who abuse their power. But most of them want the police. Most of them, their number one issue is personal security, domestically and internationally. I think you raised an interesting point, especially as we compare what's going on now with the LBJ era, and that's the rise of interest groups on all sides and the professionalization of politics, right? It's an interesting thought experiment. What would LBJ have done if he had as many interest groups pulling at him as, say, Manchin or Biden do today? It's true, but there were interest groups. I mean, labor was quite powerful. He had to satisfy labor. Sure. There's always been interest groups. That's what politics really is. It's just the power dynamics between interest groups. I'm just saying that there's just far more professionalization. There's far more money to be made. Professionalization of it. There's far more money to be made now in politics. So for everything that you want to do, there's someone who can make a buck off of opposing it. True. And I don't know that it was always that way. You had your major interest groups, your chamber of conferences, your AFL-CALs, but now every little niche thing has somebody who can find people to raise money from, has a way to communicate with people. Any little group who has access to the Internet, right? So everybody can do that same thing. And I think it makes it a lot messier to try to do anything these days. That's interesting. I'll give some thought to what you're saying. I find that very interesting. But there were interest groups. And I will tell you one story. I had a professor in college, Eric Goldman. He was a famous professor. And Eric Goldman wrote a couple of books. One was called Rendezvous's Destiny about the New Deal. And another one was called The Crucial Decade about the 1950s. 60s. But in one of his lectures that I was attending as a student, he told a story of... No, he wasn't one of the... In the book, in The Crucial Decade, he told a story about an interest group and the rise of interest groups in the 1960s. And he said that his book publisher was, you know, two or three times said, look, you're going to have all kinds of people pushing back against what you're saying in this book. They're pretty organized and so forth. And he would listen to them and sometimes he'd agree with them and sometimes not. And then one time his publisher called him up and said, you know, we're going to have to delete... You use the word bastard quoting somebody in this. And he said, I'm not changing it. He said, the bastards aren't organized in this country. That's pretty good. So that's a little bit about what you're talking about. Yeah, I mean, I'm not going to name names. I'm trying to be a nice guy, but you look at the history of referendums in this state, they've escalated over the last two decades, I'd say. And it's because there are groups who need to push them out in order to raise more money and fund more staff. Whether the issue is good or not, they need to have them occur. Because this is how they make a living. That's right. So is that any good way to make public policy, though? And what does that do to the elected officials who may have some other program or may oppose it? So how do you get people to stand down if their salary depends on them running a campaign? Well, this is kind of a side road here, but now we're on this subject, and this is just discussion. I'm not as organized as... I have people say that you're not very organized on the show, but... You've got all these papers here. Yeah, you've got the papers. I'm going to read you something. But it's very hard sometimes for people to understand the new politics, and money has a lot to do with it. And I know... I would talk about a guy I know very well, Ethan Strimling. So I'm on his... I know Ethan. You know Ethan. Okay, so I'm on his email list. So he has email blasts, which I'm probably one of a thousand people or more that get his email. And so I don't know what he's doing for a living now, but I think I know, but I really don't, but I just guess him. He went... When Susan Collins was running this last time, he would once a week send out a thing, and here's what Susan Collins said. Can you imagine? This is outrageous. And he'd want you to be outrageous. And then if, assuming you were outraged, at the bottom it said, send money. And he said, so where did the money go? Do you know? I actually don't know in a specific example. What I do know is that there is a giant constellation of organizations out there who want to get involved. And I don't mean to disparage people. There's a lot of good legitimate instincts out there. People want to get involved in a campaign but don't want to get involved in a party or want to have their own organization, have their own say or have some other niche. So I am sure that that group used some or all that money to try to influence the election somehow, whether it was on Facebook or maybe they sent out people knocking on doors. Maybe they worked in coalition with one of the other, many groups in the big constellation of people out there. But they paid people to run that show. It also goes back to the decline in the parties themselves. I mean, none of this needed to exist when you started out in politics because the Democratic Party was strong and trustworthy and people would put their money and time into Democratic Party efforts. And it's only in my lifetime that it's really splintered and people have wanted or needed to have other avenues to try to influence elections. You're a young man. I'm 44. I don't know that I get to be young anymore. That's a young man. That's a young man. But, Ben, when I was the Democratic Chairman, my good friend Bill Moyers was very prominent in television. And he called me up and he said, you know, you're a party chairman and I want to do a story, a TV story. So he came and the Republican Chairman was a woman named Hattie Bickmore. And she and I were friends. And so I said to Hattie, you know, Moyers wants to come do a show and you and I will be on it. We'll talk about parties. And the show was called, and it went on public television nationally, and it was called What's a Party For? And I can get you a disc for that. But What's a Party For? And his whole thing was, when you get special interest groups and they were all splintered and everything. And I remember what I said, I said, look, you don't get anywhere without a coalition of a majority. And so you need to be part of a party because we have two big parties in this country. And that's the only way you really get it done is to, because we didn't have the internet and we didn't have all of these cable TVs and so that helps to splinter things. So that was the answer. I agreed with you. Party coalesces all these groups into one big thing and you have to compromise. If you are in the Democratic Party and you are for something, you're in a big group and not everybody in that party is going to be for it and you may have to compromise. People don't like to compromise. Not as much. Far left and far right don't compromise at all. They're not in it. No, certainly not. So Virginia, they say that critical race theory was a big thing. Critical in it. Yeah, sure. And I asked you before the show a question that I didn't know the answer to. What is critical race theory? And I said, I'm glad you brought your homework with you. You can give me a definition. Well, you said different people make it different things. Well, I think there probably is an academic definition. I think how it applies to politics is worth more of a discussion. What I found in my research is that it goes back 40 or 50 years and maybe even earlier and it's about systemic racism and how the system is set up in a way to perpetuate. It's a field of academic study to look at that issue. It's not about person A just has a prejudice against person B that it is systematic. Well, that helped me. I began to understand it a little. But everybody has their own view. And so in many states where the Republicans are pushing anti-legislation against this one of the favorite provisions in those laws is that it's against the law for schools to teach anything that's divisive. Well, I say, should children learn about the Civil War and what caused the Civil War? My Virginia brother-in-law, my wife was born and brought up in Virginia, he calls it the War of Northern Aggression. But the war was about slavery. That's what it was all about. Nothing else than slavery. And the abolitionists in the North Republicans it was the birth of the Republican Party was an abolitionist party said it's immoral. It's not right. It's immoral. And all men in those days are created equal. I know my history. I was a history major at Wesleyan. They did a good job down there. In a very good school at Wesleyan University. So is that divisive to teach that? I mean, I don't know what you really think, but the way you phrase that question gives a little too much credit to those pushing it. This is just another way to try to make Democrats look out of touch. And the details, I don't think, matter that much to most people, right? It's a cue. It's a symbol. I don't think there's been a lot of discussion at the school board level even of exactly what it means to teach this or not. But it's being used in politics as a wedge issue to say that you folks who are for this are out of touch with the people they're trying to force this on. I have to get a prominent Republican on this program soon and ask the question. Sure. And I would ask that very question at the beginning. So if you think I'm going to invite you, here's what's coming. Avoid Harold's number. If you don't want to answer that question, I would begin Ben with that question. Okay, the Civil War, should they teach about the Civil War? Should we teach children in the United States in our public schools that this war was about slavery? Should we teach children about the reconstruction period and the post-reconstruction period where blacks were forbidden to vote? The whole idea in the South was to intimidate them, to make them understand they'd be killed if they tried to do things, to make them understand that they were less than human, that they couldn't go in a restroom, that they couldn't go to the movie theater. And I'd say, now, is that critical race theory to teach a child that? I hope you do get to ask him. I'm not sure that I can transpose myself enough to be in a Republican brain, even if I pretend. But you say that's the question for them, right? I think that is the question. What's the problem with the way we've been teaching American history? Why does it deserve this kind of scrutiny right now? What does it matter? I don't know what they're... Look, maybe I'm cynical because I've been through too many campaigns and too much politics, but I don't think this is being done on the level. This is a device. This is just the next thing to try to drag out of people a reaction that Democrats don't care about your concerns and they're trying to do something to you that you don't want to have happen to you. Yeah, and I agree with you, and I think five, six years from now it'll be in the past. There'll be something else. Well, I think if Democrats are smart, they'll find a way to get it behind them. I don't think we can get wrapped around the axle here of the details because it's certainly, from the Virginia example, it appears to have been an effective political strategy. So there's... I mean, I'm curious. It will be a good test case in the next cycle and Republicans will try to do this again. Can Democrats take the issue, treat it in a thoughtful, respectful way, and still win? Terry McAuliffe stuck his foot in his mouth big time over this issue. So it wasn't necessarily that he lost because Republicans brought it up. He just handled it really badly. He was really clumsy statements that dogged him the rest of the campaign. Hopefully, you know, he's going to be on the ballot next year. I'm sure Paula Page has been watching this and has something planned. She's been very adept at dealing with him and dealing with tough issues. So I hope she has a deft way to deal with this. Because it's coming. It's coming here in May. I have to imagine it's coming. Ross Duthat is a columnist. He's heard in New York Times. Relatively conservative. I think he's a Republican, I'm not sure. I would assume so. But moderate. Anti-Trump. Fine. Anti-Trump. I'm not going to define everyone as anti-Trump. He probably appeals more to me than you because I'm much more... I regard myself as the middle. You probably regard yourself as the middle. I don't know. Let's keep it to Ross. So here's what he said about Virginia today. In the Virginia race, both candidates was straightforward and consistent. Glenn Youngen attacked critical race theory. Combining it with a larger attack on how the education bureaucracy has handled the COVID pandemic. While McAuliffe denied anything like critical race theory was being taught in Virginia schools and insisted the whole controversy was a racist dog whistle. Yeah, I don't think that's a fair recounting of what happened unless he deals with the big gaff that McAuliffe made where he basically said parents shouldn't have anything to do with how school boards decide curriculum. I mean that statement of itself probably lost in the campaign. He says McAuliffe evaded the... made a mistake. He was talking about technically his situation, he made a mistake while evading the context that has made this issue part of the polarizing national debate. This guy says that context, obvious to any sentient person who lived through the past few years is an ideological revolution in elite spaces in American culture in which concepts here to for associated with academic progressives have permeated the language of many important institutions, the language. And so he says critical race theory is an imperfect term for this movement, this progressive movement. Too narrow and specialized, but a new form of racecraft, race baiting, racecraft. Clearly lies close to the heart of the new progressivism. He says with the somewhat different, somewhat overlapping ideas of figures like these guys who, academic figures who produce this this theory, he says it's being, you know, they're being charged with something that these academic progressives this theoretical stuff many Democrats don't buy. But the context is what you said. You know, you're being tagged with this. Beware and figure out a way to extricate yourself from that. Well, let me try to say something a little more positive. I think this country is in the middle of its next phase of racial reconciliation, right? The pathway from the start of the country to now has seen different waves. And we're certainly in another wave of really reconciling our past and how do we make right historic wrongs, right? I think that's the people who want to talk more about race and structural racism and say that there's historic legacy that we're trying to overcome. And that was also always going to come with some growing pains, especially when you have the accelerant of another political party who resisted the change and sees profit electorally in making it look as bad as possible. So I don't think we can expect progressives to walk back how we feel about race relations in this country or what needs to happen. Is there a smarter way to talk about it? Is there a way to meet people where they are and bring people along rather than have it come all at once too fast, right? Maybe there's no such thing as it coming too fast. But I think we have to recognize that the academic left maybe further along than everyday Americans who are going about their work and don't think about these things all the time. And I think we're running into that right now where people don't want to be put upon. They have so many other concerns in their lives, right? They don't want to lose control, right? And I think if McAuliffe is campaigning how to fall, it's not first acknowledging, look, I understand you're worried about things. But, right? I think you've got to show that you always have to show that the best candidates always show that empathy with people. They may disagree or maybe people aren't coming at an issue from a good starting place. You still want to bring people along. That's always going to be the best for you. That's a good point. And... Look at the last two years. How much fear people have been living with, right? Just from the pandemic and job loss. You know, I'm still wearing a mask when I go to the, go to Lowe's to, you know, pick up something from the hardware store, right? People are coming out of this incredibly fearful two years. And now there's something that vaguely that they're worried about where they're going to lose control of what's happening out of school, where their kids are going. Maybe a step too far. So, I think we've got to be able to advance issues while being empathetic with the people that are trying to convince. So, react to these two notions of mine. When I went to attended Princeton University in the 1950s four classes no blacks. None. Zero. Those elite schools, like the one you went to and the one, the so-called elite, the one you went to and the one I went to were kind of tickets to prosperity. You do pretty well. You've got many obstacles if you went to one of those schools. Certainly the barriers were lowered for sure. Barriers were lowered. And so we profited by it. We white folks because we were all white. Now at Princeton University 25, 30% of the student body 25% is black and probably 40% is of a different race and they're all getting that same ticket and they're going to be in a far better position and if they're in a better position economically they're going to be in a better position socially in every way. They go hand in hand and they'll have influence. So, I think that will happen and I think it's always been the promise of a diverse education is that you spread the bounty of this country more widely and you end up with a richer country not just in terms of money but just a richer, better country and that's certainly what I subscribe to myself. And I also think that racism is very prevalent almost part of human nature in our society and I think most of the people who say, I am not a racist are maybe not full time maybe not always but somewhere in them you know that person is black and I'm white different tribe I think that exists and I don't know if there's any way around it but I think one of the things and now this is my question for you when you get somebody on the newspaper on the Portland City Council accusing the city manager of being a racist there the cultural wars get inflamed because they say the Liberals are using it as a weapon as a weapon and it just becomes a weapon what do you think about that? I want to get you into this conference I mean let's first acknowledge that where to privileged white guys about this and I think I'd love to see you have this conversation with a person of color to see how they view like politics in Portland for instance I think that would be really they know I could get would they know whether the former city manager is a racist? I think the term racist is one that is a bad term well fine it's subject to a lot of different definitions and gradations but none of it's positive that's why people deny it sure sure they don't that's human nature you don't want to be associated with something bad I think one of the real problems is how much we imbue on to elected officials and onto the government the hearts and minds conversations not something that's going to be won by public officials that's cultural that's bigger than what the government is going to be able to do I think the trick is especially for progressive politicians is there are systemic things that have exacerbated or even caused unequal outcomes among races and those things those are the things that we need to stamp out and eliminate and if I can put the most positive spin on it that I can I think people see some of that in the structure of Portland the city government especially in its historical ancestors how it got to be the way it is right now what do you mean how it got to be the way just the way that the city council was created the elimination of the mayor there's been writings about this that Ku Klux Klan was responsible not that responsible I'm not asking you to buy into that I'm just saying that I believe that argument about the past is being seen right now the current city government has been treated but you studied history so I challenge you I don't I'm not right about everything but I do like history as you do and in the 1920s teens and 20s it was a great reform movement actually the first part of the 19th century big progressive reform movement in this country that's why we have our referendum process and many large urban areas had mayors many of them Irish Catholics who who were corrupt the systems were corrupt in these large cities and so there was a big reform push to create the manager council take politics out of city government it wasn't about race at all and it certainly wasn't about race in Portland, Maine whether or no black people I think that's where you might find your challenge there is that notion of taking politics out of it I mean the politics that were being taken out of it was majoritarian politics and if you believe the people who have written this part of the history that it was a move to exclude certain types of people from the levers of power in city government so I'm not enough of a Portland scholar to know whether that's right or wrong but that's what the argument is that might be that they wanted to the Irish were controlling the vote and they didn't want them to have power the Yankees wanted power I don't think that's wrong well look if you want to just go back to what happened in the last few months I know what you're talking about in terms of the comments made about the city manager I mean there's always a tension there's always a tension between being righteous and being effective and those two things are very frequently not the same so maybe you feel a deep in your heart that this official is racist or is perpetuating a racist structure my perspective is what is the best way to make that change is it to go out and bang the table and say this person is a racist or is it to work within the system that's a necessary change it's about bringing peace what we talked about before how do you bring people along guys like me think every time that somebody like the person who accused the manager of being racist doesn't like what somebody else's position is let's call him a name well I know a good name let's call him a racist that'll really get him so it becomes a weapon I told you I think it becomes a weapon and at the same time I think there are huge number of people who deny their racist who are they actually do look down on people of another color there's no question about it so I hold those two maybe opposing views but that's why there is a middle here's how I continue to try to look forward you know how do we make positive change right and I think we're talking about Nazarene who is on the Portland Charter commission she made those comments riled people up as you might imagine probably designed to do so well let's see what happens with her work and the work of the rest of the commission does it come up with a better city government that's to me well that's true you and I differ on this because I think it's all ideological with them and what's au courant in their tribe anyway listen we never got to talking about who got elected to the council big news in the council and I gotta wrap it up we're out of time well it was a good discussion thanks for having me well we're gonna have to continue the discussion I'll be back anytime alright well we'll do it again yeah I just went on too long sorry about that