Episode Summary
One of the most enduring myths of the Trump years has been that everyone who votes for him does so because they agree with him. Obviously a lot of his supporters do, but polls have consistently shown that Trump is a historically unpopular president with issue positions that most Americans have never supported.
And yet, it remains the case that a majority of voters in the last election decided to vote for him anyway. We’ve talked in previous episodes of Theory of Change about how part of this is due to the enormous reach of right-wing media. It is the mainstream media for millions of Americans–whether they deliberately choose to watch it or not.
But media saturation isn’t the only factor. Another significant factor behind Trump’s durable political appeal is that his opponents have been unable to present a larger alternative vision to MAGA. That matters because a lot of people aren’t interested in policy minutiae, they want to hear your big-picture vision.
Democrats simply have not done this. And as a result, the party is facing some of its lowest approval ratings in years–including from people who identify as Democrats.
Joining me to talk about all this is someone who has been doing this work from the ground up for over a decade: Seth Flaxman. He’s the co-founder of Catalyst for American Futures a new liberal group that’s building a broader-left political coalition that focuses on improving the country so that everyone has a fair chance, ideas that they’ve put into a new book called Out of Many, One: Writings on American Universalism and on a website, The All American.
Previously, Seth led Democracy Works for twelve years, an organization that helps tens of millions of Americans get trusted election information.
The video of this episode is available, the transcript is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full text. You can subscribe to Theory of Change and other Flux podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Podcasts, YouTube, Patreon, Substack, and elsewhere.
Related Content
Black Americans expect more from Democrats, but do party leaders realize this?
Unions, churches, and local media were many Americans’ anchors to democracy, as they’ve faded, so has public faith in the country
Republicans took over the judiciary while liberals were pretending that jurisprudence was a science
The 2024 election was decided by people who disliked both Harris and Trump
How religious fundamentalism’s intellectual collapse powers Trump’s politics of despair
Bureaucratic obsessions are ruining America’s educational system
Harris’s loss has permanently discredited timid Democratic approaches to Trumpist authoritarianism
Audio Chapters
00:00 — Introduction
10:18 — American universalism as a political philosophy
14:22 — The spirit of St. Louis and the civil war
18:29 — Understanding modern authoritarianism
21:14 — Building majority support for democracy
24:31 — The need for open debate and disagreement
28:02 — Problems with Democratic party messaging
34:24 — The missing movement infrastructure
37:19 — Economic solutions beyond neoliberalism
41:09 — Learning from right-wing political tactics
46:19 — The role of government in the modern economy
49:38 — The importance of public rallies and engagement
54:32 — Creating a new culture of political discourse
58:28 — Working in coalitions despite disagreements
01:01:59 — Lessons from the civil rights movement
01:05:01 — Closing thoughts and contact information
Audio Transcript
The following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only.
MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: And joining me now is Seth Flaxman. Hey Seth, welcome to Theory of Change.
SETH FLAXMAN: Thank you. Thank you. Glad to be here.
SHEFFIELD: Yeah, good to have you. Well, so, why don't we start off a bit before we get into the discussion just tell us a bit about your background and how you got into politics and what you've been doing since.
FLAXMAN: Great, thank you. I mean, I I, don't even know if I would say I've been in politics. I've been working on strengthening US democracy for almost my entire professional career the last 15, 16 years or so. And I got into this space because I thought our democracy was in a really dangerous position. And for me, the warning lights like 2000 and going back 2009, 2010 maybe, were just low turnout in everything, especially anything local or primary election related. But then the rise of birtherism was terrifying to me. Also Proposition 8 was very scary to me at the time. [00:04:00] And I wasn't sure what to do because, for most of my peers, Barack Obama's president, everything's fine. And so I just felt like I was in a very different wavelength and I felt like the thing I can do is use this new force in our society technology to try to increase voter engagement because we know technology can do one thing very well if it makes things easier and more people will do it.
So I spent a long time just trying to get the, like bugs and kinks out of the voting system, where can I make things easier and increased participation? And after doing that for 12 years and three presidential cycles, I came to the conclusion that it was valuable work. It was like critical for our democracy, but it was not going to solve the democracy crisis that we were facing.
And. So I've been spending the last few years trying to understand what is this global rise of authoritarianism in addition to this, how it looks like in America and like what do other countries do about it? What have we done about it historically? And trying to help scale up different strategies and leaders that I think can get us outta this democracy crisis.
SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And that is a, good point regarding like, just participation because one of the things that, that I do on this show is there is look at people who don't participate and, often what they say in polls is it's not difficult to vote it's not difficult to register to vote.
They just don't, they don't see the need to. They don't see a difference between the parties. They, whatever their objections are, they have, a bunch of them. And so, but it boils down to, it's not that it's too hard for them, it's, they don't want to, they're choosing not to because they think the system has failed. Yeah.
FLAXMAN: And, that is an absolutely true segment of the non-voter population. It might even be as high as [00:06:00] 60 percent of it. Sometimes it's 50, but it changes by state. It Changes by age. If you look at census data, then the census will ask people often, like, why reasons they don't vote. It's part of the data that people don't often dig into. And you'll find often a collection of, like almost up though a dozen different process issues that people have. And you add it up and it does it does matter.
And we know, from just like the modern economy internet age, when you like, make something easier, it changes customer behavior. that's why Amazon invented one click. So like, it's just, it's, yes, and it's, a part of the issue, and, but it's, certainly not the, whole issue. And I was, I'm very proud to spend so many years solving that problem to the extent that I could and, one can, but it's a necessary part of improving our democracy. But it's not going to be sufficient.
SHEFFIELD: yeah. Well, especially because, there's just so many barriers, which we'll talk about between what people need, what they think they need, and then whether the politicians are listening at all.
And so, so, all right. And then, so currently you are working with the catalyst for American Futures and publishing over on the website called the All American. So, so tell us about The these endeavors.
FLAXMAN: Yeah. this, came together working with my two co-founders Ilyse Hogue, who is most well-known for leading NARAL for over 10 years. And Peter Teague, who was a leader in philanthropy working on climate change. And we came to the conclusion that the civil society broadly is not ready for the authoritarian crisis that we're in. We're missing all sorts of infrastructure movements united front, that building that's needed.
And I'm sure we'll go into it, but it, I don't think any of us [00:08:00] set out being like, oh, we, really want to build this new organization. We built it, because we felt like the country's in crisis and there are just like missing pieces of the solution.
We needed to get stood up as quickly as possible in order to one, build a united front, which is how a lot of other countries successfully defeat authoritarian surges. And a key component of a United front is that it's a, it's a Coalition of multiple different. Ideologically distinct movements. And right now we have the progressive movement, which is important, but it's not going to be a united front by itself. And we have sort of a center right faction that's not yet a movement, but it's, building some effort, but there's a huge gap for a lot of Americans who feel politically homeless right now. And we needed to give them an on-ramp into United Front that could be a place, a new political home for them to organize from that authentically reflected their values and was rooted in sort of what we would say, like patriotic and universalist values that are sort of the normy values that a lot of Americans have, but they're not really the central organizing principle in movement spaces.
SHEFFIELD: Well, and that's you're that's what the book that you guys have put together is really about. And it's called out of Many One Writings on American. I'm literally looking at it
FLAXMAN: I know, I'm like, I don't have my copy of the book. Oh, actually, should I grab my prop?
SHEFFIELD: Oh I’ve got it right here, I’m reading off it!
FLAXMAN: Okay, great. All right, great. Thank you.
SHEFFIELD: Okay. So it’s “Out of Many, One: Writings on American Universalism.”
And so I mean, that, that's somebody might look at that and say, oh, that I have no idea what the hell that means, Seth. So, why don't we get into that through the essay that you wrote in there called The Spirit of St. Louis.
FLAXMAN: Sure, Happy [00:10:00] to. We are not inventing the political philosophy of American universalism. It's a very old tradition. I think it's probably the best tradition in America sort of from a political theory perspective. And it's the idea that we're all endowed with equal rights and equal freedoms.
American universalism and the ‘Spirit of St. Louis’
FLAXMAN: And we want to elevate the, that idea at the heart of our work of, we're working for universal freedom, universal rights, universal opportunity. It's the idea that's powered every successful movement in American history has been that the expansion of freedom, equality, rights, and opportunity to all Americans who've been excluded.
And that's the north star that we wanted to organize under. And so the my essay is focused on what I think is one of the most sort of strangely lost. Stories of a united front that came together and saved the country, essentially in 1861 in St. Louis. And it was a coalition that stretched across political divides, racial divides, workers business, and essentially, I mean, this, I, can really nerd out on this story.
Do you want me, like what, level of nerding out
on this story do you want to go into?
SHEFFIELD: Oh, well, well, the story I, yeah, it's a story worth telling because like, that's what we do on the show why I, want people to tell the
FLAXMAN: Okay, great. Okay. this is, a pro nerd, pro-wonk podcast.
So essentially in 1861 in St. Louis, the largest arsenal of weapons outside the country, outside Washington, DC is there. And there is a plot to seize this, we to seize this arsenal of weapons. And as soon as it's seized by the [00:12:00] governor they're going to secede. And the plot is uncovered uncovered by the congressman at the time, who is the only Republican anti-slavery congressman in a slave state in the country. And he wires the Buchanan administration for support. because it's, still two months before Lincoln actually is inaugurated. And some of the cabinet members are complicit. Buchanan doesn't believe them. And so this Congressman Frank Blair calls on this coalition to come together to essentially save the city. And the people in this coalition hated each other. And so the, core of it you have to understand sort of who lives in St. Louis at the time, and the, bulk of St.
Louis are Germans and Austrians. It's maybe like 60, 70% German and Austrian. And all these Germans hate each other. The Americans call them all the Dutch, the first wave comes in the thirties. They're more economic immigrants, 1830s, that is, they're economic immigrants. They're Lutheran, they're Catholic, they're Jewish, and they hate the second wave, which are these overeducated liberals and leftists who lead a failed revolution in Germany in 1848.
And so those revolutionaries lose, they're trying to install constitutional republic in Germany against, the princes. And the princes kicked them out. So they flee to St. Louis and they blame each other. For losing this revolution. And they, don't want to talk to each other. They don't want to work together. They try to set up a political club that falls apart after three years with infighting. And these leftists these are literally the compatriots of Marx and Engels. This is the revolution. They, fight in 48, they come together in this united front when the city [00:14:00] is in crisis. And, the future of the country is in crisis. And they are, all vehemently anti-Catholic because they also blame the Catholic church for losing their revolution. But they call upon another party into the coalition that's entirely Catholic and they. called themselves at the time.
FLAXMAN: there's like a, book written by one of the members of it. of the book is called The Colored Aristocracy of St. Louis. And it's written by a member of this aristocracy and they're from the pre Louisiana purchase French colonial era. And they're major land, landowners and business owners. And they don't have political voting rights, but because of their businesses and their wealth, they're actually the primary, one of the primary funders of the Republican Party in St. Louis and can control a decisive share of votes through their businesses as purchases purchasers or their tenants because they're landlords. And so they're despite being Catholic, they work with these anti-Catholic Germans. Where in that situation, the religious bigotry is a bigger hurdle almost in the racism to work together as part of a coalition. And and then there's the business community. And so anyway, I'm spending a lot of time just talking about like how diverse this coalition was in terms of having political opponents inside it. And they defeat five plots to steal the arsenal together through every means at their disposal. They are, tracking, there are spies hired to follow all the leaders around the city in this united front. And so they then hire every private investigator in the city to track the spies who are tracking them. And they play for time in the St. Louis courts and they play in the state [00:16:00] legislature to keep the state legislature from passing bills that would take away their freedoms. And they eventually organize under the banner of a ho of the wide awais, which then becomes the home guard. And they when the governor calls an election to secede as a special election for delegates to a constitutional assembly on SEC succession, they successfully win.
they get, they, win on the turnout and then they're able to split the opposition in the vote. And so they think, oh, we've won through democratic means to keep Missouri in the union. And the governor then musters his private militia into the state guard and decides to take the arsenal by force.
He's not going to let an election outcome determine what happens. And so there is like a mini war inside the city essentially. And the. steamboat to the capitol of Missouri because all the railroad bridges have been destroyed and defeat the governor before he can complete his plot.
So it's a, it's just a wild story that has gotten lost to Time, and of course we're in a different time. I'm not
trying to tell people to.
storm state capitals by Steamboat. I think non-violence is really, critical for any movement. But it, I, for me, it's It's an inspiring story of patriots saving the country. against truly impossible.
odds. it's just wild. What they faced and what they were able to do in two months.
And and
they
birthed
this vision of American universalism out of the Civil War and reconstruction.
which is a, country
where we all have universal
freedom, rights, and opportunity.
And it was the first
time you had white, and black soldiers fighting under the same flag.
And
a lot of our modern world and our modern,
thinking about [00:18:00] universal freedom is rooted in that moment and
So
it feels like a worthwhile story to raise up.
SHEFFIELD: Yeah, it. is. And One of the other notable things that I think comes out of that story and some of the other ones that are, people talk about in the other essays in the book is that if, we can maybe zoom out historically, even outside of the US is that, for fascist author.
Understanding modern authoritarianism
SHEFFIELD: So the fascism usually is the wrong word to use for this, I think because fascism, it's just, it is a, particular version of this philosophy. This is authoritarianism is what we're talking about. And, and it's, better to call it that because I think a lot of people, they, when they hear the word fascism, they're like, oh, it's, Hitler.
Is that what you're saying? And it just, they just can't understand it that, yes. Political theory wise, there's a lot in common here. and in fact that people are literally citing fascist philosophers and, so like Carl Schmidt, so, so he, scholastic scholar, scholastically, that's the word.
Yeah. Scholastically speaking. It is true to say that there are lots of comparisons to fascism, but it's better to say that it's authoritarianism and the, not just from a understanding point, but also because a lot of people who have kind of a psychological orientation toward opposing change or feeling discomfort with being around people that are different than them.
They're the ones who are the sort of cornerstone of any sort of authoritarian regime coming to power because they may not themselves be, authoritarian, but they have that same discomfort with change. And and so when these more extreme reactionaries come along and say, well, we're not, only are we going to stop what makes you uncomfortable, but we're going to go back to the way things were.
And that's, getting people who have [00:20:00] more conservative psychological orientation to say, no, you, that's not, we can't do that, that. And in fact, conservative means keeping things how they are. So trying to roll things back that's not conservative. Like, that's, I think is a point that isn't often made enough, I think.
FLAXMAN: Yeah, the, authoritarian right, is very clear they want to lead a revolution.
SHEFFIELD: A revolution.
FLAXMAN: Like that's what they, that's the language they talk about and it's a revolution that's going to overthrow liberal democracy in the United States.
And the central question of this time is, will we remain a constitutional democracy or will we just have one man rule and Whatever they say is the law and it's opposing them is punishable by whatever they decide.
And the stakes are really high and we're in a really dangerous position already. But I, think for us, one of the reasons why we're setting a foundation in this idea of American universalism in our response is the response has to be majoritarian. It has to build a majority support for the idea of liberal democracy, A super majority for the idea of liberal democracy.
Building majority support for democracy
FLAXMAN: And I think the way we get there is by embracing a lot of the really widely hit shared values in America of like universal freedom and universal rights. People want don't. want to know that what you believe in and their rights as much as you believe in your own rights and their freedom as much as your freedom. And I think some of the polarization that played into the rise of authoritarian was the left scaring people into supporting authoritarianism because they thought they needed to be protected.
And that's why we're trying to stake a position that we think we can build majority support for.
SHEFFIELD: [00:22:00] So, okay, so what, does that mean though? A position? Like what that concept?
FLAXMAN: Let me say that a, position, of VA set of values, a story, A narrative like tapping into the American tradition and ideas, which are, have not been held up as the primary banner of the, left in the last few decades.
And so, without a champion for your patriotic universal values, I think people don't really know what Democrats, or the progressive movement stand for. Maybe it's not really what they stand for, or they believe. And so we're just trying to create a, raise a banner and create a movement that can be a movement home for people for whom that's what they're looking for.
SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, I, if I I mean, as, I'm kind of seeing it. It's that, that what you guys are saying, you can correct me if I'm but that in a lot of ways that if you want to protect the social inclusion that has happened and you want more, you have to show that there's a continuity between what you want and what the, everybody else wants that you can't, you have, you can't just layer this new thing, new epistemology, this new. new. set of values on people and expect them to just accept it because they've never seen it.
So, like, so you have to fit, it within the continuity. So as an example, I would say that when you look at a lot of the the original progressive movements goals and the, and their rhetoric. They framed much of what they did in Christian terms and that they, used theological language and derivations and scripture citations and whatnot to show that, giving people, workers [00:24:00] the right to strike and giving women the right to vote.
And, being against segregation, that these are things that are, if, you say you're a Christian, then you should believe these things. And I think that too. I mean, obviously I'm not a, as somebody who's not a religious person myself I see that there's a, huge need to continue doing that and to, encourage people to be able to, realize that just because you do have religious viewpoints, it doesn't mean that you are excluded the future.
The need for open debate and disagreement
FLAXMAN: Absolutely. this is to, a few historical stories here that maybe can Help illustrate. One of the wildest stories to me from the 1850s is when Frederick Douglas is kicked out of the abolitionist society, and he's, kicked out by William Lloyd Garrison because he says, we should use every means at our disposal, including the US Constitution to end slavery. And Garrison says, no, if the, Constitution is a pact with the devil, we can't vote. We should not vote, we should not participate in this system. And Douglas says, no, like the slavery is not core to the Constitution. It's it's a, it needs to be exorcised from the Constitution. So he roots a lot of, am I, see him as a really, a founder and American Universalist thought, And he roots it in the Constitution, even in the darkest depths of, the slave ocracy of the 1850s.
He's rooting. the movement to get out of that crisis in the US Constitution and, Christianity as well. And so it's not just like a marketing scheme to like, let me connect to the people in the way that they most connect. It's like, it's also deeply ideological. He, believe this is what he believes. And and it's also, it's politically savvy in [00:26:00] strategic, which is like let's take the best of what we have as a country and use it to move forward and not burn down the whole thing as the solution. And so that's attention in our politics and how to move things forward. And I think it's been unpopular–has been unpopular the last, decade or however long you want to talk about it because it's failed.
It hasn't worked. We've had all we've had all these issues as a country and people have lost faith. And it's there's, a, oh, we're in this postliberal moment and, I think that's hurt us as a democracy to not have a clear home for people who really do believe in the promise of the country and a place to organize from.
SHEFFIELD: yeah. Well, and, yeah, and, they, people want to have a, some sort of grounding for their belief. I feel like, because there's plenty of people, there, there are some people I'll say that, can, get to a political ideology or a system just through thinking about it or reading, history or whatever.
Like, but that's not the majority of people. The majority of people want to know that, who, that somebody who is offering to lead them has, comes from somewhere they can see. And somewhere that's easy to understand. And yeah, and, I think you're right that, for a long time, especially in more leftist circles, there's just this dismissal of the idea that well, there's nothing worth saving here.
We need to start over. We need a revolution. And it's like these are fantasy is what you're doing because, in the same way that you know, with slavery, like if you want, and, it also happened in the civil rights movement later, that, if you want to make political change, you can't talk out of the political [00:28:00] system.
You can't say that history doesn't exist and that you are exempt from it. No, you're not.
Problems with Democratic party messaging
FLAXMAN: Right. part of the work of building a united front, front, I'm not trying to shit on the left. I have a lot of friends who are parts of the Progressive movement and who do great work and they're trying to create change in this. country and it's very important and I think for parts of the progressive movement, we often share very similar goals, but it's just a different North Star I I think. in the progressive movement there is a focus on, oppression, anti-oppression, social justice frameworks for change. And that's great if that's what motivates you, and that's where you feel like you want to create change in the world.
But there's a ceiling for that in the United States for who just authentically shares that worldview and values. And if that's the only movement option available, then we're not going to have a majority in favor of liberal democracy.
And so, we're trying to build a home for people who are more focused on organizing under what we call an American Universalist framework, where that's their North star.
That's my north star. I want a country with universal freedom, rights, and opportunity for all Americans. And I believe I need a, that's. That's. America is an important invention in the world to bring that about. It helped end the era of monarchies, which was the era of almost all of human history, and we're in the effort of continuing to expand and perfect that way of expanding circles of freedom and rights in the world.
So like, that's my my orientation. I think one of the, one of the challenges of the last decade or two is like John Podesta created this idea of the progressive movement. It was like a brand that was created because liberal became really unpopular. And so like, oh, let's let's create a new [00:30:00] brand and cold Paul Progressive. But there was, I don't think there was any, it, had echoes of the progressive movement of the earlier in the 19 hundreds, because that was the name as well. But it was just an amalgamation of several different groups. You had, I think, American Universalists in there, but you also had a sort of liberal social justice left.
There. And then you also had elements of like the elib social justice left in there, all sort of like in the same tent. I don't think that worked as an organizing structure. I think other democracies, the way they organize for change is that people organize in movements that authentically reflect their worldview and their values and then they come together in grand coalitions when the democracy is threatened. But no one really knows what the Democratic party of Progressive movement stands for because it's just been this amalgamation for so long.
SHEFFIELD: I think you're right that, there is this indefinite stance and people have no idea what things mean or what people want.
And I think a lot of that boils down to that the, Democratic Party itself and the leadership had they think of politics simply as a matter of coalition management. And they, don't understand that people actually do want some sort of real vision. And they want, they do want a North star.
And, for all of the, I mean, to like, that to me was the biggest point for Obama in 2008 was that he actually did offer. Something that people could point to and say, that's what I believe, that's what I want. And yet no one learned anything from, what Obama did with that. Because they, and it was like that, that happened almost by accident in some way.
Because it seems like even the, White House itself and, [00:32:00] the the political operation of Obama after that, and, they just let organizing for America die on the vine. And, all of these things, like they had something that they could have really done something with and they didn't.
And it was because apparently nobody understood this idea that you have to give people a vision of something, an overarching goal, an overarching view of the world.
FLAXMAN: yeah, there let's I want to unpack this with you. This is great. I like, so, one of the big I think mental frameworks that I want to change as we think about how we get out of this crisis is a party, a political party, especially in the United States, is not a movement. Like the political parties are set up to perform certain tasks like run primary elections and like, buy ads for the candidate. There's things, and they could be doing those tasks much better. Like, but the movements are what provide people power and energy and ideas, and they funnel it into the party when they work together. But like a party is not a movement. And the and the parties are vulnerable. Honestly vulnerable. The parties are not, and the, and politicians are not thinking like, in like, oh, what's the best policy to support? Like, what's the, like, that's not how real politics work. Like, the parties are pulled by powerful factions or movements. And the de and the author, the Republican party, has been taken over in large part by an authoritarian faction. And then they've, kicked everyone who's not down with authoritarianism outta the party. That's like a faction like eating, becoming a movement, eating the party. But the Democratic party has just been subject to some of the most unpopular factions in American politics for over two decades. You have like a corporate faction, you have a identitarian left faction.
You have a sort of just like Maximalist single [00:34:00] issue advocacy group factions. And if you just look at well, they're, these groups are just not popular with Americans and they keep pulling the party away from making Popular decisions and being concerned with what is big change that would actually get at root problems that are hurting the country and hurting people and our popular ideas.
The missing movement infrastructure
FLAXMAN: That's not, the orientation because there's no faction organizing along those principles and pulling the party towards those things is there's no like countervailing force. And so, I think one of the things we hope to accomplish is to. Organize that voice, which is out there. It just doesn't have the infrastructure to speak loudly enough to have any influence over, over the party.
And so that, that's like, I think there's like a missing movement infrastructure that's part of the issue here. And it needs a North star. And that's why we, wrote the book is to ground ourselves in values. And, but to create a space where now we can sort of, we can start to hash out what are the big ideas that we want to run on that actually are in line with those values and that are popular and capture the imagination of the country.
That's how we think we're going to move forward.
SHEFFIELD: Well, so what and what are some of these, ideas and who run.
FLAXMAN: I mean, I think the, biggest shift we would want to see is for. I would say, our fellow centrist and moderates. And there's a real problem with the brand of centrism in moderation and that it can, it does not communicate to the American people what a lot of centrist and moderates think. It communicates.
It can communicate. The status quo is fine. We want to defend the status quo. It can communicate. We just believe in sort of averaging between the extremes. Like we [00:36:00] don't really stand for anything ourselves. Like we just, we just find the middle between people who have ideologies. Or it means to a lot of Americans like, corporatism because there's been a bipartisan centrist consensus for 20, 30 years around economic policies that have not worked. And so, I think the biggest debate we want to spark. Especially in this age of, wildly disruptive ai, which is going to up upturn an economy that's already upturned, is the people are looking to the extremes because not just that the middle hasn't held, the middle hasn't delivered, like the champions of liberalism haven't come up with an economy that actually has opportunity, universal opportunity for everyone, and people are rightly pissed. And so, I think we're we want to spark some real debates, like what are some ideas that are going to be big enough to actually create an economy people want to live in? And I think for example, folks cite abundance as an example of like a new economic policy. And I think like yeah, For some of that, like the government needs to be able to deliver.
Economic solutions beyond neoliberalism
FLAXMAN: We need much more housing. Let's just adopt that idea across the political spectrum. That should not be controversial in my perspective. And but that's only maybe 15, 20% of the solution. that's not a complete solution set. So how do we lay the, how do we lay, the table for some bigger economic ideas?
SHEFFIELD: Well, and. And I, think what you're doing is you're trying to say that, this what is, ne what is often widely der as neoliberalism that doesn't work either. Because I think,
FLAXMAN: Right,
exactly.
SHEFFIELD: from political history standpoint that as the Republican party [00:38:00] began canceling, literally canceling its more moderate members, they came into the Democratic party and then just sort of took over a lot of the more liberal infrastructure that was there, and the liberals didn't stand up for themselves or just kind of got displaced and, and so that's what the kind of more corporatist democratic stuff is.
It's just warmed over republicanism and lib liberalism never asserted itself fully within the party and said, look, those ideas are not what we're, that's not where we come from. That's not who we are. And you're just doing libertarianism with a little bit higher taxes
FLAXMAN: Maybe, but I, also think that there was a, there was a consensus that, maybe this'll work, like maybe if we open, I actually, my background is in free trade, for example. I, worked for two years for this free trade economist John dti. and so the core to the idea of free trade is yes, it creates a lot more wealth, but it is never evenly distributed.
The only way everyone is better off is if you find some way to distribute the wealth. And that never happened. You're like, oh, let's open up free trade first. We'll figure that out later. And then now people are like, and you know what, now I don't want it either. I don't want you to redistribute it and like, you lied to me. And so, but there was a, real consensus and I was a part of it I was very excited for like, oh, we're going to, like, this is going to work. Like we're going to create an economy for everyone. I don't think you can just like blame the Republicans who moderate Republicans who came into the Democratic party. There was like a lot of thinking that neoliberalism could lift all votes. And the Americans are looking for other options. And liberalism has not provided a big solution in line with the values of [00:40:00] liberalism. And that's why I think we're seeing people drift towards authoritarianism on the right or illiberal left ideas. And so before we just point out the, big problems with like illiberal or backwards economic ideas on the right or the left, like folks who really do believe in liberalism need to come up with some bigger, better ideas.
SHEFFIELD: Yeah, that's right. And because people, I, mean, I think it's pretty clear that when you, I mean, when you look at polling, when you look at history but people, they want some form of capitalism, but they don't want it unchecked and they want it to, and, they want the government to have a role.
But you know, what that is, Democrats really haven't pushed forward and you're right, that there hasn't been a non-par, a non-partisan outside of parties movement. Like that's really is one of the secrets of the right with the Republican party is that anytime their politicians become unpopular, they just turn on them and say, well, well you didn't do what we said.
Learning from right-wing political tactics
SHEFFIELD: so, we're, going to get, we're going to get rid of you. And, so your unpopularity, your failures, whatever, Hey, that wasn't on us, it's on you. It And, we got some new people coming along and, and, you could, and one could argue that perhaps that's kind of nihilistic and whatnot.
But you know what, it's, it is very effective from a, from an election electioneering standpoint because, I mean, that's, Trump built his entire brand saying how terrible the Republican party was, When you think about it.
FLAXMAN: Oh yeah, I mean AB absolutely, I mean, Trump won because he ran against the lives of the Iraq war. I mean, that was a major part of his 2016 campaign. But he was like all these established Republicans lied to you about the Iraq war and he was right. And
And so there was a major revolt. And he also is a [00:42:00] demagogue and so he. Said a lot of, he said a lot of things that he didn't believe and that were lies and untrue, but he mixed in enough real lies from establishment Republicans that that's what people were looking for. And I, think the the challenge is, and then he, basically restored trust in a sense, in the party by getting rid of everyone who they were, like they lied and betrayed you. And so this is the, I think the challenge for how we move forward is how does, who is going to restore trust in the Democratic Party brand and eventually restored trust in the Republican Party brand. When everyone's lying, you know about different things and someone's going to have to run against it.
SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and and to that point the, Democratic Party in polls is Yeah. Historically low favorability for it, and, and, then that's powered by people who vote for Democrats saying, these guys are terrible. and they don't. fight Trump hard enough.
Like I, the Senate has so many rules that you can use to stop stuff. And Senate democrats almost never use them. Like they could be grinding so many things to a halt, and they haven't. And people see that, and they see American citizens getting picked up off the street by ice. They see, people being fired for no reason at all.
Just because they, they, can't, they cross Trump in some way or even getting like, or just being friends with someone, like that gets you fired now by Trump. And, people see that and they're like, well, you gotta do something. I mean, like we saw with the, recent No Kings rallies, collectively, these were the largest.
Rallies on a single day for a single purpose that had ever been done in American history. So there's a huge appetite there for [00:44:00] something more for, people to stand up and for leaders to stand up and do things and say something definitive and do things that matter.
There is this huge amount of energy that people are so dissatisfied but the, party leaders really don't get it. And and now their readings are in the toilet because of that.
FLAXMAN: it, this, is, goes to the example of the A, OC and Bernie rallies, From was that maybe it was in March or April. And huge turnout ma. I mean it was a whole tour, massive turnout. And, I'll have people ask me like, people in this sort of a moderate centrist camp or people in the progressive movement, like, oh, like, look at all, are all those people believe in a OC and Bernie, or like, what, are their politics?
And I was like we don't know honestly. because they're the only ones holding rallies. There is such a. demand For people to just like show up and be together and show their strength and organize and rally around defending the country. And right now the only supply is coming from a OC and Bernie Sanders. So good for them. But this is part of, I think the frustration with sort of establishment centrism is y'all need to host some rallies like rally around saving the country. And I think that's where I want to see more leadership right now. And I think there's a a challenge in the Democratic party. because it's, it has a, bunch of, it, it's, it is ideologically diverse.
It includes sort of social justice progressives and American universalists and different factions and the but people want to see you fight. And there's a way to do that, which is in line with majoritarian, American Universalist values. And just I think I'm, waiting to find the leader who's going to do that.
SHEFFIELD: Yeah. [00:46:00] Well, and to circle back though on, some of the policies it, I, it is really important for people that, let's say you don't want Democratic socialism. We have to understand that the government has to do more for the public. The public is not being served by this economy.
The role of government in the modern economy
SHEFFIELD: Only the government can do something about that because only the government has the money. Like that's, it's just that simple. The private sector, is too divided, is too and no one has enough money and they should, we definitely don't want them to have enough money. Jeff Bezos or, Elon Musk or what, like you have to, this is the role in the computational age here.
This is where the government has to function well and has to serve the people more than any other time in human history. Because if it doesn't, then, and you guys have an essay from your colleague Peter Teigan. There, you know about the, this is the, guilt. They, the right wing wants another gilded age.
That is literally what they want, and only the government can stop them.
FLAXMAN: And it's a great essay. but I do think there's, I want to add a little bit more nuance into this debate. I don't think the American people care if the government provides something or if the private sector provides something, they want it to work, they want it to be affordable, they want it to be good. And so in some cases it might be deregulation, like in the housing market. If that works,
great, we probably need some government money too. And, no matter what happens, the government needs to be able to actually like, deliver on things with good staffing and good management and good technology. But in other solutions, like I, I live in, New York, people love universal pre-K that is a government program. Americans were not, they don't care whether the service is government provided or private sector provided. That's a sort of intellectual debate that I don't think most Americans truly, really care about. They're just paying attention. Like, does it work? Is it delivering? Is the country better? Is my life better?
Is the economy [00:48:00] better? And so I feel a little bit. Ideologically agnostic it. I don't think the solution's going to be all deregulation. It's not going to be all government and regulation. It's going to be a mix of things depending on exactly what is the challenge. And when you look at the core issues, like food is just insanely expensive, housing is just insanely expensive. Like all of the core things you need to live are just too expensive. I'm happy with an approach that's going to put everything on the table.
SHEFFIELD: But just to step back from, the policy for one second, that, it is worth noting that Joe Biden did have a lot of policies that were popular. With the American people and were very beneficial, like eliminating overdraft fees or doing a lot of, keeping tabs on these giant media behemoths that are, trying to propagandize the American public.
the CFPB is a great agency, It does all kinds of amazing stuff for people. And, he had the, the infrastructure bill, which, is the biggest investment in, in, in environmental technologies to stop global warming. these were great policies, but they didn't know how to communicate them.
They just thought that the policies would speak for themselves and, they don't. they work for some people, but the vast majority of Americans, well, I won't say vast majority, but like a lot of Americans, they don't vote on the issue. they vote on. How do you make them feel and what kind of media do they look at?
The importance of public rallies and engagement
SHEFFIELD: And, the Democrats. Have not invested. The, left broadly, center to Left hasn't invested in media. I mean, if you go to Iowa or Alabama or Idaho or whatever the, right winging media is, the mainstream media there in the, you go to a bar in these places and it's got Fox News there, [00:50:00] and you go to a, dentist office and they're playing News Max in the background, and you go to, the mechanic shop, he's listening to the O Vaughn or, one of these right wing podcasters.
Like that's what's there. And if you're not out there telling people what you believe and, showing how things could be, and you're not literally coming to them where they are, then all your policy plans, they don't matter
FLAXMAN: I mean,
SHEFFIELD: never heard ' em. The public won't hear it.
FLAXMAN: I want to, yes, and what you're saying, I mean, there is absolutely an issue of needing a way to communicate to the public that does not exist. And I think there is a deeper issue, which is that the Biden administration was saying, no, the economy is great and you can't, you, you can't that really pisses people off when you tell them, no, you're wrong about what you're feeling. That's, the opposite of good messaging. And I think one of the things that gives oxygen. To a lot of the and trust with more right wing media is they validate what people are feeling and then they come up with solutions that are going to make things much worse or are going to damage the country or hurt the people they're talking to.
But they start by validating the reality of what people are feeling and seeing, which is that it's not like what we, the, policies we've been pursuing for 20, 30 years. Like they haven't been working. Like people are not better off. Some people are, but most people aren't. It's just much harder and things are much more expensive. And so even with the, some of the ideas that the Biden administration had, I agree. There was no narrative there was no communication
but I,
SHEFFIELD: infrastructure
FLAXMAN: and No infrastructure for it, but also no validation of what Americans were feeling. There was like a gaslighting that I think angered [00:52:00] A lot of Americans about the economy and and then unfortunately about his age, which then was like, that was the nail in the coffin, reinforcing the counter narrative of like, they're not telling you the truth. So I think we can do a lot better.
SHEFFIELD: yeah, I think so. And and it, and A lot of that begins by just opening up debate a lot more on, within the broader left that, let people put forward their ideas and to actually talk about it,
FLAXMAN: Right.
SHEFFIELD: it out and invest in media platforms so that people can have these discussions with the public.
I mean, like, that's one of the, best things about talk radio for the reactionary movement and the Republican Party that they control is that, it, these are real focus groups, like focus groups in a room you get a bunch of people in a room, like it's a contrived setting. And usually they tend to be dominated by whoever talks the most.
And so they're not accurate in a lot of ways. and, there's, a lot of research showing that they, can be highly problematic. Whereas with talk radio, these are people that they just call into their local talk, their local talk station and say what they have to say and obviously there's a self-selection thing, but, you know, these are people.
If, you care enough to call into the talk radio station, you care enough to vote, you care enough to get involved with things. And so these are real, these are, this is bi-directional communication and there's really nothing like that
on the broader left that I can say.
FLAXMAN: absolutely. and this is this is, people oh, you gotta meet people where they are, which honestly is, this was sort of like a. Academic phrase. I was like, what exactly are you meaning? But that's exactly what you're saying. Let people call in, say what they think authentically.
Don't punish 'em for saying that. Engage with them in conversation.[00:54:00]
And I think that is something we all have to do. And the, I, in terms of like us trying to build a new movement home I think for a lot of Americans who have felt either alienated by the sort of ideological rigidity of the left oral and also alienated by the sort of complacency of the center, there's a need for a new culture of doing this type of politics, which is much more open to disagreement and being like, disagreement is fine.
Creating a new culture of political discourse
FLAXMAN: That doesn't mean there's a civil war. Between, factions, it means that we're going to defend each other's ability to have political rights at all in this country so that we can solve the problem and we care about a solution so much that we want to have open debate about things more than folks have been having.
SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And, letting the chips fall where they may, because ultimately people gotta realize, look, if, somebody has the votes to do something, you should let 'em try. Like, that's what democracy is about. Like, if you want to protect democracy, you gotta actually practice it.
FLAXMAN: Right.
SHEFFIELD: actually let people, if they win a debate, if they win a nomination, then that's, then you should support them.
Like, that is how things work in the Republican party. They, don't there, there's that phrase that old phrase in politics that, democrats fall in love and Republicans fall in line. And you know what? That latter part is a lot more effective in terms of organizing. because I mean, when you look at the, polling, there there's probably only about 30% of Americans who have these reactionary, anti-modern viewpoints that want, that they hate democracy and, want to roll everything back and, criminalize homosexuality make women have no rights, et cetera, et cetera.
and that's, it's only 30% of the public and or even less actually, if depending on how much you want to refine those beliefs. So, the, Washington [00:56:00] Republican reactionary class, they're not even the majority of the Republican party actually. because when they ask people in polls, should the government spend less money on this and this Like, break it down specifically issue. There's basically no issue except for foreign aid that even Republicans want to spend less on. And so, but they're so good at coalition politics that when they, that when they realize, okay, well this person won. Well, I'm going to support. And imagine if there were people that protected democracy that also had that same, commitment to democracy that I lost the election.
Well, yeah, I'm sorry about that, but I'm not going to bad mouth. I'm not going to be like Andrew Cuomo and try to, sabotage the guy I don't like, like, it's fine. You don't like mom, God, he fine. Let him have his shot. And if he's so awful and he is so stupid, then people will throw him out, just like they did Eric Adams.
FLAXMAN: Yeah, I, think there's a, I mean, there, there's, a lot to un unpack in what you were saying. I, think there's a there's a real trust issue in the Democratic party that is also exas, that is also making it easier for Republicans to coalesce around their candidates. And that's I think something that the Democratic party needs to also solve is how to make itself more attractive to a majority and to pay attention to running candidates in different parts of the country who authentically represent the values and ideas of different parts of the country. It doesn't need to be everyone ideologically in lockstep with the progressive movement and whatever the orthodoxy is. I think that's an important opening up of the Democratic Party that's needed. And then separately. Yeah, I think, in terms of like building a united front, we have to realize that like we're going to be in coalition with people to defend [00:58:00] democracy that we disagree with, that our, our political opponents sometimes enemies. But if we're willing to support each other's rights and freedoms, then we should be working together because that's the key question of the moment that are we going to remain a constitutional democracy? And it's not just about, oh, like moderates need to support progressives in general elections when they win the primaries.
Working in coalitions despite disagreements
FLAXMAN: that's, there, there's, important inter-party behavior there to focus on. But I, do think we are not any politics as usual moment. we are in a moment of extraordinary political. threat.
And So, I think we have to put forward our best ideas to actually fix the country, get rid of the underlying conditions that make authoritarianism popular, and
be willing to work in coalitions of people with whom we disagree on really major things.
SHEFFIELD: Yeah, because you're, you have the same overarching commitment to protecting democracy and serving the people. Like that's should be the goal. And, to defeating the authoritarians, like those should be the goals of everybody who, calls themselves something on the left.
And that understanding who the real enemy is, it's not each other.
It is Trump and his corrupt Ron. That's the real enemy. And, go ahead.
FLAXMAN: no. And, i, think I was just going to agree with you Iem.
SHEFFIELD: Okay. Well, yeah, so, and like, I, and just, and the, examples work on the other side too, because like, you look in the Pen Pennsylvania Senate race in 2022 that you had Connor Lamb versus John Federman that, John Federman was running as the, outside the box progressed. And, he got all this support from the left.
And then, they thought of, [01:00:00] of, Connor Lamb as just this mealy now centrist who wasn't going to do anything good, and now fast forward here we are in 2025, that, I think everybody, broadly speaking in the party, no matter, well maybe not everybody, but like a lot of people are saying, well, what the hell is happened to Federman?
Like, he's just enabling Trump, constantly. And then, and then meanwhile counter Lamb is out, there, doing some real stuff and, hitting Trump hard. And people are like, wow, I guess I, I made the wrong choice with that. and obviously, it's, things are easier to see in hindsight, obviously, but you know this what I'm saying?
These principles, they do work both ways that the main goal should be stopping the fascist. And and, that's what matters most. And, sometimes that means somebody supporting somebody who you don't like, whatever your political orientation is, you gotta, you have to be on the larger team.
FLAXMAN: Yeah, and I, but I also think, for example, one way you can defeat authoritarianism is to say, I. I really disagree. Like you're saying, I really disagree with X person or X candidate, but I am going to work with them to fight authoritarianism. That's a good, that's a great show of what being in the United Front is all about. And in terms of like letting the debates happen, like that's how democracy works. E exactly. I think we need more persuasion in our politics and less like, and not trying to coerce or pressure people into believing things because that doesn't end up working out well for building consensus. We actually have to have more open debate and I, hope that we can start having it as a sort of pro-democracy coalition around, economic issues. because I think that's the patient zero for where we went off the rails.
Lessons from the civil rights movement
SHEFFIELD: [01:02:00] Yeah. But, And that's, it is ultimately what everybody agrees on. And and if you do have some other perspectives on other issues, you should make your case to the public. Like that's, I think one of the other unfortunate the wrong lessons we're learned during the civil rights era, I think because the Civil Rights Movement succeeded because it was, across the board, it did everything.
So it, it was filing court cases, it was advocated to the public. It was, endorsing candidates. It was, it was doing all of these things and it was working within, trying to work within both parties. So, and it won because of that. But I think unfortunately a lot of the institutional left just focused on those legal victories that happened.
And they put all of this money and all of this energy into imagining that there was this, universal liberal logic in the Constitution, that it would always mean what we thought it would mean. And that was objective reality. And and it just wasn't true. Like, meanwhile the Federalist Society was out there creating this nationwide network of people that, supported their viewpoints.
And and, decades later, nobody on the left has even done anything commensurate to that to counteract it. and, now. This idea that, there's legal po legal positivism is what I'm calling it. That, it's in shambles, and it's a disaster. And, it's obvious to everyone now that there is no single way of interpreting a, statute.
No, there isn't. Like the right wing people are going to, they're going to do what they want to do. And if you want to stop that, you don't stop that by making better arguments to them. You stop that by, getting your people on the courts, that's what you do.
FLAXMAN: I mean, I, listen, I'm not smart enough in a lawyer to have a view on legal positivism. I'm not even sure what that is. But I will say, [01:04:00] I agree with your greater point, which is that that there's a great linking quote on this, which is like, if you have the public with you, there's almost nothing you can't do.
And if you don't have the public with you there, you can't do anything. And so, whatever we do, we need to be, and I wouldn't even necessarily con, I don't even really consider myself on, the left. But whatever we do, you need to build majorities as supported. Like that's, if you don't have that, you're, not going to win. And maybe you can win temporarily, but you're not going to move the country forward. It, means like actually going going out there and like building support among the American people for the ideas that you have. There's no way around it.
SHEFFIELD: Yep. You gotta do the hard work instead of living in a fantasy regardless of who you are and convince the people, not the judges, not the corporations, the public.
Closing thoughts and contact information
FLAXMAN: Exactly.
SHEFFIELD: Yeah. All right. Well, so, it's been a good discussion, Seth. If people want to keep up with what you are doing personally and with the organization give us some website addresses and social media if.
want.
FLAXMAN: And the most important thing is we hope people will subscribe to the All American. Go to the all american.com and you can also download a free copy of our book of essays, writings on American Universalism there. And that's where I'm doing more of my writing. And we will send out weekly updates we call the Spark in the Flag on how to fight authoritarianism, how to wedge their coalition, peel off different elements of the MAGA coalition that we think are not at their heart authoritarian. And how we can also avoid the traps being set for a broad united front because they're actively trying to split us among our [01:06:00] different ideological and other differences. And so, I hope people will subscribe.
SHEFFIELD: All All right. Sounds good. Thanks for being here.
FLAXMAN: My pleasure. Thank you.
SHEFFIELD: Alright, , so that is the program for today. I appreciate you joining us for the conversation and you can always get more if you go to Ethe of Change show where we have the video audio transcript of all the episodes. And you can also subscribe on Patreon or Substack. We have free options there as well.
But if you can do a paid option, that would be much appreciated. I really would like that if you could, and if you're watching on YouTube, please do click the like and subscribe button so you can get notified whenever we post a new episode. Thanks a lot, and I'll see you next time.
Share this post