From LeverNews.com — Lever Time is the flagship podcast from the investigative news outlet The Lever. Hosted by award-winning journalist, Oscar-nominated writer, and Bernie Sanders' 2020 speechwriter David Sirota, Lever Time features exclusive reporting from The Lever’s newsroom, high-profile guest interviews, and expert analysis from the sharpest minds in media and politics.
David Sirota 0:00
Hey everyone. It's David Sirota. You're listening right now to the free lever time podcast feed, but today we're giving you access to this special bonus episode from our ad free lever time premium feed. That premium feed is just for our paid subscribers who make our work possible, but we're making this premium episode available for everyone to give all of our listeners a preview of the kind of bonus content that comes with a lever subscription. We are a listener supported news outlet, so please consider becoming a paid subscriber today at levernews.com
David Sirota 0:36
when you become a paid subscriber, you help make our reporting possible, and you get all sorts of bonus ad free content, like this episode that you're about to hear
David Sirota 0:52
from the levers. Reader supported newsroom. I'm David Sirota. Last year, Minnesota Congressman Dean Phillips was nearly excommunicated from the Democratic Party, when he dared to call out the party's electability crisis before anyone else as a Democrat, he sounded an alarm about President Biden's prospects for re election. He urged other Democratic candidates to run in a primary against Biden, and when no other elected Democrat did that, Dean Phillips mounted a last minute presidential primary bid in 2024 clearly, Dean Phillips' argument about Democrats' election prospects were proven right by the 2024 election results in this special premium episode of lever time, just for our paid subscribers, Arjun Singh and I talked to Congressman Dean Phillips about why his completely justifiable dissent was crushed, and we also talk about what that says about the Democrats' tolerance for democracy within their party. We also talk about what Dean Phillips sees as the way back for the party that rejected him.
Arjun Singh 2:02
Robert representative, Dean Phillips, it's a pleasure to talk to you. You know, in a lot of ways, I feel like you have been the Cassandra of 2024 I don't know if you remember you and I actually had a chance to talk back at the New Hampshire primary. And I think about that conversation a lot because of not only were you highlighting the issues of Biden's age, but when we spoke with each other, you really did talk about how you felt the party at as a whole was starting to lose touch with just the public. The age issue was one issue, but broadening that out a little bit, I know that you have been stating that the party has become too isolated and insular, and you had an interesting thing that you said recently, actually on x, where you were saying that people who are fleeing X to go to sort of safer spaces, to sort of be in the similar mindset of people around them, wasn't going to be the productive way, and that actually you felt that people should be staying on X to encounter and engage in discourse with people. Can you expand on that a little bit? You know, do you think that that's a problem with the party as a whole and kind of the Democratic electorate? And I guess, how do you feel? Is the way to engage with, you know, a polarized country where half the country feels that the other half of the country sometimes doesn't even exist in the same reality. Well, first of all, good to be with you guys. I remember that conversation, and never imagined this journey would play out the way it did. But to answer it directly, yeah, we have a big problem. We are using condemnation instead of invitation, and I just don't know a personal, professional or political relationship in which that is a good strategy. And the more we cancel, the more we segregate based on identity, the more we condemn, the less able We Democrats are going to be to enlarge the tent. And I think this last election was a perfect example of it, as Democratic candidates lost so much of that base that base that I think we had taken for granted, and we took it for granted because we stopped listening, we started confining ourselves to bubbles, which is why I tweeted yesterday about the move off of X and into blue sky and other platforms only limits our ability to listen, learn, understand, and ingratiate ourselves to others, and it is the most backwards, ridiculous, antithetical strategy to success. So that's where we find ourselves. But I'm not going to be quiet and not going to rest and hope I can inspire my brothers and sisters in the Democratic Party to open our eyes to reality.
David Sirota 4:39
I want to ask about the listening within the party. It seems to me, you tried to get everyone to listen in the party a long time ago, well before the 2024 electoral disaster happened, and you really weren't listened to. In fact, not only. You not listened to you. A lot of people got angry at you for getting them to try to listen to you. What, What, What do you think the aversion to even having that conversation about the 2024 election, and specifically about whether there should be a contested primary, whether Joe Biden should have been the nominee. What do you think that aversion is really all about? And I ask that because the Democratic Party in the past has had a a history of pretty vibrant primaries. Now, granted, you know, there was a sitting president and and that's somewhat rare for there to be a vigorous primary with an incumbent. But it seems to me there's like a culture shift inside the Democratic Party that is much more hostile to the perception of internal party division. I put that in quotes, which is really internal party division is, in some ways, another, another, another way to say democracy. So I'm just curious what what your take on that was not being listened to people being angry at you for trying to even have the conversation.
Dean Phillips 6:06
So David, it's, it's two things. First and foremost, it's a culture of self preservation over principle. And everyone, almost everyone, engaged in elected office, prioritizes self preservation. I think I'm a rare member of Congress who was willing to give up his job that went into it, not looking at it as a career and a ladder to ascend and stick around at any cost. To the contrary, wanted to make a difference and do it somewhat quickly, and no matter what, you know, be courageous when when necessary. But that's not true on either side of the aisle. This is not a system that rewards independence. It doesn't reward outliers, and it surely does not reward
Dean Phillips 6:48
a tribe member saying that we're doing this wrong. To the contrary, you get punished, excommunicated, and we've seen it on both sides. So that's one. The second is the Democratic Party does not have an organizational structure in which these questions can be litigated. It's there's no independent governance, if you will, very analogous to a public company. If a chairman and CEO essentially has a bunch of cronies sitting at a board table, you're going to get a yes a lot of yes men and women. And I'm afraid the same is true. Now in politics, absent independence rational thought and objectivity, we're going to get the same thing time and time again. Because not only do we make a serious mistake once in this election cycle, which is to not confront Joe Biden and his decision to run again, but we elevated someone who was not elected, they were selected. And I think a lot of Americans are turned off by that, and without competition, we're not going to elevate the best candidates. And I think this example was, was just spot on. So that's the problem. And of course, I'm getting lots of accolades now behind the scenes and high fives and hugs and handshakes, you know, but these are the same people that felt the exact same way a year ago, but couldn't. Couldn't they say they couldn't say anything. And therein lies the fundamental problem. Same thing on the other side with Trump, my friends would excoriate him privately and then get in front of cameras and celebrate him. I saw the same thing on the Democratic side talking one thing about Biden behind the scenes, and then when the cameras were on a very different story, and I'm sick of it, and I think that is an injustice to democracy, and surely is a dereliction of duty as it relates to our oath to the Constitution. But
David Sirota 8:33
I would ask about the other side in this way, not to tout what the Republican Party is pushing, or say they're exactly a totally healthy party, but anything, but anything, but in but, but the vibrancy of their party, in the sense of allowing for, or at least being a forum for discourse, fights arguments. I mean, they did have a contested primary. Now, granted, the incumbent wasn't in office, but he was a former president, I do think the Republican Party has cult of personality problems. So but, but I guess Mike, my question is, it does seem like the Republican Party is, when you think about what a political party is, that there's more I go back to that word like there's more vibrancy, there's more energy, there's more tolerance for different sides yelling at each other and not necessarily adhering to this or that orthodoxy. I mean ideologically, Donald Trump, in some ways, is all over the place, and the Democrats feel like a much more top down. There isn't that necessarily, that energy or that tolerance for dissent inside the party. I wonder if you agree with. That. And I wonder what you think, if you do agree with it, what you think accounts for that difference between the parties?
Dean Phillips 10:06
I think you're absolutely right. I've felt it from the inside. I certainly sense it from the outside, and exactly what I've been trying to call attention to, which is the party that is so predicated on protecting democracy when no one's looking does just the opposite, and a party that is supposed to be the big tent party that celebrates diversity and judges people by the content of their character, not the color of the skin, does just the opposite. And that's just the truth. And by the way, that's fine. There's space in place for that perspective in America. I don't think it's a good solution and good recipe to win elections. I think that's fair to say. And that's exactly the culture. The Maga movement, ironically, is remarkably welcoming to anybody who might apply the democratic tent is not and it's just it's as simple as that. You can talk to colleagues off the record in my caucus, you'll hear the same thing. Talk to voters who have been turned off by a party that gives them that same sense, a lack of hospitality, a lack of invitation and a lot of judgment based on the words you use and the life you live, and kind of antithetical to the very principles that made me a Democrat in the first place. So that is true. The second thing is branding the Republican Party is a better organized machine right now than the Democratic Party. And if you ask any random person on the street what the Republican brand stands for, you're going to probably get some pretty clear and concise answers. You ask someone about the democratic brand, no one's going to have an answer, and you'll need an hour if they do, it's kind of like Red Bull versus olive oil. You know, Red Bull, you know when you need it. You know what it means. And it's pretty clear, right? You know, olive oil got a lot of different uses, a little fancy, and it's exactly, I think, the analogy for these two parties right now, and the energy behind the Republican Party and Red Bull is another analogy, and we got to get our act together. And if we don't, if there's not a interest and invitation to invite different perspectives to the table, start organizing this party in a way that would be effective and have accountability, have a communications platform and and department, if you will, that unifies messaging instead of silos. It. If that doesn't happen, I'm really inspired to help create competition for both parties, because few Americans know they're both private corporations that are not accountable to voters or accountable to their officers, and just as George Washington warned in his farewell address in 1796 factions, political factions, parties are putting this country at great risk, plain and simple, and he was the only president who was not affiliated with the party. And I'm afraid they've stopped serving national interests, and instead are serving the interests of a handful of very powerful, opaque operators, and that's a big part of the problem, guys, none of us even know who they really are. I could not tell you who made the decisions about Biden's decision to run. I cannot tell you who is pulling the strings behind the scenes. I don't know what the table looks like. I don't know where it's located, and I guarantee you it would be hard to find a Democrat in the House or Senate here in Washington that could tell you where they are either. And therein lies a lack of transparency that I think is terribly consequential.
Arjun Singh 13:23
I'd love to expand on the point you're making about Red Bull and olive oil, not the actual ingredients of the differences of those two. But you know, I have talked to a lot of Democrats, and as we've talked about on lever time this podcast, a lot. You know, the diploma divide has become the biggest divide between the parties. There's a cultural divide. Now, I have talked to a fair amount of Democrats, high educated, high income, who basically say that they give up. They say, well, the people who went Maga are lost in the ecosystem of right wing media. We can't reach them. We can't not you, however, strike me in just the way you're talking right now, you don't seem afraid to engage and you think that they should. You're also, you know, my uncle lives in your district. He lives in Plymouth. You know, his kids went to the Blake school, a private school. It's a high educated district. I mean, a lot of University of Minnesota professors you yourself have run a, you know, a very big company. You know, you made a good fortune off of that you don't seem afraid to engage. So how do you think that Democrats, you know, like yourself from districts like yourself, can engage with the people who don't find a home in the Democratic Party. And I guess, why aren't you afraid of that cultural divide? In a way that you hear a lot of Democrats prominently being afraid of that
Dean Phillips 14:33
right now? Well, it's a great question. What I'm afraid of is the activities that have led to the cultural divide. The least frightening thing is to engage with people. In fact, it's the most joyful part of my service. It was absolutely the epiphany of my presidential campaign. In fact, you guys probably know this, but I went to a mega rally for the first time when I was campaigning in New Hampshire. I went I had a rally in Rochester. New Hampshire had probably 200 people, which for me was a massive turnout. Of and I look across the street and there's a line of probably 1000 people in the cold waiting to get into an arena. Found out it was a Trump rally. I'd never been to one, and I went out there despite much of the chagrin of my staff and probably some of the media that was following me along. But I spent 45 minutes just walking the line of people, and I got to tell you guys, I was blown away by the diversity of the crowd, their hospitality, their friendliness, not a single person treated me with disrespect, and I really sensed immediately how misportrayed. Now, this is not Donald Trump, this is people supporting him, how misportrayed, and this is therein lies the crux of this whole challenge. I think we have so demeaned and diminished and disenfranchised and condemned, if you will, so many Americans who are otherwise pretty decent people that I saw in this diverse crowd, a very welcoming Maga movement, even to me, a Democrat running for president. And it really, it changed me, if you will, because I recognize that the real answer here isn't something that the President can do. It can't take an act of Congress. It's literally all of us just demonstrating a little bit of decency and respect and willingness to engage. And you know, if you look at if you look at some of the ballot initiatives in this last election, Florida overwhelmingly voting to protect women's reproductive rights, but voting for the man who is opposed to them. Look at Missouri voting to increase the minimum wage and paid family leave. Same thing in Alaska. All around the country, democratic policies were approved by mega voters, which says to me, the issue is not so much the product, it's the people, the messengers and the packaging and and that, and then that fine line of invitation versus condemnation, which both parties use to some degree, but I think that is the single biggest issue right now for Democrats, is that we have made people feel unwelcome. And it's true in my caucus, where identity politics really have become, begun to rule the roost, and that bleeds out into the country where when people don't see themselves, they don't see themselves, they don't see themselves represented. They don't see the issues that are important to them being at least discussed and acknowledged and validated. You know, solutions are whole another another thing but validate your concerns. The unwillingness to do that, you guys, is tragic and and the easiest thing to fix. And neither Kamala Harris, no joke, no nor Joe Biden was willing to simply acknowledge what was on people's minds, the national security at the border, safety and economic security, that's all it was. And the unwillingness to acknowledge it, validate it, explain how we're going to help. It is just it's the ABCs in blocking and tackling of politics, and you know, we failed.
David Sirota 17:42
Let me, let me, let me play devil's advocate for a second, because I want to hear your response to this. You represent the the kind of district that reminds me of what I know of it of the kinds of districts that that went democratic, started going democratic in the late 90s, early 2000s I grew up in a district like that, sort of outside of Philadelphia, the suburbs of Philadelphia. You come from a business background. There's this other argument that the Democrats, they they kind of more now the party looks like your profile, your your district, a more suburban district, a more. It's become a more. I'm putting this in quotes, pro business profile, at least in the in the 90s, into the 2000s and there's an argument now that in the Democratic Party becoming that party, a more suburban party, more upper middle class party, that it has lost touch with the working class, and that the Democratic Party needs to be comprised of and look like really be, be A more working class party. Now, you're the you're the kind of you have the kind of political profile that it sort of cuts against that. So I'm curious, from your perspective, from where you represent, from your life experience, what you say to those who say the party needs to look and be more of a working class party in order to win more working class voters. And I think one thing I would just as sort of a sub question is, why are you a Democrat
Dean Phillips 19:33
so? Well, there's a lot to unpack there. I'm a Democrat primarily because in 1980 I was sitting at my elementary school assembly, and who comes to speak to us but John Anderson, the former Republican congressman from Illinois, ran for president in the Republican primaries against Ronald Reagan. Of course, in 1980 dropped out and then re entered the contest as an independent and spoke to my class I was in, you know, I was 11 years old, and. Evening, went to dinner with my family. You guys might know my grandmother was the advice columnist. Dear Abby. Sat next to her. She asked about my day, I told her, and she said, Hey, before you continue, a couple things. First of all, if a presidential candidate is speaking to sixth graders six weeks before the election, he's not going to win. That was one I never forgot. And then secondly, she said, Dean, are you a Democrat or Republican? And I said, Grandma, I don't even know what those are. And she said, you're a Democrat. You are a Democrat. And my grandmother, dear, Abby, anointed me a Democrat in 1980 so you know, you know how it works in households, whether it's religion or food or experiences. This was no different. But I'll tell you, I'm also a Democrat, because I really do believe in this notion of business being a means to an end, and the end is not aggregating as much wealth as possible, but sharing it and investing in it, and providing investing in communities, and then also providing opportunity to people. And I think that's that intersection between the kind of more traditionally Republican principles of business and the more traditional democratic principles of labor and the working person. And I would actually say that, well, both parties have migrated far from their foundations. And that's my contention right now, is that there are not just two there are two parties in America, but these coalitions that comprise these parties are really fluid right now, and it's this, I think success is going to be predicated on which party can keep these coalitions together. It was a miracle that the Republicans could succeed with the business community and the pro life community somehow being bedfellows now, the same way the Democratic Party is really struggling with this urban, almost socialist kind of movement versus the Suburban, better educated, more pro business movement. So my contention is there's an exhausted majority in this country of center right, center left Americans that have been actually pushed together as both parties have migrated further to their respective corners. So yes, the party has moved considerably away from its foundations of, you know, Bill Clinton and Hubert Humphrey and and the like. The same way the Republicans have moved away from their principles of Ronald Reagan and George Bush and the like. So that is my contention, that there is a massive market right now that is underserved under appreciated, and that's why 51 plus percent of Americans no longer consider themselves Democrats or Republicans, and therein lies something really important that we're not talking enough about, because the appetite for something different is real, and right now, Donald Trump owns that category, but that pendulum can swing rapidly, back and forth, And the question is, what are Democrats going to do to try to recapture that foundation and hopefully become a party that broadens its representation? It's I want to,
David Sirota 22:49
I want and I want to push you on, on the on the party question. There's, there's an argument that the problem right now isn't parties. It's that. It's the current situation with money in politics added to this to the party system, the argument being that actually it was a more vibrant democracy in the pre big money, pre Citizens United era, not that it was perfect, but that parties were a place where grassroots activists, grassroots groups, could Duke out their issues, could engage in politics. You didn't necessarily, for instance, have to be a huge donor to be a power player inside of a party, if you did the organizing, the low, you know, the old idea of a political a local boss, a local power broker, etc, etc. I mean, these are, these are kind of pejorative ways to think about it. But what they're really saying, back in the in the day, you know, Ward healer, if you or whatever you want to call it this, people who do local organizing, these are people who who ascend, not because they're just giant donors. So I think my question to you about that is, is the problem parties themselves, or is the is the problem that the big money era, this post Citizens United era, has basically transformed parties from small d, democratic institutions that actually empowered local organizers, people in the democratic process into entities that operate now more, as you said, like private corporations, I just am getting it like, what is the real problem? Is it the parties, or is it the money,
Dean Phillips 24:40
it's both. And you know, parties themselves are not the problem, but absent competition amongst parties, that's a real problem. And I think the best analogy for people watching is think Coke and Pepsi at your grocery store, right? You know, you would think they have these massive displays. The shelves are packed with Coke and Pepsi products, right? That that's just the store making that choice. Well, the reality is, Coke and Pepsi pay huge sums of money to rent that shelf space. They're buying that shelf space, leaving very little shelf space for the upstarts, the Red Bulls and the, you know, the new sodas, if you will. And this is really the fundamental question, is it in democracy's best interest to allow Coke and Pepsi to buy the electoral system, essentially, and crowd out everybody else. Or should we just have a more thoughtful mechanism that promotes competition, affords shelf space to other political parties and forces the large ones to have to play to the majority right now, they're winning by playing to a very, very, very tiny majority. And that's kind of the big question. So it's not so much the parties know we need more of them. Is what my argument is, not just also RANS, but some real competitive parties that would force cooperation, collaboration. And I say this recognizing that in the House and Senate, moving forward, a party that might have two members in the House and one in the Senate could, in theory, become the most political, most powerful political party in America. This is not about winning the presidency. This is about providing competition. So that's one now the money? Yeah, it's a huge freaking problem. My colleagues are spending 10,000 hours per week raising money completely unknown by most Americans. I'm the only I'm the only member of Congress out of 535 that takes no pack money, no lobbyist money. I don't give money to fellow members. I don't accept it from fellow members, and I don't have a leadership PAC. I'm the only one, which means it's really hard to find a friend to go to go to dinner with in DC on Wednesday night, because all of my friends are going to get their pack checks, you know, 5000 bucks a crack. You know, event after event after event, and then in the era of now dark money and anything goes, Yes, you know, we're having a handful of people essentially dictate the outcomes of elections by the amount of money that they can spend, not just the amount, but they can do it in a very non transparent fashion. It's a huge problem, and it's not just the money that's the problem which does buy votes. It's shameful that we allow people to give you $5,000 at a dinner and then appear in your committee the next day, in the audience, looking you in the eye as you make decisions that will have huge impacts on their industry. That's legalized corruption. That's one the other is time. Even if it doesn't corrupt you because of your votes, it corrupts you because of your use of time when you're spending it all with people of great resources. This is Democrats and Republicans. The difference is, of course, Democrats now don't represent any of rural America, so we're not getting a taste of where so much of this country is at, but it takes so much time away from doing what we're supposed to do, which is to hang out with people and go to rural Kentucky and Kansas and spend time in New York City and Chicago. So we really understand what's going on in our country, not to mention another part about money that no one talks about is the amount that is spent taking members of Congress on trips overseas. Right? It's very underappreciated how much money foreign governments spend to bring members of Congress to their country. And I am astounded, after six years in Congress, how little time my fellow members, my colleagues, spend traveling the United States versus how much time they spend going overseas on fancy trips with their families, ostensibly on official time, it's nonsense. And these are the that's where the money actually does most of the corruption is it takes the time away from people who should be spending it with Americans and listening, and instead, it's a very small handful of people that have a lot of control, and that's why I think competition, competition for the parties, is what I'm seeking, not not the elimination of them, or even the condemnation of them, but I'm condemning the notion that two parties, the duopoly, can have a monopoly on the system itself. And that's all I'm asking for is to make it easier for others to participate, rank choice voting, open primaries, and reduce gerrymandering and fourth, which doesn't take any act of anything, get people to vote in primaries, it would fundamentally change the existing parties right now, if more Americans would get off the couch and go and vote in primaries, 12, 15% of Americans turning out to select the candidates that have such consequence to this country and to the world. It's ridiculous, and we've gone wrong somewhere, and that's what I'm really trying to inspire.
David Sirota 29:32
After the break, we continue our conversation with Congressman Dean Phillips.
Arjun Singh 29:41
You know, this is very interesting to hear that perspective you have money. I think, for one, it's just refreshing to hear someone say what, I think, you know, we here at the lever, been covering and talking about a lot. I find it very interesting too, because when you were on the other side of the table, when you ran your business, you know, you were dealing with alcohol, imports and exports. I mean, these are things that federal. Policy, really, any government policy impacts? Was there ever a pressure or, you know, consideration of when you were a businessman, of donating to a Super PAC, engaging with politics, and what was it like from the other side of the table before you got into politics? What was your perspective of how business shapes politics, being a businessman yourself? Oh,
Dean Phillips 30:20
it's a great question. In fact, I remember, I can't, I can't remember the specific circumstances, but I remember being a young guy, and both my grandfather and my father having to, you know, invest in politicians for access. I mean, I and it astounded me and really disappointed me as I was a teenager, you know, recognizing how this all works, you know. And of course, I was in a business that was highly regulated, very much subject to state and federal laws and regulations and and it was deeply frustrating when I was running our businesses. I didn't never needed political help. Made my own personal investments in campaigns and candidates in which I believed. But I will say that, and I joke about it, but one of the reasons I ended up running for Congress is because I was so sick and tired of all the phone calls asking me for money, and it got to be relentless and offensive and grotesque, and I recognized it. And I also recognize if you're calling me for big contributions, that means you're probably not calling people for five and $10 contributions. And I got to tell you, one of the joys of my presidential campaign was starting my mornings with five to 10 phone calls to $5 donors. And I got to tell you guys the most wonderful part of that whole experience, surprising people at their breakfast table, in their cars, and just saying thank you, reminded me of what is so fundamentally flawed here with who is being called, who's getting face time, and who's being listened to, and that's where the competition comes in, and absent it, we're not going to see A darn bit of change. You know,
Arjun Singh 32:02
I know it's going to take a long time before we really see the full data and the numbers of what happened this election. But you know, in this debate of, do you feel that there was a right wing shift amongst the electorate or a depressed Democratic turnout? Where do you fall on that? Do you think that the country changed throughout the Biden presidency and wants a right word thing, or were they uninspired to come out and endorse Democrats to the point that maybe they were satisfied or just okay that, you know, the Democrats would lose. You
Dean Phillips 32:33
know, I think about this literally every day, and I think you guys will agree that we've never lived in a time during our lifetimes that is so filled with anxiety and fear. COVID was a disrupter that none of us could have even imagined. We see storms and fires and climate change, and we see violence in our schools and mass shootings and pandemics and wars in Europe and Israel now, and even threats of nuclear weapons. And people are really afraid. And it's such a basic part of the human condition that when people are afraid, they regress to their tribe, typically take defensive positions and seek out a strong leader. I mean, it's just, it's really, it's not that surprising, and that's why I was so convinced that Joe Biden was not going to stand a chance against Donald Trump, because people would completely dismiss their principles, their values and their policy considerations in favor of someone who's just damn tough. And I got to tell you guys, I mean, I You can say anything you want about Donald Trump. I've never seen a human being in my lifetime who somehow is able to make his way through every single thing that is thrown at him, from bullets to to indictments to condemnation to to COVID itself. And I think it's no surprise when you look at what who Democrats offered compared to this person at this time. So that's what I think, more than anything else really happened this time. It's not so much a right wing shift, you know. And I don't think it's right wing to support Israel, for example, and also be appalled and saddened and horrified by the loss of life in Gaza. That's not right wing. It's not right wing to think that we should have a secure border and that we should enforce our laws. It's not right wing to look at your bank account four years ago, after we sent checks to people directly and see that they have you have less in your bank account. Now that's not right wing. You know, it's not right wing, even on these issues of trans people in sports and in bathrooms. It's not right wing. It's just something that we have to talk about, and with a little bit of compassion and the absence of willing to do it has pushed people, I think, to the right. But I don't think it's a I don't think it's a ideology shift. I think it is literally a pragmatic shift of people assessing their two choices and saying, man, they're. Both pretty lame right now, but I think this one is clearly listening to me more than the other. I think it's that simple, and that's why the messenger matters. And if Democrats are just going to go with whoever is next, you know, whoever has been climbing the ladder the longest, or whoever fits the, you know, the check boxes that we now apply to so many candidates, you know, then fine, that's what Democrats are going to have to get. And that's what I'm going to say if that going to say. If that's how we're going to proceed. Yes, we need competition. If not, we're going to hand elections to a very dangerous, I think, increasingly dangerous, Republican Party in perpetuity. Simple as that, I don't think this is rocket science, guys. This is not this is not that complicated, and I think we know it. The question is, do we want to do something about it?
Arjun Singh 35:43
Yeah, absolutely. And I think, you know, the last thing on that sort of point is that you're hearing the discussions right now about the role of sexism and racism and Trump. Himself certainly embodies, you know, he's multiple rape assaults and allegations. You know, he has said very racist things himself. But when it comes down to the electorate and people voting, the role of sexism and racism, how do you think about that in the scope of this election? Congressman, how do you where do you put that in the context of the what happened conversation? Well,
Dean Phillips 36:17
you know, they're both true. We we can't avoid the truth that there is racism in this country, there is sexism, there's misogyny, there's anti semitism, there's anti Asian, there's anti Indian. I mean, you're going to have it. It's just, it's sadly, part of the human condition has been through history. Donald Trump, sadly, in my estimation, not only embodies some of those isms, but He enables them, and He gives cover to those who seemingly express them at will and with great consequence. And it greatly disappoints me. I don't think that is the core of the mega movement. Is my belief. I think most people are actually pretty decent, but they dismiss those character flaws because something is more important to them. I'm not like that, but, you know, I'm privileged. Perhaps you could say, you know, in that, I'm, you know, economically secure, and I I don't feel threatened in the way so many other people do, and I now I can prioritize my values as it relates to compassion and decency and and the like. But that on the hierarchy of need that's pretty high. So that's why I think what is I think that's the truth. But I I'm saddened to say that I think my Democratic Party is actually practicing some of those same isms, right? You know, by definition, if we're only going to choose people or vote for them because of how they look or how they pray, are we not, in some way, shape or form, somewhat guilty of the same thing. You know, I'm not, I'm not pleading, I'm not pleading need or persecution here. But the reality is, this is about pragmatism and winning elections. And if you're going to ignore and somewhat condemn and dismiss white men in America, you know, do so at great, great risk. And that's kind of where these isms are, kind of are manifest. It's not as important to most Democrats to protect white men as it is to protect people of color and trans people and people in the LGBTQ plus community. I get it. I feel the same way. But that does not mean two things can't be true at once, and that we can't do both, which is to also celebrate white men who want a chance, an opportunity and to compete and not be dismissed. So there you have it.
David Sirota 38:26
So I want to go back to where we started, which is, which is, you were the person who you were in Congress. You raised these concerns about Joe Biden. You tried to get the party to focus on those concerns, the party obviously didn't. In many cases, the party prevented you from from running any kind of primary, contested primary, you and others who maybe were interested in running a contested primary, the party used its power to stop that. Some may be asking, Well, okay, you did that. You were proven right, and now you're leaving Congress. And as I understand it, there was potentially some, some blowback to make it more difficult, had you wanted to run for re election, more blowback to sort of, if not punish you, then at least run someone against you in a primary and that, and look, that's democracy, right? That that's what we're talking about. But I guess, I guess the final question I have for you is, it's sort of one, why didn't? Why aren't you staying in that electoral fight? And two, do you take the party's response, you facing an incumbent, a contested primary, do you perceive that as an effort to basically kick you out of the party?
Dean Phillips 39:53
So let me just explain what happened, and then we can also draw our own conclusions. You know. Mike, I did not run against Joe Biden until I exhausted every mechanism and lever I had available to me to encourage people who were better known, better prepared and more proximate to national electoral politics to enter the race themselves. I made public calls, I did posts. I was on Sunday shows, evening cable just in trying to inspire Kamala Harris, Gavin, Newsom, Gretchen, Whitmer, JB, Pritzker, Jared Polis, you name it, anyone, just to enter the race so that we had a legitimate, competitive primary. I was deeply dismayed that we, a weren't promoting it. B, Democrats were handing hundreds of hours of prime time television to Republicans who were having debates showing their next generation on that stage, and Democrats were silent. Joe Biden was turning down every single interview request. He was not present. And then when he was, you know, people were shocked by what they were seeing in his decline. So that was frustrating. So I only declared my candidacy in October of 23 because nobody would step up. And time was getting too short, and the New Hampshire primary registration deadline was forthcoming. I had no resources, human or otherwise, didn't have time to put together a compelling campaign that I would have had this been a multi year pursuit. But the point was any way to get platform to call attention to this reality. But what did the Democratic Party do? Said there would be no debates in the primary despite multiple candidates. Remember, it was RFK, Marianne Williamson, me, Joe Biden, Jason Palmer, a handful of others. There were candidates. You would never know it. That was one, no debate. Secondly, I was not given a single invitation to appear on MSNBC from the day I declared my candidacy, I think, to this very day, maybe one time the morning after the South Carolina primary, my successor, who's wonderful, Kelly Morrison, she's been on MSNBC more this week, more this week than I've been on in the last eight months. And it was instantaneous. Despite being the ranking member of the Middle East Subcommittee on Foreign Affairs, for gosh sakes, with a war in Gaza, no invitations then third, they clearly colluded with state party chairs to ensure my name would not be on primary ballots wherever they could, which forced us to spend millions of dollars, countless hundreds of hours pursuing legal remedies to this. In Wisconsin, Ben wickler wants to become the chair of the Democratic National Committee After ensuring My name would not be on a ballot and we would have to go to the Supreme Court to have it overturned, which they did, you know, strike out right there. In Florida, Nikki freed calling an emergency meeting of her executive committee the day after I declare my candidacy, voting to only put Joe Biden on the ballot and not announcing it for a full month, which was the day they were supposed to have their meeting in North Carolina. I mean, I can go state by state. Massachusetts, the Attorney General Secretary of State had to overturn the Democratic Party's unfortunate decision not to put me on the ballot. This is what was happening, and it was active, and it was collusion, and it was destructive, and it was anything but democratic. So you can imagine my frustration. Despite not wanting to focus on that, I had no choice during the primary to than to call attention to what the party was doing, to de platform, dismiss and excoriate anybody who might just challenge the president. And I'm repulsed by it, and now I see why so many of those that I called directly and called publicly to join the race, at least I understand why they didn't do it because they want to continue to be politicians, and if they had done what I did, they probably wouldn't be. And this goes to your second part of your question. I was not asked to leave Hakeem Jeffries did not even accept my first resignation attempt from the leadership table. He's been a gentleman from this whole from the very start to this very day. I was not threatened with loss of committees or standing but I knew, by the way, I could have run and easily won again in my district, but I would have come back to a caucus that no longer would have voted for me for a leadership post, and that would have assessed me not based on the truth I was telling, but on the discomfort it caused to them. And that's just, that's the social reality of politics. So I did not run again because I did not want to serve with a population in our US Congress that was so willing on both sides of the aisle to forego their fundamental principles in favor of self preservation. I did not want to work in that culture, and I also believe that I learned enough in six years about how this system works, how we've legalized corruption, that I felt I can make a much bigger difference on the outside now than I ever could as a member of Congress. And that's the sad truth. Back to the money. 10,000 hours per week, you're raising money, you're constantly campaigning. You have no time to actually pursue important things. Is, and January 3 will be the first time in seven and a half years where I can actually start pursuing really important things, and they're going to be very aligned with what I was doing inside of Congress. But I think without shackles, without parameters, and without this incessant need to keep coming back to a place that is only working against us. That's why I didn't run again. But I was not thrown out, I promise you.
Arjun Singh 45:26
Well, Congressman, this has been a really insightful, fascinating conversation. I am now very curious, in the six weeks before you dropped out of the presidential campaign, did you speak to a sixth grade class?
Dean Phillips 45:38
Yes, I'm so glad. I got to tell you, I yes with and I'm sure there's some kid out there in 30 years is going to say, You know what, I can't even remember his name, some fool ran in the primary against Joe Biden, and he came to my class and inspired me to participate in politics. My goodness, and one of my great regrets, you guys, is never taking the time to reach out to Congressman Anderson to let him know what kind of influence he made on me, because if you look him up, he talked about the need for independence in politics, and he talked about the corrupting influence of money, and this is 1980 and he was talking about the need for competition. So nobody embodies what I'm trying to demonstrate right now. Then John Anderson and a memo to everybody go. Thank the people that made a difference in your early lives before it's too late.
David Sirota 46:26
Thanks for listening to this premium episode of lever time. This episode was produced by Ronnie Rico Benny. Our theme music is composed by Nick Campbell. Thank you so much for being a lever premium subscriber. Your support makes this reader supported project possible rock the boat you.