All language subtitles for How.To.Save.Democracy.2026.1080p.WEBRip.x264.AAC-LAMA

- Preserve, protect and defend.

- Preserve, protect and defend.

- The Constitution
of the United States.

- The Constitution
of the United States.

- So help me God.
- So help me God.

- Congratulations Mr. Trump.

- Problems of our democracy
predate Donald Trump,

and they will go on
long after he's gone

from the political state.

- They want everybody to vote.

I don't want everybody to vote.

Elections are not won
by a majority of people.

They never have been from
the beginning of our country,

and they are not now

As a matter of fact, our
leverage in the elections,

quite candidly goes up as the
voting populace goes down.

- The base of the
Republican party now

does not believe in
elections or democracy.

- That we are in the process

of the Second
American Revolution,

which will remain bloodless
if the left allows it to be.

- Why is it that we are
running our government

on a constitution that is
like 200 plus years old?

and it's truly possible for
us to demand something better?

And I think that is
my dream for one day,

my friends to understand that
we do not have to be content

with the systems
that we have now.

We can fight right now to ensure

that we protect our
current freedoms

and that we can fix the
current flaws in our democracy,

but also we can reimagine
something better.

- We have problems obviously,

there would not be so
many discontented people

in the country if we
didn't have problems,

but they're not being
articulated as problems in a way

that would allow
us to solve them.

America is a beautiful country

from sea to shining sea, the
farmlands, the mountains,

the cities, and
especially its people.

But what exactly is democracy
and how do we define it?

- I think of democracy as
a collective experience

and responsibility that
people in society have.

And I think of it
as an expression

of we and we consciousness.

How can we come together
to serve the common good?

- Democracy, I think
is related to the idea,

to the belief that human
beings are of infinite value.

And that the best circumstances
for the sacredness

of the human person
to be acknowledged

and to be expressed by them

is a situation in which
people are equal and free.

- I see democracy as a
political, social, economic goal

that we have not accomplished,

but we're in America,
we're evolving towards it,

and hopefully the world
is evolving towards it.

And is guided by a philosophical
and spiritual principle,

which I would of use the
South African word abuntu,

which is where I am a person,
because you are a person

and it's about equality.

And we're aiming towards
equality where people,

we respect each other
and everybody has a voice

in how we organize ourselves.

- Democracy is a
system where each of us

are able to develop our lives

with as much freedom as possible

and with as much
satisfaction as possible.

- A true democratic
system is one in which

we should be able constantly
to make our own decisions

and to refine those decisions
through an endless process

of engagement not once every
four years or for that matter,

once every two years, but
every day if we want to.

- So we define a just democracy
for all as a democracy

where we truly have a
just electoral process,

a just electoral system
where no one's right to vote

is being taken away.

Where there aren't
archaic rules in place

making it harder
for young people,

for people of color to
exercise their rights.

And we believe a truly just
democracy is a democracy

where it's people first
and not billionaires

and not corporate
money, you know,

flooding our electoral system.

This is where US democracy began.

Independence Hall
in Philadelphia,

the founding fathers
gather in this room

where they wrote a document,

the Declaration of Independence,
which had the immortal

and radical words, all
men are created equal.

These words were crafted by
this man, Thomas Jefferson.

This was a time of high ideals

where the framers felt
they were creating

a new form of government.

And from these ideals
came the US Constitution

based on liberty for all.

An ideal that still
captivates the world.

Yet the framers
borrow these ideas

from another group of people.

- Roots of modern
democracy are indigenous,

and in fact they come,
the roots of democracy

lead you directly to the
Haudenosaunee Confederacy.

The Haudenosaunee are a
confederacy of six nations,

and our territories span from
as far as Montreal, Quebec.

And over to Green
Bay, Wisconsin.

The world that George
Washington, Ben Franklin,

Thomas Jefferson, the
world they lived in

and interacted with was
incredibly indigenous.

Ben Franklin spent a
considerable amount of time

studying the form of governance
of the Haudenosaunee,

of other indigenous nations in
recognizing the relationship

that the founding fathers
had with the Haudenosaunee.

I think in some cases
there were friendships

that were formed, and in some
cases there was real respect

because they were able
to see that the voices

of multiple nations,
multiple groups

that we call clan families,
we're all represented,

that they could come
together and make decisions

and come to a consensus and
be able to represent the voice

and interests of all
various groups of people

from different nations.

And that really,
really just struck them

because they were able
to do it peacefully.

And that was something
that they wanted, right?

So right within the preamble
of the Constitution,

you can see that there's
a lot of this discussion

about the nature of human beings

and the rights of human
beings, natural rights.

And this is what they saw
among the Haudenosaunee.

- If the founding
fathers were inspired

to create a democracy
by the Haudenosaunee,

the people with the
oldest democracy on earth,

where did things go wrong
for the American people?

- America was not really
conceived in this notion

that I just talked about of
representative democracy.

It was a group of
aristocrats who wanted

to sort of keep democracy
pinned down a little bit.

They used various structures
to make sure that for example,

only white landowners
would be able to vote.

They wanted to keep
an excess of democracy

away from the decisions that
were made by the government.

- What democracy is
supposed to be obviously

is ruled by the people.

That's what it means.

But what we see in the
systems that are described

as democracy is
something very different

because these systems weren't
designed for democracy.

Centralized, hierarchical
political systems

are not well suited
to rule by the people.

And in fact, even in
post-revolutionary systems,

like in the US, we
see how elite powers

really retained their
modes of governance

and gave as little
away as they could.

They allowed people to
vote every four years

or in my country
every five years.

But having voted you
are then dispensed with.

That's it, you've done your
job as a democratic citizen.

Now leave it to us.

- What did the founding
Fathers leave out, right?

Well, they left out
women, they left out

all people of color,
and they left out life

and future generations.

None of those other
beings of life

were included in
the US Constitution.

In fact, the US
Constitution privileged

one group of people,
and that is white men.

White men who are landowners.

And so by privileging one group

that left out the
voices of all people.

So there truly is not
representation of the people

in the formation of
the US Constitution.

Another issue for the United States

in the first half
of the 19th century

was the problem of
slavery, of human bondage.

- There's a principle
that everyone in society

can equally participate
in whatever are the rules,

regulations, benefits,
privileges of that society

in an equal manner.

And then there's a
manifestation of democracy,

which means how does that
aspiration become real life

to the everyday person?

That's where the problem lies.

Because democracy
manifested is not equal,

does not ensure that
everybody has equal chances

to move up society's
level, to do whatever it is

that their heart
or spirit desires.

So there's always going
to be that conflict

between all men
are created equal.

When folks like me say,
yeah, right, you know?

That that's not the
case on the real world.

In 1860, the US fought a civil war

over the problem of slavery.

The Civil War ended in 1865
with the slaves becoming free.

This began the period
of reconstruction

commencing with the
reconstruction amendments.

- The reconstruction amendments
were those amendments

enacted after the Civil War,

and they formerly
abolished slavery.

They put equal protection
regardless of race

into the constitution.

They put an entitlement
to due process

into the constitution.

They specified that people
should not experience

racial discrimination
when they try to vote.

All of these constitutional
commitments to equality,

to a multiracial, functioning,
inclusive democracy.

None of that was actually
in the Constitution before.

And so the reconstruction
amendments effectuated

a sweeping fundamental change.

And I think that the
purpose of the constitution

and the purpose of our
constitutional interpretation

should be to
implement that change.

- Union wins the war, we
going to reconstruction.

But here's the
flip side of that.

As people were free, they
went kind of from slavery

to a sharecropping system that
tied them back to the land.

That laws were passed so
that if you did something

that was an infraction,
you went on the chain gang.

Where did you go to work?

The same plantations that you
used to work at beforehand.

The world's richest

and supposedly soundest
economy perished

and small business was strangled
by the Great Depression.

The unemployed
numbered 15 million.

There were bread
lines, soup kitchens,

and street corner apple sellers.

The rhythm of Ragtime had
become a funeral dirge.

The corpse of prosperity
was abroad in the land.

In 1932, America
sought new leadership

as the panacea for
all its tropes.

Franklin Roosevelt
promised a new deal

for the American people.

- It's preeminently the
time to speak the truth,

the whole truth,
frankly and boldly.

Nor need we shrink

from honestly facing conditions
in our country today.

This great nation will
endure as it has endured,

will revive and will prosper.

Restoration calls however, not
for changes in ethics alone,

this nation is asking for
action and action now.

- Franklin Roosevelt ushered
in a number of reforms

after the new deal, increasing
taxes on the wealthy

and corporations putting in
safeguards to over speculation,

inventing the Securities
and Exchange Commissions

so that Wall Street fraud would
be tamped down and you know,

and also increased antitrust
enforcement to make sure

that monopolies
weren't running rampant

in the United States.

And after the war, after
the spending

of World War II, this produced
really salutary situation

in the United States.

So we had rising living
standards for the middle class

and without runaway
compensation and benefits

for the upper class,
for the CEO class.

The ratio between CEO pay and
worker pay actually shrunk

in that period.

And this is from
about 1946 to 1973.

And we had a thriving middle
class in this country.

There was a cleavage that
incurred starting in 1979,

and that has never
gotten back to parody.

Since 1979 we've seen
productivity go way, way up,

and worker pay has
largely stagnated.

- For years.

For years I've asked that we
stop pushing onto our children,

the excesses of our government.

- I remember Reagan's
election brings about

massive tax cuts, huge
deregulation, a dissolution

or the beginnings of an
erosion of the separation

of church and state.

And you have an economic
and social backlash

to the New Deal, great society

and the kind of social
changes of the '60's.

And so that's really
when it starts,

Democrats certainly
enabled it with, you know,

what has been, you know,
now known as neoliberalism.

And so you have
Clinton coming in

and really scoring a
major political victory.

And that seemed like a winning
strategy for Democrats.

And so Democrats kind
of started taking it

very far to really
accelerate deregulation,

particularly of Wall Street
and financial regulation

because, you know, they were
starting to get donations

from wealthy Wall Street figures

who had been historically
funding Republicans.

- But after World War II,
and actually during the war

and after the war, the
gap between the wealthiest

and the average person
was rather narrow.

After 1980 or so, that
balance was destroyed.

And the key element of
destruction was the deregulation

of Wall Street.

Basically, Wall Street was
tightly, tightly controlled

from 1933 all the way to 1980.

And once that
deregulation started,

that's when we saw
a massive increase

in inequality in this country.

There were 13
billionaires in 1980,

and now they're 783.

So there was an explosion
of money rushing to the top,

and at the same time,
the standard of living

of the average worker stalled

and actually went
down a little bit.

So the gap became obscene.

With money rushing to
the top, it's inevitable

that both political
parties would scramble

to get that money.

And they started competing
against each other

about who's gonna placate
Wall Street better,

who's gonna give them more,
who's gonna deregulate the more.

- It was a value assigned
to altruism that has been

displaced by the value
that was assigned to greed,

you know, that was
assigned to gilding and,

you know, building a tower
in the middle of a city

and all the rest
of it, you know.

People actually persuaded
themselves that greed is good,

that it adds wealth.

In fact, it adds
distortion, you know?

I think we've been
sold even the idea

that we're competing
for money, you know?

And I think that part of the
dislocation in the culture

is that there's some
people that are prospering

and other people who feel
that they're less prosperous.

- So Bill Clinton made
his final sort of gestures

to the American legacy and,
you know, the economic legacy

he would leave behind
in America, you know,

he got with the banks,
under pressure by Citibank

and really all his
friends on Wall Street

who he had never gone against

and had only pretty much
faithfully supported

throughout his presidency.

He gave a final
gift by repealing,

by signing the act to
repeal Glass-Steagall

and allow banks to begin
the process of investing

and risking the public's,
the people's money

in ways that they have
been outlawed and forbidden

from doing for decades.

He allowed the financiers
to really essentially

put in motion the takeover of
the American economic system

by the economic
elite, by the 1%.

Glass-Steagall was
one part of that

that led to the housing
boom when the house of cards

came crashing down and
the casino went bust

and the housing market
went boom and bust

and the people lost their
homes and pensions and savings,

millions and millions of people

and an entire generation
really wrecked.

- How the hell it happened

that we could have the
greatest financial cataclysm

since the Great Depression and
uncover plenty of wrongdoing

and no top banker from any

of the major
financial institutions

that were involved
in it'd go to prison.

How could that possibly be?

And again, that was a
catastrophic mistake

because what we ended up
doing is teaching elites,

wealthy elites that they could
blow up the global economy.

Immiserate millions, have
millions of people thrown out

of their homes and their jobs

and really pay no consequences.

And that's a terrible lesson
for average Americans.

And it's, I think at
one of the key elements

for why people are so angry
about American society today.

- Nobody went to jail, not a
single high level executive.

And when the public
saw the billions

that they got in the bailouts
to the banks and no bailout

to the people it initiated
and brought to...

It crystallized the public anger

that we had been, that
we, the 99% of Americans

had been feeling since
the financial crash.

And with that slogan, the 99%
was born the Occupy movement,

which was a direct response
to the Obama bailouts

of the banks.

Occupy was rather a
spontaneous uprising.

It was, it's incredible
looking back on it now

because we're in such a
different political environment,

occupy erupted overnight and
it had a global visibility

and it really, I think blew
the public away at its outset,

which is why it was so
popular immediately.

Activists had gotten out
in front of politicians.

Activists, people in the
street, young people, students,

the unemployed, regular workers,

union workers had
bellowed the alarm

had said there is inequality
and there is injustice

in this degree of inequality.

- And what does
that do to a public

that sees this sort of lack
of accountability in society?

It pushes people
toward other solutions.

They don't see
that the normal way

in which government operates
is working for them.

And so they are much more
attracted to demagogues

to people who say,
I can fix this.

I am the one who knows how
to get around these ideas.

- The big question is why
would working class people

given their economic
instability, given the things

that Roosevelt said
about what people need,

why would they gravitate
towards authoritarians?

I think mostly they're
not gravitating

towards authoritarians,
they're gravitating away

from the political system
and they're making room

for authoritarians.

That figure of only 16% of
people trusting the government.

That's the result of, you
know, a generation or two

of incredible job
instability, mass layoffs

and Wall Street ripoffs.

I mean, if government
can't protect you

and doesn't wanna protect you,

and it looks like all the
politicians except for a few

are in it for
themselves, you withdraw.

There's almost like an industry

blame the white working class
for the ills of society.

Mike Luxe, who's a
pollster, does a lot of work

for the Democratic Party,

did an excellent study
called Factory Town.

And his conclusion was,

these working class folks
in these rural areas

wouldn't care all that
much about this woke stuff

if the Democrats only gave
a damn about the economy.

- And then you had Trump,
who here was someone

who was perceived
as a truth teller,

a guy who was gonna
tell it like it is.

We all know that that's
complete bullshit.

But he did wanna blow things up

and people wanted
to blow things up

and people were really furious.

- And what
neoliberalism has done

is to hollow out
politics even further

to ensure that our
political decisions count

for even less than
they did before,

until the whole system
feels pointless.

And when parties converge
around their positions

and when they are not
solving your problems

and offering very little,

then there's a very
strong temptation

to kick the whole cart over.

And so when someone like Donald
Trump comes along and says,

I'm gonna kick the cart
over, people say, yeah,

he's going to
destroy that system

from which we are excluded.

That's why we're
gonna vote for him.

- Our movement is about
replacing he failed

and corrupt political
establishment

with a new government
controlled by you,

the American people.

The establishment has
trillions of dollars at stake

in this election.

For those who control the
levers of power in Washington

and for the global
special interest,

they partner with these people
that don't have your good

in mind.

The political establishment
that is trying to stop us

is the same group responsible
for our disastrous

trade deals, massive
illegal immigration

and economic and
foreign policies

that have bled our country dry.

The political establishment
has brought about

the destruction of our factories

and our jobs as they
flee to Mexico, China,

and other countries
all around the world.

It's a global power
structure that is responsible

for the economic decisions

that have robbed
our working class,

stripped our country
of its wealth,

and put that money
into the pockets

of a handful of large
corporations and
political entities.

The only thing that can stop
this corrupt machine is you.

The only force strong enough
to save our country is us.

The only people brave
enough to vote out

this corrupt establishment
is you the American people.

I'm doing this for the
people and for the movement.

And we will take back
this country for you

and we will make
America great again.

I'm Donald Trump and I
approve this message.

- Economic inequality reads
massive political inequality

and that threatens
the ability for us

to lead fulfilling lives.

From what's really going on,

which is this vast
amount of inequality

and the way that
inequality is created,

it's created on the
backs of workers.

And one of the best
ways to understand it

is through stock buybacks.

A stock buyback is when a
corporation takes its own funds,

goes into the marketplace,
buys back its own shares,

and by doing so, the
price of the shares go up.

It's a blatant form
of stock manipulation

and that's what it was
called before 1982.

There was a cap, you couldn't
do this with more than 2%

of a corporation's profits.

They took the lid off of that.

So now up to 70% of corporate
profits go to stock buybacks.

By some estimates.

And there are hundreds
of corporations

that spend more than a
100% of their profits

on stock buybacks,
they borrow money

and then use it
for stock buybacks.

Well, why?

Well CEOs now get about
85% of their income

in stock incentives.

That didn't happen before
deregulation in the 1980s.

How do you pay for
stock buybacks?

In almost every case
a mass layoff proceeds

or follows a stock buyback,
but the workers suffer.

And we've just let this
game go on totally at will

at Wall Street will and
workers keep suffering

on the one hand,

wall Street keeps getting
richer on the other hand,

and you're getting a working
class revolt against the system

that can't protect them.

It's really Wall Street
versus working people.

- The idea that what
the success will have

that distinguishes
them is money.

And the fact at the thought
that the unsuccessful, you know,

are distinguished by the
lack of money, you know,

this makes money the fulcrum
on which everything turns.

And I think that people feel
that it's arid, pointless.

People have souls, people are
deeper than that, you know,

and they're given these
little tokens to play with

that they can build
resentments around or whatever.

But you know, we've
been had basically,

you know, this is not
what human lives are for.

This is certainly not what
freedom or democracy are for,

you know, people need more time,

people need more respect,
simple respect, you know?

- We estimate that
between 1996 and today,

30 million of us have
gone through a mass layoff

defined as 50 or more
workers lost at one time.

And being out of work
and not being able

to get their job back for at
least a month, 30 million.

You add in their families.

And instead of talking about
the prosperity of America,

now we're talking about probably
half the American families

have suffered the
devastation of mass layoffs.

It's ranked as the seventh
most devastating event.

One can go through.

More devastating than a
severe loss of hearing,

eyesight or divorce.

It's a devastating event.

And this is the tragedy,
it's become normalized

and that I see is the
biggest threat to democracy.

People have turned
off to government

again long before Trump.

Because government has done
nothing for job instability

other than to say we're
gonna grow the economy.

Which of course means
even more job instability.

More deregulation is
more job instability

because they've done nothing
concrete for the actual worker

that's been laid off.

People are turning
off to politics.

I vote for the guy,
he says he's gonna do

all this great stuff and
then another plant goes down.

Think about what it means
in rural Pennsylvania.

If a factory of
500 people go down,

now you and 500 of
your neighbors are
gonna be scrambling

for the last few jobs at the
Dollar Store and at Walmart.

I mean, it's really a tough
life to feel good about

politicians after
that happens to you

and they say, oh, we're gonna
bring new jobs to the area.

Doesn't happen or
maybe it's a prison

or maybe it's a healthcare
facility, that's about it.

So they've turned
off the government,

1964, 77% of the
Americans felt trusted,

the federal government.

Now it's 16%.

So there's this
withdrawal from believing

that what we call democracy now

actually works for them, which
of course opens the field,

actually creates a Petri
dish for conspiracy theories,

for, you know, blind
attacks on the good things

the government does.

It creates the opportunity for
opportunists to grab power.

- Together we will make
America powerful again.

Make America wealthy again.

Make America healthy again.

Make America strong again.

Make America proud again.

Make America safe again.

Make America free again.

We will make
America great again.

Thank you very much Nevada.

- And when they grab power,
they're unabashed about using it

to feather their ownness
in the name of whomever.

But basically that's
the danger to democracy.

This vast increase of inequality

was produced by this absolute
carnage of mass layoffs.

The victims of mass layoffs
look for some sort of stability,

can't find it and end up
withdrawing from government.

And in fact then supporting
the train wreckers

to drain the swamp people
because they no longer feel

that government works for them.

That's the threat and
it's a serious threat.

- I think the US has been
in sort of a bad cycle,

which means that people don't
really trust the government.

The government policies
aren't funded properly,

then they work even less well
and people trust them less

and so on and so on.

And this becomes a huge problem

of people not
trusting each other

and certainly not
trusting the government

or trusting the government
to be able to provide

any good services.

In the Nordics, I think
overall it's been the opposite.

The government services
have worked well

and I think they have
certainly supported

the sense of trust in a
society that is working well,

that is as much as any
society in the world trying

or working to provide
good life for everyone

in that country.

So there is more
social trust overall

in the Nordic countries
according to surveys as well.

- The base of the Republican
party now does not believe

in elections or democracy.

They think elections...

They think their
democracy has been stolen

and they don't
believe that democracy

can restore the democracy.

And that's a very
ominous development

for American society.

And you can't really have
a functioning democracy

if people just don't
believe in elections

because then they'll
inevitably take other means

to push through their views.

- Trouble with our
electoral system today

is that at so many levels we
have baked in minority rule,

we have made it largely
impossible in many states

as well as in our
bigger institutions

such as the House
of Representatives

and the structure
of the US Senate

and have a majority of
Americans changed the course

of the country.

Donald Trump did not create
our anti-democratic nation.

Donald Trump swept up the
pieces that were left for him

by the Republican establishment

that wanted to find a way
to keep winning elections

in a multiracial nation.

Decided that the way to do
that was not by appealing

to a multiracial electorate,
but by turning back the clock

and trying to create a
different electorate,

the one that they wanted
instead of the one

that actually exists in America.

And they startlingly
effective at this.

Donald Trump did
not create this,

and it will not go away when
Donald Trump leaves the scene.

This is the new normal
of American a democracy.

Our system has been broken.

It's not that the
system simply is broken,

it's that it has been
broken intentionally

by those who wish to
seek and hold power

with a minority of votes.

- I spent close to
30 years if not more,

helping to build the
conservative legal movement.

And at some point or another,

you know, I just said to myself,

well if this can work for
law, why can't it work

for lots of other areas
of American culture

and American life where things

are really messed up right now.

Wokeism in the
corporate environment

and the educational environment,
one-sided journalism,

entertainment that's really
corrupting our youth.

Why can't we build talent
pipelines and networks

that can positively affect
those areas as well.

- Leonard Leo is the top of
guy at the Federalist Society

who is responsible for
coordinating a network

of funds and people.

So yes, there is a
person you can look to,

but it is much
broader than that.

The Federalist Society has
a very extensive network

where they cultivated ideas
and people in law schools

and placed them into
positions of power,

whether they be preparing
them to be judges

or preparing them to
be attorneys general

or to work in the
Department of Justice

to implement their own
reactionary radical vision

of power and limited democracy.

I think the end game is
to keep power concentrated

within the hands of a few.

And to subject their own
vision of what the country

should be like
over everyone else.

And this vision is typically

like a minoritarian vision
that prioritizes a handful

of the white, the wealthy,

the particular
brand of Christian.

Like not even
Christianity writ large,

but people who believe and
look and act in the same way

as they do should
have complete say

over the direction
of the country.

- So we either find a
way to reform the court

or we live in the world that
Leonard Leo and his allies

wish to create.

- Originalism is
an idea developed

by the conservative
legal movement that says

the meaning of the
constitution is fixed in time.

There is a single solitary
objective discoverable meaning,

Originalists will tell you

and whatever the constitution
meant 200 years ago,

it means that today as well.

So whatever the purported
original public meaning was

remains authoritative today.

So basically from
the very start,

originalism serves to dress up

your standard
reactionary politics,

but give it that veneer
of professional legalism.

- Jefferson always believed
that each generation

ought to write his
unconstitutional

because to live
under a constitution

written by essentially
long dead white men.

Our current situation, is
another form of tyranny.

They reflected a
particular way of life,

a particular view of democracy,

a particular view
of republicanism,

and we're living
under that system.

And Jefferson was like,
that's just tyranny.

There's no difference
between that

and living under a colonial
power across the Atlantic.

So he wanted each generation
to write his own constitution.

- Now yeah, originalism
is like dream logic

in that it makes sense for a
moment while you're sleeping,

but once you wake up you can
recognize it as nonsense.

Originalism makes sense for
basically all of a minute

if you're thinking about
it, you can maybe say

for a hot second, it is
kind of farcical to say

that there is a single
meaning of a document

that was the product of
compromises hammered out

by dozens of people to
put together a document

that would function
as a framework

to govern the country over time.

Originalism absolutely will
keep making things worse.

I think we are
regularly seeing threats

for further rollbacks
of our rights

because originalism instructs
the courts to turn back time.

- What I love about
thinking about Jefferson

is he was right, you know,
at the end of the day

we would be in a...

I dare say we'd be
in a better place

if periodically throughout
American history

we had rewritten the
Constitution and that was part

of our political culture is
to rewrite the constitution.

- Originalism is essentially
make America great again

with a law degree
because by definition

they too are saying we
need to turn back time,

we need to reset things
to the way they were

when they were better,
better for who?

They don't say they
leave that part out.0

But they insist that
this idea of the original

public meaning should govern.

And so I think
originalists discovered

that if you can freeze the
meaning of the constitution

in time, you can probably
freeze the country in time too.

So that's why it really is a
purely reactionary measure.

The conservative legal
movement really insists

that not everyone is capable
or welcome to interpret

the Constitution.

It is only for this
very elite set of people

and they have a designated
way by which they must do it.

And that's by holding a
jurisprudential seance

and communicating
with the spirits

of these dead slave holders.

And saying, what do I
think Johnny Slaveholder

would want me to do today?

And I don't think that's a
good way to run a country.

- Hey there. Who are you?

- Oh, just the most
important document

in our country's history.

- You mean the Constitution?

- Nope.

- The Declaration
of Independence?

- Guess again.

- The Federalist Papers.

- The Federalist what?

No, even more important
than whatever you just said.

Now sit right here and
I'll tell you all about me.

♪ I'm just a little
paper for the ages ♪

♪ A way to set the
government straight ♪

♪ A short 887 pages on how
to make America great again ♪

♪ By forcing through the
president's agenda, ♪

♪ Removing all of
those who disagree ♪

♪ Replacing with our
loyal party members ♪

♪ and reclaim our
great country in some ♪

♪ Give power to the president ♪

♪ To authorize the government
to legislate morality ♪

♪ And wrestle back normality
from Marxist ideologies ♪

♪ That infiltrate our policies ♪

♪ Like gender, race,
or anything woke ♪

♪ We're going to abolish the
Department of Education. ♪

♪ Turn the swearing in
into a coronation. ♪

♪ America's great salvation
will arrive, Project 2025 ♪

- We often talk about state
governments as a laboratory

of democracy right now in so
many states across the nation,

really they've become meth
labs of non-democracy.

It is hard to call
some of these states

functioning democracies.

When you look at Wisconsin
or North Carolina or Ohio.

In these states, voters are
still allowed to cast ballots.

It's just that the
outcome of elections

have been preordained
by how those states

have been wildly gerrymandered

to ensure that the most extreme
wing of the Republican party

is in control no matter
what voters want.

And the secret here is what
happened in the 2010 election.

Republicans recognized that
they could change the nation,

not necessarily by convincing
people to come to their side,

but by redrawing districts in
such a way that they could win

with fewer votes.

But all of this starts
in state legislatures.

They're the ones in almost
three quarters of states

that control the process
of drawing these lines.

So Republicans set
out in 2010 to win

as many state
legislatures as they could

in order to have the most
control over this process

that they could possibly have.

Republicans invested
$30 million in a plan

called the Red Map short.

for the redistricting
a majority project.

They flipped those
districts, they took control

of redistricting, they
remapped those states

the following year.

They drew themselves huge
advantages in the fight

for state legislatures
as well as for Congress.

And in most of those states,
those technology driven

wild extreme gerrymanders have
endured for a decade or more,

twisting not only the
politics in those states,

but our politics nationally.

When you look at
the two mortal sins

that have really broken our
politics over the last decade,

it's the redistricting that
follows the 2010 election.

And it's the decision by
the Roberts Court in 2013

in Shelby County versus Holder.

That effectively eviscerated
the Voting Rights Act

by ending its most crucial
mechanism of enforcement,

which was known
as pre-clearance.

- 10 years ago the Supreme
Court issued its decision

in Shelby County verse Holder.

The case took aim at the
Federal Voting Rights Act,

which protected and
expanded the freedom to vote

for black Americans
and voters of color

who historically faced
intentional barriers to voting.

The court struck down the
act's pre-clearance formula,

which had required
states with a history

of racial discrimination
at the ballot box

to get permission from
the Justice Department

before enacting new voting laws.

Now 10 years after
Shelby County,

we've seen a torrential
downpour of anti-voter laws

that disproportionately
impact voters of color.

From the closure of polling
places in black communities

to racial vote dilution
in voting maps.

To laws that make it harder
for everyday Americans to vote.

In dissenting opinion in
Shelby County versus Holder,

Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg said,

"Throwing out pre-clearance
when it has worked

and is continuing to work to
stop discriminatory changes.

It's like throwing away
your umbrella in a rainstorm

because you're not getting wet."

In the absence of legislation
to restore the federal VRA,

more states are passing
their own voting rights acts.

These state VRAs protect and
expand the freedom to vote

and make it easier to challenge
discriminatory election laws

and voting maps in court.

But the freedom to vote
should be accessible

for every voter, not
just ones who live

in voter friendly states.

Congress must enact legislation

to stop the torrential
downpour of anti-voter laws

depriving many Americans of
their fundamental freedom

to vote.

- The states that
had the worst history

of civil rights abuses

needed to go to the
federal government

or to a district court
in Washington DC,

and show that any
change that they made

to an election law was
neutral and not intended

to infringe upon the
votes of minority groups.

And the Roberts Court
in 2013 in a decision

that I think will go
down with the very worst

that the court, not
only the Roberts Court,

but any US Supreme Court
has ever delivered,

said things have
changed in the South.

They ended pre-clearance.

Things had changed so
little in the South

that the very afternoon
that the Roberts Court

handed this decision down,

the state of Texas
enact a voter ID bill,

that the state itself
had already admitted

would keep more than 600,000
Latinos from the polls

because they knew that those
voters, eligible voters,

US citizens lacked
the ID that the state

had surgically determined
would be required

to now cast a ballot.

Once the guards were removed,

the inmates in all of these
wildly gerrymandered states

in these legislatures ran out.

What the redistricting in
2011 did was create an America

where political power
flowed disproportionately

to older, whiter,
more conservative,

more rural populations.

And by doing that

it created an entirely
different country.

The kinds of people who
we sent to Washington

changed with the
kinds of districts

that we draw after 2010.

And it changed the incentives

and it changed the
willingness to compromise

and it helped break how
these institutions work.

- Black people in Mississippi
had to pay $2 to vote.

The white folks
didn't pay nothing.

Reporter

- That was 1960.

1960.

- In 1961 to go on
the Freedom Rides.

We chose that day.

When we came here
on August 28th, 1963

for the march on
Washington, it was joyful.

We met with a young president,

president John
Fitzgerald Kennedy.

When we came here
on August 6th, 1965,

at the signing of the Voting
Rights Act, we were excited,

hopeful, you see something
that is not right,

not just not fair, you
have a moral obligation

to say something,
to do something.

Our children and their
children will ask us,

what did you do?

What did you say?

For some this vote may be
hard, but we have a mission

and a mandate to be on
the right side of history.

- Part of our movement is
educating the young folks

of how decisions
like Citizens United

and Shelby County beholder
have systematically

weakened our democracy.

And that is up to us
to pressure our leaders

like in Congress to, you know,

pass things like the John
R. Lewis Voting Rights Act

to ensure that we fight
back against the damage

that we saw in those
Supreme Court decisions.

You know, my team, we actually
put our bodies on the line

for that very fight
when we were involved

and helped organize a
national hunger strike

for democracy in early
2022, which was the last

kind of major push that we
saw on the national level

that brought together
hundreds of organizations

and advocates demanding
that our representatives

in Congress pass the
Freedom to Vote Act

and the John Lewis
Voting Rights Act.

And we as young people
firmly believe that

by putting our bodies on the
line with a hunger strike,

it demonstrated that young
people cared about the fight

for democracy and that
we saw it as a crisis.

And unfortunately we
did not win that fight.

And so there's a lot
more work to be done.

- Three years before
the Supreme Court

eviscerated the Voting
Rights Act in Shelby County,

they effectively unleashed
legions of dark money

onto our democracy by upending
the campaign finance laws

in the Citizens United case.

The Citizens United decision

really freed the Koch brothers

and all kinds of extreme
conservative billionaires

to spend unlimited money
on their pet projects

and to do so in a way that was
very difficult for the public

to trace and see.

When you put together
the Republican edge

in the electoral college,

the structural advantage
that white rural,

small state interests
have in the US Senate,

the enduring power
of gerrymandering

and redistricting in
state legislatures

and the US House,

combine that with the Leo
project on the judiciary

and state courts.

Add into that the
way that presidents

who have lost the popular
vote have appointed

five of the nine justices
on the US Supreme Court,

who have then been ratified
by that same Senate

is advantaged a population
that is not the majority of us.

Donald Trump could
leave the scene.

All of those other
structural advantages,

all of the fruits of
these decade long projects

will still exist

♪ Once that we started
the transition ♪

♪ and no one's left
the tennis to wait. ♪

♪ We'll go through
every policy position ♪

♪ Get rid of all the
language that we hate ♪

♪ Like civil rights
diversity in unions ♪

♪ And pronouns to
mention but a few ♪

♪ Defunding any
liberal institutions ♪

♪ That dare question
what we do, ♪

- I'm pretty sure
the Supreme Court.

- Oh the Supreme Court,
that's a good one.

Now, where was I?

♪ Abortion will be
pretty much illegal ♪

♪ And reproductive
rights will be gone ♪

♪ We'll get back to
the biblical ideal ♪

♪ That a family means a
daddy and a mom with kids ♪

♪ Repeal the crazy
climate regulations ♪

♪ That get in the
economy's way ♪

♪ With everyone reporting
to the nations ♪

♪ On Inauguration day. ♪

♪ When we power
to the President ♪

to authorize the
government to legislate

- That when the US
Constitution was created,

it left majority of people out.

Right from the
beginning, it was flawed.

However, there is hope in
the sense that US citizens,

if they trace the roots
of democracy and recognize

what is the system that the
founding fathers looked to

in order to create the
constitution that they,

that there they can
find answers, right?

And that is about true
inclusivity, equity, fairness,

kindness, compassion,
and a caring culture.

A lot of what this country
and much of the world

is dealing with
is a lot of grief.

And we see a lot
of issues such as,

whether you wanna call it,
I don't like saying illness,

but what's another word for
mental, mental health, right?

Issues in mental health
and emotional wellness.

And the result being
traumas, right?

People feel disconnected from
family, from relationship

to the earth, from their
place in the world.

- I think that without
a sense of the sacred,

which inspires reverence
and forbids transgression

against others, you know, it
forbids harm, forbids insult,

forbids deprivation.

Without a sense of the
sacred in the human.

We can't sustain a democracy.

We treat each other like digits,
you know, like, you know,

beans to be counted and so on.

That just is not consistent
with any humane government.

- So what I find
interesting today

in watching the US in grappling

with what does democracy
mean to them today?

That it's failing and finding
the system very troubling.

If citizens would
look to the roots

of their form of democracy,

they would discover
this caring culture

that would care for people
during times of grief.

Times when people were down.

And it would also find a culture
that cares for each other

to make sure that
all people are fed,

to make sure that all
people have a place to live.

Everybody is included
in the circle.

Everybody's voice is represented

inside of that true
form of democracy.

- If people gauge their
worth as human beings

on the amount of
money they have,

they're going to be stingy.

If wealth is their identity,

they're going to be very careful
of their wealth, you know?

I think that, you know,

I mean it's all this, you know,

the people that are always
being so intent on cutting taxes

and so on are very
wealthy people.

You have to reduce spending

to live within our means.

And yeah that
necessarily involves

some temporary hardship,

but it will ensure
long-term prosperity.

- And the reason, I mean
taxes are distributive.

Taxes keep the public
school going and so on.

And they don't
want distribution.

They want concentration, which
is true even despite the fact

that the, you know, how many
yachts can the ocean hold?

You know, I mean we've
gotten everything ridiculous

at this point.

It's the classic pattern.

King Midas, you know, you
get so fascinated with coal,

but you destroy your
one child, you know.

The, you know, a miser means
a miserable person, you know,

even though miser is
associated with wealth.

- And most people don't realize
that they've been lied to,

that they don't understand
that this government,

the United States
government that was created

left people out and it chose
profit over people, right?

And the result is that people
feel that on a deep level

and so many people are not
cared for in this country.

You see homelessness, you
see the rise of mental health

and wellness issues
and it's really sad.

- There has to be an
understanding that
far too many people

are afraid, they are fearful.

And until we readily
understand that

and begin to address
those types of feelings

to make them feel that you
are not being left aside,

you're not being pushed away,

we will not get at the making
the aspirational democracy

a real life thing.

A lot of it is fear.

I mean, most of us, we
don't like the unknown,

we don't like the unexpected.

We don't like knowing when
I walk through this door

that I want to know
what's on the other side.

I think fear is learned.
I don't think it is...

We're born with it.

Once we stop teaching
children to be fearful

and we do certain things
in the educational system,

we're beginning to develop
a different type of society.

- You know, what is
acceptable in our culture?

Is poverty acceptable?

You know, if we see people
sleeping on the on the sidewalk,

is that acceptable?

Not for me and probably
not for most people.

And there are choices that
can be made collectively

to make sure that changes,
you know, and improves.

- The homeless problem
is one of the areas

that Finland has been
held up as an example

to other countries because
we have handled it very well.

Finland has a policy
of housing first

for people who are in
danger of becoming homeless.

Years ago, the policy
was changed and
explicitly said that,

well, everybody should
have their home first

and then we can start dealing
with the other problems.

And so this policy has
been very successful

and you don't really see
homeless people on the streets

at all in Finland, the
way you see in the US.

- There is an e epidemic of
loneliness that's happening.

When people get older.

Elders that that happens
with them, right?

When people get sick
that that happens.

But it's also really
important for people

who at an any age to be
able to connect with others

and talk about what's going on.

- Well, I've been
looking in my research

at the progressive era,
and this was an era

that was similar to our time.

We had fast wealth and quality.

We had Robber barons who
wielded disproportionate power.

It was much harder to
express yourself politically

if you were an average
person in the country.

Black people were almost
entirely disenfranchised.

Women couldn't vote.

And yet there were
great reforms.

We passed the income tax,

we passed direct
election of senators.

We started building the
social welfare state.

We created the
five day work week

and the eight hour work day.

Huge reform amid an era
of enormous inequality

and injustice.

So if they could do it,
I think we could do it.

- Economic proofs have become
accepted as self evident.

A second bill of rights
under which a new basis

of security and prosperity
can be established for all

regardless of station
or race or creed.

Among these are the right to
a useful and remunerative job.

The right to earn enough
to provide adequate food

and clothing and recreation.

The right of every
family to a decent home,

the right to
adequate medical care

and the opportunity to
achieve and enjoy good health.

The right to adequate protection

from the economic fears
of old age, sickness,

accident, and unemployment.

The right to a good education.

All of these rights
spell security.

And after this war is
won, we must be prepared

to move forward in the
implementation of these rights,

new goals of human
happiness and wellbeing.

Working together with the aid

of the Marshall Plan.

The nations of Europe have come
a long way toward recovery,

recovery for peace.

This is the Marshall Plan.

Men and machines at
work producing clothes,

shoes, food, houses,
machines, all over Europe.

Recovery was
leading to new hope.

- When the United States
as it is prone to do

attacks other nations and
overthrows their government

and installs a new government,

they do not install the
government that we have here.

They usually put in a
parliamentary democracy

with a presidential figurehead.

They do not put in this
presidential system

with an electoral college.

They do not put in a system
where the head of state

and the head of the
legislative body

can be different
parties so that gridlock

and dysfunction can ensue.

They do not put in our
system of government.

In Germany, in Japan, in
Iraq, it just doesn't happen.

And it shows you that
there's an insight there

that the leaders of
this government know

that we don't want our
government exported anywhere

because it just won't work.

- One of the strongest
social democracies

in the world is Finland.

Anu Partanen is a Finnish
writer living in Helsinki.

- And there's a sort of a
typical Nordic welfare state

where most of the government
policies are universal

in terms of universal healthcare

and universal public
education system,

universal access to
subsidized affordable daycare,

and so on and so on.

So most of the
government policies

are based on the idea of
equality of opportunity

and universal policies that
help everyone in the country.

I used to live in New York City,

I didn't make that much money.

I was, I think, well
maybe lower middle class

while I was living there.

And my tax rate on my
income was exactly the same

as it had been in Finland
because I paid federal and city

and state tax there.

And then on top of that, in
the US I paid health insurance

and if I had had a child,
I would've paid for daycare

and so on, which in
Finland is provided

or subsidized with taxes.

So for someone like me,

lower middle class
living in New York City,

my income taxes
were about the same,

but I got much less in return.

Overall, Finland does not
have as high tax rates

on income as Americans
tend to think.

I mean, typically if
you make middle class

or upper middle class,
your tax rate is maybe 30%

Finnish people get
for their taxes

a lot of the services that
unfortunately the Americans

have to pay really high rates
for on top of their taxes.

- I don't think we
can go on much longer

with the system that we have.

It is rapidly
folding in on itself

in a way that is really
dysfunctional and dangerous.

So I hope that the powers
that be see it the way

that I see it and will work

to make these
structural changes.

- And when I travel the
country talking to voters

about their frustrations
about democracy,

although people are fed
up with the current state

of politics, people still
believe in something better.

And I think to me that is
what kind of keeps me going

and always reminding myself

that if we are to
be in this fight

for a truly just democracy,

we need to understand what
does that actually look like

and build that
future for ourselves.

And that looks like starting
with addressing the flaws

of our democratic institutions

and understanding how that
will impact every single issue

that I care about, and my
generation cares about.

I mean, you have so
many amazing examples

throughout the world
of everyday people

trying to figure out ways
to incorporate democracy

in decision making over things
that impact their lives.

And so for me, I think
it's important for us

to always kind of get
out of that American only

America first mindset
and to realize that

if we want to truly
be this democracy

that America espouses to
be, we need to keep up

with the rest of the world.

And we also need to redefine
what democracy looks like

for a different generation

which hopefully we
are going to do.

- If it was up to me,

the Senate would be made
into a House of Lords

where they don't
have much impact

on the national
conversation whatsoever.

And that we would
increase and create

proportional representation
in the various states

for the House of
Representatives.

So that if you know
there's an election

and 55% say we
want the Democrats

and 45% we say we
want the Republicans,

then that's the ratio
that goes to Congress.

- How would I change the Senate?

You can go any number of ways
that make it more democratic.

One way you could go is
just give those states

with certain populations, five
senators as opposed to two,

give the Wyomings of
the world one Senator

and do disproportionate
that way.

Or a more radical idea is
let's just take power away

from the Senate and make the
House of Representatives,

which is a much more
democratic institution,

a much more representative
institution,

a much more
institution in the mold

of what Madison
originally intended.

Make it so much more powerful.

First of all, you
need more people.

So let's say a thousand people

in the House of Representatives,

but take the set power
of the Senate away.

Just give them confirmation
power, you know,

confirmed treaties
and things like that.

- We can come
together and fix this.

We could fix much of
what ails the US Senate

through statute.

It wouldn't even require
a constitutional amendment

in some cases.

- How about a six year
term for the president

with a two year
retention election?

So you get one six year term

and if you're good, the
people vote either up or down

for an additional two years.

If you're bad, you're
out after six years.

If you're good,
eight is the limit,

but you're not running
against anybody.

Politics is tearing us apart

and it's because elections
aren't working for most of us.

Here's why.

In the US each of us can
vote for the candidate

we like the most.

But whenever more than
two candidates are running

to win one seat, it's
possible for most voters

to hate whoever wins.

Because of the split vote,
politicians can ignore the will

of most voters and still win.

Ranked choice voting
gives you the freedom

to select a backup choice to
prevent that from happening.

Let's say a group uses
ranked choice voting

to decide what to eat
for dinner tonight.

Each voter selects
their favorite dish,

but also has the option
to choose backup dishes.

If one food receives
more than half the votes,

it wins just like in
any other election.

But let's get to dessert

where the competition
is more fierce.

What if no ice cream flavor
has more than 50% of the vote?

Under a normal race,

vanilla would win even
though a majority of voters

didn't pick it.

With ranked choice voting,

the flavor with the fewest
votes is eliminated.

And voters who chose that
flavor is number one,

will have their votes count
for their next choice.

Everyone gets a say, no
one wastes their vote,

and the winner is the flavor

that the largest number
of people agreed upon.

That's ranked choice voting,

it's as easy as one, two, three.

You get more voice
and more choice

and that makes elections
better for all of us.

- So if you end single
member winner take all

and replace it with a system
of multi-member districts,

larger districts are
represented by three, four,

or five members using
rank choice voting.

What you begin to see is
that every single district

is represented by a
Democrat by a Republican,

maybe by an independent,

you begin to actually
get districts

that reflect the
ideological variance

and complexity of a state.

And it makes a huge difference.

When you use
multi-member districts,

you create a more
proportional Congress,

suddenly everybody is reflected.

Suddenly every vote
actually matters.

Suddenly every
district is competitive

and a swing district, this
is a transformative plan

that would remake the very
nature of our politics.

It would fix so much
of what is broken,

and it would bring
us in line really

with what modern democracies
around the world do.

We are not as polarized
as our politics

would lead us to believe.

It's simply that the
structures of our system elect

the most polarizing
extreme members

and then incentivize them to
behave in the most extreme

and polarizing ways.

If we could change
those incentives,

we could have a
politics that all of us

actually believed in again,

and that more importantly,
actually reflected

all of our beliefs.

When you look at polls, it
doesn't matter how controversial

the issue is, almost
every hot button issue,

there's a path forward.

Our politics can't get there

because of the way
we elect people.

- A lot of the frustrations
that young people

are facing right
now do kind of stem

from this archaic
two party system

that the United States have,

which is an outlier
in modern democracies.

And where as a result
of that frustration,

we're seeing increasingly a
trend of young people and Gen Z

and millennial
voters not affiliate

with parties when
they register to vote.

We're especially seeing that
in places like the southwest,

Arizona, Texas, Nevada,

where more and
more young people,

almost half of young voters are
not registering with a party

because they are fed up with
the two party political system

and are eager for alternatives.

- The size of the Supreme Court

has changed throughout history.

It is not a
constitutionally number.

So we can absolutely
constitutionally change

the size of the court.

I think we should also
change the terms of the court

right now Justices get to serve

for the rest of
their natural lives

unless they choose to retire.

There's no other position
in American democracy

that operates like that.

And it's pretty ridiculous
that we have this handful

of people ruling forever
basically over a country.

What hundreds of
millions of people.

- No conflict or policy
puzzle is intractable

if you engage citizens.

And that concept can be
extended beyond polling.

Look at Ireland as
foreign policy notes.

Many think that the
historic referendum

that legalized
abortion last year

would not have been possible

had the government not convened
an assembly of 99 citizens

to debate the matter
two years earlier.

The assembly ended
up recommending

unrestricted access to abortion.

Former British Prime Minister
Gordon Brown has proposed

citizens assemblies to fix
the dilemma that is Brexit.

Environmental groups think
that they could help solve

policy gridlock over
the climate crisis.

If such assemblies
are really empowered,

they might prove what
Fishman's polling suggests.

Anything is possible when
people start engaging

with each other and
with their government.

- So deliberative democracy
is where we all get together

and we work through our problems

and find solutions together.

Rather than saying that
person we voted for,

they've gotta sort it out.

How can we find
a common decision

which is actually gonna
be good for all of us?

And by sitting down
and working it through,

through deliberation, that
provides a much stronger basis

for careful nuanced
clever decision making

than these stupid binaries
which are imposed on us

by the current political system.

Where people are allowed to
behave as democratic citizens.

It has a transformative
effect on them.

It turns them into
intelligent citizens.

And what we see consistently
with participatory democracy

is that the people make
decisions which are much fairer,

much greener, much longer
term than their so-called

representatives do.

And people are not idiots.

They very quickly
work these things out

when they're given
the responsibility.

It's this process
of radical trust.

If you trust in the people,

the people make
trustworthy decisions.

- Today, an oligarch is
taking shape in America

of extreme wealth,
power, and influence

that literally threatens
our entire democracy,

our basic rights and freedoms

and a fair shot for
everyone to get ahead.

- Like that, they're not
going to give up their money

and influence and power easily.

You know, there needs
to be a countervailing

political push against it.

There was in the progressive
era, there was in the New Deal,

you know, FDR
embraced their hatred.

We had to struggle

with the old enemies of peace,

business and financial monopoly,

speculation, reckless
banking, class antagonism,

sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to
consider the government

of the United States
as a mere appendage

to their own affairs.

And we know now that
government by organized money

is just as dangerous as
government by organized mob.

Never before in all our
history have these forces

been so united against one
candidate as they stand today,

they are unanimous
in their hate for me.

And I welcome their hatred.

I should like to have it said
of my first administration

that in it, the cause
of selfishness and
of lust for power

met their match.

I should like to have
it said, wait a minute,

I should like to have it said
of my second administration,

that in it, these
forces met their master.

- And so it is
politically, you can do it.

They are a tiny sliver of
the American population

and even combined, their
power is disproportionate,

but it's not inevitable
and it's not unassailable,

but it requires leadership

and it requires
democratic champions,

you know, champions of
democracy and of equity.

- Banks were under such
pressure, you know,

and a lot of banks and the
truth is were unwilling to fight

with their regulators
because they would just come

and punish you more.

So in this great
country of ours,

you know, you're
unwilling to speak up

because they'll come after you.

I've been told by
people at the Fed,

you know that because
of what you have said

and what you wrote about,

you know, they're
coming after you.

It could be
supervisory, it's gross.

Time to fight back.

And so now you have the
FSF, which is the big banks,

the ABA, which is you guys,
BPI, all coordinated about

how we're gonna
attack these problems.

What's fair, what's not fair.

We don't want to get
involved in litigation

just to make a point.

But I think, you know, if
you're in a knife fight,

you better damn
well bring a knife

and you know,
that's where we are.

And it's about time, including
the big box retailers.

It's time to fight back.

I've had it with these
like, you know, and.

And we bank a lot of
these guys and I just...

It isn't my preferred way
of dealing with the problem,

but we have no choice.

If you had some capability

to do something about
Wall Street, about this.

What would you dictate to that?

- Oh, do something
about Wall Street.

Nationalize all the big banks.

Put a limit on private equity
companies that they can,

you know, that they can play
with no more than $10 billion

rather than 10 trillion.

You know, they're the
shadow banking industry.

I would clamp down
on them full bore

and I would just
nationalize the large banks.

I don't understand why
something that important

to the US economy should
be in the hands of a few.

Whose primary goal in life
is to enrich themselves.

- And what has happened
in that 50 years

is according to the
Rand Corporation,

there has been a 50 trillion,
trillion with the T,

redistribution of wealth from
the bottom 90% of the top 1%.

You've got CEOs today
making 300 times more

than their workers.

You've got three people
on top owning more wealth

then the bottom half
of American society.

So that's why people are angry

and they're worried
that their kids may have

a lower standard
of living than they

in the wealthiest country
in the history of the world.

So there's a lot
of anger out there,

and I think we tap some of that
anger in a constructive way,

essentially saying,
you know what?

We don't need so few to have
so much in wealth and power.

Let's distribute it
more fairly in America.

- So something needs
to change here.

I mean, 10 years ago,
the World Economic Forum

asked the question,

what must industry do to
prevent a broad social backlash?

The answer's very simple.

Just stop talking
about philanthropy

and start talking about taxes.

Taxes, taxes. We need to...

I mean just two days ago

there was a billionaire
in here, what's his name?

Michael Dell.

And he asked a question like,

name me one country where
a top marginal tax rate

of 70% has actually worked.

And you know, I'm a historian.

The United States, that's
where it has actually worked.

In the 1950s during Republican
President Eisenhower,

you know, the war veteran?

The top marginal tax
rate in the US was 91%.

For people like Michael Dell,
you know, the top state tax

for people like Michael
Dell was more than 70%.

I mean, this is
not rocket science.

I mean, we can talk for
a very long time about

all these stupid
philanthropy schemes.

We can invite Bono once more.

Come on, we gotta be talking
about taxes. That's it.

Taxes, taxes, taxes, taxes.

All the rest is
bullshit in my opinion.

Thank you.

- Well, look, the reason
why people consent

to our grossly unfair and highly
destructive economic system

is that they think that one
day they will be the winners.

You know, we all believe
we're temporarily

embarrassed millionaires,
and one day it will be us.

Of course it won't be because
some people are supremely rich

because they exploit
everyone else.

But we can all aspire
to public luxury,

to magnificent public tennis
courts and swimming pools

and art galleries and museums
and parks and wonderful things

that we can all enjoy together

without taking them
away from other people.

And there's plenty of
ecological space for that

because we are sharing
those resources.

So the economic
system I want to see

would be built on what I
call private sufficiency.

You have your own modest
domain, your own home

with your own things in it,
that you meet your needs.

That's totally fine.

But public luxury, if you
want to spread your wings

and have luxury in your
life, then let's have luxury

that everyone can share
in the public domain.

And that can either be
owned by the community,

which would be ideal
from my point of view.

You know, we should
own our local resources

and have commons that
we could all enjoy,

or it can be owned by
the city or by the state,

or in some cases by
the federal government.

It doesn't really matter
as long as we can share it.

- I think that we are seeing
so much backlash right now

because we are closer
than we've been

to making that actual real
functioning democracy.

I think that part of why we
had the attack on the capitol

on January 6th was because
multiracial America

rejected the reelection
campaign of a white demagogue.

And so I think we are seeing...

This is why I believe
we're on the cusp,

because we are close.

There's also this aggressive
resistance to it from people

who are displeased with
the way it's going.

But I think that
we have also seen

lots of agitation for progress.

We've seen so many
waves of protests,

whether fighting for better
wages or working conditions

or fighting against
police brutality.

That I think that
people are eager

for a more just
egalitarian democracy.

And so I think we are very close

and we just need
to keep fighting.

- So many young people in our
generation feel disillusioned

with our institutions that they
feel like these institutions

do not reflect them
and their families.

And so when I hear that,
I tell them I understand,

and you're right, you have
every right to feel that way.

And the reason why you
may be feeling that way

is because these institutions
in our democracy,

were not built to include
people that look like me,

that look like you.

And so when you acknowledge
that that frustration

is super real and
don't just, you know,

wave it off as ugh, you know,

vote, no matter what,
people feel heard

and then they realize, huh,

there is a reason why
I'm feeling this way

and maybe there's something
that I can do about it.

And so at GenVote, what
we tell our young folks

is that sure, our
institutions were not built

to include people that look
like us because they were,

you know, the founding
documents of this country

were written by white
slave property owners.

But there's still this
idea of what does it mean

to actually achieve a democracy?

And so our generation
I think understands

that there is still
that potential to
fight for something,

to fight for truly just society.

And as a result, that's why
you see so many young people

out involved in
political movements

because we are fighting
for that better future.

And so at GenVote, we kind
of connect that frustration

with our democracy, with this
hopeful, I think sentiment

that so many young folks
do have in our generation

that something
though can be better

and helping define what could
that better world look like.

- The rise of Bernie
Sanders is probably

the touchstone moment that will
be remembered as giving life

to the occupy message
for those who will dare

to remember occupy
in the later future.

Bernie, over the next couple
of years, he found a way

to take that message
of populism, of
economic left populism

and the 99% and the
willingness and the courage

to take on the billionaire
class, as he called it.

And he kind of
trademarked that language.

He created the populist movement

that challenged the populist
movement of the right.

The Bernie Revolution was driven

by the really the
millennial and you know,

soon to come in and
become Gen Z population.

- More often than not,
young people do tend to skew

progressive and liberal
on social issues

and national polls
and studies show that.

And whether it be on issues
like addressing gun violence

or addressing the
climate crisis,

or, you know, young
people demanding things

like student loan
forgiveness, you know,

across I think the country,
there's an understanding

that our generation
values freedom and dignity

for all people.

And as a result, we do
tend to lean progressive

and liberal on many issues,
including democracy.

♪ Once upon a time
they said never ♪

♪ Never, never
will you be free ♪

♪ Then we join our
arms tightly together ♪

♪ Together we took
to the stream ♪

♪ You made it happen
through our own action ♪

♪ We made it come to right ♪

♪ We made it happen
in our own action ♪

♪ We fashion in all our might ♪

- And you get to 3.5% of
your overall population.

I think the argument
is that the weight

and the momentum of that
power, public populist power

is too great for any government,
any government anywhere,

I believe is the argument
to withstand that pressure.

If you imagine 10 million
Americans holding sit-ins

and stopping the daily
course of business in America

and occupying squares and
shutting down our various forms

of corporations,
shutting down government,

making it difficult for in
the way that occupy protesters

tried to stop the status quo,

stop people from
simply allowing the 1%,

the system to operate as
is and force a change.

When you have your 10 million,

I think that that is the number
and probably far below that

you could probably market
all the way down to 1 million

done in the right way.

But I do, I believe
there is a tipping point

and we clearly have yet
to see that in America.

I think activism
and a new movement

that finds that percentage
of the population

that's willing to come
along and demand change,

I think that that's really
one of our great hopes

as human beings, you
know, life will go on.

But our hope for change hinges
quite a bit on individuals

and collective
cultures collective our
society to stand up

and say this is what
we wan as people.

Movements have
always driven change.

Change doesn't happen.

Dictators haven't fallen,
laws aren't reformed,

governments aren't
improved without people

like from the civil rights era

without the Martin Luther Kings,

without the Gandhis, without
the people who who lead

and others follow and who
are righteous in message

and are firm in their principle.

I think we're awaiting that.

We're awaiting our
future leaders.

We have had an era that is
sorely lacking in leadership,

but I do feel like every
generation has its rebellion.

And this one's time is coming.

- It is now official,

CNN projects that Donald Trump
has been elected president,

defeating vice president
Kamala Harris and making.

- But what that man named
Donald Trump did do,

is he said, I feel your pain.

I know that you are hurting,
and I have an explanation.

Well, his explanation
was bogus, you know,

is millions of people coming
across the water's illegal?

We have to strengthen
the waters.

That goes without saying,

but that is not the
cause of the problem.

The cause of the
problem right now

is to have a small
number of people on top

who have enormous economic
and political power.

How for example, how for example
can the Democrats not say,

look, we gotta get rid
of the citizens unit

in this campaign,

in the Republican
party, Democratic party,

billionaires
exerted their power.

- So here are a few thoughts

that I have at the outset
about the conversation

we need to be having.

First of all, we
are not listening

to the people we
claim to represent.

We claim to be the party
of the working class,

the party of poor people.

And yet we let interest groups

and think tanks tell us
what those people need.

That's why we end up
with these relatively

small ball solutions.

Not saying they don't matter,
but more roads and bridges.

Bulk negotiation of
prescription drug prices,

a little bit bigger tax
credit for families with kids.

That's not meeting the moment

because Americans are exhausted

by a neoliberal economic order
that has consolidated power

in the hands of the few.

That has forced them to
become global citizens.

Instead of having some
unique local identity

or a true sense of being
an American citizen.

Democrats need to understand
that Republicans start

by examining the way that
people are actually feeling

and then matching
policies to the way

that they're feeling.

Democrats need to start
doing the same thing.

If we did that, we would
pick bigger fights,

we would be a more
populist party.

We would name the corporations
and the billionaires

that are screwing people and
we would take it to them.

Now, that's something that the
Harris campaign did not do,

and frankly, when
leaders in our party

like Bernie Sanders do it,
they largely get shamed

or shunned as
dangerous populace.

Maybe that's because
if we actually

were fighting billionaires,
if we were actually engaging

in true populist economic ideas,

it would hurt our coalition,

which these days tends to
be higher income people

who don't want the status
quo fundamentally upset.

- Democracy has disappeared in
several other great nations,

not because the people of those
nations disliked democracy,

but because they had grown
tired of unemployment

and insecurity, of
government confusion.

Government weakness,
finally in desperation

they chose to sacrifice liberty

in the hope of getting
something to eat.

We in America know that our
own democratic institutions

can be preserved
and made to work,

but in order to preserve
them, we need to act together

to meet the problems
of the nation boldly

and to prove that the
practical operation

of democratic government
is equal to the task

of protecting the
security of the people.

History proves that
dictatorships do not grow

out of strong and
successful governments,

but out of weak
and helpless ones.

We are a rich nation.

We can afford to pay for
security and prosperity

without having to sacrifice
our liberties into the bargain.

People ain't been
living right, ain't been there,

beaten
and robbing each other

in different ways, with
fountain pens, guns,

and having wars and killing
each other and shooting round.

killing each other
and shooting around.

Currently,
America is at a crossroads

and can either reach for
more democracy or less.

Jane Adams, the
first American woman

to win the Nobel Peace Prize,

said, "The cure for
the ails of democracy

is more democracy."

Yet right now,
America, according to
the democracy index,

is a flawed democracy.

Maybe we need to go back to the
roots of American democracy,

to learn from the
people who gave the gift

of democracy to America.

- My recommendation for US
citizens is to trace the roots

of democracy and find
the original teachings

that bring about peace,
that bring about balance,

and having a true relationship
with the earth and with life,

because it's all
contained there,

all of it, it's there.

And the people who are the
originators of this democracy

still exist.

We are still here and we are
still living under peace.

That's worth looking into.

When you understand
government by representation

and you go back
to the indigenous,

to the Haudenosaunee roots
of the US Constitution,

you'll see that that
representation is
of a clan family,

and all members in
that clan family

may not even actually
be blood related,

but they are part of a
family that is responsible

to each other and making
sure that we are all fed,

we are all taken care of.

- Despite everything.

I do have some degree of hope

because I think that the
country has been through

such dark times before.

So I think that there is
just demonstrable evidence

that even if things are
bad now that doesn't mean

that they will always be bad.

It doesn't mean that things
will remain that way.

There are dozens of
amendments that show us

that the Constitution
can be changed.

And I think that I
have faith in the power

of mass movements.

I believe in people.

So even though I don't
have much hope for the laws

currently exercised, I
have hope in our ability

to change the way
it's exercised.

I think that that's
something people

have always been capable of.

And people have done
much more with much less,

they have succeeded in
darker times than these.

And so if they could do that,

then there's no reason
we can't either.

♪ There's a heat wave coming ♪

♪ And I don't know
if I should leave. ♪

♪ There are cracks and the
ground that nobody can believe ♪

♪ Why does everybody bury
their heads and hide ♪

♪ By the coastal water
they facing a rising tide ♪

♪ And they want to know
what's going move us forward ♪

♪ What's gonna move us back ♪

♪ What's gonna move us
over the hills to safety ♪

♪ I'm asking what's
gonna take us forward ♪

♪ What's gonna take us back ♪

♪ What's going to give
us everything we need ♪

♪ There are people running
but nobody knows to wave ♪

♪ Swimming through the ravines
and flying through the air ♪

♪ Still we hush and listen to
hear what they had to say ♪

♪ Though the words are
empty for listening anyway ♪

♪ Because we want to know what's
going to take us forward ♪

♪ What's going to take us back ♪

♪ What's gonna take us
over the hill to safety ♪

♪ We wanna know what's
going move us forward ♪

♪ What's gonna move us back? ♪

♪ What's going to give
us everything we need ♪