SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:var(--button-bg-color);padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"To have our decades of work preserved in such a way—where anyone can come online and visit so many hours of programming—is an unexpected honor," said the renowned broadcaster.
Legendary U.S. broadcaster Bill Moyers is set to join fellow journalist Judy Woodruff Thursday evening for a conversation and screening at the Library of Congress' Thomas Jefferson Building in Washington, D.C. to celebrate a collection of his work spanning half a century.
"They will discuss changes in the media and journalism over more than five decades, their experience covering America and foreign affairs, the Civil Rights Movement, race, and the clash of ideologies, including challenges to democracy from capital, extremism, and growing conflicts over the freedom of democracy," according to the Library of Congress.
Woodruff chairs the executive advisory council of the American Archive of Public Broadcasting—a collaboration between the Library of Congress and Boston's GBH that pulled together more than 1,000 television programs for its recently unveiled Bill Moyers Collection, most of which is available online at AmericanArchive.org.
"The Bill Moyers Collection offers a wealth of engaging and probing conversations with leading thinkers, authors, artists, and political figures of our times, along with penetrating investigative reports covering many conflicts and issues that have animated the past 50 years and beyond," said Alan Gevinson, the Library of Congress' project director for the archive. "We are deeply honored to host this remarkable collection."
"The Bill Moyers Collection offers a wealth of engaging and probing conversations with leading thinkers, authors, artists, and political figures of our times, along with penetrating investigative reports."
Throughout his decades in journalism, Moyers has interviewed numerous high-profile figures, including Maya Angelou, Margaret Atwood, Harry Bridges, Bill Gates, Salman Rushdie, Desmond Tutu, Elie Wiesel, and multiple U.S. Supreme Court justices and presidents.
"To have our decades of work preserved in such a way—where anyone can come online and visit so many hours of programming—is an unexpected honor," said Moyers, a longtime Common Dreamscontributor and Television Hall of Fame member who has won multiple Emmy Awards, Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University Awards, Peabody Awards, and George Polk Awards.
"That the American Archive of Public Broadcasting is making this possible," he added, "will allow viewers for generations to come to see what mattered to us over the years—and how we covered our times through the stories of contemporary democracy and its struggle to survive and thrive as well as the perceptions of many of our society's foremost thinkers and creators."
As the journalist's website—which is in archive mode—details:
Moyers began his journalism career at age 16 as a cub reporter for his hometown daily newspaper in Marshall, Texas. He was a founding organizer and deputy director of the Peace Corps and special assistant to President Lyndon B. Johnson. Moyers served as Johnson's press secretary from 1965 to 1967.
As publisher of Newsday from 1967 to 1970, Moyers brought aboard writers including Pete Hamill, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and Saul Bellow, and led the paper to two Pulitzer Prizes. In 1976, he was the senior correspondent for the distinguished documentary series "CBS Reports" and later a senior news analyst for the "CBS Evening News."
In 1986, Moyers and Joan Konner founded Public Affairs Television—which, as the Library of Congress noted, "was widely acclaimed for its innovative and courageous exploration of subjects including politics, the environment, the role of the media in democracy, and the world of ideas." His wife and creative partner Judith Davidson Moyers soon joined the independent production company, which operated until 2015.
"Not content just to diagnose and document corporate and political malpractice, Moyers has regularly taken his cameras and microphones to cities and towns where unions, community organizations, environmental groups, tenants rights activists, and others were waging grassroots campaigns for change," Peter Dreier wrote for Common Dreams in 2015. "Moyers has given them a voice. He has used TV as a tool to expose political and corporate wrongdoing and to tell stories about ordinary people working together for justice."
Near the end of the final episode of his weekly show "Moyers & Company" in 2015, the veteran broadcaster told viewers that "democracy is a public trust—a reciprocal agreement between generations to keep it in good repair and pass it along."
"Our great progressive struggles have been waged to make sure ordinary citizens, and not just the rich and privileged, share in the benefits of a free society," he continued. "So to this new generation, I say: Over to you, welcome to the fight."
The following conversation between veteran journalist and broadcaster Bill Moyers and history Heather Cox Richardson took place on Thursday, January 7th--one day after an insurrectionist mob stormed the U.S. Capitol building after being incited to action by U.S. President Donald Trump at a nearby rally focused on stopping members of Congress from certifying his loss to President-elect Joe Biden in the 2020 election.
Welcome to Moyers on Democracy. President Trump urged his followers to come to Washington for a "big protest" on January 6th. He wanted their help in reversing the results of the election he lost. "Be there," he said." (It) will be wild." And they came. By the thousands, they came, and sure enough, it was not only "wild," as the President had promised, it was worse. Much worse. The protesters became a mob, stormed the US Capitol, drove the vice president and members of the House and Senate out of their chambers, and turned a day meant for celebrating democracy into a riot that sought to overturn a free and fair election. Across the country and around the world people watched, horrified, dumbfounded and disbelieving, as insurrection incited by the president of the United States and his Republican enablers struck at the very centerpiece of American governance. Here's Bill Moyers, to talk about that day with the historian Heather Cox Richardson.
BILL MOYERS: Good morning Heather, glad you could join me.
HEATHER COX RICHARDSON: It's always a pleasure.
BILL MOYERS: It's the morning after what happened in Washington, the insurrection. Did you believe your eyes when you were watching those events unfold on the screen?
HEATHER COX RICHARDSON: I believed them and I wept. And I am not exaggerating. Seeing that Confederate flag, which had never flown in the Capitol during the Civil War, and it had never flown in the Capitol in the 1870s, and it had never flown in the Capitol during the second rise of KKK in the 1920s, going through our people's government house in 2021- the blow that that means for those of us who understand exactly what was at stake in the Confederacy. That image for me, of the flag being carried through the halls was, I think, my lowest moment as an American.
BILL MOYERS: Interesting because I kept seeing the flags all afternoon: the Confederate flag, American flags flying upside down. Flags with the name "Jesus" on them, "Jesus saves," "Jesus 2020." A big, burly protester carrying a flag on a baseball bat that seemed as big as his arms. He paused long enough just to give the camera and us a middle finger. Joe Biden keeps saying, this isn't America. It's not who we are, but it is America. This kind of character and this kind of conflict and this kind of meanness are a big part of our history. Is there any hope for Biden's aspiration to unite us again?
HEATHER COX RICHARDSON: These people have always been in our society. And they always will be in our society. What makes this moment different is that we have a president who is actively inciting them in order to destroy our democracy. We certainly have had presidents who incited these sorts of people before for one end or another. But at the end of the day, every president until now has believed in democracy. And this one does not. He wants to get rid of democracy and replace it with an oligarchy that puts him and his family at the top. The same sort of way that we have oligarchies in Russia now, for example. Biden cannot combat these people alone. This is a moment for Americans who care about our democracy and who care about returning to our fundamental principles. And finally, making them come to life to speak up, to push back, to insist on accountability and to recognize that we are, in fact, struggling for the survival of our country, not simply talking about, "Oh, I like this politician" or, "I like that politician." And if we do that, will we win? Absolutely. But making people do that and getting people to understand how important that is is going to be a battle. And it's one that, by the way, we've been in before, and lost. This is the same sort of battle we fought at the end of Reconstruction, when most Americans sort of went "Whatever." And we ended up with a one-party state in the American South for generations. And that is exactly the sort of thing that they are trying to make happen across America itself.
BILL MOYERS: What do you think happens to those we saw on the screen yesterday, those who invaded the Capitol, the core of our congressional system? What do you think happens to them when they discover that Trump and the Republican Party have been lying to them? That the election wasn't rigged, it wasn't a hoax. What do they do?
HEATHER COX RICHARDSON: A lot of them will never realize that. You know your psychological studies. A lot of what we used to call brainwashing can't be undone and won't be undone. And they will go to their graves believing that this was a stolen election. But some, and you could see them on their faces yesterday, some people sort of went, "Well, wait a minute. This was supposed to be the storm. We were supposed to be having a revolution. And it didn't happen. We got into the Capitol building. We did our part, and there was nobody there to greet us and to help us take over." And what's interesting in a moment like that is there are two things to do: you can go deeper into your delusion, or you can turn on the people who took you there in a really powerful and passionate way. And this is one of the reasons this moment is so fraught is a lot of people might be waking up and going, "Wait a minute. They lied to us. They changed their minds last night and they made Biden president." And you can see if you're watching QAnon. They're sort of saying, "Well, wait a minute. I'm sure Trump has an even deeper plan." Which, of course, puts him in a bind because he can't now say, "Oh, never mind. I didn't mean this," because then he's going to lose their loyalty. So, we're in this fraught moment. But I think people will either go ahead and continue to believe and this will a rump group that we are going to have to be dealing with for many, many years. Or some of them will become some of our most vocal opponents of people like Trump.
BILL MOYERS: Seventy million people are not really a rump group, are they? They constitute a sizable portion of the American population. You think they'll drift away, those who are just seeing Trump as a sort of spokesman for their grievances and someone who could put the establishment on notice? Or are they in this for the long run?
HEATHER COX RICHARDSON: I think it's really important to distinguish between people who voted Republican in the last election and people who actually stormed the Capitol yesterday. For all that we saw yesterday was horrific and the rioters that protested outside of some state capitals, there really weren't that many of them. And a lot of people who went ahead and voted Republican would not have endorsed what happened yesterday. So, the thing that I am watching is the fact that so many people will vote for their political party no matter what it does. And one of the things, as you know, that I've talked about for a long time is Republicans stepping in and reclaiming their party because I think they really could steer some of those Republican voters back into the American mainstream. And you can see that battle going on at this very moment as there's this dramatic split between the formerly establishment Republicans who went ahead and supported Trump for all these years. People like former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell from Kentucky, or the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee Lindsey Graham. Or many of the other establishment Republicans who have stepped in and said, no, we're not going to go ahead and pretend that Donald Trump won this election. He did not. And you can see them trying to take back the Republican Party and move it back away from the QAnon supporters, away from the Trump supporters. And then you see the Trump supporters taking their own off-ramp into a more radical direction. And if that split really happens, I worry a lot less about those 70 million people because I think they will vote Republican. Not a lot of them will end up going down what is absolutely a neo-Nazi, white supremacist direction.
BILL MOYERS: But as I watched, I was taken with a couple of still photographs of the members of Congress after the invaders got inside, who were being evacuated. They got their gas masks out from underneath their desk and began to proceed. Three in a row that I saw were what I would call political agitators from within. They were people who supported Trump's argument that the election was a hoax and was rigged. And they had the most bewildered look on their faces as to what was happening. And as I watched, I got angry with all those people who stoked the fires of dissent and, when it got out of control, acted surprised, like those members of Congress who were being led out. But once you whip up fury with people you've lied to, you can't just brush them off with a shrug of your shoulder. And you can't just say, I have no responsibility for what happened. I only asked those people to vote for me. I didn't ask them to attack the Capitol. What happens to those members of Congress, those political figures who actually encouraged what happened yesterday indirectly by agreeing with and embracing Trump's lies that the election was a fraud? What happens to them?
HEATHER COX RICHARDSON: Well, of course, they were making the calculation that it was worth supporting what Trump was alleging because they wanted to pick up his base for elections in 2022 or 2024. And that's exactly what Josh Hawley was doing, the senator from Missouri who went ahead and signed early on to supporting the House Republicans who were going to challenge Biden's electoral votes. And then, of course, Ted Cruz from Texas jumped on board because he's terrified that Hawley was going to undercut him for the 2024 nomination. So, to them, it was a game. It was a calculation. You know, "Biden's going to get the presidency. We know he won it fair and square. Trump has lost all of his lawsuits. This is a really safe way to go ahead and signal that I'm going to honor him, and I'll pick up his voters." And to them, it was a game. And what they discovered pretty quickly was, it wasn't a game to the people to whom they had seemed to promise their loyalty. Josh Hawley is done because that photograph of him making the power sign to the rioters, yeah. His career is done. And Ted Cruz is also in a terrible spot because, if you recall the timing, he had given a really incendiary speech while they were already marching toward the Capitol. So last night, those two senators doubled down because they really don't have anywhere else they can go. But it was interesting to see the people who hadn't been that exposed took the off-ramp. Yesterday morning, 14 senators said that they were going to object to the counting of electoral votes from Arizona, which is one of the states that Trump said he was contesting. But by the time the vote actually happened last night, only six of them went ahead and objected to it. But you can see them going, I didn't mean that. I didn't want to be part of that. And so there is going to be this struggle I think in the Republican Party between people who are trying to pick up Trump's base and others who are recoiling from it. But it was interesting that they lost half of the people who were supporting that between the morning and the afternoon when they saw what it could create. So I think that people like Hawley and Cruz have no choice but to stay with the tiger that they are riding. But other Republicans don't want to be part of it. And think about what that's going to look like in any election going forward to intercut what those senators said, encouraging Trump's false accusations about the election with the person who was at the front of the Senate on the dais, wearing a bull costume without a shirt, with Aryan tattoo on his abdomen. You know, Americans don't like violence. They don't like political violence. So long as we still have elections, that's going to mean you are never going to get reelected.
BILL MOYERS: And the photograph of a fella who had occupied Nancy Pelosi's office, the speaker of the House, and he was sitting in her chair and twirling his cap and had his feet on her desk. And he had that look of a Brownshirter in an earlier time of European history. And I wondered, "What happens to him when he leaves there? Any shame?" I woke up wondering about him this morning. "What's he doing this morning," I thought, "after sitting at the personal desk of the speaker of the House of Representatives with his feet on her desk?"
HEATHER COX RICHARDSON: Well, but isn't that you know, we can't know because we're not in his--
BILL MOYERS: No.
HEATHER COX RICHARDSON: --head. But isn't that one of those things where you find yourself in a position you never expected to be in? You know, you maybe were trying to do one thing or make a protest or do something, and you end up in a position you don't expect yourself to be in. And it's almost like an out of body experience, going, "What am I doing here?" But that begs the next question. How he is thinking about this moment depends on how we react to it. Now, if he knew that he was going to be shot for breaching the Capitol walls the way I think we have to assume an African American protester would've been, he wouldn't have been doing it. And if he assumed that he was going to be arrested and brought to trial and convicted and jailed for doing what he did, he wouldn't have done that either. And that's the moment we're in now, is guaranteeing that there are penalties for that, so that we literally don't have people breaking into our government with a sense of entitlement that it's okay to be there. The sense of entitlement that we're allowed to do this is not only a denigration of our government, which they at this point have been taught to hate, but it's a denigration of their fellow Americans. That was my Congress that they broke into. And that I think is something that is going to be really important to reassert that you can't just declare that you don't like the government so you get to take it over from the majority of us.
BILL MOYERS: Well, it's one thing, of course, to prosecute those who got inside the Capitol. They were easily visible, they could be identified even days later. And it's not hard to send them to 30 days in jail, or whatever the law requires. But what about the chief instigator the chief trigger, the chief motivator, the guy who really was responsible for this, the president of the United States? How do we hold him accountable, other than the fact that he's been defeated and will be leaving office in a few days, but this was something that happened because of him? Can he be indicted or arrested for promoting insurrection against the government?
HEATHER COX RICHARDSON: Well, indicted is hard, of course, because we have that 1973 memo that says that a sitting president cannot be indicted. And he's still a sitting president. There are, of course, three ways out of where we are right now. One is the 25th Amendment, in which either members of the Cabinet and the vice president or a body that appointed by the Congress to consider such measures and if you recall the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tried to set up such a body last October. And was prevented from doing so. When either of those two groups are willing to say that he is not competent to continue to be the president and as you know, last night a number of people including the National Association of Manufacturers actually came out and said he must be 25th, which is a shorthand way to say, "He must be removed from office." There is, of course, the option of resignation, which was the route that Richard Nixon took in 1974. And that depended on members of the Senate going to him and saying resign now, or we will convict you of the high crimes and misdemeanors that the House of Representatives is going to say that you have committed. They actually didn't take it to the full Congress then. They had only gone through the House Judiciary Committee. But the Congress would have voted in favor of the articles of impeachment. And the Senate would have convicted. But what I would like to see, is for the House to impeach the president and for the Senate to convict him today. And the reason for that is one of the pieces that people are not talking about is what we saw yesterday was the overwhelming attack of the Executive Branch, the president and the people in the Executive Branch, to destroy the people's branch, the Legislative Branch. Trump has maintained since he was in office that the Executive is superior to the Legislative Branch. That it does not have to answer to the Legislative Branch. And he and his supporters in the government are big proponents of the idea of what's called the unitary executive which, because the president is at the top of the Executive Branch and the branches are co-equal, that means that nobody can check the president. And I think it's really important for the Legislative Branch, the Congress, the people's branch, to say, "Oh, wait a minute. In fact, we do have a way to push back on an overly strong Executive. And that is to impeach you and convict you and put the vice president in your place." And if we do not push back on what this president has done forcefully and immediately, this is only the first step in the destruction of American democracy. It is not the last. And on that, I feel incredibly strongly.
BILL MOYERS: Early this morning Trump, or during the night, Trump announced, okay, the transition will be peaceful. My term is over. And that's going to diffuse a lot of the anger and dislike of the man that was continuing to accumulate yesterday. Aren't you worried that if he's pressed in the way you just described, in his state of mind, something more terrible might happen? He is still in charge of the nuclear warheads. He has the sole authority if he wanted to and there was a warrant for it, to use that power. Doesn't this trouble you, that he'll be provoked into another act of madness?
HEATHER COX RICHARDSON: Absolutely. And that's why he needs to go today. And the reason for that is a personality like Donald Trump's can not stop. It's not that he won't stop, it's that he can't stop. So, every time that he is not checked, every time that he is enabled to push the envelope, every time that someone says, "Oh, we'll just humor him," he takes the next step. So everybody thinks that what happened yesterday was the end. He has two more weeks and he has the nuclear codes. He has the ability to go ahead and start a military action. All of these things are things that should not be in the hands of a man who has shown himself willing to destroy our government. And the idea that he is going to stop is exactly the kind of mentality with which people approached Hitler. Remember, oh, he's not going to try anything more than he has just tried? And that man was fighting until the very last moment in the bunker. And that thing that they released this morning about 4:00, was a very interesting statement because he said, yes, there'll be a peaceful transition of power. Didn't say anything else about, I'm going to behave. And it continued to insist that the election was stolen. That is not a concession. That is not a move toward peace. This is not the idea that everything is going to be okay. He basically, I think, or his handlers were trying to say, oh, he's not going to cause any more trouble in this particular way. But it absolutely was gasoline on the fire for his supporters. And it didn't say anything about him backing away from some of the more aggressive moves he's made in other fields. So it would be a terrible mistake to go ahead and say, "Oh yeah, we can live with this" because, among other things, if he gets away with it, a smarter, more able, better-supported politician will make this stick.
BILL MOYERS: I was bemused when you mentioned the National Association of Manufacturers and some other big business magnates. I was bemused when they announced yesterday that he should go, the 25th should be invoked, because some of them have been his enablers. Some of them have supported him for the last four years in no small part because he gave them a big tax cut. And he's been good for business by removing regulation and all of that. But they will go scot-free, having been born again yesterday. Will it be enough to just get him out of office? Or should there be something like a 9/11 Commission that investigates all of this and puts him right at the center of what he has done?
HEATHER COX RICHARDSON: I'm not convinced there should be something like a 9/11 Commission, although we absolutely need to uncover everything that happened in his administration. I mean, have you ever thought how strange it is that he's so determined not to leave office? I mean, presidents never want to lose, for sure. You know, they don't go have a party when they lose an election. But they don't fight to stay like this, especially an older man who had a different life beforehand. Why is it so important that he stays in office? Well, there's the money, of course, which can't be small in terms of the way he's run the presidency. But I am increasingly convinced that a lot of things happened in this administration that he does not want to have come to light. And I think it's really important that the Biden administration looks into it. And the nomination yesterday of Merrick Garland for the attorney general is very important because Merrick Garland has a reputation of being nonpartisan. So it's not going to look like the witch hunt that the Trumps are going to scream it is. And he has a reputation of being nonpolitical. So that at least is a start, to have the Department of Justice look into things. But it seems to me there's a lot of different ways in which we must come to grips, not only with what happened during the Trump administration, but with, for example, American policing, the infiltration of many of our law enforcement agencies, with white supremacists. There are a lot of reckonings that need to happen. I will say that one of the things historians will tell you is that the idea of simply everybody holding hands and being unified going forward is completely wrong and ahistorical. That's not what happens. If a government says, "Never mind. We're going to look the other way and we're not going to go ahead and reckon with the crimes you may have committed or the things you have done to your neighbors," it simply emboldens the people who did that. So, for example, you think about the American Civil War. There was never really any penalty for having engaged in a rebellion that tried to destroy the United States, that cost more than 600,000 lives and at the time, an extraordinary sum of money, about $6 billion, because Grant and the political situation after the war thought that they could bring the former Confederates back into the Union by being kind to them. And what that did is it created a narrative almost immediately that, in fact, the Confederates had been right. That the North didn't want to go ahead and be harsh to them because they knew secretly, deep down that the Confederacy was really fighting on the right side, and the Northerners had only won because they had more weaponry. And that lost cause myth has so poisoned American society. It meant that rebellion was okay. And I think you can see how it played out yesterday in that Capitol. It's crucially important after something like this, that people grapple with the reality that they have committed crimes, that they have turned against their fellow country people, and that they are held to account for those things. Now, it's really interesting though if you look at Germany after World War II. East Germany and West Germany did two very different things. East Germany went ahead and simply tended to execute former Nazis extra-legally. That is, they didn't go through the system. West Germany insisted on following the law incredibly closely. And that meant that a lot of former Nazis got off, which infuriated people. But what it also meant was that those former Nazis became really enthusiastic about following the law. And it ended up recommitting the country to a democratic system in a way that did not happen in East Germany. And that's one of the reasons that I push so hard on the idea of the law. People will get away with things, for sure, if we enable them to get off because somebody didn't put the right law in place or somebody didn't fill out the paperwork fine. Sure. People are going to walk away from that. But at the same time, they're going to be really glad that the law supported them in their rights. And it will recommit them to the law. It's one of the reasons I hammer again, and again, and again on the idea that every single person should have to face the law for what they have done so we can reemphasize that this is a nation of laws to which we are all beholden.
BILL MOYERS: So, there's a real danger, isn't there, that Donald Trump in exile could become a demagogue on the make again, just as able to stir sedition in other ways. And there are junior Giulianis all over the country who still believe in combat as politics. So, who steps up and says, "Mr. Trump, you've got to go today or tomorrow"? His Cabinet is weak and humbled by him further. It's not Biden. He's not in office yet. Who does that?
HEATHER COX RICHARDSON: Who does that today? This would be members of Congress and one would hope, members of the Cabinet. But you're right. The Cabinet's not going to do anything. It was interesting last night that Vice President Mike Pence continued to put distance between himself and Trump so it no longer looks like he is a sycophant. But it did seem that he was before all the trouble started between him and Trump recently. This will be a job, at this point, for Congress. But once again I will emphasize that this is up to the American people to say this is not okay. The people who are grabbing the headlines right now are the rioters who took over our government. But there're an awful lot of Americans who don't approve of that. And it's really important that they make their wishes heard, or the same thing's going to happen that happened after the Civil War, where people look the other way and say, "Oh, it's really not such a big deal." And we're going to end up with a one-party state. But this time, it's not going to be regional, it's going to be national.
BILL MOYERS: So, what happens to the right-wing, which has been well organized the last several years? They've got the media like Fox News supporting them and their own now right-wing media. They're not suddenly going to change their spots. The photographs from the insurrection yesterday showed that many of these people have ties to the right and they've been around quite a while, even though some of them are quite young. What happens to the right when it loses the demagogue who has fueled their fires?
HEATHER COX RICHARDSON: Well, again, the future we can't predict. We could only talk about past patterns. But one of the things that's interesting about when you're talking about the radical right, the right-wing, the neo-Nazis, the stormers, all those people, they're always going to be there. And the way that you break them is the same way that the U.S. government finally broke the KKK in the 1870s and again in the 1920s, and again in the present, by the way. And that is to hold them to account when they break the law. You know, it's one thing to be out there, partying and saying you hate the government. It's another thing to be sitting behind bars. And you saw this with the attack on Governor Whitmer in Michigan this summer. The boasting on that tape of that man about how and I'm not going to go into the profanity he used in his insistence that, if you were going to be one of his team, you were going to, and I'm going to put this in brackets, commit a lot of crimes. I'm not going to say what they were. He sounded just unbelievable. It was an unbelievable recruitment video. And yet, he and his people were captured without throwing a fist. And now, they're in huge trouble. I think that's how you take care of that part of the right. But the larger question is why so many people have signed onto QAnon, have signed onto where they are. And one of the things that's interesting about both QAnon and the rise of most authoritarian movements is authoritarian movements usually rise by demagogues saying, you know, "Your life is not nearly as good as it used to be. And the people to blame are those people." And they whip up anger against "those people." And who're those people are doesn't matter at all because the device is not really designed to go after those people, it's designed to ford your supporters into a phalanx to go ahead and support you so you could do whatever you want to do. And that's like authoritarianism 101. QAnon for all that we portray it in the media as the fact it's supposed to be defending a secret movement to go ahead and stop pedophilia and cannibalism, which is fairly easy to make fun of in many ways. What's interesting about QAnon is that it offers people a way to make their lives better. There's a reason that people have associated it with religion because, if only you solve the puzzle. If only you are part of the solution and not part of the problem, you can go ahead and combat true evil in this world. And one of the things that seems to me to be key to retracking people who believe in this fringe cult, if you will, back into mainstream America is actually offering them an opportunity to make their lives better. I mean, one of the things that is the backdrop to everywhere we are right now is the fact that since 1981, money has concentrated dramatically at the top of the economy. Very few people have gotten very, very rich indeed. And many Americans have fallen into dead-end jobs, they're working many jobs, they can't take care of their kids. You know, we don't have childcare, our roads are falling apart, our schools are falling apart. I think addressing those enormous inequalities that have been part of American society really now for two generations is key to weaning people away from false ways to make their lives better and returning them to positive ways that really will make their lives better, because they can see it in their real life, as opposed to simply on the screen they're playing with.
BILL MOYERS: You mentioned we can only look at past patterns. Is there a pattern from history that is working itself today, yesterday in Washington, into the present?
HEATHER COX RICHARDSON: Yes, I think there is. And that is we look very much like we did in the 1850s. Even to last night, there almost being a fistfight on the floor of Congress. But what happened in the 1850s and what happened in the present are very similar in a number of ways. One of them is that in both of those periods, we had the laws rigged in such a way that money moved upward, leaving the vast majority of Americans in the 1850s in the South and in the present everywhere, feeling like they couldn't really get ahead. And they were susceptible to demagogues who blamed their opponents for that, rather than for their own legislation that had taken away opportunity for, in the South in the 1850s, white men to go ahead and provide for their families. In the present, of course, it's a wider story. But they did that in a number of ways. They did that, first of all, by rigging the laws in their favor. When increasingly they could not control the laws, they took over a political party. The Democrats in the 1850s, the Republicans now. And then, as more and more people continued to say, "Wait a minute. You're not operating in reality. It's your laws that are causing trouble," what they did is they limited the media. They made it so their supporters could not have access to actual facts. And they created a fantasy world. Obviously, I don't want people who aren't operating in reality to control our government. One of the things that haunts me as a historian is that you can watch this happen in the 1850s. And, as a historian, I mean, I can't change what happened. But I can look and see other routes. There were, if you were willing to be logical, ways to get rid of human enslavement without slaughtering 600,000 people. And what I look at in that past era is I look at the true believers, the poor, white men who were willing to throw their lives behind the lies of the people leading them because they believed, like those people who stormed the Capitol yesterday, that somehow, they were part of some big, noble movement. And at the end of the day, their leaders walked away from them. And they were the ones who got slaughtered. Their wives were the ones who ended up refugees. Their children were the ones who starved to death. And the idea now as I watch the people who stormed that Capitol, I think they really believe they're part of something noble because they have nothing else to believe because they have been so deprived. And yet at the end of the day, you know exactly what's going to happen. When the law comes for them, their leaders are not going to be there supporting them. They are the ones who are going to pay the price for this. But at the end of the day, the woman who lost her life yesterday, what did she lose her life for? She can't get that back. And what did she lose her life for? So I look at this moment, these parallels, and I think that that fantasy world is a terrifying and terrible thing for us who are not part of that bubble and for our country. But I think of the people in that bubble. And I think, "Don't throw away your life and your future for what isn't even a positive fantasy. It's a negative fantasy because the people who are feeding it to you are only using you as cannon fodder."
BILL MOYERS: Do you have any hope that the Republican Party can ever return and embrace reality again?
HEATHER COX RICHARDSON: Well, I always have hope, right? Yes. It can't continue the way it is now. I mean, this is one of the things people always say to me. You know, "What's going to happen? What are they going to do?" I think the more important question is, what is the world going to do? A fantasy only can survive as long as it is not far enough from reality that it has some plausible basis. And the Republican Party has now gone so far off the rails that something has to happen. One way or another, this fringe element is either going to be marginalized and the Republican Party's going to split and some of it's going to come back into a more mainstream path. Or this country is going to become an oligarchy. Or a fascist country. There's actually some distinguishing features between those two things. For you and me, it doesn't really matter. But either we're going to go full fascist or oligarchical, or the Republican Party's going to come back into some level of normality. Americans at the end of the day tend to be really reasonable people. I know it doesn't look like it right now, but the people you grew up with in Oklahoma and the people that I grew up with here in Maine, many of them vote Republican. But they did not approve of the storming of the Capitol yesterday. That's not what they signed up for. And we saw today, Mick Mulvaney resigning because he said this is not what I signed up for. It's, like, wait a minute here, fella. You know, you were the guy behind keeping the money back from Ukraine. You signed up for an awful lot of this. But I actually think that the Republican Party does stand a chance of splitting and coming back into the mainstream of American politics. And if they don't, another party that does a similar right of center thing will.
BILL MOYERS: What is the pattern you would like to see emerge in American life in the next few years?
HEATHER COX RICHARDSON: Well, we have been in a position not unlike this before in the 1920s. You know, in the 1920s, when money had moved up, when, there was sort of this glitterati that dominated the new national magazines and was buying all the new products. The radios and the nylon stockings and the refrigerators and the cars and all the consumer goods that made it seem like America was just great, while the vast majority of Americans were falling dramatically behind. And we get the rise of the KKK and we get the lynching and we get the denigration of immigrants and the executions of Sacco and Vanzetti. And it really looks like the country is going toward fascism, as so many countries did at the time. But with the Great Depression and with the increasing public pressure for a government that responded to the people, we got the rise of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and then we get the New Deal, and then we get Eisenhower after the war going ahead and believing in the liberal consensus. And that turned on a dime. So, if you think about the election of 1928, the Republican, Herbert Hoover, won in a landslide in '28. And Hoover actually saw this coming, to some degree. But if you had said to somebody in 1928, "Well, the Republicans are going to be done in four years," people would've thought you were on drugs. And yet, in four years, an entirely different way of thinking about the world was so powerful that FDR wins in a landslide. And by the end of World War II, which is a decade, Americans have gone from believing in executing African Americans, Mexican Americans, immigrants, to insisting that all Americans belong here. That we are a democracy and not a fascist country. You've even got Superman saying that school children should defend the right of all races and all ethnicities and all religions to share public space. You know, if anybody says that somebody can't be an American because of his religion, tell them that's un-American, Superman says. And the idea of being a 1920s American gets lampooned in the precursor to Foghorn Leghorn. They're actually setting up an old, reactionary, white Democratic Southerner with that Looney Tunes character. So what changed in that very short space of time from being an exclusionary, almost fascist country, to being the democracy that created the modern world was pressure from leaders and from the American people to say, "We are about democracy." Franklin Delano Roosevelt did this again, and again, and again. You know, we talk about anti-Communism but Roosevelt was out there in his fireside chats constantly going, "Look at what fascism has done to its communities. Look at the fact Italy can't feed its people. Look what's happening in Germany. We don't do that because we're America and we're a democracy." So I think that we could do this. We can take back democracy with all the voices we have, with the sorts of things that Stacey Abrams accomplished in Georgia. Certainly, other states would flip the same way that Georgia did if they had that kind of concentration on them of the inclusion in voices. But it's going to take not only our leadership, but us, Americans, saying, "We don't want to be a country where armed insurrectionists can storm our Capitol and try and steal a legitimate election." And if we all speak up, I think we can do it. If we don't, we're looking at a very grim 21st century indeed.
BILL MOYERS: If the insurrection had not happened yesterday, I think we would be talking this morning about what happened in Georgia because in that state that had been dominated by white Republicans for so long, you had an African American minister and a young, Jewish documentarian win both seats in the Senate that will, I think, prove to be the turning point in political history, that you will be talking about 20 years from now.
HEATHER COX RICHARDSON: Yesterday was a day- you know, we all talk about red-letter days, the really important, historical days. January 6th, 2021 was one of those days. Nobody is ever going to be able to write a history of America that doesn't talk about what happened yesterday, both in Georgia and in Washington.
BILL MOYERS: Heather Cox Richardson, thank you very much for your joining me and for your ideas. And we'll be talking again.
HEATHER COX RICHARDSON: It's always a pleasure.
ANNOUNCER: Thanks for listening to Moyers on Democracy. On our website, you can find Heather Cox Richardson's daily newsletter LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN. Until next time, you will find all this and more at Billmoyers.com
Welcome to Moyers on Democracy.
Heather McGhee is descended from slaves in the American South. Her great- grandparents and grandparents came north to work in the steel mills. She grew up on the south side of Chicago, taught in Spain and studied writing in Hollywood, then decided to change the world, or at least try. At 22, working for the non-profit organization Demos in New York, she plunged into the fight for debt reform, then tackled Wall Street corruption and consumer protection, and wound up president of Demos, leading its campaign against political and economic inequality. Her forthcoming book - THE SUM OF US - dedicated to her mother, Dr. Gail Christopher -- couldn't be more timely. Hopefully it will wind up on Joe Biden's bedside reading table as he prepares to cope with a raging pandemic, an economic crisis, our overwhelmed health system, and an imperiled work force. There's plenty of food for thought - and quite a heap of hope - in Heather McGhee's informed account of how we can prosper together if only we cross the racial divide. Here at Moyers on Democracy we hope THE SUM OF US winds up on your reading table, too. Here to talk with Heather McGhee is Bill Moyers.
BILL MOYERS: Welcome, Heather. Very good to see you again. If President-elect Joe Biden asked me for one book to read between now and the inauguration, I would recommend your book THE SUM OF US. And I would urge him to require every new member of the White House staff, member of the Cabinet, and incoming director of an agency or department to read it as well.
HEATHER MCGHEE: Wow.
BILL MOYERS: You set out to actually do an accounting of the hidden cost of racism.
What's the core message you would hope they would take from it as they put together an administration trying to do what Biden keeps saying is his aspiration, to unify the country?
HEATHER MCGHEE: The message of the book THE SUM OF US is quite simple. It's that racism has a cost for everyone. And its primary function in our society has been to grease the wheels for a machine of greed that has impoverished almost everyone. Now more than ever today, racial division as a tool wielded by those who are the most wealthy, the most powerful, and the most self-interested, is something that breaks down potential coalitions between people who have common struggle. It makes us demonize one another when, in fact, we should be linking arms to improve all of our lives. And it impoverishes everything that we share in common, from our air, to our infrastructure, to our systems of education and our democracy itself. Racism has a cost for everyone and ultimately, when we can create cross-racial solidarity, we can all benefit.
Listen to the interview:
BILL MOYERS: Did you really learn anything new that intuitively you didn't bring to this task with you?
HEATHER MCGHEE: Yes, I was born on the South Side of Chicago and I grew up in the beginning of the Inequality Era, when the good manufacturing jobs were going away, when, you know, the divide between the wealthy and everybody else was widening. And I also grew up in a political era when there was so much scapegoating of Black and brown people, particularly Black people, single mothers, like my own single mother. And I knew that that dominant political narrative was wrong and that it was sort of being used to distract and divide us. That said, I also came of age in my career in the progressive economic orthodoxy that was, at the time, pretty colorblind. It was mostly focused on the rules of taxation, labor policy, spending and investment. All of these issues that have, of course, racially disparate impacts and racial disparities to them. But they weren't seen as racial issues. They were seen as economic issues. And so, the thing I learned as a young policy wonk was there's economic inequality and racism makes that inequality worse for people of color. And I had a few experiences as I was sort of growing up in my career that sort of tried to turn the light on for me. And point me in this direction of what I would eventually do, which is flip that formulation. Not that there's inequality, and racism makes it worse for people of color, but rather racism, structural racism, political and strategic racism makes inequality happen for everyone. It is the driver of inequality.
BILL MOYERS: You had the sense, that many white Americans believe there's an "us" and a "them." And what's good for them is bad for us. They want our jobs. They want our schools. They want our neighborhoods. There became something fearful in the response that reflected an unwillingness to see beyond the gap to what you were talking about. The white working class. And the Black working class, they were all in the same boat. They just didn't row together.
HEATHER MCGHEE: That's exactly right. It is that zero-sum paradigm that I think is at the heart of our dysfunction as a society. The idea that, although we are, of course, one people and in many ways, our fortunes rise and fall together, and it's particularly predominant among white Americans, this view that there's a zero-sum racial competition.
BILL MOYERS: Zero-sum, meaning?
HEATHER MCGHEE: Meaning what I have comes at your expense. Meaning if you add up what I have and you've taken away, it's just a zero. There is no mutual benefit or interest. It is one for one, eye for eye. That paradigm, particularly at a time of rapid demographic change, when there is a narrative that white America is losing out, will not be the majority, and if they're not the numerical majority, they will not be the power majority. And they will be treated, potentially, as minorities have been treated under a white dominant society. It's very deep. So, I went to discover where it came from. And I had to sort of unlearn a lot of bad history that I had learned growing up as an American child. And really identify how that zero-sum racial paradigm was sort of the lie at the root of our founding. And it was used by the plantation class and the colonial class in order to justify chattel slavery and near genocide of Indigenous peoples and sell that brutal economy to the majority of white people who were landless white people. And it's become a sort of core weapon for people who want to concentrate wealth, who want to aggregate power. I mean, obviously, in the Trump era, it's more naked and vivid than it's ever been. The constant scapegoating and the punching down, while, of course, the only thing that the regime delivers is tax cuts for itself and unemployment for millions more.
BILL MOYERS: Give me a thumbnail sketch of what was in your mind as you saw the opposite of what our society could be.
HEATHER MCGHEE: I ended up including, in the end, a chapter about the moral costs of racism, the personal costs. I came at it from an economic policy standpoint. I do this work, this policy work, out of a faith in the unseen. Because it is unseen. A multiracial democracy with a robust safety net and social contract that doesn't have an asterisk by it. That doesn't limit it to the people of the ruling class and to whites only. You know, it's really important to rewrite what I understood as the core economic narrative on the left, which was that there was a New Deal era- started in the '30s and in the '40s and '50s. This era of shared prosperity where we built the great American middle class. It's very clear that each and every one of those investments, each and every one of those contracts for high union density, high wages, subsidization of education and housing, all of that had an asterisk and was done in a racially restrictive way by our government. And it was when in the 1960s we fought and struggled to remove that asterisk that that social contract frayed and we began to move into the Inequality Era. The central story at the heart of my book, Bill, is the story that was replicated in countless towns across the country, where public swimming pools that had been financed by tax dollars- we used to have over 2,000 in this country, these sort of grand resort pools that were the heart of communities. They were ways in which the government was sort of committing to a high, almost bourgeois quality of life for working and middle class people. It was bringing together, you know, white folks of different European ancestry and immigrants and having them sort of all meet in this social commons of recreation. They were often segregated and whites only. And when in the 1950s the country began to require, often through the courts, that these pools were integrated, so many towns across the country, and not just in the South, decided to drain their public swimming pools rather than integrate them.
BILL MOYERS: That happened, I regret to tell you, in my hometown. Why didn't the Civil Rights Act of '64, the Voting Rights Act of '65 and other changes in that early half of the '60s, bring about this more equal society with adequately funded schools and reliable infrastructure, with wages that keep families out of poverty and a public health system that can handle all comers, including pandemics?
HEATHER MCGHEE: I open the book by positing it in the form of, "Why can't we just have nice things," right?
BILL MOYERS: Right.
HEATHER MCGHEE: You know, the answer is racism. And not just sort of individual, ugly, violent racism. Not biological racism. The belief system that every Black is sort of inherently inferior to white people. After the Civil Rights Movement, a few phenomena happened to drain the pool of our society altogether. One, the will among white Americans to have basically a robust commons, to have a public pool at all, began to just plummet. I looked back at some public opinion polling about the idea that we should have high wages that keep people out of poverty, a guaranteed income, and a job for anyone in America who wants one. Up until the mid-1960s, the majority of white people agreed with that idea. They wanted a robust, active government that guaranteed a high quality of life. And it was in the middle of the 1960s, in fact, when that demand began to be echoed prominently by the Black civil rights movement who marched on Washington for jobs and freedom, had a list of demands that included a jobs guarantee and a high minimum wage, that that support by white people almost vanished. And you began to see the white majority move towards a conservative economic vision that basically, you know, picked up their toys and went home. In the pool metaphor, communities ended up having private swimming clubs that you had to pay $50 for. They ended up having backyard pools. You had to be rich enough to have that. We lost out on the idea of a guarantee of a decent quality of life for everyone. And it really was about the shift among white Americans from the New Deal consensus because the people that they had been taught for generations were inferior and dangerous, were suddenly allowed to swim in the same pool. And that seemed like a betrayal. It made all things public seem dirty and a place they didn't want to be. Including the major vehicles of collective action in this country: labor unions and the government. And you began to see white people turn away from those institutions once they were more integrated. And what we had in response was the Inequality Era where there was no counter-veiling power to corporate power and the concentration of wealth. And the bottom 90% of the country's income distribution has sputtered and stalled because of it.
BILL MOYERS: Martin Luther King used to say that the most segregated hour in America is Sunday morning at 11:00. That, of course, stood out in 1954 when the Supreme Court decided in Brown versus Board of Education that schools had to be integrated. Jerry Falwell, who was a prominent pastor of a large church in Virginia and ultimately the founder of the Moral Majority immediately declared that he was going to start a private religious school. And it turned out that only whites showed up there. That was replicated across the country.
HEATHER MCGHEE: That's right. Can't imagine why. To be honest, Bill, I think that the period of time when I grew up in the 1980s and '90s, we had a different dominant racial story. And that racial story was colorblindness, right? It was this idea that, to be a good person, you were supposed to not see color. You were supposed to not treat anyone differently because of their color. That sounds great. True aspiration of the civil rights movement. But what ended up happening is it meant not that you didn't see race, but that you didn't see racism. People weren't educated with the language to talk about the still manifest differences that were actually getting worse and worse. Black and brown Americans were finally given a glimpse of the American dream in the mid-1960s, where the formal barriers began to come down. The racial covenants, the redlining, the job discrimination, the barriers on joining labor unions. All of that began to finally come down. The education desegregation- just when that American dream became harder to reach for everyone because we began to have a totally different ethos in Washington, changing the rules to make it harder for labor unions to win contract. Stop increasing the minimum wage. Deregulating the financial industry to make housing less affordable and more predatory. All of these moves that we know as the things that brought about inequality, that's the economy in which Black and brown people were finally able to enter. And so, you began to see all of these disparities that actually got worse after the civil rights movement in the 1970s. The racial wealth gap, the income gap began to accelerate. And, because there was no language around racism's enduring impact, the dominant white narrative was just, "There's something wrong with their culture. They're not trying hard enough." You know, "My ancestors came here from Italy and Poland and they were able to go from being penniless to owning a house in one generation. Why can't Black people too?" All of those things we now know as "racial resentment." Basically, blaming people of color for racial disparities. That is really the fuel to the fire of the right wing's political dominance. Social scientists see it as a predictor for more conservative attitudes around the economy, the desire not to regulate greenhouse gases on climate change- all of these issues that are so vital to the question of whether our society can survive and thrive, racial resentment is holding the white majority back from joining in common cause with people of color.
BILL MOYERS: Is that when you began hearing, "Why can't we have nice things?"
HEATHER MCGHEE: That's right.
BILL MOYERS: And the "we" was?
I think we really do have a secular religion in America, this idea that the powerful have to ask us for their permission to rule, right? The founders left holes in the bedrock of that revolutionary idea in order to make room for slavery and racial subjugation.
HEATHER MCGHEE: The "we" is all Americans. It's people of color, right, who sort of disproportionately don't have nice things. But it's also everybody who struggles as we watch our government fail to reliably improve the quality of life for most Americans. To rebuild our bridges and dams. To fund our public schools. To provide college on a free and affordable basis, the way public college was for much of the 20th century. To respond to this existential threat of climate change and to handle these pandemics. I was able to devote one chapter to sort of each of those big problems and find the ways in which racism is sort of the uncredited actor in the tragedy. But what's great, Bill, is that because this was a real journey across the country -- I went from Maine, to Mississippi, to California and back again -- I also got to know people who had overcome those racial divides. Who had rejected the story, whether it's through Fox News or the Republican party message machine or the conservative takeover of social media. I met dozens of white people who looked across at their Black and brown neighbors and said, "You have the same struggle that I have. And in fact, it's only by linking arms that we can actually overcome these barriers." And I began to call it the solidarity dividend. This idea that there's something that we can unlock to the benefit of us all that we cannot get to if we remain divided. I talked to workers who were organizing. I talked to neighbors who were organizing to take on the big polluters in their neighborhoods. I talked to parents who were fighting for integrated schools, people who were fighting to change the rules of our democracy so that everyone can vote. And I kept seeing these real quantifiable solidarity dividends that this country's hurtling towards a future in which we have no racial majority. And we have two paths. We can decide that means that we are going to be in a dog eat dog competition for dominance. Or we can decide that the proximity of so much difference will reveal our common humanity. And when I saw people who had lived their lives and experienced real cross-racial solidarity and won because of it- they were transformed. They were true Americans. They were the kind of people that I think our country could be full of if we can finally reject this old and false idea that it's a zero-sum competition. That there isn't enough for all of us. That progress for one racial group has to come at the expense of the other.
BILL MOYERS: We've invested the word "democracy," with so much sacred aura. But we never really have had a real democracy.
HEATHER MCGHEE: No, that's right. I started my career really trying to answer these big economic questions. But I ended up really discovering that the rules of our democracy are as unequal as our economic rules. There's a chapter in the middle of the book called "Never a Real Democracy." If you go back to the beginning, this sacred democracy- I think we really do have a secular religion in America, this idea that the powerful have to ask us for their permission to rule, right? The founders left holes in the bedrock of that revolutionary idea in order to make room for slavery and racial subjugation. And time and time again, with every generation, there has been a concerted effort to keep chipping away, to keep democracy, which in this country, would be a multiracial democracy, from taking root.
BILL MOYERS: At age 22, you went to work for a research and advocacy group, a nonprofit outfit that produces statistical research, white papers, Congressional testimony, legislative drafts, public campaigns, media outreach. And your specialty was economic policy. What made you think that you could help the people and issues you're talking about with a spreadsheet?
HEATHER MCGHEE: Oh, it was just- it was naivety, but it was some pieces of success, right?
And the issue that I first kind of cut my teeth on, Bill, was the issue of debt, which at that point had been skyrocketing among working and middle class families. And it was really just not on the radar of policy makers in Washington. Washington had deregulated the credit card company, the mortgage companies, the payday lenders, the rent to own lenders. And kept it moving as the profits were raked in. And didn't really understand what was going on in sort of family budgets at that time, where credit card debt tripled over the course of the 1990s, where people were starting to take equity out of their homes-
BILL MOYERS: This includes Black and brown homeowners, right? They were starting--
HEATHER MCGHEE: That's right.
BILL MOYERS: -to take equity out of their first homes they probably own-
HEATHER MCGHEE: That's exactly right.
BILL MOYERS: -through what you call some strange new mortgage loans. Right?
HEATHER MCGHEE: That's right. We started to see this was not the 30-year fixed rate loan. This was a new subprime loan. And this issue, more than anything, really made me realize the way that racism will come home to roost for us all. The ways in which racism can blind otherwise intelligent, smart, powerful people from the basic facts in front of them, and the way that racism provides the fuel for these instruments of massive greed. The subprime mortgage crisis began in Black and brown communities in the late 1990s and early 2000s, where these unregulated lenders were targeting Black existing homeowners. With these loans that exploded on them, basically. That were full of tricks and traps. That would go on to cause waves of foreclosures in the early 2000s. And I was a young policy wonk, looking at this economic data, listening to community meetings of advocates who were saying the phone wouldn't stop ringing. The you know, people were knock on the doors. And within six months that new mortgage that people took out was leading might into foreclosure. The rate had skyrocketed. There were new fees and penalties. And for over a decade, the people with the power to stop the subprime mortgage crisis from exploding did nothing. And so much of the rationale for not addressing what was a totally unfair financial instrument was racist stereotypes. The idea that these are people who just didn't know how to deal with money, who bit off more than they could chew. We put them into houses they couldn't afford. Mike Bloomberg said this in the moment of the crisis in September of 2008. He said, the problem, the root cause of the financial crisis was it was the end of red lining and advocates wanted people to have loans who hadn't had them before and so the standards were lowered. The majority of subprime loans went to people with good credit scores. It wasn't that they were risky borrowers, it was that the loans were risky. For much of the 2000s up until the very end, the majority of these subprime loans were refinances, which means they were already homeowners. This wasn't people who shouldn't have been able to afford a house, who were sort of improperly put up in a high station that they weren't really worthy of. These were hardworking homeowners who had done everything they could to get a piece of the American dream. And in the case of Black homeowners, had done so, despite all of the odds and after generations of being denied property. And Wall Street greed fueled by racist stereotypes and racist indifference, enabled by a targeting that was made possible by racist segregation. That allowed there to be these neighborhoods where you could target, ended up creating a financial product that then got spread across the entire investment portfolio of millions of people and institutions. And then, of course, we all know how the story ended, with the crash of 2008. But it is my firm conviction that we would not have had a financial crisis if it had not been for racism.
BILL MOYERS: Now, something happened on the last day you spent at the Capitol presenting that Demos debt research to members of Congress. You were then 25. You had some new professional shoes on that kept slipping off. And as you tell the story, you bent down to adjust them near the door of what you didn't know at the moment was a Senate office. You heard something.
HEATHER MCGHEE: I heard a bombastic male voice going on about these deadbeats who had children with multiple women and then were trying to escape their personal responsibility. Were using the government to try to get through bankruptcy to not have to pay child support, to avoid their debts. And there was something in the tone in the invective. He never said anything about race. He didn't say, you know, "These N-words." He didn't say anything like that. But there was something in the invective that just made me realize, "Oh. This member of Congress who's about to make a decision about whether or not to change the bankruptcy rules to make it harder for people who are flat out to ever get a fresh start." The idea that this senator has about those people is absolutely colored by something. Maybe it's racism. Maybe it's classism. Maybe it's both. But there was just something there I was armed with this data. And he was armed with this disdain. And it wasn't going toe to toe. And we ended up losing that fight. It presaged the fights to try to prevent the financial crisis, which we also lost, because the people with the power to shape the rules just didn't respect and didn't care about the people who were the canaries in the coalmine of the financial crisis. And that was one of those moments where the light bulb started to go on. I thought that I could solve the problem of inequality with numbers. Right, everything I had learned about economics was that people were going to act in their rational self-interest. And if we just sort of show enough people that it wasn't working, that the numbers weren't adding up, that wages were stagnating, that people were going into debt and bankruptcy, that the health care numbers were skyrocketing of the uninsured, and poverty was on the rise. If we could just sort of show enough people the numbers, people would make better decisions. And then those better economic decisions would disproportionately benefit, you know, people who were my people, Black people, brown people, people of color. And ultimately, what I discovered and what was the hunch that drove this journey to write this book was that it's in fact exactly the opposite. That our ideas about who belongs and who deserves are much more determinative of our politics, and therefore, our economic decision making than cold numbers than anything I could've sort of brought to bear at a think tank.
BILL MOYERS: So after all this, you said after listening to that bombastic voice, you walked out of the Capitol and you saw all these white folks with their briefcases and nice cars, dressed in suits going home for dinner that evening. And you said, "I felt stupid."
HEATHER MCGHEE: Yeah.
BILL MOYERS: Why?
HEATHER MCGHEE: I did. I felt like I had replaced the knowledge that I'd learned in the mostly white world of think tanks and policy advocacy. I had bought into that idea that statistics and research and economic policy could prevail in that realm of the rational. And in so doing, almost forgotten some of the first lessons I learned as a Black person in America about what the majority of white people see when they see us. And how quick the white majority often is to believe the worst about us. To think that we are cheating at a game that they are winning at fair and square. And it's hard for me to even say that. The majority of white conservatives and moderates agree with the statement, "Black people take more from society than we give." That's today, right? That's not a 1963 attitude. But, you know, it was really important to me, Bill, to figure out why. I don't accept that this is sort of just the way things are. That the majority of white people are going to feel this way. And this is just sort of a natural outgrowth of being a human being or being white or whatever. It just- it felt to me like I wanted to figure out where the story came from. And so I looked back in the history and saw how powerful and important it was to the coherence of the white American story in the United States, to our democracy, to the republic, to our foundational economy. And then how this idea of the zero-sum, of a zero-sum racial hierarchy had been sort of reanimated generation after generation, always by people at the top of the social and economic hierarchy. Selling this idea for their own profit to people fundamentally desperate enough to buy it. And that's where I lay the blame. I think of this narrative, this, you know, makers and takers, freeloaders and taxpayers, racial resentment narrative, racial grievance narrative, anti-immigrant narrative as ultimately a story that people can choose to believe or not believe. But it is being relentlessly marketed and sold by the people with the largest bullhorns in our society right now. The person occupying the White House for the last four years, the most watched cable news network. This is the story that's being aggressively sold to white people. And I'm not surprised in many ways that the majority of them are still buying it.
BILL MOYERS: There's another moment in 2010. You're on a phone call with three progressive economists. All white men. It's a planning meeting. The Tea Party has come to town with force. Everyone, including Democrats who had Obama's ear were saying, "We need a grand bargain to create a dramatically small government by 2040 or 2050, including cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid." And you were preparing numbers to show that such a bargain would be a death blow to a middle class that was at the time of that recession already on its knees when you said there was another way to go. A second stimulus and investments to grow the middle class. What did they tell you, those progressive economists who heard you make a strong case for another stimulus and investments to grow the middle class?
HEATHER MCGHEE: So, we were partners on this. We were going to lay out this alternative path. And I said, "So when we're talking about the fiscal picture in 2040 or 2050," which is what these big budgets, these big debt plans, these grand bargains were about, I said, "Well, you know, 2040 and 2050 is also a demographic change tipping point. So, where in our proposal, in our report, are we going to make the racial point that all of these programs that are on the chopping block right now were created without concern for their cost, when the goal was to build a white middle class? And they paid for themselves in economic growth and now these guys are trying to fundamentally renege on the deal for a future middle class that could be majority people of color." And I remember nobody spoke. And I checked to see if I'd been muted, right? So I was, like, "Oh, but maybe I was muted. Let me look at the mute button." And no, no, the light was still green. One of the economists actually said then, finally sort of cleared his throat and said, "We know that. And you know that. But let's not lead with our chin here. We're trying to be persuasive." And, of course, what he was saying was the unspoken conventional wisdom, that you can't talk about the racial unfairness because you're trying to convince a white power structure to do something that would be beneficial to all people. Including, you know, the vast majority of white people are going to suffer if you cut Social Security and Medicare and, you know, put spending caps on put investments from now into the future. But there was this idea that we couldn't talk about race. Of course, there was a racial element to it. Of course, racism was part of the way that the white power structure could even contemplate deliberately cutting the ladders to the middle class. Because it was going to happen in some future in which the majority was no longer going to be white. And that for me was another ah-ha moment, was another moment when I said, you know what? There is a racial politics to these economic dollars and cents questions that we are debating under the first Black president, which is when the Tea Party came in. When the grand bargain was proposed. But I think that we avoid these racial politics questions at our peril. It's a very clear dilemma at the heart of our multiracial democracy.
BILL MOYERS: And that's also why, the right wing of the last 30 years, that's how politically they took these attitudes you heard in that bombastic voice. And they became the default for both conservative politicians and conservative media, "makers" and "takers," "taxpayers" and "freeloaders," "handouts" and "welfare queens." "They're coming after your job, your safety, your way of life." And those became, irrespective of facts, those became the central planks of the right's advances since Ronald Reagan.
HEATHER MCGHEE: That's exactly right. This sense of racial competition, of racial threat, of a threat to your status that has kept together a white majority in the Republican column even when that white majority is opposed to many of the economic ideas of that party. In the chapter where I look at the draining of the public pools I also then talk about how, in my time, the pool has been a more metaphorical one. A pool of resources, the idea that we could do anything together. You know, i.e., government. And the way that white Americans have turned their backs on government, have become opposed to government. This was obviously made very clear with the rise of the Tea Party, but it's been a core part of the Republican story, is that government is not to be trusted because it took the side of brown and Black people. And you should fear and loathe people of color- distrust the government because it coddles people of color. And who then is left to trust? Us, the 1%, the market, the predominantly, almost exclusively white ruling class. And so that's how you've had this unholy alliance between the people that Trump brags are his favorite, right? The under-educated in a party that, all it can really ever get the muster to do is cut taxes on the wealthy, right?
BILL MOYERS: You wrote, "Over the past 50 years, the Koch brothers-" Charles and David Koch, "-organized vast sums of money to advance a vision for America that includes limited democracy, a rollback of civil rights, and unfettered capitalism. That's why the hundreds of millionaires in the Koch network have taken aim at the rules of democracy, funding think tanks, legal organizations, public intellectuals and advocacy groups to promote a smaller and less powerful electorate and weaker campaign finance laws. Since 2010, the groups they fund have spurred more than 100 pieces of state legislation to make it harder to vote, almost half of which have passed, launched dozens of lawsuits attacking both voter protections and controls on big money and politics, including both Shelby County versus Holder" that's the decision that gutted the Voting Rights Act, "...and the case resulting in the notorious corporations are people decisions," Citizens United. That's what we're up against. This side has done while you have been saying, you know, you told me when we talked in 2012. I asked you, "How do we have a new social contract if we don't have a sense of community?" You said, you can't solve a problem with the consciousness that created it. You've got powerful, wealthy, organized people on the other side of the fight you're waging who are just constantly throwing money at the people who want to defeat you.
HEATHER MCGHEE: That's right. The fact that the economy has just not been guaranteeing a decent quality of life for everyone who puts in hard work. That economic story has the potential to unite people who are struggling across lines of race. They know that it is harder and harder to eat Jim Crow, right? It's just not going to feed you, right, at the end of the day. And this pandemic that we are currently living through, which I include in the conclusion of my book, is one of the many manifestations of the costs of racism to us all. Where if we had a society that protected low paid workers, that didn't have such a high concentration of people in jail. That had truly universal health care and a public health system and well-funded hospitals and infrastructure, we would be like other countries in having a pandemic, but not leading the world in mortality. The fact that, you know, the country with the largest economy on the earth is the one that is leading the world and basically falling down on the job is one of the great examples of the obvious costs of the dysfunction that racism has wrought in our society. There was a study from the Center for Policing Equity that did a model of a city and looked at all of the different transmission routes for the coronavirus. And the majority of them were ones in which racial disparities, racist structures were accelerating the spread. Whether it was the police in the criminal justice system or a mostly brown and Black and immigrant, low wage, low benefit essential worker economy where workers were both more likely to need to still be at work and be called to work, but less likely to have basic protections. And we've got to recognize that ultimately, an injury to one does become an injury to all. That is why it costs so much money and requires so much coordination and campaigning in order to divide us from our fellow Americans. You know, it is working. It is working in the sense that we still have a white majority that is fearful of, resentful of, believes, you know, pretty widespread negative stereotypes about their neighbors of color. But I don't believe that is our destiny. And, throughout the book, I tell stories of people who come together across lines of race and put aside that old story that has not served them. And link up arms and accomplish amazing things.
BILL MOYERS: If President-elect Biden called you to come down and asked you, "Okay, I've got the pandemic, I've got the economy, I've got the health care system facing us in crisis. What framework can I put those into that satisfy the moral compass you're talking about, what can I do?"
HEATHER MCGHEE: I think he has to speak directly to the lie. He has to call it out. He has to say, "There are those who would believe that if our government helps your neighbors, that it will come at your expense. And they are wrong." He has to explicitly name where those ideas are coming from and who is profiting from them, he has to be willing to call out the sources of the lie and offer up a framework of cross-racial solidarity. And weave it into the policy. So, for example, Bill, people have talked a lot about how we need a new jobs program in this country, right? We need to put millions of people to work solving our big problems, whether it's green jobs or health care jobs. It's a huge part of his agenda, the Build Back Better Agenda. We need to do that in a way that fosters cross-racial solidarity, right? And if we don't see that diversity as our super power, if we try to minimize our own individual and collective strength by saying that we can be defeated by something as shallow as skin color or language then we're going to keep draining our own pool, keep sabotaging our own success. Keep hamstringing our own players on our own team. That is not the America I see as a person who is of a generation, that is the beginning of the most diverse generations in American history. The America I see is one in which we finally realize that diversity is our super power, that finding solidarity across lines of race is how we get out of the trap of a zero-sum competition. And that the reinvestment that we must do to heal from this pandemic, to heal from the divisions of the Trump-Fox era and Trumpisms, to relight the fires so we can finally see the American dream and all glimpse it together. We have to do it with a consciousness of solidarity. We have to do it in a way that calls out the lie of racism and racial hierarchy, puts it aside and firmly in our past. And recognizes the potential, the gorgeous potential of this country. I do think that President-elect Biden has a kind of old-fashioned patriotism that at his core, right? He always says things like, you know, "We're better than this. This is not who we are. Come on, man. This is not who we are!" And I also think his eight years of proximity to Barack Obama, who had more of the kind of patriotism that I'm talking about. Which is not a blind patriotism, which is a patriotism born of knowing how much we've overcome. I think if we can meld that, you know, we might possibly be able to call more Americans of all races into a real sense of being there for one another. Of recognizing that we are greater than the sum of our parts. Recognizing that We the People truly does mean all the people. I think we can do it.
BILL MOYERS: The book is THE SUM OF US. Heather McGhee, thank you very much for writing it, for believing it, for living it and for being with us today.
HEATHER MCGHEE: Bill, thank you for everything.
ANNOUNCER: Thanks for listening to Moyers on Democracy. On our website you can watch Heather McGhee's recent TED Talk. Until next time, you'll find all this and more at Billmoyers.com.