How to Save Democracy (2026) Movie Script

(gentle music)
- 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.
- [Announcer] America
is a beautiful country
from sea to shining sea, the
farmlands, the mountains,
the cities, and
especially its people.
(gentle music)
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.
- [Announcer] 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.
(gentle music)
And from these ideals
came the US Constitution
based on liberty for all.
(gentle music)
An ideal that still
captivates the world.
Yet the framers
borrow these ideas
from another group of people.
(ritual music)
- 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.
- [Presenter] 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.
- [Presenter] 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.
(quirky music)
(quirky music continues)
(quirky music continues)
(dramatic music)
- [Reporter] 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 (indistinct) 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.
(upbeat music)
- 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.
(upbeat music)
(singer singing in Spanish)
(singer singing in
Spanish continues)
- 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.
(crowd cheers)
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.
(crowd cheers)
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.
(upbeat music)
- 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.
(upbeat music)
- 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.
(upbeat music)
- 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.
(upbeat music)
- 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.
- [Reporter] 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
(bright music)
- 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.
- [Elon] 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.
(upbeat music)
- 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.
(upbeat music)
- 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.
(upbeat music)
- [Announcer] Working
together with the aid
of the Marshall Plan.
The nations of Europe have come
a long way toward recovery,
recovery for peace.
(gentle music)
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.
(upbeat music)
(upbeat music continues)
- 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.
(upbeat music)
- 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.
(upbeat music)
- 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.
(upbeat music)
- [Announcer] 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.
(upbeat music)
- 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.
(upbeat music)
- 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.
(upbeat music)
- 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.
- [Franklin] 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.
(crowd cheers)
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.
(crowd cheers)
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.
(crows cheers)
- 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.
(singer singing in Spanish)
- 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
(beep), like, you know, and.
(audience applauds)
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.
- [Interviewer] 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.
(singer singing in Spanish)
- 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.
(singer singing in Spanish)
- 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.
- [Host] Thank you.
(audience applauds)
(upbeat music)
- 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.
(upbeat music)
- 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.
(gentle music)
(dramatic music)
- It is now official,
CNN projects that Donald Trump
has been elected president,
defeating vice president
Kamala Harris and making.
(gentle music)
- 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.
(gentle music)
- 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.
(gentle music)
- 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.
(gentle music)
(gentle music continues)
- [Woody] People ain't been
living right, ain't been there,
beaten (indistinct)
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.
(gentle music)
(gentle music continues)
(gentle music continues)
(gentle music continues)
- [Announcer] 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.
(gentle music)
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
(uplifting music)