

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
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.
From his reporting on issues like the Iran-Contra scandal to his critique of corporate media, Moyers worked to hold the powerful to account and provide a voice for the unheard.
Bill Moyers died last week at the age of 91. His career began as a close aide to President Lyndon B. Johnson, serving as LBJ’s de facto chief of staff and then his press secretary, but Moyers spent most of his life in journalism. After the Johnson administration, he was briefly publisher of Long Island’s Newsday, which won two Pulitzers under his tenure before he was forced out for being too left (Extra!, 1–2/96).
Most of Moyers’ journalism, however, appeared on public television, an institution he helped launch as a member of the 1967 Carnegie Commission, which called for public TV to be “a forum for controversy and debate” that would “provide a voice for groups in the community that may otherwise be unheard” and “help us see America whole, in all its diversity.”
While public TV as a whole has often failed to live up to those ideas, Moyers exemplified them.
Moyers was a consistently critical voice on PBS. In 1987, his PBS special “The Secret Government: The Constitution in Crisis” offered a searing examination of the Iran-Contra scandal; he followed that up with an even deeper dive into the story three years later for “Frontline” with “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
Moyers’ 2007 documentary Buying the War, aired four years into the Iraq War, offered a critique of media failures in the run-up to war that was rarely heard in corporate media.
His independence made him a thorn in PBS‘ side. Robert Parry (FAIR.org, 9/13/11) explained:
When I was working at PBS “Frontline” in the early 1990s, senior producers would sometimes order up pre-ordained right-wing programs—such as a show denouncing Cuba’s Fidel Castro—to counter Republican attacks on the documentary series for programs the right didn’t like, such as Bill Moyers’ analysis of the Iran-Contra scandal.
In essence, the idea was to inject right-wing bias into some programming as “balance” to other serious journalism, which presented facts that Republicans found objectionable. That way, the producers could point to the right-wing show to prove their “objectivity” and, with luck, deter GOP assaults on PBS funding.
When Moyers hosted the news program “Now” (2002-04), the right complained—and PBS addressed the complaints by cutting the hour-long show to 30 minutes, while adding three right-wing programs: “Tucker Carlson: Unfiltered”; a show by conservative commentator Michael Medved; and the “Journal Editorial Report,“” featuring writers and editors from the arch-conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page (FAIR.org, 9/17/04).
Moyers was already heading out the door at “Now,” passing the torch to co-host David Brancaccio, who largely continued its hard-hitting tradition. Moyers returned to PBS in 2007 with a revival of his 1970s public affairs show, “Bill Moyers Journal.” When he retired that show in 2010, PBS also canceled “Now.” Moyers’ brand of independent journalism has been in short supply on PBS ever since.
Moyers diagnosed the problem in an appearance on Democracy Now! (6/8/11):
Sometimes self-censorship occurs because you’re looking over your shoulder, and you think, well, if I do this story or that story, it will hurt public broadcasting. Public broadcasting has suffered often for my sins, reporting stories the officials don’t want reported. And today, only… a very small percentage of funding for NPR and PBS comes from the government. But that accounts for a concentration of pressure and self-censorship. And only when we get a trust fund, only when the public figures out how to support us independently of a federal treasury, will we flourish as an independent medium.
Moyers shared FAIR’s critique of corporate media. On “Tavis Smiley” (5/13/11), he spoke about the elite bias in the media:
Television, including public television, rarely gives a venue to people who have refused to buy into the ruling ideology of Washington. The ruling ideology of Washington is we have two parties, they do their job, they do their job pretty well. The differences between them limit the terms of the debate. But we know that real change comes from outside the consensus. Real change comes from people making history, challenging history, dissenting, protesting, agitating, organizing.
Those voices that challenge the ruling ideology—two parties, the best of all worlds, do a pretty good job—those voices get constantly pushed back to the areas of the stage you can’t see or hear.
Jeff Cohen, FAIR’s founder, remembered Moyers’ impact on FAIR:
He was very supportive of FAIR from day one, and always offered encouragement to our staff. He was especially supportive of our studies of who gets to speak on PBS and NPR, and who doesn’t. He helped FAIR find funding for quarter-page advertorials on The New York Times op-ed page, which was then crucial and well-read media real estate, on various issues of corporate media bias or censorship. And he helped us find funding as well for a full-page ad in USA Today, exposing the distortions and lies of Rush Limbaugh.
Already some in corporate media are trying to push Moyers’ dissenting voice to the shadows. The New York Times (6/26/25), in a lengthy obituary devoted mostly to Moyers’ time working with LBJ, found no room to mention Moyers’ Iran-Contra work, or his repeated clashes with and criticisms of PBS. It did, however, find space to quote far-right website FrontPageMag.com, which in 2004 called Moyers a “sweater-wearing pundit who delivered socialist and neo-Marxist propaganda with a soft Texas accent.”
I would never claim to be an heir to Bill Moyers’ legacy, but I am among the millions of ordinary Americans for whom he was a powerful source of inspiration.
On June 26, America lost an iconic force for good. I lost a great friend.
A partial summary of Bill Moyers’ impressive life fills entire pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post—treatment reserved for royalty and rock stars. Bill was both.
In those pages you’ll read about his illustrious political career as President Lyndon Johnson’s special assistant, press secretary, and key architect of the “Great Society”—a collection of programs that are now in danger, including the War on Poverty that produced Medicare, Medicaid, the Food Stamp Act, and the Economic Opportunity Act; the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the Voting Rights Act of 1965; the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965; and more.
You’ll marvel at his unparalleled journalism that resulted in landmark documentaries, best-selling books, dozens of Emmy Awards, two Alfred I. Dupont-Columbia University Awards, nine Peabody Awards, three George Polk Awards, and the first-ever Honorary Doctor of Fine Arts from the American Film Institute.
I’m going to cover different ground that you won’t find anywhere else. During the final years of Bill’s life, I had the honor of working directly with him on one of his most important missions: preserving democracy.
The Times obituary reported that Bill “retired in 2015 at the age of 80.” That’s incorrect. His online site, “Moyers on Democracy,” continued for years after that. Other outlets, including Common Dreams and Alternet, republished its articles and interviews regularly. Much of it remains available at BillMoyers.com.
In late 2016, Bill invited me to become a regular contributor to his site. It was the beginning of a collaboration that developed into a friendship I will always cherish. Amplifying my voice to his millions of readers, he put his remarkable reputation on the line for me. In one of our conversations, he explained why.
He often asked me, “Can democracy die from too many lies?” We agreed that the answer is yes, and the problem is eternal.
While meeting in the Oval Office with President Lyndon Johnson, Bill mentioned Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous line, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”
President Johnson became animated.
“That’s bullsh*t,” he said to Moyers. “You have to keep pushing, and pushing, and pushing… and then hope to bend it just a little.”
“Johnson was right,” Bill told me 50 years later. “And you’re pushing.”
Later he flattered me with the ultimate compliment that now moves me to write this tribute:
“I think we are kindred spirits,” he said. “A kindred spirit about what? Our country, our professions, the truth... as close to it as we could get.”
“My only regret is that our paths didn’t cross 30 years ago,” I said.
I would never presume to know Bill as well as others who enjoyed longer and deeper personal and professional relationships with him. But his private messages about my articles for BillMoyers.com encouraged me to keep pushing:
“This is a keeper. Your work is making all of us proud!”
“This is brilliant!”
To that private encouragement, he added public support. Preferring the depth of coverage that today’s cable news seldom provides, he told me that he didn’t want to be a “pundit.” But he made an exception for me. To amplify my voice and our work, we appeared together on MSNBC’s “The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell.”
After Bill broke that ice, I made several more solo television appearances.
“I’ll be watching,” he always said.
Bill also interviewed me several times and posted our extended conversations on his site. His probing questions had the same insight that had characterized his award-winning interviews with far more illustrious individuals—including Elie Wiesel, Jimmy Carter, Maya Angelou, Pete Seeger, Desmond Tutu, George Lucas, and Joseph Campbell. His interviews with Campbell on “The Power of Myth” attracted 30 million viewers and led to another best-selling book.
Even after Bill finally retired and archived BillMoyers.com in 2021, he continued to follow and encourage my work. Here are just a few of his messages to me:
“Your mastery of the story is so impressive, but the story is so equally frightening I can’t get it out of my mind. I am circulating it.”
“Please know I miss our collaboration.”
“Very strong, as usual. You are effectively decoding the news for people who can’t follow it, including, alas, much of the press.”
“Very powerful piece. And brave.”
“Powerful! Go for it!”
“Your piece is stirring… It is so good to see how you continue to serve the truth.”
“Terrific!”
In our conversations, Bill told me that America was unlikely to lose its democracy in the dramatic fashion that autocrats sometimes conquered nations. U.S. elections and the three branches of government won’t merge into dictatorship, he suggested. Instead, another scenario was more insidious—a slide into a false democracy, like Viktor Orbán’s Hungary or Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s Turkey where voters still cast ballots, but the outcomes are predetermined and the strongman chief executive is above the law.
He often asked me, “Can democracy die from too many lies?”
We agreed that the answer is yes, and the problem is eternal: “Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it,” wrote Jonathan Swift in 1710. But that’s no excuse for abandoning the fight for the truth or, as Bill would say, as close to it as we can get.
I would never claim to be an heir to Bill Moyers’ legacy. Many people are far ahead of me in that special line. But I am among the millions of ordinary Americans for whom he was a powerful source of inspiration. Two of his private messages remind me that he still is:
“A strong piece, Steve. Keep it up.”
“I am so very grateful to you for continuing the fight. You see connections between the twinkling where others see only UFO’s.”
The fight—and the pushing—continues.
In the wake of today’s grim Supreme Court decision imperiling American citizenship for millions, he exemplified what a citizen could and should be.
A point of personal privilege, as they say: I want to take a minute to mark the death and life of Bill Moyers, first because he was a friend and an integral if quiet part of the climate fight, but also because I think—more than almost anyone else—he puts our strange moment in stark relief. In the wake of today’s grim Supreme Court decision imperiling American citizenship for millions, he exemplified what a citizen could and should be.
I knew who Bill Moyers was, of course, my whole conscious life. He’d been an omnipresent figure in the 1960s, coming to D.C. as a key aide to Vice President Lyndon Johnson only to quickly peel off to help found the Peace Corps. When LBJ wound up in the Oval Office, Moyers became one of his core advisors, helping shape the Great Society programs, before he finally broke with his mentor over Vietnam. Then he remade himself into the most important television journalist of his time, with a devoted following at CBS and then PBS.
But he really emerged into my thinking in the early 1990s when I was writing a book called The Age of Missing Information, which was an effort to understand how the mediated lives we were living shaped our minds and world. It was something between an experiment and performance art: I found the largest cable system in the world (a hundred channels in Fairfax,Virginia) and taped everything that came across them for for 24 hours—that meant I had 2,400 hours of tv, which I spent a year watching. A miserable year—there was so little sustenance. Except for Mister Rogers, and for Bill Moyers (who were not unalike, come to think of it). He interviewed a poet, and it was thoughtful and real and human, an oasis in that desert. No wonder he was beloved; no one save perhaps Edward R/ Murrow ever used the impoverished medium that is television with as much grace and skill. (Thirty Emmys, by the way.)
Bill Moyers was the preeminent interviewer of his time because he was so good at listening—that’s what effective interviewing really is. And listening is the thing most out of fashion in the people who rule over us now.
And then, a few years later, still in my 30s, through a series of coincidences, I got to work with him much much more closely; he’d asked me to join the board of the Schumann Foundation, the philanthropy that he ran for many years even as he continued his documentary career. Schumann was an unusual operation—the two brothers (heirs to the IBM fortune) who’d founded it were on the board too, and they were as generous as it was possible to be. When Bill decided an idea was worth, say, $200,000, they would invariably propose $400,000 instead. And so a great deal of important media and progressive work for several decades was funded essentially through his good graces.
I left the board, in fact, to avoid a conflict of interest because they wanted to make the grant that would help found 350.org; without it the first global grassroots climate campaign would not have gotten off the ground. And when the time came to start Third Act, the Schumann Foundation, then in the final throes of “spending down” their assets, made a small but key grant to give us the chance to explore the idea. I was a volunteer in these organizations, but not everyone can be a volunteer; Moyers understood that, and helped make sure that we, and others, had the wherewithal to pay decent wages to people doing hard and important work. He was instinctively generous.
But that’s not what sticks in my mind right now. It’s his other qualities: a deep empathy, a deep curiosity, and a deep commitment to reality as the basis for understanding the world. Those are not to be taken for granted—he’d grown up in the segregated south, for instance. But he cultivated them his whole life, till they were his nature. And they are, I think, the exact and polar opposite of our current political dispensation—the people defunding Black colleges and renaming naval vessels to make sure they don’t honor diversity, the people shutting down satellite feeds so we can’t see the Arctic melting, the people fixated on rounding up the poorest and most vulnerable among us.
Bill Moyers was the preeminent interviewer of his time because he was so good at listening—that’s what effective interviewing really is. And listening is the thing most out of fashion in the people who rule over us now. President Donald Trump, above all, just talks and talks and talks some more, in CAPITAL letters.
Moyers, by contrast, was not just an architect of, but also the exemplar of, the postwar liberal order in America, one of the best reflections of its virtues (and doubts). He represents a literacy now passing, an unpretentious sophistication that marked America at its intellectual best. I know, from many conversations in recent years, just how saddened and alarmed he was by the turn our world has taken, but I also know that he was constantly thinking of ways to make the future work. Which is, after all, our job.
The religion of inequality—of money and power—has failed us; its gods are false gods. There is something more essential—more profound—in the American experience than the hyena's appetite. Once we recognize and nurture this, once we honor it, we can reboot democracy.
Common Dreams editor's note: The following essay was first published on our pages on September 12, 2016 and is republished today following news of Bill Moyers' passing on Thursday, June 26, 2025. Moyers was a longtime contributor, patron, and good friend to Common Dreams and we celebrate his life and work as much as we mourn his passing.
Sixty-six years ago this summer, on my 16th birthday, I went to work for the daily newspaper in the small East Texas town of Marshall where I grew up. It was a good place to be a cub reporter -- small enough to navigate but big enough to keep me busy and learning something every day. I soon had a stroke of luck. Some of the paper's old hands were on vacation or out sick and I was assigned to help cover what came to be known across the country as "the housewives' rebellion."
Fifteen women in my hometown decided not to pay the Social Security withholding tax for their domestic workers. Those housewives were white, their housekeepers black. Almost half of all employed black women in the country then were in domestic service. Because they tended to earn lower wages, accumulate less savings, and be stuck in those jobs all their lives, social security was their only insurance against poverty in old age. Yet their plight did not move their employers.
In one way or another I've continued to engage the issues of money and power, equality and democracy over a lifetime spent at the intersection between politics and journalism.
The housewives argued that Social Security was unconstitutional and imposing it was taxation without representation. They even equated it with slavery. They also claimed that "requiring us to collect [the tax] is no different from requiring us to collect the garbage." So they hired a high-powered lawyer -- a notorious former congressman from Texas who had once chaired the House Un-American Activities Committee -- and took their case to court. They lost, and eventually wound up holding their noses and paying the tax, but not before their rebellion had become national news.
The stories I helped report for the local paper were picked up and carried across the country by the Associated Press. One day, the managing editor called me over and pointed to the AP Teletype machine beside his desk. Moving across the wire was a notice citing our paper and its reporters for our coverage of the housewives' rebellion.
I was hooked, and in one way or another I've continued to engage the issues of money and power, equality and democracy over a lifetime spent at the intersection between politics and journalism. It took me awhile to put the housewives' rebellion into perspective. Race played a role, of course. Marshall was a segregated, antebellum town of 20,000, half of whom were white, the other half black. White ruled, but more than race was at work. Those 15 housewives were respectable townsfolk, good neighbors, regulars at church (some of them at my church). Their children were my friends; many of them were active in community affairs; and their husbands were pillars of the town's business and professional class.
So what brought on that spasm of rebellion? They simply couldn't see beyond their own prerogatives. Fiercely loyal to their families, their clubs, their charities, and their congregations -- fiercely loyal, that is, to their own kind -- they narrowly defined membership in democracy to include only people like themselves. They expected to be comfortable and secure in their old age, but the women who washed and ironed their laundry, wiped their children's bottoms, made their husbands' beds, and cooked their family's meals would also grow old and frail, sick and decrepit, lose their husbands and face the ravages of time alone, with nothing to show from their years of labor but the crease in their brow and the knots on their knuckles.
There is a vast difference between a society whose arrangements roughly serve all its citizens and one whose institutions have been converted into a stupendous fraud, a democracy in name only.
In one way or another, this is the oldest story in our country's history: the struggle to determine whether "we, the people" is a metaphysical reality -- one nation, indivisible -- or merely a charade masquerading as piety and manipulated by the powerful and privileged to sustain their own way of life at the expense of others.
"I Contain Multitudes"
There is a vast difference between a society whose arrangements roughly serve all its citizens and one whose institutions have been converted into a stupendous fraud, a democracy in name only. I have no doubt about what the United States of America was meant to be. It's spelled out right there in the 52 most revolutionary words in our founding documents, the preamble to our Constitution, proclaiming the sovereignty of the people as the moral base of government:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
What do those words mean, if not that we are all in the business of nation-building together?
Now, I recognize that we've never been a country of angels guided by a presidium of saints. Early America was a moral morass. One in five people in the new nation was enslaved. Justice for the poor meant stocks and stockades. Women suffered virtual peonage. Heretics were driven into exile, or worse. Native people -- the Indians -- would be forcibly removed from their land, their fate a "trail of tears" and broken treaties.
No, I'm not a romantic about our history and I harbor no idealized notions of politics and democracy. Remember, I worked for President Lyndon Johnson. I heard him often repeat the story of the Texas poker shark who leaned across the table and said to his mark: "Play the cards fair, Reuben. I know what I dealt you." LBJ knew politics.
I recognize that we've never been a country of angels guided by a presidium of saints. Early America was a moral morass.
Nor do I romanticize "the people." When I began reporting on the state legislature while a student at the University of Texas, a wily old state senator offered to acquaint me with how the place worked. We stood at the back of the Senate floor as he pointed to his colleagues spread out around the chamber -- playing cards, napping, nipping, winking at pretty young visitors in the gallery -- and he said to me, "If you think these guys are bad, you should see the people who sent them there."
And yet, despite the flaws and contradictions of human nature -- or perhaps because of them -- something took hold here. The American people forged a civilization: that thin veneer of civility stretched across the passions of the human heart. Because it can snap at any moment, or slowly weaken from abuse and neglect until it fades away, civilization requires a commitment to the notion (contrary to what those Marshall housewives believed) that we are all in this together.
American democracy grew a soul, as it were -- given voice by one of our greatest poets, Walt Whitman, with his all-inclusive embrace in Song of Myself:
"Whoever degrades another degrades me,
and whatever is done or said returns at last to me...
I speak the pass-word primeval -- I give the sign of democracy;
By God! I will accept nothing which all cannot have their counterpart of on the same terms...
(I am large -- I contain multitudes.)"
Author Kathleen Kennedy Townsend has vividly described Whitman seeing himself in whomever he met in America. As he wrote in I Sing the Body Electric:
"-- the horseman in his saddle,
Girls, mothers, house-keepers, in all their performances,
The group of laborers seated at noon-time with their open dinner-kettles and their wives waiting,
The female soothing a child -- the farmer's daughter in the garden or cow-yard,
The young fellow hoeing corn --"
Whitman's words celebrate what Americans shared at a time when they were less dependent on each other than we are today. As Townsend put it, "Many more people lived on farms in the nineteenth century, and so they could be a lot more self-reliant; growing their own food, sewing their clothes, building their homes. But rather than applauding what each American could do in isolation, Whitman celebrated the vast chorus: 'I hear America singing.'" The chorus he heard was of multitudinous voices, a mighty choir of humanity.
Whitman saw something else in the soul of the country: Americans at work, the laboring people whose toil and sweat built this nation. Townsend contrasts his attitude with the way politicians and the media today -- in their endless debates about wealth creation, capital gains reduction, and high corporate taxes -- seem to have forgotten working people. "But Whitman wouldn't have forgotten them." She writes, "He celebrates a nation where everyone is worthy, not where a few do well."
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt understood the soul of democracy, too. He expressed it politically, although his words often ring like poetry. Paradoxically, to this scion of the American aristocracy, the soul of democracy meant political equality. "Inside the polling booth," he said, "every American man and woman stands as the equal of every other American man and woman. There they have no superiors. There they have no masters save their own minds and consciences."
God knows it took us a long time to get there. Every claim of political equality in our history has been met by fierce resistance from those who relished for themselves what they would deny others. After President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation it took a century before Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 -- a hundred years of Jim Crow law and Jim Crow lynchings, of forced labor and coerced segregation, of beatings and bombings, of public humiliation and degradation, of courageous but costly protests and demonstrations. Think of it: another hundred years before the freedom won on the bloody battlefields of the Civil War was finally secured in the law of the land.
Every claim of political equality in our history has been met by fierce resistance from those who relished for themselves what they would deny others.
And here's something else to think about: Only one of the women present at the first women's rights convention in Seneca Falls in 1848 -- only one, Charlotte Woodward -- lived long enough to see women actually get to vote.
"We Pick That Rabbit Out of the Hat"
So it was, in the face of constant resistance, that many heroes -- sung and unsung -- sacrificed, suffered, and died so that all Americans could gain an equal footing inside that voting booth on a level playing field on the ground floor of democracy. And yet today money has become the great unequalizer, the usurper of our democratic soul.
No one saw this more clearly than that conservative icon Barry Goldwater, longtime Republican senator from Arizona and one-time Republican nominee for the presidency. Here are his words from almost 30 years ago:
"The fact that liberty depended on honest elections was of the utmost importance to the patriots who founded our nation and wrote the Constitution. They knew that corruption destroyed the prime requisite of constitutional liberty: an independent legislature free from any influence other than that of the people. Applying these principles to modern times, we can make the following conclusions: To be successful, representative government assumes that elections will be controlled by the citizenry at large, not by those who give the most money. Electors must believe that their vote counts. Elected officials must owe their allegiance to the people, not to their own wealth or to the wealth of interest groups that speak only for the selfish fringes of the whole community."
About the time Senator Goldwater was writing those words, Oliver Stone released his movie Wall Street. Remember it? Michael Douglas played the high roller Gordon Gekko, who used inside information obtained by his ambitious young protege, Bud Fox, to manipulate the stock of a company that he intended to sell off for a huge personal windfall, while throwing its workers, including Bud's own blue-collar father, overboard. The younger man is aghast and repentant at having participated in such duplicity and chicanery, and he storms into Gekko's office to protest, asking, "How much is enough, Gordon?"
Gekko answers:
"The richest one percent of this country owns half our country's wealth, five trillion dollars... You got ninety percent of the American public out there with little or no net worth. I create nothing. I own. We make the rules, pal. The news, war, peace, famine, upheaval, the price per paper clip. We pick that rabbit out of the hat while everybody sits out there wondering how the hell we did it. Now, you're not naive enough to think we're living in a democracy, are you, Buddy? It's the free market. And you're part of it."
That was in the high-flying 1980s, the dawn of today's new gilded age. The Greek historian Plutarch is said to have warned that "an imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of a Republic." Yet as the Washington Post pointedout recently, income inequality may be higher at this moment than at any time in the American past.
When I was a young man in Washington in the 1960s, most of the country's growth accrued to the bottom 90% of households. From the end of World War II until the early 1970s, in fact, income grew at a slightly faster rate at the bottom and middle of American society than at the top. In 2009, economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez explored decades of tax data and found that from 1950 through 1980 the average income of the bottom 90% of Americans had grown, from $ 17,719 to $ 30,941. That represented a 75% increase in 2008 dollars.
So it was, in the face of constant resistance, that many heroes -- sung and unsung -- sacrificed, suffered, and died so that all Americans could gain an equal footing inside that voting booth on a level playing field on the ground floor of democracy.
Since 1980, the economy has continued to grow impressively, but most of the benefits have migrated to the top. In these years, workers were more productive but received less of the wealth they were helping to create. In the late 1970s, the richest 1% received 9% of total income and held 19% of the nation's wealth. The share of total income going to that 1% would then rise to more than 23% by 2007, while their share of total wealth would grow to 35%. And that was all before the economic meltdown of 2007-2008.
Even though everyone took a hit during the recession that followed, the top 10% now hold more than three-quarters of the country's total family wealth.
I know, I know: statistics have a way of causing eyes to glaze over, but these statistics highlight an ugly truth about America: inequality matters. It slows economic growth, undermines health, erodes social cohesion and solidarity, and starves education. In their study The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger, epidemiologists Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett found that the most consistent predictor of mental illness, infant mortality, low educational achievement, teenage births, homicides, and incarceration was economic inequality.
So bear with me as I keep the statistics flowing. The Pew Research Center recently released a new study indicating that, between 2000 and 2014, the middle class shrank in virtually all parts of the country. Nine out of ten metropolitan areas showed a decline in middle-class neighborhoods. And remember, we aren't even talking about over 45 million people who are living in poverty. Meanwhile, between 2009 and 2013, that top 1% captured 85% percent of all income growth. Even after the economy improved in 2015, they still took in more than half of the income growth and by 2013 held nearly half of all the stock and mutual fund assets Americans owned.
Now, concentrations of wealth would be far less of an issue if the rest of society were benefitting proportionally. But that isn't the case.
Once upon a time, according to Isabel Sawhill and Sara McClanahan in their 2006 report Opportunity in America, the American ideal was one in which all children had "a roughly equal chance of success regardless of the economic status of the family into which they were born."
Almost 10 years ago, economist Jeffrey Madrick wrote that, as recently as the 1980s, economists thought that "in the land of Horatio Alger only 20 percent of one's future income was determined by one's father's income." He then cited research showing that, by 2007, "60 percent of a son's income [was] determined by the level of income of the father. For women, it [was] roughly the same." It may be even higher today, but clearly a child's chance of success in life is greatly improved if he's born on third base and his father has been tipping the umpire.
This raises an old question, one highlighted by the British critic and public intellectual Terry Eagleton in an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education:
"Why is it that the capitalist West has accumulated more resources than human history has ever witnessed, yet appears powerless to overcome poverty, starvation, exploitation, and inequality?... Why does private wealth seem to go hand in hand with public squalor? Is it... plausible to maintain that there is something in the nature of capitalism itself which generates deprivation and inequality?"
The answer, to me, is self-evident. Capitalism produces winners and losers big time. The winners use their wealth to gain political power, often through campaign contributions and lobbying. In this way, they only increase their influence over the choices made by the politicians indebted to them. While there are certainly differences between Democrats and Republicans on economic and social issues, both parties cater to wealthy individuals and interests seeking to enrich their bottom lines with the help of the policies of the state (loopholes, subsidies, tax breaks, deregulation). No matter which party is in power, the interests of big business are largely heeded.
More on that later, but first, a confession. The legendary broadcast journalist Edward R. Murrow told his generation of journalists that bias is okay as long as you don't try to hide it. Here's mine: plutocracy and democracy don't mix. As the late (and great) Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said, "We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." Of course the rich can buy more homes, cars, vacations, gadgets, and gizmos than anyone else, but they should not be able to buy more democracy. That they can and do is a despicable blot on American politics that is now spreading like a giant oil spill.
No matter which party is in power, the interests of big business are largely heeded.
In May, President Obama and I both spoke at the Rutgers University commencement ceremony. He was at his inspirational best as 50,000 people leaned into every word. He lifted the hearts of those young men and women heading out into our troubled world, but I cringed when he said, "Contrary to what we hear sometimes from both the left as well as the right, the system isn't as rigged as you think..."
Wrong, Mr. President, just plain wrong. The people are way ahead of you on this. In a recent poll, 71% of Americans across lines of ethnicity, class, age, and gender said they believe the U.S. economy is rigged. People reported that they are working harder for financial security. One quarter of the respondents had not taken a vacation in more than five years. Seventy-one percent said that they are afraid of unexpected medical bills; 53% feared not being able to make a mortgage payment; and, among renters, 60% worried that they might not make the monthly rent.
Millions of Americans, in other words, are living on the edge. Yet the country has not confronted the question of how we will continue to prosper without a workforce that can pay for its goods and services.
Who Dunnit?
You didn't have to read Das Kapital to see this coming or to realize that the United States was being transformed into one of the harshest, most unforgiving societies among the industrial democracies. You could instead have read the Economist,arguably the most influential business-friendly magazine in the English-speaking world. I keep in my files a warning published in that magazine a dozen years ago, on the eve of George W. Bush's second term. The editors concluded back then that, with income inequality in the U.S. reaching levels not seen since the first Gilded Age and social mobility diminishing, "the United States risks calcifying into a European-style class-based society."
And mind you, that was before the financial meltdown of 2007-2008, before the bailout of Wall Street, before the recession that only widened the gap between the super-rich and everyone else. Ever since then, the great sucking sound we've been hearing is wealth heading upwards. The United States now has a level of income inequality unprecedented in our history and so dramatic it's almost impossible to wrap one's mind around.
Contrary to what the president said at Rutgers, this is not the way the world works; it's the way the world is made to work by those with the money and power. The movers and shakers -- the big winners -- keep repeating the mantra that this inequality was inevitable, the result of the globalization of finance and advances in technology in an increasingly complex world. Those are part of the story, but only part. As G.K. Chesterton wrote a century ago, "In every serious doctrine of the destiny of men, there is some trace of the doctrine of the equality of men. But the capitalist really depends on some religion of inequality."
There you have it: the winners bought off the gatekeepers, then gamed the system.
Exactly. In our case, a religion of invention, not revelation, politically engineered over the last 40 years. Yes, politically engineered. On this development, you can't do better than read Winner Take All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class by Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson, the Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson of political science.
They were mystified by what had happened to the post-World War II notion of "shared prosperity"; puzzled by the ways in which ever more wealth has gone to the rich and super rich; vexed that hedge-fund managers pull in billions of dollars, yet pay taxes at lower rates than their secretaries; curious about why politicians kept slashing taxes on the very rich and handing huge tax breaks and subsidies to corporations that are downsizing their work forces; troubled that the heart of the American Dream -- upward mobility -- seemed to have stopped beating; and dumbfounded that all of this could happen in a democracy whose politicians were supposed to serve the greatest good for the greatest number. So Hacker and Pierson set out to find out "how our economy stopped working to provide prosperity and security for the broad middle class."
In other words, they wanted to know: "Who dunnit?" They found the culprit. With convincing documentation they concluded, "Step by step and debate by debate, America's public officials have rewritten the rules of American politics and the American economy in ways that have benefitted the few at the expense of the many."
There you have it: the winners bought off the gatekeepers, then gamed the system. And when the fix was in they turned our economy into a feast for the predators, "saddling Americans with greater debt, tearing new holes in the safety net, and imposing broad financial risks on Americans as workers, investors, and taxpayers." The end result, Hacker and Pierson conclude, is that the United States is looking more and more like the capitalist oligarchies of Brazil, Mexico, and Russia, where most of the wealth is concentrated at the top while the bottom grows larger and larger with everyone in between just barely getting by.
Bruce Springsteen sings of "the country we carry in our hearts." This isn't it.
"God's Work"
Looking back, you have to wonder how we could have ignored the warning signs. In the 1970s, Big Business began to refine its ability to act as a class and gang up on Congress. Even before the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, political action committees deluged politics with dollars. Foundations, corporations, and rich individuals funded think tanks that churned out study after study with results skewed to their ideology and interests. Political strategists made alliances with the religious right, with Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority and Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition, to zealously wage a cultural holy war that would camouflage the economic assault on working people and the middle class.
To help cover up this heist of the economy, an appealing intellectual gloss was needed. So, public intellectuals were recruited and subsidized to turn "globalization," "neo-liberalism," and "the Washington Consensus" into a theological belief system. The "dismal science of economics" became a miracle of faith. Wall Street glistened as the new Promised Land, while few noticed that those angels dancing on the head of a pin were really witchdoctors with MBAs brewing voodoo magic. The greed of the Gordon Gekkos -- once considered a vice -- was transformed into a virtue. One of the high priests of this faith, Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs, looking in wonder on all that his company had wrought, pronounced it "God's work."
A prominent neoconservative religious philosopher even articulated a "theology of the corporation." I kid you not. And its devotees lifted their voices in hymns of praise to wealth creation as participation in the Kingdom of Heaven here on Earth. Self-interest became the Gospel of the Gilded Age.
No one today articulates this winner-take-all philosophy more candidly than Ray Dalio. Think of him as the King Midas of hedge funds, with a personal worth estimated at almost $16 billion and a company, Bridgewater Associates, reportedly worth as much as $154 billion.
Dalio fancies himself a philosopher and has written a book of maxims explaining his philosophy. It boils down to: "Be a hyena. Attack the Wildebeest." (Wildebeests, antelopes native to southern Africa -- as I learned when we once filmed a documentary there -- are no match for the flesh-eating dog-like spotted hyenas that gorge on them.) Here's what Dalio wrote about being a Wall Street hyena:
"...when a pack of hyenas takes down a young wildebeest, is this good or bad? At face value, this seems terrible; the poor wildebeest suffers and dies. Some people might even say that the hyenas are evil. Yet this type of apparently evil behavior exists throughout nature through all species... like death itself, this behavior is integral to the enormously complex and efficient system that has worked for as long as there has been life... [It] is good for both the hyenas, who are operating in their self-interest, and the interests of the greater system, which includes the wildebeest, because killing and eating the wildebeest fosters evolution, i.e., the natural process of improvement... Like the hyenas attacking the wildebeest, successful people might not even know if or how their pursuit of self-interest helps evolution, but it typically does."
He concludes: "How much money people have earned is a rough measure of how much they gave society what it wanted..."
Not this time, Ray. This time, the free market for hyenas became a slaughterhouse for the wildebeest. Collapsing shares and house prices destroyed more than a quarter of the wealth of the average household. Many people have yet to recover from the crash and recession that followed. They are still saddled with burdensome debt; their retirement accounts are still anemic. All of this was, by the hyena's accounting, a social good, "an improvement in the natural process," as Dalio puts it. Nonsense. Bull. Human beings have struggled long and hard to build civilization; his doctrine of "progress" is taking us back to the jungle.
Any society, it turns out, contains a built-in blueprint for failure if elites insulate themselves endlessly from the consequences of their decisions.
And by the way, there's a footnote to the Dalio story. Early this year, the founder of the world's largest hedge fund, and by many accounts the richest man in Connecticut where it is headquartered, threatened to take his firm elsewhere if he didn't get concessions from the state. You might have thought that the governor, a Democrat, would have thrown him out of his office for the implicit threat involved. But no, he buckled and Dalio got the $22 million in aid -- a $5 million grant and a $17 million loan -- that he was demanding to expand his operations. It's a loan that may be forgiven if he keeps jobs in Connecticut and creates new ones. No doubt he left the governor's office grinning like a hyena, his shoes tracking wildebeest blood across the carpet.
Our founders warned against the power of privileged factions to capture the machinery of democracies. James Madison, who studied history through a tragic lens, saw that the life cycle of previous republics had degenerated into anarchy, monarchy, or oligarchy. Like many of his colleagues, he was well aware that the republic they were creating could go the same way. Distrusting, even detesting concentrated private power, the founders attempted to erect safeguards to prevent private interests from subverting the moral and political compact that begins, "We, the people." For a while, they succeeded.
When the brilliant young French aristocrat Alexis de Tocqueville toured America in the 1830s, he was excited by the democratic fervor he witnessed. Perhaps that excitement caused him to exaggerate the equality he celebrated. Close readers of de Tocqueville will notice, however, that he did warn of the staying power of the aristocracy, even in this new country. He feared what he called, in the second volume of his masterwork, Democracy in America, an "aristocracy created by business." He described it as already among "the harshest that ever existed in the world" and suggested that, "if ever a permanent inequality of conditions and aristocracy again penetrate the world, it may be predicted that this is the gate by which they will enter."
And so it did. Half a century later, the Gilded Age arrived with a new aristocratic hierarchy of industrialists, robber barons, and Wall Street tycoons in the vanguard. They had their own apologist in the person of William Graham Sumner, an Episcopal minister turned professor of political economy at Yale University. He famously explained that "competition... is a law of nature" and that nature "grants her rewards to the fittest, therefore, without regard to other considerations of any kind."
From Sumner's essays to the ravenous excesses of Wall Street in the 1920s to the ravings of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Fox News, to the business press's wide-eyed awe of hyena-like CEOs; from the Republican war on government to the Democratic Party's shameless obeisance to big corporations and contributors, this "law of nature" has served to legitimate the yawning inequality of income and wealth, even as it has protected networks of privilege and monopolies in major industries like the media, the tech sector, and the airlines.
A plethora of studies conclude that America's political system has already been transformed from a democracy into an oligarchy (the rule of a wealthy elite). Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page, for instance, studied data from 1,800 different policy initiatives launched between 1981 and 2002. They found that "economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence." Whether Republican or Democratic, they concluded, the government more often follows the preferences of major lobbying or business groups than it does those of ordinary citizens.
We can only be amazed that a privileged faction in a fervent culture of politically protected greed brought us to the brink of a second Great Depression, then blamed government and a "dependent" 47% of the population for our problems, and ended up richer and more powerful than ever.
The Truth of Your Life
Which brings us back to those Marshall housewives -- to all those who simply can't see beyond their own prerogatives and so narrowly define membership in democracy to include only people like themselves.
How would I help them recoup their sanity, come home to democracy, and help build the sort of moral compact embodied in the preamble to the Constitution, that declaration of America's intent and identity?
First, I'd do my best to remind them that societies can die of too much inequality.
Second, I'd give them copies of anthropologist Jared Diamond's book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed to remind them that we are not immune. Diamond won the Pulitzer Prize for describing how the damage humans have inflicted on their environment has historically led to the decline of civilizations. In the process, he vividly depicts how elites repeatedly isolate and delude themselves until it's too late. How, extracting wealth from commoners, they remain well fed while everyone else is slowly starving until, in the end, even they (or their offspring) become casualties of their own privilege. Any society, it turns out, contains a built-in blueprint for failure if elites insulate themselves endlessly from the consequences of their decisions.
Third, I'd discuss the real meaning of "sacrifice and bliss" with them. That was the title of the fourth episode of my PBS series Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth. In that episode, Campbell and I discussed the influence on him of the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, who believed that the will to live is the fundamental reality of human nature. So he puzzled about why some people override it and give up their lives for others.
"Can this happen?" Campbell asked. "That what we normally think of as the first law of nature, namely self-preservation, is suddenly dissolved. What creates that breakthrough when we put another's well-being ahead of our own?" He then told me of an incident that took place near his home in Hawaii, up in the heights where the trade winds from the north come rushing through a great ridge of mountains. People go there to experience the force of nature, to let their hair be blown in the winds -- and sometimes to commit suicide.
The truth of our country isn't actually so complicated. It's in the moral compact implicit in the preamble to our Constitution: we're all in this together.
One day, two policemen were driving up that road when, just beyond the railing, they saw a young man about to jump. One of the policemen bolted from the car and grabbed the fellow just as he was stepping off the ledge. His momentum threatened to carry both of them over the cliff, but the policeman refused to let go. Somehow he held on long enough for his partner to arrive and pull the two of them to safety. When a newspaper reporter asked, "Why didn't you let go? You would have been killed," he answered: "I couldn't... I couldn't let go. If I had, I couldn't have lived another day of my life."
Campbell then added: "Do you realize what had suddenly happened to that policeman? He had given himself over to death to save a stranger. Everything else in his life dropped off. His duty to his family, his duty to his job, his duty to his own career, all of his wishes and hopes for life, just disappeared." What mattered was saving that young man, even at the cost of his own life.
How can this be, Campbell asked? Schopenhauer's answer, he said, was that a psychological crisis represents the breakthrough of a metaphysical reality, which is that you and the other are two aspects of one life, and your apparent separateness is but an effect of the way we experience forms under the conditions of space and time. Our true reality is our identity and unity with all life.
Sometimes, however instinctively or consciously, our actions affirm that reality through some unselfish gesture or personal sacrifice. It happens in marriage, in parenting, in our relations with the people immediately around us, and in our participation in building a society based on reciprocity.
The truth of our country isn't actually so complicated. It's in the moral compact implicit in the preamble to our Constitution: we're all in this together. We are all one another's first responders. As the writer Alberto Rios once put it, "I am in your family tree and you are in mine."
I realize that the command to love our neighbor is one of the hardest of all religious concepts, but I also recognize that our connection to others goes to the core of life's mystery and to the survival of democracy. When we claim this as the truth of our lives -- when we live as if it's so -- we are threading ourselves into the long train of history and the fabric of civilization; we are becoming "we, the people."
The religion of inequality -- of money and power -- has failed us; its gods are false gods. There is something more essential -- more profound -- in the American experience than the hyena's appetite. Once we recognize and nurture this, once we honor it, we can reboot democracy and get on with the work of liberating the country we carry in our hearts.
"Moyers believed that journalism should serve democracy, not just the bottom line."
The life and work of journalist Bill Moyers was being celebrated across the world of independent and public media on Thursday as news of his death at the age of 91 spread across the United States and beyond.
"RIP Bill Moyers, one of the greatest of the greats," Press Watch's Dan Froomkin said on social media as remembrances and celebrations of the legendary broadcaster, democracy defender, and longtime Common Dreams contributor poured in.
Moyers died of complications from prostate cancer at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City.
He began his long media career as a teenager, reporting for his local newspaper in Texas. He was also an ordained Baptist minister and former President Lyndon B. Johnson's press secretary.
"He believed deeply in the power and potential of public media, and he set the standard for public broadcasting by telling stories you couldn't find anywhere else."
A joint statement from the LBJ Presidential Library, his foundation, and the Johnson family noted that "Moyers played a central role in developing and promoting Johnson's Great Society agenda, an ambitious domestic policy program to eliminate poverty, expand civil rights, and improve education and healthcare nationwide."
Moyers left the White House and returned to journalism in 1967. He served as publisher of Newsday, then launched his award-winning television career, from which he retired in 2015. His website, BillMoyers.com, went into "archive mode" in 2017.
With his television programming—much of which aired on PBS—Moyers took "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 a decade ago.
In a comment to Common Dreams after Moyer's death, The Nation's John Nichols, who co-founded the group Free Press and co-authored The Death and Life of American Journalism, highlighted the late journalist's work during the era of former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
"There were journalism and democracy campaigners before Bill Moyers, and there will be journalism and democracy campaigners who carry the movement forward now that he has passed," Nichols said. "But every honest history will record that the modern media reform movement—with its commitment to diversity, to equity, and to defending the sort of speak-truth-to-power reporting that exposes injustice, inequality, authoritarianism, and militarism—was made possible by Bill's courageous advocacy during the Bush-Cheney years. He raised the banner—as a former White House press secretary, a bestselling author, and a nationally recognized journalist and PBS host—and we rallied around it."
Free Press president and co-CEO Craig Aaron said in a statement that "Bill Moyers was a legend who lived up to his reputation. Moyers believed that journalism should serve democracy, not just the bottom line. He believed deeply in the power and potential of public media, and he set the standard for public broadcasting by telling stories you couldn't find anywhere else. He always stood up to bullies—including those who come forward in every generation to try to crush public media and end its independence. We can honor his memory by continuing that fight."
Many journalists weighed in on social media, sharing stories of his "very generous heart," and how he was "the rarest combination of curiosity, kindness, honesty, and conviction."
So sad to hear of Bill Moyers passing. An amazing thinker, journalist, interlocutor, supporter of anyone trying to engage in serious dialogue on any front. Just a lovely, generous, and kind human. A great friend to @motherjones. www.washingtonpost.com/obituaries/2...
[image or embed]
— Clara Jeffery (@clarajeffery.bsky.social) June 26, 2025 at 5:20 PM
"Bill Moyers was a close friend, a mentor, and a role model. In a media world where there's almost no solidarity, he guided my career and was an unwavering supporter of our accountability journalism at The Lever," said the outlet's founder, David Sirota, on Thursday. "This is terrible news. We have lost a giant."
"There's this idea of 'never meet your heroes'—and in my experience, I think that aphorism holds up for the most part," Sirota added. "But it was the opposite with Bill—as great a journalism hero as he was in public, he was just as great a mentor in private. He truly was the best of us."
Bill Moyers was enormously generous to @prospect.org over the years, mostly predating me. But I had the chance to speak with him a couple times and it was a great thrill. RIP.apnews.com/article/bill...
[image or embed]
— David Dayen (@ddayen.bsky.social) June 26, 2025 at 5:40 PM
Katrina vanden Heuvel, The Nation's editorial director and publisher, said Thursday that "Moyers distinguished himself as a journalist by refusing to be a stenographer for the powerful. Instead of providing yet another venue for the predictable preening of establishment leaders, Moyers gave a platform to dissenting voices from both the left and the right. Instead of covering the news from the narrow perspective of the political and corporate elite, Moyers gave voice to the powerless and the issues that affect them."
"We journalists are of course obliged to cover the news," Moyers said at an event hosted by the magazine in Washington, D.C., according to vanden Heuvel. "But our deeper mission is to uncover the news that powerful people would prefer to keep hidden."
Beyond the media world, Moyers was also remembered fondly. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said Thursday that "Bill Moyers, a friend, public servant, and outstanding journalist, has passed away. As an aide to President Johnson, Bill pushed the president in a more progressive direction. As a journalist, he had the courage to explore issues that many ignored. Bill will be sorely missed."
While Moyers has now passed, his legacy lives on in his mountain of work, more than 1,000 hours of which were collected in 2023 by the American Archive of Public Broadcasting, a collaboration between the Library of Congress and Boston's GBH. The Bill Moyers Collection is available online at AmericanArchive.org.
"The world of media scholarship, journalists far and wide, and anyone who cares about a free press, a functioning democracy, and a better world has suffered a tremendous loss," said Common Dreams' managing editor.
Robert McChesney—prominent media scholar, Free Press co-founder, dogged defender of democracy, and friend of Common Dreams—died Tuesday at the age of 72.
McChesney's many books, nearly three dozen in total which he either wrote or edited, include: Rich Media, Poor Democracy (2000); The Problem With the Media (2004); The Death and Life of American Journalism (2010, co-authored with John Nichols); Dollarocracy (2012, also with Nichols); Digital Disconnect (2013); and Digital Democracy (2014).
He was the Gutgsell endowed professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Illinois Urbana–Champaign, and also co-founded the Illinois Initiative on Global Information and Communication Policy with Dan Schiller.
"Bob McChesney was a brilliant scholar whose ideas and insights reached far beyond the classroom. He opened the eyes of a generation of academics, journalists, politicians and activists—including me—to how media structures and policies shape our broader politics and possibilities," said Free Press president and co-CEO Craig Aaron.
Free Press mourns the passing of co-founder Robert W. McChesney, a brilliant scholar & generous mentor who captured corporate media's profound influence on the health of our democracy. https://www.freepress.net/news/press-releases/free-press-mourns-death-co-founder-and-scholar-robert-w-mcchesney
[image or embed]
— Free Press (@freepress.bsky.social) March 27, 2025 at 8:08 AM
"While McChesney spent much of his career charting the problems of the media and the critical junctures that created our current crises, he believed fundamentally in the public's ability to solve those problems and build a media system that serves people's needs and sustains democracy," Aaron continued.
"His ideas were bold and transformative, and he had little patience for tinkering around the edges," he added. "Rather than fighting over Washington's narrow vision of what was possible, he always said—and Bob loved a good sports metaphor—that we needed to throw the puck down to the other end of the ice."
A Common Dreams reader, contributor, promoter, and supporter for over 25 years, McChesney will be deeply missed by all those associated with the independent, nonprofit news organization.
"Both in my personal political development earlier in life and as a working journalist in the profession," said Common Dreams managing editor Jon Queally, "McChesney had a profound influence on how I came to understand media systems and the political economy overall."
"Rich Media, Poor Democracy pretty much changed my life, a book that I once taught to high school students—which they loved, by the way—as it explains, in an accessible but penetrating fashion, just how corrupting the news and information landscape can be when it is controlled wholesale by corporate interests," Queally continued.
"The world of media scholarship, journalists far and wide, and anyone who cares about a free press, a functioning democracy, and a better world has suffered a tremendous loss with the passing of Bob McChesney," he added. "Our hearts go out to his family and many friends."
Rutgers University communications professor Andrew Kennis also highlighted the importance of Rich Media, Poor Democracy. He told Common Dreams that McChesney—who along with Noam Chomsky wrote openers to his 2022 book Digital-Age Resistance: Journalism, Social Movements, and the Media Dependence Model—influenced his own work.
"Bob McChesney's impact on media was immeasurable," Kennis said in a phone interview. "He was a steadfast public intellectual who inspired millions with accessible critiques of capitalism and its corrosive effects on democracy. He argued that the United States' descent into neoliberalism came at the expense of popular sovereignty."
Kennis said he got to know McChesney through Chomsky, adding that "Noam called Bob 'pretty much the best political economist' in the country, and practically the world."
"Bob very much self-identified as a political economist in general, but especially about communications," he explained.
In a 2013 appearance on "Moyers & Company," hosted by Bill Moyers on PBS, McChesney joined with friend and frequent co-author Nichols, national affairs correspondent for The Nation, to discuss their book, Dollarocracy: How the Money and Media Election Complex Is Destroying America.
"Democracy means rule of the people: one person, one vote," McChesney explained to Moyers during the interview. "Dollarocracy means the rule of the dollars: one dollar, one vote. Those with lots of dollars have lots of power. Those with no dollars have no power."
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote the introduction to Dollarocracy. Jeff Cohen, founder of Fairness and Accuracy in Media (FAIR) and founding director of the Park Center for Independent Media at Ithaca College, called his friend McChesney a "proud socialist" who "told me how glad he was to go door to door" canvassing for Sanders when he ran for president in 2016 and 2020.
Writing for FAIR, Cohen said that "no one did more to analyze the negative and censorial impacts of our media and information systems being controlled by giant, amoral corporations."
"Particularly enlightening was his 2014 book, Digital Disconnect: How Capitalism Is Turning the Internet Against Democracy," Cohen continued, "in which McChesney explained in step-by-step detail how the internet that held so much promise for journalism and democracy was being strangled by corporate greed, and by government policy that put greed in the driver's seat."
"That was a key point for Bob in all his work: He detested the easy phrase 'media deregulation,' when in fact government policy was actively and heavily regulating the media system (and so many other systems) toward corporate control," Cohen added.
In 2015, at the National Conference for Media Reform in Denver hosted by Free Press, McChesney sat down with Common Dreams to discuss the importance of independent outlets as well as the inspiring promise of journalism that can "change the world" by exposing one person at a time to news or information they might not otherwise ever learn or come by:
Robert McChesney on Common Dreams
Nichols wrote for The Nation Thursday that while McChesney was a "globally respected communications scholar who was wholly welcome in the halls of academia," he "was never satisfied working within an ivory tower."
Indeed, a lesser-known aspect of McChesney's work was his immersion in one of the late 20th century's emerging music scenes.
"One of the first things that Bob did to have an impact on society was with the grunge movement in Seattle," Kennis told Common Dreams. "That was kind of his street cred before he went full nerd."
"Bob was doing some independent journalism and was studying in Seattle and was closely covering the emergence of Nirvana and other garage bands back then; that's how he got his first big dip into journalism," he said. "And he was a big fan, and part of the fabric of indie rock."
McChesney—who studied history and political economy at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington and earned a Ph.D. in communications from the University of Washington in Seattle in 1989—co-founded the The Rocket, an alternative weekly newspaper that highlighted groups such as Nirvana, Soundgarden, Pearl Jam, Screaming Trees, Sleater-Kinney, and Mudhoney as they rose to prominence. Ironically, The Rocket was sold to a big San Francisco publisher whose financial mismanagement killed the once-independent paper.
"Bob was a towering character," Kennis said, "always dedicated from the beginning to the end to the good fight."
"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 Dreams contributor 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.
Welcome to Moyers on Democracy. Lisa Graves returns to discuss President Trump's nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to succeed the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. A trained lawyer, Ms. Graves is one of the nation's foremost experts on judicial appointments. She served as chief counsel for nominations for the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee and as a career deputy to two attorneys general, one a Democrat, the other a Republican. She has spent the past ten years investigating the impact of dark money on judicial selection, public policy, and elections. She is currently Executive Director of True North Research, a nonprofit watchdog group focused on legal policy and ethics in federal and state government. Here to talk with Lisa Graves is Bill Moyers.
BILL MOYERS: Thank you, Lisa, for taking my call.
LISA GRAVES: My pleasure, Bill. Thank you so much for calling me.
BILL MOYERS: What exactly does it mean to be the chief counsel to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee for nominations of federal judges?
LISA GRAVES: My job was to vet the judicial nominees and the U.S. Attorney nominees that were being put forward by President George W. Bush in his first term in office. My job was to review their background, review any information available about them, and make recommendations about whether they were people who had the demeanor and the temperament and the record of fairness to become a federal judge for a lifetime position on our federal courts.
BILL MOYERS: And you also served as deputy assistant attorney general under two attorneys general, one a Republican, the other a Democrat.
LISA GRAVES: That's correct. I was a career deputy assistant attorney general at the U.S. Department of Justice under both Ms. Reno and Mr. Ashcroft. And for the first part of 2001, my job was to aid in the orderly transition of government and to advise Mr. Ashcroft in particular on judicial nominations on a relationship with the federal judiciary and the state judiciary.
BILL MOYERS: You know the nominating process inside and out, right?
LISA GRAVES: I do. I both worked in it for several years and have been a student of it for many years before that.
BILL MOYERS: What do you think of how President Trump and the Republican leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell, are doing in rushing Amy Coney Barrett's nomination through the Senate in just a matter of weeks if not days?
LISA GRAVES: I think what's happening with the Senate and with this White House in terms of the Supreme Court is profoundly illegitimate for a number of reasons. First, the election is literally weeks away and this president has said expressly that he wants someone confirmed so that he can have a vote on that court to win the litigation that he and his team are planning to bring to that court. That's just profoundly illegitimate. It's also the case that President Trump and his campaign team are doing enormous fundraising to try to use this nomination to an independent branch of our government in order to advance his own partisan political interests and try to push Amy Barrett onto the court really for the next 30 or 40 years. So, no matter what happens in terms of his election, Trump's election, if they're successful, he will have placed three people on the Supreme Court, two of them basically due to vacancies during election years. And as you know, the other part of that story is the just extraordinary hypocrisy of Mitch McConnell, of Senator Lindsey Graham, of other senators who stalled a nomination by President Obama for months. Justice Scalia passed away in February of 2016. And the Republicans refused to allow Judge Merrick Garland a hearing, for months, even though Judge Garland had been on the bench in the D.C. circuit for many years and was well-regarded as a fair judge. Here you have a nomination that's only been vacant for a week or so, and a rush to push someone through at all costs, and to put someone on the court who I think does have a troubling record.
BILL MOYERS: But the Constitution is silent on the issue of when a president who has the power and responsibility of appointing Supreme Court justices should make that appointment. I mean, the fact that it's near an election is a coincidence. So, what makes this illegitimate?
LISA GRAVES: Well, it's certainly the case that the Constitution provides for the power of the president to propose a nomination. It doesn't put any time limit on it. But the fact is that historically, it has been the case that the Congress has been reluctant to approve nominations in election years, in part because the notion is that the American people are about to decide the course of the nation. Back in 2016 that Supreme Court seat of Justice Scalia's sat vacant for basically almost an entire year. There was no crisis on the court as a result of that vacancy. And the Republicans expressed no urgency to move a nomination forward. And so, in this situation, you have a case where, unlike back in 2016 where you had a president who was elected twice to the presidency, here you have someone who won the election in 2016 without the popular vote. You have a president who's been impeached by the House of Representatives. I understand that this Senate did not vote to actually remove him from office. But you have serious allegations that face this president on both foreign and domestic issues about his fitness to be the president of the United States, a decision that the American people will be facing in these coming weeks. And this is no time to rush through an irrevocable decision on the part of this president to put someone on the Supreme Court who is in her late 40s. And she's been a judge for a very short period of time. I think that there are a lot of troubling components to the nominations process as it's unfolded over these many years. At the beginning of our nation's history, people served on the court only ten, maybe 20 years due to life span of people back then. And also, the notion that people needed to have a really long and established career to have that role. Now you have people who are being appointed and they're serving not just for a decade or two but for generations. In my lifetime, for the last 52 years, there have been 19 people appointed to the United States Supreme Court. Fifteen of those nominations have been made by Republican presidents and confirmed. Only four of the confirmed justices who have been appointed in my lifetime were appointed by Democrats. And so, at one point last week, Senator Mitt Romney said, you've got to get over the idea of there being a liberal Supreme Court. And I thought, "What liberal Supreme Court?" We have a court that's been dominated by one party through these appointments. The Republicans have chosen very young people for those positions. And, in fact, that was the plan of the Republican appointment of Justice Thomas, who was in his early 40s at the time he was appointed. He's now in his early 70s.
BILL MOYERS: The Republicans have long treated control of the Supreme Court as a very important political issue. Electoral issue. Election issue. The Democrats have not. The Republicans have outsmarted the Democrats on the evaluation they place on the political aspects of the Supreme Court.
LISA GRAVES: It is the case that the Republicans have really politicized the courts in that way, while they claim that the Democrats have. The court that they complained so much about, the one historically complained about, was the Warren court. That was led by Chief Justice Earl Warren. And that court in my view, really did a tremendously valuable job for the country, because what it actually did was to read the Constitution to apply its terms to ordinary people. So equal protection of the law--
BILL MOYERS: What do you mean?
LISA GRAVES: Using that phrase in our 14th Amendment that people will not be denied equal protection to ensure that Americans could not be segregated in our schools through racial segregation. That was attacked vociferously on the right as an inappropriate and outrageous decision. It was following the plain language of the Constitution. The Warren Court ruled that when the Constitution says you have a right to counsel in the case of Gideon v. Wainwright, that you actually have a right to counsel. And so, there were a number of decisions in the '50s and '60s that the right wing, they called themselves conservatives or libertarians, opposed. And in the aftermath of those decisions the Republicans really began running on a claim with Richard Nixon of supposed law and order. Part of that law and order campaign was about the courts and trying to pack the courts with people who he thought would reverse those rulings that gave meaning to people's rights that were listed and written in the Constitution. And then Ronald Reagan went a measure further. He decided to say that he, through his attorney general Edwin Meese, at the time, was going to have a litmus test about abortion, that he would only appoint someone to the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe v. Wade. With Reagan, there was a specific determination, to appoint people basically pretty far to the right at the time. They did manage to get Justice Scalia on the court, and they did manage to put William Rehnquist [as Chief Justice] on the court, who'd been an advisor to President Nixon. And then it was 12 years of real court packing by Ronald Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush. And when Clinton came into office in the early 1990s the path he chose was one to say that litmus test was wrong and that we needed fair judges. And so, the effort was articulated as trying to put people of moderation on the court. I personally think it's important to talk to the American people about the courts and what's at stake. And talk about how people are being put on the courts by the right, by the Republicans, in order to overturn precedent. In order to overturn our rights. I think that that case needs to be made not just to not fight about the courts but to basically tell the American people quite plainly how important the courts are. And this movement that's underway to overturn those rights. I would say to you one of the things that came out in an investigation by THE WASHINGTON POST last May by Robert O'Harrow and Shawn Boburg was that Leonard Leo, who's been working on helping to pack the courts for, almost two decades or more now--
BILL MOYERS: Leonard Leo, tell me who he is.
LISA GRAVES: Leonard Leo, for many years served as the vice president of the Federalist Society. And he is still an advisor to the Federalist Society. He has been the architect for the last few decades of this long-term effort to put far right judges on the Supreme Court and the federal courts and other courts in order to change the law by changing what decisions are being issued by those very judges. And he has created basically a big dark money operation that THE WASHINGTON POST tallied at more than $250 million to influence who gets installed on the Supreme Court. And those people are being chosen from his own lists. And they are having an utterly disproportionate influence on who gets confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Leonard Leo gave a speech last year to a group called the Council for National Policy, which is made up of fundraisers on the far right. People who are funding this effort to capture our courts, as Sheldon Whitehouse has described it. And in that speech, he said that we, America, and the people in that room, were standing on the precipice of what he called the revival of what he described as the quote, "Structural Constitution," that would roll back 100 years of precedents in America. And that the appointments that Trump was making were in design to do just that, to remove the rights of people to organize in labor unions. The rights of people to petition their government for social security and programs that help protect us from the extremes of our economy. To protect our lives. Efforts to protect our environment and protect us from pollution from corporations that aren't restrained or regulated. That was really a shocking speech about the level of judicial activism that the right wing is pushing. And this new nomination by President Trump of Amy Coney Barrett is in that mold to try to use the courts to reverse Americans' rights.
BILL MOYERS: We learned after Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation that some very rich people had put up millions of dollars to quote, "Sell" his nomination to the public. Will those people do the same thing for the Barrett nomination?
LISA GRAVES: It's already under way. One of the main groups that Leonard Leo has helped to orchestrate is called the Judicial Crisis Network, JCN. And it's already running ads in swing states, states where senators are facing close election to try to promote this judge. And Leonard Leo is the one who's helping to orchestrate for the campaign to use dark money to put these judges in position to rule on our rights and to remove our rights. I know there are groups on the right and left who spend money on nominations. But this circumstance is really extraordinary, because you have unknown billionaires or multi-millionaires who are secretly giving to a group that gives to a group. During Kavanaugh, it was the Wellspring Committee giving to Judicial Crisis Network.
BILL MOYERS: Who's in this Judicial Network you're talking about? Can you name some names? Organizations? Individuals? And where's the money coming from?
LISA GRAVES: Yes. So, the Judicial Crisis Network is formally led by Carrie Severino, along with the assistance of Gary Marx, a longtime political ally, of Leonard Leo. Leonard Leo is the former vice president of the Federalist Society. And he now leads a dark money network, along with a guy named Greg Mueller. He and Leo have a group called CRC Advisors that is devoted to capturing both the U.S. Supreme Court and federal courts, as well as state Supreme Courts. Carrie Severino's a former clerk of Justice Thomas. And Gary Marx is someone who has been working on judicial nominations with Leo really for the last two decades through all the fights to try to pack the courts. Their funders are unknown. We do know that there was one huge donation to the Wellspring Committee. That huge donation was almost entirely given to Judicial Crisis Network. Judicial Crisis Network spent some of that money and then gave some money to other groups in the network, like the so-called Independent Women's Forum that was created back around the Clarence Thomas nomination. That's where they got their start was in judicial nominations. But who is that original donor? We don't know. There's no disclosure of who that one donor was who spent these millions and millions of dollars to capture the court. Who was that? Who was that donor? Who were those people? And they were boasting about how successful their efforts were in trying to rally their base, the base of Republicans, to try to come out in the 2018 election. That fight over Brett Kavanaugh actually had the effect of bringing a lot of people out who were progressives and moderates who thought we shouldn't have someone like Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court. But to JCN and the Independent Women's Forum and their network, they believe judicial nominations help motivate the base because even though they will tell the press and the public that this person is a rule of law judge or a law and order judge or a judge who's going to follow precedent- now they're calling Amy Coney Barrett a so-called Constitutionalist, or original interpretivist in the mold of Justice Scalia. These are all just catchphrases that they try to use. They're not appointing her because they think she'll be fair. She's been chosen because they are convinced she will be unfair. They are convinced that she will decide in their favor to overturn people's rights on a host of issues. That's why they're investing. They're not investing to get a fair judge. If you are trying to appoint a fair judiciary you may not put a lot of political capital in that because it's not seen as a political appointment. Instead, if one party is trying the pack the courts and seize the courts as pawns in their political war. And so, they're willing to invest enormous funds in order to get those people in place so that they can change the law to advance the agenda of those people who are funding it. On the left or in the middle what you have is a subset of people who believe courts should be fair and they shouldn't be political partisans. And so, you're not going to spend political capital to talk about that very much or to make your case. Because they're not seen as partisan. And then you have some progressives who have said, "No." You've got to stand up to what's happening. This is a total capture and takeover and it's going to undermine our ability to do almost anything a modern society would do. For example, undermine our ability to have rules that try to mitigate climate change. If this court rules that our federal government cannot pass measures to regulate carbon, it's an existential consequence of who's being put on the court. And we know that people like Charles Koch have been spending big money to try to capture the courts because he wants to have people on the court who will limit our ability to regulate corporations. And we know that Leonard Leo and Carrie Severino and their team are trying to put people on the court for that reason, as well as to limit women's reproductive rights, and more. And so, you have this confluence on the right where they are choosing people and trying to put them in place because they don't think they'll be fair. Because they're convinced that they will rule in their favor, which is the opposite of what you expect from a judge, to be fair and impartial.
BILL MOYERS: Let me read you what Josh Marshall wrote about this. He's founder and editor in chief of TalkingPointsMemo.com and a terrific journalistic watchdog when it comes to the judiciary. He says, and I'm quoting, "I don't know a lot about Amy Coney Barrett. But I know she's accepting the nomination from a president actively trying to subvert a national election and threatening to hold onto power by force, an attack on the Constitution unparalleled in American history. Do I need to know more?"
LISA GRAVES: I think he's exactly right. It would be an honor to be nominated to be a Supreme Court justice, but under these circumstances, I think it reveals a lack of devotion to the Constitution to be a willing party to what's unfolding. Where you have a president who has said expressly that he wants you on the court in order to rule in his favor in this election to keep him in power, a president who has said expressly that if they can stop the ballots, there we be will be no transition. It will just be a continuation of his power. When you have a president that has made lie after lie about some sort of massive voter fraud in America, when in fact, the statistics and evidence show that that's not the case. So, you have someone who's willing to take that nomination, take that baton from this president, I think that is damning in its own way.
BILL MOYERS: Is it possible, Lisa, that she doesn't know that the fix is in and that she's the fix?
LISA GRAVES: Anything is possible. I don't think it's probable. And the reason I don't think it's probable is because if you look at her decisions as a judge in the very brief time that she's been a judge, as well as her actions before then, you can see someone who has a very agenda-driven view of the law. One in which she has expressly articulated that she doesn't feel bound by precedent. She doesn't believe the Constitution requires judges to follow precedent. In fact, she thinks it does not require judges to follow precedent, which is the definition of being an activist, that you're someone who wants to impose your own views of the law, regardless of the precedent that people are relying on in this country. I don't think that she is unwitting. In this circumstance, you have this election that is happening as we speak, and litigation around that election that is happening as we speak, and a president who has said quite clearly, he's going to use the courts to try to win a victory in this election no matter what the ballots say, and to try to stop them from being counted. And you have an attorney general in Bill Barr, who has shown time and again that he's more the president's lawyer than acting in the office of the attorney general, though he's using the office of the attorney general of the United States, advancing the partisan interests of this president and the lies of this president around voting. And has indicated that he's going to aid in those claims by this president. And now you have a judicial nominee who has willingly stepped into this role of potentially being a deciding vote on the Supreme Court in cases that will affect the outcome of this election. And I certainly hope, if she has a hearing, which is slated this month, that she will commit unequivocally to recuse from any such litigation. I don't believe she will, though. I don't believe she'll commit to recuse to anything.
BILL MOYERS: Are you suggesting that she is fully aware that she is also a political operative and a political force in this scenario you just outlined?
LISA GRAVES: I believe that she is. There's no doubt that she's smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. They're not all fair. There're a lot of people who are more advocates than judges. I think when you look at Amy Coney Barrett's record, what you see is someone who has been groomed for this position. She clerked for one of the very sort of activist right-wing judges on the D.C. circuit. She then clerked for Justice Scalia, who often wrote his opinions more like he was writing an op-ed column than writing an opinion of the United States Supreme Court. He was determined to move the law, to change the law, to advance his original point of view, although he cloaked it in originalism but it really managed to be miraculously aligned, for the most part, with his personal views. And she's also been someone who's been an activist in attacking the Affordable Care Act. She has written and spoken about a lot of these issues in ways that show that she has a very specific point of view. And I don't think she's been on the bench long enough to know that she can actually set aside her personal views. In fact, I think it seems pretty clear from her decisions, in the brief time she's been a judge, that she has tried to impose her personal point of view on the law. I don't think she's unwitting in this effort. I think she is embraced by the Judicial Crisis Network, by the Leonard Leo operation, by the president as someone who they think is a sure thing. A sure vote for them and for their right-wing agenda.
BILL MOYERS: There's been a lotta talk about her hardline ideology in the last few days, that she will be opposed to women's reproductive freedom, to affirmative action, to voting rights for minorities, to environmental regulations. Even worker safety rules. What I've seen of her record suggests also a very strong bias on behalf of corporate power. The last decision or rule she issued was that workers, gig workers, can't file for a class-action lawsuit against their employer. That's going to be a real blow to workers in what is an expanding gig economy.
LISA GRAVES: I think that decision is very troubling. Jeffrey Toobin pointed out in his piece about the impact of the Federalist Society on our courts and on our law, that she is straight from that mold set forth by Lewis Powell before he became a Justice of the Supreme Court. Lewis Powell had been a tobacco lawyer. Before he really was known widely as a tobacco lawyer, he was the main person involved in the Richmond schools, as it was fighting the efforts of Brown v. Board of Education to get those schools integrated. So, you have this tobacco lawyer who represents a segregated school district, who is asked by the United States Chamber of Commerce to write a memo about where the law could go. And he wrote a memo which is known now as the Powell Memo. And that memo basically said that in his view, no one in America had less influence on policy than business people. And they needed to dramatically change that through changing the courts and changing the way businesses fund think tanks at the federal and state level. As well as the way businesses support universities. And so that Powell blueprint from the early 1970s to really push for courts that were going to be pro-corporation and I think she very clearly represents that perspective. Her decisions show that she does, but regardless of her background, I think this would be an illegitimate nomination, and illegitimate to proceed. It's fundamentally unjust for anyone, no matter their background, to be put on the court under these circumstances with this election pending. I think it's really a disaster for our country, for this nomination to be proceeding.
BILL MOYERS: Do you really think, Lisa, that a Democrat as president would pass up this opportunity to name a Supreme Court justice if he were in the place or she were in the place that Trump is right now?
LISA GRAVES: Well, I don't know that a president would not nominate someone under these circumstances. Although typically, you know, there's usually, like, 30-40 days between a vacancy and a nomination to do an F.B.I. background investigation, to do a thorough vetting of a candidate before someone is even named. In this case, it's super accelerated. As you said, there's no Constitutional restriction by time from doing so. But I do think that the president's prerogative in naming someone is not the same as that person that getting confirmed, as we've seen. The Senate's role is to thoroughly examine a nominee's record. And to allow for there to be time for the American people to understand the record of a person who's being chosen for a lifetime job on the court. Is this the best person? Is this the right person? Is this someone who we trust, who we would entrust with our lives, who we believe absolutely without reservation will be fair? This process, where the president's named someone this weekend, the nomination will have arrived in the Senate at the very end of September. The Senate is racing to have a hearing in two weeks. That hasn't happened in the modern era, someone has received a hearing that quickly. And that Mitch McConnell has vowed to use the rules of the Senate to try to get a vote before the end of October. It's extraordinary. And it's a real railroading of not just this nomination but of the American people.
BILL MOYERS: Trump obviously believes that she will be a wedge to help him win a second term. And that's the issue.
LISA GRAVES: I have never seen a president in my lifetime that has disavowed the results of the election before they've even happened. That has basically vowed to try to stop people from voting. Who's vowed to unleash tens of thousands of people to go to polling places to try to, in my view, intimidate them. Is now doing fundraising to enlist a quote army to defend his results in this election. We've never been in a circumstance where we have had a president so unmoored from the law, so reckless in his disregard of the Constitution. And to have that person choosing his own jury in a case that he's determined to bring to this court is outlandish and outrageous.
BILL MOYERS: Tell me what's right and what's wrong about this scenario. Trump keeps repeating that vote by mail is rife with fraud. So Republican lawyers will try to get a large number of mailed ballots thrown out after the election as Trump declares himself the winner on the basis of the ballots that had been cast and counted before and on Election Day. He has refused to commit to leaving office if he loses. And he will challenge those ballots that have not been counted to try to get them thrown out. It's there and on other procedural points that he will need the Supreme Court majority to take his side, including the justice he is putting on the court. So, isn't he sending a message to the world that he expects the court and its new nominee to rule for him and nail down a second term? Is that the strategy?
LISA GRAVES: I believe that's precisely the strategy. This president is trying to secure for himself an illegitimate victory in this election. He has said he is going to win on in-person voting. And that any ballots that come in or that are counted afterward are somehow illegitimate, that they have to be thrown out. And he has said, quite clearly, he's going to take this to the Supreme Court. The court is actually problematic in a number of ways. First of all, you have someone like Justice Thomas who has expressed personal antipathy toward Joe Biden from his time as the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee presiding over Thomas' nomination. Justice Thomas' wife has been very active in electoral politics and was active during Bush v. Gore and was on the transition team for George W. Bush. As that case was coming through the court, she then became part of the transition team for the victor. You have a Justice of the Supreme Court in John Roberts who advised on the Bush v. Gore case. You have another recently confirmed justice in Justice Kavanaugh who was an attorney on one of the original cases that resulted in the decision in Bush v. Gore. And now you have a nominee who also worked on the Bush v. Gore case in Amy Coney Barrett.
BILL MOYERS: So if she's confirmed three members of the nine-member court will have worked to get the Supreme Court to deliver the presidency to George W. Bush.
LISA GRAVES: That's correct. One third. And you would have a court that has also demonstrably been trying to limit people's voting rights. Justice Roberts was part of the decision to really restrict the power of the Voting Rights Act. So, you already have a court that a reasonable person would question whether that court could or would fairly rule in this election, or whether it would again put its thumb on the scale of justice in favor of the party of the president that nominated them, put them on the bench. And this president saying that he's choosing someone specifically to help him win that ninth vote on that Supreme Court, and someone who also participated in the litigation that resulted in that extraordinary decision that installed George W. Bush as president by stopping the counting of ballots. And once the ballots were counted, the actual count showed that Al Gore would have won the electoral college. And would have been president but for that intervention by the U.S. Supreme Court.
BILL MOYERS: We've had two of the last four presidents elected by minority vote. They got the electoral college, but they lost the popular vote. And they turn around and appoint Supreme Court justices who perpetuate the pattern.
LISA GRAVES: Yes, it's very troubling. John Roberts and Justice Alito arguably might not have been confirmed had Bush not been the incumbent, by virtue of this decision in Bush v. Gore. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor disavowed and regretted enormously that she had participated in that five/four decision in which the only justices who ruled in favor of Bush were justices appointed by presidents of his political party. Then you had President Obama who had three vacancies, including one in February of 2016 that could've been filled anytime during that entire year. And there would've been plenty of time for people to weigh in and express any reservations they had about Merrick Garland. Almost none were expressed because he'd been a judge for a long time and had a reputation for being a fair judge. And that third nomination of President Obama was blocked. That meant that the Supreme Court was able to have a five/four majority of Republican appointees, rather than a five/four majority of Democratic appointees. President Trump, who has appointed two justices. And that's why, right now, you have a court that is five Republican appointees and three Democratic appointees. And they're trying to make it six Republican appointees and three Democratic appointees. The Republicans have certainly gamed the system and they're going to come out with a bunch of ads saying how nice Amy Coney Barrett is or how good of a neighbor she is or how nice she is as a colleague or as a teacher. There are a lot of nice people. That doesn't mean they're fair people. That doesn't mean they're people that you would trust to decide impartially in a case involving your rights. And in fact, everything we know about this process, from President Trump, from Leonard Leo, from the Federalist Society, from the Judicial Crisis Network that's backing them, is that she's been chosen with the very hope and belief that she won't be fair, that she will rule in their favor.
BILL MOYERS: Her very nomination under these circumstances is going to cast another long shadow on the court's integrity and on Amy Coney Barrett's, quite frankly. You wonder why someone who's on the record for being a person of faith and a moral person wouldn't say thank you, Mr. President, but let's wait a week or two or three and then we'll both come out better in the judgment of history.
LISA GRAVES: If you are a person who believes in the integrity of the judiciary, in the independence of the judiciary, if you're someone who believes that the court's core power stems from the public esteem and regard for it as an independent and fair institution, I really can't see how you could be a willing participant in this sort of railroading of a nomination through the court on the eve of an election. I think a person who had such high value of the court and the importance of the courts as an independent tribunal in our country would call herself for this nomination to be delayed until after the people have a chance to say.
BILL MOYERS: Let me- let me interrupt there if I can. I'm not sure that waiting for the people to speak, so to speak, in an election is an appropriate way to measure the worthiness of a Supreme Court nominee.
LISA GRAVES: Well, it's a complicated issue. I don't think that we should be in this position in the first place because I think with an election so close that a nomination should probably not have been put forward, because of the very way in which it is being politicized and will be politicized.
BILL MOYERS: I agree with that.
LISA GRAVES: -and could affect the outcome of the election, one way or the other.
BILL MOYERS: Let's take an example. The court is scheduled to hear a big health care case a week after the election. And conservatives are openly counting on Barrett to help throw out the entire Affordable Care Act, once and for all. Pandemic or no pandemic, they want to get rid of the Affordable Care Act. Should the senators interrogating her at the hearings come right out and ask her stance on that vote?
LISA GRAVES: I don't think she'll give an answer. But the issue of the Affordable Care Act is one in which this president has campaigned on trying to destroy it, has attempted to stop it legislatively and through a number of machinations, through executive orders, to make it harder for the health care exchanges to work. And while some are now trying to claim that that decision from the 5th Circuit that's coming up to the Supreme Court, people shouldn't worry about it, I would say that's what the right-wing is trying to say to try to minimize that case. The reality is that it's been teed up for this moment, for the ACA to be overruled, and with it, the provisions that protect people with preexisting conditions. And now, we have millions more Americans who have preexisting conditions due to this pandemic. And you also have some serious deceptiveness by this president on this point in particular, where after Justice Ginsberg died and he made the decision to move forward with a nomination immediately knowing that the Affordable Care Act was going to be an issue, he suddenly issued an executive order claiming that it's the policy of the federal government to protect people with preexisting conditions. That executive order does not replace the actual statute if it's overturned. It's a talking point, that he and his advisors have cooked up to try to use in this Supreme Court battle and in this election to claim that even though he's determined to overturn the Affordable Care Act, that suddenly he now cares about this. They're going to be using that talking point to try to defend this nominee about her determination to overrule the Affordable Care Act. And she, both as a judge and before she was a judge, has attacked the Affordable Care Act. And so, I think that, as they say, when people tell you who they are, you should believe them, we should believe very much that she's someone who's hostile to the Affordable Care Act, and that this president's hostile to the Affordable Care Act, and that could affect the lives and health of millions and millions of Americans. And it will.
BILL MOYERS: What will you be watching for during the confirmation hearings?
LISA GRAVES: That's a great question.
BILL MOYERS: I mean, I, myself, am sick and tired of these hearings that really are charades. The senator asks a question and, on the pretext of not revealing a position or prejudging--
LISA GRAVES: Yeah.
BILL MOYERS: -the nominee says bull. Pleasantly, elegantly, sometimes, but it's bull.
LISA GRAVES: Yeah.
BILL MOYERS: And the public moves on.
LISA GRAVES: It can be very frustrating watching those hearings because these nominees of this president have been so prepared to try to avoid answering any meaningful questions for the American people under this guise that they can't answer or they would be prejudging when, in fact, they've been chosen on some of these issues because they have, in fact, prejudged them. What's been happening with this president's nominees on these questions is so deeply troubling because they have refused to commit to the importance of longstanding precedents, including Brown v. Board of Education, a precedent that's been on the books for nearly 70 years in this country, they will not agree that that's good precedent. They will only agree that that is, quote, "Precedent," which is meaningless when you have a nominee like Amy Coney Barrett who said that precedent, in her view, violates due process. I'm sure we're going to see what some people call Kabuki theatre or theatrics at that hearing in which she declaims about her fairness and her impartiality and, therefore, she won't discuss any substantive issue about how she might rule, when the reality is that her record about how she favors corporations over individuals, how she favors corporations, including in cases involving discrimination- racial discrimination, LGBTQ discrimination and more how her record shows that she has an agenda and that she is desirous of using that agenda, propelling it forward with the force of law. So, I think that, when you have someone who wants to impose their personal views as law, in essence by judicial fiat (not through the legislative process), but imposed their views and disavows the value of precedent, refuses to say that core, bedrock cases like Brown are good precedent that must be followed, I think you have someone who will be behaving disingenuously in a theatrical way to try to deceive the American people.
BILL MOYERS: Would you concede that she might see this in the context of what she said to the commencement at Notre Dame when she said that there was a larger purpose to being a lawyer than being a lawyer, and I'm paraphrasing, that it was a way to help build the kingdom of God and implying, therefore, that there are times when you do justify the means by the ends, and that she actually thinks as a sincere, faithful Christian that she is helping to build with this man who is anything but virtuous- the kingdom of God by going on that court under these questionable circumstances so that she can accomplish what some of what it takes to build the kingdom of God here on earth?
LISA GRAVES: Yeah. You know, it is the case that we've seen, from the Falwell world and other worlds, a real willingness to turn a blind eye to the many ways in which this president has transgressed the basic moral code on a daily basis. You know, I'm not even going to get into THE NEW YORK TIMES report about the failing to pay taxes or potential tax fraud and what that means in terms of theft from the public treasury. You have a president who has been more aggressive in violating those moral norms than I think any president, probably since Nixon; maybe much worse than Nixon. And you have him embraced by the religious right. Not all people of faith. There are progressive and moderate evangelicals and people from the Catholic faiths who do not embrace this president as a moral leader. But you do have people in this country like Leonard Leo and William Barr and the Judicial Crisis Network that are willing to advance this president's agenda because it helps them win changes in Supreme Court doctrine, including in particular on Roe v. Wade, but also on gay rights, on the rights of LGBTQ Americans and more. In terms of Amy Coney Barrett, all people are entitled to their faith and to make decisions about their conscience and what their faith means to them and how it enriches their lives. I think the challenge is that the United States Constitution expressly forbids a religious test for office. But the corollary of that is that the United States is not a theocracy. People are not given positions of trust in our government in order to impose their religious views on millions and millions of Americans without their consent. But the fact is we see already in communications by the right-wing about this nomination that they believe that she will rule in their favor on these religious issues. They probably are not wrong, given what we've seen of her statements in the record. But I think the broader issue is I think if you're going to be put on our highest court, you ought to be someone who's not just young and smart and a right-wing advocate but someone who has a lengthy record of a willingness to set aside personal views in order to follow the law, and to administer the law fairly for all people.
BILL MOYERS: But if you're sitting there with the President of the United States and if you're informed and knowledgeable and aware, you know that this is the man who told the nation that COVID-19 was a hoax, even as he was telling Robert Woodward it was deadly stuff. And if he's giving you the bull about why you should be on the court- I don't want to be unfair to her, but because she has spoken openly and honestly, I think, about her faith she has presented us with questions like this. What's happening in the country is not all Donald Trump. He's being enabled. Look at the people who have surrounded him at the moment to enable her nomination. She's enabling him by accepting it under these circumstances. And so, it raises questions as to how do we stop such things if so many participate in them and benefit from them.
LISA GRAVES: I don't know if I would call it the conundrum but it's one of the very uncomfortable circumstances of both this administration's approach to the law and the news cycle and public policy where it's so transactional that these two things can coexist.
BILL MOYERS: By transactional, you mean-
LISA GRAVES: Transactional in the sense that they have a meeting at the Rose Garden that's all love about this nomination and its greatness that exists separate from the president's statements in which he said that he wants this nomination in order to basically take the election by legal force, by judicial fiat, which exists in the context of a president who I think it was only two weeks ago that the story broke that he knew exactly how contagious this disease was, how deadly it was, months and months ago, and that he deliberately downplayed it to the American people and deceived them. And so, all these things are happening as if they're separate things. Like, that Rose Garden ceremony of introducing her happens as if there's this normalcy. We're in a normal presidency. This is a normal America. And this is all just business as usual to have this ceremonial embrace of this nominee and this nomination as being something that's about the rule of law in America and is exalting the law. When outside of that Rose Garden, you have a scenario in which you have a president that has thumbed his nose at the law, who has violated the law in a number of ways that have been documented, and who has attacked the integrity of our very democracy, and has impugned the integrity of the Supreme Court by how he has described the judges who've been put on it as "his judges," and has described why he wants this judge confirmed to it, to rule in his favor. And so, the people who are joining with him in these different endeavors, it's as if they're able to put on blinders and ignore the reality, the full record of what's transpiring before our very eyes, which is an assault on the rule of law, an assault on our actual Constitution, an assault on our very institutions both in the executive branch at the Justice Department and other agencies, the way they've been so distorted (and grotesquely distorted) by partisan, right-wing people who Trump has put in power, who have distorted health policy that has resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of Americans and the infection of millions of Americans, due to the fundamentally immoral actions by this president and by the people he has put in place to distort public opinion, to distort the record about a deadly disease. It's extraordinary to have the Senate in Mitch McConnell and these Judicial Crisis Network people supporting her, the ones that are running ads in support of her at that White House ceremony announcing her, to be acting as if this is just a normal transition of the Supreme Court when, in fact, it's a capture of the Supreme Court and a further deployment of the Supreme Court as a weapon for the far-right to use to impose its narrow views on the rest of America, and to destroy core regulation of businesses in this country, including businesses that have harmed our climate. It is extraordinary to me that these things all seem to happen in these silos from the standpoint of coverage when, in fact, they're inseparable. And the assault on the Supreme Court, this effort to capture it and move it as far to the right as possible for ten, 20, 30, possibly 40 years. And to do it in defiance of the American people's desire to have a fair say is also grotesque. It's another manifestation of the dysfunction of our democracy. And it's not just the president, it's that he has a number of enablers in the administration, and outside the administration, that are willing to turn a blind eye to almost everything he does in order to advance a very narrow and regressive agenda.
BILL MOYERS: It's clear that Chief Justice John Roberts wants people to think that the Supreme Court is a nonpolitical institution, that it's not beholden to the Republican party. But with this new nomination and likely confirmation, it's going to become just the opposite. Beholden to the Trump presidency and to the Republican party.
LISA GRAVES: I think that's right. If Coney Barrett is confirmed to the Supreme Court, it will cast a cloud over every decision that she makes, every decision that this court makes; that this court has been manipulated, has been captured, is designed to be unfair, is designed to put the thumb of the far-right and the corporate right-wing on decisions of this court. And that fundamentally undermines the idea of an independent court, what is happening to it right now.
BILL MOYERS: Lisa Graves, thank you very much.
LISA GRAVES: Thank you.