Pete Buttigieg is this week’s guest on Stay Tuned. Buttigieg is the Mayor of South Bend, Indiana, and a possible candidate for president in 2020. A Rhodes Scholar and U.S. Navy Reserve veteran, Buttigieg was elected at the age of 29. He’s the author of a new book, Shortest Way Home: One Mayor’s Challenge and a Model for America’s Future.
In a wide-ranging conversation, Preet and Mayor Pete, as he’s known, discuss political philosophy and effective governance, the future of the Democratic Party, the 2020 election, and more.
You can listen to today’s episode on the player of your choice or here. References and supplemental material to the episode are below.
I think the most important thing first of all is to evaluate ideas based on their value and how much they make sense, because words like “socialism” get thrown around in so many different ways. Is Social Security socialism? Is Medicare socialism? Is the ACA (which was invented by conservatives)? When you think of a country that’s moved in a socialist direction, are you thinking about Venezuela or are you thinking about Denmark? In many ways, the words have lost their power and lost their meaning because of the way they’ve been thrown around in the debate. [Condensed and edited for clarity]
Why Democrats should focus on a candidate they like, not the candidate they think will win, for 2020
When we put forward the person just because we think they’re more likely to win, they wind up being more likely to lose. And the reason is that it’s not all about ideology. There are a lot of people around here who voted for Obama and Trump and Pence and me. So, it means that people aren’t strictly ideological when they’re making their choices. The really important thing that I think Democrats need to learn–and it’s a little bit contrary to our habit–we learn not to go right into the policies because the Right did a very effective job of litigating on values and really winning a big idea debate, so that even when we got our people elected, they were often compelled to do things that were basically conservative. [Condensed and edited for clarity]
REFERENCES AND SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
Q&A and button
The House Judiciary Committee’s Document Requests, issued on 3/4/19, to 81 recipients
Representative Jerry Nadler’s interview on This Week (3/3/19), where he says impeachment is “a long way away”
An article in the NYT on Bill Clinton’s 1998 impeachment
A report from CNN on the two gerrymandering cases coming before the Supreme Court later this month
An overview of Immanuel Kant’s moral philosophy, plus a chapter by Professor Michael Sandal, who helps break down Kantian ethics (and how it compares to a utilitarian perspective)
Labels and etymology
A fact check from the Washington Post about the application of the word “socialism,” and its shifting usage in politics (historical and present); Plus analysis from Gallup polls on Americans’ perception of socialism
An explanation from Merriam-Webster Dictionary on the origin and etymology of the word “liberal”
A definition of “progressive” plus an article from the NYT Magazineanalyzing the use of the word “progressive” in politics
Presidential politics and policy
Presidential candidate Amy Klobuchar’s announcement, in the middle of a snowstorm
An op-ed in the Washington Post about presidents and military service
The Intermediate-Range Treaty, plus an explanation from the NYT on the INF Treaty, and what it means that the U.S. is withdrawing from it
A video from Ted-Ed on the Electoral College and Congressional Research Service report on its history, plus an article from Politico on the prospect of electoral college reform
An article from NBC Chicago on Obama’s Indiana win in 2008
YOUR QUESTIONS, CONTINUED
ANSWER: It is still contested, especially since we’re wading into unprecedented waters. Read the Lawfare Blog’s analysis of how this argument would play out in court. Douglas Kmiec, former head of the Office of Legal Counsel, weighs in on the issue too.
For the curious, learn about Chief John Marshall’s opinion regarding Jefferson’s refusal to cooperate with a subpoena.
ANSWER: The Washington Post has a nice overview of what Michael Cohen couldn’t– or wouldn’t—testify about, and why. Also, check out pg. 23 of this Congressional Research report on House hearings.