Pete Buttigieg on Biden, Trump, Gaza, and His 2028 Presidential Plans

23:31Okay, Nicola, Quizfrage. Homeoffice-Bastade oder Fahrtkosten? Was bringt uns mehr? Moment, ich check das kurz. Oha! Homeoffice gewinnt. Bringt uns 150 Euro mehr im Jahr. Ja, richtig. But why do you know something? Because why do the tax show the status live? That's just the tax app for all cases. Yes, and she also answers questions. 24-7 and without a German. That's just the app that understands us. Tax done with Visa Steuers. Now try it out. Let's move on to the state of the Democratic Party. Because one would imagine this would be the counterweight. And specifically its credibility deficit. I would call it fecklessness.

24:09Others would use other terms. on meet the press. Let's go back a little bit. You said that President Joe Biden, quote, should not have run. It's been almost a year since the election. You waited until Vice President Harris said the same thing in a book excerpt, said it was reckless. I'm not going to say no shit, Sherlock, to you, but I'm thinking that in my head. Well, first of all, I didn't. I said something along these lines before that book came out. But also, like, yeah, look, everybody got to that conclusion, including, by the way, President Biden, who took himself out of the race. Sure. Belatedly, we can say.

24:41Okay. Is it a position you've recently come to, or did you feel it at the time? I'm going to be interviewing Vice President Harris in two weeks. What about during it? You were in that administration. And I know that Scott and I on Pivot were talking about it a full year before that and got attacked really relentlessly by Democrats, saying we needed to get on board. And I was like, not on that train. I'm not getting on that train. Or you didn't understand the assignment. Talk about from inside. What took so long for people like you and Vice President Harris and others to unequivocally say that he shouldn't have run?

25:18Well, people like me were not consulted on the decision about whether he should run. Sure, but you have eyes. And what my eyes told me was that the sitting president of the United States and the leader of my party had made a decision that he was going to run. And that our country faced a choice between President Joe Biden or President Donald Trump. and it was not hard for me to know not just who I was going to vote for, but who I was going to do everything in my power to make sure won. And while there's lots of things that hindsight tells you about how and when he made his decision to change course and the hundred or however many days it was of the Harris campaign, and I continued just as enthusiastically backing the Harris campaign and then the Harris-Walls campaign as I did the Biden-Harris campaign.

26:04And anybody who was part of making sure that they and not Donald Trump would, one, anybody who tried to do that, I think should have their head held high because it was the right thing to do. Was there a moment in that time period where you thought, oh, no, he should quit sooner? I mean, obviously, all of us who saw the debate immediately began asking ourselves tough questions. And I knew that he was asking himself tough questions. and eventually stepped aside. I think that was a turning point for... For you all. I mean, even before the debate, polling showed a majority of voters were worried about his age.

26:41Yeah. I'd love to understand from the inside, like, what happened. I get, like... I don't know which inside you mean, because when they're, like, inside the room where he's deciding whether to run again, they're not calling... As a cabinet member. The secretary of transportation is not invited into that room. But... But you're nearer than I was. Potentially, yeah. Definitely. But to the extent that I was involved in the campaign, it was how do we make sure that this campaign and not the Trump campaign is the one that wins? How does the party, though, then regain credibility with voters who are skeptical by just blaming the Bidens?

27:14Because that seems to be, I get why the Bidens did it. I understand it. I think the answer is to tell the truth. Of what happened. Yeah, and why we believe what we believe, right? So, again, the truth, at least the truth that I lived, was that we had a choice between two candidates, two presidents. It was not close. Who should be president between those two presidents? And then we had a different choice when he stepped aside. And it still was not close to me. Who should win and who should lose? I get that. But during, I think I'm trying to say a very specific question. During that time period when there were worries, why didn't someone quit?

27:52Why didn't someone say, go to him and say, listen, love you, but you got to get out. Is that impossible to do in the current, the way things are? It's not like you can just book a meeting and go in and tell him not to be president anymore. Or maybe there's some people who could, like people in his family. I don't know. I don't know how that worked, but I know that enough people did that eventually he made that choice. Well, it was Nancy Pelosi, which is on brand for her. But I'm just interested in why that didn't happen sooner. So then what happened is it was very quickly Vice President Harris.

28:29Probably many people think far too quickly. So every episode we get a question from an outside expert. Here's yours. Hello, this is Joe Manchin. And I would like to ask my friend Pete Buttigieg a question. Do you believe, Pete, that the Democrats should have had a mini primary of at least 30 days when Joe Biden decided not to run? And do you think it would have helped or it would have been more harmful? That's a good question. That's former Senator Joe Manchin. I just interviewed him this week, and he kindly provided that. I think it probably would have helped. I didn't think that then. Why? I think I felt that we were so under the gun that every day mattered so much and that she was prepared to not just come out running, but to take the organization that had been built over years and immediately carry it forward that we just couldn't lose one day.

29:33I think with the benefit of hindsight, if there had been, if we'd invested those 30 days, then had she been the nominee, she'd have done so after consolidating the party in a competition. And had she been unable to do that, then almost by definition, there would have been a stronger nominee. But it's one of a million things that's a lot easier to say now, looking back with the benefit of hindsight than it was in the moment. Is there too much cautiousness in the Democratic Party? Obviously, Trump doesn't have any caution. Often, yeah. I mean, not to be honest. Which is an asset. Yeah. I mean, I don't think the answer is to emulate Trump.

30:11But yeah, I mean, to take one example, like most of my Democratic colleagues still hesitate to go into venues and spaces that I think we need to be in where people might not be exactly on our side or even on the level. But it's, although it's happening more and more. Like, I remember getting, like, not just feeling like I was one of the only ones who would go on Fox News, but having to defend going on Fox News. Like, people said I was, you know, contributing to their business model and all kinds of reasons why I was actually, people, some people said it was actively harmful to go on to Fox News.

30:48Now, I think it's relatively uncontroversial in the party that we should be there. Well, it's funny, they're not booking me as often as they used to. They're obsessed with Gavin. Oh, okay. As long as somebody's doing it. But also into the kind of the online. Look, most people younger than me aren't getting the majority of their news from any TV. No, that's quite an age demographic. And so obviously there's kind of an online expansion of that same principle. But the principle is there. And I think I would take the podcasts. So, you know, I've started doing some of these podcasts that are like three hours long.

31:20And even if you intended to be on Talking Points for three hours, it is just not possible. which is risky. It's a risk, and it's the kind of risk that a lot of people in the consultantocracy in the party tell you you shouldn't take because you will definitely put a foot wrong in three hours. You just will. Do you think you're risk-averse? I think I'm less risk-averse about that than others who wouldn't do it. Okay, let's talk about a topic then. You have a well-earned reputation as an effective communicator, 100%. You got blowback for equivocating when you were asked about Gaza in an interview on Pod Save America.

31:55you now say you would recognize a Palestinian state as part of... Go ahead. Go ahead. As part of a two-state solution, and the U.S. should not pass another 10-year agreement with Israel on foreign military aid. Did it take getting dragged online to clearly state your position on this issue? And please, more clearly state it for us. Yeah, so on the specific issues, there were three things that I spoke to. One was a resolution about offensive weapons going to Israel. And I believe, like a lot of Senate Democrats who voted for it, that that was an important step, something that I would support, even though I'm not in the Senate, because it's one of the few things I could think of that would get the attention of Netanyahu in the conduct of the war.

32:42So that's number one. Number two, on the recognition of a Palestinian state, I think that if you believe in a two-state solution, then by definition, you believe in the recognition of a Palestinian state. But that does not mean that you just turn around tomorrow morning and do it while Hamas is still on charge and with no security guarantees for Israelis who are living surrounded by countries and organizations, including Hamas, that are dedicated to wiping them out. So yes, it has to happen, but it has to happen as part of a negotiated, credible, and enforceable agreement. And then on the third policy issue, the MOU, in the past, we've had our security relationship defined by, I think it's happened three times now, by a 10-year non-binding but important MOU between the U.S.

33:32and Israel. I'm not sure that's the right answer going forward. I'm not saying I'm sure structurally what all the technical details of it should be. What I am saying is by 2028 or 2029, we don't know what we're going to be looking at in terms of how the security relationship is structured. I can tell you for sure right now that there should be a security relationship, that that should include the U.S. maintaining its historic commitment to making sure that Iran or anybody else is not able to achieve their aims of destroying Israel. But that is a defensive goal, which is different from some of the things that the Israeli government has expected the American taxpayer or requested the American taxpayer to continue to support.

34:14One of my students here named Zach wants to know, he asked me, sent me a note, if you still consider Israel a strong ally of the United States, and if so, what line would Israel have to cross to lose your support? So Israel is not behaving, obviously, as a good friend, but that's past the point, right? The problem is that the Netanyahu government is perpetrating atrocities in Gaza. Atrocity is the word you want to use. Would you use the word genocide? I have a lot of respect for not just the moral weight of that word, but the legal definition it represents. And so out of deference to that, I'm not going to jump into that semantic fight.

34:52But the important thing is that the killing has to stop, the starvation has to stop, the war has to stop. And of course, the hostages need to come home and Hamas needs to not be a threat to the people of Gaza. Let me tell you why I equivocated. Okay. Well, you're good at it, but go ahead. Thanks, I guess. Very good argument. Anytime I talk about this issue, I'm mindful of the pain that people experience. Even if they're not, it's not quite accurate to say they're on opposite sides of it. Because so many people I know who are really, really concerned about protecting Israel's ability to exist. And separately, I want to say that, separately, really concerned about the explosion of anti-Semitism.

35:41on American campuses, will experience when you say things, even things that I think they too would agree are inarguably true about what's happening in Gaza. If you say it in a certain way or you say certain things in a certain order, their worst fears about the abandonment of Israel or of American Jews facing anti-Semitism are confirmed. So one of the reasons why as somebody who does a lot of talking and a lot of politics, I have rarely felt closer to my limits in terms of the tools that are available to build consensus and talk forthrightly about these issues than on this is because I'm conscious of the pain that comes with talking about this even when we are saying things that are clearly true because it turns out if you say certain things that are true and don't say all these other things that are also true some people are inclined for very understandable reasons to assume the worst certainly but when Democrats talk about building back credibility as voters is actually framed around bringing back working-class voters, for example.

36:42But we're in Michigan, a state Harris lost in part because of Arab and young voters who are furious about the Biden administration's support of Israel. How do you win back credibility if you're worried about that? I mean, a recent poll found 77 % of Democrats think Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, and a UN inquiry concluded that it had. How do you bridge that gap then? Because again, like I said, same thing with Biden. We have eyes. We can see. How do you do that as a Democratic Party? By naming all of the things that are all true and that collide with each other in messy ways, but are still definitely true.

37:21And by the way, this is one, and who knows even just between when we're sitting here and when people are listening to this podcast, what else will have happened on the ground. But in the face of this ground invasion, you see a lot of Israelis standing up. and saying this is not, certainly not helping the hostages. This is not helping our security as the Israeli people. And it is wrong. And so I think part of what we have to do, and it's been hard in the US politics for all kinds of reasons, but to speak about this as freely as frankly is possible in Israel. There are sometimes things that I have read on the pages of the Jerusalem Post or Haaretz, Israeli papers, that in the past people weren't willing to say in U.S.

38:07politics. And we have to, because they're true. What would you state now if you were in a position of authority you would do? What would be one of the first things you would do? It would be to make clear that the U.S. is not going to subsidize just anything. We're not going to let the Netanyahu government take American dollars and the credibility that comes with being an ally or partner of the United States and use it to, for example, use starvation as a tool of war. It's wrong. And it's one of those things that is so wrong that all of the other things which might also be true just cannot possibly make it right.

38:46And that does mean taking a look at the things that, which is why that resolution, even though I think it was symbolic, was important. So I don't have all of the answers to something as vexing and as just repeatedly brutal as the Middle East conflict. But I think that the next president needs to be more willing to do that than any previous president from either party. You do understand where young voters are. I've watched the shift happen in real time right now. And the Democratic Party has to respond to that, presumably. Yes. So I'm going to move on to something else. The federal government is set to run out of funding and shut down at the end of the month.

39:29In March, Chuck Schumer decided to avoid a showdown with the administration. He corralled enough Senate Democratic votes to help Republicans keep the government funded. What about this time? Should Democrats help Republicans keep the government open or should it shut it down again? And what are the strategic benefits to both approaches? Well, first of all, I don't want to buy into the premise that it's the Democrats who would be shutting down the government. I get it, but they might be. The Republicans are in charge. Right. They have the House, they have the Senate, they have the presidency. And if there's anything we know about this presidency, it's this attempt to assert and then expand its control over everything.

40:05So if there is a shutdown, it will be because of Donald Trump and the Republicans. I'm just going to insist on that. if they want to ask for Democrats to vote for a Republican budget, there are certain things that Democrats are not going to be able to do, even if Republicans are saying, if you don't do this for us, it's all going to shut down. And I think right now there are different answers from different voices in the party, in the House. Voices like Pat Ryan and Jake Hawkencloss have been part of a group that has laid out a pretty specific set of things. The biggest, well, I wouldn't say the biggest, but one certainly big one, right, is that I don't see how you can tell Democrats the government will shut down unless you vote to strip away access to health care from Americans.

41:04So I think that's likely to be a clear line. But there are many others. And look, if we're going to go into that, we have to know what it is we hope to do to have a less bad outcome than if Republicans just get to run roughshod. Is there a strategic benefit to just saying, go ahead, shut it down? Not one to be taken lightly. Why not? It's theirs. You know, they're holding the bag. Yeah. But the reason you can't take it lightly is because of how many people will get hurt. and if their goal is already to wreck the federal government, and they're well on their way, there's just going to be a lot of damage left in the wake of this.

41:42So I'm not saying that... I don't believe Democrats should roll over on this. I think it's different than it was in the spring, and I think that, frankly, the unpopularity of the Republican proposals that they've jammed through is becoming clearer and clearer too. And again, just philosophically, I think the Republicans are in charge. And if you're asking Democrats to actively cooperate with you, you can't demand that we support. But you don't see a benefit. I hate to use a Mel Robbins term, but let them. Look, there's been this theory. You know who Mel Robbins is, right? She's real popular. Anyway, look it up.

42:24There's been this theory from day one that what Democrats need to do is just let Republicans screw everything up, burn everything down, and then they'll screw it up and then they'll get blamed and then we'll come back into power. Yes, that's the theory. I think that theory is wrong. I don't disagree that they'll screw it up. I am not so sure that they'll just get blamed. One thing they're really good at, much better than actually running the government, is apportioning blame. And that's even more so as they're dominating some of the ways people get their information. So, again, I think there really needs to be a really forceful response this time.

43:04I just don't want to assume that it's going to be easy or that it should be done lightly. Is Chuck Schumer fit to do that? He, I mean, one thing I've experienced is that he is exceptionally aware of what the dynamics are to actually get anything done or to stop anything from actually getting done in the Senate. And I would also say the virtues of a caucus leader in the Senate or the House and the things you expect from them might be different than what you expect from a presidential candidate or a person playing a different role or a governor or a different person playing a different role in the party.

43:47I do hope, though, that he recognizes how much has changed, how much the toolkit has changed, how much the relationship with the public has changed. Yeah. Since some of the defining fights that might still be shaping his muscle memory. Yes, I would suggest he not do social media anymore, actually. Take a look, please. You'll understand. You've seen it. I know what you mean. It's a problem. It really is. You need to speak to him. I'm sending you, not me. Like, stop it, Chuck. You're hurting my eyes. Even if Democratic states also gerrymander their congressional districts, it's likely you can't match these Republican gains who are much more willing to do so, let on pick up more seats than the GOP.

44:31It's not a realistic tit for tat, from what I understand. How do you feel about gerrymandering and what do you think Democrats are putting their energy right now to make sure the party isn't permanently shut out of power? Yeah. I mean, look, I do think there's a chance that some of these redistricting plans will be too clever by half because there's only so many Republicans to rearrange. And that might backfire on them. But I don't, I wouldn't hang my hat on that as a strategy. How do I feel about gerrymandering? It's terrible. I mean, in Indiana, for example. Where you're headed next, correct?

45:04Yes. Yeah, as we speak, I'm getting ready to head to Indiana to, among other things, do a rally around gerrymandering. They are openly saying, we want a 9-0 map. Indiana, obviously I grew up there. I served there as mayor. It is a conservative place. But it is maybe a 60-40 kind of place right now. So in addition to just the basic obvious unfairness of a place where if you get five people off the street at random, probably two out of those five will be Democrats, or let's say nine, maybe four of them would be Democrats. But the nine members you're going to send to Congress are going to be 100 % Republican.

45:43But it's more than that. It's the contempt for the voter. To just even go around saying it's going to be 9-0 means you are saying to the voter, we're going to decide who's going to win that election before you even bother to vote. Which is so insulting to every voter, Democrat, Republican, independent in the state of Indiana. And I don't know how good our chances are of pushing back on that in a statehouse with a Republican supermajority, although you can tell from the body language that they're a little bit embarrassed that Trump is pressuring or requiring them to do this. That doesn't seem to have stopped them.

46:22No, because they're more afraid of him than they are of either their own conscience or their own constituents. But at the very least, I think we can make sure that there is a political price to be paid for expressing that level of contempt toward your own voters. So what do I think of gerrymandering? I hate it. Also, if they're doing it, which shouldn't be possible, but if they're doing it, we can just sit here with our high-minded ideas and not respond. So you support what Gavin Newsom's doing in California or anywhere else? Yes. I think if this is going to be how things work, we can't just sit there and let them do it.

46:57But that's not a long-term answer. What we need is widespread, durable, actual reform. We've got, what, 435 House districts, right? Fewer than one in 10 are competitive. In a country that's basically 50-50, that is nuts. Obviously, we need a comprehensive structural solution to that. And that shouldn't be partisan. I mean, it is, but it shouldn't be. We'll be back in a minute.

47:33support for on with kara swisher comes from gruons if you're looking for a health goal that you can actually stick to you might want to check out gruons gruons is a simple daily habit that deliver real benefits with minimal effort their convenient comprehensive formula packed into a snack pack of gummies a day this isn't a multivitamin a greens gummy or a prebiotic It's all of those things and then some at a fraction of the price. And bonus, it tastes great. Gruen's ingredients are backed by over 35 ,000 research publications. While generic multivitamins contain only seven to nine vitamins, Gruen's have more than 20 vitamins and minerals and 60 ingredients, which include nutrient-dense and whole foods.

48:12That includes six grams of prebiotic fiber, which is three times the amount of dietary fiber compared to the leading greens powders and more than two cups of broccoli. It's a daily snack pack because you can't fit the amount of nutrients Gruens does into just one gummy. Plus, that makes it a fun treat to look forward to every day. Kick off the new year right and save up to 52 % off with the code CARA at GRUENS.CO. That's code CARA, K-A-R-A, at GRUENS, G-R-U-N-S dot C-O.

48:51Right now in the world of AI, two things are happening simultaneously. One, the technology is getting better fast. People are finding new uses for it. It's more popular than ever. And two, every company that makes AI is absolutely hemorrhaging cash. On the Vergecast this week, we're talking about what OpenAI and other companies are doing to try to finally figure out how to make some money off of this technology. Spoiler alert, it's mostly ads. And we're talking about whether any of it's actually going to work. All that, plus some stories about the Chinese company that appears to be beating Tesla on The Vergecast, wherever you get podcasts.

49:32Speaking of respect for voters and what people they choose, in July, you were asked if you would endorse Zoran Mambami for mayor of New York City. You said at the time, he hadn't asked for your endorsement, which sounds rather quaint. And you're not a player in New York City politics, but you would talk to him about it. Now, it's now September, and Governor Cuomo just said he couldn't name a single living Democrat he admired, besides his other incredible attributes. That was facetious. Given the choice between these two candidates and Eric Adams, the hot mess that he is, who would you rather see win?

50:09And do you need an invitation to endorse him? Governor Hochul just did, for example. It's not a... Because the voters picked him, young voters. And one of the, I'll just make a little moment. We tell young people to vote, and then they vote, and we tell them their vote sucks. I'm sorry, that's their vote, and so we should respect it. Yeah, so again, I'm not getting like, you know, formally involved in a New York City mayor's race. But between those choices you laid out, yeah, it's not close. I mean, the ways in which Andrew Cuomo has disqualified himself, in which the current mayor has disqualified himself.

50:48And don't get me started on the Republican candidate. Like, it's not close. He likes cats. Okay, that's... I'd put him number two in my choice list, but okay. Everybody's got something. But yeah, I mean, I think that's very clear, right? And by the way, I also think, even though I sit in a different place in the Democratic coalition than he does, I think that he has been absolutely right to be relentlessly focused on affordability. And I think that we could learn a lot. Like, some things obviously are not as useful. Some things that worked in a Democratic primary in New York City may not be particularly portable or useful here in Michigan.

51:35Sure, but he's not running in Michigan. Right, but in terms of what we could learn in Michigan or anywhere else from his campaign. So why not just endorse him? First and foremost. Why not just say, I like the cut of his jib. Say it just like that. I'm not planning to get formally involved in that race. Okay. But again, I think those things are really impressive. I also think he has a real challenge though. And the challenge is, in the same way that the most important job of the president is to bring the country together. One thing I learned very quickly as mayor, and as a very policy-minded mayor, who came in not terribly interested in anything but the specific policies I wanted to implement, the job of a mayor is to bring everybody together.

52:24Doesn't mean everybody's going to support you politically, but you need to, you are a walking symbol of what people in your city have in common. and what he will need in order to succeed as mayor. And what I think he, from what I can see, has recognized in terms of the campaign too, is the importance of moving on from some of the things that were more divisive in past statements or past positions. And that's not about necessarily even changing a policy, but making sure that he positions himself to bring people together, including people who might not support him politically. What do you think his biggest asset and his biggest, the negative from your perspective, just from yours?

53:04I mean, I think the, in terms of assets, the, again, the focus on affordability. Now that sets a high bar because some of those things are really intractable in New York City, but you win, you get to work those issues. I would add to that his kind of go everywhere strategy on social media. I believe and practice the same strategy, not just on social media, but just being out and about. I think in terms of campaign tactics, I think that's smart. I think it's the right thing to do. And also, again, in recent weeks, it seems to me that he has recognized, probably thinking not just as a candidate, but as a future mayor, he's recognized the importance of finding ways to bring people together.

53:44Just meeting with Bloomberg, for example. Biggest problem for the Democratic Party? I think it's, look, specifically, obviously, various positions or statements he's taken that would be pretty toxic here in Michigan or in a lot of other places. But I don't know. I don't want to say for the Democratic Party. Like every Democrat, wherever they are, needs to decide what they're going to do and say that makes sense where they're from. And for us to be one party, all of that has to cohere into a bigger set of things that we care about so that we can be in coalition with each other. And I think that's okay.

54:19I don't expect to ever be on the exact same page as the most conservative Democrat or for that matter, Bernie. but there's a reason why we are in coalition together. So let's wrap up by talking about how you approach both these elections coming up, the midterm elections, the 2028 presidential election. You decided not to run for Michigan's open Senate seat next year's midterms. You might've been a shoe in. Does that mean you're going to run for president again in 2028? There's no such thing as a shoe in. Well, you probably would have won. Thank you. Okay. Sorry, what was... What was the... Are you going to run for president again in 2028?

54:56Oh, I don't know. Please don't be coy. Come on. I don't know. Really? It's 2025. That's not very long. Have you lived through the last nine months? Yes.

55:09That's true. I got to tell you, that was better than the Gavin answer. That said, he said I could sleep in the Lincoln bedroom, so we know where he is on that. It's my greatest goal. Will you let me sleep in the Lincoln bedroom? Sure. Okay, there we go. He's running for president, ladies and gentlemen. Apparently, Trump's changed it, by the way. Oh, is it the Trump bedroom now? Yeah. Great. There's a lot of gold happening. It's going to take a lot to fix that. So, but if not, name three Democrats who you think should run for president, if not you, and then tell us their strengths and weaknesses.

55:57You're just going to put that in front of me. Yes, I am. You put it in front of me, but I just don't think I should eat it. Come on. Look, there are great people in our party. Okay. Some of them are thinking about running for president. Some of the most interesting ones are ones who are not maybe immediately being mentioned as 2028 contenders, but are just really interesting people providing a lot of leadership. I mean, I'm mostly interested in people in my generation who are, I mean, you got folks in the Senate like Andy Kim, who came out of very Trumpy district in New Jersey and is now a very modern U.S.

56:35senator. My senator right here, our senator right here in Michigan, Alyssa Slotkin. In the House, right?

56:46I think in the House, again, I was very impressed that Pat Ryan from New York was pretty much the first to the punch to say if we're going to be forced into a shutdown by the Republicans, here's what we would need before we would be ready to give Democratic votes. And he named specific things that also very wisely, I think, tied together the things that we're all going to feel in everyday life, like health care costs, to the militarization of our cities and how all of that is part of one big picture. So people like him, some are, you know, coded more center or more left. People like Marie Glousen-Camparas, this very original thinker, who, because she has a body shop, I mean, that was her career, just has a regard for people who work with their hands in the trades that has always historically been so core to who we are as Democrats, but weirdly is not how we're thought of since this education gap has opened up.

57:41And she's very true to her district in a way that I really respect, having worked with her on getting this big bridge. fix that affects her district. Others are really not talked about very much, and maybe because they're not craving national spotlight, but leaders like Gabe Vasquez in Southern New Mexico, who I think is just a remarkable leader. So my point is, we have Jake Hawkencloss, who has provided, I think, some of the most interesting and intellectually ambitious ideas. Those are all great. Sarah McBride, Greg Cesar. Sarah McBride, another person who's been so focused. So no one that could run against you for president, correct?

58:17Love them all. Love them all. How do you like Gavin? You're just behind him in the numbers. Great infrastructure work in California that we did together. Okay, all right, okay. Do you like all his social media stuff? We all have our style. Oh. I'm very glad that someone is doing what he's doing. It's just not, you know, it's not my style, but I'm glad he's doing it. Okay. You made history as both the first openly gay person to win the Senate confirmation to a cabinet position and first openly gay presidential candidate when you ran. But on a recent episode of his podcast, conservative commentator Tucker Carlson called you a fake gay guy.

59:00He said he wants to ask you some, quote, really specific questions about gay sex. I would like to know your response. But I'm having moments here now, too. So I made two references you don't get. Both. First of all, I do not think I want to discuss anything with Tucker Carlson. Okay. Same, same, same. Also, but I cannot think of a topic I would like to discuss less with Tucker Carlson than that. Even though I will admit some level of morbid curiosity on what in the hell he thinks his, no, actually no. I suppose it's a sign of progress that their idea of a conspiracy is that I'm actually secretly straight.

59:55But yeah, just where do you even, I don't know. We are in a postmodern. We are through the looking glass now. Do you know what you have to say? You have to say, Tucker, I'm not interested, okay? That's one way out. It's worked with people who attacked me. I'm like, stop flirting with me. they go away really quick. So I have a last, let's end on a positive note. In your interview with Ponce of America last month, you said President Trump's dismaling of the government also presents Democrats with an opportunity to rebuild on better terms. Build back better. So you also say arsonists present homeowners an opportunity to rebuild, which is not the best way to rebuild.

1:00:34You did not say that? Did you sort of say that? No. Okay, all right. You could also, oh, I say, I am saying that, sorry. Sorry, I'm reading it wrong.

1:00:47But, okay. Phoenix, Phoenix. You got the... No, no, but look, this is really important. Paint a picture of what post-Trump America looks like. I think whether we're talking about people in political practice, elected leaders, people like me, but also people like the policy scholars here at the Ford School at the University of Michigan, and a whole lot of other people, have an opportunity to invent some things from first principles. And I use the word opportunity very advisedly because it's a bad thing that we are here. But it means that a whole set of fundamental questions that were just being assumed as asked and answered because we had this big rickety status quo, we actually get to start over or have to start over.

1:01:36We're forced to start over. it was so wrong like criminally wrong to dismantle USAID like

1:01:50one of the ugliest things I've seen in this parade of horribles is not one of the most famous things that happened in Washington but it was the Secretary of State lying to Congress by saying that nobody lost their lives in that when we know from good journalism the names of some of the people who lost their lives from that. Having said all of that, talk to anybody who's been involved in international development aid, including at USAID, and they would not say that the status quo that we had in 2023 was exactly where we needed to be. So if we're going to have to start over, it's not okay that we do, but if we do, or the Department of Education that they are burning to the ground, or who knows, we might have to think about tax policy on a clean sheet because they're going to plunge us into a debt crisis with all these giveaways to billionaires.

1:02:38So many things where we might find ourselves starting from scratch is, there is an opportunity that rests in that. And it's to build a different way of doing things, socially, economically, politically, that actually supports your ability to live a life of your choosing and to have a good life. Look, the government never decides that you're gonna have a good life, but we can make it easier or harder in so many ways. and we shouldn't be wedded to all these institutions, many of them built in the 40s or 50s that we kept because it was what we had, going the way they were going, but frankly were really showing by the 2020s that they were not well adapted for the time.

1:03:17So where would you start? Name one thing. Getting rid of the electoral college, expanding the Supreme Court, ending gerrymandering. We should totally do all three of those, yeah. Okay, what else? What's the one thing, the first thing you do? Day one. I mean, those three sound great. Maybe we can do those three in one day. Not really, because you need a constitutional amendment. By the way, another thing we need to do is revisit the most important. Jill Lepore has a new book about this. Yes, I just interviewed her. The most important attribute of the Constitution is that it can be amended. And we just stopped.

1:03:47We were like, for the last 50 years, we haven't had a substantive amendment. We used to do that, not all the time, but we used to do it often. For whatever reason, maybe because we were there first, among presidential democracies, ours is one of the hardest to update. Impossible. And I think that is costing us. Thomas Jefferson himself was the one who said we might as well require a man to wear the jacket that fitted him when he was a boy as to require a future generation to live under the regiment. So what's your first next amendment? I mean, look, we'll get to the Electoral College. I don't know if that's my day one thing.

1:04:14I mean, really, if we've had to pick one to start with, how about something that corrects the harm of Citizens United and the idea that money should just freely flow into our politics? There you go. Perfect way to end. Secretary Buttigieg, thank you so much for your time.

1:04:33Today's show was produced by Christian Castor-Russell, Kateri Yoakum, Michelle Alloy, Megan Burney, and Kaylin Lynch. Nishat Kurwa is Vox Media's executive producer of podcasts. Special thanks to Rosemary Ho. Our engineers are Fernando Arruda and Rick Kwan. Our theme music is by Trackademics. If you're already following the show, you're a train daddy. If not, Tucker Carlson has some sex questions for you. Go wherever you listen to podcasts, search for On with Kara Swisher and hit follow. Thanks for listening to On with Kara Swisher from Podium Media, New York Magazine, the Vox Media Podcast Network, and us.

1:05:08We'll be back on Thursday with more.