S1 | Public Policy

Brendan Boyle: Power of the Purse | SALT Talks #251

“I believe capitalism is the economic system that best goes with liberal democracy. That said… the way in which the wealth gap and inequality is going, especially the last 25 years, is downright scary and threatens the stability of our democracy.”

Congressman Brendan Boyle discusses the damage caused by 25 years of growing wealth gaps and inequality, and his proposed wealth tax legislation as a countermeasure. Congressman Boyle touches on issues around federal deficits, gun control, infrastructure and vaccinations. He expresses concern about the state of America’s democracy, noting the numerous stresses placed on institutions during Trump’s time in the White House, punctuated by the violent January 6th attack on the Capitol.

He was elected to the Pennsylvania state legislature in 2008, becoming the first Democrat to ever represent his legislative district. Now in his fourth term, Congressman Boyle represents the 2nd congressional district of Pennsylvania which is fully enclosed within the City of Philadelphia. He currently serves on the House Ways and Means Committee, and on the Select Revenue Subcommittee and Trade Subcommittee thereof. He also serves on the House Committee on the Budget. He previously served on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the House Committee on Oversight and Government. Congressman Boyle also serves as a member of the United States Delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

Powered by RedCircle

 

MODERATOR

SPEAKER

Headshot+-+Woo,+Willy+-+Cropped.jpeg

Brendan Boyle

Congressman

D-Pennsylvania, 2nd District

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

TIMESTAMPS

0:00 – Intro

2:48 – Background and choosing public service

6:16 – Wealth tax

9:32 – American tax system

12:55 – Deficits and debt

18:42 – Implementing a wealth tax

23:36 – Gun control

27:25 – Infrastructure bill

29:26 – Vaccinations, mandates and misinformation

33:05 – Twitter, Taliban and free speech

35:15 – Bipartisan support in checking China

36:40 – 1/6 insurrection and stresses on America’s democracy

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:07)
Hello, everyone and welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is John Darsie. I'm the managing director of salt, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance technology and public policy. SALT Talks are a digital interview series that we started in 2020 with leading investors, creators and thinkers. And our goal on these talks is the same as our goal at our SALT Conferences, which we're excited to resume here in September of 2021 in our home city of New York. And that goal is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future. We're very excited today to welcome you to a SALT Talk with Congressman Brendan F. Boyle. Congressman Boyle was born and raised in the city of Philadelphia, is the son of an immigrant and Congressman Boyle's father was a janitor for SEPTA and his mother was a school crossing guard.

John Darsie: (01:06)
The first in his family to attend college, he attended the University of Notre Dame and later graduated from Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government with a master's degree in public policy. He was elected to the Pennsylvania state legislature in 2008, becoming the first Democrat to ever represent his legislative district. Two years later, his brother Kevin was also elected to the state legislature, making them the first brothers to serve together in the state house. In 2014, Congressman Boyle pulled off and upset and beat three better funded rivals to be elected to the United States Congress.

John Darsie: (01:43)
Now in his fourth term, Congressman Boyle represents the second congressional district of Pennsylvania, which is fully enclosed within the city of Philadelphia. He currently serves on the House Ways and Means Committee and on the Select Revenue subcommittee and Trade subcommittee thereof. He also serves as the Vice Chair of the House Committee on the Budget. He previously served on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the House Committee on Oversight and Government. Congressman Boyle also serves as a member of the United States delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. Congressman Boyle is the founder and co-chair of the Blue Collar Caucus, which advocates for working families by addressing wage stagnation, job insecurity, and the future of work. Hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, who is the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge Capital, which is a global alternative investment firm and with that, I'll turn it over to Anthony for the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:34)
So Congressman it's a big honor to have you on. I've got so many different questions for you, but I think the most important one for right now is your background. Tell us about your background. Why did you make a decision to go into public service?

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (02:48)
Yeah, well, thanks for having me on. I really appreciate it. Anyone who follows me on Twitter knows my fandom for all the Philly sports teams, knows that I am Philly guy through and through. I'm born and raised in a row home in one of Philly's typical blue collar neighborhoods. My dad came from Ireland when he was 19, spent most of his adult life working blue collar jobs in a warehouse in south Philly and then later as a janitor for our city subway system. And my mom was a stay at home mom, but also worked part time as a crossing guard. So I'm, and I know it sounds almost stereotypical, but really their American dream was work hard, have stable jobs, send their kids to college, and I've been able to be fortunate and live that. Now in terms of how running for office-

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:47)
Yeah, I'm going to stop you for a second, because it's an amazing story. It's a classic American story. I remind everybody it's an immigrant story, and you and I are products of an immigration story, but to be a public servant is tremendous amount of sacrifice. Obviously, I could only do it for 11 days before I was ejected, but here you are, you've made a great career of it and it's coming with a lot of sacrifice to your family. So go ahead. Tell us why.

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (04:14)
Yeah, so from as early as I can remember, and this really does link. You might identify with a lot of this, Anthony. It really does come from growing up in a household that the American dream was gospel. I mean, we had two religions, we were Catholic and we believed in the American dream, and both were held up as almost like religious faiths. I mean, one obviously is, but then the absolute firm belief in America that you can do anything, that is work hard. You can get ahead. We're sacrificing for you. I never even stopped and questioned that. It was just accepted as a fact like two plus two equals four is a fact. So public service plays into that. I mean, it goes along with it. And then specifically for me, as early as I could remember, I love politics and I love sports.

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (05:10)
And I followed them both very closely when I went to college. I then major in government. But funny enough, as I was graduating from college and this was the boom economy of the 1990s, I was questioning how realistic is me coming from where I come from, actually running for office. How do you even go about that? I didn't know anyone, literally didn't know anyone who was in politics. So I went the normal business route, did that for a couple of years, really didn't feel too fulfilled. And then right around the time of September 11th, actually the afternoon of September 11th, I decided that this was the course that I wanted to take with my life.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:58)
Super admirable. I appreciate your service to the country. I know hard these things are. You recently co-sponsored the Ultra Millionaire Tax Act alongside of Senator Warren. Why do you think a wealth tax is the best approach to solving the inequality?

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (06:16)
Yeah. So let me back up for a second because, oh well, I'll say that the morning I did that, that afternoon, I ran into a good friend of mine, a colleague who's more of a moderate Democrat and he and I worked together and agree on a lot. And he was joking or half joking, half serious. He said, "Boyle, what the hell happened to you? You've become a socialist now?" And the answer is no. I firmly believe in capitalism. I believe capitalism is the economic system that best goes with liberal democracy. That said, if you look at our tax system right now, it actually asks a lot out of wage earners, particularly upper middle class wage earners that live in very wealthy Metro areas, New York, San Francisco, Philadelphia, et cetera. So the folks who are doing well, but are by no means Warren Buffett, or maybe you're making $500,000 a year and are living right outside New York city, when you factor it all up, federal, state, local, et cetera, they're probably paying an effective tax rate of close to 50%.

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (07:27)
And yet then when you talk about people worth hundreds of millions of dollars, even billions of dollars who mostly have passive income, they can game the system in such a way that their annual tax bill is literally zero or close to it. I mean, one classic example. I think Carl Icahn even talks about this, the way he simply, he makes sure every year, he doesn't necessarily realize the gain, borrows against the paper gains. And right there, you have no tax liability. In fact, you have a deduction with the low amount of interest that you're paying. So what I'm saying is, "Hey, our tax system is actually screwed up. It's too skewed." And this might be a slightly different argument than say, like an Elizabeth Warren would make. But my view, we actually need to move closer to more of a hybrid system that wait a minute, we're missing a whole bunch of in reality, is income and is wealth that isn't getting taxed.

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (08:28)
And yet we're asking a lot out of middle-class people and even upper middle class people. So that's one reason for it. The other reason is the more obvious one. And I say this as someone who again firmly believes in the American dream, but believes that the way in which we're going with this wealth gap and inequality, especially over the last 20, 25 years is downright scary and threatens the stability of our democracy. And I do think there's actually a link. I want to be careful here. It's not a straight link, but there is somewhat of a link between the overall decline of the size of the middle class over the last couple of decades and the sort of political instability and division that we're seeing in our country.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:15)
So there's a lot to chew on there. So let's break it down together. 1913, we developed an income basis to our taxation, not an asset basis. Why do you think we did an income basis as opposed to an asset basis?

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (09:33)
Yeah, well I mean, I would have to go back and ask Woodrow Wilson historians on exactly why that was. Of course there was precedent for it back to the Civil War in terms of going on an income basis. But I would also point out that it's not entirely true that we don't ever tax wealth in this country. For instance, I mean I'm sitting in a small office in my house. I pay a wealth tax, except we don't call it the wealth tax. We call it a property tax. And actually, that's even sort of worse because I end up like most homeowners, end up having to pay a property tax not based on my equity in the house because my wife and I are still paying off our mortgage. We're actually paying a property tax rate based on the top line figure, what is the assessed value of the house. Some states have automobile taxes and other sorts of property or asset based taxes. So even though we started the income tax system in 1913, it's not entirely the case that we strictly only have 100% income tax based system.

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:47)
So I'm with you intellectually on a lot of things. I'm not like one of these hedge funders that's anti-tax, I'm never moving to Miami. Love Miami, interviewed Mayor Francis, Mayor Francis Suarez on our show here, love Miami. One of my children lives in Miami, but I'm a New Yorker. I'm going to be here. I'm going to pay my taxes here. I'm going to do everything I can to help our city. And I'm a big believer that blue states, this is something that I argued with President Trump about when him and I had a relationship by removing the SALT deduction, you're misunderstanding what happens in these blue states. Philadelphia is a port city. New York, Boston, these are port cities. They're teeming with immigrants. Many of them are indigent. You need a welfare safety net, a safety net for these people. You also need to create a platform of equal opportunity for these people, despite the economic variances.

Anthony Scaramucci: (11:46)
And so I understand the need for all these things intellectually but I would make the argument, these great cities, in addition to the cities on the West Coast, the port cities drive the entire economy. So if you want to cripple or hamper those cities, what ends up happening is you create a negative effect on the rest of the country. And so this whole blue state red state divide, very damaging for the country. But I also think we have a bloated government, Brendan, and I think we have a explosive deficit. This would be an indictment of both parties for that matter. Let me give you the facts, you know them, 7 trillion from George Washington to George Bush, 22 trillion from Barack Obama to Joe Biden. And obviously there was an $8 trillion four year moment in there with Donald Trump. So how do we, I get it, I get the taxation issues, but how do we stop or contain the over promising of government and the lack of taxation, because all of this stuff is just either unfunded tax liability going forward, or we're going to devalue our currency and make it harder and harder for the people that you and I grew up with.

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (12:55)
Yeah. So a couple things there, first just on immigrants. I'd poured out that contrary to what the expectations were, both New York City and Philadelphia grew much more than were expected. All the naysayers were saying they're either going to lose population or a stagnant growth. Census just came out and showed both ended up growing far more than was expected. And the reason was because of immigrants and immigration, which is no surprise. That's how both cities grew up. So it shows you, and by the way, how many times has New York been counted out in the history of what essentially in many ways is the capital of the world? New York is never dead. It will always come back. And I think the census figures were just the latest evidence of that. Now in terms of a deficit and debt, this was an interesting intellectual conversation that's happening right now, because admittedly, there is no, I'll be very frank, there is no political party that has a room or has much of a base for folks focusing on reducing the deficit and reducing the debt.

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (14:16)
Donald Trump changed our politics in many ways. That's actually one underappreciated way in which he changed the Republican party. Now before, the Republican party would talk a big game, they would never live up to it on deficit and debt, but now they don't even really talk about it any more. And then of course, my party believes in government, believes in taking advantage of historic opportunities to do certain things on the social safety net. So the sort of rightly or wrongly the sort of Gerry Ford type republicanism is not there. Now what's interesting to me is, and you know, there's a school of thought out there saying, "Wait a minute, deficits." I mean, even Dick Cheney actually, when he was Vice President famously said, Deficits don't matter."

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (15:03)
There's an economic school of thought out there that that is talking about that as long as people in the world continue to have such full faith in the assets in the United States and our economy and are continuing to buy our bonds as a kind of a fleet of safety, and we continue to have interest rates as low as they are, I don't think you were going to see either side really talk much about deficit and debt. What I think it will take is any sort of, and I'm not cheering for this by any means, but I think what it would take is a dramatic increase in our interest rates for then one or both parties to finally be talking about this in a meaningful way.

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:53)
And listen, I respect all of that as well. And we had Stephanie Kelton on, Modern Monetary Theory. She wrote a great book about this, and I'm worried though, I have to confess this because I'm trained as an economist and I grew up in a blue collar neighborhood and I can prove empirically to Stephanie or you, Congressman or Senator Warren that when we create deficit spending, there is a benefit to it and there's a good modulation theory. I have elements of Keynesian thought in my personality, but we've got to be very, very careful about dollar devaluation because people that own the assets, they will get richer and richer as we're devaluing, but the middle and lower class, the wages don't catch up. And so I'll give you this example. My dad was a crane operator. I priced his wages, contemporaries them. He would be down 26.5% in real economic terms.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:54)
So even though the wages did creep up over 35 years, the purchasing power is nowhere near where we were as children. My family would have gone from what I would call blue collar aspirational economics to blue collar desperational economics. And a lot of this is a result of this sort of a money corrupting, if you will, okay, where they are, but you want to tax the wealth. And I understand that, but I really want to just get my arms around the idea. So if I have, let's say $100 million, you tax it at the market rate, you tax it the way your property's taxed, where they're guessing at what it is. And they say, "Okay, you're going to pay this as an annual surcharge for the money that you've accumulated over your life.

Anthony Scaramucci: (17:43)
One argument would be though, "Wait a minute, Brendan or Congressman, I made the money. You paid me $1. I paid 50 cents to Bill de Blasio and Andrew Cuomo and Joe Biden. I got to keep 50 cents for myself. And then I invested that 50 cents and I happened to invest it quite wisely. I could have spent it. This is sort of a Prodigal Son dilemma from the new Testament, but I decided not to spend it." I would also say to you that it's not in my, the money's not in $100 bills in my swimming pool. It's being invested to create jobs and opportunity and innovation in the society. I'm delaying my own gratification in order to do that. And you're going to penalize me now. Again, I already got taxed on the front end, income based tax, made the money, paid my tax. I've now got it in savings. You're going to tax me again. And you say, "Yes, it's appropriate to do that because."

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (18:41)
Yeah. So a couple of things on mechanics. Our system would be similar to the four European countries that currently do this. It would also be similar to the sort of system we already have now at death, what we call the estate tax, or sometimes Republicans mislabel the death tax. We already had that infrastructure in place. So we're not, again this is not something where we're talking about creating something that doesn't already by and large exist, except instead of it being a one-time event at death, we're talking about doing it in an annualized way, although at a significantly lower rate. We're talking about 2 cents on every $1 above a $50 million exemption. Frankly, I mean the kind of folks that you know, who might have wealth more than $50 million, even if this were to happen, all of them would be wealthier year after year, even if they were to pay this, there's not one of them who's making a return of lower than 2% in any given year.

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (19:51)
You also, you throw in there an assumption that we're increasingly seeing is not necessarily the case. And I mean, look, the argument on double taxation, I get it. In principle, that is correct. However, let's remember per what I was saying earlier, some of this wealth has actually never been taxed the first time. So that's in there too, right? I mean, that is one of the real flaws and whether it's the ProPublica articles or other sort of public reporting that we've been seeing, there are a number of ways in which the system is being gamed to evade that taxation.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:30)
Let me stop you for our listeners to explain that, because I think it's a very interesting point. It hasn't been taxed because it was in what? Stock or property that got started and that value was created from, is that what you're saying?

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (20:45)
I mean, I'm sorry, what I'm alluding to is ProPublica has done a series of exposes over the last several months. I don't know how they've gotten this information to be clear, but they have done remarkable reporting on a number of very wealthy individuals. Jeff Bezos is one of them, but folks who have been getting away with paying a zero tax bill, and for the most part, it seems legally. We're not talking about someone making 40,000 in tips and writing down 10,000. I mean, we're talking about legally gaming the system so that they have zero tax bill. And so when I tell you, look, if you go around Northeast Philly where I'm from, or parts of Queens in New York, and you talk to folks who are like the people, like our families are that we grew up with, they have a rock solid belief, whether Democrat or Republican, they say, "You know what? I know the system is screwing me. I know the guy who's in the very, forget top 1%, the top one half of one 10th of 1%. I know he's getting away with bloody murder and not paying anything. Meanwhile, here I am paying federal income tax. It's all being withheld from my paycheck, FICA, state, local. I'm getting taxed the wazoo. And yet the really big guys are getting away with paying basically nothing."

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (22:18)
As long as that exists, not only is that unfair economically, and we're missing a lot of tax revenue, it feeds the sort of cynicism that we're seeing about government. And you kind of referenced earlier and I think is major problem that we're facing in society, the sort of cynicism that we're seeing, the declining belief in the American dream, all of that goes into what we're talking about with what seems like trust the dollars and cents conversation is not. It's actually bigger than just the money.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:53)
Okay. We're going to move on, I could talk all day to you, Brendan, so good Congressman Boyle. I appreciate it. So we can move on. I'm just asking these questions because we both know tax policy influences behavior, which does have an effect on the economy. And again, I'm not suggesting that we don't have issues in the tax policy and that there's been rank unfairness that needs to be addressed. I just want to do it in a way that obviously promotes growth in the society. So we're going to go rapid fire on a couple of other things, if you don't mind, okay? Let's go to gun control, too many special interests to do anything on gun reform and gun control to stop this sort of, this mutilation of our children?

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (23:36)
Yeah, it's sickening. Generally, over the last five years, 10 years, 20 years, you see anywhere from 70 to 90, depending on the measure that is being questioned in the poll, you generally see somewhere between 70% and 90% of the American people who support some sort of gun control, whether it's background checks, whether it's a bit more aggressive than that, like banning the AR-15. Along that spectrum though, again, very solid majority support. And yet it hasn't happened and it hasn't happened because that one third that disagrees, historically that has been their number one big issue, and they have voted on it. I mean, there's a difference between preference and intensity, right? So the two thirds to 90% of people who might want gun control care about a whole host of other issues, but that one third or even less that cares about gun rights is so hardcore.

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (24:37)
They'll take that NRA list to the polls with them in a Republican primary and vote strictly on that issue. Now what's interesting is that in 2018, after mass shooting after mass shooting, it's really the first time in our lifetime that I saw the politics of that change, especially in suburban America. So in the suburbs of Philadelphia, in suburbs in New York, suburbs of Chicago, you saw Republican members losing their seats, both for Congress, but also state legislative seats. And they were getting hit on the gun issue. The gun safety side or gun control side was really bringing up this issue in an offensive way, not a defensive way. So that leaves me optimistic that we will finally join the rest of the civilized world in having some sort of stronger gun measures. I do for the first, and it's funny, we do this interview before the last few years, I would have been really pessimistic on this question about whether or not I would see things change. The last couple of years, first time you've actually seen the politics of that now flip.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:50)
Okay. So but I guess what I'm getting at is 70% of the country, maybe more would like some type of reform, but we've got these special interests creating these blockages [inaudible 00:26:03] and the procedures in the Senate and what they end up doing as well.

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (26:11)
Yeah. So I mean, when this, like a lot of issues, this gets back to the F word, filibuster, because Manchin Toomey, when he pushed that, when they both pushed that, one is a Republican senator from my state, the other a Democratic senator from neighboring West Virginia, when they pushed that, I think they got 57 votes, but because of the filibuster, the 57 lost and the low 40s carried the day. I think we passed out of the House universal background checks and some other measures. In the Senate, that would have majority support. Every Democrat and I think anywhere from five to seven Republican senator supporting it, depending on the specific measure. But again, that's one of a whole host of issues that the question is, "Okay, what are you really going to do about the filibuster?" And if you keep the filibuster exactly as it is, it's hard for me, unfortunately, to see a meaningful change in our gun laws happen between now and the end of this session of Congress.

Anthony Scaramucci: (27:18)
All right, we're going to whip through, infrastructure bill. You like it, you don't like it?

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (27:25)
Love it, love it. This is something that I had been pushing for a long time. Coming from an older state, we would benefit from it more than most places, and pretty much if you're anywhere in the Northeast, that's the case. And I actually, something I was totally wrong about, I did an interview on CNN, maybe a few days after the presidential election in 2016. And yeah, I was very vocally anti-Trump. And so the interviewer said, "Well, look, you're a Democratic congressman. Sounds like you won't agree with Trump on anything. Can you name one thing then that you could see agreeing with him on and voting for?" I immediately said infrastructure. And the part that I was wrong is my prediction was given the kind of campaign he had run in 2016 because economically, he was the first Republican since before Reagan who took some very uncharacteristic positions.

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (28:19)
And frankly, I think that was one of the reasons why he won in 2016, whether he was talking about on entitlements, the way he was talking about infrastructure. I mean, if you remember, you're part of the campaign, Trump brilliantly in 2016 would campaign in Pennsylvania, ripping Hillary for not being pro spending on infrastructure enough. It was a completely uncharacteristic critique from a Republican candidate. So my prediction was that he would lead off with infrastructure. I said then there were a number of Democrats who work well with organized labor who come from areas that really want those jobs. There are a number of us who despite the fact we might oppose Trump on X, Y, and Z, we would work with him and vote for it. And why in the end he didn't do that, I think was one of his worst political mistakes.

Anthony Scaramucci: (29:16)
Well, I mean, one of the reasons is Paul Ryan and Reince Preibus and those guys convinced him otherwise, but his instincts were to go in that direction. Are you vaccinated?

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (29:28)
I am. Yeah, I was fortunate to be among the first. I actually got my second, I have the Pfizer shot. I got my second shot about 24 hours after the Capitol insurrection. I would not recommend doing that when you haven't had sleep for the previous 48 hours. But that said, I thank God I'm vaccinated. My wife is, and we both have a seven-year-old who of course is not vaccinated. So we're two of the parents who are just really candidly, very nervous about the start of school.

Anthony Scaramucci: (30:04)
You say, lots of misinformation out there about the vaccine. I know perhaps you may not be able to opine about this, and if you can, I'm just looking for an opinion, the FDA, should the FDA approved the vaccine? Do you think there should be vaccine mandates in the country?

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (30:26)
Yeah, I do, flat out. Vaccine mandates aren't anything new. Certainly, when we went to school and the college, we had a whole host of vaccinations.

Anthony Scaramucci: (30:38)
Your seven year old has a vaccination record, and he needs that vaccination record to cross into the school he's about to enter in September.

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (30:46)
Yeah, but this is, you talked way back in the beginning, you talked about Facebook. This is a way in which I grew up in the '80s and frankly, there wasn't much difference in the way I consumed media as a kid in the '80s and say, folks growing up in the '50s and '60s did, right? You had the three big networks, forget FOX News.

Anthony Scaramucci: (31:08)
I was because I grew up in the '60s. Okay. Don't pick on us, Brendan.

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (31:13)
Oh, you're a good bit older than I was. So you're a little bit like me. People think you're a lot younger, I take it than maybe the chronological, [inaudible 00:31:22].

Anthony Scaramucci: (31:21)
If I've got to go full Joan Rivers on you before this interview is over, I will. I want to make sure you know that.

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (31:30)
But what I was going to say is that the reason why I bring this up is because this is a great way in which the change in the way we consume media is really influencing this tragic debate about vaccinations and all these kind of crazy conspiracies. Because if you grew up in '50, '60 '70s, '80s, there were three big networks. Basically all of us, whether Democrat or Republican consumed our media the same way, three big networks, a couple of newspapers in your town, same radio stations, but beginning with cable news in the '90s, and then the internet in the latter part of the '90s once it went widespread, that enabled, and then social media in around 2005 with Facebook, now we're in this very different environment in which we have self-selected news. And so, I have a close friend who's able to go on Facebook and is reading articles with all sorts of nonsense about what's in the vaccine. Previous era, that sort of misinformation would not have been able to be spread in the same way. And that's very dangerous.

Anthony Scaramucci: (32:49)
Yeah. A couple of my close friends, Jonathan Greenblatt for the Jewish Defense League and Kevin O'Leary debated whether or not the Taliban should be allowed on Twitter. What are your thoughts about that?

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (33:04)
It's interesting. Well first, I haven't specifically thought of that aspect, but my view, and this kind of is similar to some others. If you're using a social media platform to inspire violence or cause violence, you don't have some inherent right to use that platform.

Anthony Scaramucci: (33:29)
Okay, you and I are probably closer, and I'm not with you, to be candid on the wealth tax only because that money, I think is somewhat misunderstood in the society. It's in the society working to create jobs. I understand that people think there's an unfairness. We have to rectify the unfairness and there's ways to do it. I'm just not exactly sure how to do it, but you and me are in total agreement on this. I mean, we didn't have World War II Nazi propaganda videos being shown in our movie theaters. Do they have a right to have those things shown?

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (34:05)
Yeah, I think people are fundamentally, in the U.S. are fundamentally misunderstanding what the First Amendment means and what civil liberties mean. And if we were having this conversation 20 years ago, I was probably then a lot more optimistic about the internet and well, God, social media didn't even exist yet. We didn't have that term, but basically everything that the internet could do and unlock. A couple of decades later, when I see the effect that's had on our society, the impact that's had on our democracy, I'm a lot less positive today than I was a couple decades ago on that.

Anthony Scaramucci: (34:50)
Okay, we're going to let you go in a second here, but I want to talk about the bipartisan legislation, which is known as the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act. It's a five-year, $250 billion plan to help America compete with China on high-tech infrastructure. I think it's one of the more fabulous bills that I've seen in the last five years. And so did you vote yes on that bill? I'm assuming you did.

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (35:15)
I'm a strong supporter of that, and I'll say this positively. I do think that one of the rare areas of bipartisan consensus is all of us recognizing frankly just how evil the Chinese regime is. It is not like the rest of us, and that's not a reflection on the people, frankly. They suffer from it more than anyone else, but we really need to wake up. I mean, the idea there now, there had been a school of thought maybe 20, 30 years ago that well, once China opens up economically, once they enact market reforms, democracy will naturally follow. That has flat out not happened. In fact, in some ways it's been the opposite. You have U.S. stars, NBA stars, movie stars that are now feeling muzzled by the Chinese government and the sort of economic power that they have. So I'm glad to see both parties getting tougher on China, getting tougher when it comes to competing against them economically, recognizing that they are not our friend. And so this is one of a number of initiatives that are within that vein.

Anthony Scaramucci: (36:31)
So the democracy is my final couple of series of questions. You worried about our democracy, sir?

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (36:40)
Yeah. By nature, I'm an optimist. So my gut instinct is to say no, and it is to preach positively and evangelize about America, but I got to be honest, I am. And I mean, part of it is because of what I referenced earlier about the self-selected way in which all of us are consuming our news, and not even on the same basic fact sheet. Something like January 6th, I never imagined I would ever see something like that in the United States of America. So I don't know how anyone could go through the last several years, and especially January 6th and be more optimistic about the state of our democracy. I still have faith that we will get through it. We've gotten through previous eras before that looked very bad. So I'll still maintain that faith, but it is not without worry.

Anthony Scaramucci: (37:46)
My friend, I wish you the best. I know you're born on Ronald Reagan's birthday. He started out as a Democrat, if you'll recall. He ended up as a Republican. You seem like you're somewhere in the middle, so it's fascinating and it's a lot of fun to talk to you. I hope we get a chance to meet in person. Maybe we'll get you at one of our events someday when the Congress isn't in session, or maybe I can get down to Philly and have a surprise beer with you.

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (38:13)
Yeah. I would love that. And whether it's the in-person SALT Talks or an Eagles-Giants game, one way or the other, I look forward to getting together with you.

Anthony Scaramucci: (38:23)
I just got to, I'm a lifelong Jets fan.

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (38:26)
That's a lot better, okay. All right.

Anthony Scaramucci: (38:28)
I'm in permanent pain. You have a Philly native by the name of HR McMaster, General McMaster and I are close personal friends. We were arguing out with Governor Christie the other night at dinner, basically Christie's a Dallas Cowboy fan from New Jersey. What the hell is that?

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (38:44)
It's incredible. I saw Christie on Amtrak once. I was commuting to DC, introduced myself to him. And I said, "You might think the reason why I so strongly oppose you is because I'm a Democrat. It's because I'm an Eagles fan. How the hell are you a Cowboys fan? And especially coming from New Jersey."

Anthony Scaramucci: (39:03)
Yeah. I mean, it's one thing. Yeah it's one thing, if you're like a Giants fan, you can respect it as a Philadelphian. I understand that, but look, I'm a Met, Jet fan. So once in a while in that Catholic church say a prayer for your friend, Anthony. It's been a brutal 50 years. Let's just put it that way.

Rep. Brendan Boyle: (39:21)
You know, as a Philly sports fan, I can feel your pain.

Anthony Scaramucci: (39:24)
You be well. I really enjoyed our conversation. I appreciate you joining SALT Talks.

John Darsie: (39:31)
Thank you, everybody for tuning in to today's SALT Talk with Congressman Brendan F. Boyle, representing the city of Philadelphia in the United States Congress. Just a reminder, if you missed any part of this talk or any of our previous SALT Talks, you can access them on our website on demand at salt.org/talks or on our YouTube channel, which is called SALTtube. On our website, we also have full transcriptions and links to our podcast version of these videos as well. Please spread the word about these SALT Talks. We love educating people on a lot of the issues that Congressman Boyle spoke about today. We think he's a great representative for our country in Congress. So please tell your friends about these SALT Talks and follow us on social media. Twitter is where we're most active @SALTconference on Twitter, but we're also on LinkedIn, Instagram and Facebook, and on behalf of Anthony and the entire SALT Team, this is John Darsie signing off from SALT Talks for today. We hope to see you back here again soon.

Ronald Cohen: Driving Change with Impact Investing | SALT Talks #246

“The force of impact transparency through technology and big data is going to shift our economies from creating problems our governments try to solve with taxes to businesses delivering solutions while making profits.”

Sir Ronald Cohen is Chairman of the Global Steering Group for Impact Investment and The Portland Trust. He is a co-founder director of Social Finance UK, USA, and Israel, and co-founder Chair of Bridges Fund Management and Big Society Capital.

He is the author of 'IMPACT: Reshaping capitalism to drive real change,’ published by Penguin Random House in 2020, which became a Wall Street Journal Bestseller. His previous book 'The Second Bounce of the Ball,' published in 2007, was described by the Financial Times as “one of the best books written on entrepreneurship in recent years.״

In this episode, Sir Ronald Cohen discusses the growth of ESG and impact investing and its role in addressing some of the world’s biggest challenges. He explains how technology and big data enable impact transparency so consumers and investors can understand the full scope of a company’s ESG impact. Cohen envisions more business models where economic efficiencies align with maximum positive impact. 

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

MODERATOR

SPEAKER

Headshot.png

Sir Ronald Cohen

Chairman

Global Steering Group for Impact Investment

anthony_scaramucci.jpeg

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

TIMESTAMPS

0:00 - Intro

2:49 - Growth of ESG

5:44 - Measuring impact investments

9:38 - Investing transformations among younger generations

11:07 - Impact transparency via technology and big data

14:30 - Addressing intractable global conflict via impact investing

16:17 - Impact investing and climate change

19:02 - Impact unicorns

21:57 - Pressure on fossil fuel companies from institutional investors

23:14 - Aligning impact with economic efficiency

25:27 - Long-term effects of COVID

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:07)
Hello, everyone. And welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is John Darsie. I'm the Managing Director of SALT, which is a global Thought Leadership Forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance, technology and public policy. SALT Talks are a digital interview series that we started in 2020 with leading investors, creators and thinkers. And our goal on these talks is the same as our goal at our SALT Conferences, which is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future. And there's no bigger idea in our opinion, in the investment management world today than the idea of ESG investing, which can take on many forms. But our guest today is going to talk in-depth about concrete steps that we can take to measure and implement both social and environmental friendly investing and business operations as well.

John Darsie: (01:02)
And our guest is Sir Ronald Cohen. He's a pioneering philanthropist, a venture capitalist, private equity investor and social innovator. He serves today as the Chairman of the Global Steering Group for Impact Investment, which is the Impact-Weighted Accounts Initiative at Harvard Business School and the Portland Trust. He is a co-founder and the former executive chairman of Apax Partners worldwide, which is a global private equity firm. He's also a co-founder of Social Finance UK, USA and Israel. And co-founder and chair of Bridges Fund Management, and the former co-founding chair of Big Society Capital.

John Darsie: (01:39)
Ronnie was born in Egypt, but left as a refugee at the age of 11 when his family came to the UK. Today, he's based in Tel Aviv, London and New York. He's also the author of a fantastic book called, Impact: Reshaping Capitalism to Drive Real Change, which was published in 2020 by Penguin Random House. And it's also a Wall Street Journal bestseller.

John Darsie: (02:01)
Hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, who's the Founder and Managing Partner at SkyBridge Capital, which is a global alternative investment firm. Anthony's also the Chairman of SALT. And with that, I'll turn it over to Anthony for the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:14)
Ron, thank you so much for being on with us. I know John's got a series of questions for you as well. I'm going to start with something that troubles me philosophically, and maybe you can help me through it. And it's related to the government and the private sector, recognizing that there is a problem and yet, for some reason we are not coordinated as a group to solve the problem. And so, how can we tap the financial markets to harness innovation and steer social change, which is the premise of what you're writing about?

Sir Ronald Cohen: (02:49)
So, Anthony, it's great pleasure to be here with you. And John, you come from the financial business and you understand it deeply. The financial capital markets have already cottoned on that the world is changing. We have $40 to $70 trillion of environmental, social and governance capital. That's flowing to achieve more than just profit. We've never had that before in history. We're talking of something that's equivalent to half or more of all professionally managed assets in the world.

Sir Ronald Cohen: (03:36)
And it is this flow of capital which was spurred into action by the changing preferences of consumers and [inaudible 00:03:45] to longer wanted to buy the products of companies that are polluting or to work for them. That got investors to shape investment flows and put pressure now on governments, through their regulators, to bring transparency to the impacts that investments create. So that is how the link between government and the private market is going to happen.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:19)
I don't want to sound pessimistic. But I feel somewhat pessimistic about all of this because we all know what the problems are. And yet we don't see that linkage. So, where is the catalyst for that?

Sir Ronald Cohen: (04:36)
Okay. So the catalyst is this coming from the valuations that are being placed on stock exchanges. If you look at the Harvard data that I have been involved in putting together at the Impact-Weighted Accounts Initiative at Harvard Business School, you can already see, Anthony, a correlation between higher levels of pollution and lower stock market values within several sectors. So investors are shunning the companies that are creating big environmental issues today. And that is what is driving this change. That's why you are seeing companies now beginning to take this whole issue of impact seriously.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:31)
So tell somebody that's not familiar with the term common impact accounting and those reporting standards. Tell them, or tell all of us what they are.

Sir Ronald Cohen: (05:44)
Okay. So we've all assumed that we can measure very little in the environmental or social area. And that we can't measure impacts in the way that we measure profit. The world's changed, Anthony. That was true a decade ago, but it's no longer true. With the massive data that is available now, that companies have made public about their carbon emissions, their water usage, their employment practices. And with the ability of computing to gather and sort through this data.

Sir Ronald Cohen: (06:24)
We can now take the tons of carbon that a company puts into the atmosphere as a result of its operations. And we can see on the Harvard Business School site, 3,000 companies' environmental impact. For the first time, you can see that 450 of these companies create more environmental damage than profits. That 1000 of them create environmental damage equivalent to a quarter of their profit. That together they create $4 trillion worth of environmental damage in a single year, right? And this is putting a completely different perspective on making investment decisions. Because if the level of damage is going to affect the stock market valuation of the company, then management's going to want to deal with it.

Sir Ronald Cohen: (07:22)
And what is also a major breakthrough, Anthony, in answering your question, is our ability to measure the employment impact of companies. We will soon be publishing 2000 companies' employment impact in dollar terms. You'll be able to look at the cost of diversity to the excluded communities. You'll be able to look at Apple's wage bill of 7 billion and say there's a $2.7 billion negative charge because of lack of diversity. And if you compare it with Costco, while Costco employs twice as many people, 160,000, but it only has $1 billion negative charge.

Sir Ronald Cohen: (08:09)
So when you then add to that [inaudible 00:08:14] and you can measure the sugar content of a product, then you can quantify the impact on health, process a lot of science about it, and express it in dollar terms. Or, you can measure the fiber content and you can put the positive value that that has in terms of health. You can begin to see that is a whole form of impact accounting now, which is going to be based on impact accounting principles like the GAAP accounting, that we're all used to in doing financial markets, and these numbers are going to be audited like financial numbers.

Anthony Scaramucci: (08:55)
Okay. It's very helpful. And it's also very encouraging. I have millennial children. And my very popular co-anchor here, John Darsie, happens to be a millennial. And some people pick on the millennials. They talk down to them, but not me. I actually think that these are some of the brightest people. And I think this is a very encouraging generation.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:20)
And what influence do you think they're going to have in terms of allocating capital, the transparency issue that you talk about, the impact transparency, where we can see what companies are doing? How do you think the younger people and the millennials in particular are going to drive change or create [crosstalk 00:09:37]?

Sir Ronald Cohen: (09:38)
So, like the tech revolution, the impact revolution was started by millennials and then Gen Z that follows them. So they were the ones who started [crosstalk 00:09:49].

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:48)
I have some of those too, Ronnie. I have a couple of Gen Z or [inaudible 00:09:51] kids too. I got a whole collection.

Sir Ronald Cohen: (09:54)
People don't realize that millennials and Gen Z today represent 60%, 6, 0% of the US workforce. This is no longer the minority view, the views of millennials. And they're the ones who stopped buying certain products from certain companies. And they're also the ones who are going to inherit a ton of money, which was made by their parents. And that they are beginning to influence the investment market, having influenced the market for product. And so, I think the values of this generation is one of the three major forces that are transforming our world for the better.

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:46)
You've been working on this a long time. And you've seen a lot of things over the course of your career, and it's impossible to predict the future. But I want you to make a case for 2031. It's 10 years from now in our civilization, what does it look like, sir?

Sir Ronald Cohen: (11:07)
So we're going to find the different shopping. We're going to be using an app which gives us the environmental and social impact of the product we are buying and the company that brought it to our shelves.

Sir Ronald Cohen: (11:25)
If we're sitting in the boardroom, we're going to be managing our business according to the profit we make and the impact that we deliver. We're going to realize that if we're delivering negative impact and negative profit, we're done for. But if we're delivering profit and negative impact, we're going to be done for too. Because investors aren't going to buy our shares.

Sir Ronald Cohen: (11:58)
And so I believe that this force of changing values, the force of technology that enables us to deliver impact through artificial intelligence, machine learning, augmented reality, the genome and computing coming together and finally, the force of impact transparency through technology and big data. Those forces are going to shift our whole economies, Anthony, from creating problems that governments then trying to solve by taxing everyone, to bringing business to deliver solutions as it delivers profits.

Anthony Scaramucci: (12:43)
When you think about ESG and the focus effectively is on eliminating harmful outcomes, what would it mean to you to actively focus on creating good outcomes? So we have two things going on at once. How do you create the second?

Sir Ronald Cohen: (13:05)
Excellent question. The answer is impact transparency. If governments through their regulators, because they want every investor to get the same price sensitive information at the same time on their comparable basis, mandate that every company starting 3 years from now must publish impact-weighted financial accounts, which are audited like financial accounts are, it will enable investors to distinguish between those that are minimizing the harm they do and those that are bringing solutions to the big problems we face. And the money at the end of the day, is going to go to those who know how to deliver the maximum profit and positive impact at the same time.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:58)
Let's talk about global conflict for a second. We've got the hotspots still in the world, in the middle east parts of Africa, and there's also major pockets of poverty still in our societies. How can we solve those intractable issues, which would include the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but also extremism that we find in Africa?

Sir Ronald Cohen: (14:30)
It's a very big question. And every conflict obviously is different in kind. But if you look at the Irish conflict, it gives you the beginning of an answer for conflicts like the Israeli-Palestinian one and many others. The solution that brought Ireland to the Good Friday Agreement involved cutting the flow of money to the terrorists and inverted commas, "from the other side's point of view," terrorist organizations, so that they no longer had the supply of arms. It also involved a rising economic path. Because of Ireland entry into the European union, which made the Northern Irish look less suspiciously at the Southern Irish. All of a sudden they were prospered. There is an economic interest in cooperation. There was less fear that they were trying to grab what you've got. And so I think the simple answer to your question is we have to work on three dimensions of every conflict. Not just the political one and the security one, but the economic one, too.

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:58)
We're starting to see more technology in the impetus to remove carbon from the atmosphere. That's happening. How promising is the recent innovations addressing climate change? And are we seeing a willingness for energy companies to focus on these issues?

Sir Ronald Cohen: (16:15)
Two very important questions. We're certainly seeing a huge amount of money going into clean fuel technologies or carbon absorption technologies. And the phase of technological innovation is accelerating all the time. So our ability to bring solutions is vastly greater than it was three decades ago when the tech revolution was getting underway.

Sir Ronald Cohen: (16:50)
But what is going to drive the push for technology is the pressure on the incumbents today to shift their models. For instance, look at fossil fuel. If you look at the Harvard Business Group data, you can see that ExxonMobil delivers $39 billion of environmental damage in a year from its operations. Its environmental footprint, as it's called. You can compare it with Shell, the figure's 23 billion a year. You compare it with BP, it's 14 billion a year. So you already see leaders and laggards within the same sector. And so at the same time, ExxonMobil's share price falls by 2/3 in three years. You look across the way of Tesla, which is trying to shift us away from pollution through electric vehicles, and the share price multiply seven times in a single year.

Sir Ronald Cohen: (17:56)
So the power of financial markets today to drive technological advance both by the incumbents and through the venture capital industry and entrepreneurship, is going to be, what's going to bring this second disruption, this impact disruption. This time aided by technology to change the business models of many industries in the way that Tesla has changed the business model of the automobile industry.

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:30)
This is an impossible question. But this will be my last one before I turn it over to John Darsie who has a series of questions as well. And it's about the unicorns of the future.

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:41)
What are we going to see as investors in terms of emerging technologies related to impact investing? Is there a Uber or a Google, a SpaceX out there that's in the process of being formulated today that we need to be aware of or keep our eyes on?

Sir Ronald Cohen: (19:02)
There definitely are. My definition of impact unicorn in my book is a venture that is worth $1 billion, and improves the lives of 1 billion people. And I think that's what the millennial and Gen Z, the generations are looking for. Whether they're working for a big business or whether they are entrepreneurs.

Sir Ronald Cohen: (19:31)
You look at fields like education today. Our ability to educate people by digital means enables us in essence, to give some people, a free education that they pay for after their earnings, when they've got into their job, after they'd been educated. They're going to be models like that. There're already are some startups like that, that they've got going. And they're arising by the way, everywhere or across the world. They're going to revolutionize our approach to education.

Sir Ronald Cohen: (20:11)
Telehealth. I don't need to tell you how Telehealth has grown the impact of COVID. We are going to see remote diagnosis. We're going to see remote treatment. We're going to see new technologies come in to give us much faster testing. We've learned our lesson with testing, through COVID in difficulty in getting testing going fast enough. It's something we can't afford to do when there's another epidemic. So, we're going to begin to see giant opportunities in many sectors coming from this delivery of risk, return and impact.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:01)
John Darsie, what do you got to say?

John Darsie: (21:04)
You asked a lot of great questions, Anthony. But I have a couple of follow-ups. Sir Ronnie, if you don't mind? You talked about Exxon...

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:11)
Sir Ron, if he asks a good question, I don't want you to say, "Good question," though, okay? I want you to just stay... I had the good questions. Okay. Go ahead, Darsie.

John Darsie: (21:20)
You talked about Exxon, Sir Ronnie, which I think is a fascinating case where Engine No.1, it's a small hedge fund that we have a relationship with, and we're looking forward to welcoming on SALT Talk soon. They won a proxy fight with a very modest amount of resources with Exxon trying to drive more urgency around their climate issues. Do you think you'll see more activism and more pressure put on these energy companies from whether it's hedge funds or government entities or things like that to accelerate what they're doing in terms of carbon capture and limiting their environmental impact?

Sir Ronald Cohen: (21:59)
Undoubtedly, John. Undoubtedly. The conversations I've been having suggest that there're already 200 motions have been tabled on both environmental and social issues. For shareholders, the meeting's coming up. Activist funds are getting, going. But they're not doing it alone in the ExxonMobil case. BlackRock came in alongside Engine No.1 as you well know. And so it is part of the pressure that is being exercised by investors today that is transforming itself into this open impact revolution that I write about.

John Darsie: (22:41)
Right. And you talk a lot in your books and in your commentary about how the idea of profit and impact are not mutually exclusive, that actually investing in impact drives returns. What are some concrete ways? And you talk about this in your book in a very, I think lucid way, that with a business, whether it's a manufacturing business or a services business, what are ways specifically that investing for impact actually does drive enhance productivity and enhance efficiency within the business?

Sir Ronald Cohen: (23:14)
So I gave you an example in the area of education. That you have a model where you're enabling people in remote corners of the world to get qualifications as coders or other vocational areas, or even university degrees, and they're only paying for it afterwards. And you make a profit out of that. The more impact you deliver, the more profit you deliver. If you look at FinTech platforms that begin to assess the credit worthiness of a potential borrower for a consumer loan, on the basis of their usage of their firm, instead of looking at their bank account. Because they don't have one. The more credits you deliver, the more profit you will make.

Sir Ronald Cohen: (24:07)
If you look at pharmaceutical companies, it's great to have a breakthrough cancer treatment. But if it costs $300,000 a year to administer, how many people could afford it? And so you only invested in a company which has a cancer treatment, that costs $20,000 or less. And so I think what's going to become the rule, John, is these great impact business models are going to involve distributing products very widely, at lower prices to help more vulnerable populations. And it gives you a bigger market and potentially a bigger profit than if you stay at the premium high price end of the market with a very narrow client base.

John Darsie: (25:01)
Right. And let's talk about COVID-19 for a second. So we've seen a short-term impact on emissions, for example, because of reduced business travel, reduced commuting into offices and things like that, do you think there's going to be a long-term benefit or impact from COVID-19 in terms of emissions that we can sort of build off of as we sort of remake the way we operate business and operate our societies?

Sir Ronald Cohen: (25:27)
I certainly think that COVID has shaken up a lot of our beliefs and habits, John. And we'll get back to some of them. We're not going to go back to others, or at least not in the same extent. And the question that you asked about travel is a very important one. Here we are having a perfectly intelligible interview to thousands of people, or could be hundreds of thousands of people. And neither of us has had to jump on a plane in order for us to have this conversation. We're going to see that replicated.

Sir Ronald Cohen: (26:10)
But I think COVID is going to have a much deeper effect too. It's somehow strengthened the feeling that we're all in the same boat. We can't live this COVID crisis by just looking at ourselves and our neighborhoods, nor as our cities only, nor are countries now, or even our continents. And I think that feeling of greater solidarity connects with the millennial and Gen Z values that we were talking about.

Sir Ronald Cohen: (26:44)
And so I think COVID will have strengthened hugely the attraction of impact investing and will hopefully bring our governments, whether it be the US, so Biden Administration or the EU or the British Government to realize that impact transparency is now a human rights. We all have the right to know, not just what profit companies are making, but what good and what harm they're creating. And governments owe it to us to provide this transparency because investors, apart from anything else, investors are demanding it and they're not getting it today.

John Darsie: (27:33)
We're going to leave it right there on a positive note. That we can turn this unfortunate situation with all the suffering and death that we've experienced around the world from COVID and try to turn it into a positive and come together to solve some of these intractable issues that you write so eloquently about in your book, Sir Ronnie, and in all of your commentary. Keep up the good fight. Thank you for everything that you're doing, and hopefully we get to see you in person. It's great to see you on Zoom, but we'd love to see you in person soon.

Sir Ronald Cohen: (28:00)
Likewise, thank you very much, John and Anthony, of course.

Anthony Scaramucci: (28:01)
Thank you, Ron.

John Darsie: (28:06)
Thank you everybody for tuning into today's SALT Talk with the great Sir Ronald Cohen. Just a reminder, if you missed any part of this SALT Talk or any of our previous SALT Talks, you can access them on our website on demand@SALT.org/talks or on our YouTube channel, which is called SALT Tube. Please also follow us on social media. We're most active on Twitter @SALTConference, but we're also on LinkedIn, Instagram and Facebook as well. And please spread the word about these SALT Talks. On behalf of Anthony and the entire SALT Team, this is John Darsie signing off from SALT Talks for today. We hope to see you back here again soon.

Yasmeen Abutaleb & Damian Paletta: Nightmare Scenario | SALT Talks #243

“One of the biggest problems with this pandemic response was there was no one in charge. That had been an element of the Trump White House in the three previous years- he didn’t let anyone get too powerful.”

Yasmeen Abutaleb is a national reporter at The Washington Post, covering health policy, with a focus on the Department of Health and Human Services, health policy on Capitol Hill and health care in politics. She previously covered health care for Reuters. Damian Paletta is White House economic policy reporter for The Washington Post. Before joining The Post, he covered the White House for the Wall Street Journal.

Yasmeen Abutaleb and Damian Paletta detail many of the major missteps from the Trump administration’s pandemic response, including shelving a ready-made plan to ship masks to every American household. Abutaleb and Paletta highlight Trump’s contradictions in his call for vaccine credit while refusing to advocate seriously for his followers to take it. They note some of the ways a power vacuum in the White House left a pandemic response void and how public health officials like Dr. Fauci have been demonized and threatened.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKERS

Yasmeen Abutaleb.jpeg

Yasmeen Abutaleb

National Reporter

The Washington Post

Damian Paletta.jpeg

Damian Paletta

White House Economic Policy Reporter

The Washington Post

TIMESTAMPS

0:00 - Intro

3:17 - Pandemic missteps

6:35 - Trump administration’s war on science

9:48 - Operation Warp Speed and Trump base’s contradiction

14:17 - Anthony Fauci demonization and conspiracies

19:39 - Vaccine safety and convincing those who are hesitant

25:44 - Who was really in charge of the pandemic response in Trump administration?

30:45 - Establishing a record of Trump White House pandemic response

35:31 - Evaluating US public health agencies’ responses

39:50 - Missed opportunities to prevent death and economic fallout

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:07)
Hello, everyone, and welcome back to Salt Talks. My name is John Darsie. I'm the managing director of Salt, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance, technology, and public policy. Salt Talks are a digital interview series with leading investors, creators and thinkers. And our goal on these talks is the same as our goal at our Salt conferences, which we're excited to hopefully resume here in September of 2021. And that's to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future. We're very excited today to welcome two fantastic journalists and authors to Salt Talks, they're out with a recent book about the Trump administration's response to the pandemic crisis. Yasmeen Abutaleb is a national reporter at the Washington Post covering health policy with a focus on the department of health and human services, health policy on Capitol Hill, and health care in politics.

John Darsie: (01:06)
Interesting beat to be on over the last 18 months to say the least. Damian Paletta is the White House economic policy reporter for The Washington Post. Before joining the Post, he covered the White House for the Wall Street Journal. The new book that these two co authored is called Nightmare Scenario: Inside the Trump Administration's Response to the Pandemic That Changed History. And I think as this entire wave of Trump books has come out, I think a lot of them there's a little bit of staleness to a lot of the content. We know that the administration was chaotic and incompetent, and politicized in many ways. But I think this book, very unique in the way it tackles the politics of the pandemic, and why it ended up being such a disaster that it was for the country.

John Darsie: (01:49)
But hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, who's the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge capital, which is a global alternative investment firm. I have to mention since we're talking about politics and public policy, that Anthony did spend 11 days within the Trump administration, as communications director, but with that, I'll turn it over to Anthony for the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:07)
So, you see, he's trying to knock me down a peg Yasmeen, you see what he's doing? Okay. That just, "Oh, he got fired from the White House after 11 days."

John Darsie: (02:17)
I didn't say fired. I said you spent 11 days-

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:21)
Let me just tell you something, okay? It's okay to do this in July, but I just want to let you know, I decide bonuses sometime around Thanksgiving. So you better stop between now and Thanksgiving, just let you know that.

Damian Paletta: (02:31)
He might have raised you up a peg actually by saying that you got out so quick.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:35)
Well, yeah, it might have raised me up a peg that in fact I got fired.

John Darsie: (02:38)
It's a badge of honor at this point.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:40)
Let's talk about this book, which is an incredible book, you guys did a brilliant job. And I started out by saying that a lot of it is hard to believe. Okay. So, let's start with you met Yasmeen. You wrote the book, Damian, you guys wrote the book. But when you're reading parts of it in terms of policies and decision making, it's like, "Oh, God, how could that have been made like that?" Tell us one of the more outrageous things that happened that you were like, "Okay, I can't believe I'm writing this, but it is factual, and so therefore I'm writing."

Yasmeen Abutaleb: (03:16)
I think one of the most devastating incidents Damian and I came across was this plan that a top health official had proposed to send a mask to every American household. They wanted to send a packet of five masks to every house in the US. And this official, Bob Kadlec, who was the head of emergency preparedness at the Health and Human Services Department, had already worked with a couple of undergarment manufacturers like, Jockey and Hanes, and the plan was that they were going to manufacture 650 million masks by sometime in May. And the goal was for the government to send these masks to everyone through the US Postal Service, which is an important detail for later. And that way you just depoliticize this whole thing. Obviously wearing masks was a pretty new concept to Americans. And they wanted to say, this recommendation's coming from the president, it's coming from the White House, just do this to protect yourself and protect your neighbor.

Yasmeen Abutaleb: (04:21)
And that plan got shot down in the task force for a couple of reasons. One was the vice president's chief of staff Mark Short, did not like that. He felt that Kadlec was freelancing, that he had sort of done this without going through the normal processes at the Office of Management and Budget. And part of the reason for that was because I think Kadlec knew it would probably get killed if he went through the process that way. And also that they didn't want to be alarmist, this was in late March, by sending masks to everyone. And even though the health officials had coalesced around recommending that all Americans wear masks, some of the political officials still were not on board with this and were afraid of how Trump's base might react. And so this was pulled off the agenda. Mark Short made sure it never got back on. And another part of the reason it got killed was because there was concerned that the President was not going to go for a plan that relied on the US Postal Service, because at the time, he was waging a war against the Postal Service.

Yasmeen Abutaleb: (05:18)
We're worried about mailing ballots ahead of the election. And so, Damian and I thought this was such a great example of the completely disastrous policymaking process throughout the response. It's not going through normal channels, it's yanked off the agenda not even discussed for political reasons. There's this President's weird aversion to the postal service. And so this whole plan gets mixed. And it's one of those moments where you just wonder how different things would have gone if in March and April and May, the government was just sending people masks and it was not turned into this political cudgel.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:52)
So, Damian, you and I've talked before, let me hold up the book here, I've got it here on my phone, because I left it unfortunately on my nightstand last night. It's a brilliant book, it goes in depth detail on what happened and how many avoidable things there were. But to me Damian, one of the most alarming things in the book, and correct me if I'm wrong, it feels like the administration was waging an all out war against the medical and scientific community in the United States. That's the thing I got out of the book. And so why, Damian?

Damian Paletta: (06:31)
Well-

Anthony Scaramucci: (06:32)
Do I have that right first of all, and then secondarily why if I do?

Damian Paletta: (06:35)
Yes, absolutely. And it's I think one of the worst legacies. Obviously, the death of 600,000 people is a terrible, terrible legacy of this. But one of the worst legacies, is what we're living through now, which is that the President by attacking the scientists and medical professionals, has ceded all this distrust to this day in vaccines and science. So, not only is he... He's out of office, he's gone, right? He's lost his Twitter account. But there's still millions and millions of people who believe this mindset that he kind of implanted in them, which is, "I'm right, the scientists are wrong, believe me, don't believe them." And I think it really got started in the early days of this when to his credit, Azar, and obviously, Fauci and Birx and others were warning that this could be really bad.

Damian Paletta: (07:24)
And the President was so used to deflecting every crisis that came his way, whether it was the impeachment, or all these scandals with women and stuff, everything just sort of kind of fell off his back, he was like Teflon, and he said this would be gone in 15 days, there's just a few cases, when it gets warmer it's going to go away again. He was creating this counter narrative to all the science. And that got harder obviously, as the virus really sunk its teeth into the country. And so instead of kind of reversing course, or acknowledging, "Hey, the scientists were right, I was wrong," he just kind of doubled and tripled down. He brought in Scott Atlas and other people who would kind of reaffirm his beliefs that this was just like the flu. And there came a point when it was just too late to change course. Obviously, one of the biggest moments of this the best example, sadly, was when he got sick and nearly died.

Damian Paletta: (08:17)
He did not wear a mask, he packed the White House with people. He was a month from the election and his poll numbers were bad. So he was doing whatever, he could just kind of send this image that he was indestructible and the country's indestructible, and obviously, the virus got him and it got him bad. And over that weekend, Yasmeen and I report in the book, the doctors... The red field and others met and talked and said, "Well, let's pray that this is the moment, the kind of epiphany that he's needed to see how dangerous this is." And they thought there's no way this guy could be on the brink of death and emerge with the same kind of cavalier attitude about it. And sure enough, the whole world watched as he walked up the steps and took up the mask and said, "Don't be afraid." Read fields heart sank and a lot of other people thought, "Well, there's no way he's going to reverse course, now he's just going to drive us off the ledge." And that's what ended up happening.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:10)
So, Yasmeen, explain this to me, because you write about it eloquently in the book, you guys do Operation Warp Speed, very successful, it was actually a great idea to funnel money out to the different pharmaceutical companies to backstop their risk taking to expedite the vaccine for the virus, and yet, they Trumpers, they don't want to take vac... So he should get credit for Operation Warp Speed, but at the same time, we're not going to take the vaccine that he should get credit for. So, can you square the circle for me?

Yasmeen Abutaleb: (09:48)
I wish I could. So, I think there's a couple different pieces to that. Yes, he deserves credit for Operation Warp Speed, as does his administration. And it's kind of funny in this ironic way, because the vaccine was probably the hardest thing to do, and to get it done in record time. And it's the one thing they did successfully. So, it's kind of heartbreaking in a way, because you wonder if they had brought the same level of focus and energy and resources to other parts of the response, how things might have gone differently. But yes, they decided to make this massive investment, to take out the financial risk for these companies so that they could just throw everything they had into the R&D of the vaccine. They helped them get access to manufacturing facilities that they could manufacture doses of vaccine before they knew if they worked to basically to get rid of lags in the whole process.

Yasmeen Abutaleb: (10:42)
But the President, while he does deserve credit for the administration taking this on, undercut confidence in the vaccine at every step of the way, because it became clear by the summer of 2020, and especially into the fall, as we got closer to the election, that he was berating the FDA to move faster on the vaccine, he made it clear and completely explicit terms that he wanted it before the election. And you could see in public polls, how much trust was falling in this whole process. You're already asking people to really trust that the FDA knows what it's doing because the fastest vaccine before this one had been developed in four years. Now, we're looking at one developed in under a year, so people need to feel assured that the FDA is not cutting corners, that it's doing a full safety and effectiveness evaluation. And if they feel like it's being done for political purposes, that's just going to undercut trust more and more. But unlike the Vice President, Dr. Fauci, a number of his administration officials, the President did not get vaccinated on TV, he did not sort of give a public display of confidence in the vaccine in that way, we found out-

Anthony Scaramucci: (11:51)
Why?

Yasmeen Abutaleb: (11:53)
Well, he has a complicated history with vaccine. So, a lot of his base are anti-vaxxers, they don't believe in this. They're fueling a number of conspiracy theories about the vaccine. You can see on Fox News every night, Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity who has changed his tune somewhat, are railing against vaccination campaigns and trying to get people vaccinated. So there's this dual thing of him wanting the vaccine before the election because he thinks it will give people confidence the virus will go away, but also not wanting to alienate that portion of his base. And he also has his own complicated view on vaccines. He's kind of flirted with anti-vaccine views in the past. And if he didn't get vac-

Anthony Scaramucci: (12:34)
Yeah. And he thinks it's experitorial, he throws out there. It's like a doorframe log, anything that you can throw sows the seeds of distrust he'll throw it out there. I'm sorry, but go ahead.

Yasmeen Abutaleb: (12:45)
Well, to your point when you were asking the question, there's this dual thing of wanting credit for the vaccines, but also not doing anything to help more people get vaccinated. What a lot of I think doctors including Dr. Fauci learned last year was that Trump supporters really hang on his every word. So you just have to wonder how many more people would get vaccinated among the holdouts right now, if the President had, A, gotten vaccinated on TV, and B, was out there right now saying, "This was such a big accomplishment of my administration, you should go out and get the vaccine. It's safe and effective." But of course, we're not seeing that happen.

Damian Paletta: (13:21)
I would just add to that, Anthony. There's actually no evidence that he has been vaccinated. Okay? He said it on Fox News on a radio interview. There's no photograph, as he has been said, there's no doctor Who said anything. I think this kind of allows his supporters to-

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:39)
You've never met a bigger baby than this guy, trust me, he's been vaccinated. Okay? He's a big, big, baby. I guarantee that he's been vaccinated with or without his diaper. I'm not sure. But let's go to a question that's important to me. This is the Rand Paul, Anthony Fauci squaring off on each other. So, go ahead. Obviously, I'm biased, so you have to forgive me. I know Anthony Fauci a long time, [inaudible 00:14:08] rumors around respect for him. And I think that Rand Paul wears a tinfoil hat to work. But go ahead. You tell me what's going on there.

Damian Paletta: (14:18)
Well, I would just... The opening scene of the book is from August 2020, when Fauci takes a letter that he received in his house and opens it in his office with a letter opener and all this white powder kind of explodes all over his face. And he screams for security, they have to strip them down, essentially naked and decontaminate him. They thought it could be ricin or anthrax. There were a lot of people who wanted to hurt this guy. And in part, it was because of people like Rand Paul and President Trump, who were just you know, demonizing him and alleging that he was destroying the country. I think the threats against Fauci have only gotten worse since the inauguration of Biden. A lot of people including Rand Paul, have essentially suggested it was all Fauci's fault that Biden won, that Trump lost. Rand Paul, I think was one of the first members of Congress to get Coronavirus. He's still refuse to wear a mask. He is kind of an outlier in terms of Congress in his thinking on the Fed and the economy.

Damian Paletta: (15:19)
But there are many millions of people who agree with his conspiracy theory that Fauci created the virus in cahoots with the Chinese and this kind of stuff. It's completely out of this world crazy, but he continues to feed it. And I think Fauci does go toe to toe with him. A lot of people on Capitol Hill when they testify, will be careful not to be too adversarial. But Fauci, you can see how pissed he is that this guy has the nerve, this doctor no less has the nerve to question him. Yasmeen and I, we've talked about it a lot. It's not going to go away. And Fauci is not going to back down and this guys 80 years old, and he visibly pissed.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:03)
But I mean-

Yasmeen Abutaleb: (16:04)
And I think...

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:06)
Well, let's talk for our viewers benefit. Yasmeen, what are the allegations that Senator Paul is making? And then what is the refutation of those allegations?

Yasmeen Abutaleb: (16:18)
So a lot of this, and Senator Paul started this last spring. And it's just the theme in all these hearings whenever Fauci appears before the Senate Health Committee, that the virus may have accidentally escaped or was engineered in a lab in Wuhan, that the NIH had indirectly had provided some funding to. So, the short version of it is, there's no evidence that the virus was deliberately engineered and unleashed on the world. That's been pretty clearly shot down. There are still questions about whether it may have accidentally leaked out of the lab and started an outbreak that way. And the way it accidentally leaked is it maybe infects a lab worker, and the outbreak goes from there. And what happened was the NIH had provided this grant to a New York group called Eco Health Alliance back in 2014. And part of that grant went to the Wuhan lab, because they are one of the top labs in the world one of two or three on coronaviruses, because so many of them originate in China.

Yasmeen Abutaleb: (17:17)
So, there are all these allegations that the NIH funded the Wuhan lab and of course, there are some right wing conspiracy theorists who have taken that several steps further, said Dr. Fauci, worked with the Wuhan lab to create the virus and unleash it which of course, is nonsense, that the root of this is that a sub grant from the NIH went to the Wuhan lab, and it's like a $600,000 grant. And that grant was actually suspended last year when these questions started circulating about the origins of the virus, which we still don't know. But Senator Paul, in every hearing, insist on bringing this up. And then the hearing just a few days ago, he took it further than he ever has by accusing Fauci of perjuring himself by lying to Congress. And that's when you saw Fauci really kind of stand up and defend himself because he said, "I've never lied." He said, "If anyone was lying, it was Senator Paul."

Yasmeen Abutaleb: (18:11)
Because Senator Paul was trying to imply or not even imply, just state that Fauci had lied to Congress by saying that the NIH had not funded what's called gain of function research at the Wuhan lab, which there's no way to know whether the lab was conducting it or not, but the NIH grant was not approved for those purposes.

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:32)
So, I know John has a ton of questions for you guys. But I have one more question that's bothering me a lot. And I want to get both of your reactions to. I have family members that won't get vaccinated. I have school teacher friends of mine that will not get vaccinated. I came in this morning to a litany of email death threats, because I was on CNBC last Friday telling people they have to get vaccinated if they want to come to our conference if they want to work here at SkyBridge. And so now I'm a fascist for wanting to be vaccinated. But when we were fighting the Nazis in World War Two, we had a draft mandate, and everybody had to go to the drip.

Anthony Scaramucci: (19:11)
All we're asking people to do now is to take a jab to protect their fellow men and women. So what am I getting wrong? Are these vaccines... This is a question for both you, two part question. Are these vaccines safe? Yes or no? And why? And then secondarily, what can we do if they are safe? And I believe that they are. What can we do to change the hearts and minds of these people? So let's start with you, Damien. Are these vaccines safe? Yes or no?

Damian Paletta: (19:40)
I think the vaccines are absolutely safe. At this point, they've administered more than 100 million in the United States. Okay. There have been some cases that required more study, but there wasn't anything that made them feel like they were unsafe. There are some breakthrough cases now we're hearing about. When you have a vaccine that's miraculously 95% effective, that 5%, when you do more than 100 million people, there's still going to be people who become sick, but they don't tend to... The symptoms are better and it's less severe. So, yes, the vaccine is safe.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:16)
Is there a microchip in the vaccine-

Damian Paletta: (20:18)
No.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:19)
... where the government's monitoring you?

Damian Paletta: (20:21)
No, but-

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:22)
Is it genetically altering your DNA, so you're going to-

Damian Paletta: (20:26)
No.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:27)
... turn into something that's not human?

Damian Paletta: (20:29)
It is not. It is a vaccine, the kind of vaccine that you've been given since you were six months old, you've been getting vaccines, okay? It's the top scientists in the world, it really is a miracle that they were able to do this in under a year. And there's literally more than 100 million people who have gotten one of three different shots in the past six months in this country, and are participating in society and healthy and running and playing basketball and baseball, and everything's going... And having babies and everything is working like it should. Now, it seems like a ridiculous thing when you mentioned microchips. Okay? But there was a recent survey that was done that said of the people who refuse to get vaccinated, more than 50% Anthony, believe that there is some kind of microchip that's being inserted. Okay? It's such a ridiculous thing to... I'm not being elitist.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:30)
No. But I look, I grew up in a blue collar family, these people distrust... You have to understand the blue collar people feel they've been left out of the system. So, they distrust the system and they distrust the establishment. Let me... Yasmeen, let me ask you this question because I just want to get your view on it. What do you say to somebody that's not vaccinated? I'm sure you've met them. Maybe you have them in your... I have them in my family. So, what do you say?

Yasmeen Abutaleb: (21:57)
Yeah, I think all of us have people in our families or in our friend groups who are not getting vaccinated for any number of reasons. I think one thing that's really important is to not be condescending to people who are not getting it for one reason or another, but just explaining to them why they should trust it, the process that it had to go through to be evaluated as safe and effective. Why it's not going to... That people are seriously concerned it's going to alter your DNA. And there's a simple answer to that-

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:26)
Is it going to make people infertile?

Yasmeen Abutaleb: (22:28)
No, it's not. And I've had friends who are six, seven.eight months pregnant, getting the vaccine in the third trimester of their pregnancy, they all delivered healthy babies, people who got the vaccine before they got pregnant, one of my friends got it just a couple months before she got pregnant, and now she's pregnant. So, there's no effect on fertility. It's been studied, it will continue to be studied. And I think like Damien said, we've now seen it administered in hundreds of millions of people. I think one thing that's important to understand about vaccines, is for every vaccine on the market, there are adverse events, we just normally don't pay as close attention to other vaccines, because they don't have the same kind of historic nature of this one. This one's kind of unique in that we're all getting it no matter what age group at the same time, as opposed to childhood vaccines or late adulthood ones or whatever they might be.

Yasmeen Abutaleb: (23:20)
So, I think it's important to understand what a particular person's concerns are, if it's that their DNA is going to be altered, I think people are mixing of DNA and mRNA, which is what the Pfizer and Madonna vaccines are. So, you can just simply tell them, it's actually an mRNA vaccine, it has nothing to do with your DNA, there is no concern that your DNA is going to be altered. On the microchip piece of it, I know that that's a serious concern that people have, I think you have to explain why that's just not a possibility. You can't put a microchip in a vaccine vial. And that would never be approved by the FDA, you can't secretly do that kind of thing. So, I think a lot of this is just a lack of trust in the process, a lack of trust in the FDA and our public institutions for the reasons that you stated that people feel like they've been left behind. So, I think it's important to meet people where they are and address their concerns head on, not just keep yelling at them that it's safe and effective, safe and effective.

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:16)
Yeah. I take your point because it is a control thing for some people. You don't want to sound condescending, you need to get them to make an informed choice. I'm going to turn it over to John Darsie, who's got a series of questions and he gets a lot of attention because he gets fan mail. I get hate mail. People are threatening to kill me because I'm a pro-vaxxer, but John gets fan mail about these Salt Talks. And he always reminds me of the fan mail that he's getting. So, just do me a favor, when he asks a good question, don't say, "Oh, that's a really good question." Because it will upset me. Okay? Go ahead, Darsie. Go ahead.

John Darsie: (24:50)
I like to say that I indirectly get death threats directed at you into just our generic inboxes at SkyBridge and Salt. So-

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:58)
We get a lot of [inaudible 00:24:59] death threats too. Yeah.

John Darsie: (25:00)
Right.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:01)
I want people to get vaccinated. I think they... Well, that's all. They get upset with me. Go ahead, John.

John Darsie: (25:06)
Yeah. So, one thing you guys tackled in the book that I think is fascinating and sort of symptomatic, if you will, of the way the Trump administration operated, is it who was really in charge of the pandemic response within the White House? Was it something that Trump was commanding control, and he was day to day in there, obviously, monitoring logistics around the vaccine development and response to the pandemic? Was Jared Kushner? Was it Mike Pence, who was initially put in charge of the task force? Who was the one that was really leading the charge, and ultimately, had some accountability about the response? And I'll start with you on that one, Damien.

Damian Paletta: (25:44)
I would say that no one was in charge. At any given point, the President was in charge briefly, Jared Kushner was in charge of getting masks and gowns briefly, Mike Pence was supposed to be in charge of the task force, but he was constantly being undermined. And he was kind of trying to deal with all these conflicting forces, whether they were political or health. Deborah Birx was in charge of certain things, but then she was dramatically undermined. And then Anthony Fauci, I think had a big role in messaging and did a lot behind the scenes with the vaccine and other things, but the White House did everything they could to keep him from being too powerful. Then you had Mark Meadows, who would come in when he could to kind of cut the legs out from under certain people when he thought they were getting too powerful, Alex Azar started out with a lot of power initially, but the White House kind of reined him in.

Damian Paletta: (26:38)
So I think one of the biggest problems with this whole response was that there was no one in charge. And unfortunately, that had kind of been an element of the Trump White House for the previous three years that worked for the president. He didn't let anyone get too powerful. There was a rotating cast of Chiefs of Staff, by not allowing anyone to become too important and play too much of a leadership role. It allowed him to kind of keep everyone on their toes, made people more sycophantic because they were always worried about how they would look in his eyes. And so in a case like this, when there was a public health crisis, when you needed truth and information delivered quickly, it was a huge part of the problem in the response.

John Darsie: (27:18)
Yasmeen, do you have anything to add to that?

Yasmeen Abutaleb: (27:23)
I think Damian hit on it. And we say this in the book. In many ways, it was designed so that no one was ever truly in charge. Because the president wanted to be able to append things or decide to do things differently at any point in time. And so, one of the... I think this was probably the most damaging element of the response, is that without leadership, people don't know who they're supposed to listen to, everyone can try to undercut each other and go behind each other's backs. And when you're fighting a virus this difficult and this lethal, you all have to kind of put aside your differences and unite to fight the virus. That is not what they were doing at all. And it's because at any point in time, people could come in and try to outwit each other or try to one up each other and take over the response.

Yasmeen Abutaleb: (28:07)
And you saw that happen multiple times a month. Like Damien said, you had Azar, and then you had Pence, and then you had Kushner for a little bit, and then Kushner left and then Birx never really had the autonomy she wanted. So it's just... In the end, it was just kind of this team of vipers all vying to see who would come out on top.

John Darsie: (28:27)
Right. And it's almost as if at this point in the administration's lifecycle, that everybody had been hollowed out from the administration, who had the gumption to challenge the President and to tell him hard truths. And it's almost like we worried for four years about a bonafide crisis bubbling up that the Trump administration with all of its issues would have to deal with. We got one in the last year of his presidency at a time when he was surrounded all sort of by yes men that just wanted to save their own skin, rather than serve the public good. Is that an accurate assessment, Damien?

Damian Paletta: (29:03)
Absolutely. And I think, Kelly's gone, Tillerson's gone, Meadows is gone, a lot of the people who were kind of tough enough to stand up to him, obviously... Nielsen was gone, the people who weren't necessarily going to do whatever he said, had been pushed out. And so, I was actually just thinking, Anthony mentioned, we talked a lot about vaccines, as we should continue to talk for months. But one of... If you remember that moment in March, when they finally agreed as a taskforce that they should advocate for people to wear masks.

Damian Paletta: (29:33)
And then the President goes up to make the announcement and says, "Well, I'm not gonna wear one, it's voluntary." So then, the country's like, "Well, who do we believe? Do we believe Fauci? Who a lot of the country believed at the time, or do we believe when the president says he's not going to wear one, and we love him, maybe we shouldn't wear one either. And it was that kind of stuff. The lack of a single person kind of delivering a specific message that has plagued the process to this day.

John Darsie: (29:58)
Right. And the point you were making earlier Damian about there being no concrete evidence or testimony from a doctor about Trump getting a vaccine, I thought was very interesting, and one that I've never thought about before. And he sort of takes that approach with a lot of different issues, whether it be things like immigration and racism, he winks at certain things without fully endorsing them to sort of allow him to play both sides of the coin. So, in this case, I guess you were saying that there's no hard evidence of him getting vaccinated, but he says he got vaccinated. So if he gets challenged on it, he can say, "Well, I got vaccinated, why are you blaming me?" But at the same time, the vaccine hesitant and the conspiratorial side of his base, can still say, "Oh, he didn't actually mean it. He's just trying to appease sort of the woke movement by saying that he got vaccinated." Is that sort of what you were hinting at?

Damian Paletta: (30:45)
Exactly. And I think as you guys know, with the challenge of writing this book, Yasmeen and I felt really strongly that there had to be a book about the pandemic response. There's a lot of Trump books about different things and there should be, but there needed to be a specific book about the response. So, one of our biggest challenges was, Well, what do we know? There was so much misinformation and lying and deception, we really wanted to break down what we knew. And so when we reconstructed that weekend that he was sick, we really spent a ton of time going to different people to try to find out what exactly happened, who exactly was talking to who, how sick was he really? Because you can't trust the things that were coming out of his mouth or some of his senior aids mouths, we really thought it was important almost as a historical document, to really find out exactly what happened.

Damian Paletta: (31:36)
And so when he says on a Tuesday night at 9:30 on Fox News that he got vaccinated, well, it's up to us to try to find out whether he can back that up. And by not backing that up whether he was or he wasn't, people can interpret it however they want to interpret it. And obvious, months later they have.

John Darsie: (31:54)
Yasmeen, how hard was that reporting around his visit to the hospital when he was infected with COVID? It was the first time that I had seen a detailed in depth reporting of those events that matched up with some things that we had heard from other sources, but nobody in the media had written about all those inner workings of that visit, and just how close he might have been to dying from COVID, which obviously would have thrown the country into chaos. But how hard was that reporting relative to other things that you guys have reported on within the Trump administration?

Yasmeen Abutaleb: (32:27)
It was really difficult because at the end of the day, it was a national security failure, right? They didn't protect the president. That's a complete dereliction of duty. And they had the tools they needed to protect him, but they just refused, including the President refused to use them, whether it was masks or regular testing at the White House or using more reliable tests. So, Damian and I were reporting for the Post at the time. And I remember reporting on that weekend, we could not get clear answers, we really did not know what was going on. We tried for weeks, and then of course it was the election before we knew it. But when we were recording that weekend and the days following, we kept asking the White House, "Are you contact tracing to try to find out where the President got the infection from and where everyone else got the infection from? Which event was the super spreader event?" But people thought it was the big event they had had in the Rose Garden for Amy Coney Barrett's Supreme Court nomination.

Yasmeen Abutaleb: (33:27)
And the White House was getting so annoyed at those questions, because they were like, "Why are you asking us for the third day in a row for contact tracing? It's over, the investigations over." And I think that was just such a clear indication of that they really didn't want the answers to these questions. He got out of the hospital, he made it through. So it was really hard to get answers, and Damien and I couldn't actually get them until pretty close to when we were wrapping up the book, because a lot of the people who actually did know about the President's condition, and how sick he was and how the events unfolded that weekend, were not ready to talk about it until they knew he had lost the election. He was out of power, and that they were not going to go back in and work in the Trump administration or the next administration.

Yasmeen Abutaleb: (34:10)
So it was really only several weeks after the inauguration that we could start getting the people who actually knew to open up. Because it turned out a lot of his closest advisors themselves had no idea what was going on that weekend.

John Darsie: (34:25)
Right. Yeah, it was certainly a tight circle of people that I think understood the gravity of what was going on. You could piece it together based on certain treatments that he was getting, but there was no... You couldn't responsibly report it in something like the Washington Post without verifying some of those sources. But, Yasmeen, I have another question for you. And it's about the public health community. Obviously, they've done yeoman's work during the pandemic, Dr. Fauci has been sleeping four or five hours a night at most as he's helped us work through the pandemic and he's one of many people that have been instrumental in trying to limit the number of deaths and infections from COVID. But the CDC, the FDA, there's been certain periods of this pandemic that haven't necessarily covered themselves in glory, they've given out either confusing guidance, or they've had to backtrack on different recommendations they've given. We're obviously sort of in the heat of battle still right now when it comes to fighting COVID.

John Darsie: (35:15)
So I don't think there's going to be a lot of hand wringing right now. But how do you think long-term, we might sort of reevaluate the way these public health organizations operate in terms of maintaining consistency, accountability, and things like that?

Yasmeen Abutaleb: (35:31)
I'm so glad you asked that, because obviously, we spend a lot of time focusing on Trump. One of the strengths Damian and I thought of this book is that we've dive pretty deep into the health agencies and to other people who were involved in the response. The President's one of several characters throughout the book. So, I think this pandemic has really, really stress test the health agencies, especially the CDC and the FDA. And I think you're seeing the effects of that now still, even though Trump's not an office, they have a president who says he's going to follow the science and that they can go where the science leads them, they're still making a number of unforced errors and mistakes. And I think part of that is the fatigue of dealing with the pandemic for a year and a half. And also that they're not structured to deal with something like this. They're really not.

Yasmeen Abutaleb: (36:19)
The CDC was supposed to be the leader in the world, they really failed in this response in multiple ways. And a lot of that rests with Trump and political interference. But a lot of it also rests with the agency, just that it's a very slow moving agency, it is not designed to respond to such a fast moving virus like this, they were way too slow with a number of decisions, because they kind of rests on academic science, and they're not as good at moving in with real time data and not having the perfect academic data, but saying, "Okay, this is what we're seeing happening on the ground and this is what we should do now."Like with masks, with the test, with some of their guidances. You see, even now with them kind of wringing their hands over what to do about the masks guidance with the Delta variant. And the FDA had so many forced errors last year in authorizing hydroxychloroquine, with no evidence that it worked. And the doctors could already prescribe it if they wanted to, with this whole debacle over convalescent plasma.

Yasmeen Abutaleb: (37:19)
The reason they held firm on the vaccine, I think is because they had had so many disasters leading up to it, that they were like, "We're at risk of destroying this agency's 114 year reputation, if we don't hold firm on this." And they had seen the effects of making the wrong decision on these other treatments or rolling it out in the wrong way. So, they really didn't cut corners on the vaccine, which obviously was great. But you see them now still struggling with a number of things, and they have so much on their plate. So, I think hopefully people don't forget this pandemic too quickly, once we hopefully get through it. And really think about why our public institutions were not set up to respond very well to many parts of this crisis and what they need, whether it's, maybe the CDC has too much responsibility, maybe they need more flexibility, maybe the FDA needs to be structured differently. But I think there needs to be a number of sort of after action reports, hopefully some kind of congressional investigation to look at why the US public health institutions didn't do a better job.

John Darsie: (38:22)
Right. I think there's sort of a middle ground between sort of unbridled veneration of a lot of the agencies and the public figures that have led our response to the crisis that haven't always done the right thing and openly or questioning all institutions. I think, certainly some critical questions can be asked of certain agencies and people in regard to the response, but I don't think that means we should be questioning science at its heart. But I want to ask you a question for both of you sort of in the same vein, and it starts with Yasmeen. How many people and I know there's been public comment from various public health officials on this, but we have 600,000 plus people have died from COVID-19 in the United States. What's the number that if we had had a competent and rapid response to the pandemic, what's the realistic number that we could have hoped to limit it to in terms of the number of deaths? We'll start with that. And then Damien, they've always, I think the Trump administration, they looked at the economic impacts and the public health impact of COVID as distinct items.

John Darsie: (39:24)
It's like, "If we just keep things open, the economy will keep going." That was pretty much disproven, I think, people if they were going to get sick and potentially die, they weren't going to go out in public to restaurants and things like that. So what do you think the economic impact could have been? Let's say we had a competent response early on in the pandemic, what do you think the economic in terms of mitigating the economic impacts we could have had? We'll start with Yasmeen and then go to Damien on the second question.

Yasmeen Abutaleb: (39:51)
I will say they didn't say the good things to agencies did, but they did, they did a lot right too. I don't know that we know one exact number for how many fewer people would have died with a different response, because there's so many elements to it. There are studies that have shown if everyone had worn masks, you could have prevented I think 60,000 deaths or something around that by last August. And that would have been dramatically more for that devastating winter surge. So, I think it's safe to say hundreds of thousands of deaths could have been prevented with a better response with something as universal as... or as simple as just getting most people to wear masks. Mask wearing was great in some parts of the country and almost non existent in other parts.

Yasmeen Abutaleb: (40:34)
And then of course, I think consistent messaging would have made a really big difference, there's such a divide in how seriously people perceive the threat of the virus. And that affected what measures they were willing to take. And then of course, the fact that the US has a pretty poor safety net just made this exponentially more difficult for low income people, for essential workers who have to go into work. And then of course, for communities of color, black and Hispanic people were three times more likely to die than white people from the virus. So, there were a number of factors. But if there had been an administration paying attention to all of these issues, and continually stressing the need to wear masks that it had never gotten to the point it's gotten now, I think it is safe to say hundreds of thousands of deaths would have been prevented.

Damian Paletta: (41:23)
And on the economy, it's such a interesting question. I think what they did, and what they had to do at the time was an enormous amount of government assistance in March with the two trillion dollar Cares Act, and then they had to come back again, with another couple trillion dollars as the year went on. And so what they did in a way was they prevented... The stock market came back with the help of the Federal Reserve starting in late March of 2020 to now, where it's at record levels. Unfortunately, the White House saw the stock market rebound as their indicator that the economy was fine. And really what had happened was the economy was kind of addicted to government support. Because they gave hundreds of billions of dollars in small businesses, the stimulus checks went out, unemployment assistance went out, there was no way and to this day it continues, the government is still so attracted in the economy, that we don't know what will happen when a lot of these programs are allowed to expire. Can all these small businesses stand on their own two feet? We don't know.

Damian Paletta: (42:25)
Will the airline industry really come back, or if the Delta variant really sweeps through Europe, is that going to knock the travel industry off? I don't know. I think what we have to consider is that the hard things were not fixed. There're still millions and millions of Americans who do not have jobs because their job has disappeared. It's not like they're waiting for their employer to rehire them, the company doesn't exist anymore, or doesn't need them anymore because of automation or some other reason. And we're seeing these huge supply chain problems, the rental car industry is a total disaster, you can sell your used car now for more than you bought it for when it was new.

Damian Paletta: (43:06)
There's just these things in the economy that are broken. And the easy thing was just to give everyone money, and they had to do that. People needed to survive. But we don't know now what will happen when for example, the rental protections expire. Are they really going to kick hundreds of thousands or millions of people out of their apartments? These harder things haven't been done yet. And that's the legacy of the pandemic. And that's going to be really hard for the Biden administration to sort out.

John Darsie: (43:34)
Well, Damien and Yasmeen, it's been a pleasure to have you on again, I think you wrote in a sea of, I'm not going to say generic books and criticize the other books. But there's been a lot of political analysis of the Trump administration, while you guys certainly integrated politics into your discussion, I think it was a masterclass and just evaluating the administration's response to the pandemic, and something that's still ongoing and still affecting us today. What was their initial response and the sort of cleaning up of that process? But Anthony, do have a final word before we let Damien and Yasmeen go?

Anthony Scaramucci: (44:06)
No, I applaud the truth in your book, I'm shocked by a lot of the decisions that were born from ignorance or insecurity frankly, and I think it's a cautionary tale about the centralization of power frankly, because if you get one person in the mix, they can be destabilizing to a whole group of people that know better. And so I think that's really the lesson of the book. So, I just want to thank you, because it's a big contribution. And I know people will look back on it and say that this was very valuable to understanding what happened during one of our worst public health and safety crisis, which is still going on unfortunately.

Damian Paletta: (44:47)
Yeah. Well, that means a lot, Anthony. Thank you so much for saying that.

Anthony Scaramucci: (44:51)
It's the-

Yasmeen Abutaleb: (44:52)
Yeah, thanks for letting us come on and talk about it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (44:53)
No, we're going to sell a lot of books for you guys. You deserve it and we wish you nothing but great success with it.

Yasmeen Abutaleb: (44:58)
Thank you so much.

John Darsie: (44:59)
Well, they don't need our help, they were an instant bestseller. Again, the book is Nightmare Scenario: Inside the Trump Administration's Response to the Pandemic That Changed History. If you haven't ordered it, or haven't read it, we definitely highly recommend it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (45:13)
By the way, Yasmeen, he did ask very good questions though. It's sort of upsetting me.

Yasmeen Abutaleb: (45:18)
He did. He boasted. He boasted-

Anthony Scaramucci: (45:20)
No, he has very good question. Better stop with the firing stuff though, come November, because I'm obviously-

John Darsie: (45:29)
I didn't say firing, I just said [crosstalk 00:45:31]-

Anthony Scaramucci: (45:30)
I'm almost a senior citizen now, so I'm going to be forgetting the fact that you were bringing it up in July by the time your bonus gets set. But you should stop it at some point. I'm just letting you know.

John Darsie: (45:39)
I just said you spent a very illustrious 11 days in my opinion, it was the best 11 days of the entire-

Anthony Scaramucci: (45:45)
It was 954,000 seconds. That's what I have to tell my therapist. Okay? So, everybody relax.

John Darsie: (45:52)
All right. Well, thank you guys again, and thank you, everybody for tuning in to today's Salt Talk with Damian and Yasmeen, talking about their book. Just a reminder, if you missed any part of this talk or any of our previous Salt Talks, you can access them on our website on demand@salt.org\talks, or on our YouTube channel, which is called SaltTube. We're also on social media, Twitter is where we're most active @SaltConference, where Anthony gets a lot of his death threats, but we're also on LinkedIn, Instagram and Facebook as well. I'm happy to Anthony and the entire Salt team. This is John Darsie signing off for today. We hope to see you back here again soon.

Mariana Mazzucato: Mission Economy | SALT Talks #239

“As long as your investing through the public sector in really ambitious areas that are solving social and technological goals alongside private sector entities, you’re expanding your productive capacity… That won’t cause inflation because you’re expanding the pie.”

Mariana Mazzucato (PhD) is Professor in the Economics of Innovation and Public Value at University College London (UCL), where she is Founding Director of the UCL Institute for Innovation & Public Purpose (IIPP). She is winner of international prizes including the 2020 John von Neumann Award, the 2019 All European Academies Madame de Staël Prize for Cultural Values, and 2018 Leontief Prize for Advancing the Frontiers of Economic Thought. She was named as one of the '3 most important thinkers about innovation' by The New Republic, one of the 50 most creative people in business in 2020 by Fast Company, and one of the 25 leaders shaping the future of capitalism by WIRED. She is the author of three highly-acclaimed books: The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths (2013), The Value of Everything: Making and Taking in the Global Economy (2018) and the newly released, Mission Economy: A Moonshot Guide to Changing Capitalism (2021).

Mariana Mazzucato explains how Keynesian economics and counter-cyclical government spending is foundational to her perspective, but is only one part of her approach. Mazzucato gives her thoughts on debates around deficits and inflation, and how political polarization stands in the way of progress. She explains the importance of structuring a mission-oriented economy that requires a fundamental restructuring of public-private partnerships- creating conditionality around big, ambitious goals. This requires government to be creative and bold in solving the most urgent social and technological challenges, particularly around sustainability and the climate.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

MODERATOR

SPEAKER

Headshot+-+Woo,+Willy+-+Cropped.jpeg

Mariana Mazzucato

Professor

University College London

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

TIMESTAMPS

0:00 - Intro

7:30 - Background

6:32 - Economic perspective

14:44 - Deficits, polarization and political action

26:58 - Structuring a mission-oriented economy

35:41 - Mission-oriented policy from the Biden administration

42:22 - Vision, innovation and conditionality around infrastructure

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:07)
Hello, everyone, and welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is John Darsie. I'm the Managing Director of SALT, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance, technology and public policy. SALT Talks are a digital interview series with leading investors, creators and thinkers that we started in 2020. Our goal with these talks is the same as our goal at our SALT conferences, which we're excited to resume in September of 2021. That's to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future.

John Darsie: (00:44)
Today's guest I think has a better grasp on what those ideas need to be for us to sort of fix a lot of the ills that are plaguing the world and capitalism than anybody that we've had here on SALT Talks. We're very excited to have her. That's Mariana Mazzucato, PhD. She's a Professor in the Economics of Innovation and Public Value at the University College London, where she is the Founding Director of the UCL Institute for Innovation & Public Purpose. She received her Bachelor's degree, like Anthony, from Tufts University, and her Master's and PhD in Economics from the Graduate Faculty of the New School for Social Research.

John Darsie: (01:22)
Her previous posts include the RM Phillips Professorial Chair at the Science Policy Research Unit at Sussex University. She is a selected fellow of the UK’s Academy of Social Sciences and of the Italian National Science Academy. She's a winner of international prizes including the 2020 John von Neumann Award, the 2019 All European Academies Madame de Staël Prize for Cultural Values, and the 2018 Leontief Prize for Advancing the Frontiers of Economic Thought.

John Darsie: (01:55)
She was named one of the three most important thinkers about innovation by The New Republic, one of the 50 most creative people in business in 2020 by Fast Company, and one of the 25 leaders shaping the future of capitalism by WIRED. She's the author of three fantastic and highly-acclaimed books. The first one, The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths, which came out in 2013; The Value of Everything: Making and Taking in the Global Economy, which was released in 2018; and her newly released book, Mission Economy: A Moonshot Guide to Changing Capitalism. We highly recommend all those books. Today, we'll be focusing on the third and most recent book, Mission Economy, but we again highly recommend all three.

John Darsie: (02:37)
Mariana advises policy makers around the world on innovation led inclusive and sustainable growth, including the World Health Organization, OECD, the UN, and policy makers in Scotland, South Africa, Argentina, Sweden and Norway. She's a citizen of the world too. She was telling us before we went live that she was born in Italy, raised largely in the United States. I think her father taught at Princeton. Then now resides in the beautiful city of London. Hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, who is the Founder and Managing Partner at SkyBridge Capital, which is a global alternative investment firm. With that, I'll turn it over to Anthony for the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:16)
Are you going to mention I got fired from the White House, John?

John Darsie: (03:20)
I'm not going to mention that one today.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:21)
I know you tried to throw that in there. I mean, every SALT Talk-

John Darsie: (03:23)
Mariana is sort of adjacent to [crosstalk 00:03:26]-

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:26)
Mariana, he tries to throw that into every SALT Talk, Mariana. I didn't want him to spare you. All right, you're a brilliant person. Let's just get to the facts. You're an absolutely brilliant person. Congratulations on the book. Why go into being an economist? Did you study economics at Tufts, just out of curiosity?

Mariana Mazzucato: (03:47)
Well, it's so interesting how different the US educational system is, the whole kind of liberal arts degrees. Here in the UK, unfortunately people start specializing way too early. If I think back at Tufts, no, I was much broader than just the economics. I was a double major in history and international relations. They have the Fletcher School there, that you'll know. And a minor in Latin American studies. What actually got me interested in economics was both some economics courses that I was taking as part of that, because I later went on as, you kindly talked about in the introduction, into economics for my Master's and PhD.

Mariana Mazzucato: (04:21)
Especially what I learned in those economics classes was what a debate there was within the economic field, and yet how much the existing theory, the one's that taught around the world in Econ 101 classes, is just one theory. We don't actually talk about all the different types of theories that exist. When we do, it's more like in a history of economic thought kind of perspective. Like, "Once upon a time Marx said that. Then Keynes said this. There's some other thinkers, but real economics is neoclassical economics." The fact that there's actually different tools out there, and yet we're only using mainly tools from one particular theory.

Mariana Mazzucato: (04:56)
That even the mathematics that's used in economic theory tends to be just from one branch of economics, basically Newtonian physics, all wed to a center of gravity, a unique equilibria and so on, I was very interested in widening that out. Also because I felt that the economy, and all the pressures that countries have in trying to show that their economically sound, required a much broader more open discussion that wasn't siloed within one particular theory that presented itself as the universal wisdom.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:28)
For those that are not economists, or for people like me who studied economics in college but probably don't remember most of it, tell us about economics for a second. There are different sleeves of economics. Just for our young viewers, we have a Keynesian sleeve, which is about stimulating the economy. Some could call it deficit spending. I don't want to oversimplify it, of course. Then you have the Austrian sleeve, which is sort of wedded to free economic principles and capitalism.

Anthony Scaramucci: (06:00)
Then you have the Chicago School, which was Milton Friedman and his ideas around the free economy, and market based economics. Sort of keeping true to the principle of monetary stability, as opposed to debasement of anything related to our currency. Where do you fit in those categories? When I read your book, I don't see you fitting in any of those categories, frankly. I see you as a solutions based economist, irrespective of these theories.

Mariana Mazzucato: (06:32)
Right. Well it's really interesting you say that. I was very much informed and learned from those different theories. In the spirit of what I was saying before, I think it's really important for one to use the bits of the theories that one thinks are actually useful. Not necessarily taking the whole, everything that's in the bucket. For example, with Keynesian economics, I think in some ways Keynes was misunderstood. He wasn't just about counter cyclical spending. First, what did Keynes say? He said that when government acts as a private individual, so spends or invests too much in the boom and too little in the bust, that's why we actually get recessions that turn into depressions.

Mariana Mazzucato: (07:15)
You get this vicious cycle of the whole economy kind of unwinding. He really was one of the first people that talked about counter cyclical government, which is why by the way since World War II, shortly after that is when he had a lot of influence, we actually haven't had so many depressions. If you just look at the data in terms of global output, there was constant depressions before World War II. Since then, we have recessions, part of the business cycle, but more or less we've avoided big crashes like the great crash of 1929. Yet before 1945, they were constant. Government coming in and being a counter cyclical force was very important. By the way, minor inflation between say two and 4%, is actually an outcome of stabilizing the economy.

Mariana Mazzucato: (08:02)
Another thing you see in the data, if you look at before 1945, is often deflation. Something actually that we've currently experienced with this massive pandemic and economic activity coming to a halt. The bit of Keynes that I think has been misunderstood, and that's why I sort of pick up his theory and push it forwards in a new way, is that it's not just about counter cyclical government. It's about actually doing what's not being done. There's no point for government investment or spending to do what someone else could, and you're sort of just filling a gap. In fact, the fact that in economics, and even some misinterpreted Keynes is understood as government fixing market failures.

Mariana Mazzucato: (08:42)
It means you're always too little too late. You're always kind of patching the system up, as opposed to having real ambition and vision for what needs to be done. Which doesn't mean that government should do it all, some sort of centrally planned, micro managed top-down system. No, I don't believe in that. I do believe that the point of public policy, and the reason I set up the whole institution around pubic purpose, is that what we should expect from government, at least those that are democratically elected, is really setting a vision. For example, today surely for fighting global warming, but then how that can be done of course needs to be crowding in a many different types of actors in the business community and so on. But if you don't have a vision, it doesn't happen.

Mariana Mazzucato: (09:25)
Kind of mixing Keynesian economics, and that notion of counter cyclical government, but also with a vision of actually dreaming up a better world. Using creativity and our full imagination, and really getting discussions and debates happening across different stakeholders in the economy. I think that is the role of government. To do that, you need to be innovative. I've also borrowed a lot from Schumpeter. Schumpeter being a very important economist who also showed how traditional economics almost couldn't deal with innovation, because it's so wed to showing unique equilibria, representative agents. That all firms are more or less alike and any differences get winnowed away in the long run, and we get to these average actors.

Mariana Mazzucato: (10:08)
He said innovation is constantly disrupting that. We get multiple equilibria, dis-equilibria, constant differences between companies that are trying to differentiate themselves to increase their market share. Yet all those properties aren't within our kind of traditional understanding of the economy. Even to introduce innovation in traditional economic thought, you need to introduce it through what's called imperfect competition. You need to introduce, in the theory, patents for example that will incentivize a company to innovate, but that's a sign of imperfect information and then assymetry. Anyway, I don't want bore your audience.

Mariana Mazzucato: (10:43)
The point is, borrowing from Schumpeter, who said we need a new theory if we really want to understand innovation, creativity, the dynamic potential of the economy, and actually to use dynamic tools. That's why I also went to the Santa Fe Institute for Complexity Thinking in New Mexico during my PhD. That idea that we also need, for example, perhaps more mathematics from biology and not Newtonian physics, so that we can actually map these distance for mean dynamics, these replicator dynamics which biologists have looked at for a long time. What I think we lack today, and the reason I wrote my recent book, Mission Economy, is precisely that first question. What's the mission? What's the vision? If we don't have that, there's no point in having government. We didn't get to the moon and back by fixing market failures.

Mariana Mazzucato: (11:31)
You had a really ambitious plan by government. You had Kennedy saying, "We're going to do it because it's hard, not because it's easy." All the language we have today of the government not only just fixing markets, but de-risking the cool risk takers and business of at best leveling the playing field. Studying the rules of the game, facilitating those who are going to take on the difficulties. You'll appreciate this. The word facile in Italian, Anthony, means easy. The idea that government is there just to make things easier for others, which is the traditional way to think of things, just makes no sense if you look back at that kind of Kennedy speech.

Mariana Mazzucato: (12:08)
He said, "We're going to do this because it's hard. We're going to take on these difficulties together. We might fail along the way, but that's fine, because it's worth it." What is worth it today to us? I think we need to go to the sustainable development goals that every country has signed up to. Break them down into different types of moon shots that require both public and private, also sometimes third sector kind of philanthropy institutions. To really invest and create partnerships that are truly symbiotic and mutualistic, but focused on goals as opposed to just handouts to these random categories that we often get.

Anthony Scaramucci: (12:44)
I mean it's beautifully well said. You delve into a lot of this in the book. I've got so many questions, but I'm going to start with my top three. They're a little disjointed, but I want you to stay with me. Do deficits matter? That's my number one question. That's sort of a Stephanie Kelton question. We've had Professor Kelton on with us to talk about her book The Deficit Myth. Number two-

Mariana Mazzucato: (13:11)
I was just on the phone with her 10 minutes ago.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:13)
Okay. Yeah, so we're big fans of Professor Kelton. She's opened my eyes to a lot of this. I would like your opinion on that, do deficits matter? The second question is, your ideas are fantastic but there seems to be a lack of Kennedyesque boldness in the political system globally, particularly in the West where the West seems to be fighting with each other. That could be frankly something that... I mean who knows? We've certainly looked into the active measures of the Russian government. We recognize that there's a lot of robotic technology out there that's helping to polarize our countries, but we're doing it to ourselves. I want to get the reaction to that. Then the third thing is, if I'm right about the second thing, how do we fix it? Deficit's number one. Number two, what about the political will to do the things that require the boldness of thinking that you're writing about. Can we fix it?

Mariana Mazzucato: (14:16)
Great. An amazing set of questions. Let me start with the first one.

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:18)
Let me stop you right there. Darsie, did you hear that? An amazing set of questions. I get very jealous Professor, because no one ever says that to me. They always say to Darsie, "Oh, John. What a great question. What a great question." Which is horrifying. Okay, we're going to end the SALT Talk right there. Professor, it was a pleasure to have you on. Thank you. No come back, I'm sorry.

Mariana Mazzucato: (14:43)
Well, it's a great set of questions because they're all three of them. If you just asked does the deficit matter, which unfortunately that is what the media tends to focus on, without getting to the point of, if actually we would worry less about the deficit, what should we worry about? That's the boldness bit. Then how can we actually fix the problems which are about all this siloed ways of thinking about both deficits and what the role of government is, and so on? Anyway, deficits. You and I both at least... Let me say historically come from Italy. Italy is a perfect place to answer that question. We have actually had a low deficit in the last 20 years in Italy in terms of the difference between what government spends and invests, and the tax revenue, and yet a very high debt to GDP.

Mariana Mazzucato: (15:27)
Unfortunately, we don't talk about that enough. Countries that are not investing enough in both the public sector and the private sector don't grow. They don't actually have long run growth potential. Their productivity, for example, remains stagnant, as Italy's productivity has remained stagnant over the last 20 years. The denominator of debt to GDP doesn't grow. Even with a mildly rising deficit, or the size of a deficit, whether it's two, 5%, 10%, whatever it may be, if you are not actually investing in key areas that increase your productivity, that might be publicly and privately funded research and development, a solid education system, training of workers, dynamic sustainable infrastructure and so on, then your rate of growth lags.

Mariana Mazzucato: (16:17)
You can have a very high debt to GDP, because the denominator is not growing. In fact in theory, the debt to GDP can go to infinity if the denominator is not growing. You'll remember when a ratio has zero in the denominator, no matter what's in the numerator it goes to infinity. That's a first point which I don't think is made enough even by the MMT folks, Stephanie Kelton and others. I really appreciate Stephanie's work. I think just that point needs to be made more.

Mariana Mazzucato: (16:43)
Otherwise, what we end up with is countries that obsess about the deficit, make all sorts of cuts to the public sector. Yet not only are they damaging society in terms of the cuts that are made often to really important social structures like public education, public health and so on, then they don't even solve the debt problem. Their debt to GDP rises even more so than it would have to, because government also has to come in and fix all those different problems that come about by a badly performing economy.

Mariana Mazzucato: (17:12)
The other point there with deficits is that as long as what government is investing in, and I again in the book argue for moon shots around all sorts of different targets that have to do with sustainability, combating inequality, for example. Imagine a mission that was to reduce to almost zero the digital divide so that our kids, when they are in lockdown, globally all have equal access to their human right to education because of the zero digital divide. That itself could foster all sorts of investment in innovation in both the public and private sectors. As long as you're actually investing through the public sector in really ambitious areas that are again solving social and technological goals alongside private sector entities, you're actually then expanding your productive capacity in the country.

Mariana Mazzucato: (18:01)
As long as you're doing that, your productive capacity, but also the social capacity and making that economy more resilient, but also expanding the opportunities for investment by others. As long as you're doing that, and not just kind of flying in helicopter money. Just kind of digging ditches and filling them up again. That was actually a quote by Keynes, which had to do with something else which I won't go into. As long as you're really being ambitious and strategic and mission oriented, then also that will not cause inflation because you're expanding the pie. The reason you would get inflation is if you just put in a lot of money.

Mariana Mazzucato: (18:37)
For example, expand people's aggregate demand, let's say, the Keynesian point of view. If you're not also expanding the productive capacity, that could potentially lead to higher prices. Which in and of itself, by the way, is not a huge problem. I already mentioned before that mild inflation is usually also a symptom of a growing economy. The fact that we don't have these continual depressions as we did before World War II, which caused constant deflation. Inflation getting out of hand can occur when this huge increase in the money supply occurs without that expansion of the productive capacity itself. That's why what you're investing in matters. It's not just handing out a lot of money to people and to businesses.

Mariana Mazzucato: (19:21)
It is about doing that in an intelligent way, for example around a strategy. For example around the Green New Deal, why not? We can go into more what that might look like. That brings us back to the issue about vision and mission. That it's not just about flooding the system with liquidity. We did, by the way, after the financial crisis. We flooded the system with liquidity in order to save basically the capitalist system. Most of that money ended up back inside the financial sector. That's another issue, which is how do we make sure that this money when it's created is directed towards productive capacity in the real economy, and also help transform that real economy so that it is more inclusive, more sustainable and so on?

Mariana Mazzucato: (20:01)
That brings us to your second question. Well to do that, surely you need creative thinking. We need collective intelligence in our political process. We need all sorts of really dynamic collaborations also between different actors in the economy, government, business, civil society and so on. That boldness in the political system that you talked about, I think that we have a vicious cycle. I come back to that phrase I used before. The more you think that government at best is there to fix the system, to fix what economists call market failures, there's no real reason for boldness, is there? There's also no real reason to be investing within your organization in the public sector, in what call the dynamic capabilities of the state and of the public sector.

Mariana Mazzucato: (20:45)
I actually think we've had the opposite of that. This is actually the key point of a new book I'm starting to write, we've had a massive outsourcing of government capacity to the private sector. The problem is not the private sector, it's the outsourcing of government's brain to the private sector. You see this also with consulting companies, KPMG, McKinsey, PWC. They are increasingly actually doing for a government what government should be investing within its own civil service to do. When you don't have that, government potentially also becomes stupid. It's not just a lack of boldness. It's a lack of learning by doing, if you're no longer doing and governing and managing.

Mariana Mazzucato: (21:23)
Again, it doesn't mean the government has to do everything. It's always about partnership, but when you stop investing in your own capabilities, this is something that NASA during the moon landing, during the Apollo program was very aware of. They knew they had to collaborate with lots of private companies. They did. They worked with companies as different as Motorola, Honeywell, General Electric and so on. They actually knew that in order to partner properly, in order to partner with a common purpose, they themselves needed capabilities. There was this really interesting quote I found in doing the research by someone called Ernest Brackett, who was the head for procurement for NASA. He said, if we stop investing in our own brain, we will be captured by what he called brochuremanship.

Mariana Mazzucato: (22:08)
In other words, private companies just coming in with a nice little shiny brochure saying, "I'll work with you." With NASA not really knowing if they were serious or not, did they have any real skills? They wouldn't even know how to write the terms of reference with the private sector if they themselves weren't investing in-house. I think that, to be honest, is just as much of a problem as the lack of boldness, but they actually go hand-in-hand. When you're bold, when you are mission oriented, you're also a really great place to come and work. If we continue to portray the public sector and build the public sector, that at best is about de-risking the cool risk takers in business, of course a young bright graduate will prefer to go work in business.

Mariana Mazzucato: (22:48)
That's why I wrote The Entrepreneurial State back in 2013, which was also to say, we use the word entrepreneurship to talk about businesses and places like Silicon Valley. Yet basically every real risk that was taken in the underlying technology, so in the early stage high risk phase of the internet, GPS, touch screen, Siri, you name it, everything that makes our smart products smart and not stupid came out of public funding. Yet we know so little about those public investments. It wasn't just, again, helicopter money into the economy. These were mission oriented organizations like DARPA, an innovation agency inside the Department of Defense. As economists, since we know innovation matters, it's again a key driver of long-term growth.

Mariana Mazzucato: (23:32)
You would think that we would have studied how do you set up dynamic mission oriented public organizations in all sorts of areas, health, energy, defense, to do that kind of DARPA thing? Yet there's very little understanding. Again, that's why I set up this institution, which is a full fledged department at University College London. We believe that we also need a new curriculum for civil servants globally that is less from Chicago's school ramifications into the civil service, which is basically new public management and a public choice theory, and more about a new curriculum which is truly about collective value creation, challenge led thinking, building creative bureaucracies, not boring bureaucracies. Also things like design thinking, and really governing digital platforms for the common good that require specific types of capabilities within the state, which we don't have.

Mariana Mazzucato: (24:24)
That's your third question, how do you fix it? Well that's I think the answer. We can't fix it just by saying, "Oh, that policy's stupid. Let's do that policy." It has to actually go to the core of how we think, how we've been trained, how we think about the role of the state. How we think about value creation as truly collective so that it's not just the production function. This is a concept within traditional economics. There's the production function, which is basically how value is created in the company. At best, government is to redistribute that value, or to somehow enable it from the sidelines. What does it need to fix the system using these ideas of the common good? Also collective value creation at the core so we also begin from the beginning with issues around capacity and capabilities within both public and private.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:13)
So it's fixable.

Mariana Mazzucato: (25:15)
It is. I mean there's nothing inevitable in something like the concept of secular stagnation. That's an outcome of the lack of ambitious investment. In fact, maybe that's a good point. I'm just letting you get like one word in, then I keep going off and rap.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:29)
I think it's good, by the way-

Mariana Mazzucato: (25:31)
But just on the private sector. Yeah?

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:34)
By the way, the only person that has ever been accused of boring people on the SALT Talk is me. That's not Darsie telling me that. I think you're doing great.

Mariana Mazzucato: (25:41)
Poor John. He's getting a lot of grief from you. No, it's just-

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:46)
Yeah. That's part of our schtick, Mariana. Otherwise I can't get my... I mean he's running the company. He's sitting in my office. The last time I checked, I think he stole my W-2. I don't know. It's a little bit of generational jealousy that I like to display on our-

John Darsie: (26:02)
By the way, I already filed an HR complaint while this talk was ongoing.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:06)
By the way, Mariana, you'll be pleased to know that the head of HR at SkyBridge is me.

Mariana Mazzucato: (26:10)
Okay.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:11)
There's a paper shredder right next to that complaint area. Just letting you know that.

Mariana Mazzucato: (26:17)
That's awesome.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:18)
This is the point that I think you're making, that I want you to emphasize. It is totally fixable. One of the things that Kennedy also said at American University in June of 1963, he said that these problems that we have are... Forgive me, it's not sex. At the time, it really was.

Mariana Mazzucato: (26:35)
Yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:35)
These problems were mostly man made.

Mariana Mazzucato: (26:38)
Yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:38)
As a result, definitionally women and men can fix these problems. I'd like you to delve into that a little bit.

Mariana Mazzucato: (26:44)
Sure.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:45)
This is solvable for us. We don't have to sit here in a crisis of stagnation and pessimism. This is one of the beautiful things about your book. This is solvable. Just elaborate a little more, if you don't mind.

Mariana Mazzucato: (26:57)
Sure. I mean I've talked enough about why I think government can be structured in a different way, and have much more ambition, and building both on kind of the Keynes and the Schumpeterian tradition. Also that kind of intra-organizational issue, which by the way, a wonderful woman economist used to write about in the 1920s, Edith Penrose. She talked about in terms of the private sector. She's responsible for a huge change within economic theory around the dynamic capabilities of the firm, of the company. That has led to all sorts of advances in management theory. I'm kind of calling for the same equivalent rethinking of capabilities and capacity within the government sector, precisely so it can be ambitious and bold. Your kind of that second question. It's not going to happen on its own by just calling out for boldness.

Mariana Mazzucato: (27:42)
One of the main things that needs to be fixed, and why I think we can do it... In fact, let me backtrack a bit. Where is the problem? The problem is that we've come to believe that the economy is kind of this deterministic system that is going in particular ways. Every now and then, we have to fix it, including the pandemic. "Oh, dear. Fix that one." Climate change, "Oh, no. Fix that one." Given that we don't fix it. Whereas if you start with the idea that the economy is an outcome, and markets themselves, the market economy. That's what we have, is an outcome of how we govern all the different actors in the economy. From the state actors, and I've already talked about the problems around a pure market fixing idea of the state in terms of how it's governed. In the private sector, this idea that it's just kind of maximizing its profits, and the right thing to do is just to maximize shareholder value as a consequence of that.

Mariana Mazzucato: (28:34)
That's a choice. There's all sorts of different ways to actually set up companies. Those decisions will also determine what kind of market outcome we get, but also the decisions of how public and private interrelate one to another. This idea that it's just about partnership and ecosystems of innovation... That's the trendy word that people use in my world. Really? What kind of ecosystem? What kind of partnership? I don't know if you're married. I have I think a nice marriage, but we know there's many abusive marriages. Any sort of partnership has to be dissected in what kind of partnership it is. I think we have problems on all those three levels. We have a misgoverned public sector, a misgoverned private sector that should be governed much more around notions of stakeholder value, not maximizing just shareholder value, and we have a very problematic relationship between the two.

Mariana Mazzucato: (29:21)
If we want to use the ecosystem terminology, we should learn from biologists who are a bit more concrete when they use that word. They will actually distinguish an ecosystem which is predator prey, parasitic, symbiotic or mutualistic. How do we build a truly mutualistic public private partnership? How do we govern business to be stakeholder and purpose driven? How do we govern the state to be mission oriented in that kind of Kennedy way, but around social issues, which of course are not just technological? These are wicked problems we have today that also require regulatory change, political change, organizational, technological. The reason we have problems is that all three of those are currently problematic.

Mariana Mazzucato: (30:05)
I think just the fact that we have such a financialized business sector, so over $4 trillion have been spent by the Fortune 500 companies in the last 10 years in buying back their own shares. Buy back your shares, increase your share price, increase stock options. Surprise, surprise, increase executive pay, which is often paid via stock options. You can undo that. In fact, it used to be undone. It used to actually be illegal. If you look at the history of share buybacks, the excessive use... Some share buybacks are fine. The excessive use of share buybacks is something that was then allowed during the whole period of deregulation. If you look at what the SEC did around that, that can be undone, but there was huge lobbying for that.

Mariana Mazzucato: (30:50)
Or if you look at capital gains tax, which at the end of the 1970s, early '80s, it went down by something like 50% in just four years. That's not only wrong, and I can tell you more about why I think that's a problem. It basically just increases short-termism in our financial sector. It didn't just happen. It wasn't just like, "Oh, whoops. We made a mistake." There was a huge amount of lobbying that occurred from the financial sector, interestingly mainly from the venture capital community at the time that was just starting up. To do that with the idea that, oh, we're going to invest in innovation as long as our capital gains is low. The National Venture Capital Association actually was responsible for that lobbying. That was believed, as opposed to just looking at the data.

Mariana Mazzucato: (31:33)
Also, today we could look at the data, where you see that venture capital has been the most successful when it has been on the back of public forms of venture capital. Whether it's the kind of Yozma funding in Israel, which is a public venture capital fund. Whether it's the SBIR in DARPA type funding in the US, with VC coming in almost always about 10 years or 15 years after the public sector. Made the big investments in biotech, nanotech, internet and so on. Which would be fine if we just admitted it. There's nothing wrong with coming in later. What's wrong is the kind of narrative, the storytelling, the lies... I guess we could also use that word, which then determines the kind of tax policy we have.

Mariana Mazzucato: (32:15)
This idea that only the Silicon Valley type companies, the venture capitalists, or in the health sector big pharma, or the big innovation machines, without admitting that collective risk taking, collective value creation has been used to then inform very problematic tax policies. In terms of fixing, you can't just reverse that. Say, "Oh, no. Don't do that tax. Do that tax." You need to uncover the assumptions and the stories and the lobbying that was made in order to get us that kind of regressive taxation. Otherwise, even if you undo it, someone else is going to redo it because you actually haven't created a new story. I'll just say one more thing, because I do need to let you get in a word every now and then.

Mariana Mazzucato: (33:01)
I believe that a progressive story has to be just as much about how to create wealth in a different way as also redistributing that wealth. If we're interested in inclusive growth, not just sustainable growth... I do think sustainability is key. Just look at what's happening to our planet today, the fires in BC and so on, Germany the floods this week. That kind of inclusive economy, not the 1% 99% economy, can't just be fixed with redistributive policies, as important as they are. I really believe in progressive taxation, not regressive taxation, and so on. We need to fundamentally create different relationships, different structures in the first place in a pre-distributive mode.

Anthony Scaramucci: (33:44)
All right, well listen. The reason I let you go is that I think what you're saying is absolutely brilliant. I think more people need to get their arms around the notion that we can fix this. You said something I think very insightful that's worth repeating. The media is often focused on the problem, or the near-term problem, or the scary term deficit. People look at that from a household perspective, and you and people like Professor Kelton don't look at that as a household. You look at it more from a macro economic perspective, where you can see that the money's still in the system, and it's not as scary as it may sound to a household oriented person. I'm going to turn it over to the millennial, John Darsie, who has some questions for you, Professor. If you say, "Good question, John," I may leave the screen temporarily as I take different medications here. Go ahead, John.

John Darsie: (34:40)
Yeah. I think Anthony took all the great questions. I'm going to struggle to get a good question here.

Anthony Scaramucci: (34:45)
Get the hell out of here.

John Darsie: (34:46)
You've also poisoned the well. You've also poisoned the well. Even if I do deliver a great question, she's going to be hesitant to [crosstalk 00:34:53]-

Anthony Scaramucci: (34:52)
I definitely did that. That was the definite goal, was to do that.

Mariana Mazzucato: (34:57)
You guys should set up a radio station like Car Talk.

John Darsie: (35:02)
I guess that's sort of halfway what we have here.

Anthony Scaramucci: (35:04)
Yeah it is. There's no doubt there's a little bit of that going on.

John Darsie: (35:09)
Yeah, huge fans of your thinking, your way of thinking, and your book of course, Mariana. You're a big proponent of mission oriented thinking. We've talked with various guests on this program about the way we need to should rethink our society in the United States. This is also a global issue around. The more mission oriented thinking. On a practical basis, in the United States if we said, "We're going to recommit ourselves to more mission oriented thinking." What would that look like in practice? What recommendations would you have for our government?

Mariana Mazzucato: (35:41)
Well first of all, it's a really good question, but especially... And I haven't said this to Anthony, to ask it now. Why? Because Biden's team is actually investing not only in this big infrastructure bill, but in some ways they're highlighting again, after four years of kind of mercantilistic policy, where all the focus was on terms of trade, and foreigners and so on. By focusing on industrial and innovation policy, instead of just terms of trade and building walls, the first thing is, "Well, what do we need from an innovation policy? What do we need from an industrial strategy?" Which you'll know has actually received some bipartisan support, which initially was through the National Frontier Act, that now is with this new innovation and competitiveness bill that being passed through. I haven't checked yet whether it's completely out there.

Mariana Mazzucato: (36:28)
Anyway, what's really important is to first of all remember where the source of competitiveness in the US has come from. Again, I've already talked about it a bit, but those kind of big bold investments by agencies like SBIR, NIH, national institutes of health, which is public financed, funding something like 75% of our blockbuster drugs. The new molecular entities with priority rating almost all trace their initial high risk research to publicly financed national institutes of health. Again, DARPA, ARPA-E and so on. The first thing is, I really believe that in any kind of thinking about missions and mission oriented thinking, we also have to go to the organizations in question to make sure we understand them enough.

Mariana Mazzucato: (37:11)
We understand how they think about their portfolios of investment, so they're not putting all their eggs in one basket and so on. Also kind of really galvanizing that intra-organizational culture of risk taking within the civil service, which unfortunately we all think don't have. I've just done a whole study for the BBC, by the way, on notions of public value that they've had as a public broadcaster. How interesting it is that by having that, they've been able to really again crowd in lots of private sector investment in new areas that they wouldn't have if they just saw their role like PBS does in the United States.

Mariana Mazzucato: (37:44)
Which I love PBS, but it really just does what kind of a market fixing public institution does. Whereas the BBC kind of reframes soap operas, talk shows. Basically changing the Dallas and Dynasty soap operas... You're too young. You probably don't know what I'm talking about. EastEnders, a soap opera about the working class, that was all done through really interesting intra-organizational issues. Very different from DARPA, but still very kind of public purpose oriented.

Mariana Mazzucato: (38:11)
The second is, what are we even trying to do? One is this organizational element, which I think we don't have enough ambitious public organizations because they've bought into this idea that they're there just to facilitate, DARPA being an exception. Again, lots of these organizations I talk to in some ways being exceptions. The next thing is, what do we mean by mission oriented policy framing? What would it look like in the US? What I do in the book, I guess as Anthony was saying, I try to make it more of a recipe book. All right, let's get our hands dirty and see what this might look like. I give examples which I think are very relevant to the US.

Mariana Mazzucato: (38:43)
If we had, for example, a mission to have all large US cities all carbon neutral by say 2030, imagine the massive amount of innovation that would require in areas as different as construction materials, real estate, mobility systems, food, the social sector. And all the different kind of projects that you would want to be crowding in through very well designed procurement grants and loans, which would be less just about handouts, guarantees and subsidies to the private sector, as they often are. Much more with conditions attached, to make sure that kind of investment is leading to something that is purposeful. That would include buildings with carbon neutral components, a lean urban electric mobility system, citizen carbon ID cards, carbon neutral urban food industry and so on.

Mariana Mazzucato: (39:30)
Starting with the challenge, turning it into a mission, like having carbon neutral cities everywhere. Having that intersectoral approach, just like the moon landing was, where there was investment in nutrition, electronics, materials, software and so on. That next phase of redesigning the tools from bottom up so they really galvanize that experimentation across the economy, that's what we don't have. That's, by the way, the first thing that NASA did for the moon landing was to rewrite the contracts. They changed it from what they had at the time, which were these cost plus contracts, where basically they were just getting billed for high amounts from the business sector, to fixed price contracts, which were almost treated like price schemes with however constant incentives for innovation and quality improvement.

Mariana Mazzucato: (40:19)
They also, and this is so cool, they had no excess profits clauses in the contracts with the business sector. In other words, profits are fine. It's not about charity and philanthropy. This is about a business model, co-creating, getting to the moon together, but you're not going to turn this into a gambling casino. Which is what I think we have in space today, with the likes of Richard Branson and Elon Must, but we can go into that later. A common purpose, investing together, but taking care... This is what I think the challenge will be for the Biden team if they're really interested in building back better, unpacking, undoing problematic contracts. In the end, every public private relationship has a contract in it. Making it much more ambitious, purpose oriented, but also distributing the gains in a fair way instead of just socializing risks and privatizing rewards, which unfortunately is the current model in the US.

John Darsie: (41:09)
Right. You talked about mobility, but I wanted to dig into that more, and also housing. I think housing is going to be one of the greatest challenges of our generation, my generation especially. You have young people around the country, and this is anecdotally. There's also data that supports it as well. People around my age that are starting to want to buy houses, or buy apartments, whatever it may be. There's a massive scarcity of housing. Part of that has to do with the way our cities and our society is built. In terms of mobility, we rely heavily on automobiles. In and around New York, people like Robert Moses designed these interstate systems and highway systems that have created massive amounts of traffic.

John Darsie: (41:48)
Quality of life it affects as well, in addition to the carbon footprint. How can we go through our existing cities that are built with a certain type of infrastructure, that are conducive to cars, things of that nature? How can we go and fix those? Then if you were starting from scratch, what type of city would you build that fits in with your framework of mobility, social sustainable housing?

Mariana Mazzucato: (42:13)
Wow.

Anthony Scaramucci: (42:16)
All right, that was a really good question. Okay? I have to admit that. Okay? That was as very good question.

Mariana Mazzucato: (42:20)
Excellent question. A very good question. Your question is really about how can we also think of infrastructure, not just as bricks and cement.

John Darsie: (42:29)
Right, it's people-

Mariana Mazzucato: (42:31)
As Anthony explained about boldness, think of-

John Darsie: (42:32)
There's a certain part of the political class in the US that says infrastructure, if it's not fixing potholes and fixing bridges then it doesn't qualify and shouldn't be in an infrastructure bill.

Mariana Mazzucato: (42:41)
Yeah.

John Darsie: (42:41)
Which is asinine, but we'll get into that maybe on another episode.

Mariana Mazzucato: (42:45)
Yeah. I mean the reason what you're asking is so important is that if you don't answer that question, you end up with your old systems, and old structures, and old contracts. By having a very ambitious strategy, ambition around the future of mobility, for example, and not just thinking about it as the transport sector. I always go back to that point. It's not about a sector. It's about a problem which many different sectors in this case, transport will be one of them, have to be innovating, investing and collaborating in new ways. That doesn't always happen unless you have that vision. An example would be in Germany where in recent years, very much on the back actually of a social movement around their green movement....

Mariana Mazzucato: (43:29)
Which today also we have children all over the world like Greta, the Fridays For Future, striking on Fridays because they believe the previous generation was quite rubbish, fighting climate change. On the back of decades of a social movement arguing for more sustainable production, distribution and consumption, they actually set a vision around, they call it the [Ende Gelände 00:43:51]. It's not perfect, by the way. I know there's problems with it, but it was very ambitious. The fact they had that, so starting with the vision, meant that the way that for example their public loans went out to sectors like steel.

Mariana Mazzucato: (44:04)
Steel in the US and the UK and in Italy, three countries that are part of my world, steel in all those three countries that I just mentioned have been asking for bailouts and loans. What they did in Germany though was the loan provided was conditional. To come back to this issue of conditionality, conditional on steel lowering its material content through, well they didn't tell them how to do it. They said, "You have to lower your material content, so you'll lower your carbon emissions, so you'll become a greener steel." The way the steel sector it was up to it. It wasn't told what to do. Again, micro managing does not work. That kills innovation.

Mariana Mazzucato: (44:37)
They ended up using new techniques around repurpose, reuse, recycle technology through the entire value chain. Today, they have one of the most innovative sustainable steel sectors in the world. Not because they went to the World Economic Forum in Davos and talked the purpose stakeholder value talk, but because they had to in order to get one euro out of the government. By the way, in the US... I realized when I was running an entrepreneurial state, this is kind of how the US government used to think. AT&T, when it had a monopoly, the condition for the monopoly to remain... This is just one part of the AT&T story. There's a whole other side of that, which we all know is also problematic.

Mariana Mazzucato: (45:13)
AT&T had to in order to retain its monopoly status, reinvest its profits back into the economy, into innovation and big innovation beyond telecoms. That was one of the conditions. That's where Bell Labs came from. Bell Labs, which is one of the most innovative private sector laboratories in the history of capitalism, came about because there was pressure on a monopoly, AT&T, to reinvest its profits rather than hoard the profits, rather than financialize the profits, or things like share buybacks today and so on.

Mariana Mazzucato: (45:44)
Coming back to that issue of conditionality, I think is super important in the US context. I think that conditionality can come in all sorts of different ways, but it's not going to happen in and of itself. You have to have a goal that you're trying to pursue. Also around social housing, again future mobility, these can all be used to formulate different types of objectives. Then it has to actually help design a different type of relationship on the ground between public and private.

John Darsie: (46:13)
Right.

Mariana Mazzucato: (46:14)
Around housing, by the way, one of the things I'm doing in London, because I work globally but I also work very much at the local level in literally my neighborhood in London. We have a renewal commission in Camden, the part of London where I live. We're trying to think about these carbon neutral targets at the level of social housing, what in the US you call projects. That shouldn't, again, happen top-down. That needs to also bring citizens to the table to even talk about, how do we want to live together? What does sustainable living even mean, as opposed to just think of it as a retrofit problem. That means reviving things like citizen assemblies, and bringing housing associations together. That kind of stakeholder governance of a mission oriented system I don't think gets talked about enough.

John Darsie: (46:55)
Right. A lot of it boils down to what you wrote a book about previously, and is ingrained in this book, is that creating these public private partnerships and doing them well is really an art. It's not overly simplistic, where every piece of government spending is wasteful, people say on one side. Then flooding the system with liquidity isn't particularly useful as well. You need to structure these things in a way where everybody is aligned with their incentives. You're able to not stifle innovation, but at the same time provide the capital needed to really execute these moon shots. I think it's a great lesson. We listed off a group of countries that we are closely working with on a number of issues. We hope you continue to work very closely here. At home, with the Biden administration. We'll leave it there, Professor Mazzucato. It's a pleasure to have you on.

Mariana Mazzucato: (47:46)
Thank you.

John Darsie: (47:46)
Your book is fantastic. It's called Mission Economy. We've been handing them out at the office. I was telling you before we went live, have gotten very positive reviews.

Mariana Mazzucato: (47:55)
Great.

John Darsie: (47:55)
I hope to have you back here on SALT Talks. I hope to have you at one of our in-person conferences here as soon-

Mariana Mazzucato: (48:01)
I'd love it.

John Darsie: (48:01)
As soon as we can travel back and forth safely, I know Anthony and I are eager to get back to London as well. Thank you for joining us. Anthony, do you have a final word for Mariana before we let her go?

Anthony Scaramucci: (48:10)
I'm not the most terrific wordsmith, Professor. I think what you're providing is almost like stripping out some of the ideology. Working towards the economics of pragmatism in terms of helping this society come up with policies that are not left or right oriented, but right or wrong for the society. We applaud you for that. We really thank you for coming on. Yes, John did ask a few good questions, Mariana, so we're going to let-

Mariana Mazzucato: (48:39)
And he pronounced my name really well.

Anthony Scaramucci: (48:41)
Yes, he did. You notice I've not pronounced-

Mariana Mazzucato: (48:42)
Can I hear you do it? Can I hear you do it?

Anthony Scaramucci: (48:43)
Mazzucato. Mazzucato.

Mariana Mazzucato: (48:46)
Oh, wait. Yours was better. You won.

Anthony Scaramucci: (48:50)
Mazzucato. Let me explain to you something-

John Darsie: (48:51)
I notice an advantage.

Anthony Scaramucci: (48:52)
I was nervous about it, because I'm a fellow Italian. I'm like, "Oh my God. Father, Son and the Holy Ghost. I can't mispronounce her name." See that, John? I pulled it off at the end here.

Mariana Mazzucato: (49:01)
We're ending with The Sopranos.

Anthony Scaramucci: (49:04)
Thank you, Professor. You're terrific. I hope we can get you back on, and-

Mariana Mazzucato: (49:06)
I'd love to.

Anthony Scaramucci: (49:06)
Good luck with the new book that you're working on.

Mariana Mazzucato: (49:08)
Thank you so much. Bye-bye.

John Darsie: (49:11)
Thank you, Mariana. Thank you, everybody, for joining us today on SALT Talks. Just a reminder, if you missed any part of this talk, or any of our previous SALT Talks, you can access them on our website on demand at salt.org/talks, or on our YouTube channel, which is called SALT Tube. We're also on social media @SALTConference on Twitter, is where we're most active. We're also on LinkedIn, Instagram and Facebook as well. Please spread the word about these SALT Talks. Again, this is another I think is extremely important that people read books like Mission Economy and understand these problems are fixable. This notion that we're stuck in some sort of permanent malaise is misplaced for certain. On behalf of the entire SALT team, and Anthony, this is John Darsie signing off from SALT Talks for today. We hope to see you back here again soon.

Sasha Issenberg: The Engagement | SALT Talks #238

“Gay people are born to straight people. We know what social scientists call Contact Theory: people’s attitudes change when they have exposure to somebody who’s different than them.” 

Sasha Issenberg is the author of "The Engagement: America's Quarter-Century Struggle Over Same-Sex Marriage" and three previous books, including "The Victory Lab: The Secret Science of Winning Campaigns". He has covered presidential elections as a national political reporter in the Washington bureau of The Boston Globe, a columnist for Slate, and a contributor to Bloomberg Politics and Businessweek. He is the Washington correspondent at Monocle, and his work has also appeared in New York, The New York Times Magazine, and George, where he served as a contributing editor. He teaches in the political-science department at UCLA.

Sasha Issenberg contrasts Donald Trump’s use of celebrity in becoming president versus Joe Biden’s status as a lifetime politician. Issenberg then explains the different variables and stakeholders involved in the fight for marriage equality and why progress moved more rapidly compared to other social movements. He discusses the role of early LGBT activist Bill Woods and the current state of activism, citing NFL player Carl Nassib’s recent coming out. He discusses how President Obama and Trump each approached marriage equality and the significance of the recent Bostock v. Clayton County Supreme Court ruling.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

MODERATOR

SPEAKER

Sasha Issenberg #238.jpeg

Sasha Issenberg

Author

The Engagement

anthony_scaramucci.jpeg

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

TIMESTAMPS

0:00 - Intro

3:17 - Politics around same sex marriage

4:56 - Professional background

7:49 - Joe Biden vs. celebrity presidential candidates

11:15 - Same sex marriage stakeholders

13:48 - Speed of LBGT rights advancements and acceptance

25:10 - NFL player Carl Nassib’s coming out

28:31 - Gay rights activist Bill Woods

34:58 - Obama’s same sex marriage stance

39:41 - Trump and same sex marriage

42:40 - Bostock v. Clayton County ruling  

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:07)
Hello everyone and welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is John Darsie. I'm the Managing Director of SALT which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance, technology, and public policy. SALT Talks are a digital interview series with leading investors, creators, and thinkers, and our goal on these talks is the same as our goal at our SALT conferences which we're excited to resume here in September of 2021. But that goal is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big, important ideas that are shaping the future. And we're very excited today to welcome Sasha Issenberg to SALT Talks.

John Darsie: (00:50)
Sasha is the author of three prior books including The Victory Lab, The Secret Science of Winning Campaigns. He's covered presidential elections as a national political reporter in the Washington bureau of The Boston Globe, he's been a columnist for Slate, and a contributor to Bloomberg Politics and Bloomberg Businessweek. And he's the Washington correspondent at Monocle, and his work has also appeared in New York, The New York Times Magazine, and George, where he served as a contributing editor.

John Darsie: (01:20)
He teaches in the political-science department at UCLA and a very smart man, lives in beautiful Santa Monica out in sunny California. His most recent book is called The Engagement and it's about America's quarter century struggle over same-sex marriage. It's a fantastic, very thorough book on the subject, one that's very near and dear to our hearts and one that Anthony worked on personally along with Rob Reiner which he'll talk about more as he gets into the talk.

John Darsie: (01:49)
But hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci who's the founder and managing partner of Sky Bridge Capital which is a global alternative investment firm. And with that, I'll turn it over to Anthony.

Anthony Scaramucci: (01:59)
Well, I don't have a copy of the book with me Sasha because I'm out here in sunny California with you, but I have a picture on my phone. There you go. Hold up the book for everybody.

Sasha Issenberg: (02:08)
There it is.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:08)
So I received your book. I'm going to tell you. My history with your book is I love books. I received your book. And then I read the New York Times front page book review which I thought was a fascinating review and they gave you a great one. And when I read the book, I'd read Victory Lab prior because I have obviously an interest in politics despite my disastrous 11-day episodic event in politics, and I thought these books were conjoined.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:37)
So we're going to get into your background in a second, but I'm going to tell you why they were conjoined, because in Victory Lab you wrote about the science of winning an election, but there was a scientific process in this book in my opinion in terms of the struggle to legalize same-sex marriage, in many respects, Sasha, I felt there was a political campaign going on at the same time apropos to the civil rights' campaign corollary to that, but also there was a political campaign and an agenda and a quorum very similar to Victory Lab. Did I get that right or did I miss something?

Sasha Issenberg: (03:16)
Yeah. Yeah. I think that there are parts of this book which are very much as you say about innovation and campaigns, figuring out how to persuade people, how to target your persuasion, how to measure your persuasion, and then how to actually make it work in what we're off in these state-level ballot measure campaigns which you've been around a lot of candidate campaigns and it's a very different beast when you have a bunch of non-profits and issue organizations coming together in a state like Minnesota to beat back a constitutional amendment.

Sasha Issenberg: (03:45)
And so yeah. I mean, I think that we tend to think of great campaigns as being candidate-centric or party-centric, but I think that this sort of proves to be one of the great political campaigns of recent memory. I think it'll be really surprising if we talked to somebody 15 years ago because it seemed like such a loser of a cause and that anybody associated with it, elected officials and the like were sort of doomed to be dragged down by it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:12)
Well, I mean there is a scenario here in New York which I know you remember. Several hedge fund managers, Dan Loeb, et cetera gave money to Republican state senators in New York to flip the marriage proposal, same-sex marriage. Those four Republican senators decided to vote for it. They all lost their elections, okay, and that's only I guess 10 or 12 short years ago.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:39)
Before we go completely into the book though, I think your background is also fascinating. What was it like to work at George? Tell us a little bit about how you grew up, why didn't you become a journalist, and then we'll delve more into the book which I'm obviously fascinated by.

Sasha Issenberg: (04:56)
So I grew up in New York, in Westchester County, and I went to a high school in the Bronx at the Horace Mann School. And I got lucky enough to end up at George magazine when I was 15 years old as a basically unofficial summer intern. The magazine was in its ... It launched in September of 1995 and early that summer I got in. One of the things about magazines pre-launch is there's a lot of work to do and nobody really knows who's supposed to do any of it, and it's quite possible they didn't understand child labor laws either. And so an editor told me that if I kept on coming in every day that summer, they couldn't pay me or give me anything official, they'd already hired their official ivy league interns, but I could make myself useful, and then, I guess, like the common cold or herpes or whatever I never went away.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:50)
Toe fungus. It's toe fungus, Sasha. I see myself as toe fungus. Once I'm in the toe, you can't get rid of me. So you were 15 when you started?

Sasha Issenberg: (05:59)
I was 15 when I started and then I gradually got more responsibility doing some my own reporting, a little bit of my own writing and all sorts of things that were less glamorous. And I ended up being the only person who was with the magazine for its whole life. So it lasted about five and a half years until it folded and by the end I was writing for the magazine and while I was in college.

Sasha Issenberg: (06:20)
And it was, I think a lot about this as we look back on what's happened with politics in the last 25 years since John Kennedy launched the magazine, but I think he was incredibly perceptive at noticing the ways that politics and popular culture were not just intersecting but sort of becoming indifferentiable from one another, and the way in which the sort of political media sphere and the entertainment sphere were one and the same.

Sasha Issenberg: (06:48)
That was a pretty radical proposition to build a magazine around in the 1990s, and like the advertising environment didn't quite understand whether it was a political magazine or a pop culture magazine, but I think often about how he would look at certainly the people who are national political figures now let's say and think that it might have been a sort of natural arc from some of the stuff that we were seeing back then.

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:14)
You think Joe Biden is the last of the political infrastructure figures to become president? What I mean by that is President Biden became a senator in 1972. He went on to become president, but he was 49 years in the establishment infrastructure of the American political system. Do you think or do you think that we'll have celebrity presidents, apropos to Donald Trump or The Rock, or where do you think that that's going from a genre perspective?

Sasha Issenberg: (07:50)
Yeah. I mean, I think Trump shows that there are far more shortcuts to the presidency than there used to be. I guess we could talk about whether Eisenhower took a shortcut or not, but I think that that's clearly an example that you can build your profile, your sort of base of support outside of the political establishment and international politics at the highest level and have a foundation for it. The Rock, Will Smith, you'll talk about Tom Brokaw running for president 20 years ago, it's all basically the same proposition. That said, I think we can look back at Biden's success as, and I think we've talked for years about how senators or lifelong politicians have a tougher job running for president because they have all this baggage and all these votes and 49 years of clips of things they've said.

Sasha Issenberg: (08:42)
You can also look at Biden's success last year is very much a testament to the fact that he had paid his dues with almost every part of the Democratic coalition. He might not have been beloved by any part of the Democratic coalition, but was liked and trusted enough by just about all of them, and that was a testament to his longevity. I don't know if there's ever like a Democratic fan base for Joe Biden, but you know what? When it came time to run for president, African-Americans he had sort of built a long record of labor unions but he could raise money, the LGBT community and that was like accumulated over years. And I think that there is ... wouldn't surprise me if we see other situations where parties turn to people like that because other candidates are flawed in their way.

Sasha Issenberg: (09:35)
I think the question is how many people are going to be in politics for 49 years? I mean, that's the other thing, is we just don't see that many career politicians. We see people sort of skedaddle when they can make more money or they get frustrated in the senate or whatever else. I'm not sure if we'll see many more lifers.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:53)
Sasha, I wanted your perspective because I think you've had your hand on the pulse of this for a quarter of a century. So back to the book, again, a fascinating book, The Engagement about America's quarter-century struggle over same-sex marriage. I saw the book as a layered cake. It had three tiers to it in my opinion. I'd like to get your reaction to it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:16)
The first tier was the sentiment on the ground and people in our society, and obviously the biblical society, the Christian society and others that was tier one. The second tier was politicians, and to your point in the book, most of them as recently as 10 or 15 years ago didn't want to touch it with a hot ... anything. It was hot stove to those people. Joe Biden interestingly enough was the first person on the national stage to really open up about it ahead of Barack Obama which is interesting.

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:50)
But the top of the cake to me were the court cases, because you had a series of court cases that had to frankly break your way or our way. I'm a same-sex marriage proponent so I'll say our way. And I thought that was fascinating as well. And then of course you brought up the state legislature. I think that's at the top of that cake. What's your reaction to my analysis of the book?

Sasha Issenberg: (11:15)
Yeah. I mean, I'm not much of a baker, so my sense of cake architecture is a little wobbly, but I think one ... I think you have the elements right. I think one thing is that the sort of causal chain, in a lot of cases it was courts forcing politicians to address this issue. My book starts in Hawaii in 1990. At that point there's not a single gay rights organization in the United States that has endorsed marriage as an objective. There's barely a politician in the United States who's been asked his or her opinion on marriage. And there's obviously through '80s a lot of anti-gay activism on the religious right, but they're not trying to stop gay people from marrying because they're trying to stop sometimes gay people from working as teachers, serving in the military, having employment non-discrimination protections.

Sasha Issenberg: (12:03)
And it's a court case in Hawaii that ends up forcing just in Hawaii the legislature and the governor to have to stake out a position on this. And we see versions of that in Vermont and Massachusetts, and eventually part of what's driving senators who are changing their position in 2013 is it's going to the Supreme Court. So I think that the legal ... You're right that I think politicians were sort of followers of public opinion, but the thing that was driving this to the top of the agenda was often lawsuits, sometimes accidental like in Hawaii, and sometimes sort of well plotted civil rights test cases. But those are the elements, yeah. I think that there's a ground level social change that took place, and then I think the legal stuff was sort of the direct engine and then the political class had to respond to this.

Sasha Issenberg: (12:57)
And for a long time what same-sex marriage activists were trying to do was keep politicians out of this, because their feeling was if we won in court, the only thing that could be bad if the state legislature or a governor decided to amend the constitution or try by statute or something to undo a court victory.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:16)
When you go back in your intellectual journey on this idea of same-sex marriage, let's start with Bill Clinton in 1996 in the Defense of Marriage Act, and then let's fast forward to 2012. To me that's a pretty short period of time. If you think about the Civil Rights struggle from say 1865 to the introduction of Jackie Robinson in American baseball in 1947, it seems like this moved very fast. Why?

Sasha Issenberg: (13:48)
Yeah. And suffrage would be the other thing. We're looking for 75 years from Seneca Falls to women getting the vote nationwide. I think the biggest difference between the marriage, and I would separate here marriage as opposed to sort of the whole bundle of LGBT related issues, which has been a longer arc and still not won or settled. I think the big thing was that whether the majority or the people with power didn't have to give anything up. I think one way we often talk about sort of civil rights or social movements as these sort of contests over public ideals, justice, freedom, liberty, equality, stuff like that.

Sasha Issenberg: (14:40)
It's also a way to look at where they're basically contests over scarce resources. When women decided to seek property rights, husbands and fathers appropriately recognized that they were going to lose wealth. When men saw that women getting the vote would dilute their own political power, white people saw that black people getting the vote would dilute their own political power. Every push for immigrants rights, native-born population see it as a threat to their jobs. Desegregation was a threat to landlords who didn't want somebody to tell them who they had to rent their buildings to. The disability rights, the ADA burdened landlords with having to spend money on repairs and adjustments. Every time to be more accepting or open, people had to give something up often with a real material value to them.

Sasha Issenberg: (15:38)
And the thing, the sort of counterfactuals I like to play with is like what if there were a limited number of marriage licenses in the state. Would somebody like you or some of those straight hedge fund guys we mentioned, other sort of the moderate straight who came around and supported this? If you knew that you or your child would have to wait six or nine months in line for a marriage license because a gay person was now getting in front of them, would your views have changed? It might. And the other way of asking is sort of like what if the defining LGBT rights issue of the last generation were affirmative action for gays and lesbians in areas where they thought they'd been discriminated against.

Sasha Issenberg: (16:24)
This didn't really create a competition. And almost every other form of increased rights for a minority group creates a form of competition that's a threat to people who have wealth and power.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:35)
It doesn't create a competition, but for some reason, Sasha, and you correctly write about this in the book, there is a threat there for some reason. I don't know. It's a threat to someone's sexuality? Is it a threat to what people perceive normalcy, which I find ridiculous? But I'm just letting you know that's a lot of people see it that way. How did we break down those ideas? I mean, we went from 30% of the people supporting gay marriage eight years later 70% of the people, and we went from gay men and women being reluctant to admit that they're gay to an openly gay presidential candidate like Pete Buttigieg in 2020.

Sasha Issenberg: (17:26)
So I think on the marriage front in particular, May 17, 2004 is the day that same-sex couples are able to first legally marry in the United States in Massachusetts. And the rhetoric shifts after that day in a really significant way. Before then, people who were opposed to same-sex marriage, and as you said, at that point it's probably 65% of the population was opposed or such. And the things you heard from people I think were, "This is going to be the end of the American family. This is going to be the end of western civilization." Rick Santorum said that, compared the Massachusetts court decision to 9/11, said it's a homeland security crisis.

Sasha Issenberg: (18:17)
Look, I think some of that was like natural hyperbole-

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:20)
He's my spiritual advisor, Sasha. I just wanted you to know that-

Sasha Issenberg: (18:23)
Okay.

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:23)
No. He's not my spiritual advisor. You didn't catch the sarcasm.

Sasha Issenberg: (18:30)
I've seen your list of bundling. I'm pretty sure that I didn't see you max out to Santorum. Look, some of that's hyperbole, like conscious hyperbole, and some of that I think people were really afraid of something that was new. And before 1999 there wasn't a society on earth that allowed gay couples to marry. And it was a radical proposal. Everybody has ... Unlike a lot of political issues, I don't think there are a lot of people in the United States who are more than one or two degrees of separation from somebody who's married. This isn't abstract. It's real. And people had seen only one type of family structure that was acknowledged under the law, and I think people were really honestly afraid of what would happen.

Sasha Issenberg: (19:18)
What happens after Massachusetts, there are these incredible warnings of like societal decay. And what happens afterwards is nothing. People are ... There's obviously no outward. Schools function the same way. Businesses function the same way the day afterwards. This question of that we sort of heard over the years from a gay or lesbian person, how would my marriage affect yours becomes like a real challenge and there's like nothing, and people are pouring over statistics. Gay couples are not getting divorced at a higher rate. Their kids are not having worse outcomes. Their communities are no weaker or less strong. And if anything, what you start to see is that communities around gays and lesbians were able to build a family on the same terms as straight people or stronger and better off.

Sasha Issenberg: (20:09)
And you know what? Guess what? Their employers like it because they get predictability over who's going to get what benefits and what they get from the government and what they don't. Labor unions like it because now they can negotiate for benefits without having to come up with something crazy. Communities like it because they want full stable families.

Sasha Issenberg: (20:26)
So part of what changes I think with time is that the coalition of people who are opposed to this starts to shrink because nobody is actually feeling any sense of harm. I mean one of the major challenges for maintaining a political coalition on any issue is getting people who are actually invested in an outcome. And the group of people who are invested in stopping this shrinks. There's still people who believe that biblical declarations of what's appropriate and godly, they haven't changed their views of this. But I think people who fear that somehow this would damage society don't have anything to lean on. And at the same time, you have the community of people who are invested in this spreading.

Sasha Issenberg: (21:20)
One thing that's different between, we talked about the sort of efforts at equality over race and sex. Unlike with race and sex, people control the conditions under which they acknowledge and disclose and announce their sexual orientation, and for that matter gender identity. So people can come out, and almost by definition gay people are born to straight people. And that means that there are not a lot of ... Social scientists call it contact theory. We know that people's political attitudes change when they have exposure to somebody who's different than them, whether or not-

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:02)
Senator Rob Portman's son came out.

Sasha Issenberg: (22:04)
Right.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:05)
And Vice President Cheney's daughter came out, and all of a sudden their views started to shift.

Sasha Issenberg: (22:11)
And one thing that's important to realize there's like that's something that can happen because of how heredity and sexual orientation work. There are not a lot of Latino kids being born to Jewish parents. There are not a lot of immigrant kids being born to native born parents. It's really important just to realize as best we understand the odds of a gay kid ending up in any household in the country are pretty evenly distributed, whereas racial segregation means that you're not likely to find out that your next-door neighbor has been raising an African-American child all these years. And that just exposes far more people to gays and lesbians, and I think probably transgendered people as well than they would get exposed to people of a different race or religion for example.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:58)
This is an opinion question but I'm curious because you have an informed opinion. Is there a stigma to being gay?

Sasha Issenberg: (23:07)
I mean I think it's ... I mean there certainly was in American society. I think it is greatly receding. And I think some of it's local. I'm a straight guy. If you told me I was a gay man and I had to decide where to start my life, there are probably certain places in the country and certain occupations or certain types of schools where I would feel more welcome than others, and I think that's a result of stigma.

Anthony Scaramucci: (23:32)
But the good news is it's receding. The good news is that we're getting past it.

Sasha Issenberg: (23:37)
You mentioned Buttigieg. The fact that he was gay was not that interesting to people. People talked about he was young. He was mayor of a small city. Who did he work for at Bain. We didn't really ... It was not a defining part of his public identity, and I think that's pretty telling. A decade earlier any gay man who ran for president, that would have been the defining aspect of their candidacy at every moment I think.

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:04)
Well, he's obviously a very impressive person, and I think that that's what we have to get past, whether it's our sexual orientation, our skin color, our religious preferences, can you do the job or not, I think that's ultimately the thing that we have to look to.

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:22)
I have one last question for you before I turn it over to John Darsie, and that's, and I'm probably not going to pronounce the name right but Carl Nassib ... John, did I pronounce that right? I know you ...

John Darsie: (24:32)
Nassib, yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:35)
Nassib. He came out and he said that he was gay.

Sasha Issenberg: (24:37)
This is the Oakland Raiders player or LA Raiders?

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:40)
Yes, the LA Raiders player. And the commissioner, Roger Goodell, a good guy might add, know him reasonably well, he applauded it, released a statement from the NFL. It was very well received. A couple of years back Michael Sam came out, less so received. So is this another sign of progress in the fight for equality? How do you think race factored into the reception of these athletes? And these are opinion ... these are ...

Sasha Issenberg: (25:11)
Yeah. I mean, I do think that you look at, I don't remember how long Michael Sam was five years ago. I mean, I think there's been a significant shift in that time. Some of it is, you mentioned the NFL as an organization. And one thing we have seen Pride Month ended a few weeks ago is institutional America and that includes corporate America becoming so unreserved in its not just acceptance of LGBT people but in its sort of active support.

Sasha Issenberg: (25:48)
I think companies falling over each other to be seen as allies or supportive, in part because they recognize that their employee base and their customer base and their investor base want to see that and they're responding to sort of market incentives. But I do think that some of this might be that organizations like the NBA or the NFL in this case want to be seen as leaders on these type of social issues, and so you're getting it from the top down as opposed to just sort of from the community up.

Sasha Issenberg: (26:22)
One thing that's worth in terms of this sort of the decrease of stigma, I think it's really important to realize how our understanding of the science of sexuality has changed over this time. I went back and consumed a lot of media coverage from the '90s while researching this book, and every time you read an article from Time or Newsweek about any gay rights issue, not just marriage from the 1990s, there's like always a paragraph like: To be sure, we don't know whether it's nature or nurture that turns people gay or lesbian.

Sasha Issenberg: (26:52)
Politicians, activists, preachers, whatever, would talk about lifestyle and choice. And nobody talks that way anymore. And it's because downstream from laboratory research we now have an understanding that basically people are born with a whole lot of stuff that they don't control, and that is not just related to sexuality, but temper, addiction. We talk differently about everything, and we, I think it's now widely accepted. Even the Rick Santorums of the world aren't going to pretend that Michael Sam or Carl Nassib or whoever it is chooses to be gay.

Sasha Issenberg: (27:30)
So then the question is like, in a decent society, if people are being born this way, how do you respond to that? And denying them the opportunity to have a job or play a sport would seem like a pretty harsh response to something if we sort of accept as a society that there will be gay people. So the question is what type of society do we want to be to them?

Anthony Scaramucci: (28:05)
John Darsie.

John Darsie: (28:08)
Yeah. And Sasha, it's a pleasure to have you on. Fantastic book you wrote. A lot of what you wrote about too in the book were colorful characters and consequential characters when it comes to this fight that obviously accelerated in the most recent decades. Could you just talk our audience through some of the people that you came across that you found most interesting and the role they played in this fight for marriage equality?

Sasha Issenberg: (28:31)
Yeah, sure John. So the book starts in Hawaii in 1990 and the main character there is this guy Bill Wood who I never got the chance to meet. He passed away a few years before I started working on this, but I was able to sort of reconstruct his life and activities. He was like the gay activist in Hawaii in the 1970s and '80s. And like a lot of I think first generation activists in any sphere of community, he was incredibly entrepreneurial. He founded the gay community center. He started the gay newspaper. He had the first gay radio show in Hawaii. But not particularly good at building alliances or coalitions or working well with others. Very good about getting attention for himself, but not terribly good about playing well with others.

Sasha Issenberg: (29:20)
And he ends up in this heady rivalry within a Pride planning committee in Honolulu in 1989. He already has a kind of has it out with these two lesbian women who are running this Pride planning committee, because they have launched a magazine Island Lifestyle that competes with his gay community news for what, John, you can only imagine is the large pool of advertisers in Oahu in 1989 who want to be in gay publications. And he wants to have a parade as part of the Pride planning festivities, and they just want to have a picnic and vigil.

Sasha Issenberg: (30:01)
So they give him a subcommittee to research the parade. He comes back with a report. They dismiss the report. So he decides he's going to quit their Pride planning committee and start his own Pride parade planning committee. And now Bill Woods is looking for all these ways to upstage the picnic event. So he invites the governor to be the grand marshal of this parade. He gets the royal Hawaiian jazz band. He gets a chef caterer friend of his to put on an international food festival, and he decides he's going to have a mass wedding, like a mooney style few dozen couples on stage at a rally at the end of this parade, and they're going to exchange vows. And there have been couples who've been doing this at the Metropolitan Community Church which was a local gay-friendly sort of ambiguously protestant denomination, these holy union ceremonies. But people knew it had no force of law. They were just exchanging vows.

Sasha Issenberg: (30:56)
Bill Woods was not a lawyer. It's pretty clear to me he misread the state's family law code, and he came away with the impression that these couples actually exchanged vows on stage that the state might have to recognize them as married. And he went to the Hawaii ACLU to get them to back him up in this sort of legal theory, and they also ... they wanted nothing to do with him, but they also didn't want to say no to him because they knew what's well enough to know that if you pick a fight with him, he would sort of revel in it and it wouldn't work out well. So they spent all of 1990 just sort of like pushing him off, clearly trying to get past June 1990 when Pride Month would happen, hoped that Woods would lose an interest in this marriage thing, go ahead with this parade or whatever and move on to the next thing.

Sasha Issenberg: (31:41)
And he didn't move on. The marriage ceremony didn't happen, but now he was pissed that the ACLU had basically been stringing him along and disrespecting him. So December 17th, 1990 Bill Woods decides he's going to launch this PR stunt basically to in his hopes to jam the ALCU into having to back him up, that once there's media coverage of this, there's no way that the ACLU can say no to actual gay couples who want to fight for marriage rights. So he gets like the Honolulu press corps to follow them into the public health department. These three couples request marriage licenses. They're turned down. The attorney general says that the health director was right under state law to reject them. Woods leads them to the ACLU with all these cameras. The ACLU still says no, we don't want to be part of this.

Sasha Issenberg: (32:33)
A civil rights attorney sues on these couples' behalf the next spring. And so the shock of everybody involved, this long shot lawsuit wins, and the Hawaii Supreme Court becomes the first court anywhere on earth to rule that the fundamental right to marriage could extend to same-sex couples in May of 1993.

Sasha Issenberg: (32:49)
This is what puts marriage on the map as an issue. The Defense of Marriage Act that Anthony mentioned in 1996 is Congress eventually feeling that Hawaii is very close to actually marrying same-sex couples, one trial judge away, and that you need to write it into federal law to basically insulate mainland governments, the other 49 states and the federal government from having to recognize these marriages.

Sasha Issenberg: (33:14)
So Woods ends up being the catalyst for the world we live in right now. This would not have become the issue the way it did if he hadn't launched this. He's both like just an amazing character whom I wish I had the chance to meet, but also just I think sort of telling in our understanding of history, and that once like ends at the Supreme Court and we see a landmark decision that it awards a set of rights to a new group of people, I think are natural instincts [inaudible 00:33:44] because the outcome was momentous and just and it had to be inevitable. And that's often the language we use around civil rights. And there's the fact is like nothing about this was inevitable. It wasn't inevitable it's going to end up at the Supreme Court when it did or turn out the way it did. But it also wasn't inevitable this was going to be a thing that we as a country were fighting over. So I really liked him because it shows how accidental the sort of origins of this was.

John Darsie: (34:09)
Anthony referenced Vice President, then Vice President Biden sort of taking the lead on marriage equality within the Obama Administration, President Obama himself actually for a long time being opposed to marriage equality. Certainly the Trump Administration was hard to discern exactly what their stance was, but they also enabled legislation or certain rulings that certainly didn't enhance the rights of the LGBTQ community, if you will. But can you just compare and contrast what took place in the Obama Administration setting aside maybe his early ... He was opposed to marriage equality at the beginning obviously and changed course there, but then within the Trump Administration, what kind of setbacks did we see in terms of LGBTQ rights?

Sasha Issenberg: (34:58)
Yeah. So Obama as you say, Obama actually in 1996 when he first ran for the state senate said he supported same-sex marriage rights, and then he later backed off and blamed a staffer for having filled out a questionnaire against his will. As he ran for congress, he became basically more conservative on this issue, and he became where the mainstream of Democratic politics were through the 2000s, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton which are saying some version of I think marriage is between a man and a woman, but I think that gay couples should have all the same rights and benefits through civil unions.

Sasha Issenberg: (35:33)
It became clear through 2011 ... in 2011 Obama sort of recognized he was going to be out of sync with his party on this. I tell the story of him coming to New York for some DNC fundraisers in the summer of 2011 after Cuomo has signed the marriage bill into law, and I think I quote one of Obama's advisers saying he felt like the skunk at the garden party or whatever, which is you sort of had the liberal donor class of the Democratic Party celebrating Andrew Cuomo for having sort of muscled through what they saw as courageously, muscled through this bill and Obama being berated by activists for being on the wrong side of it.

Sasha Issenberg: (36:18)
So there was this process underway in the White House, starting in the summer of 2011 where Obama said basically I want to change my position on this but you guys, my team, need to figure out how and when I do it. I think that one of the things about being president is there's just such scrutiny of your every statement and your opinion that you can't just sort of casually change your position on something and hope no one notices the way. You might be able to if you're a member of congress or something.

Sasha Issenberg: (36:44)
There was a sort of high-level effort to figure out how to do this. There's a decision that he should do it before November 2012, before the re-election, but you don't want to do it too late in the calendar because you don't want this. They wanted to run against Mitt Romney on private equity and the economy, and he did not want to spend the debates or his convention having to explain why he had flip-flopped on marriage.

Sasha Issenberg: (37:09)
I thought it would be a net plus for him running for reelection, but they still did not want this to dominate the campaign. So there are all these plans afoot in the White House. And eventually they settled on the idea there's ... should he give a big speech like the race speech he did in Philadelphia? No, that would make it more of an event than they wanted. So he should do ... He'll do an interview. They decide he should do with female questioners because there's research that suggested that from a messaging perspective it's better that when you talk about this family stuff. So they had plans, sort of tentative plans for him. He was going to be in New York in June for fundraisers. He was going to go on The View. So I guess the only thing better than one female interviewer is four female interviewers, and that's where Obama was going to lay out that he had evolved as he liked to say.

Sasha Issenberg: (37:55)
And Biden was aware of the general contours of this, and Biden basically jumped the gun a month early, said what he did and forced Obama three days later. One of the remarkable things though that's going on for a couple years before that is that the White House counsel's office is ... There's this question of what's Barack Obama's personal position on same-sex marriage. And it's kind of irrelevant what the president's personal position on same-sex marriage is because there's never going to be a piece of legislation that comes before the president's desk about marriage to sign, like it's just not a thing that the president is going to deal with directly. But the White House and Justice Department have a lot of say in how the government especially handles the defense of marriage act but also gets involved in other cases as they move into federal courts.

Sasha Issenberg: (38:50)
So what you see is actually the White House counsel's office starting in 2009 getting ahead of Obama in his public position by, they eventually dropped their ... They say we're going to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act because we think it's unconstitutional, which is a really unusual position for the federal government to take, say we're not going to defend our own laws in court. Basically our whole system of constitutional litigation is based on governments have to defend their own laws, otherwise there's nobody there to do it. So it's one of these things, and I don't know whether Anthony you spend enough days in there to get a good perspective on this, but there are a few different levels at which the White House can operate. There's what the President says publicly, and then there's what his government is doing. And Obama's government was always sort of more aggressive on this marriage question courts than he was.

Sasha Issenberg: (39:41)
I think the Trump years, Trump was always, he was very ambiguous about this throughout the election. He criticized the Supreme Court decision when it happened, the Obergefell decision in 2015 that made same-sex marriage the law of the land, but then he was interviewed by Leslie Stahl a couple days after the election 2016 and he says, "It's settled law, I accept it." I think that there was a real disconnect between Trump's attitudes towards marriage-

John Darsie: (40:09)
His words and action.

Sasha Issenberg: (40:10)
Well, between, I think on marriage where he did not ... I was surprised that this was not a bigger issue in the 2015-2016 election season among Republicans because you had the Supreme Court striking down state bans in some of the reddest states. Bobby Jindal briefly said we should abolish the Supreme Court because of this. There was a moment where Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee went down to Kentucky where where that county clerk, Kim Davis was refusing to issue licenses.

Sasha Issenberg: (40:42)
But for all of the ways in which Donald Trump has an exceptional gift for pitting Americans against each other for his own amusement, political benefit, instinct, whatever, he did not seem interested in pitting gay couples who wanted to get married against his base. That's just not ... was not his thing. That said, I don't think that ... I think there's a real difference between how certain parts of the Republican conservative world now look at gay and lesbian concerns and transgender issues. And Rick Grenell who's probably the administration's leading voice on sort of what gay republicanism should be seems pretty intent on kind of splitting the LGBT coalition between gay men and lesbians and maybe bisexual on one side and then people deal with gender identity issues.

Sasha Issenberg: (41:35)
So the Trump Administration on a rule-making level was set back LGBT rights in a lot of areas, but there wasn't a whole lot that it chose to do or really directly could have done on marriage.

John Darsie: (41:55)
You talked about the Supreme Court, and this will be the last question before we let you go is Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion last summer in a workplace discrimination lawsuit Bostock vs Clayton County. He basically ruled that you cannot fire someone, you probably are more familiar with this case even than I am, on the basis of sexual orientation. It falls under the sex category. And that surprised a lot of people.

John Darsie: (42:20)
There's been various rulings from the Supreme Court when Trump's appointees have been sitting in those chairs that have surprised people and sometimes to the consternation of certain elements of the Republican community. How surprising was that decision and how important was that decision in terms of ridding ourselves of certain workplace discrimination?

Sasha Issenberg: (42:40)
I think it was really important just in the lives of people. There's still 13, 14 states that permit a company to fire somebody because they're gay or lesbian or not hire them or not promote them. And it's been, there have been efforts for almost 50 years, but in earnest for 30 years to pass a federal law that would codify making that illegal and it hasn't gotten through the senate ever.

Sasha Issenberg: (43:11)
So this is important and creates conditions for folks in a lot of those states to bring federal actions. Now it just dealt with employment. There's still a question about housing discrimination, lending discrimination. In a lot of those states you can choose not to rent something to somebody because of their sexual orientation, or you can deny them a mortgage, you can turn them away from your diner or hotel. So Bostock, the logic of Bostok could apply to those other areas, but the actual decision did not.

Sasha Issenberg: (43:44)
Now, it's important to look at how Gorsuch wrote that, the reasoning behind that. Basically he calls himself a textualist. That means that you look at the text of, in this case of a law, of the Civil Rights Act of 1965, and it says you cannot discriminate on the basis of race, sex, blah, blah, blah. And his interpretation was that, "Well, traditionally or in the past we've understood sex to mean biological sex. Sex should be understood to mean sexual orientation, and that just based on that definition of the word sex, that employment discrimination against somebody because they're a woman is the same in legal terms as discriminate against them because they're a lesbian.

Sasha Issenberg: (44:43)
It's notable that that wasn't a Civil Rights decision. It was a momentous decision but it was narrowly applied to that, which is Anthony Kennedy also who was behind four major gay rights decisions also was resistant to kind of traditional civil rights thinking. And that meant that even when he ... There was a way that he could have written the marriage decision that would have affected other areas of interest to LGBT folks under the law and didn't. And Gorsuch's ... one irony, I mean it's an irony of I don't think this is necessarily his strategic plan, but what Gorsuch did was he left it open.

Sasha Issenberg: (45:25)
It wasn't a matter of constitutional interpretation. It was just a matter of interpreting the text of that bill. And it's possible that if you had a Republican house and senate or President Mike Pence in a few years, that they could amend with a majority in the house and whatever gets you through the senate these days the Civil Rights Act to say biological sex and overrule the Supreme Court. So by not making it a matter of constitutional guarantee and just making it a matter of statutory interpretation it was flimsier than it could have been.

Sasha Issenberg: (46:05)
So I think you're right to note that that was a surprise coming from a conservative justice, but it's also that getting there was notable for what it chose not to do and made it possible to get a majority I think of votes on that.

John Darsie: (46:22)
Right. Well, the struggle is ongoing. Again, the book is The Engagement: America's quarter-century struggle over same-sex marriage. A fantastic topic to write about and extremely well-written. Sasha, thank you so much for joining us. Anthony, you have a final word for Sasha before we let him go?

Anthony Scaramucci: (46:39)
What's next Sasha? What book are we writing?

Sasha Issenberg: (46:42)
I've gotten very interested in a historic election fraud scandal that took place in Indiana over 100 years ago that I think is just a hell of a true crime yarn and also shed some light on the conversations we're having now about the nature of election fraud and to what extent it exists or has existed in American history. It'll be shorter and I promise not to spend ... It won't be 900 pages and I won't spend a decade on it. That's my guarantee to you.

Anthony Scaramucci: (47:08)
Well, we appreciate it. This has been a great conversation for us. Sasha, if you don't mind, hold up the book because mine is in New York. I want to hold it up again for everybody, The Engagement. What a great story about America's quarter-century struggle over the same-sex marriage. Thank God we're through that struggle by the way. I think it's great for our society, and I appreciate you writing that book, and hopefully we'll get you to one of our live events soon.

Sasha Issenberg: (47:37)
I'd really like that. It's great talking to you Anthony. Nice to meet you John.

John Darsie: (47:40)
You as well. And just another piece of trivia before we wrap up here. President Joe Biden spoke at the SALT Conference in 2017. He came there along with the Human Rights campaign, so it's certainly encouraging to see somebody with a very proactive view of marriage equality just general equality. So we continue to hope that arc bends towards equality for everyone. But thank you Sasha, and thank you everybody for tuning in to today's SALT Talk with Sasha Issenberg.

John Darsie: (48:09)
Just a reminder. If you missed any part of this talk or any of our previous SALT Talks, you can access them on our website at salt.org/talks or on our YouTube channel which is called salttube. We're also on social media. Twitter is where we're most active @saltconference, but we're also on LinkedIn, Instagram, and Facebook as well. And please, spread the word about these SALT Talks if you find them interesting. On behalf of Anthony and the entire SALT team this is John Darsie signing off from SALT Talks for today. We hope to see you back here again soon.

Gillian Tett: Anthro-Vision | SALT Talks #235

“The other great shakeup in finance, which is in some ways driving the crypto world, is a shift in trust away from institutions and leaders, and towards the peer group, the crowd and technology.”

Gillian Tett is an Editor-at-Large for the Financial Times, where she is chair of the editorial board and editor-at-large, US. She has written about the financial instruments that were part of the cause of the financial crisis that started in the fourth quarter of 2007, such as CDOs, credit default swaps, SIVs, conduits, and SPVs. She became renowned for her early warning that a financial crisis was looming.

As part of her research while earning a PhD in anthropology, Gillian Tett visited and observed customs and rituals at Tajikistan weddings. She applies that same anthropology lens to the world of finance with her new book Anthro-Vision. With the coming AI revolution, Tett stresses the importance of also using a different type of AI, anthropology intelligence, in order to best handle tech disruptions and displacement in finance. Anthropology helps explain how the siloed nature of communities has contributed to the current state of American politics. It also helps explain a shift in trust away from institutions, contributing to the rise of cryptocurrencies and other tech-enabled peer-to-peer technologies.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Gillian Tett.jpeg

Gillian Tett

Editor-at-Large

Financial Times

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

TIMESTAMPS

0:00 - Intro and background

6:07 - Anthropology intelligence

8:15 - Anthropology in finance

14:16 - Cambridge Analytica

17:55 - Anthropology and the pandemic

22:28 - Checks and balances

25:15 - Donald Trump’s communication style

29:50 - Social media effects

32:48 - Societal divide around mask-wearing

34:32 - Tech disruptions in finance

38:09 - Cryptocurrencies

40:54 - Societal anxieties

TRANSCRIPT

John Darcy: (00:07)
Hello, everyone. And welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is John Darsie. I'm the Managing Director of SALT, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance, technology and public policy. SALT Talks are a digital interview series that we launched in 2020 with leading investors, creators, and thinkers. And our goal on these SALT Talks is the same as our goal at our SALT Conferences, which we're excited to resume in September of 2021 and welcome our guests on SALT Talks today who'll be speaking at that conference as well. But our goal is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future.

John Darcy: (00:48)
We're very excited today to welcome Gillian Tett to SALT Talks. Gillian today serves as the Chair of the Editorial Board and Editor at large U.S. of the Financial Times. She writes weekly columns covering a range of economic, financial, political, and social issues. She's also the co-founder of FT's Moral Money, which is a twice weekly newsletter that tracks the ESG revolution in business and finance, which has grown to be a staple Financial Times product.

John Darcy: (01:14)
In 2020 and 2021, Moral Money won the SABEW Best Newsletter Award as well. Gillian is the author of The Silo Effect, which looks at the global economy and financial system through the lens of cultural anthropology. She also authored Fool's Gold, which is a 2009 New York Times bestseller and financial book of the year at the inaugural Spear's Book Awards. Her next book, her most recent book is called Anthro-Vision: A New Way to See Life and Business and it was released in June of 2021, again, a fantastic book using Gillian's PhD in anthropology which not every business journalist has and applying that lens to the way we look at business economics and investing.

John Darcy: (01:56)
Gillian has received honorary degrees from the University of Exeter, the University of Miami, St. Andrew's, London University, Carnegie Mellon, Baruch, and an honorary doctorate from Lancaster University in the UK in addition to that PhD from Cambridge in cultural anthropology that I mentioned before. But hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci who is the Founder and Managing Partner of SkyBridge Capital, a global alternative investment firm. Anthony has a couple of nice degrees but not quite as many as Gillian. He also definitely doesn't have a PhD in anthropology.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:27)
And no honorary degrees. Again, we're too politically toxic for an honorary degree in this woke place, John.

John Darcy: (02:34)
They're trying to take away Anthony's degrees at this point, rather than giving him new honorary degrees.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:38)
100%. So far Harvard still wants the donations, Gillian, so I'm okay. They're not quite that woke yet but we'll discuss that on another SALT Talk.

Gillian Tett: (02:49)
But I think you have degrees from the School of Life in every possible sense and the school of political life too, Anthony.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:55)
Well, so the 11 day PhD in Washington lunacy. But Gillian, thank you so much for joining us. Again, another brilliant book, I've read two of your prior books, the one on JPMorgan and Bear Stearns and the derivative markets before the crash well-timed book, The Silo Effect, which I thought was another brilliant assessment of our living in our own little echo chamber. And now you're taking your life's work in study of anthropology, your work as a journalist and you're synthesizing it for us people. But before you get there, why did you decide to become a journalist and a writer? Where did you grow up? What was your inspiration for your life?

Gillian Tett: (03:39)
Well, if I certainly that, it basically explained a bit why I wrote the book because I am fundamentally completely weird by most people's standards, particularly by the standards of anyone working in finance and market. I spent the last 25 years as a financial journalist writing about finance, business, politics, tech, all the stuff that you've swum in all your life, Anthony but I actually started my career as an anthropologist, someone dedicated to the study of human culture, working in a place called Soviet Tajikistan, that's just north of Afghanistan, looking at the practices, symbols, ceremonies, rituals, belief systems of people in Tajikistan. I looked particularly at marriage rituals.

Gillian Tett: (04:24)
And a lot of people were saying "Well, that's really weird. Why would you go from that kind of cultural analysis, exotic stuff into writing about Wall Street?" And essentially I believe they're intimately connected and that's really what I said I was doing the book.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:40)
Well, they are connected but expound as to why they are connected.

Gillian Tett: (04:46)
They're connected because basically we are all human and humans everywhere in the world, whether they're on Wall Street, whether they're on a trading floor, whether they're in a C-suite or in the White House, or if they are in a Tajik village. We're all human social creatures, we operate according to all kinds of weird cultural practices that we absorb from our environment that always seems strange to everyone else but natural to ourselves. We're all shaped by rituals and symbols and ceremonies and we need to understand these cultural patterns and assumptions to work out what drives us, because if we ignore them, if we think that we are all as logical and rational as robots, then we are liable to be constantly tripped up by nasty surprises.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:34)
Well, I think that that's a brilliant part of the book. I'm just going to hold the book up for everybody because I like promoting the books of my friends. It's Anthro-Vision: A New Way to See in Business and Life. But I think it's an old way actually. I think that's the most interesting thing about your book. When I read it, it's an old way to look at things. You're basically stripping off the technology, you're stripping off of all the veneer that we put on ourselves today and looking at us from a historical perspective about how we behave with each other. Is that a fair assessment of the book?

Gillian Tett: (06:06)
I think Anthony, if you think on it, in some ways it is a very old way and it suggests that we, ultra modern sophisticated humans aren't that different from our ancestors or from people elsewhere in the world. But although that is in some ways incredibly obvious, it is amazing how often we forget it today, partly because anybody who's working in finance and markets and business has the illusion that they're operating in an ultra sophisticated world shaped by computers, shaped by rational expectations to use the economic framework that's tossed around so much in the markets. And also there's something really important which is the rise of artificial intelligence, big data sets and all the other computerized tools.

Gillian Tett: (06:54)
And one of the core messages in my book is that tools like AI are incredibly important and incredibly useful. They really can revolutionize finance, revolutionize a lot of business processes. But the problem with these tools is that they assume that human beings are rational and consistent, they tend to work by gathering data from the recent past and extrapolating that into the future and assuming that somehow correlation is causation, which of course we all know it isn't and they tend to ignore the context of all the models and all these big data sets. So what I'm really arguing in the book is a world that's being overrun by AI, artificial intelligence, neither another type of AI, anthropology intelligence, just to make sense of the context and consequences and the cultural patterns that shape us all.

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:49)
You mentioned rituals and I want to go there first before I dive into the book. And you've observed Wall Street and business and Western, Eastern business cultures, tell me a Wall Street ritual. Let's say that you were Jane Goodall and this was National Geographic and you had the binoculars on and you were observing the Wall Street primates in their habitat. And I want you to channel Richard Attenborough and... Tell me about those people. What are they like?

Gillian Tett: (08:17)
A lot of people when they think about Wall Street rituals, think about some of the more dramatic events like going to bars or buying things on trading floors or right in the bottom of stock exchange. And those rituals matter. But one of the most important rituals is something that we've not been able to do for the last year and a half, which was the investment banking conference and investment banking conferences are fascinating as rituals because in many ways, they're very similar to the gigantic ceremonial events that were weddings in the Tajikistan location where I did my PhD research. What investment banking conferences do like ritualistic weddings, is unite a scattered tribe of people, enable people to come together to reaffirm their social ties and to not just recreate social ties but also to share a common world view.

Gillian Tett: (09:12)
They have rituals which essentially reflect their shared core worldview and assumptions and then reproduce it amongst that network. And if you look at the ceremonies and rituals that go with your average investment banking conference, including I would imagine something like the SALT event, you can really see that shared worldview and see both the perils and the promise of that shared worldview. And I used that kind of analysis back in 2005 with an investment banking conference. In fact, it was the European Securitization Forum conference. And I analyzed the conference and what I saw then enabled me to predict the 2008 financial crisis.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:56)
And you did that in your book, more or less that first book that I read, you explained that the derivatives were being layered on top of each other and that the full risk assessment was cloudy at best and that things were being rated AAA and perhaps were not being rated AAA but it was a ritual, meaning there was a-

Gillian Tett: (10:15)
You can sit there and say, well, what went wrong with the 2008 financial crisis? You can look at it in terms of capital flows and numbers and ratings and all that kind of stuff. All you can say, there was a fundamental human process going on. You had a group of banknotes, there was such a tight knit tribe that they spoke in languages no one else understood, no one outside the tribe understood what they were talking about when they talked about things like CDOs and they didn't expect anyone else to understand. It gave them power controlling that language a bit like the priests and the medieval Catholic churches spoke Latin and no one else did, and they expected the congregation just to sit quietly and lap it up.

Gillian Tett: (10:57)
But also the vision they had of finance, that creation mythology, because every group has a creation mythology. The creation mythology essentially implied that they were doing this amazing thing with liquification, creating liquid markets. So, would be good for everyone. But they couldn't see the contradictions in their creation mythology and there were fundamental contradictions there like the fact that the products they were creating were supposed to be making markets more liquid but actually it was so complex and no one could trade them.

Gillian Tett: (11:32)
They couldn't see those contradictions precisely because they were in such a ghetto or a silo and also none of the PowerPoints in their ritualistic events had any faces or people that written people, the end user out of that financial creations. And that reflected a mentality that was absolutely beset with tunnel vision and had no sense of the consequences of what was happening in terms of risk-taking. And there's a wonderful scene in the book, Michael Lewis's book, The Big Short in the movie where the hedge fund trainers go down and meet a lap dancer in Florida who has actually taken out subprime mortgages. You're nodding, Anthony, because you probably remember that scene.

Anthony Scaramucci: (12:18)
I do remember that scene, it was one of the better scenes in the book and I read the book 12 years ago, but continue.

Gillian Tett: (12:23)
When the hedge fund traders met that, I think it was a pole dancer or a lap dancer, they realized-

Anthony Scaramucci: (12:30)
That's rituals, John, just so you know, not that I read the book or anything. Okay, keep going.

Gillian Tett: (12:35)
When they met her, they basically said, "Wow, subprime mortgages have been used like that?" This is the kind of shock, this is kind of nuts." And the thing that was nuts was not the fact that the hedge fund traders realized it, it was a fact that no one else did because there were so beset with tunnel vision. So basically my book is simply a call for us to bust out of our tunnel vision, get a sense of lateral vision, look at the wider world like an anthropologist to really get out and meet some real life people, look at the rituals and cultural patterns we normally ignore because that's the only way to guard against risk properly and to get savvy about what could be about to hit us in financial markets or anything else.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:20)
Listen, I think it's a brilliant assessment of what is going on. You also mentioned in the book that data is effectively the new oil. It has become this very valuable commodity on planet earth, it's manipulated by people like Oxford Analytica, it's used for forces of good but also for forces of evil. Tell us about what you write about oil being... sorry data being the new oil.

Gillian Tett: (13:48)
Well, I think the data is incredibly important. I do tell a story of it's actually Cambridge Analytica, not Oxford Analytica, but it's all posh English colleges.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:56)
I meant to say Cambridge's Oxford Analytica, my apologies to Oxford Analytica, I'm sorry, but I meant to say Cambridge first. You know, the great thing about me, Gillian, because I'm an Italian kid from Long Island, nobody cares. I don't even bother pronouncing the names right because no one assumes I'm going to pronounce them right anyway, I leave that up to John Darsie to figure out.

Gillian Tett: (14:17)
Well, funnily enough, the reason why the data company was called Cambridge Analytica was precisely because the name Cambridge sounds very auspicious and got a lot of credibility for an American audience. Strangely enough, someone else tried to copy Cambridge Analytica the data company and they based it in the city of Oxford down in Mississippi to try and create the same aura. So your mistake, Anthony, was exactly the same kind of idea that they were trying to capture in the marketing. But Cambridge Analytica was one of the breed of tech companies that arose starting from about 2012 to use data to predict the future through bringing up enormous amounts of information about what we're doing in cyberspace. And not just predict the future, to also try and manipulate people by sending out targeted messages.

Gillian Tett: (15:10)
In some ways, no different from advertising but what Cambridge Analytica did was to apply these tools into the political space, creating some incredible controversy in the 2016 election as you know, Anthony. And one of the things I argued in his book is that what's happening in this world of data is incredibly important not just in political times but also in economic times because this type of activity does not easily fit into any economist models nor into investors models when they're trying to value companies. And the reason is really simple, money is not involved. Money is not involved.

Gillian Tett: (15:53)
And economists are trained to think about everything in terms of money. It's one of the big shortfalls of the whole profession that they can't count things unless it's expressed in monetary forms. And the problem with data is actually what's going on is a back to trade in the sense that every day in cyberspace, we're giving up information in exchange for getting back services like Gmail or Google Maps or anything like that. And we normally express this in terms of a negative, i.e it's free, there's no money involved, but I argue in the book to often use a concept that's very common anthropology which is barter, which is basically what's going on. And so we need to start counting the barter trade, we need to start recognizing it because if nothing else, if you don't start talking openly about barter, you have no hopes of building a tech sector that feels more ethical to consumers.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:49)
Yeah. Listen, I think it's well said and I'm going to now synthesize one of your last books with this book, "The Silo Effect about how we tunnel into our own confirmed biases and we live in our new little news silo or cultural eco centric, if you will silo, our ecosystem is quite narrow despite globalization. And one of the weird things in my observation, last book, I was like wow, we're becoming more globalized, the result of which it makes many people fearful and they were retrenched into a silo. And in this book, what I love is that you basically now are explaining because of that, we get a lot of fear related to information, conspiracy theory, disinformation, fake news and this manifested itself with the COVID-19 pandemic and the tragedy of that. So tell us a little bit about your observation of how our society in most, the global society and us as individuals handled the tragedy of COVID-19.

Gillian Tett: (17:56)
Well, in many ways, my book Anthro-Vision tries to provide some answers to the questions I raised in the book of The Silo Effect because the Silo Effect says that we're all incredibly prone to silos, we're all retreating into tunnel vision and tribes and Anthro-Vision says well, yes, as a way to bust out of it and to actually act and think more like an anthropologist and to try and get a sense of lateral vision, to try and look at the entire picture and above all else, what I'm calling for in this book is an effort to try and think yourself into the minds and lives of people who seem different from you, not just so that you can empathize with other people but that you can also flip the lens and look back at yourself with more clarity, because there's a wonderful Chinese proverb which is that a fish can't see water.

Gillian Tett: (18:45)
We can never see ourselves clearly unless we actually make an effort to jump out of our fish bowl, go and swim with other fishery bed or even ask the other fish what they think about our fish bowl and then look back. So it's a kind of win-win having the anthropology mindset, you both understand others better and you understand yourself. And that sounds really abstract, but let me just give you two examples of how this would have played out in the pandemic if we had more policymakers who thought like anthropologists.

Gillian Tett: (19:13)
Firstly, we would not have ignored what was happening on the other side of the world in a strange, weird place called Wu Han, because guess what? Most people did ignore that, it seemed long way away and they just turned their eyes away from it. Most people thought like Donald Trump when he said that African countries were "shitholes" people went, "Ooh, that's horrible, that's terrible." But actually most of us have the same instinct to shy away from places like Africa when they find the epidemics, rather than feel empathy to try and understand what's going on."

Gillian Tett: (19:47)
So a bit of empathy for other experiences would have helped us a lot to understand what to expect with COVID. It would have also shown us some of the possible solutions for how to respond. There's a lot of anthropologists who have studied mask culture, the use of face masks in Asia in relation to the Asian pandemics. I made the point that the reason why masks are useful is not just because of medical science, having that fabric stopping the viruses, it's also useful because of behavioral impacts. A mask is a very powerful, psychological prompt, a ritual, you can actually use each day to remind yourself to change your behavior.

Gillian Tett: (20:28)
And it also has a powerful cultural signaling aspect that if you put a mask on, you signal that you're being respectful to other people and thinking about the wider good. So we could have learned all that beforehand if we'd bothered to get some empathy, but also if people had looked at America with outsider eyes before 2020 and asked whether America was ready to cope with a pandemic or not, they would have seen all of these holes and problems in the healthcare system. And just to cite one tiny example, the problems in having federal structures run some things but local structures run another and they're just not joined up at all.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:13)
Listen, I think it's excellent but if there's a core message that you have in this book is that we have intellectual superiority complexes and we don't listen to people. You tell this great story about Paul Otellini, who was the chief executive of Intel, where anthropologists were brought in to try to shake the minds of the engineers and you write in the book that they were dismissed, ignored or derided and the mindset of the highly trained engineers and executives tended to assume that everyone did or should, and I think that's the operative, they did or should think like them. And I think when I read chapter by chapter, it's more of a bunch of blockheads walled off from each other, is basically what the message is, break the walls down. Am I getting the right gist of it?

Gillian Tett: (22:10)
Yeah. Another easy way to say, Anthony, is to invoke a principle which is fundamental to American political structures and I know that you hold very dear, which is checks and balances.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:21)
No question and it saved the civilization, saved the democracy actually, and probably saved people's lives at the end of the day.

Gillian Tett: (22:30)
As in the checks and balances in America's great political system are absolutely something which are fundamental. Checks and balances should be part of anybody's thinking at work, on the trading floor, in business, in the C-suite. And what I mean by that is we all have a tendency to assume that the way that we think is natural and inevitable and how everyone should think if they don't already think that way. It's just part of being human, just like being angry is being part of human. But we don't think that actually just succumbing to anger as a good thing, we realize we have to get over it. And so we have to get over this idea that we can assume that everyone else thinks the way that we can. And in a company like Intel where I cite the Intel engineers who actually brought in an anthropologist to help them, it was a shock for the 25 year old Silicon Valley geeks to realize that the rest of the world didn't think like they do when it came to products.

Gillian Tett: (23:27)
And actually if you're trying to design a device or gadget that might work for an 80 year old Indian grandmother, you cannot have the same assumptions that you have when you're a product designer sitting in Silicon Valley. But that same point is played out over and over again in business. And the simple message of anthropology is, if you have checks and balances, if you have a diversity of views inside a structural office, if you have ways of exposing yourself to the minds of others, if you simply have a way of getting some common sense into your thinking, and by that, I mean a common view of people who are not exactly like you, you will have a better chance of managing risks and also seeing new opportunities and that's as true in the financial world as it is in tech sector, Silicon Valley or anywhere else.

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:22)
Before I turn it over to my erstwhile cohost who I was told earlier today should have his own show, John Darsie, that's what I was told. He was like stabbing me in the chest, but I do-

John Darcy: (24:35)
I spoke to my mom earlier because I don't know [crosstalk 00:24:37]-

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:36)
No, no, but I begrudgingly agreed with your fan, I said yes, he's extremely talented and he deserves his own show. Before I turn it over to John Darsie, I want to go to bigly, which is a chapter in the book about understanding Donald Trump. And there are some brilliant insights there. One of them is Mr. Trump's language, the use of his language and the appeal of it. And then secondarily, obviously this whole silo effect where people have these reinforced biases Mr. Trump's very adeptly preyed upon. And so I want you to comment on that before I turn it over to the new television star.

Gillian Tett: (25:15)
Well, I should congratulate you, Anthony, for getting through a whole 20 minutes of conversation without mentioning the T word, Donald Trump.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:22)
Well, I couldn't avoid it actually because it was such an important, I thought a chapter in your book.

Gillian Tett: (25:29)
Yeah, I do have a chapter all about bigly and Trump. And actually I should stress that the chapter actually is not just about Trump, it's actually about journalists and myself, because one of the things I should say upfront and strengths is that journalists are prone to tunnel vision and tribalism as anybody else.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:45)
You do point out that a lot of journalists missed the appeal of him, but I don't mean to interrupt, but I thought that was another brilliant assessment.

Gillian Tett: (25:52)
Well, I would put myself in that category. Hey, I'm human too, like everybody else, I can't always see the water in which I swim in as a journalistic fish. We're all shaped by cochlear assumptions and biases, myself included. And one of the things I think fascinating about journalists is that I tell the story that when Donald Trump said the word bigly during the 2016 campaign, the banks, all the journalists I knew instinctively laughed because we found it funny. And that's like okay, so we find it funny but the question to ask is, why do we find it funny? And in that moment of laughter, we basically all collectively portrayed the fact that we had this in-built arrogance and assumption that the only people in America who have the right to have power are those who have command of words and language.

Gillian Tett: (26:45)
That's one of the few acceptable forms of snobbery in America has been around having to monitor words and education. And that is so baked into us as journalists because guess what? We sweeten words every day, that's our craft, that we assume that everyone else thinks like us. Well, newsflash, they don't. The story of 2016 is actually, there's a lot of people who resent the arrogance or elitism of the educated people who control words. And the type of communication style that Donald Trump was using was very much based on non-verbal forms of communication as much as anything else.

Gillian Tett: (27:21)
I tell the story in the book that I went along on the advice of a friend to see a wrestling match. And of course Donald Trump had originally become well-known to many television viewers in America, not through the apprentice but through wrestling and until you've experienced the wrestling match and seen how visceral and nonverbal the communication is, you see the stage managed aggression and conflict and the name calling, which is so similar to crooked Hillary or Little Marco Rubio, and the chanting and the fact that the audience takes what is happening seriously, but not literally. Until you've seen that, you don't realize that that was a performative style that Donald Trump borrowed lock stock and barrel for his own political campaigns. It worked really well because it connected very deeply with a lot of voters.

Gillian Tett: (28:11)
And the key point is this, most educated links didn't even realize that was going on because they were in their own fishbowl and had never been to a wrestling match. So frankly, journalist like everyone else is a jump out the fishbowls, go and see the world more widely. And frankly, we all need to show a bit more humility to recognize our way of looking at the world thinking is not the only way.

Anthony Scaramucci: (28:36)
I think it was brilliant. Of course I also fell prey to it when he was attacking me, I called him the fattest president since William Howard Taft, Gillian. And that knocked me off of Twitter for 12 hours. And that wasn't even inspired by you, John Darsie, that was my own editorial commenting. So I'm going to turn it over to you now. Go ahead, Darsie.

John Darcy: (28:58)
Yeah, I can't take credit for that one, but you did get put on Twitter suspension, I remember that was interesting time. But Gillian, thanks so much for joining us, I'm always fascinated by your work. You talked a lot about human nature, obviously the study of anthropology is about human nature and social constructs and our role has obviously been changed by the internet and by the advent of social media. I'm curious your view on how much of social media and the echo chambers that we find there are a reflection of our human nature, they just found a new outlet for which to create these silos or these echo chambers, and how much have we been changed? How much has our society been changed by the internet, by social media, which a lot of people like to refer as is anti-social media where human interaction, especially during the pandemic has waned? How has it changed us or is it merely just a reflection of the ingrained DNA that we always experience?

Gillian Tett: (29:49)
Well, John, I think that's such a fantastic question. And what I think has happened is this, when the internet was started and social media was started, it held out the promise of connecting us all and breaking down silos and giving everyone access to everyone else and information. But what actually happened was that when we went online, we had such information overload that we automatically started re-congregating in silos and tribes just to manage this information overload. And there's something very important about the internet, which is that it creates the ability to customize our individual experiences. We really live in a world of generation scene, generation customization, where we don't just think that the world revolves around us, that where the center of the world, not that we're fitting into the world, but increasingly that we can customize the world using these digital tools.

Gillian Tett: (30:46)
You go back 50 years ago or so when people like myself or Anthony were growing up and we had vital records or cassettes of music which were preselected by someone else. Today's kids want their own playlist. And the same is true about how we get information online and how we present our identities. We customize it all the time and the more we do that, the more we tend to not just reflect the tribalism we have in the real world, we actually intensify it. And we go down these rabbit holes of customized information and customized identity and customized tribalism.

Gillian Tett: (31:22)
And in many ways, the internet, the COVID-19 lockdown has made it worse because not only have we been physically trapped in small spaces, we've been trapped with people who are just like us, i.e our social potable family. We haven't been colliding with different people every five minutes on the street or out and about. And also many of us have actually been more trapped mentally in cyberspace too as a result. And one of the other great messages I really want to stress is after COVID, we need to seize every opportunity we possibly can to bust out of our fishbowls, out of our ghettos, out of our rabbit holes, and go out and encounter the real world and other people who are not like us.

John Darcy: (32:11)
And I think COVID-19 in a number of ways was a manifestation of people's ingrained biases and the echo chambers that they tend to live in or the silos they tend to live in. And you write about the pandemic in the book and you and Anthony talked about it briefly earlier, but in your view, why is there still such a divide? It's almost a political divide between mask wearing, between vaccines, and then on the other side, the vaccine hesitant people that even at the height of the pandemic, viewed wearing a mask is sort of insulting to their own dignity that they would be forced to or asked to wear a mask. Why is there such a divide there? And what does that tell us about human nature?

Gillian Tett: (32:48)
Well, it's partly an issue of misinformation. As Anthony said, there's been tremendous amount of echo chambers and misinformation often deliberately planted. It's partly a question of political tribalism and symbols. For a long period of time, mask wearing became a symbol of your political allegiance, and that is just tragic. And it's partly because there are simply aren't a lot about glitz to enable people to collide with each other in the unexpected and this is really alarming. And we're seeing the very tangible implications and impacts of it. And one of the things that we've learned in COVID is that we are all interconnected, we're all exposed to each other but we don't understand each other, and that's very dangerous.

John Darcy: (33:33)
You talked about investment conferences. Obviously we run a big one, the SALT Conference, there's all kinds of other rituals and constructs that exist in the financial system in the financial industry that are being heavily disrupted by technology FinTech. I listened to a recent podcast with Marc Andreessen from a16z, he was making the analogy of blacksmiths. We used to get around on horses, the blacksmith put horse shoes on horses, they were an integral part of our society. As soon as the automobile was invented, those people either lost a significant portion of their income, lost their jobs, had to reinvent themselves. How much of that do you foresee in the financial industry? We obviously have things like crypto digital assets, blockchain that are reducing number of intermediaries we need for certain financial transactions and elements of the economy. How much of the financial system do you think is just going to shrink and people are going to have to adapt to the times, and what does that do to the psychology of our society?

Gillian Tett: (34:33)
Well, I think the financial industry is indeed undergoing quite a big shake up and change. And ironically back in 2008, everyone thought the financial crisis was going to be this massive shakeout moment. And it shook things up for a bit, but not dramatically. In some ways, the rapid rise of digitization which has been accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic in many ways may end up being more important than 2008 for the shakeout process. So what you are seeing right now is that a number of intermediate jobs are being knocked out, you are seeing rising use of digitalization and AI and other forms of robot finance coming into the markets. You're not seeing a complete dash online into digital. One of the other parts of my book talks about the fact that offices don't exist just because they bring people together to clearly delineate tasks, they're also very important as social spaces.

Gillian Tett: (35:30)
And it's a great irony that anthropologists have studied that although financial traders have had the ability to trade from home on a Bloomberg terminal since the year 2000, in reality, banks are built bigger on bigger trading floors, physical trading floors because they know there's merit in people being in the office together and interacting. And it's no surprise that banks like JPMorgan and Morgan Stanley and others are all saying that their employees need to come back into the office face-to-face now because they know there's value and also the human creatures being together and interacting in nonverbal ways.

Gillian Tett: (36:07)
But in spite of all that, I think the other great shakeup in finance right now which in some way is driving so much the cryptocurrency world is a shift in patterns of trust away from institutional trust and trust in people, trust in institutions and leaders into trust in the peer group, the crowd and trust in technology. And that's really at the heart of a lot of the rise of Ether, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies right now and that's also incredibly important. And also frankly, best understood from an anthropological perspective rather than an economist perspective.

Gillian Tett: (36:43)
Another message in my book is if you want to understand how money works, don't treat it like a branch of Newtonian physics. As Richard Feynman once said, the great physicist, if Adams items talked to each other, we couldn't do physics. The reality is if traders and finances talked to each other, you can't treat it like a branch of Newtonian physics, you have to look at how social science and social patterns interact with economics and finance.

John Darcy: (37:09)
And your compatriot, Neil Ferguson has written a lot about this, the history of money and there's a lot of great writings about Bitcoin, bullish cases for Bitcoin about just the evolution of what money has been historically. As a species, we've always collected trinkets and rocks and precious metals and totems and things like that to represent and store value. So if you look at Bitcoin or cryptocurrencies as just the latest evolution of that that's tailored for an internet age in a digital age, and it's not so ridiculous, but Bitcoin is such a polarizing topic and cryptocurrencies are such a polarizing topic. You see a certain group of people that are very obstinate and very resistant to the idea that this is a legitimate asset class and a legitimate part of the future and you see other people that are so rapidly bullish on Bitcoin, that it defies any level of logic. Why do you think those two camps exist and who are those two groups of people and what shapes their view of cryptocurrency?

Gillian Tett: (38:10)
Well, it's partly a question of whether you think that digitalization and technology is good and trustworthy or not, and that's just something that divides people, but it's also frankly about power. And it's very important to recognize that the current system we have is based on trust in institutions as much as anything else, is based on trust in central banks, and to a lesser extent, trust in private sector banks as well. And it's really based on a vertical axis of the trust which is what underpins most of our current society. But there's always been another axis of trust which is a horizontal axis of trust.

Gillian Tett: (38:43)
You can trust in the crowd, trust in your peer group. And that used to just operate on a very small scale in small face-to-face communities where everyone could eyeball everyone else and trust each other, but digitalization has brought around ways of building trust across large groups in terms of trusting either in online peer reviews and ratings systems and that's what drives things like Uber or Airbnb, you get in a stranger's car because you trust that the crowd has rated this person. Or you have trust in collective competing technology and that's really what is driving a lot of cryptocurrency at the moment.

Gillian Tett: (39:24)
So you have this clash between institutional trust and peer group trust, or if you'd like to use Neil Ferguson's metaphor between a tower or the type of towers that used to dominate, medieval European cities or squares, squares where crowds would congregate. And it's a inevitable aspect of human nature that people who benefit from institutional trust, who wield it, control it, shape it, never like being challenged by crowds or by horizontal trust because guess what, they're going to lose power. So that's part of what's going on at the moment as well I think.

John Darcy: (40:01)
That's fantastic. Last question I want to ask you, and it's about anxiety, a feeling of anxiety that feels to be gripping the world right now. And I'm curious whether that's something that as someone who's living in the present day, we feel that anxiety and assign a higher value to it than anxiety has existed throughout civilization. There's anxiety about the levels of debt we have on a national level, on a household level about central banking and all the money they're pumping into the system and what implications that has for the future, the rise of technology, the implications of that on our dignity as workers, whether we're going to be displaced by machines and also about things like terrorism and advanced weaponry and what does that mean for our world? Is that something that throughout history, there's been these levels of anxiety about change and about technological growth, or is it something that today based on your studies, it feels like it's above and beyond what it's been historically?

Gillian Tett: (40:55)
Well, I think that's such a great question, John. I think the issue is this, that profound uncertainty has beset every community in history. The difference today is that we think that because we have these wonderful computers and modeling techniques, that we have the ability to somehow muster the future, muster time, predict what's going to happen. And in many ways, that is exactly what has happened the last few decades. We collectively have developed these fantastic intellectual tools like economic models, big data sets, like corporate balance sheets, medical science, all of which tries to not merely help us navigate where we're going right now but predict the future too. And we put trust in these tools over and over again. And what we realized in the last decade ever since 2008 is they're not perfect, they break down, the world is a lot more uncertain than people expect.

Gillian Tett: (41:51)
We are prone to what the U.S. military calls VUCA, standing for volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity. And one of the other messages of my book is that if you rely just on those tools like economic models, big data sets, or corporate balance sheets to navigate the world with without recognizing the wider context and consequences and culture, you're like somebody walking through a dark world with a compass. Your compass can be brilliant and navigating, you don't want to throw your compass away, but if you just walked to that world and look down at your compass all the time, staring at the dark and never lift your eyes, you will trip over a tree root or walk into a tree.

Gillian Tett: (42:35)
And so an appeal for Anthro-Vision is really an appeal for people to look up, look around, see the context and the culture in which they're operating, in which they create those tools and see the consequences of what they're doing to get lateral vision instead of the kind of tunnel vision that has so marred so many of us in recent years.

John Darcy: (42:57)
Well, that was very comforting for my anxiety that humanity is still going to play a role in our world despite AI, despite the growth of big data, despite all this technological innovation we're seeing around us. So Gillian, thank you so much for joining us today on SALT Talks. Anthony, hold up her book one more time. It's called Anthro-Vision: A New Way to See in Business and Life.

Anthony Scaramucci: (43:18)
It's another brilliant book and a great assessment of what's going on in our world. Gillian, thank you for joining us and we'll see at the SALT Conference in a few months.

Gillian Tett: (43:27)
Absolutely. Well, thank you both very much indeed for your interest. Thank you.

Anthony Scaramucci: (43:32)
Okay, we'll see you soon.

John Darcy: (43:32)
Thank you, Gillian and thank you everybody for tuning in to today's SALT Talk with Gillian Tett of the FT, fantastic newsletter, I can't recommend highly enough Moral Money that's published twice a week that Gillian leads that team over the Financial Times. But just reminder, if you missed any part of this talk or any of our previous SALT Talks, you can access them on our website, it's salt.org/talksondemand, as well as on our YouTube channel which is called SALT Tube. We're also on social media at SALT Conferences where we're most active. We live tweet all these episodes and broadcast them there. So please follow us on Twitter, follow us on LinkedIn, Instagram and Facebook as well. And please spread the word about these SALT Talks. We love featuring great authors and we think Anthro-Vision is a book that has to be on your must read list for 2021.

John Darcy: (44:16)
But on behalf of Anthony and the entire SALT team, this is John Darsie signing off from SALT Talks for today. We hope to see you back here again soon.

Gary Ginsberg: First Friends | SALT Talks #234

“I’ve always been fascinated by the American presidency… I started observing leaders and the people they kept around them. I started to see the influence their closest friends had on them. They could speak to the leader in a way no one else could.”

Gary Ginsberg is the Author of “First Friends: The Powerful, Unsung (And Unelected) People Who Shaped Our Presidents”. He is also a lawyer, American political operative and corporate adviser, serving as a strategist in both the public and private sectors for more than 25 years. He was most recently Senior Vice President and Global Head of Communications at SoftBank Group Corp. before resigning in 2020. Before joining SoftBank, Ginsberg served as Executive Vice President of Corporate Marketing and Communications at Time Warner and as Executive Vice President of Global Marketing and Corporate Affairs at News Corp.

Early in his career, Gary Ginsberg noticed that most political leaders had a at least one friend offering unfiltered thoughts. His latest book, First Friends, takes a look at the outsized roles played by the closest friends and confidantes of American presidents. Ginsberg focuses on a handful of American presidents and the impact each “First Friend” had as informal advisors. In this Salt Talk, Ginsberg evaluates the most influential friends of American presidents: Abraham Lincoln, FDR, JFK, Thomas Jefferson, Bill Clinton, Harry Truman and Joe Biden.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Headshot+-+Woo,+Willy+-+Cropped.jpeg

Gary Ginsberg

Author

First Friends

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

TIMESTAMPS

0:00 - Intro and background

4:52 - Presidents’ First Friends

8:27 - Abraham Lincoln and Joshua Speed

11:44 - FDR and Daisy Suckley

14:27 - JFK and David Ormsby-Gore

18:48 - Thomas Jefferson and James Madison

22:01 - Bill Clinton and Vernon Jordan

27:20 - Franklin Pierce and Nathaniel Hawthorne

29:58 - Harry Truman and Eddie Jacobson

32:14 - Joe Biden and Ted Kaufman

TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:07)
Hello, everyone, and welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is John Darsie. I'm the managing director of SALT, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance, technology, and public policy. SALT Talks are a digital interview series with leading investors, creators, and thinkers. And our goal on these talks is the same as our goal at our SALT conferences, which we're excited to resume in September of 2021 here in our home city of New York for the first time. But our goal at those conferences and on these talks is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big, important ideas that are shaping the future. And we're very excited today to welcome Gary Ginsberg to SALT Talks. Gary grew up in Buffalo, New York home to two U.S. Presidents.

John Darsie: (00:55)
He's a lawyer by training, but he spent his professional career at the intersection of media, politics, and law. He wrote a great book that we'll talk about in just a second. He previously worked for the Clinton administration, was a senior editor and counsel at the political magazine George, and then spent the next two decades in executive positions in media and technology at News Corp, Time Warner, and then most recently at SoftBank. He's published pieces in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, and was an on-air political contributor in the early days of MSNBC. He lives in New York City with his wife and two sons. The book that he just published is called First Friends, and it's a fascinating read about the close friends of several U.S. Presidents that ended up shaping American history and having a big impact on the presidents that they served with.

John Darsie: (01:42)
A netbook comes out July 6th, so if you're out at the beach over the holiday weekend, look in your bookstores for that new book, First Friends. But hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, who's the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge Capital, which is a global alternative investment firm. Anthony is also an author himself. And I have to add, since we're talking about politics today, Anthony spent, what is it? 11 days, Anthony? Working in politics. But we think that's the end of his political career, but you never know.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:13)
Gary, he brings it up all the time. It happened four million years ago. Let me just hold on a second because I'm on the phone with my CFO. I just want to make sure that my W2 is not going to John Darsie right now. He sits in my office. He's taking over. Just please make sure it's not going to John Darsie. Thank you. Okay, hold on a second, Gary. So Gary.

Gary Ginsberg: (02:34)
Anthony.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:35)
Buffalo, New York. My wife went to the University of Buffalo. It's the second largest city in this great state, the empire state. It is a unique place, so I want you to describe Buffalo to people that have never been to Buffalo. And I'm going to have a little tell here. I have, obviously, family members in Buffalo visit often, and my family's originally from Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, which is a lot like Buffalo, as you know. So go ahead, tell us about Buffalo for those that don't know Buffalo, and how you grew up.

Gary Ginsberg: (03:06)
Well, Buffalo gets a bad rap, Anthony, as you know, for being snowbound, hardscrabble, bad luck city. It was the fifth largest city in the United States at the turn of the last century. And then William McKinley gets assassinated and basically, the fortunes of the city go down from there. But I grew up in a city that is the queen city. It's a city of good neighbors, It's a city of hardworking people. It's a blue collar city where people work hard. They play hard. They love their Buffalo Bills. I have loved the Buffalo Bills since I was old enough to breathe. It's a tough team to follow, tough team to love, but I think our fortunes are looking really up, as the city is.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:52)
And you got great food. It's a great culture.

Gary Ginsberg: (03:54)
Great food. Great wings. Beef on Weck. City's got everything.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:00)
And listen, as you said, it was-

Gary Ginsberg: (04:02)
And a socialist mayor. A new, socialist mayor.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:06)
Well, you probably like that a little bit more than I do. All right. But I just think it's important to bring up your background because Buffalo, when I think of that city, I think of friendship. You're writing a book about First Friends, the new book, which I found fascinating. Obviously, I have an interest in politics and it is illuminating to me that it's a presidency of one man, or soon to be one woman. Eventually, I expect that to happen, but let's just use the masculine term right now because of the last 46 presidents. It's a presidency of one man, but it's really a presidency of many confidants and people that that one person has to rely on. And so tell us why you wrote the book, and give us some of your insights there.

Gary Ginsberg: (04:53)
Yeah, that's a good observation. Well, since I was a little kid, I've always been fascinated by the American presidency. And as I got older and more involved in business and in politics, I started observing leaders and the people they kept around them. I'm sure you did and you get 11 days. And I started to see the influence that their closest friends had on them, how they could speak to the leader in a way that nobody else could, speak the blunt truth.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:16)
Well, obviously, I was speaking that way to the leader, which got me blown into Pennsylvania Avenue, but that's a separate topic for a different SALT Talk.

Gary Ginsberg: (05:23)
Usually a first friend of what? A couple of weeks, right?

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:27)
Well, no. If you wrote a book about Trump, it would be no friends. Okay, there's no first friends. The guy literally had no friends, but that's a whole separate book.

Gary Ginsberg: (05:35)
Well, I was going there with that, because that was one of the reasons why I wrote the book. When I was younger, I worked on the Gary Hart campaign, 1984. You're probably too young to remember that campaign, but I watched Warren Beatty, the great Hollywood star, and he'd parachute in for the most important events. And he was the only one around Beatty. And I was 21 years old, so I was very attuned to all this stuff. And he'd say, "Stop talking and acting like a politician, Gary. Come on, you're better than this." And Hart would just... he'd listen, in a way he wouldn't listen to anybody else. But at the same time, they'd have these late night marathon talks and he would loosen him up and liven him in a way nobody else could.

Gary Ginsberg: (06:13)
And then I was worked on Bill Clinton's campaign in 1992, and I saw the same effect. I saw the impact that his closest friends had on his campaign. And in particular, the role that Vernon Jordan played. And then, just to fast forward to what you brought up, I was struck by the corollary of what happened with Trump, the lack of any close friend around him, particularly in those last two months of his presidency, when no one dared to speak the hard truth to him to get him off the big lie, and perhaps save him from his second impeachment. And obviously, you could notice... you could see that at the beginning of his presidency. And I talked to somebody very close to the president who will go unnamed, who said, "Frankly, he didn't need it. He didn't need a first friend.

Gary Ginsberg: (06:56)
All he needed was the affirmation of the masses." So in effect, his Twitter feed became his first friend. And I think that had a really pernicious effect on his presidency. So based on all these observations, about three years ago, I decided to, hey, let's see if there's anything on first friends in presidential literature. It turns out, there's nothing. There's books, as you know, about first wives, first sons, first butlers, first chefs, first pets, but no one's ever written a book about first friends. So I looked around, spent about a year doing research, found, I think, I hope, nine good stories of first friendships and wrote the book.

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:32)
The stories are great. They're great because they're touching. They bring about the humanity of the situation, the pressure on the American president, the decision-making. For anybody that's never read the Presidential Brief, once you read it, it's a life-changing thing because there's dilemmas. Richard Newstat once said about the presidency, if it gets to the desk of the president, it means that there were 5,000 other people in the executive branch that really could not make the decision. So now you're going from, wow, this could be a really bad outcome to an even worse outcome. Go ahead, sir. You make that decision. And now you're sitting there. I want to switch right away to Abraham Lincoln, who suffered from crippling depression. And before he went on to end slavery and change the country, who was his best friend? And how did that relationship play out? You write such a beautiful story in the book.

Gary Ginsberg: (08:25)
Oh, thank you. So let's go to 1837. This beanpole of a man walks into a store in Springfield, Illinois. He's a new lawyer looking for a place to live, looking for bedding, actually. He walks into the store, says, "You got any bedding?" He says, "Yeah, I got it. But it's 17 bucks." Lincoln doesn't have 17 bucks, but the store owner, Joshua Speed, knows of Lincoln because he's an aspiring politician himself. And he says, "You know what? I got a bed upstairs. Go check it out. If you like it, we can share it." So Lincoln goes upstairs, checks out the bed, comes back down and says, "Speed, I'm moved in." And for the next four years, they share a bed. I don't believe it was sexual. People have tried to suggest it was. There's no evidence to support that. Then in 1841, he falls under this crippling depression and Speed essentially saves his life, takes away all of his sharp objects, ministers to him, gets him back to health.

Gary Ginsberg: (09:20)
And Lincoln says at one point, "If I die now, no one will remember me." Well, Speed made sure that people would remember him. He gets back on his feet. He goes on to obviously, a career as a lawyer. Speed goes on to be a slave owner, a plantation owner, a big businessman in Kentucky. They come back together again in the 1850s, debating slavery. But their relationship is so strong based on what happened in the early 1840s, that one of the first meetings he has as president-elect is with Speed. And he says, "Speed, I need you in my cabinet, need you in my government." But Speed's making too much money. You know what that's like, Anthony. You're making too much money to join the government. So he says, "I'm going to help you in my role as first friend."

Gary Ginsberg: (10:04)
And what he does is he basically keeps Kentucky in the Union. It's one of the six border states. But he does everything he can to keep the state part of the Union. It does. They become even closer friends once Lincoln is in the White House. He spends Thanksgiving with him in 1861. He's one of the first people to hear about the emancipation proclamation. He's with him right at the end before he dies. And it's really one of the great friendships that affected history because without Joshua Speed, we may never have known the name of Abraham Lincoln.

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:35)
I just think it's an amazing story, but if you wrote a chapter on Trump, it could be first grifters, because you mentioned about not being able to make money or you're losing money in the White House. These guys were making hundreds of millions of dollars for themselves inside the White House with complete disregard of the ethics laws. When they asked me to serve, I went to go sell the company. Thank God, the company, it didn't sell. I'm back at the company. But I just think it's an interesting thing, the evolution of the presidency, and the friends, and potentially some of the bad people around the president as well. FDR, you describe him in the book as extremely lonely and very overworked. And he had a couple of friends. There was a friend that I think passed away. He was a person that worked with him when he was governor.

Gary Ginsberg: (11:23)
Yes. Louie Howe.

Anthony Scaramucci: (11:26)
I think it was Howe. Yep. He passed away.

Gary Ginsberg: (11:30)
Yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci: (11:30)
That was a very touching story there. And then of course, the famous Harry Hopkins and the intrigue around Harry Hopkins. And he had a friendship, but a strain in his relationship with Eleanor Roosevelt. So talk about FDR.

Gary Ginsberg: (11:44)
Yeah, well, I think you're absolutely right that he was, I think, consumed with loneliness. Even though he's fighting a world war and a crippling depression, he says to the first friend that I identified in the book, Daisy Suckley, a distant cousin. He says, "I'm either exhibit A or left entirely alone." And what would happen is, he would have 22 meetings in a day, he would then go upstairs, and there was no one around him. His kids were either off to war or ne'er-do-wells, who he just didn't particularly have a close relationship with. His wife, who's one of the great crusaders of the 20th century, brilliant, brilliant woman, has an independent life from him. They are estranged in 1918 when she discovers a trove of letters that reflect a deep relationship with a mistress, who then comes back into his life at the end.

Gary Ginsberg: (12:36)
So he doesn't have a family life, doesn't have a home life. And so he becomes friendly, to the point of, I believe, it's a first friendship with this sixth cousin. And she provides him an emotional balance that he needed during his presidency. He wouldn't have been as natural or as effective a president without Daisy Suckley. John Alter, one of Roosevelt's, I think, most esteemed historians, says that in the book. And I think it's true. She was the antidote to that loneliness. She provided emotional sucker. She provided a constant presence of a really compassionate voice, a listening ear, was with him for every important moment of the last few years of his presidency. And was probably more attuned to his decline in health as anyone, with the exception of his daughter, Anne. And really ministers to him in his last couple of years, and is with him at the end in Warm Springs when he dies.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:33)
What an amazing story. And the loneliness is so true because they have to make these decisions by themselves. They're also... people that are coming at them, Gary, and they don't even know if it's a friendship, or it's a manipulation, or what's the angle. Barack and Michelle Obama both write in their books that they stopped creating new friends once they got to the presidency, for this reason. They didn't know what the agendas were for different people.

Gary Ginsberg: (14:02)
Exactly. [crosstalk 00:14:05]. And Kennedy said the same thing. He said, "I have enough friends. I don't need any new friends."

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:08)
Yeah. And it's an interesting point, and I'm going to bring up John Kennedy in a second. He met David Ormsby-Gore in pre-war London. Gore goes on to become a foreign policy advisor for him. Tell us about that story and how influential was Ormsby-Gore on John F. Kennedy?

Gary Ginsberg: (14:26)
Well, I said in the book, and I believe it quite vehemently. He was the most important foreign policy advisor to the President of the United States, despite not being an American citizen. What did anomaly that is. As you said, they met in 1938. They debated right off the bat. There were both second sons of powerful fathers and strong, older brothers. Both of their older brothers die. They both are a little bit lost in 1938, but they bond over their love of carousing, of horse racing, of golfing, of debating. They'd love to go to the House of Commons and see Churchill and action. And they start to really question, what is the role of a leader in a democracy? Is it to follow the dictates of the public and do what the public wants? Or do you take that bold stand as Churchill was doing in the late thirties, and saying, no, we have to rearm in the face of German rearmament, and provide a bulwark against their rising militarism.

Gary Ginsberg: (15:29)
And so that debate carries through for the next 25 years, and when Kennedy becomes president, I think Ormsby-Gore basically calls on that 25 years of friendship to convince Kennedy to do what is right. Both in terms of how he approached the Cuban Missile Crisis... he was a central player throughout those last seven days. And then more importantly, in the adoption of the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Without David Ormsby-Gore, his counsel, his friendship, his wisdom, and the 25 years of friendship, I don't think you would have had that first significant piece of legislation, which led to the beginning of the end of the Cold War.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:10)
Well, there's a great story in Evan Thomas' book, The Last Hundred Days of John Kennedy, about Ormsby-Gore working with John Kennedy to get the nuclear test ban. And one of the things they have to do is they have to go influence Eisenhower. And of course, Eisenhower's close first friend was his chief-of-staff that was under potential indictment by the Kennedy Justice Department. Of course, it's a very famous story where Ormsby-Gore says to JFK, "Why don't you give Ike a call and let's do a trade. You guys won't push hard on his former first friend, but you'll need his support for the nuclear test ban for the Republicans in Congress." And so Eisenhower doesn't like this. He's not a politician, but he cedes to the request. And a few days later, he writes an op-ed in support of the nuclear test ban, which helps get a done. So first friends in trouble, sometimes are influencing the course of history as well.

Gary Ginsberg: (17:10)
Yes. It's interesting. Eisenhower, after the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy's feeling horrible. He calls Eisenhower. Now Eisenhower says, "Didn't you have anybody in the room to argue against this crazy-ass invasion plan?" And Kennedy says, "No," because Kennedy has a three and a half hour meal with Ormsby-Gore at the end of January. And he goes through all the foreign policy crisis he's facing. He doesn't bring up Cuba because at this point, Ormsby-Gore's not even the ambassador. He's just a friend. He's the minister of state. He doesn't feel like he can talk to a foreigner like this. And I think he learns his from that, and that is why he calls Ormsby-Gore on day six of the Cuban Missile Crisis and says, "Come to the White House unseen, and let's debate this thing out, blockade or bombing." And they spend hours, basically. And he listens to Ormsby-Gore, and Ormsby-Gore says, "Blockade. Don't bomb." And then he obviously, I'd say, you probably remember it, yeah. He actually moves the perimeter in from 800 miles to 500 miles and the-

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:14)
I remember.

Gary Ginsberg: (18:15)
... blockade that gave invasions more time, which is just brilliant. And nobody else in the government had thought of it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:21)
And thank God Curtis LeMay, General Curtis LeMay, was not John F. Kennedy's first friend because he was calling for a nuclear strike, which would have probably caused 60 million deaths.

Gary Ginsberg: (18:33)
Oh, yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:34)
So let's switch back a little bit. I want to go to Thomas Jefferson for a second, if you don't mind. In his very interesting and very close relationship with James Madison, two of the founding fathers, both becoming presidents, tell us about their relationship.

Gary Ginsberg: (18:49)
Yeah, that was one of the real wonderful delights of this process, was discovering that friendship. Everybody thinks of Thomas Jefferson as the dominant player of that duo. And very few know that they exchanged 1,250 letters, were intimate friends for literally 50 years, from 1776 to 1826 when Jefferson dies. And I think that it's probably the most consequential friendship in American history. It was more than a friendship. It was a collaboration. It was a power field, because the two of them together could do so much more than they could do individually. And I think for Jefferson to be Jefferson, and Madison to be Madison, they needed that friendship. They were very different in looks, personality, temperament. They were both sons of Virginia. They were joined by that. They were both... came from big, rich families, they were both philosopher statesman. But Jefferson was this big thinker, this idealist.

Gary Ginsberg: (19:52)
Madison was five foot, four and much more pragmatic. And so Jefferson would have these big ideas that he needed Madison to actually execute. And Madison. For his part, I think kept Jefferson in the game on two occasions when we may have lost Thomas Jefferson to history. He was the governor of Virginia in 1781. He was basically run out of the Capitol. He was put on trial, essentially, by the Virginia legislature for abdication of responsibility. And he was acquitted, but he was so distraught by it all that he said, "I'm done. I'm done with politics." This is 1782. And only because of Madison's intercession does Jefferson decide to get back into public life. He ends up going to Paris and that's where he flowers as this diplomat. But the two of them at various moments, keep each other engaged, such that their collaboration at the end of the day, results in so much of what we experience today in our democracy, two parties. They formed the Democrat-Republican Party.

Gary Ginsberg: (20:55)
Madison is really responsible for the Constitution. And a lot of that intellectual framework comes from Jefferson's gifts of books from Paris. They formed the Bill of Rights. That's because Jefferson is pushing Madison hard for a bill of rights immediately after Madison explains what the Constitution is in a letter to him. And then their collaboration results in the Revolution of 1800, which changes Federalist rule to Republican rule, democratic rule, and then the Louisiana Purchase. And ultimately, they collaborate on the University of Virginia in their later years. So it was an amazingly productive friendship, a loving friendship, 1,250 letters between them, and it changes history.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:38)
It's an amazing story about them, but it also speaks to the fact that you'd need people to lean on, particularly when you're having setbacks, which is something that a lot of these guys, of course, have because the trials and tribulations of politics. So you worked for Bill Clinton.

Gary Ginsberg: (21:57)
I did.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:58)
What were you doing for Bill Clinton, Gary? Tell everybody.

Gary Ginsberg: (22:01)
Well, I started as his first advance director way back in January of '92. Actually, the first day I got down there, Anthony, was the day that Jennifer Flowers had her famous press conference at the Plaza Hotel. So I thought, I may not even need to unpack my bags here in Little Rock. I can had right back to my law firm in New York. But he survived it. I did that for three months, until April when he was basically the nominee. And then I went up to Washington to work on the VP selection process. I was one of five lawyers who were holed up in an unmarked, law office in downtown Washington vetting candidates. And then I worked on the presidential transition. And then I was in the White House counsel's office in 1993, and the Justice Department at the end of '93 and '94, and then I went back to New York.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:53)
What would you say about Bill Clinton in his first friends?

Gary Ginsberg: (22:58)
I would say that bill Clinton, of the 46 presidents, probably had the greatest capacity for friendship. When he left law school in 1972, he wrote down his life's goals. And his third goal was to have good friends. And I think he clearly accomplished that. In 1992, when his campaign is floundering a month after I get down there, his best friends go up to New Hampshire to basically attest to his character and save his candidacy. Vernon Jordan, I write about at great length in my final chapter, and I think that was a real, true friendship. A friendship of equals, a friendship of incredible respect, shared interests, shared values, a shared love of politics, and sports, and of women. It has an unfortunate turn toward the end when Vernon Jordan becomes a central witness in the impeachment and investigation of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. But I think it shows Clinton's amazing capacity for friendship, which is one of his great traits.

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:08)
Yeah. And listen, I admire him. My friend, Rick Lerner, was my roommate. I don't know if you would remember Rick Lerner-

Gary Ginsberg: (24:14)
Yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:15)
... but he worked for you guys.

Gary Ginsberg: (24:16)
Sure.

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:17)
My first visit to the White House was back in '93 as a result of Rick. But I went to New Hampshire with Rick to see then candidate, Governor Clinton campaign, and I was amazed about his personality. And I'll tell you how old-fashioned we all are. Somebody called them the disk drive presidential candidate. What did he mean by that? Any place that he went, he found the disk to put into his computer to talk about it. He was talking to union leaders, then he was talking to entrepreneurs, then he was talking to governmental officials. He found the disk, okay? Now, of course, we operate off the Cloud today, Gary, but that's what they said about Bill Clinton in 1992. 1991, actually.

Gary Ginsberg: (24:59)
That's funny. Can I just interject for one second?

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:01)
Please, please.

Gary Ginsberg: (25:02)
David Gergon had a really interesting observation to that point. He said that his friends served as a basis for his narrative. He would make friends, he would learn as much as he could about the friend's life, and it would fit into this mosaic that he was forming of how to run as president, how to discuss people's travails, their struggles, their challenges, their dreams. Everybody had a story, and every story then fit into that mosaic, and into ultimately, his campaign narrative.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:30)
Yeah. A very, very interesting guy, great capacity for learning. He came to our SALT conference in 2010. I was in the green room with him prior to interviewing him. He was trying to assess me. So he said, "So what party are you a member of?" And I reached into my pocket, Gary, and I pulled out a roll of bills, and I said, "I'm a member of the Green Party, Mr. President. I work on Wall Street." What party you think I'm a member of? Okay. But he never forgot that. Every time I run into him, he always says, "Hey, Green Party." He doesn't know my name. He goes, "Hey, Green Party member."

Gary Ginsberg: (26:04)
Amazing memory.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:05)
All right. Well, I have to turn it over to my millennial friend, okay? John Darsie is a first friend of mine, despite the fact that I give him guff, and he's obviously trying to... he's the baby boss at SkyBridge. You see him sitting there?

Gary Ginsberg: (26:17)
Yeah. Corner office.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:19)
Yeah. Yes. And he's mercurial too, Ginsburg. I want to make sure you know that about him, okay? He's going to come across congenial here, but he has a tendency for mercurial behavior. But go ahead, John. I know you have some questions for Gary.

John Darsie: (26:33)
When Anthony's out of the office, I squat in his corner office here. And I think there's squatter's rights in New York, so I don't know if he's going to be welcomed back.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:40)
Well, that's true. That's true, because we also have a socialist mayor. I'm sure that office is yours now. That's true.

John Darsie: (26:47)
Yeah. But there were so many fascinating stories. Anthony got to a lot of them. But I also thought the Franklin Pierce/Nathaniel Hawthorne story was very interesting. Nathaniel Hawthorne is known largely for his romantic works, including the Scarlet Letter. It's probably the one he's most famous for. But he also wrote a very consequential campaign biography of his great friend, Franklin Pierce, much to the dismay of some of his colleagues in the abolitionist movement. But could you talk about their friendship. How much impact Nathaniel Hawthorne had on Franklin Pierce?

Gary Ginsberg: (27:19)
Sure. Yes. When he writes that campaign biography, people said that extensively, it's his first work of nonfiction, but a lot of people believed that it was just a continuation of his fiction work, because it had so glorified a man who, for many, many people, did not think he deserved it. And Franklin Pierce is probably the saddest president in our history. His presidency was sad, his home life was sad, he lost three sons in quick succession, including his last son two months before he's inaugurated. It's essentially two men against the world. As you say, they were both actually in support of slavery because they believed that slavery was enshrined in the constitution, was a right of states to maintain, and they wanted to preserve the Union over pursuing the abolition of slavery. And they became immensely unpopular in their home towns and in their own communities. And Hawthorne, to his credit, stands by Pierce in a way that very few friends would.

Gary Ginsberg: (28:27)
And that's what I found most touching. He actually dedicates a book, his last book in 1863, to Pierce. His book seller says, "We can't sell any books if you dedicate your book to this misbegotten, horrible, former president." And he says, "I don't care. I'm doing it." Pierce also stays incredibly loyal to Hawthorne. Pierce provides all the jobs for Hawthorne when he can't make a dime from these books that he's writing. He writes two books in 1852, House of Seven Gables and Scarlet Letter, both big successes. We have been subjected to the horrors of having to read The Scarlet Letter for 200 years, almost, but it didn't sell. It got great reviews, but didn't sell.

Gary Ginsberg: (29:08)
Pierce made sure he got jobs and Hawthorne in exchange, stayed very loyal to him. Pierce stayed loyal to him. And they end up taking a trip, at the end of Hawthorne's life, up to the woods of New Hampshire. Hawthorne is sick. Pierce checks in on him twice in the night. The final time he checks in on him, Hawthorne is dead. He opens the handbag that he has next to his bed and what does he find in the bag? A picture of himself. Just shows you how loyal and loving the two of them were, really against the world.

John Darsie: (29:38)
Right. The last one I want to ask you about is Harry Truman and Eddie Jacobson. So Israel, it's 1948. Truman's wavering on whether to recognize Israel as a state. His friend, Eddie Jacobson, steps in. How influential was Eddie Jacobson in now what we know as modern history of that region and how it's impacted the world?

Gary Ginsberg: (29:57)
Yeah. This goes to what Anthony was saying earlier. This just shows that it really requires a first friend, somebody who's known a president for decades, and knew him in more humble times when they had a much easier, less formal relationship. And you could say anything you wanted because you shared interests, and values, and really rooted for each other, as the two of them did. So Truman is really annoyed. The Jews in 1848 are hectoring him to recognize the state. He's sick of it. His family's not particularly in love with Jews. They don't let Jews into their home in Independence, Missouri. He's been generally supportive of allowing refugees from the war to go into Israel, but he's just tired of the issue. And he says to Eddie, "Don't come and see me. I don't want to talk about this issue."

Gary Ginsberg: (30:48)
Eddie just says, "To hell with it." Eddie gets on a plane, flies across the country, walks in unannounced, uninvited, into the Oval Office, and he basically says to Harry Truman, "Knock it off. I know you, Harry. I know you're better than this. The fact that you're allowing a few Jews to get under your skin and keep you from doing what you know is right, which is to..." In this case it was to see Haim Weitzman who was waiting in New York to make the final pitch. And everybody knew that Weitzman was the key to convincing Truman because he had great respect for him. He said, "You know you should see him." And he looks over at a little statue of Andrew Jackson and basically says, "Be like Andrew Jackson, your hero. You know what Andrew Jackson would do. You need to do it."

Gary Ginsberg: (31:30)
And Truman's furious. He turns his chair in the Oval Office, he drums his hands on the desk, and then he finally turns around and says, "God damn it, you son of a bitch, you win. I'll see him." And that ultimately leads to this meeting nine days later with Weitzman, and then 11 minutes after the state of Israel is declared in 1948, Harry Truman is the first foreign leader to recognize the state, and it really becomes the foundation for this alliance, this relationship between the two countries for the last 73 years.

John Darsie: (32:00)
All right. Yeah, Eddie Jacobson had a huge impact on history for certain, with that intervention. Last question is about the Biden administration. So as you've examined the Biden administration, does he have a clear-cut first friend who has an outsized impact on his decision making and worldview?

Gary Ginsberg: (32:15)
He does. He does. If you asked 100 people around Biden, who it is, they'll all tell you it's Ted Kaufman. He was a Senator right after Biden becomes vice president. He was his chief of staff for 22 years. The average length of a chief of staff today on the Hill is three years. So for 22 years, he works all day with him in the office, then he takes the train back and forth to Wilmington. So these two form an incredible relationship. They're as close as two people can be. It was Kaufman who told him to drop out of the race in 1987. It's Kaufman who wakes up when Biden wakes up in the hospital in '88, it's Ted Kaufman who's sitting there after his aneurysm. He is the first consoler, the consoler-in-chief when Beau dies, and they speak all the time on the phone, and Ted Kaufman was the first person to sleep in the White House when Biden became president, outside of family. That just shows you how close the two are.

John Darsie: (33:09)
I thought you might say Champ Biden. Rest in peace, the beautiful German shepherd that just passed, but Ted took off. Yeah, from speaking to people in the Biden orbit, they echo what you're saying. But Gary, it's fantastic to have you on. Congratulations on the new book, First Friends. You really covered a topic that, from reading reviews and commentators, it wasn't really something that had been delved into in depth. And so you really broke ground with this book, and I think people will really enjoy reading it. Thanks so much for joining us on SALT Talks.

Gary Ginsberg: (33:37)
Thank you very much. Thanks for having me. Thank you, Anthony.

Anthony Scaramucci: (33:40)
It's great to have you on. It's a phenomenal book, it was a great read, and I'm glad to have you. And you paid me a compliment, which I'm hugging you for over the phone, because I'm only a year younger than you, but you made the insinuation that I was a lot younger. Did you catch that, John Darsie? Did you catch that?

John Darsie: (33:59)
It's amazing what Harry and I can do, and I'm not going to go into the other stuff that [crosstalk 00:34:03].

Anthony Scaramucci: (34:02)
And by the way, I don't even have the gel in this morning because I was in such a rush to get to this SALT Talk. I didn't even have gel in. So Ginsberg, you are slowly becoming one of my first friends, okay? If I ever make it back into politics, you'll be stuck with me, okay? I just wanted you to know that.

Gary Ginsberg: (34:18)
I would welcome it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (34:19)
All right. Well, thank you again for joining us.

Gary Ginsberg: (34:22)
Thanks a lot, guys.

John Darsie: (34:24)
Thank you, everybody for tuning into today's SALT Talk with Gary Ginsberg, author of the new book, First Friends, which is out July 6th. Just a reminder, if you missed any part of this talk or any of our previous SALT Talks, you can access them on demand on our website at salt.org/talks, or on our YouTube channel, which is called SALT Tube. We're also on social media. We're most active on Twitter @saltconference. We're also on LinkedIn, Instagram, and Facebook as well. But on behalf of Anthony and the entire SALT team, this is John Darsie, signing off from SALT Talks for today. We hope to see you back here again soon.

Lieutenant General Russel Honoré: Preventing Future Attacks | SALT Talks #227

"I’m very concerned about extremism among the military, armed forces and veterans. Domestic terrorists have leaned on this vigor for patriotism… they've exploited it to the point where they've found believers.”

Retired Lieutenant General Russel L. Honoré was brought in to review the security failures surrounding the January 6th Capitol attack and offer recommendations. He gives his thoughts around the insurrection and warns about a scenario where more lives could’ve been lost. LTG Honoré expresses his concern about the rise in extremism, especially among police, military and veterans. He sees internal fractures as damaging to a nation that has lost a shared sense of purpose, exacerbated by disinformation and misinformation. He offers some of the lessons he’s learned about leadership over the course of his distinguished 30+ year military career that included famously his vital leadership in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Lieutenant General Russel Honoré .jpeg

Russel Honoré

Leader

U.S. Capitol Complex Security Review

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

TIMESTAMPS

0:00 - Intro and background

6:30 - Capitol attack security review

10:02 - Extremism among police and military

14:12 - Country’s internal fractures

27:43 - Capitol security mistakes and recommendations

36:05 - Leadership and human behavior

TRANSCRIPT

John Darcie: (00:08)
Hello everyone. And welcome back to salt talks. My name is John Darcie. I'm the managing director of salt, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance technology and public policy. Salt talks are a digital interview series with leading investors, creators, and thinkers. And our goal on these talks the same as our goal at our salt conferences, which we're excited to resume in September of 2021 here in our home city of New York. But that's to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future. And we're very delighted today to welcome, uh, Lieutenant general Russell L honorary to salt talks, uh, Lieutenant general Ray, uh, helps organizations develop a culture of preparedness and creates the mindset of problem solving. Take charge, take charge leaders in the age of COVID 19 and the U S Capitol complex breach.

John Darcie: (01:05)
Uh, he's an American hero who helped, uh, new Orleans city recover from catastrophe after hurricane Katrina. He's been chosen to lead the security review of the U S capital security infrastructure, uh, inter-agency processes, uh, procedures and command and control, uh, general honor rate now shares candid and colorful leadership views on how government resources, the private sector, and we, as individuals can work together to overcome the current challenges facing the world as the commander of the joint task force, Katrina, uh, Lieutenant general Honore Ray became known as the category five general for his striking leadership style in coordinating military relief efforts in the post hurricane new Orleans. He's a decorated 37 year army veteran and global authority on leadership. Uh, when hurricane such as Harvey Irma and Maria approach news networks like CNN, Fox, MSNBC, and CBS consider him their go-to expert on emergency and disaster preparedness. And just to reiterate what Anthony said, uh, before we went live, he's truly an American hero and one of the best among us. So we're extremely grateful for your time, general and grateful to have you here on salt talks hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, who is the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge capital a, which is a global alternative investment firm. He's also the chairman of salt. And with that, I'll turn it over to Anthony for the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:24)
Well, John, thank you general. I know you're from a very small family and so I want to start right there. Tell us about that family of yours. Where were you born, sir? Uh, how many kids were in that family and, uh, and how did you get yourself into the American military?

Russel Honoré: (02:41)
Well, good boy is great to be with you honor to be with you. I was born in a little place called Lakeland, Louisiana as right at the end of the Bush road, right next to the Alamo plantation of big sugar farm, where we, uh, formed about a hundred acres on a subsistence farm. And I say subsistence opposed to sharecropper's farm because that was a different setup. We rented land. My father and mother had 12 children. I was number eight street boy in the family. And, uh, growing up, uh, poor in south Louisiana on a subsistence farm. Uh, you miss some of the skills I needed to adapt and overcome in the army. Uh, when you're poor and you live on a subsistence farm, you learn how to fix things. Tony Anthony, uh, w w one time we had two televisions to old black and white TV and one had sound and one had a pitcher and the young and the dumbest was setting up that mood and Tanner.

Russel Honoré: (03:41)
I was some aluminum fall on it. So when I came in the army, those skills, uh, were useful to me because you learned to adapt and overcome, but growing up also in that family, you're a little stand there's a hierarchy, uh, in, in the group because a family of 12 is like a team, or it could be like a herd if you get out of line. And, uh, that was a, a productive way to grow up. I wouldn't want to do it that way again, because there was many downsides to it, but it certainly, uh, add to the old adage. You know, you don't sharpen a knife with a clause, you sharpen it with a stone. And it taught us all, some lessons that what we get out of life, we're going to have to earn. And it reinforced what our public school teachers told us.

Russel Honoré: (04:33)
Anthony, if you get an education, nobody can take that from you. And you can do anything you want in America. If you get an education and apply yourself, that's it. I was the first one in my family to be able to graduate from college. Uh, but also say all my other brothers, uh, were more wealthy than I was because I chose to come in the army and, you know, get rich in their heart. They will mostly in the trades. Uh, it ended up being contractors, build houses and in the skill. So that's a basic root of my big go-to. What is known now as segregated schools. Again, uh, some people, uh, we spent a long time to get rid of them the second equal, but I think I learned some great lessons from that and they continue to serve me today. And that is, uh, you can't drive this bus looking in the rear view mirror. We got to look forward. We have to take those experiences and use them to not let bad things happen again, but let's move forward. Let's improve our country. And let's treat everybody with dignity and respect is what I learned from many spirits. And I apologize for that long answer.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:45)
No, I loved it. I wanted to let you keep going. I think it's a brilliant answer. And it, it speaks to your compassion and your empathy for people. And also your aspirational thinking. I want to shift gears though, sir, because, um, we're in a time of a peril for our democracy. That's just my opinion. So I'll share that with you in January. Uh, it was actually my 57th birthday, the 6th of January. Uh, we witnessed a insurrection at the nation's Capitol, um, speaker Pelosi appoint to you to lead a review of the security failures during that insurrection. Uh, why, why do you believe, sir, that it's important to take into account? What happened on that day

Russel Honoré: (06:31)
Is important because if it was not for the work at the tactical level, the front line officers, uh, as well as the DC police, metropolitan police force and a couple other small tactical boobs that didn't happen. Uh, this could have been a total disruption about democracy while it delayed it in terms of time. And it's an embarrassment to our nation because we go around the world preaching to other nations, the peaceful transfer of power. And here we are United States of America. Who've preached everybody about peaceful trade for a poem. We not having one. We lost our innocence that day.

Russel Honoré: (07:26)
And just, just one more point on that had those officers had not put their body on the line at the, and the insurrectionists that God do. Those two boxes. I don't think he would have, uh, changed the outcome of the election, nothing else, but it's certain the hell would have been a major disruption. Or if the mob had gotten to the vice president or to the speaker, it would have turned into a bloody affair by that time. And I'm glad it did not turn into a bloody affair, but it leads to the point. We can not let this happen again.

Anthony Scaramucci: (08:08)
We, we had a situation where the rioters entered the Capitol building. Some of them look like they had weapons and zip ties on them out. How close do you think the situation was to becoming exponentially worse?

Russel Honoré: (08:26)
Uh, again, I thank you for the principals have been attacked or had been, uh, uh, taken that would have made it exponentially. And I think it would have been at that point in time where a shooting would have started at a lot higher rate than we saw with that one person who got shot, trying to get into the flow on the floor, that in spite of everything had had this happen in any other country that I know of. And you could just name one. Uh, there would've been a lot of people did that day. And I think all of, uh, uh, cultural shift to try to get officers to deescalate things or not be a degree, not realize we might've gone a little too far, cause we didn't have the not lethal weapons ready. They weren't properly trained on them. They weren't probably maintain. And I think there's some soul searching going on in the federal law enforcement community. There's certain lines we cannot allow to be violated. And if you violate those lines in my new mantra to the Capitol police hold the line, there's some lines that cannot be broken and bomb rushing. The capital is one of them because when the Capitol close of democracy stopped,

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:58)
Are you, are you concerned about the rise of extremism in the United States?

Russel Honoré: (10:03)
Yes. In a Bergen son of an among our people in the military and people in the armed forces and our veterans, uh, for a long time, culturally, we have held, uh, law enforcement people are veterans and those who serve in the military, they're in the highest esteem. But what we're finding out in reports released by the FBI and other government agencies and the department of defense, uh, the people who want to, uh, the domestic terrorists crowd has leaned on this, uh, vigor for patriotism and saving the nation. And we're the last line to police the veterans and those in uniform. And they have exploited that Anthony to, to a point where they have found believers in the military, they found believers in the veterans. And if I believe in subservient police that in order to save the nation, uh, Bemis joined this movement to challenge the results of an election, which is the basic underpinning of a democracy.

Russel Honoré: (11:29)
You know, democracy is based on trust. Look at many things we do based on trust. You know, we, we get on the phone, we give somebody out number and they take money out of our account. You know, w we go to the polls, we hit a button and we vote who we want. Imagine all that's based on trust. And the insurrection is I've to take out innocence because without trust in a democracy, the democracy won't work. But when that trust is challenged, as it was after the 2012 and 11 election, and the process work judges, uh, defense attorneys and attorneys on both sides go in and they run the machines and it still is no trust because of this agitation that they didn't like the results of the election. And we lose that level of trust in America. We might still have them a democracy, but it won't be worth living in that.

Russel Honoré: (12:31)
There has to be a level of trust that when government officials stand up and tell the American people something, that it is the truth, the way they know it now, because the truth does change. I'm not stupid. You know, when we looked at this COVID thing, we been through the true change many times, uh, but we also know there was some misinformation put in there that caused people to question when they see relatives die. And they're not sure if they get the real truth or they get another version of some misinformation thrown at them. So again, I apologize for long answer there, but that was a barrier. I was a very deep question. You asked

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:17)
Great answers general. I, I, I'm not interrupting you because I want to hear what you have to say. You have some brilliant insight. I don't want to make this political. I know this is really about the security issues and the security shortcomings inside the Capitol. But I'm wondering if the information issue that you're describing, not just related to COVID, but also the political information and the facts that get misconstrued, uh, where we as a nation sometimes now are, are actually, we can't even argue or debate because we can't even agree on the facts are. And so what, I'm, what I'm wondering, based on your experience, your love of country, what are some things that the United States can do to try to reconnect itself and to bring back that civic virtue, uh, that, that you've basically lived your life by how do we do that, sir?

Russel Honoré: (14:13)
Well, I'm not quite sure if I have a good answer for that. That's why we've got the soul talks. And, uh, you'll bring a future desk who probably written books has spent their life studying that. I do know the basic underpinning, the patriotism, as I learned it, that you love your country sometime when your country don't love you, or it may appear that way. And, uh, you know, we owe the Supreme court in the highest esteem, but I remember as a young boy when the Supreme court said separate but equal was okay. Yeah. So, but things have changed. And I think they've changed. Continue to change for the better, but we've got to understand it's not just the disruption that was going on between people and trust in our country, that this is being influenced by outside agitators. And I do believe that there is foreign intervention to see that a democracy like ours does not survive because there are strong people in power in other nations, influential countries around the world.

Russel Honoré: (15:29)
I mean, what China has put their president for life and the elections that happened in Russia or a perfunctory thing that just keep electing the same guy. And he puts his opposition people in jail. There's a big push, not to have a democracy like America being neat, the beacon for democracy around the world. And they're, they're Indian. They're influencing people in the hinterlands in America because they are coming in through the internet. They're coming in through social media. And you know, the thing that really scares me, they're reaching out youth, they're reaching young people. They're, they're young people. When I grew up, I was in the four H club and the future farmers of America.

Russel Honoré: (16:22)
That was it influenced by some great teachers and coaches that talked about leadership that talk about love of country. And when we stood there, pledge allegiance to the flag, there wasn't a pin dropped in the room. There was no sidebar conversation. Now, young people are being influenced by going on the internet. And somebody spewing, vitriol hate among people because of their diversity because of their religion. I wasn't exposed to that, but I know my children and grandchildren are, and I know many people across the country and that information operation is attacking our country 24 7, and it's not bad. They do it one time. They save it on YouTube and people can go back and watch it again. And that's why it's important to have programs like yours, that try to bring information to people that we have to be aware of this outside influence in our government and in our culture, it could change America.

Russel Honoré: (17:41)
And, but I do have a belief that every generation in America, as a war to fight the greatest generation, fought it in Omaha beach. This generation will be fought in information operations and then influencing from people from afar, because the greatest threat to a democracy from our, like ours is a threat from one end when people lose competence in the government. And we see that happening, that the people are questioning the veracity about elections questioning. Where did the virus come from? Questioning the significance of the vaccine? Everything is challenged because that steady stream of information from the outside has one thing in mind. And that is a disruption of the United States. As we know it,

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:39)
It's not just from the outside, sir. We have political leaders in our country that are fomenting, those lies. Uh, they could be fomenting, those lies related to the vaccine. They could be fermenting them related to the veracity of our electoral process and the legitimate, legitimate seas of our election. And so, um, you've called for, uh, some, some people to be put on no fly lists that are, uh, potential threats or potential dead mesic terrorists. And these could even be people that are former military people, as you just pointed out or people that are formerly with our police departments, uh, state and local police. Um, I, and I'm not asking you to wave a magic wand and none of us have it, but if you were the czar and you could lay down some of the tenants, the groundwork to reunify the country, uh, one of the great things about the army is that people are coming from all the 50 states.

Anthony Scaramucci: (19:37)
They unify and bond together in the army. You know, you mentioned the, uh, world war II, my uncle Anthony, who I'm named after he was on Omaha beach. He, he was, uh, he was a decorated veteran purple one, the purple heart in, in France, on behalf of the country, my uncle Salvador fought in the battle of the bulge. Um, and when they came home, they had friends from all over the country that were part of that effort with them. And they felt more close as a result of that today with less than 3% of the country tied to the military one and a half to 2% in the volunteer services. And then their family members, we don't have that connective tissue that we once had. And so my question, sir, is how do we get it back?

Russel Honoré: (20:25)
Yeah, that's another one of them, a 60 what's that show used to be the $64 million question. And I wish I was smart enough to hell about taking a shot at it. I think we need to almost try to spend an equal amount of time about what's going good in our country. Definitely. You know, there's, uh, there's old song that came out. Uh, is there any good news, a D you remember that it kind of a country reign to it? Uh, I think it's important to, for folks to know that, uh, with all our problems, there are a lot of beacons of light happening around the United States of America. I mean, we've given the world a solution to the virus, which is a shot, uh, that if people take it with all the facts we know, and I had in myself, I had my first shot on Christmas Eve and never doubted because I learned to trust the system.

Russel Honoré: (21:30)
We have to have a, a sufficient amount of trust in a democracy to make you work, that there are a lot of things that are going well, but it's not equally, uh, being distributed among the people where poor people working for minimum wage, uh, struggling Lang hell, uh, because we're still using last century opinion equity. When I talk to CEOs, uh, Anthony, about, uh, creating teams in the companies and you create teams by making sure everybody understand that everybody in the company is equally important. Whether it's the guy down in the computer room, that's watching the blades to make sure they run right, or the security guard at the front desk, or somebody in the suite speed. Everybody have to feel equally important in the company and respect. And everybody needs to tie into the mission and to accomplish that mission, we need everybody to do their best, but when the missions accomplish it much like general Washington and his troops who, uh, saved us from the British army.

Russel Honoré: (22:51)
Everybody, when we achieve success must benefit from the bowtie of success. It's not just a soon C-suite that get all the new range rovers or the company acquired new jet. That guy that secured the front door, that front and back office staff that make things happen. Everybody has to benefit from the bounty of success. And I was looking at one of our great companies, Amazon, what a miracle e-commerce. But again, they will look at themselves. If people don't benefit from the bounty of success, they do. I think they lose their connection to the mission. And when they lose the, to the mission, you start seeing the tires come off the truck and the paint start to peel. And I think industry, as well as government need to make sure that we are being inclusive of everybody in the country. Look what happened with the essential workers, how many people paid respect to somebody who check your groceries out at the store of Della pet, Debbie gap, or in the hospital.

Russel Honoré: (24:17)
The president maybe did not graduate from high school or got a GB that's coming in and cleaning up elderly and sick people, or the person that maybe did not make it through nursing school, but now wanted to help others from the heart and in an elderly home taking care of, of, uh, elderly patients with multiple, uh, health issues, dealing with the guy that cut the meat in the slaughter house and the truck driver. I think it gave the next generation in appreciation that, yeah, my dad's a truck driver, but without that, Trump, you don't get your high screen TV. You don't get that new of foreign car you bought, you don't get bread on the table. You don't go to the restaurant and get it. I think we have to capture that and ensure that we are bringing this forward as a lesson from operating in an economy under a pandemic for a year to being more inclusive of everybody being on the team.

Russel Honoré: (25:34)
And when the country succeed, when the company succeed, everybody needs to, uh, participate in about ease of success. And we got some work to do there, and that's hard to do the way we've constructed our economy and the way we've constructed, uh, uh, how we help people who need help. Like it would have been a no brainer 10 years ago to declare pre-K education as a national standard. What the hell, you know, five years ago, we should have been playing, uh, junior college and skills, a no brainer. You just go to school and we need to fix that. And we're going to continue to be the innovation leader in the world. That's the message I tell CEOs.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:34)
It's a great, great message. I appreciate it, sir.

John Darcie: (26:38)
General honor. Right. Uh, Anthony gives me the privilege of asking some on these talks. So I'm going to jump in with a few follow-ups you talked about on January six, how the Capitol police, they both suffered from a lack of organization and preparedness, but also there was, you know, heroes on the front lines of that situation that prevented it potentially from becoming bloody, um, and, and people, more people losing their lives. As a result of that day. What specifically in your findings did you find today, you know, mishandled from a preparedness perspective, how can they improve on being more prepared for similar types of situations? One of your recommendations also was putting up a fence around the perimeter of the Capitol in the short term, to try to address all these sort of systemic, uh, vulnerabilities in the system. Is that going to be a permanent function of our society, whereby we're going to have to construct fences and put up barbed wire to prevent sort of domestic terrorists from, uh, you know, committing murder or, or other crimes, or are we going to be able to find a way to deescalate things at a more systemic level to prevent that

Russel Honoré: (27:44)
I've been around the world a few time, John, I'm glad you asked that question and there's no other national capital that you can just walk up to show your driver's license or your teacher sign you in and scroll around the Capitol. No other, have you, no one tell me where it is. We've preserved something through to 246 years of, uh, of our nation, that few other democracies or any other government would allow. And that is the right for citizens to come to the capital, because one of the cultural things that every member on both sides, the house and the Senate, which is odd to them to agree on what time of day it is. That's the lesson I learned that we ought to talk about a little bit sometimes and the two party system, and they all agree on. We want the Capitol open to the public at the same time general.

Russel Honoré: (28:53)
We don't want another ability for one six for Bob to rush to capital and disrupt our democracy and put people's lives at risk and people losing their lives. So that's the underpinning challenge. What we found was it, what happened before during the bed, uh, what happened before most of our operations start with, uh, prepared and then how do we prepare? What are the threats? And there was an assumption by the Capitol police board, that the crowd that was a symbol under a former president, Trump would not be violent. That assumption, uh, his words, I'm using their words that they use the testimony. I'm not making this up. No, was it our job to look at this, our job was to recommend what needed to be done to prevent this from happening again, intelligence. It was a failure in intelligence. And I think that failure is systemic because even yesterday, you saw, I saw a watch. The hearing with the FBI director said, well, it was just internet chatter, wake up, dude.

Russel Honoré: (30:16)
In the 21st century internet challenge, chatter is intelligence. We're still going back to that vision of intelligence of some world war two, where you got a guy straightened on the island, but he can listen in on the Japanese. So the German ready on that. And that's the kind of intelligence they're looking for. They say they come in at Dawn, right? There's at least six shifts. This is the direction they are moving in. That is America's vision of intelligence. Rido believe in when it's in plain sight, they didn't believe it an hour before the attack. When people said go to the Capitol, they still didn't believe it that'd be a BI in their transition or what they had. That was on Chad, the Capitol police major problem with handling intelligence. And we recommended that they include so many officers in intelligence that the rework, how they use intelligence and redefine what they think is intelligence, because they are looking for intelligence derived in a folder with secret marks on it, where the, where the, uh, uh, plastic step, when you got to open it, and you send everybody out the room and you look down and you look at the stores, that's not intelligence in the 21st century.

Russel Honoré: (32:01)
We have trouble dealing with people operating in plain sight because as American, we confuse television programs like the west wing with real life, we could fuse programs like in CIS that we know everything that's going on, but if it's happening in plain sight, it can't be that bad. And our big, our entire, uh, intelligence gathering system in America, uh, need to be refocused because doing it in plain sight, people coming on television say we got her to Capitol. They're sanding on it. And we discarded that. And we know what happened, John, as a result of that, uh, there was an intelligence failure. There was a failure on the part of the training of the officers in the capital. We recommended adding officers. The capital at the day of the attack was about 183 officers shot some of it from COVID. And some of it, they didn't have a class.

Russel Honoré: (33:08)
Last year, they were shot at the authorization. We recommended adding several hundred officers to the Capitol police force. Because last year they consume 700 at 20,000 hours over time. And you and Anthony nil looking at businesses, if you use it that much overtime, you probably need to hire some more people. If you use that much overtime, people are working six, seven days a week and that needed to be fixed. So they don't have time for training. We also recommended those fences. You talk about, but we're not talking about the green zone fences you saw around the Capitol. We're talking about re-engineering fences through with the core engineer is some of the land's best landscapers we got in the country and in the world to bed those fences in the ground. So if we saw something coming like happened on one six, that fencing could come up, give law enforcement time to respond, to get enough officers there. So people clearly know you violate this fence, you're going to be arrested, or you going to be shot.

Russel Honoré: (34:18)
That sign has to be on the fifth. You violate this line, you got to be arrested, or you will be shot. You can't violate the line. But as you saw, what we had was a equivalence of bicycle fences that we put up the control parades, and that was inadequate. It worked for 246 years. It didn't work that day. So we need to be more innovative. And the approach I gave to the core engineers is they think about the Disneyland. Look, you go to Disneyland is one place to come in, one place to go out. And you never realize how the abuse landscaping along with fencing to get you at the right place. And that's the appearance. Cause we don't want the capital to look like the green zone, but we can not allow one six to happen again.

John Darcie: (35:12)
Right. So you sort of became famous in the public consciousness for your response to hurricane Katrina. Um, you know, you came in the government sort of initially bungled elements of the response. There was anarchy in certain parts of new Orleans. There was a, a great podcast mini series that I've recently listened to from the Atlantic about the entire situation, but you came in and you took control of the situation. Uh, but what did you learn from that experience about human nature, about how people sort of naturally respond to adversity the way disinformation spreads, um, in a stressful environment and how to sort of remedy that environment that could apply to something like a capital insurrection. It could apply in business. It could apply, uh, in public policy, but what did you learn about human nature from that experience and how to take control of complex situations?

Russel Honoré: (36:05)
Yeah. Are they people from that experience and many others in military experienced 37 years? I think people are looking for somebody, Ooh, is a leader that is got to take responsibility for what they say. And I had the unique, uh, position, uh, not being an elected officer. No, I'll I'll, I wasn't elected by the people. And I was unencumbered by worried about if I was going to get elected again. And that's a hell of a burden. Our politicians carry. That's why I would never be a politician because they have to worry about how this is going to affect it. Then next, uh, election cycle. And because Omar Rabo a Tuesday evening or Wednesday morning in new Orleans, uh, I realized that the mayor knew all this. He's a senior elected official. That's what they teach us in the military and you help them do what they gonna do. And the senior person in Louisiana was the governor. There wasn't a president, they were in charge. And I think people were looking for by that time is, this is what we go to do. This is what we go to do it. Now, go make it happen.

Russel Honoré: (37:44)
Uh, because then when people are looking for a leadership is a execution. That leadership is not about getting people to do what they want to do. Leadership is about getting people do what they don't want to do. Hell you can get everybody to take off early on Friday or go to lunch together with you at the, at the lobster festival Thursday. But how do we lock down and said, Hey, we got a 36 hour close down here. And I know some of you were planning on going to the beach or spending time with your family. We've got to get this done. Leadership has got to get people to do what they don't want to do. And more of the, not politicians want to tell people what they want to hear now, what they want to do. And it's very ingrained in our politicians not to take responsibility.

Russel Honoré: (38:44)
Look, the hurricane broke the city. You don't have to defend that. The hurricane one, we lost go with that as opposed to saying, well, the state didn't give us what we needed. Are we still waiting on the federal government? Hey, look, the hurricane broke your city and put 17 foot of water in it, but it needed a thing. The president can do about that right now, other than to help you. But there's something we've taught in the political coast, Anthony, and maybe you can help fix that. That regardless of what the disaster, uh, blaming some branch of government at the time is happening is not the right answer. And too much of that was happening. And people didn't know who to listen to. We listened to the bearer or do we listen to the governor or do we listen to national media who flew in on the corporate jets, got in there and basically beat me there.

Russel Honoré: (39:52)
So that was some substantive problems. We gotta deal with it. We have dealt with, but I think people in a disaster, uh, looking for the voice in nine 11, there was a mayor of New York who said, you know, burn his candle out. But people were looking at him. People were looking at the, our president, president Bush, when he said this will not stand. And they will hear from the American, but people, he wasn't. And he laid the hammer down on those. You attacked our country. Are they, people are looking for those moments. And people are held in high esteem. When someone woke up and said, we've got to work on this together. And as opposed to, uh, different levels of government saying different things. And as we saw the days and weeks after Katrina, it became the blame game. And I wouldn't play in the blame game. We're here to save lives and take care of people.

John Darcie: (40:52)
Yeah. We, we built great institutions in this country that we think are resilient, but leadership matters. And, um, you know, I think, you know, we're experiencing that, but, uh, Lieutenant general, Russel Honore, it's such a pleasure to have you on salt talks. Uh, we could go on for hours with you, uh, extracting your wisdom, but, uh, we hope to see you on the media, still talking about the insurrection, talking about these issues that are facing the country. I think you have clear eyes about everything that's going on. So, so we need your leadership more than ever, but thank you so much for joining us

Anthony Scaramucci: (41:23)
General. You mentioned people's candles burning out your halogen lights. Sure. Sur is shining very brightly. Okay. We want to make sure we keep you in one of the main focuses of our country. You're a national treasure and it's a big honor for us to have you with us today. Thank

John Darcie: (41:44)
You be well, sir. Thank you everybody for tuning in to today's salt. Talk with Lieutenant general Russell on array. Just a reminder. If you missed any part of this talk or any of our previous salt talks, you can access them on our website on demand@salt.org backslash talks or on our YouTube channel, which is called salt tube. Uh, we're also on social media. Twitter is where we're most active at salt conference. Hopefully not spreading any, uh, disinflation there. Uh, but we're also on LinkedIn, Instagram and Facebook. And please spread the word about these salt talks, these conversations in particular like the one we had, uh, with the general today, just understanding what it takes to combat some of the polarization and extremism rising in our society today, we think are, are very important. Uh, but on behalf of Anthony and the entire salt team, this is John Darcie signing off from salt talks for today. We hope to see you back here again soon.

Kenneth Juster: Indo-American Relations | SALT Talks #226

“India is increasingly an important strategic partner and we’ll focus more attention on the Indo-Pacific where the gravity of international affairs is moving. The US-India relationship is a major pillar of stability and prosperity in that region.”

As former US ambassador to India, Kenneth Juster offers his perspective on the US-India relationship and its importance related to a rising China. He evaluates geopolitical risks from some of the top US adversaries like China and Russia and describes how American diplomats can help navigate 21st century challenges ahead. Ambassador Juster discusses American polarization, rise in nationalism at home and abroad, COVID surges in India, and the long fraught history of the India-Pakistan border conflict.

In 2017, Juster served as the Deputy Assistant to the President for International Economic Affairs and Deputy Director of the National Economic Council. He was a senior member of both the National Security Council and the National Economic Council. In this role, Juster coordinated the Administration’s international economic policy and integrated it with national security and foreign policy. He also served as the lead U.S. negotiator in the run-up to the G7 Summit in Taormina, Italy.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Kenneth Juster.jpeg

Kenneth Juster

25th United States Ambassador to India

2017-2021

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

TIMESTAMPS

0:00 - Intro and background

5:54 - History of the US-India relationship

9:09 - US-India-China dynamic

13:50 - US geopolitical risks

16:20 - Role of diplomats in the 21st century

18:18 - Assessing the national debt

21:10 - State of Russia and geopolitics

23:40- Capitol attack and the state of American democracy

25:51 - Immigration from India

29:30 - Rise in nationalism

31:50 - Challenges modernizing India’s economy

34:40 - COVID-19 in India

37:55 - India-Pakistan conflict

TRANSCRIPT

John Darcie: (00:07)
Hello everyone. And welcome back to salt talks. My name is John Darcie. I'm the managing director of salt, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance technology and public policy. Salt talks are a digital interview series with leading investors, creators, and thinkers. And our goal on these salt talks is the same as our goal at our salt conferences, which we're excited to resume here in September of 2021, registration just opened, uh, last Tuesday. So we're excited to resume those conferences, but our goal is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future. And we're very excited that I'd welcome ambassador Kenneth Juster to salt talks. I ambassador just recently completed his service as the 25th us ambassador to the Republic of India.

John Darcie: (00:58)
He previously served in the U S government as deputy assistant to the president for international economic affairs on both the national security council and national economic council starting in 2017 under the secretary of commerce from 2001 to 2005, he was a counselor acting counsel of the state department from 1992 to 1993 and deputy and senior advisor to the deputy secretary of state Lawrence Eagleburger from 1989 to 1992 as under secretary of commerce. He co-founded the U S India high technology cooperation group. Uh, and he was a key architect of the next steps in strategic partnership initiative between the United States and India in the private sector. Uh, ambassador gesture has been a partner at the global investment from Warburg Pincus, uh, from 2010 to 2017, a senior executive@salesforce.com from 2005 to 2010 and a senior partner at the law firm, Arnold and Porter posting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci. Who's the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge capital, which is a global alternative investment firm. Anthony is also the chairman of salt. And with that, I'll turn it over to Anthony for the

Kenneth Juster: (02:06)
Interview. Uh, John, thank you ambassador. Before I get started, John and I look like we're in hostage videos and there you are with this beautiful background. And so tell us what that background represents. Where is that in India and what is that beautiful building behind you, sir? Well, actually it's just my backyard in New York. Now it's called the water palace, uh, John Mahal and China or India. It's one of the many beautiful places to visit if you come to India. Uh, and I thought it was a nice background given that I had served for about three years. He's Friedman says in Basadur to that great country. And it's one of the more beautiful countries in the world before I get into your ambassadorship. However, I want to talk a little bit about your background. Where, where did you grow up, sir? What led you into public service?

Kenneth Juster: (03:01)
What did your career look like before you became the U the ambassador to India? Well, first of all, by the way, let me tell you it's a real pleasure to be with you here today, Anthony. I thank you for that question. Uh, I was born in Manhattan, but grew up in Westchester in Scarsdale. New York, graduated from Scarsdale high school. Uh, always had an interest in government and international affairs. Uh, after college, I did a joint degree in both, uh, the Kennedy school of government, as well as the law school at Harvard. Uh, and first served in government, uh, with one of my professors, Sam Huntington at the national security council in the late seventies. Uh, and that got me even more excited in working in the, uh, government and in foreign policy, went down to Washington as a practicing lawyer after a clerkship for a year at one of the large international law firms.

Kenneth Juster: (03:51)
And then, uh, one of the clients I worked with Larry Eagleburger, he can a deputy secretary of state. I was a junior partner. He asked me to come in, uh, to the government to work with him. That was a credible period of time. In 1989, you had the tenement square, you have the collapse of the Berlin wall, the unification of Germany, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait to collapse the Soviet union. And I worked with a wonderful team of people, and it really sold me on the possibilities of having a career where as you can in our country move in and out of government. I got to serve again in 2001 to 2005 as an under secretary of commerce in charge of issues for business and national security intersected. Uh, and then in 2017, I had not been involved in the campaign for the presidency, but, uh, when the Trump administration won, they did not have a deep team at that point.

Kenneth Juster: (04:49)
And I was asked, uh, by, uh, Gary Cohen, who had been the number two person at Goldman Sachs to join him at the white house as the Pressman charge of international economic affairs of the national security council, national economic council. Uh, I did that and then shortly thereafter, the opportunity to, uh, potentially be ambassador to India, opened up, my name was, uh, raised and I was, uh, very fortunate to be nominated and confirmed for that position later in 2017. Yeah. Listen, it's a great life story. And obviously thank you for your service. I want to step back a second for some of the Americans that listened to us here on saltbox that may not know as much about India as you do. And I want you to tell us the story of India, where India fits into the whole economic system, the geopolitical system. Why should us citizens be concerned about our, our relationship with India?

Kenneth Juster: (05:53)
Well, India became independent and, uh, August of 47 at the time, it was the partition of India and Pakistan. And it was a leader of the leader. Really it's a non-aligned movement during the cold war, uh, despite being in a non-aligned position, uh, over time, it, uh, tilted somewhat toward the Soviet union and Trump's of supplying its weaponry and military equipment in part because the United States also tilted toward Pakistan. The U S was still involved with India often in a, uh, area of developmental assistance, cyber cultural assistance. I'm like, uh, but the relationship was not particularly close. Uh, uh, with the end of the cold war, obviously the Soviet union, uh, disbanded, uh, you were starting to see, uh, immigration, uh, from India to United States and the beginning of an Indian American population. I mean, it existed before then, but it really began to take off more India, then tested some nuclear weapons, uh, in 1998 and received, uh, from the United States and other countries as severe sanctions for doing so.

Kenneth Juster: (07:04)
But at the end of his, uh, president Clinton's term, we took a trip to India, really tried to, uh, warm up the relationship. There was still the nuclear issue that was of concern. And when president George W. Bush came into office in 2001, he and Indian prime minister Bosch pipe at that time really felt that the world's oldest democracy United States and the world's largest democracy, and they should have a better relationship, but you may also recall India, Indian companies and individuals have been involved in the Y2K fix. So Americans were increasingly exposed to India and that really began the transformation of the relationship. I was fortunate to be involved because one of the things that India was interested in was access to, uh, sensitive us technology to help its economic sector is says civilian space sector and civilian defense sector, or somebody in military or not. I shouldn't say so the military, but, uh, uh, military sector to a certain degree as well.

Kenneth Juster: (08:07)
And, uh, I was, uh, at the intersection of those issues. And so it became involved in this transformation of the, uh, relationship. India is not an ally of the United States. It's not an adversary, but it's an increasingly important strategic partner. And as we have now focused more attention on the region, that's known as the Indo-Pacific and we're really the center of gravity of international affairs is moving the U S India relationship is a major pillar of, uh, hopefully stability and prosperity, uh, in that region. So we've really had an increasingly close relationship over the last 20 years, and it's been bipartisan, uh, and it's, uh, had the supportive parties, uh, across the aisles in both countries. And, uh, each administration has built on the successes of the previous one. And of course we have our tension now with China and China and India obviously have their issues, explain that triangle to people that are perhaps not as familiar with it.

Kenneth Juster: (09:10)
Well, first of all, India is in a very different geographical and historical position than the United States. China is on its Northern border, and it stretches very far on a supported that still remains undefined, uh, and, uh, Indian China have a relationship that goes back thousands of years, but they did have a war in 1962, uh, relating to the border issues. And they've tried to manage the relationship since then. They've had a series of agreements and protocols as to how to, uh, deal with water matters. Uh, they've interacted increasingly economically, but in the last several years, the Chinese have continued to be, uh, sort of aggressive on the Northern border. Uh, in 19 2017, they occupied territory in what's called [inaudible], which is an area for India, China, and Butan meat. And then in 2020, they amassed 50,000 troops on the Northern border. And so that has really raised, uh, concerns in India.

Kenneth Juster: (10:12)
And I think shattered a certain degree of trust that the Indians had with the Chinese, certainly the border issue, which has been compartmentalized and kept separate from the rest relationship does now, uh, undercut the relationship India is trying to disentangle itself somewhat from the chief economic relationship with China, struggling in the area of technology. And so it's a, it's a very sensitive dynamic in that region. Then you really have China, India and Pakistan, three nuclear, uh, countries all next to each other and its severity a potentially dangerous area of the world, but also one that, uh, with the world's largest populations and large economies and a tremendous amount of international trade and very dynamic and critical region. So I want you to react to this ambassador, the, uh, and these are perceptions and perhaps some of these perceptions are not factual. So clear it up for me if, uh, their perceptions.

Kenneth Juster: (11:11)
Um, but I would, I would say in general, American business leaders, uh, we view our relationship with China as competitive somewhat adversarial. There are politicians that would take it a step further and say that those tensions are, uh, on the edge there, if not, um, the beginnings of a cold war. Um, and there's some Imperial fears related to China. However, there doesn't seem to be those fears related to India. Uh, I want you to react to that, that I get any of that, right. Or, uh, what is the reality on the ground? Well, the Chinese have a very different form of government and India is autocracy and Chinese behavior. Recent years has been increasingly expansionist in that reach in the south China sea directed toward countries in Southeast Asia, east China, sea against India on the India against Japan, I'm sorry, on the Northern border with India, uh, in Butan, they've been aggressive, uh, that has really infiltrated in many ways, countries of south Asia, they've obviously in their own, uh, area have been increasingly aggressive in Taiwan, Taiwan, Hong Kong.

Kenneth Juster: (12:24)
And so, uh, this has gotten the attention and concern of the country and the region. India is a democracy. It has not indicated or exhibited expansionist of behavior. It set fascinating country. That's incredibly diverse. It's really many countries rolled up into one, but it's a country that we share many values with. There is tremendous people to people relationship there, approximately formerly in Indian Americans in the United States, uh, there's constant travel back and forth between the two countries. We, uh, processed over 1 million visas a year, uh, from India over 200,000 Indian students go to United States to get educated. So it's a very different relationship and that's the country that we want to build a, uh, increasing, uh, uh, future with in terms of trying to have a stable Indo-Pacific and a more stable, uh, world water. And we see India as a key partner, uh, in that process, no one wants to have a conflict with China, but it's an increasingly, uh, competitive, uh, relationship.

Kenneth Juster: (13:30)
Uh, prior to your role as ambassador, you were at Warburg Pincus, I think for six or seven years, uh, one of your jobs there was to assess geopolitical risk. And so step back for our salt talk, viewers and listeners, and tell us where the geopolitical risks are to the United States and to our industries. Okay, well, this is really a time of great change in the international system. The tectonic plates are moving, uh, led primarily by the rise of China. Uh, I mean, there's always the question of when a new great power rises, can that be done peacefully when the existing international system, or will that create tensions and potentially even conflict, but the rise of China and, uh, uh, the potential, uh, concerns that, that, uh, uh, companies that is certainly one of the, uh, central geopolitical risks that people need to, uh, deal with and focus on Russia, uh, has been a revisionist country and is engaged in activity that is increasingly of concern to the United States, to countries in Europe and elsewhere.

Kenneth Juster: (14:38)
That's a major risk. I think even in the west, the rise of nationalism post COVID 19, a lot of countries are saying, how do we cut our dependencies and other countries? How do we bring back, uh, economic activity to our country? What that means for, uh, international trade and economic interaction is going to be a challenge and really defining the, the rules of the road for the world order going forward. Many people would say that the liberal system that developed after world war two is no longer really attuned to today's challenges. And so how do we develop a new system that enhances prosperity and security and hopefully avoid conflict as you have the uplift ration of weapons of mass destruction, and you have a bunch of other challenges in the global common, such as the pandemic we're dealing with right now, although on the flip side, however, there are massive, positive technological changes taking place.

Kenneth Juster: (15:40)
Uh, we're moving more at the renewables. We've got the introduction of 5g and all the massive technological information flow transformation that will take place as a result of that. And of course, in the bio technological world, we're doing things like M RNA. And so paint a picture for us of how our diplomats can help calm down the world, if you will relieve some of these tensions. So this great prosperity that's ahead for us technologically can, can happen in a peaceful way. And also obviously in a deep way, economically, where we can share it among the classes and societies. Well, as you say, technology is truly changing the world and as it penetrates every industry, it can have a very positive impact, but technology misuse can also have a negative impact. Our attorney governments can use technology to suppress their people. You can get track of people's privacy and invade that as well.

Kenneth Juster: (16:40)
And I think what diplomats can try to do, uh, working hand in hand with the business community is really developed the rules and standards for the uses of technology and, and, uh, future, uh, economic discussions we'll have to deal with the digital economy. What did we do in terms of a FinTech financial technology to ensure that they can have more transactions, but at the same time that these are secure and don't get infiltrated by people who want ransomware things of that nature. So technology is neutral. It can have a tremendously positive impact if it's properly administered and regulated, uh, and hopefully minimal regulation, but there are certainly important public policy issues of privacy and security, cyber security, uh, but it can be very damaging if because of, uh, increased technology, the country can go in and paralyze your infrastructure through a tax on that technology.

Kenneth Juster: (17:40)
I think it's well said, and DAS, I want to, I want to put your, uh, economist hat on for a sec and get your reaction to this. We were approximately 8 trillion of deficit spending from 1776 to 2008, from 2008 to 2021 and 13 years. We've added about $20 trillion of debt. So we're now clicking at a $28 trillion budget deficit for the United States. So, so we we've had modern monetary theorists on that are saying not, not to be worried about our $28 trillion deficit. Are you worried about it? Yeah, I'm worried about it for a few reasons. First of all, the U S economy is the most resilient economy in the world. Uh, we have a highly entrepreneurial, uh, population. We are able to raise capital and deploy it very quickly. People are high risk takers can get rewarded for that. And so I think the U S economy will do quite well.

Kenneth Juster: (18:45)
And, uh, even in this situation post COVID, I think people have been impressed at how quickly it is covering. So we need still targeted safety nets and potentially stimulus, but I worry that we've offered it. And as a consequence, uh, you have a lot of money in the financial system that can lead to inflation, which will not be beneficial for anybody, uh, that can also, uh, lead to higher taxation to support all of the spending, which will, I think, stifle economic growth. And finally, uh, all of this, uh, deficit spending will be, uh, a real burden on future generations where they're going to have to spend a lot of their budgets to repay, uh, the London. So I think as you say, we have, uh, seen a tremendous amount of new, uh, spending in the last several years and deficit spending and it is troubling, and I hope that it doesn't really become a drag on the economy, which otherwise I think would be very dynamic in this country.

Kenneth Juster: (19:52)
Yeah. Listen, I, I don't know. I got trained in economics 35 years ago. I'm worried that I'm being told not to be worried about it. I wanted to get your reaction to all of it. Yeah, no, I think intuitively you have to think about your own household. Would you be comfortable if you had that much that running your own expenses and a country is made up of a lot of households. And so I think it does raise serious concerns and we've really broken through barriers that years ago. We never anticipated, but even be reaching. And, and we've had, we, we had a long-term thinking back in the day and we had people that were, you know, I just read a Hitchcock's book on Dwight Eisenhower talking about how seriously he took that budget and how sharp he was with a pencil. It seems now that we're, we're, we're over promising and under delivering, at least in that category.

Kenneth Juster: (20:47)
I want, I wanna, I want to switch gears for a second and ask your opinion of Russia because of your experience in the diplomatic Corps, but also your experience as a world leader and, uh, uh, an investor, uh, give us your, uh, synopsis of where we are with Russia. And where do you see Russia in terms of its geopolitical footprint? Well, after the collapse of the Soviet union, there were great hopes that Russia could be integrated into, uh, the west. And, uh, that process unfortunately, uh, uh, has not worked, uh, successfully. And I think, uh, Putin, uh, represents, uh, in many respects, someone who bemoans the collapse of the empire that Russia had developed and through the Soviet union, and he has become over time and increasingly revisionist leader and Russia has, uh, engaged in whole range of behavior. That's increasingly troubling. And it almost seems as if their, a modus operandi is to Crow and do things that they feel are just under the threshold that we'll get a nature reaction from the United States and other countries yes, for imposed sanctions.

Kenneth Juster: (22:03)
But we don't really, uh, put a red line down and say, this is unacceptable, and we're going to reverse the behavior. And the challenge for the United States working with its European allies is not to want to, uh, create a conflict with Russia, but to make very clear that there's conduct, that's not acceptable. And that this process of, uh, probing and doing things that are increasingly, uh, uh, against the interests of the United States and Europe, including cyber attacks, including interfering with elections, including the activity, uh, in Ukraine and elsewhere, this has got to come to a stop. And that's really one of the major challenges, uh, for the Biden administration. One of the geopolitical challenges that you mentioned, because if this behavior is allowed to continue, it encourages other countries to engage in that sort of behavior as well. I, I appreciate it. Ambassador. I'm gonna, I'm gonna make sure that John gets some tough questions like about the Indian Pakistan border, you know, stuff like that.

Kenneth Juster: (23:07)
I, I want you to like me and hopefully John will say some prickly things and you'll be annoyed with him, but I have one, one last question for you. And that is about our, our democracy and the insurrection that took place on January 6th, which, uh, uh, four two was my birthday. I was watching celebrating my birthday and watching a insurrection at the nation's Capitol. And I feel that the democracy is under threat. And so not to superimpose my ideas on you. What do you feel about this situation? What are your thoughts there? How we can heal the country and possibly try to figure out ways to remit the country and unite the, I think there are several issues that you raised and I want to try to dis-aggregate them. I think at the broadest level, in terms of our democracy, I would say much like our economy.

Kenneth Juster: (23:56)
It's, it's very resilient. We have strong institutions I've seen around the world countries that don't have institutions that come anywhere close to what we have strong traditionary. And we have a strong, uh, media, uh, sector. We have strong civil society. So I don't think that democracy itself in the United States is under threat. But I do think is of concern is that it's increasingly polarized our political system and therefore dysfunctional. Now, maybe you could say that makes it under threat. I don't think the system is dying to collapse, but I don't think it's fricking nearly as effectively as it needs to, especially to address the complex challenge that we have. And unfortunately it sends a negative signal to other countries around the world that democracy is not a, an effectively functioning system. And it's utilized by countries such as China to say, we have a better alternative system, which is sort of state capitalism.

Kenneth Juster: (24:53)
So the challenge for us is how do we, uh, begin again to work, uh, as a whole, uh, with, uh, people from both sides of the aisle, trying to make compromises, to advance our interests collectively, and to stop enacting a legislation that is supported only by one side of the other, and then gets reversed a few years later when the other side, uh, is, uh, uh, controlling the Congress and executive branch. So the democracy and abroad way, I think is resilient. And still, we have stronger institutions than any country in the world, but I do think it's increasingly challenged by the political polarization that has made its implementation, uh, less functional than it should be. And well said, hopefully we can, you can get there. Um, uh, but, uh, John, let's go here. Okay. Ask the super tough questions. Okay. Because what happens to me ambassador is we leave these Saul talks. Everybody likes John, and they think I'm asking all the tough questions. So come on, John, dig in here, get some spikes and those questions,

John Darcie: (26:00)
All right, I'll start with immigration, uh, ambassador. So I believe there's something around 4 million Indian Americans in the United States. You know, many of them are the heads of our major hospital systems or tech companies. You have the heads of, of Google and Microsoft today, or Indian Americans. It's obviously been an exchange of people and ideas and commerce between the two nations that has been very fruitful for everyone involved. And I want to talk about the immigration issue a little bit. I think within the Trump administration, obviously they, they tightened up our immigration policies a little bit. Uh, you know, the Biden administration is still grappling with how to both encourage immigration, but also maintain some control and sovereignty over our borders, frankly. But what is the right immigration policy? Do we have the right policies to continue to attract the best talent from the tech world? If you were in charge, how would you adjust, uh, the current stuff?

Kenneth Juster: (26:51)
Well, first of all, I want to, uh, highlight what you said is that Indian Americans that have come to this country have made a great contribution across a whole range of sectors, whether it's been medical sector, legal sector, and certainly in the technology sector and it's, and it's really benefited those countries because it's been a two-by-two flow of, of, of ideas, uh, and, uh, people going back and forth. Uh, many of these, uh, Indian Americans have come to United States through what's called an H one B visa mature, uh, is a program that began in 1990 to really get a high quality people, to fill jobs in the technology sector that cannot otherwise be filled by Americans. There are 65,000 slots for H one BS and another 20,000 for people who have a master's degree. This is a global program. That's open to people from around the world, but the Indians have been able to garner on average about 75% of the spaces that has not changed over time.

Kenneth Juster: (27:56)
The H1B visa program is still in place. It's still 65,000 plus 20,000. It was suspended during the last half of 2020, because COVID had put so many people out of work, but there was a sense that we needed to give some priority to Americans, but the program is back in place. And while there have been certain tightening of the rules and regulations, so that it really getting high quality people, and they're not, there's not a gaming of the system is still means that about 70 to 75% of the visas go to Indian people. And many of those people then ultimately become a us citizen. So I think it's in terms of that policy, it's been a great success, uh, and, uh, I'm delighted that India sends its best people to our country to contribute to our economy. I think the challenge for India is to create conditions in its own countries, that some of these wonderful people want to stay there to develop their career and their entrepreneurship and their outpatient rather than contribute to our economy. But the immigration policy that has been relevant to Indian Americans, the H1B, I think, has been a very, a substantial success. Do

John Darcie: (29:10)
You read all about what Anthony mentioned earlier? This rise in nationalism and populism and some of the polarization that exists in the United States might turn people from somewhere like India off from coming to this country and setting up their business or coming to work in our, uh, economy. Uh, do you think that issue is,

Kenneth Juster: (29:30)
Yeah, look, I think that, as I mentioned earlier is a very important issue, especially coming out of COVID-19. The question is going to be what lessons countries learn from COVID-19 will it be one of the increased nationalism we need to close our borders. We need to try to develop everything internally. Will the pendulum swing from a very interdependent economic relationship that's existed throughout the world to one that tries to cut off, uh, dependencies. I think what you really need to do is develop dependencies, but trusted partners so that you no country can do things alone, but this sort of nationalism and we've seen in India, uh, what's called self-reliance and the Indians are quick to say that this does not mean it's going to limit their level of global interaction, but it is saying that we want to be increasingly self-reliant. We want to make sure that supply chains are not dependent on countries that have concern.

Kenneth Juster: (30:29)
And so have that will have an impact on India. How some of the concerns in the United States, uh, uh, about jobs and security will have an impact still remains to be seen. But the fact is economic interaction movement of people, flow of technology, uh, movement of currencies, and, uh, uh, capital markets is so integrated, uh, internationally that you're not going to be able to turn that back, which is even by the way, why, uh, the relationship with China is very different than what we saw during the cold war with the United States. So the Chinese economy is very much integrated with the rest of the roles. We're going to have to figure out how to manage issues that are of concern, rather than think that somehow we're going to be able to disentangle everything and separate, right? So,

John Darcie: (31:17)
Uh, several years ago, India is a very cash dominant economy. You probably know the statistics better than I do, but I know it's a very cash dominant society. The government went through an experiment several years ago, where they tried to basically repatriate a lot of the cash that was on the street and digitize a lot of the economy. How successful were they in that? What did we learn from that experiment? And what is the current state of the Indian economy in terms of modernizing and trying to root out what they perceive as I think non-payment of taxes and just an overall archaic infrastructure around their economy?

Kenneth Juster: (31:51)
Well, what you're referring to is something known as the monetization and which I'm very short notice, all sorts of forms of certain denominations of currency were outlawed. And in hindsight, it created a, uh, a real problem in India because suddenly a lot of people's law operated outside the normal economy, but that's how, uh, people who work in India often do operate on and at subsistence levels over suddenly put out of work and, uh, their businesses suffered. And so it had a substantial, uh, downsides, economically. It was meant to sort of root out corruption, uh, perhaps it had some positives in that respect, but, uh, clearly what we've seen is an increasing move, uh, to go to more of a economy. We using credit cards and other types of payment systems. And this is happening in India as well. Whole payments process industry is taking off.

Kenneth Juster: (32:49)
Obviously it's the degree, things are done that way. It does lessen the possibilities of corruption. And I think this is where the world is going. What it needs to happen now is folks who work in the regulatory area to better understand the ramifications of this, and to make sure that it can be done in a way that, uh, does not allow for laundering of money for illegal payments and for other types of issues. But Raul moving in terms of, uh, technology transforming the financial sector, I'm trying to do it in a way that will be more efficient for people and, and, uh, without fraud and corruption better enable, uh, prosperity along the way. So

John Darcie: (33:29)
I want to talk about COVID-19 for a second. We obviously over here in the United States saw a lot of horrific stories, the same noise we did inside of our own borders about things that were happening related to COVID-19 in India. They had a big wave of infections, sort of after things started to die down here in the United States are still working on increasing their vaccination rates, how dire, uh, was, and is the situation related to COVID-19 in India. And what do you think the country will have learned from, from that period about, uh, public health challenges and new healthcare models?

Kenneth Juster: (34:01)
Well, let me sort of, uh, review what have been two phases. I think of dealing with COVID-19 initially, uh, in March of last year, uh, the prime minister in post, a very severe lock than maybe the most severe of any major economy in the world, other than China, uh, for really it was six weeks and then it slowly started to be loosened up, but state of the lockdown or broadly stayed on for a few months and this sort of several purposes, the Indian health system itself is less well developed. There are less beds available per person and other medical supplies and optimally, it would be the case. And during this initial period enabled India to build up its supply of protective equipment of ventilators of hospital beds and availability. And so when people started to have COVID symptoms, the healthcare system was able to deal with it without being completely overrun.

Kenneth Juster: (34:58)
India did have, and given its population, it's a country, that's about a third, the size of the United States, the population density or within the population about four times our country. So you can imagine how dense it is. They did have a significant number of cases, but were able to manage it. And for whatever reason, there was a lower fatality rates. Some people think because India has perhaps a very young population, 65% of the people that are under the age of 35, maybe because people were exposed to SARS in 2003, and it built up immunities to this fires. And maybe because people had just been exposed to other illnesses and have immune systems for whatever reason, even with a substantial number of cases that were not as many fatalities. And by the time I left India in January of 2021 cases had really gone down and things looked like they were in good shape.

Kenneth Juster: (35:50)
Unfortunately, I think there was a overconfidence perhaps that, uh, the, the COVID problem and solved and people in the government let their guard down. There were political rallies when there were four major state elections and an election in union territory. So you had hundreds of rallies for people who are without mass and close quarters. You had a major religious, uh, pilgrimage festivity called the Q mail of it was moved up a year from 2022 to 2021 over a million people got together there. And so they suddenly had a spreading a big second way, and you still have to add new variants, uh, uh, one variant that seems to hit younger people and also spreading more rapidly and there's opposite concern. It could even come to our country. And so India has suffered greatly during the second way. It's the numbers. In fact, it may well be underreported.

Kenneth Juster: (36:42)
And while I think it's plateaued out in the major cities and it's getting better, the real concern now is that it's stretched the rural areas, where there really is a very, uh, poor health infrastructure. And that we could see, unfortunately, a more tragic deaths along the way India has, I think, learned a lot. Uh, it had initially been exporting vaccines. It's now trying to focus more on building up its own inventory and getting its own population facts. And I still think only about 3% of the population has received two vaccine shots. About 13% of the population has received one, but that's still a substantial way to go, uh, for the country. So this will continue to be a challenge.

John Darcie: (37:23)
Last question I want to ask, ask you it's about India, Pakistan. So when people go around

Kenneth Juster: (37:27)
The world and they try to identify the real hotspots where we could see the potential for armed conflict and potentially nuclear conflict, India, Pakistan seems to be one of the top ones on the list. So how concerned are you about relations between those two countries? Where do they stand today relative to sort of the historical ebbs and flows and tensions between those two countries? And again, how concerned are you about the bubbling up of tensions between India and Pakistan? Oh, the relationship between India and Pakistan has always been a difficult one beginning with partition in 1947, they've had four wars and 47 and 65 and 71, uh, and in 99. And, uh, there has been, uh, recent years increased cross border terrorism from Pakistan to India. And this is a area because you have two nuclear states that always, uh, presents, uh, risks more recently when India had a further focus on problems in the north with China, their nightmare scenario is that they have a two front conflict with China in the north and Pakistan in the west and the Indians and the Pakistan have been able to reach agreement in February of this year to honor all of the peace and sort of ceasefire arrangements on the line of control that separates the two countries, but they still need to try to work out a better modus operandi and to have economic development when prime minister Modi and become development in that region and prime minister Modi came into office.

Kenneth Juster: (39:04)
He didn't invite the Indian prime minister, the Pakistani prime minister to his inauguration. He later visit our prime minister on his birthday and they sought to try to move the relationship forward. But then there were some terrorists and Smiths and it's undercut that. And I really think they need to deal with solving the cross border terrorism issue to promote greater stability and economic opportunity in that region. But this continues to be a sort of an area of tension. They countries do have a dialogue and back channel operations to try to keep things under control, but again, something can flare up and, uh, lead to a problem. So I think the whole region, as I mentioned, all Europe, India, Pakistan, China is one that the world needs to keep a sharp eye on.

John Darcie: (39:56)
Well, ambassador Kenneth Juster. Thank you so much for

Kenneth Juster: (39:58)
Joining us here on salt socks. I think more than anyone right now, uh, in the American power structure, you've done so many things to contribute to this great partnership and friendship between the United States and India that I think will be increasingly important, uh, in the years to come. And we have you, uh, in part to thank for that, that partnership. So thank you so much for your service. Thanks for joining us on salt talks, Anthony ever final word for the ambassador before we let him go. One of our live events. So we've got our next one coming up in September DAS that are at the Javits center. So thank you very much, Anthony and Jocelyn, real pleasure speaking with you this morning. Thank you everyone for tuning into today's salt. Talk with ambassador, Ken adjuster, just a reminder. If you missed any part of this talk or any of our previous salt talks, you can access them all on demand on our website. It's salt.org backslash talks or on our YouTube channel, which is called salt too. We're also on social media. Twitter is where we're most active at salt conference, but we're also on LinkedIn, Instagram and Facebook as well. And please spread the word about these salt talks. If you find them interesting on behalf of Anthony and the entire salt team, this is John Darcie signing off from salt talk sport today. We hope to see you back here against them.

Bill Bratton: The Profession | SALT Talks #224

“Police are now being faulted for something basically our political leadership, Republicans and Democrats, have failed at for fifty years… Who’s going to have to deal with it in the meantime? Police.”

Raised in the Dorchester section of Boston, former NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton recounts his love of his local police station from a young age, leading to lifelong career in the profession. He worries about some of the trends emerging that remind him of his early days in New York City where graffiti was ubiquitous. Bratton cites the influence of Sir Robert Peel, the father of modern policing, who established the London Metropolitan Police Force in 1829 and laid out 9 policing principles. Bratton shares his thoughts on issues surrounding George Floyd’s death, police violence and the defund the police movement. 

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Bill Bratton.jpeg

Bill Bratton

38th & 42nd Police Commissioner of New York City

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

TIMESTAMPS

0:00 - Intro

2:47 - Background

5:53 - Robert Peel and broken windows

8:55 - Community policing and recent crime waves

14:02 - Criminal justice reforms

16:53 - George Floyd and the defund the police movement

24:15 - Policing recommendations

27:49 - Bill de Blasio

34:37 - Concerns around modern police policies 

36:03 - Terrorism and 21st century threats

John Darcie: (00:07)
Hello everyone. And welcome back to salt talks. My name is John Darcie. I'm the managing director of salt, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance technology and public policy. Salt talks are a digital interview series that we started in 2020 with leading investors, creators and thinkers. And our goal on these talks is the same as our goal at our salt conferences, which we're excited to resume in September of 2021 in New York city. Uh, but our goal is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future. And one of these important ideas, uh, and, and issues in our society today is effective policing. So we're very excited to welcome what I think is one of America's foremost experts on the topic onto the show and that's commissioner bill Bratton.

John Darcie: (01:00)
Uh, Mr. Bratton served as the chief of the Los Angeles police department, chief of the New York city transit police commissioner of the Boston police department and commissioner of the New York city police department in both 1994 and 2014. He's out with a great new book called the profession, a memoir of community race and the arc of policing in America, which again, we think tackle some of these really important topics that are going on in society today, obviously around everything that has happened with George Floyd last year, uh, and other incidences of, of, uh, police violence, but also recognizing the complexity around policing. I think it's something that, that, uh, Mr. Bratton does as well as anyone, uh, in the marketplace hosting. Today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci. Who's the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge capital, which is a global alternative investment firm. Anthony is also the chairman of salt. Uh, he's a longtime friend of Mr. Bratton as well. So we're excited to welcome, uh, the commissioner onto salt talks here today. Anthony, go ahead and take it away. Thank you, John.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:01)
And so, uh, commissioner, uh, it's great to see you. The book is fantastic. I like holding up the books of my friends. So we're going to put it up here, the profession, a memoir of community race and the arc of policing in America. And it's truly a phenomenal book. I, I, I was reading it last night. I've got some questions related to stuff in the book, but I also want to start with your background, sir, because I find it to be one of the more amazing quintessentially American stories about your life and how you developed your profession. So tell us a little bit about your background. We got a lot of young people, uh, that listened to us, uh, over 80,000 subscribers. Now tell us about your background, how you got your career started.

Bill Bratton: (02:48)
Well, I grew up, uh, in the Dorchester section of Boston born in 1947, raised in a cold water flat that's, triple Decker style housing in Boston. And, uh, uh, most of my younger life that, uh, I, uh, began to become fascinated with policing was police station down the street that was co-joined with a local library and spent a lot of time in the library. And a lot of time just watching those cops much in that building. But, uh, I didn't become a police officer till 1970. I was just, just back from Vietnam war it's your three years of the military police sent free doggy and luck and going on the Boston police was the fulfillment of a dream that, uh, the dream was to become a cop and in the 1970s, extraordinary turbulent times and Boston desegregation schools, turbulent times in our country, certainly sixties and seventies. So, uh, the book that, uh, you're referencing the profession, uh, is a memo memoir 50 years of policing since I joined it in 1970 and now 2021 in some respects, uh, it's reflective of a Yogi Berra is deja VU all over again, looking at the New York post headlines, the last couple of days about squeezy PEs in graffiti. A lot of people in New York were around back in the seventies, eighties, early nineties, but I was, and, uh, we're kind of back where we started after 50 years as it relates to those issues.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:14)
Well, you know, I want to apply in 1989 and lived in the city. You had that intersection on 96th street leading up to, uh, the FDR drive. They always had three or four guys there, pan handling, uh, turned out there weren't that many of them. I remember that from your first book, uh, in terms of cleaning up that situation and making the quality of life in the city better. Um, you also had in your first book, uh, there was a pamphlet that used to show people about the early policing in Boston. I believe it was, if it wasn't Boston, it was something, but you had this pamphlet about how the police officers opera. Did you remember this pamphlet bill? I don't know if you remember it, but you I'll have to dig it up if you don't remember, but I was fascinated by that. I saw you give a speech related to it when you became the commissioner of the police in LA and the reason I'm bringing it up. It's okay. And you're

Bill Bratton: (05:04)
Talking about a survivor appeals philosophy. My philosophy is that actually, that's what I'm talking about. They carry it everywhere. Okay. Okay.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:14)
You see that? Yeah. So I remember that vividly from a speech that you gave, uh, I was so impressed with it and, um, I'm glad you put that in there because that was going to be all right. Maybe I've met, maybe I misspoke, but there's a linkage to your philosophy related to police conduct that goes back hundreds of years. And I want you to talk a little bit about that and then we'll get into the book. But I think it's very important because I think we're, I think what we have found is that philosophy does work. People are safer, even the people in more violent communities, frankly, feel safer. Um, but could you go into that a little

Bill Bratton: (05:52)
Bit, if you don't, uh, I go into it extensively in the book because it's a central in the garment of the book, if you will. And what we're talking about, uh, actually two concepts that are linked. One is Serabit PLA 1829 creates the metropolitan police in London, really the first uniform police service in a, uh, a Western society. Uh, and he, uh, annunciates at that time nine principles of policing and they are, if you take the time to read them and they were in the book that, uh, they are even more probably today than 1829, the first of them is that the basic mission for which the police exists is to prevent crime and disorder five most important words in policing in Western civilization, the police exist to prevent crime, not just respond to it and disorder in seventies and eighties and America, we focused on responding to crime and pay no attention to disorder.

Bill Bratton: (06:48)
The linkage of this document is to another document I think you're referring to. And that's the article and Atlantic monthly, 1982 by George Kelling in Jim Wilson called broken windows in broken windows was based on the idea that if you do not take care of minor crime, that most people encountered every day, that destroyed neighborhoods and created fear similar to what New York is going through right now. And indeed many parts of the country. The idea of the prostitute, the idea of the homeless equals the Pega, the squeegee pesto now invading New York. Once again, the good feeling that that's what people saw every day, they might read about the murders, but most people were not going to be the victims of serious crime. So the linkage from the nine philosophies and the idea to control crime and disorder to broken windows, I am probably the most formidable, uh, uh, proponent of surviving appeal, but also a broken windows that you cannot have serious crime reduction without also focusing on serious audit control of fixing the broken windows. And so,

Speaker 4: (07:53)
And so what, what happened commissioner? Because we, we, it seemed like as an observer, my business has been in new, I'm a new Yorker, less my seven years in Boston, which you and I have discussed. I'm a new Yorker. Um, it seemed like we had things going well. Uh, you started a Renaissance in New York, uh, when you were the commissioner of the police, uh, it seemed like you took some of those practices. Now we can talk about stop and frisk as well. I, I know that that's a political lead charge issue and, and I, and I certainly don't want to, I, uh, I want to overly opine on that cause I don't understand it as well as you do. I'm sure you could, you could give your opinion of it. But, but my point is we seemed like we had the city in a safe position. It feels very unsafe today to people that just, you know, certain areas, pockets of it, crime, homeless tents, panhandlers, squeegee people. So why did it devolve to where it is today and did it, did it need to devolve to where it is today? Obviously? So why did it

Bill Bratton: (08:58)
Book speaks to that change that you're talking about beginning of 1990, after the failure of the seventies and eighties crime exploding disorder exploding, the arc was a basket case, uh, 2,245 murders, 5,000 shootings in the streets is of everywhere. Uh, we embraced in policing in government, a new concept called community policing and that philosophy of policing echoed, sir, Robert Peel's in that it was about partnership with the community identifying what were the problems they want the police to focus on, not just police deciding, but working in partnership collaborations with communities in individual communities, having different priorities. And lastly, focusing on dealing with these problems to the extent that we prevented them from coming back and starting, uh, uh, Dave Dinkins. Uh, if we bound Ray Kelly, 19 90, 91, they were able to hire 6,000 more cops and began a process where crime began to go down, but it was going down so slowly that people were not noticing because a lot of the focus was not on quality of life.

Bill Bratton: (10:02)
Crime, 1994, Giuliani is elected I'm appointed as police commissioner. We embraced totally the concept of focusing significantly on fixing broken windows quality of life at the same time, developing better, more scientific ability to deal with serious crime. The comstat system, which I Jack maple, John to many Lumina Maura, so known for the NYP D. And what was the result? Well, New York city for almost 30 straight is the country for almost 20. Some odd street is so a significant reductions in crime. By 2019, we, our city had an 80% reduction in overall crime since 1990 and 90% of reduction in homicides country overall had had a 40% reduction up until 1990 to 2019. I had predicted quite comfortably confidently that New York city would never experience a crime increase again, but boy was I wrong? I was unfortunately tragically won because New York and the country in the midst of another crime way, particularly murders and shootings, and particularly impacting on our minority communities.

Bill Bratton: (11:11)
And, uh, it, it went terribly wrong in 2018, 19, and certainly in 20 do due to what combination of things, one COVID Vivus, we still don't fully understand the impact of that. Uh, but that, that the catastrophe or that, uh, not only the 600,000 deaths, but the impact on people's lives, the stresses. So we feel that that certainly had an impact on some of the crime increases that some of the deaths, if you will, domestic violence, et cetera, but in the case of New York city, where in New York state that you and I are more intimate with, but echoed around the country, there was a criminal justice reform movement. Well-intended, I'm a reformer of, in me falling police agencies for 50 years in New Zealand, New York city was probably leading the way in 2018, 19. We had everything going in our favor, but in a legislative body in Albany, uh, decided that they wanted more significant criminal justice reform and put through a well-intended, but you'll conceive terribly constructed set of reforms, dealing with bail issues, as well as, uh, um, uh, police powers dealing with a particularly minor types of crimes.

Bill Bratton: (12:24)
The BOE act was incredibly flawed well-intended, but one of the things that did not allow judges in this state to do would say allowed to do in every other state is take into consideration. If they set bail, the likelihood that this person is going to be a danger to the public, if they are released, they're not allowed to do that here in, uh, New York state. So of all the phase that will be formed, that was probably the most significant, but additionally, uh, it is so difficult now to arrest somebody and keep them in jail. And so we're seeing in the papers every day, stories of somebody who's arrested put right back out again, vested put right back out again, commissioner Shay, the police commissioner is going out of his mind with it. And Albany is still talking about movie forms, more interest in the, if you will, the, uh, criminal than in the victim. And that's what upset the applecart year in New York city blame it on Albany and they're well-intended, but terribly, uh, uh, constructed and implemented criminal justice reform. Okay. So

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:27)
Let me play the, I'm going to put my hat on. Now. I'm going to play the radical left for a second. Okay. Which obviously I'm not, but I'm going to play it here and I want you to respond to them. So they, they feel rightly or wrongly that the, the society is to blame. Uh, and they feel that so, uh, the victim is the victim, but also the criminal is a victim of the society, institutional biases and perhaps institutional racism. And so a result of which we have to be lenient, um, in these cases and your response to that is what

Bill Bratton: (14:03)
They have a point to an extent, uh, our reformer. Uh, I understand that life is not fair for many people that, uh, in terms of economic deprivation, uh, mental issues not dealt with adequately, uh, uh, neighborhood environments that offer so many, uh, awful temptations, drugs, et cetera. Uh, I understand that as a police officer, I have to understand that at the same time, you kind of excuse away behavior and the police exists to control behavior under the law. Uh, the challenge for us is to do it compassionately consistently and constitutionally, according to the law and in terms of laws and too lenient, too strict, it's not on the police. That's on the politicians who create the laws at the moment. I think in an effort to address with the laws were too strict in the minds of many politicians. They are now trying to, uh, address, uh, readdress those issues.

Bill Bratton: (15:02)
But I think they have gone, the pendulum has gone much too far to the left. We are much too lenient on the repeat offender, even taking into account the awful circumstances that they might've grown up in. And so, uh, it was a great debate raging the criminal justice report and the way each to be debated, we need to find more common ground. And I speak to this in the book about the idea of the path, the way forward the irony was, uh, uh, Anthony, we were, we were there in 2018 and 19 that we formed crime down so dramatically in the city, racial issues diminishing use of force by police in New York city at the lowest point in the history of the city. So all the concerns about too much police use of force, et cetera, it was not happening to the degree to which the far left attempts to portray it. And in some respects, some of the media jumps to portray it. Now, uh, it, we had an Etch-a-Sketch moment, 2000, 1920 around a pandemic and around, uh, the criminal justice reform in this country in the Etch-a-Sketch moment, as we kind of erased all the reforms of the last 50 years, and then let's start over. We don't need to start over. One of the things were working

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:11)
Well, I want to ask one more question related to this. I'm going to ask you where we should go and what your recommendations are, what you do put in the book. Um, and I want to, I want to touch on the police force issue. And the media is demonstration of that, and obviously the tragic incident related to George Floyd and his death, uh, the defund, the police movement. Um, I want to get your reaction to all of those things. Please force tragic death of George Floyd, and some of these other incidents that we've seen now that are caught on tape related to the, uh, police action. Uh, and then obviously, uh, the defund, the police movement. What are your thoughts on those three

Bill Bratton: (16:53)
On the three, one of the frustrations, and one of the arguments I advanced in the book and forced, thankfully as being advanced by most people discussing this issue is we have very, uh, limited statistical information, uh, to work with that. Uh, there were no national, uh, uh, uh, statistics stuff in times to address many of these issues, but let's take, it's like the probably most accurate one ironically at the moment is the Washington post, uh, study of police shootings going back to 2015. And what that shows is between 2015 and 2020, there were an average of less than a thousand police involved shooting deaths in the United States, 990 to 241 of those about 25% of blacks, blacks constitute about 13% of our population and our, that number 22 involve blacks who were armed, uh, uh, at the time they were shot, uh, in terms of the, uh, incident Mr.

Bill Bratton: (17:58)
Yap was with this Floyd, uh, he is not in this category of shooting. Certainly he was not shot. He was basically, uh, killed in another way, but also, uh, that, uh, the idea that, uh, we need to take in a context that was numbers involving blacks that, uh, 48% of murder offenders, those who commit murders in this country, uh, black in an overall population, 13. So police encounters are oftentimes involving use of force or being, uh, having force used against them involve a higher proportion of blacks. So that might explain some of that disproportionality in those numbers. There's also the idea that, uh, police use of force has been going down dramatically over the years, that, uh, in city of New York, in the 1970s, there were over 900 shooting incidents involving new actually police officers. And on average, 50 people a year being shot to death last year with 35,000 police officers in New York city, there were 26 incidents involving people being shot by New York city police officers, the majority of them in response to being shot at.

Bill Bratton: (19:06)
So look at the decline in police shootings, just in New York city and around the country. Uh, the decline is also in a very, very significant, so relative to usual use of force, it has been going down as police are getting better trained and have been reforming on the George Floyd, uh, incident, uh, that was, uh, out murder. I talk about that in the book. I think we all agree and certain that's what he was convicted off. That one individual said policing back almost 50 years, the gains of those 50 years in the minds of particularly our black population, but the tens of millions who turned out to demonstrate with them and my, our white population, Latino population clearly believe that the police have been behaving inappropriately toward minorities. And unfortunately in some instances we have, but in the case of the Floyd incident for murder, uh, it is now, uh, basically, uh, blown up to apportion.

Bill Bratton: (20:01)
The police had been set back on their heels, and it's gonna take us quite a while to recover from that damage, even though the statistics work in our favor, in the sense of showing we're using less force, that the number of these incidents is relatively small in the overall scope of things. Uh, so the George Floyd incident on the negative side is that please back on the positive side, it is in fact, uh, basically in terms of, uh, uh, for blacks in particular, it is awakened America to the incredible frustration that community has felt. And understandably, when you look at the history of how they've been dealt with since the inception of this country, so, uh, out of the negative came a positive and as we go forward, the challenge is going to be, to try find common ground that we can effectively in the sense, uh, deal with police, that we get gain trust, again, deal with the black population.

Bill Bratton: (20:55)
They feel they are being respected and being responded to in terms of the, uh, the third issue that you raised, the idea of defund the police stupidest idea ever, uh, in the sense of an everybody from the president on down now is embracing the pushback against that idea that, uh, when you're having problems with something, you don't basically take resources away from it. And please need to be refunded, not defunded. We need so much more training, so much better qualified offices, and it's going to cost money. Uh, police are supportive of the, uh, defined movement in the sense that we don't want to deal with the metal wheel. You don't want to deal with the homeless. We don't want to deal with the narcotics offender. We don't have the training or the skills, the expertise with six months of training and a police academy to deal with that.

Bill Bratton: (21:43)
Let somebody else handle it, who has more skills, but is our government a society going to be willing to bear that expense? I'll be willing to bet. No. Cause for the last 50 years of my time in policing, they have dumped it on police. Why? Because they don't have the answers. They don't have the answers for mental illness. They don't have the answers for drug addiction. They don't have the answers for homelessness. So they talk a lot about it. It's all money around without understanding how to effectively use it and who ends up cleaning up the mess, the police. And so we're now being faulted for something basically that our political leadership, both Republicans and Democrats, it feel that for 50 years and my prediction at this point in time, this inflection point is they may fail again. Because even though we're talking about spending trillions of dollars on issues in this country, how much is going to be spent to hire thousands of social workers, thousands of mental health experts, reopen hospitals and institutions for the mentally ill have meaningful drug treatment for the narcotics addicted to find homes for the homeless. Uh, it's not going to happen overnight and who's going to have to deal with in the meantime, the police. So we need more funding less because we're going to be dealing with these problems for years to come. Awesome.

Speaker 4: (22:58)
Well, I love the way you speak about

Bill Bratton: (23:00)
That. Long-winded answer. No,

Speaker 4: (23:04)
Not at all. I wanted to let you keep going because I think it's so insightful. And I think that, uh, I love the way you speak about it, frankly, we need more voices of advocacy for this sort of common sense. I think

Bill Bratton: (23:16)
That'd be good. I advocate for the police. I don't have to offend them. Some things we do, uh, indefensible, but I don't believe we need to defend the profession. I think the profession, its activities, reducing crime disorder is less something that we is speaks for itself, but I advocate for what they need to do even better. And so this is a great time to be on a soap box advocating. So I appreciate the opportunity to be on this show with you to advocate on behalf of the police, we got to do more of it. And so, and the

Speaker 4: (23:44)
Book is well timed. We've got to get this book in the hands of many people, uh, commissioner, but I wanna, I want to switch gears for a second and talk about the future. So where are we in five years in some of these cities like New York, uh, what do we do? What's your recommendation if I, if you were installed right now as our domestic polices are for the United States, uh, obviously I'm New York centric, but I mean, talk about it more broadly. What would be some of the recommendations? I know you put some of them here in the book. I want, I want you to tell, tell people what you think

Bill Bratton: (24:16)
The, the irony is that, uh, over the last particularly 20 years, but over the arc of the 50 years, they wrote about in the book, we have been progressing. We've been getting better at this. Uh, you're not gonna solve the race problems in America without basically, uh, uh, engaging the police in it because the two are so intertwined that naturally talk about in the book. And so we need to find ways of getting police close to the community. And we were doing that until the last year or two. Unfortunately the, uh, seismic change in that last year or two has been so dramatic, so profound that it's not going to take a year or two to fix it. You done did all those 30 years of reform that I was very involved in a New York city, Los Angeles so much that was wiped away in the light of the loss of trust and the regeneration of a black anger at government and police in general going forward.

Bill Bratton: (25:10)
Uh, there was no quick fix that, uh, New York city debates are being held about the mayoral candidates. Uh, that next mayor is going to basically have a tough time and who it is because these issues are not easily resolvable, but they are going to require police involvement. We are the essential reality in government, in democracy to hold it all together. We are the glue that holds it all together. So rather than abolishing us, rather than the funding us, we're going to have to effectively strengthen us, but strengthen us based on where it experiences that John chimney, the late great John too many, my first deputy commissioner, uh, great, great cop, uh, died much too young. You only had an expression, uh, something that affected, uh, those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. Those, you know, those who study cops know, we don't know why history and that's so true that we don't even learn from my own past.

Bill Bratton: (26:03)
And what I've tried to do in this book is educate not only the public in general, but my own peer group, about the history of police. When we got right where we got mom, we got so much right in the last 20, 30 years, but it's been undone to the great degree. I'm an optimist. I wouldn't come to the art to take over the subways in 1990 and work with Rudy Giuliani in 1984, go to Los Angeles, the most racially torn to basis city in this country in 2002, I was not an optimist. I'm an optimist about coming out of this prices, but that optimism is in a sense, uh, uh, framed by caution in that, uh, there's so going on in this country politically at the moment that, uh, those tensions are going to impact significantly on the tensions around recent police. So what's happening externally, the right, the left, uh, uh, the, uh, Republican democratic differences, uh, if they can't find common ground to talk, it's going to make it much more difficult for us to find common ground to talk. Well,

Anthony Scaramucci: (27:07)
I think it's very well said. I mean, I'm not, I'm not saying the Adams,

Speaker 4: (27:10)
Uh, the very famous, uh, New York post gossip columnist, I read the article that you were in this weekend, uh, where she was asking you about the different candidates. Um, but I do agree with you that whoever takes that spot is going to be in a tumultuous situation. Yeah. And, you know, I think, I think, you know, this, and I know this, that the engagement rules under mayor de Blasio have changed with police officers and the homeless. And obviously that's come coming from Albany as well, but it's been generated by the Blasio and the city council. Uh, it's going to take a lot of work to reverse a lot of that stuff. If

Bill Bratton: (27:49)
We want to do that, there's an irony there. I was obliged. He was first commissioner worked with them for three years, advised him in his run up to the, uh, mayor's race, uh, a great success with him. He was supportive of survivor appeal, crime and disorder, uh, funded me incredibly well, particularly after the murder that I talked about in the book of, uh, detectives Ramos, Lou, uh, in the midst of all of the racial prices

Speaker 4: (28:17)
That was in Brooklyn of the police officer was shot through the window. It's a very controversial thing that happened. They both died.

Bill Bratton: (28:25)
And, uh, at the, uh, funeral Nulogy for one of them, I talked about the importance of seeing each other, that not, you see somebody in a blue uniform or a black face, the idea to see each other. You know, I, I had very good luck with the Blasio. Those first three years, prime went down, the enforcement levels went down. Uh, so what happened the last four years that, uh, that the wheels came off? The vehicle that I was in those first two years, I know my successes, uh, having a very tough time dealing with city hall, the city all has embraced the evil fathers to the left, uh, uh, issues that Albany is embracing. I was encountering that, but not to the extent that my successes have been having to deal with it. And I think, uh, on much too far to left to me, the wheels came off the car. And so the car is just not moving forward at the pace it was years ago.

Speaker 4: (29:20)
Well, yeah. And you talk about it, you know, it's a, it's a pragmatism it's, non-ideological, the book is really about addressing things from a right or wrong perspective as opposed to left or right. You're also racially sensitive in the book, which I admire. Um, you're, you're speaking to a 21st century audience, uh, that we want to be sensitive to, but at the same time, uh, we can't allow reckless crime or petite crime because it destroys the quality of life of everybody. And it makes everybody frightened. I was outside the garden last night and you know, I've been to him.

Bill Bratton: (29:56)
It must have been there must have been kind of touchy after the loss.

Speaker 4: (30:00)
Yeah, well, I was, I w I, uh, I was outside the garden before the game and I was outside the garden after the game. It was, uh, it was a rock night obviously, but, uh, the garden did not feel the same to me. Didn't feel the same entering the garden, uh, homeless people, obviously people with mental illness in the area around Penn station, uh, quite reminiscent of the late eighties, uh, before you took over with, uh, mayor Giuliani. And, uh, it, it, it gives me great sadness commissioner because, uh, you don't want to even see the people like that. You know, we want to figure out a way as our society, you know, we're Richard up society, where we should figure out a way to help those people as well. I'm not exactly understanding the radical less position of leaving the people on the street. I, I guess they feel that they have a civil Liberty to do that. Uh, but it is infringing upon the rights of others. Uh, we have to figure it out.

Bill Bratton: (30:56)
I didn't take care of them either because they're not being dealt with correctly for their emotional issues or drug addition. Uh, there were two boards that were very influential for me that speak to what you're talking about. One was Fred Segal's book. The future once happened here talking about the Lindsay years. And in some respects, we're repeating the Lindsey is of the late sixties, early seventies in that the era of the early seventies. We're now starting to see that in a significant wage, 2021 here in New York and seagull. Uh, basically I read that book coming into New York when I was coming in as head of the subway police. And, uh, I, I took it to heart. The second book that influences me, it goes back to my hometown where you went to school, Boston in the seventies. Uh, I never thought as a young cop Sergeant superintendent, that department that Boston would ever straighten out from this racial turmoil was that bad in the seventies, but in his book, Anthony Lucas, common ground, you will wonderfully, I think you got a Pulitzer prize for it.

Speaker 4: (31:57)
He spoke at Tufts beautifully. My senior year [inaudible] was a Boston globe columnist. The book common ground was amazing story about re knitting the cultural ethos of Boston, black and white.

Bill Bratton: (32:13)
And look at Boston. Now in the sense of south Boston, it's not the south Boston and Charlestown of the seventies. Uh, it's now a yuppie bill. Uh, Boston has a black mayor, a black police commissioner. Uh, you can add a Carson beach that, uh, we're a black did not go for fear of losing their life. Uh, it's very mixed down through south Boston. So I look at Boston, I look at Los Angeles in many respects that the changes that occurred during my time. Yeah. So that's why I remain optimistic. But this time, despite, uh, if you will, new generations who were more sensitive to the issues of race and economic disparity, uh, it's going to be difficult, uh, because we are so polarized around the politics now, much more so than we were back in the sixties, seventies for that matter into the nineties, look at the crime bill.

Bill Bratton: (33:02)
Uh, I know a lot of people don't want to pay from the crime bill of 1994, but their crime bill had the assault weapons ban a hundred thousand more cops. It had criminal justice research, drug treatment. Uh, it basically helped turn around that crime problem for the next 20 years. And trying to find that type of consensus. Now, I can still remember being with Rudy Giuliani, lobbying new Kendrick speaker of the house to support president Clinton's crime. Bill said, Hey, every Republican mayor with his police commissioner lobbying, there'll be public and speaker of the house who was basically at war with the president, but they found common ground on this issue. I'd love to see that happen with the current Congress that I don't hold out much hope for it, but it's a hope Springs eternal. Yeah, no, listen to me.

Speaker 4: (33:46)
We're, we're, we're up against it now. Hopefully, uh, wisdom will prevail and there'll be less of an ideological struggle. I've got a few last questions for you commissioner, if you don't mind, uh, do you worry as a pragmatist and an intellectual and a historian that the pendulum could swing? I think that title

Bill Bratton: (34:06)
Intellectual that's the first time that's been applied to me.

Speaker 4: (34:11)
I'll keep that one. I think that intellectual ism with that, that townie accent of yours, I got it. Okay. I, I, I get it. You know, I grew up in a blue collar neighborhoods. I tried to do the same thing, but I notice I'm still wearing my blue color, so yeah. Yeah. And you, look, you look good in it too, so, okay. So, so, but do you go, does it go too far, meaning that, do we get past a tipping point where we can't pull it back?

Bill Bratton: (34:38)
Uh, that is the risk. And at the moment, the pendulum that I speak to in the book, the arc, if you will, the bending of the spring, uh, it's still going in that direction, but there's a couple of hiccups that are occurring, uh, that, um, uh, optimistic about. Uh, it's ironic that the tragedy of crime is going to be one of those major hiccups to stop that pendulum swing people are now coming out of the virus fear. And now basically seeing that there is another virus that's been growing in America, unchecked, continuing this summer to grow on check, that's going to scare the hell out of them. Won't take the lives that the virus took, but it can have tremendous economic and racial impact on the country. So I think the pendulum is going to still keep going to that left, but it's starting to stutter.

Speaker 4: (35:29)
So, so this is my last question are then we'll tie it up, but, uh, I have to get to it because you write about at the end of the book. Uh, and it's just interesting. We have these domestic situation going on right now. Uh, but you've been battling, uh, the police local state and local police have been battling and working with the FBI and the CIA on counter-terrorism. Um, and I want you to address that for us. Could you talk a little bit about the, uh, current terror threats in your opinion and, uh, where they lurk and what we need to be doing about that through analysis technology, et cetera,

Bill Bratton: (36:04)
That, uh, one of the things that changed from American policing on nine 11 was that prior to that time, we dealt with crime and disorder. That's what I dealt with in New York on the subway, in the streets in Boston, uh, my successor, Ray Kelly, the new mayor Bloomberg, they had to deal with terrorism, American policing for the first time had to deal with this broad-based terrorist threat that, uh, Al-Qaeda referenced, uh, are created. And then come on, comes ICS. When I came back in 2014, kudos to commissioner Kelly in terms of what he built for the city of New York and extraordinarily robust, probably the most robust in the country, if not the world that kept the city safe for many years, even while he was keeping crime going down, we have different management styles like critique him on a stock question first from the book.

Bill Bratton: (36:49)
But on this issue of terrorism, you cannot fault him in the sense that, uh, he and the mayor kept the city so safe, but that's the one of the new challenges for American policing. In addition to crime and disorder, we now have the new crimes of terrorism, the new crimes of cyber, the new crimes involving drones, the new crimes involving data theft, uh, the 21st century challenges, uh, a phenomenal compared to what I dealt with the first 30 years of my career, and to address them, we are going to need, we funded police better to train police with a lot more expertise and a lot more areas. That's why the foolishness of defund the police, uh, in the, uh, the, the heat of the moment, amount of race issues. We need to refocus reform the police, but we also need to reorganize them to be more robust, to deal with the 21st century challenges, which are still out there. We're seeing all these cyber attacks. Now, some of them coming out of Russia, but if you get the ICS of the world, uh, and the [inaudible] of the world that develop those capabilities, we're really in for it.

Speaker 4: (37:53)
Well, it's a phenomenal book. You write about all those and more of there's optimism in this book, which I love, and it takes a blue collar intellectual to recognize a blue collar intellectual

Bill Bratton: (38:06)
Bills. Okay. Very good there. Okay.

Speaker 4: (38:10)
But God bless you for writing it. I look forward to seeing you soon. We'd love to obviously get you at our live events and salt. Uh, and the book is the profession and memoir of community race and the arc of policing in America by bill Bratton, bill, thank you so much for joining us. Thank you so much. And a pleasure.

John Darcie: (38:28)
Thank you everybody for joining today's salt. Talk with commissioner, bill Bratton, talking about his new book, the profession and the arc of in America. Just a reminder, if you missed any part of this talk or any of our previous salt talks, you can access them on our website, uh, on demand@salt.org backslash talks or on our YouTube channel, which is called salt tube. We're on social media. Twitter is where we're most active at salt conference. We're also on LinkedIn, Instagram, and Facebook. Uh, and please spread the word about these salt talks. We think this issue of policing and how we can reform, uh, what is a really complex topic, uh, is very important. And so please share this salt, talk with your friends, with your family. We think it's a very important topic, but on behalf of Anthony and the entire salt team, this is John Dorsey signing off from salt talks for today. We hope to see you back here against them.

Michael Greenwald: Dollar Hegemony | SALT Talks #220

“I don’t think digital currencies will be in competition. I think they’ll live alongside each other in a virtual wallet. I think each of these currencies- whether Bitcoin, Ethereum, digital yuan or digital dollar- they’ll all have different purposes.”

Michael Greenwald started his career investigating how financial institutions were used to facilitate the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Greenwald discusses the US Dollar as a key component in the United States national security efforts while preaching the importance of smart and targeted sanctions using the USD. China’s overtaking the USD as the global reserve currency has been incorrectly predicted for years- the biggest threat to USD’s primacy is complacency from US leaders, Greenwald warns. He sees the creation of a digital US Dollar as an important innovation in order to maintain the America’s leading role in the global financial order. Greenwald does not see the rise of digital currencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum as threats to fiat currency, rather he thinks they will all find their different purposes and will coexist alongside other currencies in a digital wallet.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Michael Greenwald.jpeg

Michael Greenwald

Director

Tiedemann Advisors

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

TIMESTAMPS

0:00 - Intro

3:22 - Beginning career investigating 9/11 attacks

6:01 - Importance of the dollar as the global reserve currency

11:46 - Future of digital currencies

15:02 - China’s banning of Bitcoin

17:10 - Cryptocurrency’s use in illicit finance

20:11 - China’s digital yuan project and a potential digital dollar

25:21 - Intersection of the art market, digital currencies and NFTs

28:07 - Impact of digital central bank digital currencies

30:17 - Post-pandemic investigations and holding China accountable

32:08 - Pandemic’s long-term impact on global trade

34:34 - China, Taiwan and US policy

37:09 - Growing Middle East-China relationship

39:43 - Europe-China relationship

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darcie: (00:07)
Hello everyone. And welcome back to salt talks. My name is John Darcie. I'm the managing director of salt, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance technology and public policy. Salt talks are a digital interview series that we started in 2020 with leading investors, creators and thinkers. In our goal on these salt talks to the same as our goal at our salt conferences, which we're excited to resume here in September of 2021 in our home city of New York. But that's to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future. And we're very excited today to welcome Michael Greenwald onto salt talks. Uh, if you've tuned into our salt Bitcoin review, we had him on a few weeks ago to look forward to going further into depth on different topics related to his expertise around geopolitics, the dollar, as well as things that are going on in the art market, uh, and just general global economics.

John Darcie: (01:04)
But, uh, Michael today is a director at Tiedemann advisors, which is a multifamily office with over 22 billion in assets, under management. And he's also the director for digital asset education at Tiedemann and digital assets have been, uh, uh, a continued focus for him as he's grown out his role at Tiedemann. Um, and in general, in the marketplace prior to joining Tetum and Michael serve in the U S treasury department in two presidential administrations and under three treasury secretaries most recently, uh, within treasury, he was the first us treasury ad Tasha to Qatar and Kuwait acting as the principal liaison to the banking sector in those countries, they previously held counter-terrorism and intelligence roles, uh, requiring travel to 20 different countries as part of his, uh, job there at treasury. Uh, he served on the U S treasury team that crafted sanctions against Russia, against ISIS, as well as against Al-Qaida at Tetum.

John Darcie: (01:58)
And he also leads their business development efforts in the middle east. So he's a very much an expert on everything in the Gulf, which we'll get to as well during this conversation. Michael, as I mentioned as an expert on the global economy on digital currencies and on the contemporary art market, which we'll also touch on later, and he's a deputy director at the trilateral commission and a fellow at the Atlantic council and Harvard Kennedy schools, bell Belfer center for science and international affairs, uh, where he published over has published over 50 articles already, which I would highly recommend you go over to the Belfer center website and read a lot of his writings there in 2020, he published a report in the Atlantic council called the future of the U S dollar weaponizing, the U S financial system he's been featured in Barron's the financial times and on CNBC and has lectured at Harvard Stanford and the council on foreign relations.

John Darcie: (02:48)
His philanthropic work has included serving as chair of the U S Holocaust Memorial museum and next generation board. And he holds a JD and a master's from Boston university and a bachelor's degree in history from George Washington university. Today. He lives in beautiful Palm beach, Florida, Michael, welcome to salt talks. We're looking forward to diving into it with you, but before we get into a lot of these topics that you have such deep expertise on, we'd love to hear in your words more about your experience there at treasury and just the arc of your educational career and professional career that led you to [inaudible]. Sure.

Michael Greenwald: (03:22)
Thank you, John. And thank you so much SALT Talks for having me. It's great to be here. Uh, I started my career really interested in following the money after nine 11, understanding, uh, how Al Qaeda, uh, his fundraising efforts were working post nine 11. John looking at the nine 11 commission report, looking at why $500,000 with being moved into the United States through us banks. What happened after nine 11? How our authorities got stronger, how we use the dollar, not just with terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda, but then to Iran, to Russia, and now, uh, towards China and now looking at where we are with digital currencies. So I had the awesome responsibility of working with an incredible team at treasury. Uh, it was truly a collaborative team effort, uh, across the community and treasury and, uh, and the intelligence community and the USG. Uh, and this was the bipartisan issue is following the money tracking terrorist financing.

Michael Greenwald: (04:29)
Uh, these were issues that we needed to tackle after nine 11. So I had the great pleasure of, uh, working against, uh, Al Qaeda and its affiliates in Africa, and really understanding how money John was being moved outside of formal banking channels. Um, I would call some of the illicit activity happening today, almost like digital hawala hawala is moving money out notes, uh, outside of formal banking channels. Uh, and then I had an opportunity to work, uh, with Europe and on their counter-terrorism efforts, whether it was wrong. And I think our, our sanctions against Russia war a watershed moment for me, and I think for the treasury, because we use the dollar, uh, in a, in a different scalpel, like way to use debt and equity restrictions. And then with ISIS, he went towards a different type of group where they were actually creating a state and using many different funding streams. So that's kind of where my perspective has come from, uh, where we are today.

John Darcie: (05:38)
So Michael, in those roles at treasury, you obviously witnessed firsthand the power of the dollars global reserve currency status. So before we get into some of these more in-depth topics for people that are less initiated on the value for the United States of having that status in terms of the dollar being the Globe's reserve currency, why is that so important? Powerful for us as a country?

Michael Greenwald: (06:02)
Well, the doll, or, you know, has many benefits. And I, you know, it provides the ability for the U S to support a global order, uh, you know, around free markets. Uh, democracy maintains influence really over the integrity of the global financial system, John and that's beneficial too. I would say, you know, all participant countries, um, it allows the United States to, uh, stabilize global economic shocks. Some would argue that the fed was the world's, uh, you know, central bank, uh, during COVID, uh, it provides the world with access to mature capital markets. Uh, one thing that China has not been able to develop yet in someone argue has a tough time doing, um, it continues to be the dollar, the world's, uh, primary unit of measure, um, means of exchange, uh, and store value. And the store of value is a very important point. It also affords John the world advantages in assessing a mature capital markets, um, offering low costs and stability. Uh, and then those markets, you know, chose the dollar. Uh, they chose the dollar, given that breadth and depth by the U S economy, uh, unparalleled liquidity, uh, and that's allowed for the dollar to play almost a 60% reserve role, uh, around the world right now for central banks.

John Darcie: (07:35)
And in terms of the implementation of sanctions, you know, why the fact that the dollar is so dominant around the world, how does that allow us to prosecute our agenda around the world as a country?

Michael Greenwald: (07:46)
Well, countries want to be able to bank and to operate within a us jurisdiction in New York. And so it's a privilege to be able to operate within the U S banking sector. And in order to meet that bar, um, you need to, uh, have integrity in what you're doing. Uh, so if you're an elicit actor and you are interacting with material support-wise, uh, with someone on a U S sanctions list, um, you cannot operate in the United States. You're if it touches the U S in any way, those assets will be frozen. Um, the best example is what led up to the Iran deal. Uh, if there were countries that were, uh, any way economically operating or interacting with Iran or their jurisdiction, um, they could not operate within the United States. And so there was a clear line in the sand, John of how the United States has weaponized the dollar it's been very effective. Uh, as you know, I argue that we have to be careful how much we weaponize it. We have to be careful how much we put that line in the stand, because as we are seeing with China and other adversaries, they're looking for ways to go around the dollar. So it's very powerful. We use it very wisely in our sanctions toolkit, but we can't overuse it.

John Darcie: (09:17)
So you talked about the idea that these countries, especially China and Russia, for example, looking for ways to circumvent the U S dollar denominated system. Uh, do you think that the dollar status as the dominant global reserve currency is under threat, and what will the implications of that be for national security for, for economic, uh, factors in the U S w what would that mean?

Michael Greenwald: (09:40)
Well, I don't think it's under threat per se. I mean, we're still 59% central bank reserves. There's been a lot of hyperbole about the dollar is going to be overtaken by the Chinese by 2020. And you've seen, uh, continents, uh, predict this incorrectly for years. So I think where the threat lies, John is the United States being complacent. And when you're the leader, uh, it's very easy to rest on your laurels. And we've got a lot of rate economic laurels, which are just laid out with the doll, the dollar, the rest on. So I think we need to continue to innovate. Uh, we need to watch what our adversaries are doing, but we have to be proactive. We can't just admire their rise. Um, so I think countries are actively looking for ways to work with other currencies and really follow a basket of currencies approach. But the real threat, in my opinion, is us not being able to innovate. And that's where it gets to, uh, the future of currency, digital dollar, uh, and alike,

John Darcie: (10:48)
Right? So let let's pivot there into digital currencies and we'll start with Bitcoin. So there's two different topics here. There's central bank digital currencies. The idea that, uh, if sovereign nations are going to digitize the dollar, the Yuan, uh, other global currencies and the impact that could have, uh, but there's also a Bitcoin, which is the dominant, fully decentralized digital currency. There was comments from Peter teal, the prominent, uh, venture capitalists, who recently said that he thinks that we have to consider the possibility that Bitcoin is a Chinese financial weapon. Maybe he was hyperbolized or there was some strategic reason for him to make those comments, but it's just an interesting thought that Bitcoin could have a role in helping to, uh, diminish the dollar status as the global reserve currency. What impact do you think the rise of digital currencies like Bitcoin will have on the dollar? And do you think the U S government is, is potentially going to regulate Bitcoin in a way that protects the dollar?

Michael Greenwald: (11:46)
Well, I think that Bitcoin is creating more choice in optionality, uh, for the consumer and for, for people. And so I think it's inevitable that, you know, Bitcoin and others are here to say, um, you know, some experts I speak with John, you know, liking the technology of Bitcoin right now to like Napster when the internet was starting and there will be other versions of it in a theory, him and others will build audit and each will be a useful tool, whether Ethereum is better for the art world or others, uh, we can get to, um, I would say that it's good to have optionality. It's good to have choice. Um, but I don't think Bitcoin is going to, um, hurt the dollar per se. I have a dollar is going to be strong in its own, right. Uh, Bitcoin will come under more. I would say regulatory guardrails by the U S government, uh, in the months and years to come.

Michael Greenwald: (12:52)
Uh, I think that central bankers are, are trying to get their, their minds are around what this means. Uh, uh, part of it, the market will dictate that on Peter Teal's comments. Uh, listen, China does not view Bitcoin as a legal tender. Um, they have taken some more hawkish actions in the last week. Uh, they're pushing their digital wan, that's their primary focus, but let's remember a large amount of, uh, Bitcoin is being mined in China right now. So, you know, there is, there is a narrative that's playing out there. Um, I wouldn't go as far as what Peter is saying, but what I would say is that it's creating optionality for people to operate outside of the United States dollar. And so that is one of China's goals. So in essence, Bitcoin is playing into China's long-term narrative and strategy, uh, for the us to not be as economic influential, uh, as they currently are right now, in one thing to note would be central bank reserves, right? So we're at 59% dollars central bank reserves right now, the lowest level in 25 years. Um, that's going to be a number to watch, uh, what would be the reaction, John, if we saw a headline tomorrow that said that dollar reserves drop below 50%, how would the United States react? So those are some of the things that I think are important guideposts to keep in mind.

John Darcie: (14:28)
Yeah, the, the Napster analogy is one I haven't heard, but one that's definitely interesting. And you referenced those moves that China recently made. They've banned Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in various forms in 2013, in 2017, but that most recent crackdown, we actually wrote about it in our assault Bitcoin newsletter that we send out every Wednesday morning. So I steeped myself in that over the last week, and it definitely things to the next level in terms of how they're regulating cryptocurrencies out of their economy, including crackdowns on Bitcoin mining. So that asphalt aspect of it is also slowly going away. Okay.

Michael Greenwald: (15:02)
That was a great, that was a great writeup. And I would just argue some argue that that's because, uh, the Chinese currency and if digital one is not taking off as fast as they would, like, they're scaling up, mobility is not taking off. And so, uh, China's reaction, some would argue is insecurity and, uh, controlling that, you know, in the last couple years, because China under pressure, they've restricted gold from leaving China. And obviously it's a safe Haven asset. Everybody wants to, to, to point to gold. It's never a good sign in a country's economic narrative when you're restricting gold from leaving.

John Darcie: (15:46)
Yeah. Any country with capital controls in place would seem not to me to be a natural, uh, you know, sponsor of the rise of cryptocurrencies and Bitcoin, because it, it provides an avenue for people to skirt those capital controls. So that narrative around, uh, that TL basically put forward around China using Bitcoin as a, as a financial weapon, never really resonated completely with me. Uh, but it's just an interesting topic because of Bitcoin's role in, in potentially, uh, weakening the dollars global reserve currency status. But, you know, so we talked about this a month or so ago when we had you on the salt bit point of view, but I want to talk about it again for this audience, Michael Morel, uh, basically, uh, a group of people in the digital asset space got the former CIA director, Michael Morrell, uh, to author a report about illicit activities, uh, you know, related to cryptocurrencies, the colonial pipeline hack happened after that.

John Darcie: (16:36)
So we saw a use case example of an organization of hackers using digital currencies and Bitcoin in that case to collect ransoms after they hack the colonial pipeline, which obviously disrupted, uh, oil, uh, flow around the country and putting in the Southeast where my parents lived, they couldn't get gas for a few days. Um, but how much in your view is Bitcoin and other digital currencies or cryptocurrencies decentralized cryptocurrencies used in illicit finance? And how much should we be worried about that? Let's say you're a Bitcoin investor. How much should you be worried about a crack down on Bitcoin because of its role in illicit finance?

Michael Greenwald: (17:11)
Well, I, I think it's definitely an intelligence gap. Uh, as you know, Michael Morel points out. There's not enough data yet. I wish I wish the report had been done independently. Uh, I have a lot of respect for Michael Morel and he's a very wise and he's been through the trenches. Um, so it's important to note that's an important report. Um, but it's an intelligence gap. I think I used to deal with ransom payments when I was, you know, when we were countering Al-Qaeda in Africa, the groups there raised a lot of their money, John through ransom payments, and those were usually paid, um, in euros, right. Uh, or dollars. Um, now you're seeing a lot of these ransoms being paid, um, in, um, you know, digital currencies, Bitcoin and others. Um, the, the, the data that we have on this, I think it's still very low.

Michael Greenwald: (18:09)
And I think that the, the intelligence community, my sense, uh, is likely putting more resources to try to understand this data stream as a, as an investor. I think you criminals in terrorists are going to use every aspect of formal and elicit banking channels and non-banking channels to achieve their objective. So I think they have to expect that more of this will continue. And then more of this will operate, which is why I think it'd be wise for the fed and the government to have targeted regulation, not too much, not in an overhand approach, but at least some guard rails so that people can understand how to operate. Um, but, you know, listen, blockchain technology, uh, it can be a great tool for preventing criminals from actually using it. So I think there's both sides, but overall, not enough information, too many gaps, anyone that says all of this is Alyssa. All of us is not, there's not enough information yet to really make the determination.

John Darcie: (19:22)
Yeah. I mean, I think the, the first step is just digitizing more, more things, and we can pivot to talking about central bank, digital currencies, but obviously a us dollar paper has been used, uh, around the world, maybe for more illicit activity than any other currency in history. You talk about, you know, ranging from drug cartels to terrorist financing, you know, physical bills have certainly been used throughout history in that regard, but central bank, digital currencies. I know it's an area that you studied very closely. You wrote, I think what was one of the most thoughtful and Seminole papers on the digital one as part of the Belfer center research that you do. So talk to us about that digital won project. Why is China moving forward more aggressively than anyone else with that digital one project? Do you think it will be successful and how are they going about it?

Michael Greenwald: (20:12)
So China, you know, wants control at every level and that speaks to their longterm strategy. So the ability for China through its central bank to control the consumer, get streams of information about the consumer at every level, all payments that is, uh, you know, exactly what China, uh, lives and breathes, right? So I think ultimately they're looking to scale up and leading up to the Olympics and they've had lotteries, uh, over 50 million people have been using the digital one. Um, the big question is, is whether it can be used for joint trade and whether it actually gets operationalized John in the belt and road initiative, which has done a dollars right now, whether they're actually able to, um, have a deepen relationship with swift, how financial messages are being moved, um, and how it plays into OPEC. But what they're doing in China right now is that they are making this part of the culture part of the economic fabric.

Michael Greenwald: (21:22)
And so just like with Alipay pay and others, and everything will be done through digital one, and it will be in the interest of China and the consumer to be using it. They're looking to set a precedent for others. So Russia is creating its own China and Iran have an economic agreement in the last month raw and will likely try to follow some best practices of what's worked with China to operate outside of the U S dollar. So what I see here is a web of countries looking for control using their central banks, uh, to do that. Now what's dangerous is for that narrative to be played into what the United States may do. And the fed this summer is coming out with a paper on, uh, the possibility of a digital dollar, a central bank, digital currency, and the United States digital dollar will be the opposite of what China is looking to do.

Michael Greenwald: (22:28)
The United States is going to have to make sure that there's an act of Congress that still liberties are built in that there's oversight, uh, financial inclusion, all of these benefits, um, Lael, Brainard fed governor, extremely influential voice, uh, laid out yesterday, uh, really four key areas, uh, for, you know, digital, private money is what she called it. And, you know, she laid out, you know, migration to digital payments, uh, plans for the use of foreign central bank, digital currencies, and cross border payments. Uh, you know, there's a concern here in the United States, John, about financial inclusion. Those are the sharpen focuses of it. What I see, or I see a couple of main benefits, uh, for a digital dollar and not just the United States, uh, but really globally. So that would be, you know, providing the ability, uh, through its privacy regulatory capacity, uh, to really have a digital dollar platform.

Michael Greenwald: (23:30)
And that will allow the United States to reassert a Western standards, uh, values such as rule of law, reasonable privacy, complete opposite than China in Russia, in Iran, um, greater from faster transactions, reduced costs, uh, faster cross border transactions, which we saw, you know, in the COVID payments, uh, during, uh, the congressional acts, uh, checks will be mailed, uh, much quicker through digital dollar, um, greater transparency, accountability. And ultimately, I would say a narrative for the digital dollar to facilitate greater economic growth. And those would be a couple of the things that I think would be outlined in a narrative as central bank, digital currencies grow, um, and the Europeans and others grab onto it.

John Darcie: (24:24)
Well, it'll be fascinating to read that white paper when it comes out this summer, uh, because we've talked to various people on, on this salt talk series, including Marty Chavez, who was a senior executive at Goldman Sachs, focusing on technology and money in that intersection, uh, Goldman, he had some fascinating, real life use cases for a central bank digital currency. And it'll be very interesting to see whether, uh, the U S government starts to implement a strategy in that regard, but you are an expert on the art market as well. You've written a lot of very interesting papers. I think you're, you're a leading expert on this topic. You've talked about how the art market is helping to legitimize digital currencies, you know, moving it away from this stigma around illicit finance and, and the things that people might associate digital currencies with, uh, you know, who are less educated on them. Uh, and digital currencies are being used very heavily in the art market. You've also seen the, uh, explosion of the NFT market. Could you explain how you think the art market is legitimising digital currencies?

Michael Greenwald: (25:21)
Sure. So the art, market's sort of a fascinating case study as we're talking about all these topics. If you look at moments in time of the economy and where the art market has been, it's been a very important, uh, you know, comparison. So I view the, the, the big three, right? Christie's Sotheby's, and Phillip's the three major global auction houses. John, I view them like the central banks of the art world and what they are doing with minting their own tokens, uh, having sales in NFTs, allowing to accept, uh, different currencies, uh, favoring Ethereum, I would say in this regard, uh, and, and I would say gateways like a marker, um, or maker. Um, they are allowing the market to play out faster than our own federal reserve, our own banks, uh, here, uh, and elsewhere. So digital artists and NFT, this has been around since the fifties.

Michael Greenwald: (26:32)
The difference now is there is a market for it just like there was a market for the dollar. And I would say the reason why people have, I think gravitated towards Bitcoin and others is they were looking for optionality. They felt constrained by oversight. Artists feel the same way. They feel constrained by the canvas, John, and they want to operate outside of it. They want to have more rights, more independence. They don't want to have seven different, different intermediaries control, whether they're going to end up at art Basel or not, right. They want to have their own identity. So I think all of these themes, very interesting plane to the art market's growth as they do in the intersection of the future of money as well.

John Darcie: (27:26)
Yeah. And one of the great things about NFTs and tokens in the art world is that it gives that, uh, that artist control over any subsequent sales or at least they get proceeds from subsequent sales of their art, um, that allows them to share on the spoils, uh, that, that the speculation within art, uh, that, that comes along with that. So as it relates to Bitcoin, we've talked about central bank, digital currencies, we've talked about Bitcoin. Do you think that those are in competition with each other? You know, we have some people that come to us, uh, you know, we at SkyBridge are investors in Bitcoin who say, well, I'm just going to wait for the digital dollar to come. That's going to replace Bitcoin. Do you think those again are in competition with each other or what's the impact of central bank, digital currencies on Fiat currencies? Like the dollar?

Michael Greenwald: (28:08)
I don't think they're in competition. I think they will live alongside each other, John, uh, in a virtual future virtual wallet. And I think that each of these currencies, whether they're Bitcoin, Ethereum, uh, Coronado, digital dollar digital one, you know, digital yen, they will all have different purposes. And the, the future consumer, you know, our kids and our grandkids, they will have a virtual wallet and they will all live alongside each other. Uh, we'll be living in a basket of currencies, uh, mindset in a world where people want choices. So I, I think it's a false narrative to say that one's a threat to each other. The market will choose a which one is more favorable, depending on the purpose. I don't see Bitcoin, uh, really, uh, hurting the dollar too much or cutting it down. I think the market will choose a reasonable outcome as long as there is more guardrails, more regulatory guidance. Um, so that's kind of see how I see it playing out

John Darcie: (29:15)
Right or shift gears to a broader conversation around, uh, global economics and global geopolitics. So you also wrote an interesting piece. You've written a couple of pieces actually, uh, at, at the Belfer center around a vaccine diplomacy around public health sanctions. A lot has been made in the last couple of weeks about a new report in the wall street journal about the origins of COVID-19 the virus that it, that it emanated out of a lab in Wu Han, you know, how should the Chinese be held accountable if that's the case? And they withheld information early on in the pandemic that led obviously to economic and human tragedy, uh, around the world. Uh, do you think that the us should be actively trying to hold China accountable if they do find enough evidence to prove, um, that the virus emanated out of the lab, obviously the Biden administration has taken a more cautious approach. Some in the, in the former Trump administration have demanded a little bit more accountability, but how should we look at sort of managing public health outcomes, uh, using things like sanctions?

Michael Greenwald: (30:17)
Well, I, I think we would have to do it very carefully, very targeted, um, but accountability, especially, uh, post pandemic is critical to, to prevent future ones. So, uh, I, I think we need to understand the origins. We understand what went wrong, so that we can prevent it, just like how we can prevent another nine 11 to, uh, understand the origins and throughout, and from that from nine 11 came a series of actions and we use sanctions various strategically. Um, I think, uh, public health best practices, uh, is a form of our national security. Uh, and we have to treat public health, uh, more, I would say in that realm, but at the same time, there's, uh, a, I would say there's a human rights aspect to it. Uh, there are certain communities that don't have access John to the kind of care we have in the United States. So it's going to be a delicate balance if we were to apply those sanctions, uh, you know, how and where and what would be the impact. So we'd have to weigh the cost benefit, but I, I believe, uh, accountability through targeted sanctions, uh, is incredibly important because if we don't do that, uh, it will happen again. It will be repeatable, uh, and there needs to be consequences.

John Darcie: (31:44)
So the policy response to COVID-19, there was a lot of turning inward that happened in various countries and regions around the world for often, very practical reasons around, you know, containing the virus and sort of having determinism of your own outcome as it relates to COVID. Uh, but what impact long-term do you think the broader policy response to COVID-19 will have on global commerce global trade?

Michael Greenwald: (32:09)
Well, I think term it's, that's been one of the drivers, I think for digital currencies. I think digital currencies have thrived during this time. And so I think that's going to be looked at as a major watershed moment, uh, in the past year and a half, um, prior to COVID central banks played a huge role in the financial crisis. Um, and they played a very role here, but this allowed for there to be a turning of the tide. And I think that that's going to be one of the hallmarks of the future. Uh, in addition, I think supply chains, it was finally an event that put, um, a true awareness on what these major companies, uh, have to choose before them. Um, in addition, it's, it's, it's allowed countries like Australia and New Zealand to operate differently, uh, with China. Um, and so I think there is good. I would say the biggest takeaways I have going forward, uh, will be what it's done for the digital currency space, uh, and what it will do for the future of supply chains and the choice of costs, uh, companies will have to make.

John Darcie: (33:26)
So, um, John Siena was recently promoting a movie in China fast and furious nine. We're focusing on China for the last half of this conversation, but he basically slipped up and recognize Taiwan as a country and some of the promotion he was doing, he was forced I'm sure by the, uh, the movie heads, uh, to go out on Sinai, Weebo the social media app in China, and apologize for that mistake of calling Taiwan and country. I think you've seen China take, uh, a, an even more sort of pugnacious tone as it relates to Taiwan, maybe sensing, uh, an opening to do so with the, the, uh, onboarding of a new administration in the U S do you think that China will continue to take a strong posture as it relates to issues like Taiwan? Obviously you have a huge semiconductor market in Taiwan, and you talk about supply chains and, and for us national security reasons, the prioritization of building out our own microchip infrastructure here, but do you think China will continue to take sort of a standoffish approach with Hong Kong Taiwan and what's the U S policy response need to be to that?

Michael Greenwald: (34:35)
Yeah, that lies in a, in a policy of insecurity for China and, uh, their reaction, uh, where, uh, you know, someone would have to apologize. It's a kin to the thing, it's the SEF Rogan, North Korea movie, right. And the outcome after that. Uh, so that tells you, it tells you part of, China's really hand in this, that, uh, in the same thing happened with the NBA, uh, with China, uh, in the past year plus. So that shows you that they do holds, uh, quite a few economic, uh, supply chain cards right now. I would hope that we would move towards a better outcome where, um, we wouldn't have to apologize. Um, and we would be able to have more, um, I would say economic relevance, uh, an ability where we wouldn't have to do that, but Taiwan is a very sensitive topic for China. I think it's going to, it's going to be the major, uh, you know, tests and task, uh, for this administration, uh, going forward is, is how it dances around this issue, how it works with China on climate. Doesn't give away too many concessions, but at the same time, uh, moves the ball forward. Isn't just admiring the problem. I mean, administrations, Democrat, or Republican John, they've just been admiring, uh, uh, growing China for years, um, without much real movement. Uh, so, um, that will be a continued point of a growing insecurity for China,

John Darcie: (36:19)
Right. And one of your great areas of expertise is the golf, as we mentioned in the open, and you talked about at the beginning was that you are the attache, the commercial attache to Qatar and Kuwait. You're very steeped in the Gulf. Uh, you act as a business development lead at Tita men in the Gulf as well, uh, with China representing a much greater share of oil demand. Now that the us has greater energy independence. Obviously there's been closer ties that have been developed between Saudi Arabia, the UAE, uh, other countries in the Gulf and China, uh, and, and the Biden administration in general is taking a more cautious approach related to our alliances in the Gulf, do expect to see an eastward shift in, in geopolitical realignment, uh, between the Gulf and China, uh, in, in replacement of those strong ties that the Gulf has always had with the United States.

Michael Greenwald: (37:10)
I don't think doesn't mean you're a replacement, but I think that tide has already been turning. And China's been, I remember being mayor John in 2015 and 2017. And, uh, you know, I was watching closely, you know, China's movements in the Gulf and it's been in closing, uh, you know, increasingly close. Uh, I've seen, you know, most central bank governors in the region, all visit China, right? And you've seen delegations grow back and forth. Uh, so I think that will continue how the United States, uh, stays relevant, protects it, but the Gulf, the Gulf is the Gulf countries are intermediaries within intermediaries. They need many out, they need, uh, you know, many economic partners. So they're going to play the United States off China off each other. Constantly. The real thing to watch is Israel's relationship with China and how Israel uses their tech and their growing nature of their economy and what that looks like between the U S and China. Uh, that will be fascinating. I expect, um, greater Gulf. Um, I would say funding to go to China. And I think the type of deal that China did with a rod they're likely looking to, to do the same thing with certain Gulf countries, uh, to gain more influence. The big thing to watch is if there is a major thong between Saudi and Iran, where is China's role in that thought? And that will be a very interesting intersection to watch because China wants to be at that table.

John Darcie: (38:50)
So the last piece on China, that's, that's very recent in the last 48 hours or so the EU parliament basically froze any investment into China as part of a trade deal that was struck, uh, I believe last year, after about seven years in negotiations, it was a big deal when it happened. Um, and obviously Europe sort of stagnating and its growth has turned eastward as well. Uh, looking to stimulate growth through, through partnership with China, but also, uh, the Europeans have, have introduced sanctions on China for, uh, treatment of the weekers and that entire controversy. Uh, so what do you expect the relationship between Europe and China to be, do you think the Biden administration is going to work harder to create a unified front in terms of confronting China on human rights, human rights issues and intellectual property theft and the core issues that, that we're trying to work with China on, or what do you expect that relationship between Europe and China to look like over the coming years?

Michael Greenwald: (39:43)
So Yurman Shina, it's going to be a public frosty relationship privately China needs Europe in Europe needs China. So I think the, the public posture will be very different than what's happening. Uh, behind the scenes. I expect the Europeans defined workarounds, uh, to work with China. It is a good opening for the Biden administration. I was a bit, um, I would say disturbed, you know, prior to the administration coming in to office at China would have this deal with the EU. So I think this is a new opening, uh, you know, the president sending some of this top, uh, ambassadors, uh, to Europe shortly who are, have been closed aids to him. So I expect them to double down on that relationship and to really make it worth the EUS, uh, economic strategy to pivot more to the U S uh, than China. Um, but you know, I think what the EU has done to China, um, I, I'm happy to see that it's, it's long overdue, uh, but again, there's that public, uh, persona John and what they actually do behind the scenes.

John Darcie: (40:57)
Right. I, I think that was the biggest criticism of the Trump administration. Not that they, uh, you know, we're, we're taking pains to hold China accountable for a variety of different things, whether they didn't, uh, create that unified front in order to have more leverage, uh, in our various negotiations with China. So, uh,

Michael Greenwald: (41:15)
It lives in the middle is going to be incredibly important. And I think in order for this administration to really, uh, I would say achieve its its key objectives, uh, they're gonna need a work targeted with China and they're going to have to work much more multilateral with Europe and their allies. And, uh, you know, re-imagine what the G seven looks like. And I expect them to do that.

John Darcie: (41:38)
Well, Michael, it's been a pleasure to have you here on salt talks. Uh, thank you for joining us and also joining us a few weeks ago for that salt Bitcoin review. You're our go-to expert, uh, on any topic related to the dollar geopolitics and global economics and the art market as well. Uh, so I, I couldn't highly recommend enough that you go, if you're interested in what we talked about here today to the Belfer center website, uh, where Michael writes about a lot of these topics in even more depth, and I'm sure he'll be closely covering these central bank digital currency and digital dollar initiatives here in the U S especially as that white paper comes out this summer and we something, maybe we'll revisit another conversation with you, Michael, but thanks so much for joining us.

Michael Greenwald: (42:16)
Thank you so much for having me, John, great to be on salt talks again,

John Darcie: (42:19)
And thank you everybody for tuning in to today's episode of salt talks with Michael Greenwald of Tetum and advisors. Just a reminder, if you missed any part of this episode or any of our previous episodes, you can access them on demand on our website. It's salt.org backslash talks, and on our YouTube channel, which is called salt tube. We're also on Twitter is where we're most active on social media at salt conference, but we're also on LinkedIn, Instagram, and Facebook. And please spread the word about these salt talks. We've really enjoyed educating and even the larger group of people than we do at our conferences through our digital media initiatives, uh, during and after COVID. Uh, so, uh, so please, uh, spread the word about this conversation and other topics that we discuss here on salt talks from a half of the entire team behind the scenes here at salt talks, I'm John Darcie signing off, uh, from salt talks for today. We hope to see you back here again soon.

Land Economics & Taxation | SALT Talks #219

“It’s really dangerous in the long run for a society to have land and housing- essential stuff- traded as commodities… There’s a limit to how much private property and market fundamentals can be allowed to drive human evolution and evolution of the whole planet.”

Kathryn Lincoln’s grandfather John C. Lincoln, industrialist and philanthropist, founded the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy 75 years ago. The non-profit was created around the ideas of famous 19th/20th century political economist Henry George, author of the hugely popular book Progress and Poverty (1879). Dr. George “Mac” McCarthy explains the dangers of treating land and housing, essential things, as commodities. The free market around land use does not create responsible long-term incentives and has played a major role in creating the climate crisis we see today. Mac notes the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates there will be 150 million climate refugees by the year 2050. A land tax is seen as the most effective solution to building equality across society while also addressing climate change.

The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy seeks to improve quality of life through the effective use, taxation, and stewardship of land. A nonprofit private operating foundation whose origins date to 1946, the Lincoln Institute researches and recommends creative approaches to land as a solution to economic, social, and environmental challenges. Through education, training, publications, and events, they integrate theory and practice to inform public policy decisions worldwide.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKERS

Kathryn Lincoln.jpeg

Kathryn Lincoln

Board Chair & Chief Investment Officer

Lincoln Institute of Land Policy

George W. McCarthy.jpeg

George W. McCarthy

President & Chief Executive Officer

Lincoln Institute of Land Policy

TIMESTAMPS

0:00 - Intro

3:17 - History of Lincoln Institute of Land Policy

7:00 - Henry George’s findings around private property and poverty

11:30 - How John C. Lincoln would view current land policy

13:13 - Dangers of treating land and housing as a commodity

17:32 - Land policy changes and advocacy

20:20 - Climate change effects and potential solutions

28:55 - Addressing poverty and inequality through land policy

39:08 - The case for a land tax

43:23 - Relationship between land policy and water policy

49:37 - Lincoln Institute endowment asset allocation

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darcie: (00:07)
Hello everyone. And welcome back to salt talks. My name is John Darcie. I'm the managing director of salt, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance technology and public policy. Salt talks are a digital interview series with leading investors, creators, and thinkers. And our goal on these salt talks the same as our goal at our salt conferences, which we're excited to resume here in September of 2021 in our home city of New York for the first time. But that's to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future. We're very excited to bring you a conversation around land policy, but a lot more than that issues like climate change, water conservation, uh, with the heads of the Lincoln Institute for land policy, that's Catherine Jo Lincoln and Dr.

John Darcie: (00:57)
George McCarthy, uh, Katie Lincoln currently serves as the board chair and chief investment officer for the Lincoln Institute of land policy, which is an independent global foundation focused on addressing significant policy issues through innovative land use and taxation methods over the course of her 25 year tenure as the Institute's CIO, uh, Ms. Lincoln has led the endowment strategic asset allocation policy development, investment selection process, and draw policies. All of which have contributed meaningfully to achieving the current $700 million asset base. Uh, Ms. Lincoln also serves as a member of several other boards, including Lincoln electric holdings, a publicly traded company. Now she's also a member of the board of directors of the honor health network, uh, and Claremont Lincoln university, Dr. George McCarthy, AKA Mac as president and CEO of the Lincoln Institute of land policy based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, before joining the Lincoln Institute in 2014 Mac directed metropolitan opportunity at the Ford foundation, uh, Mac has also worked as a senior research associate at the center for urban and regional studies at the university of North Carolina, go heels, a professor of economics at Bard college resident scholar at the Jerome levy economics Institute, a visiting scholar and member of the high table at King's college of Cambridge university and visiting scholar at the university of Naples.

John Darcie: (02:23)
And finally research associate at the center for social research in St. Petersburg, Russia, obviously with his deep international experience, George is the perfect person or Mack has, I should say the perfect person to lead the Lincoln Institute for land policy and its global mission hosting. Today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, who is the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge capital, which is a global alternative investment firm. Anthony is also the chairman of salt. And with that, I'll turn it over to Anthony for the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:51)
Well, we're thrilled to have you both on John. Thank you. Uh, Katie and Mac, the Lincoln Institute of land policy its 75th anniversary this year. So let's, let's start with Katie. Uh, tell somebody that doesn't know what the Lincoln Institute of land policy is. What is it Katie, and why should we be super happy about its 75th year anniversary? Well,

Kathryn Lincoln: (03:18)
Let me give you a little bit of history, Anthony, cause I think that, um, some framing of it is, is interesting. So 75 years ago, my grandfather, John C Lincoln, decided that he wanted to have people understand a little bit more about land policies, specifically about tax policy and land tax policy and how that policy could really help underserved communities be better if you will. Right? So he wasn't in bedroom. He was a Renaissance person. As, as John said in my intro, I'm a member of the four, the Lincoln electric holdings company, the world's largest welding company. Um, he started that company in, um, 1895 with $200. So based home capital this year, we'll set, we'll probably have 3 billion close to $3 billion worth of sales. Um, so he had the chance to be an entrepreneur, a Renaissance person. And with some of that wealth, he started the Lincoln foundation, which really examined things around land policy and land taxation policy around the work of a gentleman named Henry George, which I'm sure Matt will talk about when you get to questions around tax policy later on in our conversation.

Kathryn Lincoln: (04:29)
But he, but my grandfather really wanted to think about those things. So he started the foundation and then my grandpa, my father took up those rings later on in 1974 and started the Lincoln Institute of land policy. He realized that there was really no place specifically in the seventies that was looking at land as a specific policy goal. And so he started the land pop, Billy get his to land policy because when you think about it, Anthony land is maybe no pun intended, but sort of at the bottom of everything. I mean, when you think about it, it's important and it really matters. I mean, my, my land policy matters to me a lot. Your land policy matters to you a lot. I, you might not care if someone's going to put a nuclear power plant next to my house, but I certainly care. Um, and you would care someone put a nuclear power plant next to you.

Kathryn Lincoln: (05:18)
The policymakers in your community really are the people who are making your life the way, the way it is. Right? And so not only getting student land policy works globally to think about how land policy can be part of a suite of solutions around global macro policy issues. We're going to talk about these today. I hope, you know, climate change, fiscal health, all those sorts of things, but it has its deep bruise and the visions of my grandfather who really wanted people to have better lives. Really, really he and my father there, their mantras, where the golden rule, you really wanted people to have better lives and better lives to thinking about how better.

Anthony Scaramucci: (06:02)
So professor, um, Mack, we're going to all your professor Mac for the sake of this. I feel like when I call you Mac after, uh, John Dorsey, read your bio, it doesn't do you justice. So you're going to want to go with professor Mack if you're okay with it. That's fine. A couple of couple of years ago, I read a book called the Nobelist triumph and it was called property and prosperity through the ages. And basically the, the author was making the case in the book that private property, uh, was the elixir for growth and the elixir for prosperity. Once people recognize that they could own a plot of land that they could call their own, they took care of it better. They built upon it. They, there was a blessing, uh, to property. What is your thought or reaction to that professor Mack?

George McCarthy: (06:56)
Well, certainly lots of volume Mac after this next question. Yeah. So the thing about, uh, property is that, um, there's, um, a lot of benefits that accrue to people for, um, owning and controlling a property. And, um, more often than not, those benefits are unearned and that's kind of the thesis of the work of Henry George that like Katie's grandfather decided it needed to be, uh, told more broadly now, uh, the fact that, uh, you know, people have been able to leverage, uh, ownership of property into other, uh, you know, economic growth, um, personal assets, um, you know, the transformation of places and countries and, and landscapes it's it's, it's undeniable, um, whether or not it could be done without, um, you know, the institution of private property and the private ownership of land is probably arguable. I mean, the, the greatest economic growth of the last 20 years has been in China where, uh, there's no private ownership of land.

George McCarthy: (07:59)
And, uh, you know, the back country has been able to actually surpass the United States and economic growth for the last 20 years, um, through a different kind of sets of policies and approaches to investment and, um, and you know, industrial and trade policy. So I don't know the, um, you know, just to go back to the, the issue of, of how land gets its value, because that's really kind of at the core of what the Lincoln Institute does. Um, Katie's grandfather was struck by the idea that, um, you know, Henry George said during the, uh, the industrial revolution, incredible amounts of wealth created through the, um, through invention, through investment, through hard work of lots and lots of people. Um, and, uh, he was kind of struck by the fact that in spite of the fact that economic growth was running a pace, uh, there was, uh, seem to be this distressing, um, endurance of poverty and in particular urban poverty that just didn't seem to go away.

George McCarthy: (09:00)
And he's trying to figure out why it was that poverty persisted in the face of all those opulence. And he concluded that the, um, uh, the benefits of economic growth are being distributed, um, in, uh, in a bad way. Um, and that distribution problem was that the people who are generating the wealth, um, capital and labor were getting taxed to fund the public sector. And meanwhile, uh, landowners were getting all the benefits of economic growth, uh, and doing nothing to earn them. And essentially what he argued was the value of land is almost always created by, um, actions that go beyond the actions of the landowner, whether it's public investment in infrastructure, whether it's the, uh, you know, the collision of people in cities that just raise the level of, uh, uh, value of land, having nothing to do with the people who are sitting on the land when they get there and having everything to do with all the public interest in owning land.

George McCarthy: (09:57)
Now that there's a glomeration of population. So what Henry George said was if we taxed away the under an increment of land value from landowners, we could actually eradicate poverty and fund the entire, uh, public sector. And, uh, that was the, the thesis of the book that he wrote called progress and poverty, which was, um, uh, at least in theory, or at least claimed to be the second, most popular book in the world. In the 19th century, after the Bible, it was translated to 30 or more languages and published all over the world. And, um, Henry George was, uh, was, you know, a barnstorming, uh, you know, political economists running around giving speeches. And he ended up in Cleveland one day and he met, uh, John C Lincoln, and the rest is history.

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:49)
So, so Katie, I mean, it's a brilliant exposition. Thank you, Mac, uh, Katie, if your grandfather was here today and he saw our society today, and he looked at land policy today, uh, what do you think he would say? And what would he, what would you think he would want changed?

Kathryn Lincoln: (11:11)
Wow, that's a good question. Anthony Johnson.

Anthony Scaramucci: (11:14)
I finally got a good question. You see that? Okay. You're not the only person that asks good questions.

John Darcie: (11:20)
I was hoping to save that one for myself. Let me, let me, let me repeat

Anthony Scaramucci: (11:23)
The question. Cause it was no, I'm kidding. Katie. Tell me, tell me what he would say.

Kathryn Lincoln: (11:30)
Um, I, I think that he would still think that there, there is, there's an equity there's unfairness in the way that people live and that way people are marginalized. Um, you know, there's, there's still, my partner is a real estate professional. And so he tells me that there's still in some places in this country, there are still laws that say, or, um, in NHL ways that say you can't sell to certain types of people. And, you know, you, you hear about neighborhoods that have been decimated because certain types of people can't live there. I think my grandfather would be appalled by that. I think that he would think that, that you should think should be open and that, and that everyone should have an equal opportunity to live someplace, to work someplace, to put an or in the water and pull equally with the person next to them, just, you know, whether they were whatever their skin tone, whatever their religious preference. Right. So I think you would be appalled at the way that we have segregated our society and marginalized, huge swaths of people. It not only in this country, but globally.

Speaker 5: (12:44)
So, so Mac,

Anthony Scaramucci: (12:45)
And I think that's brilliantly well stated, and it's an obvious problem. And I think we would probably all agree and correct me if I'm wrong, the problem is getting worse. It seems like there's been more separation and more disequilibrium in wealth. So, so Matt, what would you do? Let's say you were the grand czar and you could figure out a way to create better land resource allocation, uh, here in the United States and around the world. What would you do?

George McCarthy: (13:14)
Well, Anthony, I think the, one of the first things I would do is, um, recognize that, uh, it's really, um, it's really dangerous in the long run for a society to, to have, um, land and, uh, and, and the things on it, like housing, um, you know, essential stuff traded as commodities. And so, um, I would, one of the things I would do is I would preserve, um, a significant share of those resources, those assets for, um, for the, for, for the public, for the public use. Right. And so I would, um, I would pull a large share of our housing stock out of, um, the tradable market. And so that it couldn't so that, you know, um, the quiddity, that's piling up in any number of places around the world. Couldn't bid shelter away from low-income people because they see it as a good investment opportunity.

George McCarthy: (14:07)
Um, similarly land, uh, shouldn't be traded as freely. And, um, we would find ways to, um, uh, keep a certain share of the land available for, as the infrastructure for the society to, to run. Um, part of that, if you, um, if you then impose kind of more and fairer and better enforced kind of land policies, you could also make sure that the right things get built in the right places that the right, um, um, uh, you know, the right use of the police powers of planning are actually, uh, you know, designing places that actually worked for us better, uh, not just designed to kind of, uh, follow the, and let the market decide kind of what gets built, where and why. Right. Um, and I know that kind of runs counter to the idea of, um, of, uh, private property. But, um, I think that, you know, there's a, there's a limit to how much, uh, private property and, uh, kind of, um, market fundamentals, uh, can be, uh, can be allowed to kind of drive human evolution and not just human evolution, the evolution of the whole planet and, and, you know, in some ways, uh, an untrammeled, uh, you know, uh, freedom to kind of, uh, whatever trade and, and bargain in, uh, in nece necessities like land and housing and food, um, lead us into kind of a, a bad place.

George McCarthy: (15:39)
And that's one of the reasons why we have some of these really unassailable challenges, like a climate crisis to deal with, because we haven't been willing to kind of, you know, exercise restraint on ourselves and prevent ourselves from doing really, really damaging things in the longterm, in, uh, in exchange for short-term benefits and profits. Right. So I don't know, I, you know, there's a, I could probably write a thesis on it. So it's a, it's a pretty broad question, but I would say that if we just find ways to kind of, uh, impose a different sense of fairness into the way we make decisions about the use, uh, the taxation and the, um, and the, the transfer of land we could get, um, a lot further than we're able to get. If we just allow all those decisions to be made kind of in a, in isolated markets,

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:29)
You know, and again, this is just, I'm going to test this theory on you, Katie. You tell me if I'm right or wrong. Um, I find that, uh, and forgive me for saying this, we're going to leave John out of this. Okay. I find it's our generation, the baby boomer generation, that for whatever reason has been neglectful from a policy point of view, related to the climate, if I'm wrong about that, you guys correct me. Um, but I do feel like we're having a frat party with the environment. And then we want our kids and our grandkids to live in the frat house on Sunday morning with the bong water on the floor and the broken windows and so forth. And I'm wondering, is it possible to shake our generation, which let's face it is still more or less in power politically. And if not politically, also commercially around the world to shake our generation to do more Katy, am I wrong about that? And if I'm not, what can we do to shake these people to do more?

Kathryn Lincoln: (17:33)
Yeah, I think that you're, you are right. I think that we're slowly us old people are slowly seeing a light. I think it's, um, I think we're slowly seeing the light and I think it's people John's age. Thank you, John. And my children's age who are, you know, shake taking us by the collar and shaking us and saying, Hey, you know, this is why are you drinking out of a plastic bottle? Why aren't you using the recyclable one that I gave you for Christmas? I mean, just little things, right. Everything, every little step helps. So, um, but I think what it's gonna take, Anthony, I mean, I think it's going to take leadership from the top, right? I think that it's going to take, um, science doesn't lie. Right? And I think that people need to have to, there, there needs to be leadership to say science doesn't lie, and you have to beat our heads up with it, but science doesn't lie

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:31)
Not to interrupt, but we have a good 40% of the population that does no longer accept science. So we have two battles going on. Right. We have the science anti-science community now, uh, in addition to the climate change issue, right? I mean, I don't know. I mean, it's not just not just the client is with vaccinations or public health and safety.

Kathryn Lincoln: (18:56)
Right. But I think what we need is more leaders who are willing to stand up and say, science isn't lying and help people educate, you know, we need to, we need to continue to educate Lincoln Institute is, is by and large, well, uh, an educational organization, right? I mean, we really strive to provide good education around issues of land policy, right? I mean, around climate change around municipal fiscal health, around land policy taxation, but we really work at helping to educate policymakers so that they can make better policies. And then in that way, we are hopefully moving the needle on some of these issues that you referenced it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (19:39)
So I want to, I want to bend that needle. I don't just want to move it. I want to like totally bend it. You know, like, uh, like they did in those old silent movies, what do we do, Mac, how do we, how do we really force a major sea change? Because we know when we know even the climate deniers, I say to them, well, what about the AR you know, if you're in Beijing, New York and you've got small concentration, the asthma rates for these kids is going through the roof. So, I mean, maybe you don't believe that the climate is changing, but the pollution is affecting your shoulder. What do we do? Mac what's? Is there a bazooka that we get pull out a policy bazooka?

George McCarthy: (20:20)
Well, I think that the bazookas that are being pulled out are the, um, the climate bazookas that we've been experiencing, or just over the last few years. I mean, the, uh, you know, the, the, the shutdown of the entire power grid in Texas is just an example of, um, one of those events that happens it's supposed to happen every a hundred years or so. And it happened twice in the last 30, right. Um, the, uh, the flooding of, of, uh, of Houston, I don't know how many times of the last three or four years from these superintendents, tropical storms, wildfires, and all through California in the U S west wildfires in Australia that decimated that continent. I mean, the, um, we're seeing it over and over again. And, and, you know, there's, there's some things that you just can't deny like the, um, you know, uh, clear day flooding on the streets of Miami, because now sea level rise is actually starting to kind of show up because the, the, the water level is rising underneath the city.

George McCarthy: (21:21)
Right. And, and so, um, pretty soon you're just not gonna be able to deny it. And by then, um, luckily for us, the innovation that's been taking place, um, all around the globe in terms of finding new ways to substitute out kind of, you know, carbon intense, um, energy generation or carbon intense transportation, it's already there. I mean, we know what we need to do, and we know how to do it. It's just a matter of really committing the political will to do it. And I think that, um, more and more, you know, especially as people of our generation die off, the others are just committing themselves to really making, you know, the right kinds of things happen. So I'm actually pretty optimistic. I think that, um, carbon neutrality is something that people are actually talking about now. And we, weren't talking about carbon neutrality even five years ago, finding ways to make entire kind of corporations, carbon neutral, whole states are trying to commit the carbon neutrality countries, right.

George McCarthy: (22:19)
Um, and finding ways to really, really aggressively substitute out all sorts of, um, different, um, you know, carbon producing measures for carbon reducing measures, and now even finding new technologies to, to trap carbon in soil and in the, in the, in the ocean. And, and, uh, anyway, I think that, uh, that once we were actually on that path, and once we actually even create the market to kind of drive it where we're getting much more active carbon trading markets, other kinds of markets that are, that are, are just waiting to kind of get unleashed. I think that we're going to find that the incentives are going to align and things are going to happen really, really fast because the automobile has only been around for just over a hundred years. Right. They're really not commonly in use for about, you know, maybe 75 or 80 years. Um, so, you know, uh, things happen very quickly and, you know, we look at things in terms of quarters or years, or even lifetimes. Um, everything can change in a, in a matter of, you know, uh, one generation and it will be stunning and not probably won't be around to see it, but I think we're going to see an entirely different world, uh, in, in the next generation

John Darcie: (23:33)
Mack, I have a followup question about, about climate. So I know that the Institute focuses on six goals, and it's a global mandate that you guys have over there. And the first regarding climate related issues in what geographies that you guys work is this climate crisis most urgent, there's a place like Jakarta. That's close to being underwater. If we further sea level rise, they're engaged in a 30 plus billion dollar effort to move their capital to Borneo. Uh, there's other cities around the world that that potentially potentially are in the cross hairs. If we get greater warming and sea level rise, what areas do you guys work are most, uh, most in danger and what can be done in those areas to, to help them withstand the impacts of a warmer climate and is, is how much is climate migration part of that?

George McCarthy: (24:25)
Well, it's, there's a, about three or four questions. Let me see if I can kind of, I

John Darcie: (24:29)
Got to get my licks and while I can back. Yeah. So,

George McCarthy: (24:31)
Well, number one, I mean, the thing is that almost every geography we work in is affected by the climate crisis in one form or another. And that the problem is that it's not just one thing, it's everything it's, whether it's wildfires in Australia or California, or whether it's sea level rise in Bangladesh and Indonesia, or the entire Pacific rim, all the coastal cities are in trouble, right? The, um, uh, the entire Gulf coast, right. Is, is in trouble, uh, from sea level rise, Miami, I don't know how Miami survives this because there, there's no way that you can actually protect the city because the water comes in underneath. Right. So it's going to be really hard to kind of seal it off from a water that's going to be rising from below. Right. So, um, it just depends on what your, what you know of what you think is the real crisis.

George McCarthy: (25:19)
I mean, right now, in terms of climate migration, the, the, the, you know, the, what's it called the IFCC the, um, the intergovernmental panel on climate change that the, the IPC, um, they they've, they're estimating that we're going to have 150 million climate migrants, uh, by 2050, right. People who are going to have to move, uh, voluntarily or involuntarily as a result of climate change. And right now there's not that many of them, but right now it's really the disadvantaged folks that are going to be, or that are getting pushed out. And a lot of indigenous folks in the United States, in places, as far as long as Alaska, along the bearing, or the Chuck CISI or down in Louisiana, in the Gulf coast, they're already getting displaced by rising sea levels, and they don't have any place to go. And they're now testing all of our kind of jurisprudence and other kinds of, um, uh, uh, legal frameworks to figure out how we're going to adequately kind of accommodate them when they have to go someplace else.

George McCarthy: (26:23)
And, um, uh, and that's just going to be, that's a tip of the iceberg because we're going to see tens of millions of people having to move, um, from places, even look at the Southern end of, uh, of New York and what happened to Manhattan all the way up. I was in 42nd street, uh, with Superstorm Sandy, and we were displaced at the Ford foundation for a couple of weeks while they're actually just trying to restore power because of the flooding and the subways are out for weeks, right. Um, some of them, you know, indelibly harmed the office.

John Darcie: (26:55)
My office at the time was in lower Manhattan. And we, you know, it destroyed all the, uh, the technology infrastructure in the building and forced us out of the office for multiple months, also knew plenty of people whose houses were destroyed or severely damaged in that storm. So that was definitely a reminder that, you know, people forget a decade goes by, you know, from the most recent storm people forget, but it sort of, and this is not to pick on Miami, but I see this massive migration of, you know, people in the financial industry, people in technology industry, moving down to Miami, uh, knowing that, you know, the entirety of that city is only five feet above sea level right now facing the issues that you mentioned. So it'll be fascinating to see whether all those great tech minds can solve those issues.

Kathryn Lincoln: (27:36)
John, I think it's also important to note that it's not just sea level rise when you're talking about the 150 million migrants. It's when you think about, and we're already seeing this now, when climate change is the heat index. So they're making many of these lands on unmanageable. You can't farm on them anymore, right. Or the rain patterns are changing because of climate change. And so it's not just the sea level rise, that's impacting populations. And again, as max said, it's often the, the poor people or the underserved communities that are affected the most, and that is what that's going to be the global crisis. So

John Darcie: (28:13)
How do we solve those issues? And I'll turn it back over to Anthony after this question, but those issues related to poverty and spatial or geographic inequality, as you mentioned, you know, something like hurricane Katrina, there was a great Atlantic podcast series about the way that new Orleans permanently changed, uh, you know, following hurricane Katrina. Obviously we know that the devastation in terms of loss of human life and property that took place from that storm. Uh, but how do we fix this issue, you know, related to affordable housing related to poverty and just the growing inequality, uh, that's being exacerbated by climate related issues and even public policy issues around land ownership and, and the provision of housing.

George McCarthy: (28:55)
Well, um, just to start with, I mean, the only way that you actually kind of defend the interests of whatever we want to call the underserved, the, the lower income groups that, uh, those that have been experiencing racial discrimination for, for decades is through, um, really active public policy, because the only people out there that are going to be defending the interests or the poor, or the people with some other kind of power political power. And so we're just going to have to be willing to stand in the face of economic power, because the people who are able to are going to be, uh, you know, um, migrating to the high ground and they'd be able to afford to buy the high ground and buy it out from underneath the, um, folks that are living there now. And so, you know, I hate to keep using Miami as an example, but if you go to Overton in Miami, which was the historic, uh, African-American community, it's actually on high ground, right.

George McCarthy: (29:52)
And it was mostly ignored unless you wanted to build a super highway through it, right. Um, uh, for decades and, and kind of left alone. And all of a sudden they're facing all sorts of pressure from a higher income people who want to get away from, uh, the direct exposure to the coastline. Right. And that's going to be happening everywhere. And, and unless we get, um, a little bit kind of, uh, you know, creative and, um, and, um, you know, farsighted, we're going to have to, um, we've got to deal with it when it's really hard to deal with, as opposed to when it's easy to deal with. And so, like for, uh, for one of our, um, one of our projects we're working on is actually looking at where are the most vulnerable communities, uh, it, you know, two climate in the, in the U S and what are the options for them?

George McCarthy: (30:39)
And we're working with a group called the climate migration network, and we're working with, um, some, um, uh, uh, some folks down at Emory university, uh, and other scholars around North Carolina and figuring out, do we have public lands that we can reserve for communities that are going to have to be, um, moved? And how are we going to know, figure out how to transition them from where they are to where they can go. And one of the great things at least about the U S is that we've got a lot of publicly owned land in this country that could be developed for people to move to state trust, lands, uh, national, uh, trust BLM is the largest landowner in the world. And land, it owns, you know, uh, gigantic amounts of land across the west and, uh, and even some in the east, but the idea would be, um, finding a way to actually plan ahead, you know, proper, prior planning, prevents poor performance, right? If we, if we figure it out now and we do it before, we're all kind of running around and trying to figure out where we're going to, where we're going to land, we'll be able to do it kind of in an orderly fashion. But as soon as even you mentioned the words, managed retreat, politicians had the other way, because they think manage your sounds like you've given up. And you're, you're, you're, you're waving

John Darcie: (31:55)
The white flag. Yeah. But you don't want to be plugging holes in the boat. Uh, when the boat's sinking, you want to do it before, before you start taking on water. That's I guess that's an appropriate metaphor in this case. Anthony, go ahead. I

Anthony Scaramucci: (32:09)
Want, I want you to continue gentleman. I have, I have one last question before I let John, uh, read off some of the questions from our audience and stuff. What do you, what do you say to the full on capitalists in our society that, uh, you want to own their land. They want to have low property taxes on their land. They move to low tax states, uh, in order to do that, by the way, I'm a dyed in the wool, new Yorker, you spike Lee asked me, he's doing a documentary on nine 11. Am I going to be one of those rich hedge fund guys that moves down to Miami? I'm like, I'll be shutting the lights off in this great city with you, spike, meaning I'm here for the duration. Um, but what do you say to those people that don't understand what I think you guys are explaining, which I certainly don't want for myself. I don't want to live in a Bob wired, make match in, in a McMansion, in a Bob wire security compound gated community by my fellow neighbors are suffering. And yet we've got a very large group of people that think like that. I'm sorry to say it that way. And I hate to be cynical, but what do you say to those people? Do we need to move those people? Is that not necessary to move those people? What do you guys recommend that we do?

George McCarthy: (33:32)
I'll start with Katie. You can, you can jump in. So Anthony, that I think the, the, the, the, the sound, his argument, and there's, there's a growing body of research to support. This is that inequality actually creates its own deadweight loss of economic growth. No question

Anthony Scaramucci: (33:47)
About it. And lots of lack of diversity does the same thing that

George McCarthy: (33:53)
A diverse portfolio and how a diverse portfolio is, is, uh, you know, a much better kind of option in the long run. Right? Um, we'll also understand that, that, um, the, the countries in the world that have succeeded the most and had the most rapid economic growth are the ones with growing middle classes. They are growing middle class, uh, the, the, uh, whether it's an illusion or a promise of opportunity of, uh, of upward mobility, those are the things that actually draw from people that kind of the energy and the, the inventiveness and the, the hard work that actually builds economies. Right.

Anthony Scaramucci: (34:31)
I tend to argue, but I'm a direct beneficiary of that. You know, my dad was a middle-class worker, blue collar, laborer, non-college educated, uh, had a high wage. We went to a very good public school system. You know, I'm just going to emphasize this point. So I've made my money here in New York, and I'm a product of New York. I'm a product of its public school system. I'm a product of that middle-class ecosystem. And so now that I'm paying high taxes, because I'm doing reasonably well to pay back into the system, I'm totally fine with it. A lot of my buddies though, are not, they want to move to low tax places and, you know, they made their fortune here, but now they're going to take it elsewhere. I'm sorry to ventilate. You guys are cheaper than my therapist. And there's two of you. You see what I mean? I probably need a basketball team of therapists, but you guys are cheaper, but what do you say to those people? How do we ring their bell? I

Kathryn Lincoln: (35:26)
Think what other ways you ring their bell is to try. And, I mean, I get back to education and leadership, you know, I think role modeling is so important. I mean, I, I think try and model behavior, and I try to model language when my kids were little, you know, they're 29 and 26 now. So they're still kids. They'll always be kids. We know that, but there are no longer young, but young kids, you know, I, I always said to them, language is important and, and who, and who you, the things you say and who you are is important and who your friends are as important. And, and we're, and the kinds of things you like to do is important. And the things you say are important and diversity is important. And we always, I always made sure that they understood how, what a lucky life they had, but that we, I always made sure that they saw what a lucky life they had, that they, that they participated in, um, volunteering that we participated and not just gratuitously Anthony, it wasn't something that we did, you know, check the box once a year, we did this, right.

Kathryn Lincoln: (36:29)
It was something that we engaged in as a family, as part of our community. Right. I think it's, I think that you have to shake people and say, you have to give grace because that's important. I think that's important.

George McCarthy: (36:45)
Yeah. I don't, I don't know Anthony, what you, what you can say to folks who want to live on their own kind of island of, of luxury and kind of in their own kind of bubbles. I mean, maybe you can see that they can just do that. And, um, and then really just focus on kind of making sure that the, the, the rest of the world works for the rest of the people, because that's a pretty tiny share of the population that's running away and moving to gated communities and trying to sit on their wealth. And, and I do what I, I w w what is the, what, what is the benefit that comes to them of, of living a life in a bubble? I'm not quite sure. Right. And so the, you know, the pursuit of meaning ends up. I think being the thing that drives all of us in the end and understanding what, what brings meaning to life, I think is going to be, uh, the key. And I think that it's just incumbent on us and it's certainly in the way we do our own kind of promote are the right kinds of land policies that we want to make sure that, that things work for the vast majority of people. And if others decide they want to check out and take their chips and leave the table, I guess we've got to let them do it. I mean, you know, what's, what's really,

Anthony Scaramucci: (37:58)
I think it makes sense. You know, I, you know, what, what brings meaning to John Darcie's life Mack is that he asks better questions than me during these salt talks. I'm going to let John now a takeover, because I know he's got a flurry of questions and it would be important for him to outshine me. It gives him great. Meaning, go ahead, John.

John Darcie: (38:20)
He has a fair point, but, um, so, so to dig further into the tax policy question. So Anthony's referring to friends affairs, uh, that are moving to places like Florida and Texas, for example, being the biggest two examples of new Yorkers in the financial fleeing to lower tax jurisdictions. But that's only one element of taxes, income taxes, you know, there's no state income taxes in, in Texas or Florida. Uh, but there are in many cases, higher property taxes. So as you guys look at tax policies and public policies in general, how do you think about best practices as it relates to land use regulations, property tax frameworks, and land value return mechanisms, uh, that just create, you know, a better, better mechanisms for the supply of service land and just general land provision.

George McCarthy: (39:08)
So, you know, in terms of efficiency and, you know, economic fairness, um, and one of the reasons we exist and we still believe this is that the, um, the best tax is the land tax and it's the best tax for a number of reasons. But the, one of the main reasons is it's a, it's a tax you can't move away from, right. Because you can't pick up your land and take it to Florida. Right. Right.

John Darcie: (39:32)
And you can run your land through a shell company in the, in the Seychelles

George McCarthy: (39:36)
Or something. Right. And, and the, and the thing about land is that, um, the, or the land tax is that it doesn't actually distort, um, other kinds of economic markets and incentives as well, having a land tax. Right. And so, um, so we think the, the, the most preferable tax among all different suites of tax is the land tax. And it should be the basic tax to fund, especially local governments because, um, that is going to be, um, the source of, um, uh, value in the actions of the local government will have a direct bearing on the value of land, right? Because how you choose to invest in your own kind of, uh, jurisdiction will have a great bearing on what the, what the, the tax base is. Right. If you have, you build better sidewalks and you build better roads, and you have a better sewer systems, and you can pipe in good, clean, fresh water into the houses. Yeah. Your, your tax base goes up and there, your revenues will go up. It's one of those, you know, um, uh, whatever

John Darcie: (40:36)
Itself you create a line of incentives.

George McCarthy: (40:40)
So, um, yeah. And then, and then after that, then, you know, the property tax is, um, a good second best tax. Uh, the problem with the property tax is that, uh, if you tax equally, um, the land and the improvements you do send the wrong kind of signal in terms of making the right kinds of investments in the improvements on land, and you get, and so you, you might end up having people not using land to its highest and best use. Um, but, uh, the property tax is certainly better than, you know, a sales tax or an income tax it's a as a general revenue source, uh, because, um, it has it's, um, it has stability over time. And once again, the actions of the government and how it invests in how it builds its infrastructure, what it does will have a direct bearing on growing its own tax base, which is a good thing, right?

George McCarthy: (41:30)
So that's what we like, kind of, land-based, uh, we're really big fans of what we call the split rate tax, but you don't see it very often anymore where you actually tax the land at a higher rate than you tax improvements. Um, and that has the right kinds of, um, benefits because it incentivizes people to, um, make the right kind of improvements or maintain the quality of the improvements on land, um, and gets them to be more likely to bring land to its highest and best use. So, you know, um, we think that a diverse set of revenue sources is actually a good thing, but we think that we should rely mostly on the ones that distort the market, the least, and, you know, income tax, distorts, labor markets, um, uh, you know, sales tax, distorts, commodity markets at the store, it's all sorts of other kinds of markets, every other kinds of tax, you can measure the dead weight loss that happens as a result of the imposition of the taxes. But the reason that land has no kind of dead weight loss, because it's in fixed supply. So, um, the, um, uh, tax doesn't affect the supply of it. Right, right. And

John Darcie: (42:36)
You see a lot of the wealthiest people in the country and in the world, frankly go gates being one example of somebody who is hoarded, tremendous amounts of land because of that scarcity factor. Um, and the fact that it's not taxed owners in a way that maybe it should be, uh, but you talked a little bit about water. We've talked a lot about land, but water is a pressing issue, especially in certain parts of the world, in certain parts of the country. I think over the last decade, we've seen several instances of, of significant droughts in places like California, South Africa, facing a water crisis. How big of a crisis is general water shortage, and what can be done to solve those issues

George McCarthy: (43:15)
Is Katie, you should start in this way because this is near and dear to your heart in Phoenix, where water is something they think about

John Darcie: (43:21)
A lot, right. They use all the water on the golf course is there in Scottsdale.

Kathryn Lincoln: (43:25)
We use gray water. Thank you. We do think about that. You use gray water. Um, I don't know if any of the, um, any of YouTube on the, on the bottom of my screen, John or Anthony or golfers, but a lot of times,

John Darcie: (43:36)
Um, so I was saying that, uh, with a great deal of affection,

Kathryn Lincoln: (43:39)
Most of the water on golf courses here is gray water. So, um, but you know, we created the baddest center for on land and water policy about five years ago, to look at that nexus. I think it's important to remember that we learned Lincoln Institute of land policy, but we really wanted to look at that nexus between land policy and water policy, John cause to your point, water policy is really important, right? And it's something that, that a lot of people are looking at water policy. We're looking at Lam policy, but we really weren't looking at the connection between those two. And you think about how important water policy is to the use of land and how important land policy is to the use of water. And that's why we set up this on this center here in Phoenix, actually, where I'm sitting SPC. Um, and it's focusing on the Colorado watershed, Colorado river watershed, and about four days ago, actually something great happened again, first time it's happened again, about three years ago, water actually got to the sea of Cortez again through the Colorado river.

Kathryn Lincoln: (44:37)
Um, there's a nonprofit here who has been buying water and it's been actually able to get past Yuma again and yet through the two states and into the sea of Cortez, um, which is really quite a remarkable thing. When so many of those, um, farmlands down in Mexico have not seen water for decades because it's it stopped at the border. Um, water is an issue. And, um, it's a big issue in the west, especially in, well, where did huge drought, whether people think it's over last year, people that, oh, the drought's over. We had a good snow pack this year. I understand the Sierra Nevadas are at 5% of their normal. Snowpack 5% of their normal snowpack, which means that's a bad thing. Um, I was in Colorado every weekend. The Matt Rockies are still have a lot of snow and they had five inches of snow five days ago.

Kathryn Lincoln: (45:24)
So that's a good thing, but, um, water is a huge issue and, and it gets around, um, the use of it, whether, you know, 80% of the water that's used in our region is for agriculture. Um, and then when you think about it, agriculture is a really flexible use of water because you can let a land lie fallow, and then that water can be used for, um, commercial. Other commercial uses. If you start building houses, you can't really let those houses life out of those people need to, you know, bathe them, drain them and live. So there's always that stressful creativity, if you will, between the ag land use and the commercial and residential use the other issue, at least in Arizona and often in the west is that much of the water is owned by the native American communities. So the rights to that water, um, are often, um, structured so that native Americans own it. And then when then you have to figure out how to buy it, how to rent it, how to lease it. So it's water is a huge issue in the west, generally, not enough, except occasionally we have too much, you know, on the days that we have a monsoon, generally we don't have enough,

George McCarthy: (46:37)
But the bottom line on water is though that it's a market failure because we don't really have an active market for water and market water isn't priced directly. So without being priced correctly, it's not rationed. Right. Right. So, um, the way we have portioned water through these, uh, you know, really arcane water rights that have existed about as long as property rights and oddly enough, you can sever the water rights from land and sell it away. Right. Um, that is a, that's a, a going concern is so until we w we'll never have the right incentives until we actually get the prices, right. And we'll never get the prices right. Until we actually can freely trade water as opposed to control it. And these, uh, you know, Byzantine ways that we do with, um, uh, you know, with, with, uh, water rights, particularly in the west, the us west people, um, they whiskey's for drinking, water's for fighting over.

George McCarthy: (47:31)
Right. And, uh, and that's where they do. They'll, they'll, you know, there's been bloodshed over, uh, water rights, uh, across the west, but globally, this is a gigantic existential problem. And, and the real answer is, you know, is conservation and really making the right kinds of choices because, you know, water is a cycle. It goes, you know, it goes into the atmosphere, it comes down as rain or snow. It goes into the ground, we pump it out. And it it's the same amount of water on the planet that there was, you know, a hundred million years ago. And we just have to figure out how to kind of manage it better. And part of that is just really being able to think through things like, you know, um, you know, landscape choices or crop choices, or how we choose to irrigate what we choose to irrigator or what, where you choose to grow, where, and those things, we haven't really given it the right thought because the incentives have been wrong all along. Right. I hate to concede it. What are the things that you have to give to the Arizona's is they have made more advancements in water economy than any place in the United States. And they, they actually are one of the most efficient users of water, um, in the world. Right. So, um,

John Darcie: (48:44)
You find in places, I mean, we do some business in places like the middle east, uh, w when you have to be very cognizant of the way you ways in which you use water in the ways in which you farm, uh, it drives innovation in those places. I think Arizona is probably an example of that.

George McCarthy: (48:59)
And Israel boy, Israel is, is real, right? Yeah.

John Darcie: (49:03)
Absolutely. Last question I have for you, Katie is you, you manage the, a sizable endowment there at the Lincoln Institute that allows you guys to engage in all these terrific projects that are helping to protect the planet and help to drive great public policies, policy decisions, uh, around the world, in terms of how you guys manage your asset allocation as part of that endowment, how do you think about portfolio construction in a way that provides that, uh, growth and sustainable, uh, type of returns that you're looking for? So you can sustain the efforts of the Institute? Um,

Kathryn Lincoln: (49:38)
Well, we talked about Mac mentioned it a little earlier about diversity. Um, you know, we really have diversified portfolio, but I'm really, um, I'm a huge, um, equity girl. I just think that, that, you know, equities in a long haul are gonna serve us well, we've done, we've done reasonably well with our equity portfolio. Um, I'm also a huge fan of private equity. And because I think, you know, all companies started small and they all got big and long point or another. We, um, I, I really got us out of substantially out of the debt markets, you know, as much as we have really wonderful, um, debt managers, you know, getting me, you know, beating their benchmarks, they're doing 3%. Wasn't getting me to my eight and a half percent bogey. So we really all of that into, um, unconstrained credit. We really love this manager called SkyBridge. I'm a boomer or heard of them. They they've done really well for us over at, but we've been with them for

Anthony Scaramucci: (50:38)
Salt talk, turned into a marathon, just so everybody

Kathryn Lincoln: (50:43)
Like the old Jerry Lewis marathons for quite some time. And we're really pleased with the work that they do for us. But, um, all things aside, we have been really pleased with our hedge book and, and the work that SkyBridge has done for us. So, um, I have a tendency to, um, we look at our asset allocation, you know, every three to five years, John and we, we're not a tactical player. Um, I have my sort of my mins, my max, and I can lean one way or another, but we really look at managing to a strong financial return versus benchmarks. I will say that I do try and find mission-related investments where I can, I have a private equity manager who, um, creates mitigation banks, which is right up our alley in terms of working towards good land policy. They've done really well for us, but again, we, excuse me, we always look for a strong financial return first cause we all, we, we believe, excuse me, we believe that the mission is first and that's sort of max job, if you will. That it's really important to make sure that we have the funds to support the work and that. So to maximize the funding is what I that's my job.

John Darcie: (51:52)
Well, you guys are a mission-based organization. So the great work you do managing that portfolio gives Mac the, uh, the arrows. He needs to do his job. So, and we just want to, I know Anthony will, uh, reiterate this as well, but you guys are definitely take the right long-term patient approach, um, when it comes to investing, that allows you to achieve those targets. So we're very grateful for your support and, and a very admiration of your long-term thinking when it comes to portfolio management. But thank you guys so much for joining us. Thank you guys so much for joining us

Anthony Scaramucci: (52:25)
Stay much more than what John just said. So, but in all seriousness, uh, um, I want more and more people to know about the Lincoln Institute of land policy. And hopefully we can have you at our live event in New York, uh, which is coming up in September at the Javits center. And I just think it's important that we push these ideas because, you know, what's the end game. The end game is we want to better each other. Uh, and we know, uh, smart economists know it's not a zero sum game. We can improve each other through the process of helping each other. And you guys are doing an amazing job at that. So thank you. And congratulations on 75 years now, John and Darcie thinks I'm 80 years old, but that's a whole other topic. We won't be. Anthony remembers

John Darcie: (53:13)
When he was in high school, when you guys were founded. That was a great, great

Kathryn Lincoln: (53:16)
Moment. It's brutal, Katie. It's brutal over here.

Anthony Scaramucci: (53:19)
If you can help me out me at a year at some point.

Kathryn Lincoln: (53:23)
Thank you again. Thank you for inviting us. It's been a fun morning. We appreciate it.

John Darcie: (53:29)
Likewise, and we'll get on one of those golf courses, Katie, where they use that gray water to irrigate. I'd love to tee it up with you

Kathryn Lincoln: (53:37)
As a partner who will certainly love to host you. So let us know. There you go.

John Darcie: (53:42)
Sounds good. You guys take care guys. Have a great day and thank you everybody for tuning into today's salt. Talk with Katie Lincoln and Dr. George McCarthy of the Lincoln Institute of land policy. Just a reminder, if you missed any part of this episode or any of our previous episodes of salt talks, you can access them on our website@sault.org backslash talks or on our YouTube channel, which is called salt tube. We're also on social media. Twitter is where we're most active at salt conference is our handle, or also on LinkedIn, Instagram and Facebook as well. And please spread the word about these salt talks, especially when we're talking about what we think are really important issues around sustainability. Uh, we love educating people on these topics, so please spread the word, but on behalf of Anthony and the entire salt team, this is John Darcie signing off from salt talks for today. We hope to see you back here again soon.

Edward-Isaac Dovere: Battle for the Soul | SALT Talks #217

“Voters make decisions based on how they feel in their gut. Biden speaks to people’s guts, always has.”

Edward-Isaac Dovere is the Lead Political Correspondent at The Atlantic. He has covered Democratic politics for 15 years, beginning in his native New York City and carrying him through the Obama White House and then across 29 states during the 2020 election cycle. His reporting has won the White House Correspondents Association’s Merriman Smith Award for Excellence and the Society of Professional Journalists’ Daniel Pearl Award for Investigative Reporting, among other awards.

Edward-Isaac Dovere’s Battle for the Soul is the searing, fly-on-the-wall account of the Democrats’ journey through recalibration and rebirth. Dovere traces this process from the early days in the wilderness of the post-Obama era, though the jockeying of potential candidates, to the backroom battles and exhausting campaigns, to the unlikely triumph of the man few expected to win, and through the inauguration and insurrection at the Capitol.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Edward-Isaac Dovere.jpeg

Edward-Isaac Dovere

Staff Writer & Lead Political Correspondent

The Atlantic

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

TIMESTAMPS

0:00 - Intro

6:55 - Democratic presidential primary and Joe Biden’s bumpy road to victory

16:35 - The state of the Democratic and Republican parties ahead of 2022 and 2024

22:42 - Predicting whether Joe Biden and/or Donald Trump will run in 2024

25:20 - Biden’s appeal vs. the left wing of his party

29:40 - Shift among Hispanic voters

31:48 - Biden’s presidency so far and future Democratic party leaders

39:29 - Relationship dynamic between Biden and Obama

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darcie: (00:07)
Hello everyone. And welcome back to salt talks. My name is John Darcie. I'm the managing director of salt, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance technology and public policy. Soul talks are a digital interview series that we started in 2020 with leading investors, creators and thinkers. And our goal on these salt talks the same as our goal at our salt conferences, uh, which we're excited to resume here in September of 2021. And that is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future. And we're very excited today to welcome another author to salt talks. And that is Edward Isaac Dover. Uh, Isaac is a staff writer for the Atlantic and its lead political correspondent. He's covered democratic politics for 15 years beginning in his native New York city and carrying him through the Obama white house.

John Darcie: (01:02)
And then across 29 states during the 2020 election cycle, his reporting has won the white house correspondent associations, Merriman Smith award for excellence and the society of professional journalists, Daniel Pearl award for investigative reporting among many other awards. He attended John Hopkins, Johns Hopkins university, and the university of Chicago. And he's out with a fantastic new book, which is what we're going to talk about today. It's called battle for the soul inside Democrats campaign to defeat Trump hosting. Today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, who is the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge capital, which is a global alternative investment firm. Anthony is also the chairman of salt. And since we're talking about politics, I always have to add in another piece of his bio, he had a cup of coffee as well, uh, for 11 days as Donald Trump's communications director. So looking forward to a fantastic conversation about the 2020 election, uh, between Anthony, he always

Anthony Scaramucci: (01:57)
Brings it up. He thinks it's like a shot in the shorts that I got fired by Trump. I mean the good news is over Darcie. It's over, okay. It's over

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (02:06)
Really a character in this book. So, so I don't even have to mention the part, the part where you were working for him.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:12)
Let's see there, there, and go. So even better, even better yet all these other guys that come on, there's like five paragraphs of my ridiculousness in their books, which is totally fine. But Isaac, first of all, congratulations. And, uh, I want to, before we get into the book though, I think it's important for everybody to lay out your background, your life and career. Why did you get into political journalism? And then we'll, we'll dive into the book, but I want people to know who you are.

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (02:36)
Well, first of all, thanks for having me to do this. It's really great. And, uh, I would say right before we started that the salt audiences, uh, full of some of the best people, uh, that I'd want to have reading this book, uh, anyway, and, and that you had me on to talk about is really great. So I appreciate it. Um, as for me, I grew up in New York city in Manhattan, uh, and when off to college thinking, I'm kind of interested in politics and I'm kind of interested in writing. I didn't know what to do with any of that. Um, got involved with various things, uh, did a couple of internships in college, uh, at the hill newspaper, um, back when it came out once a week and that seemed like a big deal. Uh, and after I graduated college, I actually, I had the nerdiest form of peer pressure, which is that everybody that I knew was applying to PhD programs.

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (03:28)
And so I applied to PhD programs. I got into none of them, uh, but I did get into a program for a master's degree at the university of Chicago. And I decided that I would go do that and see if that would lead me into a PhD program. The year that I was there was oh, 2 0 3. So now you can figure out exactly how old I am. Um, and, uh, I think that basically what happened was I had not realized how much thing September 11th and the aftermath of it had really hit me and hit me as a new Yorker. I didn't know anyone personally who, uh, was killed, but I didn't know, uh, uh, the father of, one of my best friends, uh, was in one of the towers and escaped, um, and oh 2 0 3 that March to the Iraq war kind of shook me.

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (04:15)
And I thought I can't be in academia. I can't be, I got to get really into this. I moved back home to New York, uh, and started, uh, getting involved in community newspapers work my way up, uh, was the founding editor of a publication. That's now gone. It was called city hall. Uh, news did a lot of political, uh, New York city and New York state focused stuff. Uh, and did that until 2011, moved to Washington, uh, was recruited by Politico and moved to Washington and be at first and editor there. And then I was, uh, the lead white house correspondent for basically Obama's second term. Um, I, uh, after Trump won, not because of any political reasons, but because I felt like I wanted to actually get to an understanding of what was going on that produced Trump's win. Um, I came off white house coverage and was doing, um, political coverage of all sorts of things around the country at Politico.

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (05:12)
In 2018, I moved to the Atlantic, uh, ran in the fall of 2018, the first day that I was on staff at the Atlantic. I flew out to Iowa for the first candidate who went to Iowa officially. And that was Corey Booker. Um, obviously a, uh, never quite became more than that first trip to Iowa. Uh, and, uh, and then I was, as John was saying, it was in 29 states over the course of the campaign working, uh, covering the race day to day for the Atlantic. But in the summer of 2018 already, I, uh, signed a contract for this book because I had a sense that this was going to be a crazy election, that a lot was riding on. And that, um, in fact it was going to be an election that was going to be a lot about the democratic party, trying to sort out what the hell it was supposed to be and how it was going to survive. I, I, yeah. And, and so I was just going to say, I never anticipated obviously the pandemic and all the things that came out of, uh, 20, 20 itself. But, uh, uh, so the campaign, the campaign was crazy, but not, uh, much more crazy than I anticipated. It was going to be,

Anthony Scaramucci: (06:18)
I have a couple of questions. So, um, you writing about the democratic party and you're writing about the factionalism in that party and how they, they picked an elder statesmen effectively to try to do the best that he possibly could to unify that party. And the flip side is you have a very factionalized Republican party as well. It seems like both of these parties are no longer reaching what I would call the bell curve of a center of the country. It seems like most people are centrists and moderates, and you've got hard left people and hard, right? People, am I right about that? Am I missing that you traveled to 29 states? That's my observation.

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (06:54)
Tell me if I'm right or wrong. No, I think you are right. And the Electrum results kind of bear that out, right? Uh, by then, if this were, if the primary campaign were one based on who ran the best campaign by the campaign mechanics, Joe Biden wouldn't have won, probably Elizabeth Warren would've won. Uh, but that was not, that's not how campaigns end up going on on the presidential level. Uh, someone once said to me that when you run for city council or for mayor, or for governor Senate, whatever, any position other than president, it's like going in for a job interview, people look at your resume to, okay, what it's done. I think you'd be good, but the running for president voters make that decision based on how they feel in their guts and Biden speaks to people's guts. And he always has, um, it's, I think his real strength as a politician is that he has that emotional connection with people,

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:44)
But he, he didn't start off. Well, you know, he's behind the eight ball. You got hurt in Iowa. He got hurt in New Hampshire. Uh, tell us your on the ground field experience about what was going on and how he was able to pull it off. And I should also point out to you that we interviewed the two authors of lucky. They wrote their book lucky, because they said it was a close win for Joe Biden. People see the seven or $8 million in the pot say seven or 8 million votes in the popular vote. And they're like, oh, no problem. But he really only won the election by 43,000 votes in the swing states. So tell us, tell us what was going on and how he was able to recover.

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (08:26)
Yeah, the first time that I was in Iowa with Biden was at the beginning of June, 2019, and it was his second trip there. I had missed the first trip. Um, and the first event that I went to is in a town called a tumbler. Uh, and I went to small town, uh, run on some rough times and there's a theater there that they had said the event's going to be happy. So we'll go into the theater. And, uh, they have chairs set up in a hallway on the side of the theater, like outside. Um, and I thought, oh, this is where they're putting the reporters, uh, to wait until we go into the theater. And then they wouldn't let us sit in any of the seats because they said that's for the audience. And there were, uh, I can't remember the count was, I think it was about 80 seats, right?

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (09:13)
Uh, for the former vice president United States, uh, the man was leading the polls, um, and that really carried through most of this campaign, really all of the campaign through, uh, super Tuesday when he won the nomination. This was not a well put together campaign. This was a candidate who was often stumbling through speeches and trying to figure out what exactly he was saying and, uh, how he stood out in the field. It didn't feel comfortable attacking other Democrats. That was always a problem for him. So the debates were always bad. Uh, and, uh, and it was what happened as, uh, a lot of the rest of the field coalesced in the way that it did. And certain, some of the people dropped out, um, because they ran out of money or they ran out of support. Um, usually it's when you run out of money that you drop out of a presidential campaign, uh, and also, uh, like if he hadn't been at the end, the option other than Bernie Sanders, I'm not sure that his campaign would have taken off. And in that final stretch like it did. I don't think he was lucky though. I think that there were things that were going on and, and the book gets into, uh, some of the strategic decisions in addition to tracking what was going on in some of the other campaigns. But it was sort of, uh, I said to someone with Biden, if you look at the way that he won the presidency, it's almost as if it were written in the stars. And also the book tracks about 50 different ways where it almost came apart completely.

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:44)
You know, there's a former, a former president of the United States. You just do a lot of tweeting. He doesn't have a Twitter account anymore, but he tweeted on the day that, uh, Elizabeth Warren and, uh, mayor Pete Buddha, Jay came out of the race or there about that. They were giving the election to Joe Biden then. And do you think that that was actually the case? I was wondering, I looked at it and said, well, that's a reasonably astute political insight that the moderates don't want Bernie Sanders to run away with this. And so they're going to drop out. So that they're number two, who happened to be Joe Biden becomes their number one. What did, what did the former president miss? Well, like

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (11:30)
The former president is, uh, many things, uh, but he is a pretty good observer of like basic politics. Right. And, and I don't think that, so

Anthony Scaramucci: (11:38)
He had great, he had great political instincts politically in 2016. Fortunately, unfortunately what his instincts were. We opened up the onion. There was a lot of rotten folds inside the onion, which obviously we all were worried about

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (11:53)
That. He, uh, sometimes I assumed that there was machinations going on when there, when there weren't, it was not that, uh, Buddha judge dropped out just to, uh, screw Bernie Sanders. Um, although he knew that that would be part of what happened. He dropped out because he knew he was about to get embarrassed and, uh, and not win any votes. But it was, as I pointed out in the book, Udon judge endorsing Biden the night before super Tuesday is the first time in the history of presidential politics that somebody with more delegates, um, and a primary endorsed somebody with fewer delegates, um, and dropped out, uh, Sanders. What if one of the key moments for Sanders is in the debate in Las Vegas, in February, uh that's right before the Nevada primary or the Nevada caucuses, I'm sorry. Uh, all the candidates are asked whether they think a majority of delegates should, would be what was necessary to win the nomination at the convention.

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (12:51)
Uh, and it was a question that Chuck Todd put to them and all the candidates said, they thought the majority except for Sanders. And he said, he'd be fine with the plurality. And this lit up, uh, a backlash in the party against him that was sort of the, the gunpowder was already, um, in the barrel. Um, but that was the match. Uh, for a lot of people, I talked to a guy named Larry Cohen is one of, uh, Sanders, his closest friends and, uh, political advisor was not working on this campaign, but runs, uh, that our revolution group that has inspired by the standards folks. Uh, and he said to me, it's the, it was the stupidest thing Bernie Sanders ever said. Uh, and, and it goes from there to, you know, the, the, the basic discomfort that a lot of Democrats had with Sanders. Some of it was leftover from the Clinton, uh, showdown in 2016. And some of it was thinking, are we really going to put up a socialist, uh, Senator from Vermont against Donald Trump? Um, th th these factors all ended up working in Biden's favor.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:53)
Anybody else on that field could have beaten Donald Trump?

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (13:58)
I mean, it's great. What if, right. Uh, and, uh, it's funny when the pandemic hit, uh, I started to get from a lot of the campaigns can remember this. The sequencing of the pandemic is the bind is basically wrapped up the nomination right before everything shuts down, uh, and a number of the candidates, uh, aids were pushing, oh, this actually would have been a good moment for Elizabeth Warren because she has a lot of plans. Um, it would have been a good moment for Mike Bloomberg cause people like management experience, it would have been a good moment for Bernie Sanders because everybody was thinking, should we have healthcare for everybody? It does not seem to me that there is a strong argument that one of the other candidates could have won. Um, and, uh, when you look at it, there there's some focus groups, uh, uh, that I quote at the end of the book that were done with the famed Obama, Trump voters, right.

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (14:50)
People who for Obama twice, and then for Trump in 2016. And, uh, they were deciding, but under Trump in 2020, and the read that they gave was on Trump, uh, basically I can't stand them, but he knows what to do with the economy. It's not really fair to him. What happened to the economy that, you know, it's like a meteorite hit here, uh, with the pandemic and probably when the pandemic Staten, the key would be better to get us out of it, but I don't think he can get us out of it. Uh, the read on Biden was, is a good man. I don't know that he knows what he's doing with the economy. I'm a little spoked with what's going on. Uh, and the, the defund, the police and all that, it seems very strange what's happening in the democratic party, but we need to get out of the pandemic. And I think he can get us through it. And that kind of, that, that comfort that people have with Biden, uh, and the, the, uh, comfort in his experience and his personality there, isn't another candidate who really had

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:48)
That. I want you to, I want you to be the objective consultant. I'm hiring you, Isaac. Okay. And you get a higher report. You have two jobs over, you're not a reporter in this gate, you're this objective, innocent well-researched Politico. And then you're coming in and I'm asking you to please evaluate for me the strengths and weaknesses of the democratic party going into 2022 and 2024. And if you were the party chair or you were the guru for the party, what would you recommend to them? And then subsequently, I'm going to ask you that same question related to the Democrats, the Democrats first, and then Republicans, whatever you want. You're the guru, you're the guru,

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (16:35)
It's about the Democrats. So I'll start with the Democrats. Um, uh, the, the Saturday before the election, I was in Miami, uh, Kamala Harris was doing a bunch of stops, uh, trying to, um, get Florida where they want it to be. And she kept on saying this line that was, uh, towards the beginning of her speech. So it was something like, and I just want you to know Joe Biden. And I are both proud Americans. And at one point after she'd said three or four events, someone who was working on the campaign said to me, did you notice that, that line? And I said, yeah. And the person said, that's pushing back on the socialist stuff that they're saying down here in Florida. Now, my response to that was that was a little too subtle for me to sit here. And I'm the reporter who was paid to be paying very close attention to this.

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (17:22)
And second of all, if that's all that they have as the pushback, uh, that really didn't seem like enough. They underestimated in Florida how powerful that argument would be, especially with, uh, people from, uh, central and Latin America who either came themselves or have relatives there, uh, and, uh, are very suspicious of anything that says socialism, right? Um, and that's maybe more powerful when there's a closer connection to a socialist country, but it is a real issue for voters all around the country to think that Democrats are turning towards socialism. And the truth is at this point, the, uh, most of the people who are the most prominent most often on TV characters in the democratic party are people who say that they tend toward socialism other than Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and the rest of the administration itself. But Bernie Sanders out Sandra causer Cortez, other activists I've these that makes a lot of people who are not socialists or socialists inclined themselves uncomfortable, whether or not that's fair. And that's something that the party really needs to deal with. But let me

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:34)
Interrupt for a second. Is that a mainstream thought socialism in America, is that a thought for 10, 20, 30% of the people and the mainstream with that thinking?

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (18:45)
I mean, look, elections are lost in one, uh, usually by, at most 20% in the middle of going back and forth, and there's probably less than that really it's, uh, you know, uh, 45% of people are one way are going to go with the Democrat, no matter what and 45 with the Republican, no matter what. Uh, and it's that 10% that you're trying to find now that 10% can also be, uh, accounted for by new voters turning out. And that's one of the arguments that's been going on in the democratic party. But, uh, one of the things that, uh, towards the end of the book that I get into is, um, there was a protest a couple of weeks after the election in favor of the green new deal that was held right outside of the DNC headquarters in Washington. And, uh, it was led by all the members of the squad and Ilhan Omar, the Congressman from Minnesota comes and she, uh, was, she was giving a speech that said, you know, I had the highest turnout in America in my district. Uh, and people say to me, Ilhan, how do you do it? Ilhan? What, and it's because I gave them something to believe in and she's standing there and she says, and you know, it's true. She did have the highest rent. That's a district by the way that George Floyd was killed in, um, it's a district in a swing state of Minnesota. Uh, it's a district that, um, uh, was represented by Keith Ellison, the attorney general now, before he was, uh, attorney general, there's a lot going on in that district. Um, sorry. Um, the, uh, he

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:11)
Sees that, so our YouTube bubble moment, right. There you go, stuff flying around. I usually get my young kids coming into karate, chopping me on live television. And that's fine. Um,

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (20:23)
The point that I was making is that she, uh, what, she, I'm not sure she realized, uh, it certainly, wasn't what she said that day is that her district was the biggest drop-off between, uh, the votes for president and, uh, and a house member in the entire country. So it's true that people turned out and they felt like they had something they believed in, they were turning out for Joe Biden. They were not turning out for her.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:48)
So, and quickly because the book is about the Democrats, what would you say for the,

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (20:55)
I don't see how there is a winning strategy to lash yourself to not just somebody from the past as Donald Trump is at this point, but someone who has proven that he will never be satisfied, then no matter what, it's never enough. And, uh, he enjoys making people squirm. You can see that he's doing that with Kevin McCarthy, uh, and we'll,

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:23)
And when you're talking about a battle for the soul yet ASA, do these, any of these people have any souls I'm just to find Kevin. So I liked Kevin. I mean, I gave Kevin money. I was obviously a lifelong Republican, but I mean, these guys are, uh, they've decided that they're just going to completely distort the facts and guests like the country. So, I mean, we can go in that direction, but I don't think it's very healthy. Okay.

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (21:46)
And that's, that's its own question, right? Like, is it the good thing to do? Is it the politically smart thing to do is also, I think very much in the air. Um, obviously the, the reasons of where the trends are historically a midterm for the incumbent presidents, rarely good. Um, and there are a lot of, uh, factors about gerrymandering and certain states that are going to give Republicans a leg up going into next year in the house races. So the Republicans are going to win the house. I don't know that that's a done deal. It, it almost like it, it shouldn't be a question and I don't think it would be, if not for these bigger factors going on, right.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:26)
Play the party, not in power wins the house, but in this case, because they're so screwed up, blow it. Yeah. It's

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (22:32)
Sort of like if the Republicans don't win the house, it's next year, it will, I think be more because they lose it, then that the Democrats

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:41)
Hold on to it and running for reelection.

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (22:44)
It's hard to tell. I mean, he is working really hard every day at that job. Um, and, uh, he'll be 82. There are, you know, actuary, IRL things that are there for him, but he really wanted to be president. And, you know, the book ends with an interview that I did with him, uh, at the beginning of February. And there's a level of confidence in him of like, yeah, I'm here, I'm finally in charge. I'm going to do it this way. That was striking to me. And I've talked with other people who've been around him since he's been sworn in. And they said the same thing. Uh, I don't know if that means that by the time that he gets to the end of the first term and probably won't be all the way at the end, he'd have to make a decision in another, let's say, 18 months, uh, to let the party prepare, but it's not going to be him. He may look at them and say like, I want to give it another shot. I may be the only one who can win. That's how that, yeah, I think he's

Anthony Scaramucci: (23:37)
Going to run again. It's very hard to run away from this sort of power, but I've got to turn it over to the Earth's wild blonde millennials, because the reason why you're going to be able to sell books is that all of his fan base tunes in to see him, you and I are just a side show of distraction. Uh, but I have one last question. Okay. Is Trump running

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (23:58)
Again? I don't think so. Okay. Yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:03)
Orange oranges is the new black, as you know, he may be in an orange jumpsuit before this is over off the seat. I mean that part, uh, I guess, let me tell you something that I, I don't think you bring a criminal case against the former president and his former organization or his current organization, unless you're pretty confident. I don't think you go, I don't think you take those steps, but we'll have to see, I got to turn it over to Darcie cause I really want you to sell books. Um, and, uh, it's the battle for the soul and the, uh, the underlying pretext is what happened inside the Democrats' campaign to defeat Trump. And I gotta tell you, uh, I'm so excited for you because I think you're right at the edge of where things are right now. And I want people to go out and buy your book, but I got to turn it over to John Dorsey, which will guarantee Isaac, that people buy.

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (24:52)
And do you need to stop talking then? So we get to that part.

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:56)
I got to put myself on mute for that to happen. My lips are going to be moving on. John's talking to you a whole lot of sex. Isaac.

John Darcie: (25:02)
I just want to clarify the point on Ilhan Omar. Cause I think it's a fascinating discussion points. So she talked about how she had high turnout. Uh, and you talked about the discrepancy between Joe Biden's, uh, share of the vote in her district and Hershey or the vote. Are you saying that it was the biggest drop-off between the presidential candidate and the, the house representatives?

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (25:20)
Yeah, the biggest it's. So, uh, I don't remember the percentages off hand, but, uh, the, the most Biden got whatever it was, let's say 85% in the district. This is roughly where it was high eighties. Uh, and she got something like 66% or 62%. And in most districts it closely matches, um, that the same number of people vote Democrat all the way down the line. That means that there are people who are, who went into vote for Joe Biden. A lot of them who voted for him. And by the time they got to her either didn't vote for her voted for someone else.

John Darcie: (25:57)
Right. And you think that's evidence that the more progressive and give you something to believe in notion within the democratic party is misplaced. So going back to the point about, you know, whether somebody like Bernie with a more energetic populous message you think would have lost and that's the wrong direction for the party.

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (26:13)
I mean, like, I'm not sure he would have lost. I think it would have been a much harder thing. Uh, and, uh, I think what that shows is that you see how one of the things, by the way that it shows us is Biden's own strong connection to black voters, especially older black voters that carried him through South Carolina and just, uh, floated him when everything else was going wrong for his campaign. But I think it, the democratic party right now is, uh, sort of at a crossroads, right. Of figuring out, do they see themselves as trying to be the party that, uh, folks like Ilhan Omar in Ocasio Cortez would like it to be and what Bernie Sanders would like it to be? Do they, for those folks, do they look at the Biden win and say, oh, you know, people just, they were so scared of Trump or they liked him, whatever it was a fluke essentially.

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (27:08)
Right. Do you look at the election results and say, you know what, like there was something to Biden that people connected with. And, uh, it may not quite make sense by the usual political science calculations, but you see, I mean, I track a lot of moments in this book of it is human connections that he was making with people and the way that people feel about him and the way that people feel about his, his approach to politics. I think there's a great example. If you look at what happened a couple of weeks ago, um, when the all-star game, the bay, the baseball all star game, uh, was deciding whether to move out of Atlanta when Georgia passes new voting clause and Biden was asked about it. And he said something like, you know, I think that's something that people should consider it, didn't say, okay, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump just go in recent history here had said anything like that.

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (27:59)
It would have exploded. And people would have gotten to their separate barricades. We have to have the game there. We can't have a game. Instead. What happened with when Biden said that is certainly there was a lot of pushback to moving the game. And there are a lot of people who said, actually I had to remove a certain layer of people that it was, huh, maybe we should consider it. And that's something that is a power that Biden alone has, I think because the connection people have to him and that's powering him through very well. Now, I don't think most people see him as like, uh, acting in this super partisan way. And if you look at the polls, they don't, but the American rescue plan passed with only democratic votes infrastructure plan passes. It'll probably pass with mostly democratic votes, uh, if not entirely. Right. And, and the same thing for any of the other things,

John Darcie: (28:49)
Right? You talked about how black voters essentially rescued Biden during the primary and basically rescued the country from Trump more or less in the general election, but the Hispanic vote was a fascinating phenomenon. So people just sort of took for granted or assumed that Biden in the democratic party had a stranglehold on Hispanic votes because of some of the rhetoric coming from Trump and his administration, their actions around immigration. But actually we saw a big move from, from the Hispanic demographic, towards Trump, especially in, in Miami Dade county, other counties in Florida, in El Paso, Texas, for example, do you think that's going to be part of a more longterm shift within both parties or you're going to see more Hispanic voters gravitate towards Republicans and, you know, using the, the messaging on socialism and, and the idea that, you know, maybe unfettered immigration isn't a positive thing, or do you think that was just a blip on the radar?

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (29:41)
I think the socialism, uh, argument that, uh, Republicans make against Democrats is very powerful with a lot of voters. And I think it, it, it seems to be particularly powerful with, uh, with people who, as I was saying earlier, have a connection, not just are Latino or Hispanic, uh, but if they, if they themselves, or they have parents or relatives who come from a country that has had bad experiences with socialism that resonates, and you saw that happen in Florida, um, it's really hard to argue that if the Democrats had been able to quash the socialism thing that they wouldn't have done better in Florida might be maybe even it. Um, Donald Trump is very smart. As I said about certain things in politics, he knows how to get to the basins sinks with people. There was a reason why they kept saying socialism and why he kept talking about socialism.

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (30:30)
It worked. Uh, and, uh, I, I do think that that long-term is a problem for Democrats. Uh, I'm not sure that you will see, uh, any clear movement of Hispanics overall, but that that's bad news for Democrats who assumed that more Hispanic, more Latino population, um, more voters who were Latino, uh, means more both for them. Uh, and particularly in a place like Texas, that Democrats have been thinking for, I don't know how many election cycles have we done? There's like, this is the one that text is going to be democratic. Well, like it's not, it's not happening. And now where's the interest in, in, uh, Texas for 2022, it's in, uh, Matthew McConaughey running. Right. I, we can check on. All right. All right. I don't think that there's any Latino blood in that magic economy. I believe his wife is Latina, but, uh, I'm not, I'm not, I'm asking. We've got an expert.

John Darcie: (31:28)
Yeah. Yeah. The, the, the celebrity thing they're trying to repurpose that, uh, that strategy, but in terms of how president Biden has governed, do you think that he's governed in the same vein that he campaigned and been a moderate and been restrained? Or do you think that he's moved to the left and what do you think the country's response to the way he's governed has been so

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (31:48)
Far? Uh, this is one of the things that I track in the book a lot. Um, I don't think the presidency that he is having, uh, is anywhere like the presidency or anything like the presidency that he thought he was going to have. And that is because of the pandemic and, uh, what was exposed by the pandemic and the opportunities that were created by the pandemic. Uh, he sees himself now in a special and perhaps unique moment in history, uh, to change the way that things go in this country. Uh, he has, when I was talking to him, he pointed out the Franklin Roosevelt portrait is hanging over the fireplace in the oval office. I can pretty much guarantee you that that would not have been, uh, the, the, uh, main portrait that he would have hung in the oval office, uh, before I don't know who it would have been, but, uh, seeing himself as this new Roosevelt is because of what happened here.

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (32:46)
Right. Um, and now I think that what he is doing is very reasonably making the assumption and the argument that there is a difference between the kind of pushback that he gets from Republicans in Congress versus Republicans out in the country. And you see that, that the American rescue plan had a much higher poll numbers than you would have guessed based on that. It didn't get a single Republican vote in the house or Senate, um, and among Republicans, right? Higher poll numbers, that's the pitch that he's making to the country. Um, and it seems to be working. People just look at him and, and seem to think like he can't be that far out there. Even though when you look at the substance of what he's talking about here, this is major legislation, major structural change to this country. And, uh, things that Progressive's a couple of years ago would never have thought could be possible. And definitely didn't think it would be possible in a Joe Biden prison.

John Darcie: (33:46)
Right. It seems like the punches that, uh, the Republicans are throwing at Biden right now, in terms of trying to criticize this administration are not landing. They're trying to liken this to Jimmy Carter, 2.0, where you have fuel prices went up. But that was because of just a black Swan event, the hack that happened on the pipeline, uh, they're talking about lumber prices and the inflation that's being caused by all this fiscal irresponsibility. But if you were the Democrats right now, and you're, you're sitting in their strategic seat, what candidate, uh, on the Republican side, would you be most worried about based on where your party is?

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (34:19)
So I'm not sure what the answer to that is. And again, um, I, I think that history will have a pretty clear judgment on, uh, Trump's presidency. Uh, but whatever you think of him, good or bad or whatever, um, especially for Democrats who found him at foreign, they sort of tend to overlook how skilled he was politically and how good he was a connecting with people. And I'm not sure that you see anyone of the prospective Republican candidates who has anywhere near that skillset. Um, whether it's Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, Rhonda Santas, Nikki Haley, uh, the, the Mo the names that we've talked about so far, like it's not, they have other skills. They're just not as good at the political part of it. Uh, as, as Trump was, I think we all underestimated how good Trump would be at connecting with people. But that's, I think in retrospect, because we didn't appreciate how much he had sort of trained by all the ways that he was out there and all the ways that he had embedded himself into people's psyches.

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (35:23)
I mean, I've spent a lot of time in the pandemic, uh, cooking as we've many of us have, uh, and I've watched, uh, too many, uh, old sitcoms on like Amazon prime and Hulu and whatever else. And it is astounding to me how much Trump shows up as just throw away jokes. Um, I will tell you, I've found an episode of perfect strangers, which he used to watch when I was a kid and I was watching it on Hulu. And there's like, they think that they, when they won the lottery and a cousin Larry says, like, take that Donald Trump. That's crazy. There's no one else who has that kind of connection to us all. Culturally, the only other person I think does, uh, is Oprah Oprah's politics are not going to put her in a good place in a Republican primary. I don't think.

John Darcie: (36:08)
Yeah. I mean, he's a brilliant marketer. And as his business career shown that as a real estate developer, or as a governing politician, he doesn't necessarily Excel, but in terms of marketing the message and building his brand, he does a fantastic job on the democratic side. Let's say, Joe Biden serves one term. He decides not to run, or even if he does run in, in seven years from now, what does the bench look like in the democratic party? Who do you think are going to be ascendent stars, uh, that are going to take this, this Baton from Biden and lead the party forward?

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (36:40)
Although the most obvious one of course is Camila Harris, um, incoming vice president. It's always going to be where things are. Uh, Harris does seem to represent, uh, what the face of the party, uh, more, uh, ethnically racially diverse a woman, right? Like that's where the base of the party is going. Uh, and,

John Darcie: (37:01)
Uh, people within the party don't like her, you know, they, they think that she comes off as unlikable. She comes from California, that's, you know, experienced some issues. You see some, you know, we work in the financial industry, you see people from Silicon valley moving to places like Miami because of their dissatisfaction, with things that are going on in California. Is she likable? Is she the one? Just because by default, she's the incumbent

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (37:22)
And likable, then we learned that that's a word that, uh, when it was used about Hillary Clinton has a little bit to do with, uh, sexism misogyny, right. Um, I'll get some hate mail. I will quote, uh, something that Jennifer Palmieri, who was the communications director for Hillary Clinton has said. And it's that it's very hard for us to think of a woman in power and a woman being present because a woman has never been president. Um, so we don't have that frame of reference. Right. And I think that Harris is, uh, trying out how that looks for, uh, the right and getting people used to that. Uh, she's the one who's the most likely to, uh, be in that position because she's, vice-president, there are other ones out there too. Of course, a lot of, uh, attention has gone to people who to judge you, even though it's transportation secretary.

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (38:10)
Um, and, uh, and I think you'll see other senators and governors come up. One of the things that happened very much in the Obama years is that there was a just ravaging of the bench, uh, and not a lot of Democrats that are, uh, left, uh, in, uh, in the up-and-coming generation, uh, from, uh, the pre 2012, 2000 years. So you've just had, you know, five, six years of new people coming up. And of course, Harris is one of them and she she's the vice president now, but she was elected to the Senate for the first time in 2016 on the night that Trump won that's in the book to her credit, trying to figure out, uh, what it is to be elected to the Senate and being happy about it. But also like Trump wins. She's completely spooked by it. And there's a scene at the early, in the book of her coming to her party and wanting to like speak to all the people there and celebrate. And her staff is like, we gotta get you out of the building. You can't answer any

John Darcie: (39:07)
Questions. Did Obama want Biden to be president? We've covered this with a couple other authors that we've had on that, of that, of Chronicle, uh, the lead up to, and the 20, 20 election about some frostiness that might exist between the two of them, uh, based on the handling of 2016 and then 2020 that Obama wasn't buying to be president, or how do you think he's evaluating the party right now?

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (39:29)
So I want, is it a complicated question? Right? Um, I keep did not, he was not convinced that Biden could be president, um, there or could win the presidency, not going to be president. Um, there's a, a moment early in the book, uh, when he's flying back from a Christmas party at the end of 2017, uh, that was in Chicago for the Obama foundation, and they're talking on the plane and he says, okay, in your head and in your heart, who do you think in your head could win? Who do you think in your heart could win? And who, or who do you want in your head to run and in your heart to run, and who do you think could win? And he, uh, himself picks bill McRaven, the Navy seal commander for the bin lawn raid for his head,

John Darcie: (40:16)
Admiral McRaven. He spoke, spoken Salta in 20 minutes.

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (40:20)
Um, he and his heart says of course by it, and I love Biden he'll could win. I'm not sure. I don't know. He was talking a lot about how, uh, physically taxing the job of president is, uh, and that it's hard for older people when people would hear him say that and be like, okay, we get it. We know who you're talking about. Uh, uh, he would talk about, uh, that he didn't know if Biden would be able to connect with people. There is a moment from when Biden is still vice-president and he's flying in air force two. And he says to somebody, uh, he's talking about Obama. And he says, I've never seen somebody who's better at talking to 10,000 people into one, uh, right. That's what he says about Obama and Obama feeling about that. It was like the reverse of that, right.

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (41:05)
It was like, yeah, Bob is great, like Todd jumping around, but like, he can't like put lots of people in a rally and rev them up. Um, and you know, there are realistic factors of wood Biden's campaign have looked, uh, worse in contrast to Trump's if he had been spending all of last year doing rallies, instead of not because of the coronavirus. Uh, so your question was Obama by then to run. I think it comes down to skepticism. Uh, he loves him, but he, he's not convinced. Um, and you see that all the way through the end of the campaign, this feeling of like, okay, like, I guess this is working better and better work, but like,

John Darcie: (41:55)
Yeah, he certainly waited until sort of the last hour or two to make that formal endorsement, which Biden said that he asked Obama not to endorse him. And I think people definitely believe that version of events, wink, wink, um, but Edward, Isaac Dover, it's been fantastic to have you on salt talks. The book is called battle for the soul inside Democrats campaigns to defeat Trump. Maybe there'll be another one of those campaigns, uh, in four years you say no, but you, you never know.

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (42:24)
I'm not, I'm not convinced.

John Darcie: (42:27)
All right. Well, uh, I, I'm not going to comment on that, but, um, it'll be interesting if it does happen, but I think there's, there's at least one person on this, this, uh, salt talk that, that hopes it doesn't. But, um, and I'll leave people guessing about who that is, but thank you so much for joining Anthony have a final word before we let Isaac leave. First of

Anthony Scaramucci: (42:45)
All, how do you know that? I don't want that because you knew that would be a lot of fun for me. Okay. You know, Isaac,

Speaker 4: (42:51)
[inaudible]

Anthony Scaramucci: (42:53)
My wife, Isaac. My wife says to me, now that Trump's gone, who the hell are you going to fight with and make sure it's not me. Okay. So that's why I pick on Dorsey on every cycle. Exactly. Exactly. So how do you know that? I don't want Trump to run again. I mean, I'm just asking you, Isaac, God bless and congratulations on the book. And hopefully we can get, you know, uh, one of our live events, I'd love to go a little clears up a little bit rooting for you. We are too, and we're rooting for you. And, uh, I look forward to reading the book. I apologize that I didn't get it. I didn't get access to it before the talk, but I will definitely read it and I'll let you know what I think. Well, and I wish the best of luck with it.

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (43:38)
I appreciate that. I know you're usually

Anthony Scaramucci: (43:40)
Really, we also, I also want to apologize for the way we're dressed. Okay. Because even though we're in the office, for whatever reason, we weren't wearing the fancy pants, clothing,

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (43:52)
You know, the reverse for me. Cause I'm sitting in my home. Um, what time for you? I've had a tie on, I don't know, maybe six times since the pandemic hit, but for you, Anthony, I'm

Anthony Scaramucci: (44:02)
Good. Are you, are you, are you wearing champion shorts?

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (44:06)
I'll tell you. I'll admit I'm not wearing shoes, but I am wearing pants. Um, right.

Anthony Scaramucci: (44:10)
No, that, I mean, that's, that's, that's congruent to other COVID fashion. So God blessed, uh, congratulations on the book. We wish you well, we'll see you soon. Thanks.

John Darcie: (44:21)
And thank you everybody for tuning into today's salt. Talk with Edward Isaac. Dovera talking about his book battle for the soul. Just a reminder. If you missed any part of this talk or any of our previous salt talks, you can access them on our website. It's salt.org backslash talks or on our YouTube channel, which is called salt tube. And we're continuing to build out our website. We have full transcripts available. There links to subscribe to our YouTube channel as well as some key quotes that we pull from every episode. So definitely a salt.org. And we also have salt in New York, our conference coming up in September registration for that will open in June. So we hope as many of you, uh, as, as, as possible and safe can join us there. Uh, but on behalf of the entire salt team, this is John Darcie signing off from salt talks for today. We hope to see you back here against them.

Tsedal Neeley: The Remote Work Revolution | SALT Talks #207

“The last 13 months have not only accelerated the virtualization of work but also everyone’s technological advancement... the digital revolution is right behind us.”

Tsedal Neeley is the Naylor Fitzhugh Professor of Business Administration at the Harvard Business School. Her work focuses on how leaders can scale their organizations and recently published her book Remote Work Revolution: Succeeding from Anywhere.

The pandemic accelerated the pace at which remote work and virtualization became integral to organizations. This has created a whole new paradigm, and with it, new challenges for leaders to consider. Creating and maintaining a culture becomes more complicated when employees spend less time together in person. Technology needs to be accessible and used intentionally so that all different worker groups are included. “You need to use the right technology for the right task for the right goals.”

Large segments of the workforce have experienced remote work during the pandemic and have discovered many benefits like savings from an eliminated commute and other associated costs. This will increase calls for more hybrid work models that allow employees to spend less time in the office. “The tension is the majority of employees don’t want to come back [to the office full-time].”

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Tsedal Neeley.jpeg

Tsedal Neeley

Naylor Fitzhugh Professor of Business Administration

Harvard Business School

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darcie: (00:07)
Hello. Hello everyone. And welcome back to salt talks. My name is John Darcie. I'm the managing director of salt, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance technology and public policy. Salt talks are a digital interview series that we started in 2020 with leading investors, creators and thinkers. And our goal on these salt talks is the same as our goal at our salt conferences, which we're looking forward to resuming hopefully here in September of 2021, which we'll talk about a little bit with our guests today, but our goal is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think our big ideas better shaping the future. And we're very excited today to welcome a big time subject matter expert onto salt whose, uh, subject matter expertise is extremely relevant, especially in the age of COVID.

John Darcie: (00:59)
Our guest today is professor [inaudible] Neeley. Uh, so doll is the Naylor fits you. Professor of business administration at the Harvard business school. Her work focuses on how leaders can scale their organizations by developing and implementing global and digital strategies. Again, nothing more relevant at no time, more relevant than in the age of COVID starting early in 2020. She regularly advises top leaders who are embarking on virtual work and large scale change that involves global expansion, digital transformation and becoming more agile. Her most recent book is called remote work revolution, succeeding from anywhere, and it provides remote workers and leaders, the best practices necessary to perform at the highest levels in their organizations prior to her academic career. Uh, so doll spent 10 years working for companies like Lucent technologies, the forum corporation in various roles, including strategies for global customer experience, 360 degree performance, software management systems, Salesforce sales, management development, and business flow analysis for telecommunication infrastructure hosting. Today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge capital, a global alternative investment firm. Anthony is also a graduate of Harvard law school. So the, I know that, uh, Sedol and Anthony have crossed some paths or have some mutual relationships that they might get into today. I'm glad

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:27)
You mentioned it Darcie. Cause I would have mentioned

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:29)
Times that I went to the Harvard law school seven

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:32)
Times in 45 minutes, but professor, what a great accomplishment, what a great life story, congratulations to you and having gone to Cambridge Latin high, uh, and there you are, uh, across the river. What an amazing, uh, experience, um, I guess I want to start, you know, there, if you don't mind, uh, tell us how you grew up, tell us what you were thinking about. Did you think you were going to be a business school professor at the Harvard business school? Tell me, tell me where you were, what you were thinking about.

Tsedal Neeley: (03:03)
Oh, Anthony, you're going to go right to it. Huh? Um, so no, I am a reluctant academic, uh, w this is the big reveal. Uh, I actually never thought that I would be a professor, much less a business school professor. I grew up as the daughter of small business people, entrepreneurs, uh, and when I was about 19 years old, my father said to me, you know, so doll, you're interested in business. Uh, you need to learn how businesses make money. So you need to go into sales. I said, what? You need to go into sales and learn how organizations generate revenue, what kind of sales, anything? So, and like any, you know, self-respecting a 19 year old. I started with candy, Anthony. I sold candy. Uh, eventually I started to, uh, sell technology systems, consulting services, and eventually met all of these mild-mannered academics in one of my big, uh, consulting sales jobs who didn't have sales quotas and who are all mild mannered. I said, you know what? I want to be like one of those people. And so here I am Anthony. I'm a mild-mannered, uh, academic at the Harvard business school. And, um, along the way did a lot of traveling with my work. I've always believed that the world is small.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:33)
So, so John Darcie, we've established that she's a great sales person.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:40)
They tell you that your mild

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:41)
Mannered, you got to hold onto your wallet. Okay. So let me just make sure I know where my wallet

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:45)
Is. [inaudible]

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:49)
You're coming at the game with a jujitsu that I can't properly manage. Well, before we go into my more urbane and academic questions though, tell me your favorite candy. You started in candy. I said I'm a, I'm a Reese's peanut butter guy. So what, what, what's your favorite candy?

Tsedal Neeley: (05:07)
I'm a toffee with chocolate type of gal. So score Heath bar. You realize I'm answering questions. I've never answered in life.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:18)
I got to know. Okay. So Darcie, I've got this toffee place in, in, uh, is I love toffee by the way. Cause I'm, I'm a little, I'm a, I'm a total foodie. I got to talk. He place it called N strums in Colorado. We got it. We got to send some to professor Neil. Okay.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:36)
Okay. I'm gonna try to win your heart and mind.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:42)
I'm going to try to win your heart and mind through your palette, but let's talk, let's go to the remote work revolution, succeeding from EV anywhere, which is your book. Uh, and let's start with why you wrote the book and how timely the book is by the way, because it's coincident with the pandemic and tell us, uh, what you were thinking about when you wrote the book and now let's apply it to the real world. We're all living through the coma. COVID-19 pandemic. What about the book is relevant and accurate. And what about the book? Did you miss? If you missed anything, tell us, tell us your observation.

Tsedal Neeley: (06:20)
So this book had been underway for a very long time before the pandemic hit. In fact, it was a pet project for me because the problem I was trying to solve was people telling me after years and years and years, working with executives, teaching with executives, managers, and, uh, virtual and global team members that no matter how much they themselves change their behaviors to be fabulous virtual collaborators, unless everyone else develops the same skills. It's not helpful. How do I get my group, my team, my unit on the same page. So Anthony, I started hiring artists to look at visual language. I started to hire curriculum design people to try to produce a book that would have stickiness to it when groups and teams, uh, used it. Um, and I was, I had about two hundred and fifty two hundred sixty pages worth of written material research illustration. And I was walking around with it with no publication date in mind.

Tsedal Neeley: (07:31)
And in the meantime, while actually working on a different book called the digital mindset COVID hits, this book was then produced in two and a half months because all that work had been underway for about three years. Uh, it pains me. It really pains me that we've landed in this place, uh, because of this deadly virus. But the virtualization of work is something that I've always felt would be a core part of modern organizations. That's why the book is organized to bring, to bear all of the success factors when people go remote. And the actual structure of the book, uh, is relevant to COVID because, uh, along with the Harvard business review, we did a Q and a session with managers, uh, and ended up with the, uh, themes of the book, uh, because all these people kept asking about productivity. How do I monitor people?

Tsedal Neeley: (08:36)
How do I ensure productivity is maintained? What digital tools do we need? How do you maintain connection and trust, uh, in global work. And in fact, after this Q and a session, we posted it on hbr.org and it garnered almost half a million downloads in just a few days. So we knew we were capturing the key questions and the book is structured in that way. So you ask what, uh, did I miss, uh, in the book? I actually don't think, uh, uh, I missed the essence of what people need in order to construct a very effective organizations that includes virtual arrangements, but I wish I had some more things around remote teaching, remote learning, uh, things like that, more specific, uh, things, uh, that people care about, uh, and to correct that, uh, in a way, um, I've launched a course called remote work revolution for everyone it's free, it's on the Harvard X platform. And we've, we've made sure that there were affinity groups like teachers who can work together and learn together. Yeah,

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:50)
I didn't, I didn't mean it in a pejorative way. I meant academic setting and then the academic world is meeting the real world. And since you, or a great intellect, you, I knew that you would synthesize and try to figure out what's there. And so more teaching, more online, teaching, more, more of that. I guess the thing that plagues me, uh, which is near and dear to my heart is some of this trying to run a company remotely. Now for the last 13 months, you can never find John Darcie when you need them professor Neely, just so you know. Okay. He does show up with the salt talks appropriately, uh, tired, but I have no idea where he is, unless he's a here on assault org, but we'll talk about that. You and I will talk about that separately, but my issue

John Darcie: (10:36)
Is I'm in the office. Where are you, Anthony? Still on your basement?

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:39)
I'm in my basement like Joe Biden. Okay. It's been a very successful strategy. It's going to be my strategy and I'm sticking to it. So what I want to say, professor Neely is what I'm worried about is what John is actually addressing. We're out of the office. Uh, we have issued a return to work, uh, memo for May 3rd. I believe it is, or May 4th, um, which is coincidence with where the municipal workers in New York city are returning to work. Um, of course we are being lenient related to, you know, people that are concerned or have safety issues, comorbidities, things like that. Um, I've requested that people get vaccinated. I'll just talk to you very candidly. And again, that's a request I'm not mandating it or anything like that, but I believe in the science behind the vaccination, I myself have been doubly vaccinated. What I'm worried about though, is the culture, the lack of physical proximity. Um, I feel like I'm shooting in the dark as somebody that runs the organization in terms of creating the culture. Am I wrong about that? What, uh, what do I need to do? Be my career coach? Uh, you've got so many people that listen into thing that are worried about the same thing. What do you, what do you tell them?

Tsedal Neeley: (11:57)
I think you're spot on when you talk about culture as being the fundamental issue that leaders like you and organizations are concerned about. And it's, for that reason, we find that 68 to 70% of organizations would want people to come back in person. But the tension in that and the challenge in that is that the majority of employees don't want to come back to the tune of 81 to 87%. 81% is the number that Harvard business school online recently, um, uh, gathered from a survey, uh, 87% comes from the Gardner group, a survey they released in December of those numbers, 27 to 30% want remote work, full time and, uh, leaders, uh, who want people in the office. I think you have to be very careful when you force people back. Uh, first of all, because you know that they don't want that. The second thing is physical proximity does not equate strong cohesive cultures.

Tsedal Neeley: (13:04)
In fact, what is culture? If the definition of culture is what are our shared values and for most of us they've stayed the same in our organizations. What are the things that are important to us? The second half of that, or even 75% of that is what are our shared norms? Uh, how do we do things? How do we communicate? How do we solve problems? How do we make decisions? What are attitudes and behaviors essentially COVID has completely killed the cultural norms that we used to have because we've been working remotely for the last year. So the idea that we're going to go back to some old culture is actually not accurate, not true. And for you Anthony career coaching, you have to learn how to lead and build a distributed organization. If you were a global organization and had a presence in other parts of the world, they're not in that same space with you. So physical proximity and borderless meter ship becomes incredibly important.

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:10)
I think that's well said. I think it's an interesting perspective. If you're running a fortune 500 company, you're many of your people in your mind are working remotely. They're not in your corporate office. And I, I respect that, but let me ask you about the, the dilemma. I'll call it a transition dilemma. Uh, we ask people to leave, uh, they left, they're operating to the best of their capability. In fact, our firms doing reasonably good job remotely. Um, I now sort of want them back. Um, but you're saying something that I agree with you, you're a coaxing them back. You're not mandating it necessarily, but I sorta am w you know, in the, you know, passive aggressive sense of that

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:56)
Or aggressive, aggressive, or aggressive and back it's come back. You're the boss.

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:01)
Yeah. So what do you, what's your reaction to that professor?

Tsedal Neeley: (15:05)
I, I think Anthony, um, and I, I, you know, this is how I talk to any leader, CEO, uh, nation state advisor. Um, you have to adapt and be flexible and join the revolution that's taking place. Do you want people to be, uh, having water cooler conversations that are full of resentment? Do you want to lose loyalty and commitment with remote work lifestyles have improved dramatically? And by the way, I absolutely don't believe that remote work is a panacea. Uh, and in fact, in the book, you'll see that I write about all of the challenges that do exist, like being out of sight, out of sync, out of touch, and out of mind, all of those things are very true, but these are all competencies that we need to build in order to reap the benefits of, uh, the virtual environment. People are more satisfied.

Tsedal Neeley: (16:07)
People really value their autonomy, which is really self-control flex time, spending more time with the people that they cohabitate with. It could be family, it could be other loved ones and, uh, productivity has gone up in most places. So our historical arguments around productivity have been debunked as well, right? So the, the, the, the only thing that we need to work extremely hard and developing is how do we connect and how do we convey culture and establish new ones despite, uh, the fact that we're not in the same place. And I'll add one more thing. If I may please, um, Anthony, it's the fact that even physical spaces are going to be different. Uh, we're going to have one way hallways. We're going to have social distancing. Uh, you're going to have signs all over the place. Health will be, uh, something that temperature checks, temperature checks, you know, the whole thing, Pritchard checks. Uh, and even if you want to hold meetings in your old conference rooms, because of social distancing, other people will have to dial in using their laptops. So you're going to have what I call a distributed meeting. Anyway, you're not going to have everyone at the same time. So the idea that we're going to return to our old cultural norms, we need to abandon and learn how to create and maintain culture, even when we don't see everyone. That's interesting.

Anthony Scaramucci: (17:39)
You you're, you're, you're, you're coming at it from a faith perspective. And I don't mean a religious perspective. I mean, you have to have faith in your people. You have to have faith in yourself and you to inculcate that into everybody. Is that a fair assessment of what you said

Tsedal Neeley: (17:54)
Yes. And faith in your people, uh, that have proven that they can do this for over a year. Uh, and in the remote environment, I always find myself quoting Ernest Hemingway, uh, never quoted him this much in my life, but what does he say? How do you know you can trust people or that people are trustworthy by giving them trust? You start with a default of trust.

Speaker 5: (18:20)
You equip, you empower. Yeah. Uh, it's

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:23)
Interesting because it's also, how do you, how do you become powerful it's by giving power away. Okay. That's the irony of it? You know, unfortunately I had one or more conversations like that. See, Darcie's laughing in that other Hollywood square box, because I've had more than one conversation with various people in my short stay in the white house about calm down, share the power, but we didn't go in that direction, but that's a whole other topic. So, and, and, and, and while I'm looking at Darcie, how do you deal with guys like Darcie that are at the water cooler talking resentfully? How do you deal with those types of people? Well, I'm kidding about him obviously. Cause I love him. I'm talking about, you know, how do you deal with the resentful employee?

Tsedal Neeley: (19:10)
You know, if you are the cause of that resentment, it's not going to bode well. So you deal with that resentful employee by meeting people, halfway, you, you, you talked about power and I love to hear from, uh, John as well, because he represents an age group. That's been struggling, uh, a good deal that we should all care about in just a moment. But this, this thing is when you have up to 81 or 87% of your workforce, wanting to retain some form of remote virtual work who holds the power, really who holds the power.

Anthony Scaramucci: (19:50)
We want hearts and minds. Yes.

Anthony Scaramucci: (19:53)
I I'm a big believer in delegation and creating autonomy. So I'm I'm for the openness. But I also believe that we've got to mix it up a little bit together once in a while. And so I'm hoping to get to that compromise. We're going to let John talk in a second. He's got some tremendous

John Darcie: (20:10)
Lead, good HR meetings.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:12)
He's got tremendously good millennial, like questions. He'll out stage me here in a moment, but I want to ask about workplace equality initiatives. And I want to ask about issues related to race and progress while we're operating remotely. Is it possible impossible? What do you say to people when they say, geez, I'm searching for more diversity. I want to create more inclusion, but I don't, I don't have my office, uh, together. Is that an issue or not an issue? Tell me what you think their professor.

Tsedal Neeley: (20:45)
Yes. So the topic of equity is incredibly important, especially as we are mapping out the future of our work and our workforce. And there are a couple of ways of thinking about it. One is, uh, we want to make sure that, uh, we, um, uh, are thoughtful about the people that we're asking to come back in a hybrid environment that we're not looking for low status, or even people who are just super junior, starting out in their workforce and pulling people back, uh, who, uh, are of certain demographic groups. Uh, we need to watch our bias. The other thing is, uh, many organizations have talked about the fact that they have much more diversity in different parts of their organization with people that they deemed to be essential onsite people. And, uh, if you are devising and you talked about mixing it up a hybrid workforce, your onsite essential people need to be able to participate in being able to learn from home and do certain things from home.

Tsedal Neeley: (21:56)
So we need to be very creative in ensuring that everyone gains from the virtues of remote work in terms of inclusion. Uh, one of the things that we need to make sure is that people have the technology that they need to work, uh, that they are in areas where broadband is accessible. Uh, that's one, uh, equipment structural point, but we also need to make sure that we're democratizing conversations that we're pulling people in. If we're in a video conference, call a zoom call, uh, we need to make sure that certain groups are not receding because when you're in the actual communication event, uh, you end up losing a lot of voice. So people have to work extra hard to draw people in as well. So I've talked about structural. I've also talked about the very micro and communication event. Last thing I'll say is that people are beginning to tap diverse talent from outside of their headquartered areas, uh, in order to bring them into their organizations, without asking them to move. This is a competitive advantage. This is an opportunity to seek diversity for more places than we ever have. Once we begin, we begin to detach our talent pool, uh, from, uh, uh, physical locations.

Anthony Scaramucci: (23:24)
It's a really good point. You know, that, you know, you, you, you create more competition, um, for staff, but you're also broadening the staff pool by having all of this remote activity. So hopefully it will lead to higher quality people. So let me turn it over to John Darcie, who is sitting in my office while I'm here as Scott safely in my basement, drinking my Starbucks and John, you know, you may want to turn my kids' pictures a little bit so they can get it, get in the view there.

John Darcie: (23:52)
I think it's, it's emblematic of the times that we're in. So I've obviously been working from home for most of the last year coming into the office sporadically, but when I'm in the office, I struggled to work in a COVID work environment. I don't have my webcam set up on my desktop in the pit that we have here on our office. I have to come in here into Anthony's office and onto his machine to have the capability to operate in the way that people normally do. I'm almost feel handcuffed when I'm at the office because of the environment that, that most people are working in still, which is a remote work environment. So I'm trying to retrofit my workspace slowly in my office to meet sort of the capabilities that I'm able to achieve from home. And I think Anthony has experienced that as well, coming into the office, which he's done periodically, uh, is that he's got a state-of-the-art studio in his basement, which you have as well. Uh, professor, you talked about how all the Harvard faculty has multiple cameras and virtual backgrounds and everything set up, uh, for a remote teaching environment. And it's almost, it's jarring in a way to come back to the old way of doing things because we feel, uh, like, you know, we, we sort of went into the future in terms of our capabilities, uh, that we're able to achieve from home. That's incredible.

Tsedal Neeley: (25:01)
That's really incredible. This is very, very true in that we've set up super advanced home offices and our work environments are not set up this way. And what about the commuted? W co can

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:15)
You say a word about it? No, I would say

John Darcie: (25:18)
It's jarring in some ways, you know, again, I've been coming in a couple of days a week, uh, over the course of the last several months on and off. Um, but yeah, it's jarring, you know, I think before you got used to two and a half hours of commuting, probably every day is what I have in my life. I live on long island. I commute into Midtown Manhattan, and I think my commute relative to some of my colleagues is actually less. Um, so you talk about two and a half, three hours a day commuting when you're used to waking up and being able to start your day, as soon as you get out of bed and, and end it, you know, at the end of the day, without having to commute home, you know, it is jarring to sit there on the train and the subway and everything to go through that process, to get into an office where you do feel somewhat handcuffed in a lot of ways.

John Darcie: (26:00)
And so I think going forward, you know, a lot of people talk about the hybrid work-life balance, where you're able to come into the office when you need to and work remotely in your state-of-the-art home office. When you need to, if I were designing the future of my workplace, that's what I would probably choose where it's also mentally healthy to be able to spend more time with your family when you need to and things like that. But, um, you know, I do think that I sort of fall somewhere in between that old school thinking, and we've got to get everyone back in so we can really look over them and make sure they're doing what they're supposed to be doing. And the new school of, you know, just go out there and, and trust that everyone blindly is doing the things that they're supposed to be doing at home.

Tsedal Neeley: (26:39)
You know, John, uh, I'll add to your, thank you sharing by the way, this is incredibly valuable because it provides insight into the lived experience of coming back and what that's like. Uh, Microsoft recently did a major survey in looking at people's experiences and behaviors through, you know, all the data they collect, uh, and they surveyed some 30,000 people, uh, and part of what they are learning as well is people are saying that they're saving money, uh, from the commute that every day you buy coffee, you have lunch. So there's been a lot of savings for a lot of people as well, uh, in the last, uh, in the, in the last year. But the, the, the part that I wanted to highlight too, is people want, like Anthony mentioned to be in person for the bonding, for the culture, for the connection. Uh, it's not just, uh, to monitor people's work. Behaviors is just, you want to see, you want to connect, but if you go in the office and no one's there, or two, three people are there, it's not going to be like, it used to be. So connection has to be, uh, really created in a more intentional way.

Anthony Scaramucci: (27:53)
What are you love? Yeah,

John Darcie: (27:55)
I think one of the great parts of your book is you, you go into critical and concrete steps that people can take, um, you know, best practices, both for organizations and for individuals in terms of maximizing productivity and maintaining culture in a remote work environment. So what are some of those best practices? Let's start from an organizational perspective. If somebody is looking to really optimize this remote remote work environment, and they want to maybe go to a remote work environment long-term and may I point out the two of the most valuable private companies on the planet? One being Stripe is now a hundred billion dollar company. They have emphasized a remote workforce, and they have one of the most global engineering workforces of any company in the world and Coinbase, which is set to start trading lives, uh, on the NASDAQ exchange, probably at about a hundred to $150 billion valuation. Doesn't have a headquarters. They've basically committed themselves to saying we're a fully distributed workforce. So what are some of those best practices that you think some of those companies that have done it? Well,

Tsedal Neeley: (28:55)
Yes. Yes. Um, so first Anthony you're right. Uh, here's better questions. I'm just kidding. Um, so here's, here's, uh, the thing, the, the, the first thing is, um,

Anthony Scaramucci: (29:06)
I'm stopping my video just

Anthony Scaramucci: (29:10)
Because

Anthony Scaramucci: (29:12)
All of my confirmed fears and insecurities have been proven true by professor Neil. Let me just turn the video off as we're doing this. That's that's really, that's really funny. Yeah. Well, he does have better questions and by the way, he's a star, he's a star. So I like, that's why I like teasing him. I mean, come on. It's a, it's a Jenner. It's a generational struggle over here. Neely. Let's go help out your fellow, baby boomer. Okay.

Tsedal Neeley: (29:37)
I see, I see that John is a star and I'm trying to you to retain him. Okay.

Anthony Scaramucci: (29:42)
Thank you. Thank you. All right. Let me pay attention.

Anthony Scaramucci: (29:45)
Let me put the volume up higher than hold on. So,

Tsedal Neeley: (29:50)
Um, I think you won my heart when you referenced my book, John, let's just, uh, so listen, here's the deal. The very first thing to do is to make sure you survey your organization and your workforce anonymously to understand true and real preferences. Because once you do that, then you can look at what jobs, what tasks, what functions can actually be remote and how remote can those be. And in some organizations we need to really look at what is the optimal level of fluidity that the organization can bear. So you mentioned a couple of companies, Dropbox and others are not declaring themselves as your moat. First companies, Zillow notice they're all tech companies, um, and Twitter and others are saying that people can autonomy mostly choose to go remote, or if not, they can come in. This is one of the important conditions of an effective remote workforce is that people have choice.

Tsedal Neeley: (30:56)
This is why I worry about forcing people in the other thing. Uh, John is that we need to make sure that people have the right competencies, uh, managers and leaders need to know how to lead virtually it's different. It's not the same set of things. There's some very natural, but detrimental aspect of virtuality that people have to manage very intentionally. Similarly, everyone needs to better understand how to use all of the digital tools to be effective, uh, at work. What do I mean by digital tools, anywhere from email to, uh, enterprise wide software systems to video conferencing, how do we use them? When do we use them? Because there's a phenomenon called tech exhaustion tech exhaustion, which is about cognitive overload, because people have just been using technology nilly, Willy. There's actually very systematic ways of doing those. Those are all the things that are important. And then finally, some of the large companies are bringing in chief remote officers into their C-suite, uh, in order to manage the large workforces or their highly distributed workforces. This is where the question of culture comes in as well. I'll pause it.

John Darcie: (32:14)
Let's go to the individual. You know, I think we've all experienced zoom, fatigue. You know, a lot of companies are going to zoom free Fridays, you know, to get people off of staring into the screen, you know, uh, as they've done for most of the week. Um, so, but I think zoom also has the benefit of, I used to do so many conference calls, right, where I would be on the line. There was a faceless person I was talking to on the other end. And during the work from home period, I've actually gotten to know some of these people better through zoom because I'm seeing their face. And I'm having, before we even start a conversation about, you know, whether it be a sponsorship for our conferences or, you know, whether it's capital raising that we're doing, I'm sitting there looking into the face of people around the world that I didn't necessarily wasn't necessarily able to do that at scale before. So what are some of the best practices for people to leverage the technology that's at their disposal, but also to avoid the, you know, the, the technological burnout that people experience when you have high volume of zooming going on?

Tsedal Neeley: (33:10)
Yes, let me first begin by saying that zoom fatigue should not exist. Once you learn some of the best practices related to digital digital tools. Like we should not have zoom fatigue, it should go away and we call it zoom fatigue. You know, Eric Yon has endorsed the book. So I won't call it a zoom fatigue. I'm going to call a tech exhaustion because you can have the same problem with, with other, uh, tools, but here's the thing. You use the right technology for the right task, for the right goals. Not everything requires live or what we call synchronous communication. Some things are actually much better for it to be used in an asynchronous communication mode. For example, if we need to process very complex information, the last thing you want to do is call a zoom meeting or a Microsoft teams meeting and have people listen to some terribly complex, uh, information.

Tsedal Neeley: (34:09)
It's better to email that information and have people asynchronously absorb that information and internalize it. So two dimensions that I will mention, uh, when it comes to digital tools, one is synchronicity, should it be synchronous or asynchronous? The other dimension is, should it be lean media or rich media, lean media includes things like Google docs or email. They don't convey just like you mentioned, John, um, uh, variety of expressions. They don't convey, uh, emotionality. They don't convey context, but not every communication requires that rich communication does. So you can imagine a two by two, which is actually in the book where certain activities work really well, depending on whether you want it to be synchronous, asynchronous lean, or, uh, or, or rich, not everything requires rich and synchronous, which wa, which is what a video conferencing is. The other thing is meetings are too long. For some reason, meetings have gotten longer in the last year. They need to get shorter. Yeah. You

John Darcie: (35:20)
Know, it's difficult because we try to maintain that SkyBridge, the TA the type of engagement that we have at regular meetings and in-person interactions that manifest itself in the form of frequent, you know, large-scale, uh, conference calls, but at the same time, it potentially detracts from productivity and, and things like that. So it's an interesting balance that we're trying to strike, and I'm sure that many others are trying to strike as well. I don't want to talk about loneliness. So I have the great fortune of having a beautiful wife, three beautiful kids. And so during the pandemic, I have enjoyed spending time with them and not felt some of that, you know, level of loneliness that I think a lot of people have felt that are a little bit more isolated with that being said, you know, I haven't been able to nurture a lot of my friendships the same way, uh, you know, with, with my extended family or my friends, the way I normally would.

John Darcie: (36:09)
And again, going back to those people that are even more isolated, you know, you can zoom as much as you want, or you can go on Microsoft teams as much as you want, but it maybe doesn't replicate, uh, the level of social interaction that's healthy, uh, for human beings to have. Is that true? How can we nest, how could we potentially use technology to replicate, uh, some of that social interaction in a way that eliminates some of those feelings of loneliness and how in general do we maintain our mental health in a way, you know, our humans are hardwired, I think in a lot of ways for some level of social interaction. So how do you find that balance in a digital world? That's, that's mentally healthy from a social perspective

Tsedal Neeley: (36:47)
Problem. Uh, and in fact, uh, I call it poor professional isolation. Uh, millennials have struggled in the last 13 months with isolation, uh, and especially if they're not necessarily, uh, um, with others in a household or their back into their intergenerational homes, just feeling isolated, uh, and kind of excluded from the activities that, uh, make them feel connected to others. It's a massive problem. And in fact, uh, us surgeon general, Vivek Murthy, and I had a conversation about this. It was a NASDAQ podcast where we talked both of us, because he thinks a lot about this topics, a mental health issue. Um, so you cannot think about replicating what you do in an in-person, uh, into a, a virtual environment. You have to think about these things differently, and you have to think about them, uh, through, uh, multiple means. So the VEC actually talked about how even a 10, 15 minute phone call, uh, can nourish us in extraordinary ways, rather than zero.

Tsedal Neeley: (38:01)
I believe that organizations did they have a responsibility, particularly if people are engaged in profesh, professional work outside of their organization, to make sure that people feel connected to others in the organization, meaning you actually want to pair people up to work together on projects, create teams when in the past it could have been achieved through individuals. You, you need to check in on people more. The Gardner group conducted a survey several months ago and found that percent of managers never checked in on people not to even to say, how are you, how are you doing so you have to make sure you're building in micro moments, uh, in, uh, for example, a regular meeting, uh, of 60 minutes, 10% of it is spent on checking in, connecting at the top of the hour, six, seven minutes. You pair people up and you have them working together. You do all of these virtual, uh, activities and including learning, training, doing learning that are interactive together. Another powerful way of breaking the isolation. So we have to do things outside of being taskmasters to make sure that people are connecting with one another. That's part of our,

John Darcie: (39:22)
So I want to talk about the future. So right now we're going through this sort of the beginning phase of what I think is a transition back into somewhat of a hybrid environment where you start to see some organizations like SkyBridge, like Goldman Sachs and others pushing their workers to come back to the office. As soon as may, you have a lot of companies talking about the fall, they're going to encourage people to start coming back. But I want to talk about, let's say 2030, or, you know, almost a decade down the line. How can you reimagine the world in a way using things like remote work and digital tools that you write about in the book? What does our world look like? And how can we reimagine our society more broadly in a way that leverages remote work to make the planet thrive, to make human beings thrive? You know, w what is the future of work really look like in 2030, if we were to get an a time machine,

Tsedal Neeley: (40:10)
John, this is a dissertation topic. I think you might have to take it up. Um, it's a very good and important question. I strongly believe that the last 13 months has not only accelerated the virtualization of work, but it's accelerated, everyone's technological advancements. Every organization had to leap forward when it comes to technology. What I think is right behind us, which is why I think we need to get this hybrid virtual, right? It's not going to go away. We need to learn how to do it. We need to take a leap of faith that we need to experiment. We need to lead, not in terms of fear and anxiety, but opportunity and, uh, scale. And, uh, the digital revolution is right behind us. And what do I mean by that data machine learning, artificial intelligence, personalization, matching building, online communities and building networks of people.

Tsedal Neeley: (41:12)
That's what I perceive based on everything that we know and all the acceleration that we see that, um, uh, that work is going to shift in extraordinary ways. We're going to have AI bots and agents who we're collaborating with. We're worried about building connections with other people. We're going to have AI agents working with us and institutions are going to use bots to practice, to have people practice negotiation skills. 2030 is quite to look very different. And I think 20, 20, 20, 21 is preparing us for it. And those who do will leap forward, and those who don't will move slowly at their peril.

John Darcie: (42:00)
I would love to hear you, uh, do an entire podcast on that subject matter, because I think it's fascinating. Like you talked about AI, there's a lot of different views on what it's going to do to society. I think there's some people that think it's going to displace a massive number of jobs in a way that we're going to have to find new ways of connecting with each other of adding value, uh, to society and just rethink our place in the world. And I think that's a fascinating point that, uh, that the pandemic sort of gave us a preview of that world. I want to ask you one more sort of big picture macro question. I'd also like to get Anthony back in here just for some final remarks on everything we've talked about, but what is one innovation or product, you know, I don't necessarily want you to feel like you're having to shell for, for one software solution or something, but what's one innovation you think has the potential to most markedly transform the workplace.

Tsedal Neeley: (42:51)
Ooh, one innovation, one product

John Darcie: (42:55)
As a teleconferencing. Is it something like slack, that's a, you know, asynchronous collaborative tool or, or what are things that you've seen, uh, people experiment with that you think have the potential to create sort of new paradigm in terms of how we work? Because I think email is an example of something that's so archaic and, uh, it creates so much stress and anxiety. You know, that ping that comes in through email, that I think there's much more effective ways to collaborate. I'm just curious if you've observed anything that you think is highly innovative, that's disrupt existing system. So

Tsedal Neeley: (43:27)
My answer is going to be different. It's not about the technology, by the way, I get about 10 emails a day, we've got a new innovation. Would you talk to us? Would

Anthony Scaramucci: (43:36)
You look at it? It's hard

Tsedal Neeley: (43:39)
To sort through them. And they're, I cannot tell you how many people are working on different things right now. And I don't think that's where the innovation is going to be. The innovation is going to be in our behaviors and how we use them. The number of technologies and their proliferation is not going to go down. It's actually going to go up, but we need to develop digital first mindsets and think about scale and think about augmenting everything that we do through the technology that's currently present. So I don't even see people using present technologies effectively and to scale, to connect, to do work, uh, in smart, intelligent ways. I would begin there because what you don't want to add, John is more technology, uh, in our world. There's so many of them how we use them and how we strategize around them is what we really need to innovate around. This is my true belief,

John Darcie: (44:38)
Right? Anthony, you want to chime in with any follow-up questions before we let [inaudible]?

Anthony Scaramucci: (44:43)
Well, listen, I could listen to you all day, professor. I mean, the thought the thoughts are, uh, right in the wheelhouse of where everybody needs to be. Uh, I want to thank you for joining. Um, I think the future of work is going to be very different over the next five or 10 years, but you're going to have a lot to say about it. And so, uh, I'm looking forward, looking forward to following up with you. And since we praise John Dorsey, I'm very grateful that we're in the month of April and not December because he be counting the coins. You know what I'm saying? As a bonus, right? So the good news is I can get his head back into the right space, hopefully over the next six months. So listen, John I'm teasing you he's professor Neely. He gets fan mail. Okay. Does he really? Yes,

Anthony Scaramucci: (45:30)
He gets fan. I love this.

Anthony Scaramucci: (45:35)
Please send me some fan mail, please. I mean,

Anthony Scaramucci: (45:38)
It was a real, it was a

John Darcie: (45:39)
Real, a breaking point in our relationship professor when I started getting fan mail. Cause listen,

Tsedal Neeley: (45:45)
You're a superstar and that's really obvious. I'm so thrilled to have spent this time with you, Anthony. Uh, please let go a little bit, trust a little bit, join, join the revolution.

Anthony Scaramucci: (45:56)
Uh, and uh, and I think you'll be happy.

Anthony Scaramucci: (45:59)
I think you said some very meaningful things. And I'll say to all my old fashioned friends out there that got raised in the seventies, uh, we have to embrace the future. And I think that you've made a very big statement today about how to do that. And I'm, I'm looking forward to pushing this out to as many people as possible. I want to thank you for coming

Tsedal Neeley: (46:18)
On. Thank you so much. Bye Jake.

John Darcie: (46:22)
And thank you everybody who tuned into today's salt talk. We think these topics as professor Neily alluded to this is sort of the beginning of a new world. I think there's pre COVID the pre COVID world and there's a post COVID world. And the people that think that we're going back to the old ways, I think are mistaken. And I think that people that are preparing for the future are the ones that are going to Excel. A lot of the companies that we mentioned that are already embracing remote work and all the tools that you need to make that work productive and mentally healthy for your workforce. So please spread the word about this salt talk and all of our salt talks, which we think are, are very important to educate people about different things that are going on, but just a reminder, if you missed any part of this talk or any of our previous talks, you can access them all on our website@sault.org backslash talks, instead of doing virtual conferences, which we also also think are an ineffective delivery method for, for thought leadership.

John Darcie: (47:11)
We've created this webinar series just to allow on-demand resources for people to consume them on their own time and at their own pace. And whenever they feel compelled to watch a video or listen to a podcast. So, uh, we look forward to a lot of people consuming. This one we're also on social media on Twitter is where we're most active salt conference. We're also on Facebook, LinkedIn and Instagram as well. And on behalf of Anthony and the entire salt team, I want to thank you again, professor Nila for joining us and signing off for today. We hope to see you back here again, soon on salt talks.

Mayor Dean Trantalis: How Communities Can Become More Resilient | SALT Talks #201

“Fort Lauderdale has established itself as the most diverse city in Florida. We have different people, cultures, orientations- we have a large LGBTQ population… It’s a microcosm for the rest of America.”

Dean J. Trantalis is mayor of Fort Lauderdale, FL after first being elected in 2018 and winning reelection in 2020. Mayor Trantalis is the first openly gay person to be elected mayor of Fort Lauderdale.

In 1990, a countywide referendum to list sexual orientation as a protected class lost following an ugly battle. Activism eventually prevailed in 1995 when Broward County became the first county to pass such an amendment and paved the way for further LGBTQ-supportive laws. The ongoing dialogue between different groups in the area has facilitated a diverse and vibrant population and turned Fort Lauderdale into one of the most attractive and fast-growing cities in the country. “If you hold onto the past, you’re never going to move forward and grow. It’s important to find commonality and understanding; and also acceptance of differences, but it doesn’t mean we have to be adversarial.”

Fort Lauderdale has seen comparative success in its handling of the COVID pandemic. By listening to the science and recognizing viral spread occurred mainly indoors, opening beaches and encouraging outdoor activities was central to public health messaging.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Dean J. Trantalis, Esq..jpeg

Dean Trantalis

42nd Mayor of Fort Lauderdale

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

Joe Eletto: (00:08)
Hello everyone. And welcome back to salt talks. My name is Joe Eletto and I am the director of operations for salt, a global thought leadership and networking forum, encompassing finance technology, and politics. Saul talks as a series of digital interviews with the world's foremost investors, creators and thinkers. And just as we do at our global salt events, we aim to both empower big, important ideas and provide our audience a window into the minds of subject matter experts. And we are very excited today to welcome mayor Dean trend Talis to salt talks. The intern Tallis is the first elected mayor of Fort Lauderdale in 2018. Uh, first elected rather in 2018 was reelected in November of 2020. So congratulations are in order this 2018 election represented the largest victory in city history for a candidate running for first term, as mayor Dean previously served on the city commission representing district two from 2003 to 2006, and then from 2013, until his Ascension to the mayor's office, twice served as vice mayor from 2005 to 2006. And from 2016 to 2017, he represents the city on the Broward metropolitan planning organization, the county tourism development council, the Broward workforce development board, the Florida league of cities and the greater Fort Lauderdale Alliance and hosting today's salt talk is no stranger to the south Florida area, Anthony Scaramucci, who is the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge. He's also the chairman of salts. And with that, I will turn over to Anthony for the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (01:45)
So, so mayor, first of all, thank you for joining us. But, uh, what I said before we got started is someday you're going to be the mayor of all of us and by all of us, I mean, everybody here that lives in the Northeast. So, so tell us about your background. Tell us where you're from. Uh, tell us how you arrived in south Florida and your Odyssey to becoming the mayor of Fort Lauderdale.

Dean Trantalis: (02:09)
Okay. Well, first of all, thank you for inviting me here on the show. Uh, I feel very honored to be able to be able to speak with you and, uh, talk about, uh, Fort Lauderdale. So I'm originally from Connecticut. I was born there and, uh, went to college at Boston university and then subsequently went to law school here in Florida at Stetson university. Uh, I began the practice of law. I was admitted to the bar in 1980, and I've been practicing here in the Fort Lauderdale area since 1982. Uh, you know, I first came down here as a young kid in my twenties and thinking I'm just going to come down here for a year or two, enjoy myself, get to see what the east coast of Florida is like. And, uh, move on somewhere else. A friend of mine said, Hey, you can, you can bunk adhere in my apartment is a con here in my living room. You can stay here, um, which I did. Uh, but then I realized this was a place to be a place to build a career as a place to, uh, both enjoy yourself as well as be able to fulfill yourself. And, uh, and I've been here ever since, since 1982 and it's been, uh, it's been really great and, and there's so much more as we continue to grow as a city and as we continue to grow as a state.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:25)
So let's say that I landed from Mars and I needed a place in south Florida. And I was looking at Miami. I was looking at Fort Lauderdale, Hollywood say the east coast of Florida Palm beach. Uh, why would I come to Fort Lauderdale? Tell me about the great city that you are the executive of.

Dean Trantalis: (03:47)
So, you know, Fort Lauderdale, like a lot of cities in Florida are, were young communities. And, um, and each of the cities that you mentioned, uh, these have their own cultural significance. Uh, Miami has a large Spanish and Cuban population, uh, Palm beach, uh, draws its people from other parts of the country. Um, Fort Lauderdale, uh, has now become the new breakaway city. It is, it has established itself as probably the most diverse city in the state of Florida. Um, different people's different cultures, different orientations. We have a large LGBTQ population. We have a large, uh, uh, we have just large segments of, of all, all cross-sections of races and cultures. And it's exciting. It's enriching. Um, and, and you can see the results of that. People are buying up real estate here, like, uh, like they've never done before. Why? Because they see that it's really a, a microcosm of the rest of America and they, everyone can find a comfort zone for themselves here. And everyone's welcome. We have, the welcome mat is open to everybody. And, uh, let me tell you something, that's a great thing. When, when people can feel, you know, feel good about themselves and being able to, um, find friends and, and career opportunities, that's really where we're at. Um, building a family, building a business and, uh, building a life where, um, really you can feel so, so good about being part of what's going on here in this part of the country.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:23)
Well, I want to, I want to go into that because you're talking about diversity, obviously. Uh, we're, we're big champions of diversity at SkyBridge. You were part of, um, you were in fact, the co-chair of Americans for equality, and you oversaw the enactment of the Broward county human rights ordinance. Uh, tell us about that. Tell us about that process and tell us how it shaped your political arc, how you use it almost as a platform to run for office.

Dean Trantalis: (05:52)
So, um, honestly I didn't really think of running for office way back. I was more of an activist helping others, you know, get elected to public office back in the early nineties. Um, specifically in 1990, we, uh, uh, part of a county wide referendum as to whether or not to add sexual orientation as a protected class here in Broward county. And, uh, uh, we lost miserably 60 40. It was a wretched campaign. Uh, the LGBT community back then we were known as the gay community, uh, was demonized, was treacherous. I was just, uh, it was just a very unfortunate time in our city's past. We overcame that, um, we then moved forward and we're able to 1995 to get the, the county commission to enact that amendment to the Broward county human rights ordinance. And ever since 1995, uh, we were the first county in the state to be able to now pass such an odd amendment to our human rights ordinance, but to make it stick.

Dean Trantalis: (07:00)
So we've had it there for all these many years. And we're very proud of that achievement. Uh, we subsequently were able to get the county to pass a domestic partnership law, which today seems almost kind of novel and cute because we now have marriage equality in this country, but it was a way to foster the diversity and to understand that we, and this can be part of the, uh, part of the city part of the world, um, believed in diversity, believed in cultural enrichment. And I have to say that, uh, Fort Lauderdale has definitely been a willing partner to, uh, embrace diversity and to embrace, embrace the kinds of things that we all represent. So, um, it wasn't until about year 2000, 2002, uh, a, an opening came upon the city commission here in Fort Lauderdale was that they can see, and I said, you know what, I'm going to try to run for that. Uh, it wasn't the first time a person from the gay community tried to run for that position, but I decided, you know, maybe it was right for me, maybe it'll work this time. And, uh, luckily I was able to win and it was, uh, I was the first openly gay city commissioner in the city of Fort Lauderdale to win an election like that.

Anthony Scaramucci: (08:16)
It's an amazing story, but there are, there are additional layers to the story mayor that I want to get into. Uh, one of the massive do with the Presbyterian church down there and your relationship with pastor Passy Enza, um, and the evolution of that relationship. And I was wondering if you could add some color, uh, for our listeners and viewers about that. Sure.

Dean Trantalis: (08:40)
Well, you know, back in the early days, um, we, it wasn't the Presbyterian church per se. It was a specific church called the core Ridge Presbyterian church. And at that time, their founding pastor D James Kennedy, um, who is a strict fundamentalist, uh, really targeted the gay community with a lot of anti-gay rhetoric, uh, demonizing the LGBT community. Uh, we were their biggest fund raiser. Um, uh, we were an easy target at the time, but over time, um, you know, the community T found less and less interested in that type of, uh, rhetoric. And, uh, and about 12 years ago, he passed away. Um, and people that followed him, uh, those who took his place in, in the pastoral role of that church, um, uh, had a far different philosophy, um, while we all agree to understand and, and accept each other's differences, we've all agreed to peacefully coexist.

Dean Trantalis: (09:43)
And currently, uh, Rob Pia Senza is the pastor at the core Ridge Presbyterian church. Um, and it's, and it's important to understand that both he and I have met on several occasions along with other members of the, of the faith community, both in the LGBT community and in the fundamentalist community. And we've been seeing over the last several years to talk about commonality, to talk about how we can build bridges, to talk about how we can put the hate from the past, instead of holding onto it and try to embrace the love of the future and build a foundation for the city of Fort Lauderdale that is going to be sustainable and lasting because, you know, like, you know, in any tortured relationship you hold onto the past, and you're never going to be able to, to move forward. You never going to be able to grow. And I think it's, I think that holds true in this situation. We all realize many of us realize that it's important to try to find commonality, try to find understanding and, and accept the fact that we do have difference, but it doesn't mean that we have to be adversarial.

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:53)
I love this story, you know, uh, uh, it's a long time ago now when I think about it, but back in 2007, 2008, I worked with a group of hedge fund managers to pull over some of the Republican state senators in New York, uh, to legalize gay marriage, same-sex marriage in New York. And then I had the opportunity to work on this with, uh, uh, the human rights campaign for the national movement, which ultimately led to that court decision.

Dean Trantalis: (11:21)
Thank you for doing that. You appreciate that.

Anthony Scaramucci: (11:23)
It's my pleasure. I mean, listen, I'm, I didn't choose my sexuality. I mean, we don't have to talk philosophically about how it works, but I've always felt firmly that, uh, you know, uh, life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I don't remember the sentence where it said for straight people. I don't remember that in the, in the language. I think it means everybody. Um, but the reason I'm bringing this up is that I had the opportunity to do meet with vice president, then vice president Biden in Davos, Switzerland, where we were working on a commission together to create that opportunity outside the United States with other nations. And as you know, uh, some of these nations culturally, or very different from the United States, uh, we're very self-critical here, but we have some, you know, social progress going on here, perhaps compared to other nations, not working as well in some of the other nations.

Anthony Scaramucci: (12:12)
I guess the reason I'm bringing it up that way is you seem to be a elite, not, not seem to be, you are a leader in this sort of movement and shattering these false totems and these preconceptions. And so what advice do you have for people that are in political life that are really just trying to get people to relax about other people's lifestyles and other people's way of living? You know, I tell my conservative friends, you guys are for a smaller government everywhere, but in my bedroom mayor, you know, they want a larger government in my bedroom. I mean, it doesn't, it doesn't make any sense to me. So what do you tell people in terms of the first steps necessary to push forward?

Dean Trantalis: (12:53)
Well, it's a, it's an interesting question, and I don't know if I have the complete it answer, but I do know that, um, uh, but being strangers with one another is the best way a to create animosity and advert and, and to maintain an adversarial relationship. Once you reach out and say, Hey, let's be friends, Hey, let's get to know one another. Uh, the idea of familiarity, uh, I think helps break down a lot of the barriers that have that stand between one another. Um, I see, I see senators, I see congressmen holding on to their, um, to their points of view, which to me are, uh, are holding us back as a country. And, uh, and, and honestly, um, I hope they become fewer and fewer as time goes on. And I think that the, the successes that we have achieved in this country through whether it be through legislation or Supreme court rulings have taken us to a new level each time in which, uh, it was recognized that equality is a fundamental freedom in this country.

Dean Trantalis: (14:01)
And it, like you say, Anthony, it is it's, it's, it's available for everybody, not just for those that are chosen. So, so, um, my advice, I guess, if, if that be it is to, uh, say is to reach out to others. Now someone will say, oh, well, you must, you must get them to, you know, to forsake their past and to beg forgiveness for what they've done or what their predecessors have done. And, and I said, well, that's the best way to, to, to prevent anything from happening. You start with an olive branch. Okay. And you reach out, you have to be a noble person, I guess, in this undertaking. And, um, and that's the only way you're going to get dialogue to begin. And whether it be on issues of, of, of sexual orientation equality, or whether it be on anything that we are now discussing at the national level, I mean, let's face it.

Dean Trantalis: (14:52)
Uh, th the, the president is trying to pass an infrastructure bill. Okay. Well, one way to certainly defeat any effort is to, is to raise objections and to, and to talk about differences. You're never going to get anywhere that way you start with what you have in common. You start with what you can agree with. You start respecting one another and understanding that each person does have a point of view. Once you get past that hurdle, you're beginning, you've now begun a dialogue. And I think you can look to success at the end of the process. And I think that pretty much holds true for just about anything that you try to deal with when it comes to trying to settle differences between parties,

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:32)
The mayor, w what are you, what are you doing for Thanksgiving? I think you need to come to the Scaramucci house and help me out a little bit like a couple of peace pipes, and you can hang out with my very fun, but ridiculously dysfunctional Italian family. But I think, I think what you're saying is, is beautifully said, and I think it's a, it's totally true. The minute that you meet other people, and you realize that you have these common themes of love and you common theme of trying to just help out your family members and the people around you. All of a sudden people dial down their animosity. You know, I always found really some of these politicians, they're not for the gay rights movement until they discover one of their children is gay and they realize how much they love their child. And all of a sudden they were like, well, why am I against this again?

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:17)
It's sort of nonsensical. Um, I wanna switch topics for a second because I'm interested in your thoughts on policy, around COVID-19. You've got this beautiful city, uh, it has been a destination for spring break for many people over multiple decades. I, myself, I say with fast, yes. I say with great pride. We won't mention on the air. Some of my dastardly, uh, experiences in Fort Lauderdale, but that was a long time ago, but in 1983. And of course, again, in 1984, I was, uh, on the beach with you guys, but you have this wonderful place. You've got the public health and public safety issues around COVID the science around COVID, uh, you've seemed to have done an amazing job, frankly, in terms of inviting people to the state, inviting people to your city, you know, pretty low incidents of, of, uh, of the virus there, comparatively. Uh, tell us your thoughts, tell us the design of your program, how you thought about these things philosophically and what you've learned that you can pass on to others. Well,

Dean Trantalis: (17:24)
As you know, it was about last year at this time that, uh, uh, the federal government finally came to grips with the very idea that, you know, COVID was at our doorstep. Um, and it was, um, it was, uh, you know, it was, it's a nobody's playbook as a public official, what to do to bring a pandemic. Nobody went to school learning how to, to deal with a pandemic. So when the federal government started to say, when the CDC started to say, you know, COVID is here, we need to start shutting down. Uh, we followed suit, we shut down our beaches on March 15th in facts that we were the first city in the country. Uh, along with Miami beach, we collectively decided let's shut our beaches down. Let's close spring break. These, the experts are telling us that we would be a super spreader event.

Dean Trantalis: (18:15)
And so let's shut our beaches down. So we shut them down for, we figured for a month, we'll see what happens, you know, in our, and I even say, we thought it would go away after a month. Okay. So, you know, April rolls round may rolls around, you know, this disease is not going away. Uh, in fact, the virus is spreading even more. And so over the, as the weeks passed, and as the months passed, we realized that, um, we could be shut down and expect this disease to be cured. The only way we were going to be able to function was to figure out a way to coexist with the disease. And, and what does that mean? That meant that, uh, we had to deal with the disease, make sure we had testing sites, uh, working with the governor's office, putting party aside, uh, and putting ID, you know, ideological views aside, we both were on the same mission to try to keep people safe.

Dean Trantalis: (19:10)
So working with the governor's office, uh, we had testing facilities, both, both the rapid testing and the regular testing right here in our city. Um, and that was important because people needed to know if they were, if they were infected. Uh, and then we, we continue to maintain the protocols at the CDC are required in terms of, uh, capacity within restaurants and bars and, and, uh, and interactions with one another distancing and of course wearing a face mask. So we continue with that through the, through most of the summer. Uh, and then, uh, and it was difficult. A lot of people found the challenge to be very difficult to deal with, but, uh, we felt it was important in order to try to prevent the spread from continuing. We didn't shut anybody any. We started to open things up. Why, because we realized, for example, in Florida where everything, uh, could be open and, you know, in New York city, you know, in December, you can sit outside at a restaurant, but, you know, you're there with the pigeons, you know, no one else has done to sit out there with you.

Dean Trantalis: (20:13)
It's so cold. So we're lucky. We were lucky here in Florida, we were able to, uh, to be outdoors. In fact, instead of closing the beaches down, it made sense to open the beaches and encourage people to come down and use the beaches because it kept them out, outside. It prevented them from going indoors. There was a lot of effort to, to create curfews and so forth. And we pushed back on that because all curfews do is push people back in their hotel rooms and closed spaces, and that's the worst super spreader you could possibly get. So, so we were, you know, we were able to maintain a balance and, uh, and allowing, uh, businesses to reopen, uh, returning people to their places of work. A lot of them are still working remotely. Um, but I'll tell you, it's, uh, it's been a difficult challenge.

Dean Trantalis: (21:02)
And, uh, and when we were finally able to get vaccines, uh, again, working with the governor's office, uh, we were able to get some of the first vaccination sites in the state and, uh, people have been rushing to get appointments. You know, it's, it's just been a real challenge, a tragedy in many, many cases. So many people have died, um, and being just days away from getting a vaccine, it's just been a real, real, you know, very sad moment in our, in our communities as, as I've seen throughout the country. But, um, but we've been trying to balance the needs of people and balance the experience to patients at the same time, trying to keep people safe, trying to save livelihoods as well as lives. And, uh, and you know, here we are today with about a quarter of our population here in Broward county, having been vaccinated, and we're working aggressively to try to vaccinate the rest. No,

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:56)
This I think is a, it's an amazing story. So I want to ask a follow-up question, but I'm going to frame it like this. We're going to, we're going to stick this interview into a time capsule. And so you're going to be talking to one of your success sores now, 10 or 20 years from now about dealing with COVID-19 and you're sending a message to the future about what you learned and what was the right policy versus the wrong policy, as opposed to left or right. Policy. And I think that's one of the things that you're going to be remembered for mayor is that you were all about right or wrong policies, not left, or right. So tell us what that message would be.

Dean Trantalis: (22:34)
So, um, the, of course the best thing is to follow the science, follow the experts, try to understand, you know, where they're taking, what direction they're taking you in this particular case, the Corona virus, uh, was transmitted through an aerosol, uh, interaction where you could breathe on somebody and that's how you get the, the virus. Um, if a pandemic should come back in, in the same form in the same way of spreading it, uh, I would encourage people to remain outdoors, no curfews, uh, and just maintain social distancing and wear the mask. The mask is probably the most important thing this past weekend, we had a demonstration on our beach for people who were protesting against the use of masks. You know, what God bless them. Uh, I hope nothing happens to them, but, uh, I think politics, uh, as you know, Anthony politics injected into this entire pandemic is what killed hundreds of thousands of people. And, um, and I feel very, very bad that they have been victimized by, by what happened this past year. But here we are today is public leaders find to do the right thing. And, um, and so my advice to my successor, uh, is to follow the science and, uh, and just do your best to try to balance the need for livelihoods, like I said, and lives. And I think you'll come out of this successfully. I think,

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:06)
I think it's a great, it's an amazing message. Okay. So I want you to, I want you to pitch me now. Okay, we're going to put your different hat on, uh, I've got this huge business. Uh, my name is Elan Musk, and I'm running something called the boring company, uh, which is not boring at all. They're about boring into the ground because there's nothing about Elon Musk. That's boring other than the fact that he's running the boring company, and you've got this difficult subterranean issue in Florida. And I want you to pitch me on bringing me to Fort Lauderdale and my company. Go ahead. Let me hear the pitch.

Dean Trantalis: (24:43)
Lauderdale is probably, uh, going to make the boring company finally hit the headlines, uh, in this country because right now is sort of been simmering. It, they're doing a little project in Las Vegas. They have their test site in Hawthorne, which is right outside of, uh, downtown LA. And, uh, we visited both those places, amazing project going on in Las Vegas. And also they're beginning one in San Bernardino, but the real breakout, uh, uh, project is going to be here in Fort Lauderdale. Why do I say that? Because we're going to stretch the limits of the boring company and test them, test their metal to what it can really accomplish with this technology and this process that they've, that they've invented. And I think that, um, coming to Fort Lauderdale, they're going to see that, you know, the challenges that people think that are in Fort Lauderdale are ones they've already, they've already, uh, countered in Las Vegas.

Dean Trantalis: (25:36)
For example, everybody thinks we have a high water table and therefore you cannot put a tunnel underground. Well, guests plus Las Vegas is sitting on an underground lake. The entire tunnel system that they have there is, is submersion of water. Uh, they've also hit huge rock formations when they were digging underneath. So all those, all those issues that could possibly interfere with our progress here are not issues. They've they have the experience. They have definitely have the talent we met with their, with their geologists and, and their, um, and the people that re run the organization. And they, they like us are excited to see, um, progress, move forward with the type of tunnel systems that we have in mind. Let me give you an example. Um, originally we went out there because we wanted to talk about, uh, building a tunnel for our train tracks.

Dean Trantalis: (26:29)
You know, in south Florida, we have a train system that runs north south, and we're talking about putting a commuter line between, uh, Miami and west Palm beach. You know, the whole point of running a commuter line is to get vehicles, the roads try to for, for, uh, focus mostly on mass transit, which is environmentally important. And we think that's where this country needs to go on. But at the same time, you know, we already have a lot of east west corridors, uh, roads, uh, river. Um, all of which would be frustrated if 40 or 50 more trains were to start to travel up and down this corridor. So the department of transportation here in Florida wanted to build a big bridge that would, uh, that would raise the tracks overground and, and avoid the interference with the roads and the river. You don't build bridges that cut cities in half.

Dean Trantalis: (27:20)
You don't build bridges that permanently divide these people that live on this side of the tracks and those that live on the other side of the tracks. This city has a, just an unfortunate history with race relations and how it has separated them because of the tracks. So by burying the tracks, we, first of all, uh, not only would it create more open space and not only would it, um, uh, take away the physical separation between, uh, demographics within our city. But we discovered through the boring company that we can do this at a much, much cheaper price than anything that was offered by other people who have made the, who have responded to our proposals, the, the state, uh, said, oh, it's going to cost you a billion dollars a mile. And this tunnel system was going to be about three miles long. Well, the boring company said a billion dollars a mile.

Dean Trantalis: (28:12)
We can do it for $15 million a mile. And you add the, the cost of construction for the train tracks and the switching and pumping systems. Maybe you're up to $40 million a mile, which is a far cry from the billion dollars a mile that was first suggested by the state. So in addition to that tunnel system, we're also, you who've been to Fort Lauderdale, right? Anthony. So you know that sometimes going down in Los Olas Boulevard, getting, trying to get to the beach, it's our premier Boulevard, shopping district, uh, art, art district. It's a great, great place, um, uh, for people who come to Fort Lauderdale. Um, and it's also part of, one of the most premier residential districts in the entire state. Um, it's played with traffic on weekends and holidays. So we've come up with the idea of rerouting traffic through a tunnel. We have the bright line station with a parking garage.

Dean Trantalis: (29:10)
People, families want to come to Fort Lauderdale beach, can park their car at the parking garage and get shuttled through, uh, through autonomous vehicles through this tunnel, five bucks, a pop you're at the beach, uh, your family's with you, you, you don't have to worry about parking at the beach and you've completely eliminated the whole traffic scene. And you've added nothing to the traffic by taking a system. That's going to be a front burner item here in our community. We're so eager to put it out there for public response. And that's going to put the boring company on the map far sided, uh, inventive, creative ideas, such as that. That's where we're heading here in our city.

Anthony Scaramucci: (29:52)
Listen, it's an amazing story. I get, I get to listen to you for hours mirror. I got to, I got to turn it over to Joseph here in a second, but I got, I asked one last question. Uh, we had the, uh, the mayor, uh, there Suarez from Miami on salt talks and he gave a wonderful presentation. Uh, you know, in, in many ways, I, I see you guys as similar in terms of love of the city, love of the state love of the intersection of the business community and social progress and all of these great things. Uh, I understand that you were working on a cross city partnership to develop south Florida into what you guys are calling the magic region. So tell us a little bit about that, and then I'm going to turn it over to Joseph so that he can fire in some questions. Of course, I've miss some things, but I want to, I want to hear about the magic region first.

Dean Trantalis: (30:45)
So, uh, a few months ago, uh, mayor Suarez, Francis I, the vice mayor of the county and, uh, mayor singer of Boca Raton, uh, with some of our staff, people had lunch. And, uh, we met and talked about how we could, um, organize our efforts to promote, uh, promote businesses in the south Florida areas specifically with regard to tech industries and financial service industries. And we were looking for ways to brand ourselves and looking for a way to, um, enhance the branding opportunities, uh, through collective efforts. And, um, uh, and so, uh, we haven't had our second meeting yet, but I think we have, uh, continued to work, um, uh, individually with trying to, uh, put together our best efforts. And we will, we're now working towards a second meeting with the new ideas that we have and to see how, in fact we could brand south Florida, uh, as you know, the magic capital of the world, because it is magic.

Dean Trantalis: (31:49)
Uh, great things happen here and abracadabra, you never know what's going to be on your doorstep the next day, but it's, you know, let's face it. So many people are moving to south Florida right now. Uh, as you said, you know, I may someday be the mayor of the world because the world is moving down here. And for good reason, uh, we have no income tax. We have no estate tax. Uh, our sales tax is moderate compared to other places. And, and, um, and you can't beat the weather. Uh, I think a lot of people would rather sit in front of their computer screen, listening into the waste, splash against their, uh, their porch, as opposed to watching a snowdrift piling up against her. It's just a totally different, uh, mindset. And let me

Anthony Scaramucci: (32:35)
Take, we, we have to end our mutual love affair on this of me sitting here freezing Mayer. I mean, come on. I mean, literally that's like taking the rock salt that I'm throwing on my driveway and putting it in my eyes. My God. You're right. So, I mean, and the other thing is, is that you guys have figured out, I think mayor Suarez as, as well, that taxes are priced for services. And so you have to deliver services. One of the problems that's happening up here in the Northeast, specifically in New York, the taxes are going up and the services are going down. It's a bad recipe for people and it's hampering their quality of life and it's causing a, uh, a migration. And so you guys are the beneficiaries of that, but you deserve to be given the policies. I'm going to turn it over to, uh, to Joe. Um, go ahead, Joe. And I will point out full disclosure, Joe and I have known each other. He's my, uh, he's my friend's best friend from high school. I'm sorry, my son's best friend from high school. And, uh, it, him and I know each other for probably since you were about 13, right, Joe,

Joe Eletto: (33:43)
It is a pleasure to have you on mayor. I was reflecting on my time in the, during the pandemic sitting in my one bedroom with my partner after everything was basically closed after 10:00 PM being driven inside because I couldn't go elsewhere and there was nothing else to do. So the, the idea of these curfews, you know, having lived it and then coming down to Fort Lauderdale, I wanna admit how many times Anthony I've been to Fort Lauderdale during all of this, but has been, you know, a real wake up call for the different lifestyles that could be led. So I want to, um, just have one more note on COVID. You know, uh, governor Newsome came out, everything is trending in the right direction in his state. He has set a June 15th reopening date for, for the majority of things being open south Florida is in a little bit of a different spot because a lot of the con the, uh, companies are, are open and things are able to be, you know, visited and such. Is there a point at which the south Florida area is able to say we are past the worst, the worst of it, and able to move forward? Or do you think it's too early to make that call?

Dean Trantalis: (34:49)
We've been listening to some of our counterparts in government. Our county mayor has been talking about starting to lifting restrictions sometimes by the end of this month at the beginning of next month. But again, I think we have to follow the science. I think we have to follow the infection rates and the, and, uh, and the hospitalization rates. Uh, I'm not too quick to want to really change much of that yet. We we're, we're pretty much open back down here. Um, we still require restaurant workers and, and, and hotel workers to wear masks. Uh, you know, it's, it's, um, uh, you know, it's not a con it's not a free for all here, you know, and when people come to this state and when people come to Fort Lauderdale, you know, they have to respect some of these COVID compliance rules that we have in place.

Dean Trantalis: (35:36)
Uh, and I think that's, what's helping to keep the infection rate down and hospitalization rates down. Uh, and, and, you know, I feel bad for governor Newsome in California. He's got an enormous state with so many different types of peoples and cultures and attitudes that, you know, one policy does not fit all. Uh, I think our governor realized that, and, and I think that's why he didn't impose some of these statewide restrictions, but allowed us to, to tailor make those restrictions according to our needs and expectations. So, um, so the thing is that that going forward, uh, I'm hoping to see, uh, these more and more of these restrictions removed as vaccinations become more and more prevalent. So if we're able to vaccinate half our county within a month, which it looks like that's, what's going to happen happen, we'll start to see a loosening up.

Dean Trantalis: (36:28)
And I think the president said by the end of may, uh, everybody should be vaccinated. So, uh, we have our fingers crossed that people get vaccinated. I know there's this, uh, um, weird philosophy out there that, you know, the devil is in the vaccine. Um, you know, people, it's just a matter of, you know, understanding science and realizing, you know, I had my vaccine now for a couple of months and I'm still here, right? So I still have five fingers on each hand. So, uh, um, but it's really important to respect one another and to keep one another protected from the spread of this disease, because it is a deadly disease and, uh, and 560,000 people have died in this country as a result of this disease. It is not a laughing matter.

Joe Eletto: (37:24)
Correct. And we had professor Hotez on Saul talks, I think about two weeks ago to discuss sort of vaccine hesitancy and, you know, south Florida and Fort Lauderdale, west Palm, Miami are, are demographically potentially different than the rest of the state, or at least large parts of the state. Are you seeing bag vaccine hesitancy as a, as a big thing in the Fort Lauder, uh, Fort Lauderdale Broward county area? Or is that just not happening at the, at the scale of potentially other areas or other states like in Alabama or Mississippi?

Dean Trantalis: (37:54)
Well, we have, we have our measure of downs here. There's no doubt about that. I mean, we have, uh, people who just, uh, you know, first they wanted to wait until the Johnson Johnson vaccine came out because they only wanted one job. And then you get a lot of people based on either cultural reasons or religious reasons, um, uh, or just people who doubt science altogether, uh, just saying, you know, they'd rather, they rather, you know, tough it out. Um, you know, that's a big mistake and, uh, um, especially since you can still get it, even with the vaccine, I mean, it's what they say, 95%, uh, it's 95% effective. Well, there's always going to be a five percenters, one out of funny. Okay. Who may still get it. So, um, so let's just be smart. Let's listen to the doctors and, uh, um, and, and let us all just try to protect one another where our masks try to get vaccinated, uh, and, and let's just become a better society.

Joe Eletto: (38:52)
Absolutely. And one last question, just as we add to the list of humble brags that we're able to give you for Fort Lauderdale, um, I am a self-proclaimed FTE, and I know that the airport's going through a $3.2 billion. Like, I don't even know if you call it a remodel just to re-imagining. Can you tell us a little bit more about that? What that's going to do for the area? I think for Lauderdale is the fastest growing large hub airport in the country right now. So what does that mean for people coming down here looking to relocate businesses and such?

Dean Trantalis: (39:21)
Well, what it means is this part of an overall, uh, um, agenda to rebuild the infrastructure of, uh, our communities. Um, whether it be the airport or even, even in the city of Fort Lauderdale, we have undertaken a huge project to rebuild our sewer systems, our water systems, uh, everything about our infrastructure. We are, we are rebuilding we've suffered from the, from the, uh, neglect over these years when I became mayor, it was, uh, it was the first thing on our agenda to, to rebuild these, uh, system in order to, to become more sustainable. So as more and more people move into the area, we're building a lot of new buildings, these buildings, these are filling up within months. Uh, it's, it's uncanny. And, um, and we have to, as a, as a responsible government, respond to this, uh, to these needs and these expectations so that when you turn on the faucet, water will be there. When you flush your toilet, you know, is going to go away. You know, we have a responsibility to respond to that. And, uh, uh, we have a very, we have a fast-forward agenda and we have been moving very quickly to accomplish this. So, um, we want to make sure that when people come to Fort Lauderdale, that they enjoy the experience and, uh, and no one walks away regretting what they found here.

Joe Eletto: (40:37)
Oh, this is fantastic. Anthony, do you have any last words for the mayor before you let him go? Uh, you know, mayor

Anthony Scaramucci: (40:42)
I'm, I'm super impressed. You know, I wish I, I wish I was on the, uh, Tran talus presidential campaign, as opposed to the other guy's game that I got myself involved in, but, you know, there's always time. There's always time, but I, uh, I look forward to meeting you in person.

Dean Trantalis: (41:02)
He's our neighbor up the road here, you know, the whole

Anthony Scaramucci: (41:04)
Fan neighbor, uh, you know, uh, listen, you know, there's no, for me, there's no hard feelings. Life goes on. I don't bear grudges towards anybody, but, uh, you're, you're doing an amazing job, sir. Thank you so much for, uh, joining us on, on, on salt. Uh, and when I'm shoveling snow up here in the Northeast, I'm going to be thinking of you. Okay. I'll, I'll be sure to, uh, I'll be sure to be thinking of you enjoying your beautiful view and you're amazing sunrises, uh, and that great, beautiful, uh, town that you live in. And, and thank you so much for joining us and hopefully we'll get you to one of our live events. Yeah.

Dean Trantalis: (41:43)
Well, let me tell you, when you come down here, just let me know, love to show you around town. And, uh, it's really been a great experience being part of this show. So thank you again, or,

Anthony Scaramucci: (41:52)
Or our pleasure. And I will definitely take you up on that and, and, and listen to me, the, uh, the dinner invitation for, with the crazy Scaramucci cheese of Thanksgiving is open invite. Okay, you may need a diplomatic pack. You may need a diplomatic passport, however, to get into the house, but that's all that, that we could work on

Speaker 4: (42:10)
That together. Well, sir, thank you

Joe Eletto: (42:13)
Again, and thank you so much for tuning into this latest episode of salt talks. If you'd like to view our entire library, you can head over to our YouTube channel at salt tube. We're also very active on Twitter. So we're at salt conference there where we have live transcripts and videos as well. Please also follow us on LinkedIn. If you're on that platform, as well as Facebook and on behalf of the entire salt team, this is Joe Eletto signing off for today. We look forward to seeing you again soon.

How to Recognize, Attack & Eliminate Workplace Injustice | SALT Talks #198

“The root causes of workplace injustices are bias, prejudice and bullying. Bias is not meaning it, prejudice is meaning it, and bullying is meaning harm.”

Trier Bryant is the co-founder and CEO of Just Work, an executive education company, and is a combat veteran of the US Air Force. Kim Scott is also co-founder of Just Work and creator of a workplace comedy series based on her best-selling book Radical Candor: Be a Kick-Ass Boss Without Losing Your Humanity.

We all want to do good work at our jobs, but many times workplaces injustices or inequities can get in the way. The root causes of workplace injustices are bias, prejudice and bullying. Developing shared vocabulary can be effective in identifying and addressing these instances. “Bias, prejudice, bullying; There are no organizations in the world where these problems have been eliminated. It’s like staying in shape or eating well. They’re things you have to do every day, but they’re worth doing.”

Leaders and decision-makers in organizations play a major role in creating healthy workplace environments. This includes creating checks and balances that allow people to speak truth to power.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKERS

Kim Scott.jpeg

Kim Scott

Author

Radical Candor

Trier Bryant.jpeg

Trier Bryant

Co-Founder & Chief Executive Officer

Just Work

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darcie: (00:07)
Hello everyone. And welcome back to salt talks. My name is John Darcie. I'm the managing director of salt, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance technology and public policy. Salt talks are a digital interview series that we started in 2020 with leading investors, creators and thinkers. And our goal on these salt talks is the same as our goal at our salt conferences, which are resuming in September of 2021. I might add in New York and we'd love to have our guests join us at that event today, assuming that we're able to host that safely, but our goal is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future. We're very excited today to welcome two guests to salt talks again with our guest moderator, uh, Sarah Koontz.

John Darcie: (00:56)
I'll read you a little bit about our two guests and also, uh, introduce Sarah before I pass the Baton. But tree or Brian is the co-founder and CEO of just work. Uh, she's a strategic executive leader with distinctive tech wall street and military experience spanning over 15 years, she's previously held leadership roles at Astra Twitter, Goldman Sachs, and proudly serve as a combat veteran in the U S air force as a captain leading engineering teams while spearheading diversity equity and inclusion initiatives for the air force academy, the air force and the department of defense. Additionally trigger advisors, leading companies like Equinox, Airbnb, SoundCloud Alto, Rockefeller foundation, and others on their talent and DEI strategies, uh, trio earned her bachelor's in system engineering with a minor in Spanish. You're all doing poquito Espanol Tomby entry or from the United States air force academy, beat army sink Navy, right.

John Darcie: (01:53)
Um, where she played division one volleyball. Uh, Kim Scott is our other guest today. She's the co-creator of an executive education company and workplace comedy series based on her bestselling book, radical candor, be a kickass boss without losing your humanity. Kim led ad sense, YouTube and DoubleClick, online sales and operations at Google, and then joined apple to develop a, uh, to develop and teach a leadership seminar. Uh, Kim has been a CEO coach at Dropbox at Qualtrics Twitter, and several other major tech companies. Uh, Kim received her MBA from Harvard business school and her bachelor's from Princeton university. I feel very unaccomplished sitting in this virtual room here today with Trisha and Ken, but we're very grateful to have them here. And as I mentioned, uh, hosting today's talk again is our recurring guest host Sarah. Uh, Sarah is the managing director and founder of Clio capital, a venture capital firm. With that. I'm going to turn it over to Sarah to begin the interview and I'll pipe in, uh, at the end, if I have some, some questions I'm always lurking during these interviews, Sarah.

Sarah Kunst: (02:57)
Awesome. We love your lurking. Um, well, so excited to be here today, um, with, with two friends who are just doing something really, really amazing that the workplace desperately needs, uh, always, but, but maybe even more now, uh, in the crazy world we live in. So, you know, let's, let's just kind of jump right in. Um, so Kim, how did you go about writing from giving about writing about giving feedback in, in radical candor, a term that I use as a radically Candice, uh, candid person, a lot in my life, uh, to, to addressing kind of workplace injustices with just work, you know, what Sarah,

Kim Scott: (03:35)
You played a huge role, probably a bigger role than you realize in that. You and I were on a panel together, and I was sort of making some comments that were encouraging people to kind of go along and get along, which is not really in the radical candor. Uh, I was not walking the radical candor walk and you, and you said to me, you know what the problem here is, Kim, the problem is people will listen to you. And I had never thought of that as a potential problem. And you helped me understand that I was kind of in denial about the things that were happening to me in the workplace and the things that were happening to other people in the workplace. And, uh, and I was also sort of succumbing to the default to silence. And there is the thing that gives me optimism about the world today is that people are speaking up more than more than they have in the past. And you can't solve problems. You refuse to notice. So thank you for forcing me to notice this problem of workplace injustice.

Sarah Kunst: (04:42)
Yeah. That, that

Sarah Kunst: (04:43)
You are welcome. Um, there's a lot of it. So that's awesome. And interior with your kind of deep expertise in sort of DEI, you know, the, this partnership, uh, seems ideal. So, so one, you know, kind of tell us about the partnership and, and how, you know, you kind of got excited about, about working with Kim and Kim, you know, how you found trickier and then like how, how did sort of creating the company come about?

Trier Bryant: (05:06)
Yeah, so I, uh, I've known, uh, about cam and radical candor. When I first read the book, uh, coming from the military, I was like, yes, civilians, this is how we do feedback in the military, do this, read this book care and just give direct feedback. And so I feel like, you know, if you're don't have radical candor in your leadership toolkit, you're kind of missing out. So it was already a huge fan. Then Kim passed on, you know, an early edition of just work, uh, her new book. And I really just had several aha moments. Um, I really reflected and, you know, put my own stories and experiences from the military wall street tech, putting them on the framework and realizing there were things that, you know, I wasn't taking responsibility for, of like causing harm, but then also a person who has been harmed and not being able to name certain things.

Trier Bryant: (05:56)
And I thought it was incredibly powerful because in the DNI space, we don't have a lot of frameworks, right. We don't have a lot of frameworks that people can add to their kits that organizations can use to say, Hey, this is a methodology. And so I was like, Kim, this is really good. Like, how do we get this into as many organizations as possible? Now I also give Kim a lot of radical candor, um, on, as a chief people officer things that she recommended being like, Kim doesn't really work that way, but I think we get understand what you were getting at. Um, and so then we just started discussing how we could partnership and do that. And that's how just worked. The company came to be.

Sarah Kunst: (06:32)
I love it. And then Kim, tell us a little about, or kind of how, how you, as you were thinking through the process of, of bringing on a CEO for this effort, you know, how, how did you realize like, drear is the one I need this person?

Kim Scott: (06:45)
So several things, first of all, it's hard for an author to admit this, but people rarely change their behavior because they read a book. It usually takes a few other few other interventions. And so I knew, I knew that we needed to help leaders roll out the ideas that, that I had put forth in the book. And then a lot of ways, actually, Sarah, once again, you helped me realize this. I was, I was talking to you about this idea and you said, you really need someone with deep DEI experience because in some ways I'm sort of like a person who's had several root canals, but I'm not a dentist. And so, so I needed to go to, to go find someone who had real deep DEI experience, but I also needed someone who had been an operating leader and great companies who knew what greatness looks like.

Kim Scott: (07:42)
And I also really love working with people from the military because I find that people who are in the military have two things going for them in terms of their leadership skills. One is that they got leadership experience. Hands-on leadership experience management experience, usually very young, very early and two, they got exceptional training, much better training in the military than we have in the private sector. And so when I saw tree resume, I, I, you know, I was already sold. Uh, and then when I met Treer I loved her even more. And then when I started working with tree air, I really got, uh, I really got a sense of what it's like to work with with, with a leader who knows what it means to walk the walk. Yeah,

Sarah Kunst: (08:29)
Yeah. That, that authenticity is so great. And I, I, I agree. Um, I love working with people military or anywhere, you know, where being very direct is, is just good. Um, and versus I I'll never forget my, my dad was in Vietnam and I was talking to him once about basic training. And he was like, oh, you know, like when you're crawling through, on your stomach and there they shoot real bullets. And like, what happens if you stand up? He's like, Sarah, you don't stand up. Right. Like the I'm like, oh, okay. People learn how to do things, because there are real things at stake versus often in workplaces, particularly in technology, you know, it's people have, I'll never forget a friend of mine talked about how there is a huge mutiny at a huge tech company once because, um, the quality of their lunch had gone down a little bit and, and the engineers were threatening to leave.

Sarah Kunst: (09:21)
Right. So there's a slight difference in, um, of different places that we, that we work in. Um, so that, that's awesome. Um, so, you know, give us a breakdown of kind of the, the just work framework, right. And, and the title says a lot, but, but really walk us through BR IRL cliff notes of kind of, you know, what's, what's the book about, and, and you know, who should read it and what do you come out the other end knowing, and then what's the kind of framework in it. And then to really turn it into like a quadruple question, you know, what are the various roles that people can play, you know, inside of these frameworks, inside of these, these situations and in candidly inside of these injustices, you know, in the workplace.

Trier Bryant: (10:04)
Yeah. So, um, one thing to think about is that we all want the same thing that organizations that we work at, right. We want to do our best work and that's what companies want from us, but yet something gets in the way. And oftentimes what gets in the way are these workplace injustices that just it's noise. It, it, you know, detracts from getting the work done efficiently and equitably. And so this framework, you know, gives people, um, you know, something to put, to, to have, and to leverage, uh, thinking about how it shows up, but then not only just how to name it so you can solve for it, but what are actual tactical practical solutions? We know that that is Kim's superpower is taking nuanced things that we have in our life experiences, and really being able to organize it in a way so that we can actually do something about it. So the root causes, the, the, the, the basics of the framework are the root causes of workplace injustice, redefine as, you know, bias, prejudice, and bullying and simple definitions. Our bias is not meaning it prejudices, meaning it. And then bullying is just being mean. Right. Um, and so, but to kind of like bring that to life, there's all these things that you can think about in your own professional experiences that really, um, contextualize like, okay, what does bias really mean? So

Kim Scott: (11:21)
It is, it is so common bias happened pretty much in every meeting and every day in every company. So here's the UN. And very often we respond with silence, but here's, here's the situation where somebody didn't respond with silence. So a friend of mine, Ayleen Lee wa walked into a meeting with two, two colleagues, both of whom were men. They sit down at the table and they're waiting for the people to come in on the, from the other company who they were hoping to do a partnership with. And the first guy comes in and he sits across from, from, from the guy to aliens left. And then the next guy comes in and sits across from the other guy. And then the others filter down, leaving a lean sort of dangling off by herself. So kind of unconscious bias in the seating and unconscious exclusion and the, and just in the way that people sat down and then Eileen starts talking and she has the expertise that's going to win her company, the deal.

Kim Scott: (12:21)
But as soon as she opens her mouth, the, they were all men. The men from the other company just ignored her as though she hadn't spoken and started talking to her colleague, and this happened two or three times. And eventually her colleague realized what was going on. And he stood up and he said, I think Elena and I should swap seats. And they swapped seats. And the whole tenor of the meeting changed because everybody realized what they were doing. So, so he was just sort of holding up a mirror and using an I statement to, to help people understand what was going on and to change it. However, this almost never happens. It sounds so simple, but it almost never happens. So what can leaders do to make that kind of thing happen more often?

Trier Bryant: (13:07)
And so, you know, one of the things that we recommend is having a shared vocabulary and a shared norm when bias happens. So for example, we call these bias interrupters. So a shared vocabulary, it could be, Hey, as a team, when we see bias, either being exhibited through behaviors or attitudes, there's a word or phrase that we're going to use. And then everyone knows, okay, that's an alert. So it could even just be biased alert. Um, one of the things that we've been doing in our course is we throw a purple flag and Kim actually went and got purple flags for people in the course. And you, you, you, you say like purple flag, or we drop it in chat. And then, because it's zoom, which is really great. Someone says what the bias is in zoom or drops a link to educate. So that it's a learning moment for everyone, but, you know, we can continue to do the work.

Trier Bryant: (13:53)
So that's the norm for us, but also understanding what is the norm, if someone doesn't understand. So what happens if someone throws a purple flag and they're like, um, I really don't understand what you just said, but let's connect after the meeting. And then a conversation can be had, but then again, really following up to make sure that that can be a learning experience for everyone. So that's bias. Um, and, but what's harder is prejudice, right? Um, and so the next and the next, um, workplace injustice that we call is prejudice, which is not meaning it. And that's harder. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Meaning it. Um, and that's harder because people do mean it, and it's not unconscious bias and people can believe whatever they want, but you can't bring those thoughts and attitudes into the workplace and force others to believe what you believe.

Trier Bryant: (14:37)
Uh, so, you know, I recall a time I was working at a company that is very much known for hiring the best and brightest talent. And at the end of the day, when we were debriefing on the candidates, the strongest candidate that, you know, we had interviewed was actually a black woman who wore her natural hair out to the interview, the way that I'm wearing mine. Um, I was not wearing my hair like this at the time. And, um, so at the end of the end, at the end of the debrief, it was very clear that this black woman was the top candidate, except for the hiring manager said, I'm not quite sure we're going to be able to go out to offer with her. And so I dug into that to say, well, why not? Like what's the issue? And, uh, the hiring manager said, well, TRIA, her hair is not like ours. We can't put her in front of the business. Right? It's not professional now that's prejudice because she really meant that she really thought that a black woman wearing her natural hair and working in front of the business was not going, it was not, you know, professional. Um, and so I had to, you know, we had to, um, confront that and deal with that. And so that's where we talk about using an it statement. So I

Kim Scott: (15:38)
Would love to think that if I had been on trainers team at the time, I would have used an it statement. And then it statement as an upstander. And then it statement can either appeal to the law. It is illegal not to hire someone because of their hair. It can appeal to company policy. It is an HR violation not to hire someone because of their hair, or it can appeal to common sense. It is ridiculous not to hire the most qualified candidate because of her hair. And so there are things that, that leaders can do to combat bias and prejudice, but there are also things that we as upstanders can do, or, or even we, as the people who are harmed can do using this I statement or the it statement, but sometimes it's bullying. So what do you do if it's bullying?

Trier Bryant: (16:25)
So with bullying, you know, just being mean, and this was really Sarah, my aha moment with like the strongest aha moment is because if you would've asked me true, have you ever been bullied in your career? I'd have been like, have you met me? Have you worked with me? Like, no, like you come from me, like I'm going to come for you. Right. And then you're reading this chapter on bullying and being mean, and Kim, again, brings it to life with their own personal stories. And then I was like, oh my gosh, I've actually been bullied a lot in my career. Um, and I couldn't name it in that way, so I didn't stand up for myself and I couldn't address it. Um, and it could even be something as simple. We've probably all been in this situation. I was at a company you're hired to build out a new team.

Trier Bryant: (17:05)
And when you build out a new team and, uh, you know, they may take budget and headcount from other teams and that's not going to make other leaders happy. And so this happened at that company. And, um, and so this leader who was more senior than me ended up just being really mean and bullying, um, and you know, making comments like, you know, they, they, uh, also part of their strategy got shifted to our team and they didn't like the way that we were executing it. And at one point made a comment will trigger. Whereas you, in the military, don't, you just know how to do what you're told and take daughters. Right. That is just mean. Um, and so, you know, what do we do in those instances? And so in those instances, you know, we encourage folks. If you're the person being harmed or an upstander where you can use a use statement.

Kim Scott: (17:50)
And it was my daughter who actually explained this to me with a use statement. She was getting bullied. She was in third grade, she was getting bullied on the playground. And I was sort of encouraging her to use an ice statement. I feel sad when you do this. And she kind of banged her fist on the table. And she said, mom, he is trying to make me sad. Why would I tell him that he's succeeded? And I realized, gosh, you're exactly right. So we talked about it and we realized a use statement was going to work much better than an I statement. So if an I statement invites the other person in to understand things from your perspective, a use statement kind of pushes them away. So you can't talk to me like that. Or if it feels like that's going to escalate in a way that's not productive, you can say what's going on for you here. Actually tree are explained to me, this was part of her training in the military. That very often you're dealing with people who, who are hostile and so sort of to calm them down. You put the spotlight back on them, but you're making them answer the questions. You're you are not in, in the sort of submissive position of responding to how they behave. You're you're asking the questions now. So that's a use statement for bullying

Trier Bryant: (19:03)
And then for organizations, when you're dealing with bullying. And this look, when I think back into my roles as a chief people, officer leading people, organizations, this is really hard to do, and we want to acknowledge that I'm dealing with bullies, but the way that we deal with bullies are consequences, right? And so we have to have consequences. We have to, and there's three types of consequences that we talk about, conversational consequences, compensation, consequences, and then career comp consequences. So conversational consequences, get rid of the platform, remove the platform from that bully to keep bullying, right? Maybe it's someone in a meeting where it's like, okay, you know, tree, or we've heard from you enough, why don't we hear from Kim, right. Removing that platform, um, and compensation consequences, or why do we keep, you know, giving bonuses to the brilliant jerk, right? Who's causing so much harm in the organization, but, um, giving them more money based compensation, equity, and then career consequences are promoting them, right.

Trier Bryant: (19:58)
Are we looking at, we definitely don't want to make them people, leaders and managers and give them more responsibility and more opportunity to engage more people. But ultimately if we can't change those behaviors and attitudes, then the career consequences getting rid of them, right. Removing them from the organization, which we acknowledge. You know, I I've been in organizations where, um, the, the biggest bully that was causing the biggest harm was also like our critical point of failure of our, what we needed to get done. So it was like, how do you do that? Right? But there's that tipping point in an organization where if we don't manage those attitudes and get rid of those boys in an organization, they truly can just impact the culture in a very, very negative way. So that's,

Kim Scott: (20:36)
Those are sort of the core, the core problems, the, the, the root causes of workplace injustice. Because of course, when you layer power on top of bias, prejudice, bullying, things get much worse, much, quickly, very quickly. And so when you layer power on top of bias or prejudice, you get discrimination. When you lay our power on top of bullying, you get harassment. And when you lay our power on top of touch, you get physical violation. So, so we can talk more about that, but Sarah, it looked like you had a question. Yeah,

Sarah Kunst: (21:11)
No, this, this is great. Um, I, yeah, workplace bullies, man, this is, this is like real, real stuff. Um, but my personal favorite intervention, which is, is, uh, probably more effective outside of organizations and insight is like, I'll just go full Karen. I go talk to people's bosses. Nothing makes me happier than when I'm like, oh yeah, I know your bosses boss. And guess who's about to have a conversation. And you know, it, it's a great way to help. Uh, I used to watch a lot of, of like rehab TV in college. It was very popular, like intervention. You bring the bottom to someone and you help them understand that their behavior is just not really going to be possible much longer, you know? So, so that's my favorite.

Trier Bryant: (21:55)
I, and I think that's a consequence too, right? Like bullies have to understand within organizations that if you are going to engage and treat people in this way, there's going to be consequences. Right. So I love that. The

Kim Scott: (22:05)
Key, the key thing there though, Sarah is you've got to, you've got to have some faith that their boss is going to create a consequence for them, which is not always the case. And

Sarah Kunst: (22:14)
Oh, totally. It is a very privileged and in kind of odd least it's an interesting situation to be in. Right. Um, as, as somebody who has both a kind of a parent or visible lack of privilege, but then sometimes, you know, behind the scenes actually has that leverage is, is not something that most people are in. And so when I'm in those situations, you know, sometimes they just sort of explained to myself and other people like, you know, I might be the two or the three, but I am not the one today. So, you know, you find something out. And I think that those are good reminders to people that, you know, no, no, no one is above. Uh, no one is out of reach. Uh, if there's somebody, you know, more powerful who decides that they don't get to behave that way anymore, but you know that that's not always the case, but sometimes it is. Um, this is great. So, so perfectly dovetailing with that, Kim, you know, there are a lot of personal stories in the book, you know, for you, other people, um, you know, you write about, about conversations between us even, you know, w was this book harder to write than radical candor. And then also was harder to get permission to include anecdotes than radical candor.

Kim Scott: (23:23)
This book was, was way harder to write than, than radical candor. It was, it was really, at some point it was me wrestling with, with, with all my own demons and, and, and really struggling to overcome this sense of denial that, that had pervaded too much of my career, but it also was way more meaningful, more satisfying than writing radical candor. I really felt a sense of, I felt a sense of accomplishment when I finished that. I mean, I felt that with radical candor too, but I felt a greater sense of accomplishment. I think it's also a harder book for people to read, frankly, than, than radical candor. There, there are a lot of hard stories in there, but the people, the thing that has been really satisfying to me talking to readers since it came out is that people are starting to take action.

Kim Scott: (24:16)
And in very specific ways, Alan Eustace, who is a, an engineering leader here in Silicon valley sent me an email. And he said, you know, I read the book and I, I just made an offer to a woman yesterday. And he said, before I read your book, I would have asked her what her salary was and matched it. And now I asked her what her, the salaries of the men who she worked with was, and I matched that. And I'm like, yes, success. Uh, that is, those are the kinds of, of simple things that people can do. Reading the book. I also have found it really interesting the way that this framework plays out in different cultures. One of the companies that I advise is a, is a unicorn in Turkey and, uh, Turkish gaming company. And, and the leader there said, you know, this is really helpful for me to, to not just work on, on gender bias on the team, but also there's regional bias. There's religious and, and we all have to work together as a team. And so that, that was very satisfying for me, uh, to, to hear that. So that's been really, really cool. And then you had a third part of your question, which I've forgotten

Sarah Kunst: (25:27)
About. Uh, so, so was it harder to get permission from people to tell their stories this time? No. What it

Kim Scott: (25:34)
Really wasn't. I was really inspired by, there was not a single person who I sent. I said, I want to, I want to write this. There was not a single person who said, no, you can't write it. I mean, there were a couple of people who said, maybe take that part out, but this part out, I didn't name organizations or people in the story for the most part, except when it was a very good story as with you. But, but there were a lot of bad things that happened. And the reason why this is a controversial decision, so feel free to push me on it. But the reason why I didn't is because the kinds of things that I describe in the book don't just happen in one place. And they, that they, it's not just, it wasn't just one company or one person they happen everywhere. They're sort of universal, universal kinds of things. So I wanted people to realize that what I want to focus on in this book is solving the problem, not sort of calling out one individual or one company.

Sarah Kunst: (26:33)
Yeah. That that's so true. You know, I was in involved in, in a me too situation. And after there's sort of this big IX, like, you know, oh, good, we got the bad. And it's like, no, no, no. Like we are all bad guys in, like, we all are a part of these power structures. Um, white male, patriarchy is not a person. It's a power structure. So, you know, John, John can be fighting against it. And somebody who looks like me can be helping uphold it because that's how it works. You know? And so, so I, I, you know, I always want you to tell me the names, but that's for like, you know, wine the mountains. But, but I think in general, it is important to globalize that it's not just one bad actor. It is, you know, uh, an entire bad theater production that we are a part of. So, so I agree with that. Absolutely.

Trier Bryant: (27:19)
And the thing about that is it Sarah, like I get the question very often, like what the company is doing, you're right. You know, like what's the company that's doing it, right. It's not having these issues. And the answer is there, there isn't right. Are there some organizations that are doing better than others? But what I also have told my recruiting teams and my people teams in the past is that people join great companies and then leave bad bosses. Right. And so we really have to be thoughtful about who are the leaders and the decision makers within our organization, because they have such a huge impact on, you know, um, preventing and mitigating these workplace injustices. And so, you know, I always tell people like, yeah, go work at a great company, but really gets to know the leader that you're working for and how they would handle with these situations and not put you in a lot of these situations. Right. And so having those conversations, when you're thinking about your next role or taking something on or who you partner with on your next, you know, um, company. So those are, those are some of the things that, you know, I encourage folks to think about as well.

Sarah Kunst: (28:16)
The reverse is interesting that I've seen too where, you know, sometimes if you're really disillusioned or if you're not sure you love somebody, who's like five levels above you, you can be nervous. But if you like your manager, then you know, that is better than going to a job where your manager might not be great, but you idolize the CEO. And I've, I've personally had that happen to me where a founder, I was just, I wasn't a fan, but I never, you know, I would have talked to him three times over my entire 10 years. So that might've been a miss. So it's, it's interesting how, how much importance we place on good companies when the companies are just a bunch of people who all get paid by the same company. Yeah.

Kim Scott: (28:52)
And also companies are not monolithic, uh, bad things happen at good companies, unfortunately. And even within a company, you may be, as, as tree are said, working with someone who is going to shield you from a lot of other bad stuff, but that doesn't mean bad stuff isn't happening. And I think it's, I think it's also really important with these things. People, people really want this example of this perfect place. And I think it's dangerous because because bias, prejudice, bullying, these are not problems. There's no place in the world where these problems have been eliminated that that I can imagine. And to say that they have been at a particular place is, is a form of denial. I think that rooting these things out. It's like staying in shape or eating well or doing the dishes. Like these are the things we we're going to have to keep doing every day, but they're worth doing every

Sarah Kunst: (29:50)
Day. There's no crash diet for injustice. Um, yes, yes, yes. I love it. So the tree, or when it comes to the power dynamic, like where do you see organizations just completely fall short most often.

Trier Bryant: (30:05)
Yeah. So when you introduce power and then you get discrimination, harassment, and physical violations, and then even with, you know, the root causes of workplace injustice, I think where we fall short, where a lot of organizations fall short is actually thinking about what do you do when these things happen at the very top? Um, even the organizations that look down and to say, Hey, how are we taking care of our employees? But like, what happens when your CEO is the bully? What happens when, you know, your, your chief people officer is a person who is being harmed, right? But there, there was a person responsible for solving it, or it's really interesting. We've had the opportunity to talk to a lot of groups of, you know, um, we, we did a, um, a talk with a, uh, an organization of museum directors and we got so many questions about injustices incurring between them and their trustees.

Trier Bryant: (30:58)
Um, and also, you know, um, founders talking about engagements with their investors or board members. And so I think that's where we're not thinking about the pirate ha the power dynamic. And we're not thinking about like, you know, what happens. I don't recall the first time I was in a board meeting as a people leader at this company. And I was one of two women in the room, but it was, we had both recently just been hired. And that first meeting was so terribly uncomfortable simply just because of language, like the language that these men had been, you know, very comfortable using. And now you have two women and no one really thought twice to just continue to use some very inappropriate language. And, and it was that moment. And I was taking notes, you know, cause this is my first board meeting meeting. Um, you know, some of the other board members and afterwards I went to the CEO and I said, so look, this is not going to happen again.

Trier Bryant: (31:51)
Right. Here's here's what happened. Here's the feedback. You can send the email, I can send the email, but next time I'm going to call it out in real time. And next time I need you to step up and call it out as well, because you do, you do acknowledge that this is not appropriate. Like it shouldn't have been appropriate before you had no women in the boardroom, but it is definitely not going to be tolerated now. Um, and so those are the conversations that we need to start having before the injustice occurs before the bias pops up, or, you know, the, the, the harassment, um, so that people in these leadership roles know how to handle it though. That's where I think that we're not having the conversations, not creating

Kim Scott: (32:28)
The kinds of checks and balances that make it, that make it, it's never going to feel safe, but that make it at least not suicidal to go and, and call this kind of behavior out because, because it is, so it is hard. It's hard to speak truth to power. And the only way to make sure that people will do it is to limit power with checks and balances. So I think that is one thing that's really important. And even in organizations that have done a really good job creating checks and balances, so they've sort of systematically stripped a unilateral decision making authority away from managers at the company. So a manager can't hire somebody unilaterally. They can't fire somebody unilaterally. They can't promote somebody in a there's checks and balances in every system. So that at every, at every point in the process of the employee life cycle, so that if a manager has a problem, the employee has someone to turn to and somewhere to go.

Kim Scott: (33:33)
But even at those companies, there's, there is a problem which is money basically. Uh, they, they haven't created the CEO is, is a billionaire many times over and some of the entry-level employees at one point I was, I, my husband was at a big tech company and I was at a fast growing hot startup. And we both had employees who were living in their trucks. And that just shouldn't. And we, both of those companies, the CEOs were billionaires many times over. And so even when there were good checks and balances in terms of power, when there aren't, when there's, when there's that level of, of inequality, uh, it's a real problem.

Sarah Kunst: (34:18)
Great time for me to push my favorite topic, which is build more housing because the sad, terrible thing is those people were probably making six figures. It's just in major cities where that plus a million bucks can help you try to get in a down payment on a house. So yes, um, that, and, and rant and soapbox. Um, so, so Kim, what radical candor feedback have you received since just work was released? So

Kim Scott: (34:47)
Some of the feedback on just work that I've gotten is that it is very hard to read that, that people, several people have said, you know, what if I didn't know you, I, I may not have gotten through the book. In fact, and one person in particular said, the reason that he wouldn't have gotten through the book is that he didn't think that these issues applied to him. He didn't think he was biased. He didn't think he had any prejudices. He didn't think he ever bullied anyone. And he said, I was halfway through the book before I had this revelation that, uh, oh, this does actually apply to me. I'm not reading this as a favor to Kim. This actually is helpful. So he said, you need to make, you need to figure out a way to help people understand, to help people notice that these, these are problems that, that apply to them.

Kim Scott: (35:40)
So I think that's one of the issues. I think the other feedback I've gotten is that we are all exhausted. We're all tired. And when we want to read something right now, we might want to curl up with a good novel or a mystery, more of a beach read. And so I have no solution to that. I don't know how to turn this book into a beach read, but, but the one thing that I will say that, that I'm trying to do is tell more positive target identification stories. So there are a lot of stories out there of people getting this stuff, right, doing the right thing. And I, and I think that part of the reason why we have such burnout around these topics is that it feels a little bit like being stuck in traffic. It's not clear what you can do about it. And so by focusing on stories about people who are doing the right thing, and it wasn't even that hard to do like the alien Lee story at the beginning of, of our conversation and it made a big difference. And I think if all of us can take a couple of little steps every day, we can actually begin to turn this, turn this thing around. I love it.

Sarah Kunst: (36:50)
Um, John, what steps are you taking?

John Darcie: (36:55)
Well, um, I'm, uh, learning a lot from this conversation need to pick up Kim's books. You know, I'm not yet a, I wouldn't say a senior executive at the organization in which I work, but as somebody who increasingly manages people, I love some of the conversations, especially that Sarah brings onto salt talks. And one of the things that, that bothers me to hear stories of his situations, you talked about checks and balances. You've had a couple of guests on Sarah that have talked about this, where they're brought in to, you know, do DNI work, DEI work, or, or be chief people, officers. And they come in and they observe an environment that's extremely toxic and, and in a lot of ways offensive and they're fired within three months of working there because the CEO says, oh, this is not what I signed up for. I was trying to tick a box, not actually hear truth to my face.

John Darcie: (37:40)
So this just, it's fascinating to hear you guys talk about how do you construct those systems without creating the fraud stabbing? I was, I was laughing at that Kim because my, my boss, uh, Anthony Scaramucci, who you might know, um, he used that term during his brief time in politics, but, you know, front stabbing, isn't productive either, uh, where people are so, so aggressively, uh, obnoxiously aggressive, as you say. Um, but yeah, it's just fascinating to hear these stories. A couple of questions I have for each of you. Um, you talked about how bad things happen at good companies. And a lot of times that happens at scale. And I think when I, when we've talked to other people on salt talks, or I've talked to other people that work at big organizations, you've also read news stories about founders at startups that get acquired by a big tech company. And they, they struggle to translate that culture into a bigger environment. So my question Kim is when you get into these massive environments and you've worked at big tech, how do you maintain a culture in a large organization? How do you, you know, not let it run a muck where you have managers that, that ramp up the level of politics and the different destructive behaviors that you mentioned, the matrix, how do you create that strong culture at a large organization? So you don't have to go around putting out fires so frequently.

Kim Scott: (38:54)
So I think there's several things you can do. And in big organizations also useful to do this in small orientations. But one of the things that we recommend is that you start to quantify your bias. So if you, if you start to look at who you're promoting, and then you cut that data by, by gender, by race, you will begin to notice that there is some bias. Yeah, you can believe one of two things either. Uh, the, the, the underrepresented people in your organization don't deserve to be promoted, or there's some bias. And I choose to assume that there's some bias. So how can you begin then? So now you've you see it, you get what you, and so now you're going to fix it. And it's, it's, you're probably not going to fix it right off the bat. You're going to have to do some digging to fix it.

Kim Scott: (39:46)
You, you, for example, in orchestras, they, they realized that it couldn't be the fact it couldn't be right, that they only had 6% women. They didn't believe that that women were worst musicians. And so they really worked on solving the problem and they kept digging. First. They put a sheet up when somebody was auditioning so that they couldn't see the person, and it didn't have an impact. And so they kept, but they didn't say, oh, well, it couldn't be biased. Then they kept digging and, and they made people take their shoes off. It turned out that the high heels were giving away the gender of the person who was auditioning. And so I think if we're willing to really do the work, there's a great story, uh, about Salesforce. So mark, a couple of leaders on Marc Benioff's team went to him and they said, we think that we're systematically underpaying women at Salesforce. And mark just couldn't believe that this was happening. He was certain that it was a meritocracy and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And they said, well, okay, we'll do the, we'll do the analysis. We'll run the numbers, but you have to promise us that if we run the numbers, you'll fix the problem. If we identify that and, and to his credit, he did promise and he did fix it, but it's not trio has a lot more detail about how you fix it. Cause it's not enough to fix it once.

Trier Bryant: (41:11)
Yeah. One thing, John, also the organizations, even large organizations that have been around for a few years, it's, it's really odd and strange to me that they haven't done this. But one of the things we talk about is also, you need to have a code of conduct, right? And it doesn't need to be called a code of conduct, but there needs to be something with some teeth in there that your people, HR team can hold people accountable to that peers, everyone, colleagues can hold each other accountable too, to say, this is how we expect, you know, people to behave and act at work. And somebody will say, oh, well we have values. But the thing is, is that yeah, values are great. You can put them on the wall, but you need to be a little bit more specific. Right? So for example, at one of our companies, we had six values because they were important.

Trier Bryant: (41:53)
They should be short and clear for everyone to understand, but under each value, there was a, we statement three we statements and that really helps people identify. What does that value look like of how it shows up every day as an employee in this organization? So you can have a value that says communicate fearlessly, but you also need to have some statements of what that means because people can take that and be really disrespectful and say, well, I'm communicating fearlessly, right? So we need people to understand. Um, you know, and so what is it that we expect day to day from our employees? And then we don't have to run around and put out fires when we manage people's expectations and set those expectations up front of what we expect in our organization.

John Darcie: (42:32)
Right. And trio, you've worked in a lot of different environments. So you have a military background. Uh, you worked at Goldman Sachs, you worked at Twitter. So you've worked across a variety of different industries and in different environments, are there different industries that you think do a better or worse job at rooting out these biases and prejudices and you know, why do you think some of those industries are more successful? And, and where do you think the ones that are lagging behind, first of all, why do you think they're lagging and how do you think they can reverse that? Yeah.

Trier Bryant: (43:01)
Um, I appreciate the question because I do think that there is a difference. And I think that, that comes down to when organizations understand and tie this work to their bottom line. That's when people are held accountable and that's when things change. Right. Um, what I have found is Goldman and no organization is perfect, right? Goldman does a really good job in a lot of these areas because when they find out that this impacts their bottom line, cause everything a Goldman is about making a dollar or losing a dollar and where they're trying not to lose a dollar. Right. So when they find out that these things are impacting their bottom line, oh, they handle that very, very quickly. Right. Versus, um, in tech, it's so interesting that a lot of organizations in tech are like, it's the right thing to do. Like, it's, it's, it's nice, like all the softness of it.

Trier Bryant: (43:49)
And it's just like, that goes out the window. When you have a bearish quarter, a bearish, you know, year it's the first thing that gets cut. We saw that with COVID right. Um, COVID revenues started changing D and I programs and, and programming initiatives and teams were getting cut left and right. And then what happened? We had the summer of 2020 with all the black lives matter protests and demonstration. And then companies were scrambling because they had just cut their DNI budgets. Right. So when you can tie it to the bottom line, when you tie it to your revenue, the things that you actually care about and that your, your leaders care about and your board cares about that's when you're going to hold people, that's when you're going to really start to drive that change. Um, and we just have to stop talking about it and we got to get tactical. And that's why that is what really excites me about just work by no means is this one framework going to solve all their problems, but hopefully it gives people something to add to their toolbox. And also, hopefully it inspires others to give us more tools that we can add in the DNI space that organizations and leaders can leverage.

John Darcie: (44:52)
Right. And I would love to have you guys both at our salt conference in September that I mentioned, we're having a couple of panels on this exact topic. One with, uh, Les brown, who's the CEO now of Ariel investments. Project is called project black, where they're investing in, in black leaders, um, and using data that shows that investing and diversifying your companies, uh, just increased to the bottom line. We're also going to have representatives from Goldman Sachs. They're your, uh, my mater, uh, they have a new initiative, 1 million black women. Uh, so we're going to have them, they're talking about that. There was also a study. Our conference is actually right before the UN general assembly that the UN commission it's called Capitol as a force for good, that studied empirically all this data around impact investing, uh, you know, diversity and inclusion and equity being a big part of it.

John Darcie: (45:37)
The URL is forced for good.org, a very comprehensive report. So it's just, it's great to see data, more data coming out about these topics. And it's going to be a featured part of our, uh, discussion at the salt conference. I would love to have you guys there, Kim and, and prayer, you can respond to this question as well. But as I look at the radical candor matrix, which I find fascinating ruinous empathy is on there. And I also find, I think maybe personally as I manage people sometimes, and I've seen this around organizations that I've worked in, you have people that are extremely nice, but they don't communicate clearly in a way that sets expectations. This is both in terms of eliminating biases and maximizing performance. So how do, how do you observe ruinous empathy and what does that do in an organization when you have leaders? That, that aren't honest. Not because they don't care, but because they don't know how to communicate properly.

Kim Scott: (46:28)
Yeah. It's a really great it's, it's a really important and, and all too common manifestation of, of unconscious bias, this, this ruinous empathy. So I'll, I'll give you an example that, that someone shared with me, he was working on increasing diversity at, uh, at a big bank. And he said, I would observe the following over and over and over again. Senior banker goes to a meeting with a client and brings along and analyst week one, the analyst is a man and the senior banker is a man. The analyst screws up makes a mistake. And after in the cab ride back to the office, the analyst hears about it in no uncertain terms and the next week, similar similar clients, same senior banker. This time, the analyst is a woman. The woman makes the same mistake that the analyst the week before did, but this time the senior banker does not tell her in a way that she understands what went wrong.

Kim Scott: (47:26)
And not because he's a misogynist jerk bent on ruining her career. But because he's been taught since he was a child to be gentler with women, and maybe in this environment, he's, he's concerned that he'll get in some kind of trouble if he offers feedback. And this is, uh, an irony that we have got to fix, because especially when you're underrepresented, you need that performance feedback. You need it even more. And it is the job of the leader to give that performance feedback and not to be ruinously empathetic. And, uh, and yet all too often leaders leaders fail to do that. They, they failed to do their job and they, and usually it's because they're afraid of being seen as sexist or racist, but then ironically they do the sexist or racist thing by not giving the feedback. So I think it's really important to, uh, to, to focus on this. One of the best, uh, one of the best descriptions of this problem is in Claude Steele's book whistling, Vivaldi, where he, he talks about how this happens over and over and over again. So, so really important to be radically candid, not only about things like saying, um, too many times in a meeting, but about bias that I say on that many times, I wasn't, I did not. I said, that's my canonical radical candor story. I don't

John Darcie: (48:51)
Imagine that ruinous empathy is a problem in the military, which is maybe why the military is such a highly effective, but, but is it a problem in the military or how have you observed it in other environments?

Trier Bryant: (49:01)
You'd be surprised. Um, actually in some cases it is for the same reasons that, you know, Kim just explained. I know for myself, I remember the first time, um, this white male general sat down and gave me a lot of feedback very directly. And I was about all, I was, uh, I was a first Lieutenant, so I was like probably two and a half years into my career. And it was like obvious stuff. Right. It was so obvious. I was like, Sarah, thank you for that. But like, why hasn't anyone told me that? Right? I mean, it was, so it was obvious stuff as if I had spinach in my teeth for two and a half years, and no one told me to take it out, how obvious it was. Um, and he's looked at me and he said, wheelchair. He was like, you're intimidating.

Trier Bryant: (49:44)
And I was like, okay, sir. And he was like, and he was like, and I don't think you are, but you like, you are a black woman. You are an officer, you're an air force academy grad, and you are intimidating. And he said, so people are not going to give you that feedback. And, and he gave me, um, he gave me a lot of advice and one of my best mentors and sponsors, but one of the things he said is he said, you know, because of that bias people, aren't going to give you feedback. So you have to go out of your way to go and get that feedback. Um, and then the other thing that he told me that I will share, because I think that this is powerful on either. Are there ways he said you should always have a strong white male mentor.

Trier Bryant: (50:21)
And he said, because that you can have a really good relationship with that will mentor you the way that they are mentoring other men. Because like a lot of times we mentor, we have bias through our mentoring as well, right? Like, oh, well, I'm not going to tell you what to do that because you're a woman. So I'm gonna tell you something different or you're black, you're going to do something different. And so he would mentor me. He was like, I'm going to tell you what everyone else is telling all the other white guys that you have to compete with. And I took that with me throughout my career at Goldman. I found someone like that at Twitter. I found someone like that in tech, you know, and it's just been really powerful. But the other thing that's powerful is that when I do have those conversations, I also go and encourage them to go and mentor more people that don't look like them and to not have that bias filter when they are giving them, you know, perspective and guidance.

Kim Scott: (51:04)
Can I throw a purple flag on the general? Like, do you think that I thought

John Darcie: (51:08)
I was getting a purple flag for a second carry. I

Kim Scott: (51:10)
Was nervous. The General's getting a purple. Do you think that him telling you that you were intimidating was, was bias, was a reflection of, of racial bias? Or do you, I

Trier Bryant: (51:23)
Think that he was just naming a stereotype and like a just obvious stereotype. Yeah. I think he was just naming a stereotype. That is true. Right. Um, I don't have to, Sarah, I don't have to open our mouths. Right. Like, it's just like the stereotype of the angry black woman, you know? So, um,

Sarah Kunst: (51:41)
And that's just, what I heard is when like a thousand years ago, I'd be like at a bar with friends for happy hour and guys would come up and they'd be like, like that, one's pretty, but she looks scary and they just say it. And you know, it's like, I don't want your, you know, small man energy around me, so that's fine. Um, but, but it, it, it is if people don't name something, you know, I always love the quote that are you, are you intimidating? Are they intimidated? But naming that is, is a lot more important than not because you, you otherwise, you're a sort of shadow boxing. So, so it's great to hear somebody say it out loud. It like takes the gaslighting out of the moment. Um, and I, I totally agree. I, I call it white dude energy, like having some white dude energy around you will, you can do whatever you want with it, but understanding like, you know, what, what, what the average white dude would do in this situation, in any situation. I, I get that when I, when I get to hang with, with Anthony, there's so much white dude energy, it's helpful. It's good. It's interesting. And you know, there there's, there is a place in the world for everyone and even white dude energy. So, you know, we're, we're glad to have it. And I agree it's important to seek it out.

John Darcie: (52:52)
Well, I'm still there. I'm still glad there's room in the world for white dude energy. Sarah, I, you didn't call me out. I appreciate that you call Anthony. So, um, but thank you guys so much for joining us. I feel like I got a free coaching session here. I hope you don't send a bill after, after the session, but, uh, it was a pleasure having you guys on and, and love Sarah bringing on, you know, one of the pleasures to having Sarah as sort of a recurring guest moderators meeting. People like yourselves that I don't know that we would necessarily meet, uh, in the other setting, but we would love to have you guys again, in our in-person conference, assuming it's healthy and safe and everything to do. So in, in New York, uh, you know, I think you'll meet a lot of people that probably need a lot of your advice.

John Darcie: (53:29)
So, uh, and we're, we've struggled with that at our conferences over the years in an industry that's so white. And so male dominated, we, you have to work extra hard to, to create an environment at those events that a woman and a person of color even feels comfortable coming into, or else you just gonna, you're going to extinguish any ability that you have to diversify your audience if you don't create that environment, uh, proactively. So, uh, thank you guys for doing this and it's a pleasure to meet you and hope to see you in person sometime soon. Thank you so much really enjoyed it. Thank you, Sarah. Thank you, John. Thank you guys. Thank you. You everybody for tuning in to today's salt, talk with Kim, Kim Scott, and tree or Bryant, uh, of just work. And Kim also authored the book, radical candor, both great books that I would highly recommend that you pick up.

John Darcie: (54:13)
You can see them over Kim's shoulder. If you weren't observing that during our talk. I just remind you if you miss any part of this talk or any of our previous talks, including all of our, our talks with Sarah, some of which have covered these, these topics around, uh, you know, uh, the workplace and diversity inclusion and equity, uh, just reminder you can access them all on our website@sault.org, backslash talks as well as on our YouTube channel, which is called salt tube. And please spread the word about these, these talks, these talks in particular, and we're covering subjects that people often don't like to talk about it in the workplace. We think it's important that you share these with your friends, your coworkers, and your family, uh, but just on behalf of the entire salt team and for Sarah, this is John Darcie signing off from salt talks for today. We hope to see you back here soon.

Josh Rogin: "Chaos Under Heaven: Trump, Xi & the Battle for the 21st Century" | SALT Talks #195

“I don’t think the goal is to stem China’s rise. I think the goal is to shape it… It’s going to be a long game. It’s going to last a generation.”

Josh Rogin is a political columnist for the Washington Post, analyst for CNN and author of his new book, Chaos Under Heaven: America, China, and the Battle for the 21st Century.

China has become the main geo-political rival of the United States and the 21st century will be defined by the United States’ ability to manage the relationship. Donald Trump showed correct instincts in seeking to confront China aggressively, but the administration’s general dysfunction undercut efforts. This presents a valuable opportunity for the new administration. “Biden’s administration has a chance to take the ball and run with it and do a better job. Trump was great at flipping over the chess board, but he couldn’t set it back up.”

By integrating China into the global economy, the hope was that global influences would ultimately liberalize the country’s politics. This did not happen and the communist party has nearly total control over China. “I don’t think the goal is to stem China’s rise. I think the goal is to shape it… It’s going to be a long game. It’s going to last a generation.”

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Josh Rogin.jpeg

Josh Rogin

Global Opinions Columnist

Washington Post

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darcie: (00:07)
Hello everyone. And welcome back to salt talks. My name is John Darcie. I'm the managing director of stall, which is a global thought leadership forum at the intersection of finance technology and public policy. So talks are a digital interview series with leading investors, creators and thinkers. In our goal on these salt talks is the same as our goal at our salt conferences, which is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future. And we're very excited today to welcome Josh Rogan to salt talks. Uh, Josh is a columnist for the global opinion section of the Washington post and a political analyst with CNN. He's also an author most recently of a great book called chaos under heaven, Trump, she and the battle for the 21st century previously, Josh covered foreign policy and national security for Bloomberg view Newsweek, the daily beast foreign policy magazine, congressional quarterly federal computer week magazine and Japan's Asahi Shimbun.

John Darcie: (01:12)
Uh, he was a 2011 finalists for the Livingston award for young journalists and the 2011 recipient of the interaction, uh, award for excellence in international reporting. Josh holds a bachelor's degree in international affairs from George Washington university there in Washington, DC, and studied at Sophia university in Tokyo, Japan today, he lives in the nation's capital, Washington, DC hosting. Today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge capital, which is a global alternative investment firm. Anthony is also the chairman of salt. And with that, I'll turn it over to Anthony for the interview. So

Anthony Scaramucci: (01:49)
Josh, even though you have the book behind you, I like holding these things up here for our people. Cause you know, I'm not all that self promotional as you know, but, uh, I will say to you that this is, and we were in the green room before we got started here on this salt talk. And I said to you, this is the next 10 years of the United States. Whether we like it or not, there's still be a backdrop of a border crisis. There'll be issues we have to deal with internally with the us. But the next 10 years of the global drama will be between the us and the Chinese. Why did you write the book and am I right after reading your book? Uh, that was my conclusion. I said, man, this is what we're going to be doing over the next 10 years.

Josh Rogin: (02:37)
Right? Well, uh, thanks guys for having me on, basically when I got to the Washington post in 2016 and Donald Trump was elected president, you know, 95% of the foreign policy media was focused on Russia, Russia, Russia, for a number of obvious reasons that we are not going to be able to get into now, but I turned to my boss and I said, well, I gotta do something different. They said, what do you want to do? And I said, I wanna report the story, which I was pretty sure it was going to be pretty crazy considering what the Trump administration was shaping up to look like. And of course I wasn't disappointed little did I know though that not only would we have a trade war and a tech war and sort of a broad awakening in various sectors of American society to the rising challenge that arising China presents to us in our industries, in our schools, in our markets, uh, all of that played out in the craziest way.

Josh Rogin: (03:27)
You could imagine it's a lot of that you know about personally, but then the pandemic hit. And then all of a sudden the fact that China's government is, you know, internally repressive externally aggressive and interfering in our societies toward their political ends became obvious not only to every American, but to every citizen of the world. And there's nobody who's stuck in their basement for a year who hasn't seen their grandma who doesn't realize that, oh, wait a second. We've got to figure out this China thing before it's too late. And it looks like the Chinese government is taking that country in a bad direction. And that doesn't mean we have to have a cold war. It doesn't mean we're going to have a conflict forget about through trap. That's all bumper sticker nonsense. What we have to do is we have to have a national conversation about the challenge that rising China presents to our society and then figure out what we're going to do about it. And this book was a first attempt to start

Speaker 4: (04:17)
That conversation. So you

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:20)
Mentioned that you said that he straps. So let me just explain that to our viewers and listeners, I think is important. Uh, Graham, Alison wrote about this and destined for war. He basically says a rising, super power, uh, basically threatening the existing power structure usually ends in a calamity 12 out of 16 times over 2000 plus years that that's happened. We've gone straight on to war. Uh, and you write in the book you write in the book, which I think is, uh, elemental here that these problems were going to be there with, or without Donald Trump, we are in a economic struggle, we're in a technological struggle. And so what, what, what would you say to your fellow Americans now about what their government missed over the last 20 years as it relates to China?

Josh Rogin: (05:14)
Right. I mean, the facilities traffic's like interesting, but we shouldn't base our strategy on it, but you know, Graham, Alison picked 16 conflicts and then 12 of them matched his theory. So that's all well and good, but you know, the U S China competition is going to be a lot different for a lot of reasons, mostly because if you think about it, it's really not about the U S versus China. It's about an international response to China as it rises. And that means that we're in this together with a lot of other countries that have a lot of things that they need to protect and a lot of interests and values that we believe, believe in and have defended for the last 80 years or so that we would like to keep, you know, that the Chinese communist party is working to erode the mistake that our government made over the last 20 years.

Josh Rogin: (05:57)
You know, not realizing that the large bet that we made, which was essentially, and I'm boiling it down a bit, to be sure that if we gave China all the help, we could and integrated them into our systems as much as possible that the Chinese system would, uh, liberalize is economically and that would lead to it liberalizing politically. And that would solve all the rest of the problems. And we would live in peace and coexistence. And, you know, some people say that was the only responsible thing to do 20 years ago. Some people say it's still the only first possible thing to do right now, but even in 2016, even before Trump was elected, there was a growing feeling inside the U S government and later on in other parts of American society, that that bet had not worked out that choosing paying had taken, decided to take his country in a more authoritarian direction and decided to exert the Chinese model and export it and use it to sort of change the rules of the road in a way that serves their liberal model and not our model, and that we have to respond to that.

Josh Rogin: (06:49)
So, you know, now we sort of the Trump administration to its credit, you know, realize that it, but as you know, it was such a chaotic mess that they've missed a lot of opportunities. They failed to really use a lot of elements of American power. They disrespected allies, there was constant turnover. It was factional infighting from the get-go and the, their response to the China challenge got mired in the overall dysfunction and mismanagement that president Trump brought. And that's a shame. That's something that we, our leaders now have to fix. Josh,

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:19)
That's sort of breaking news. There was constant turnover because I wasn't aware of the turnover or the infighting. I didn't realize that. So that's sort of breaking news for me, but you know, one of the funny things it's April of 2017, it's Mar-a-Lago president Trump and president Xi are meeting down there. He's got the book with them, destined for war. President Xi has obviously had an impact on him. Trump has no idea what's in the book. Take us to that meeting. You write about it. Yeah.

Josh Rogin: (07:47)
So you would think if you watch the campaign and that Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro and Stephen Miller would have been in charge of the China policy, cause that's how the campaign speeches play it out. But as soon as Trump became president, uh, he turned on a diamond handed, much of the policy over to Jerry Kushner. And to an extent, Rex Tillerson, by the time they got tomorrow Lago for a lot of complicated reasons, he wanted to make a deal. And basically what happened at Mar-a-Lago is he established this friendship over the most beautiful piece of chocolate cake you've ever seen according to Trump, uh, to make a deal with changing paying. And then he set us Steve Mnuchin, Gary Cohn, and Wilbur Ross on the path of making that deal. And if you just think of that moment in time, and, and, you know, you could imagine that if the Chinese leadership had just realized what an opportunity they had, if they had given president Trump and his economic officials, a deal that they could sell, that they could run on, that would actually have done some good, they might've avoided what happened next was that was, which was pled.

Josh Rogin: (08:45)
Trump turned on them and turned on the Chinese leadership and then handed the policy over to a Lighthizer. And then to an extent to the Hawks and Bolton and Pence, and, you know, it just went downhill from there. And then when they finally did make a deal in June, January, 2020, it seemed like everything was going to be copacetic again. And then the pandemic hit and the relationship was destroyed. So Mar-a-Lago was that first sort of instance where president Trump and president Xi decided that they were really good friends and that this was going to be a big thing. And that relationship not only ended up being destroyed, but it also ended up having a real horrible effect on our pandemic response. Because later on presented, she lied to president Trump about the coronavirus, told him it would go away when it got warmer, told them that it was under control, herbal medicine could be used to, to secure it. And that fed into Trump's garble in his head, which came out of his mouth, which came out in our policy, which exacerbated the problems that we're having today. Those are excuse the Trump administration's pandemic response, but it explains it just a bit.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:44)
So, I mean, you're doing, and you do a brilliant job of this in the book. So I want you to pretend I've now landed from Mars. And these are two very important world leaders. And I want you to give me the baseball scouting report on president Xi and president Trump. Go ahead, Josh.

Josh Rogin: (10:05)
You know, there's, there's two scattered reports on president Trump, right? Some people believe that he was just, uh, a neophyte, you know, inexperienced moron who was stumbling through the most important relationship at a critical time setting his advisers against each other in a Coliseum, you know, battle for sport, right? Other people will tell you people who are closer to Trump will say, no, no, no, no. He actually had a firm view on China and he knew what he wanted and he cared about trade, but he didn't care about human rights. And he could just never get the thing that he wanted because his advisors were fighting amongst themselves. And I think there's truth to both of those narratives actually, you know, I went back and I read all of the Trump books, not that he wrote them, but the ones that had his name on them.

Josh Rogin: (10:47)
And, uh, there's an amazingly consistent message on China that actually you can find in all of his statements and speeches and tweets and stuff. Um, at the same time, it's clear that he didn't know anything about the tactics that he got fooled by presidency. And if you're doing this county report on the presidency and you would have to say that, you know, he masterfully played Trump like a fiddle and abused their personal friendship in order to advance China's interests against America's interests. And, you know, sort of, you know, uh, on the other hand, you, you have to say that the Chinese leadership never really understood how the Trump administration works, but you could kind of forgive them for, cause we were all in that same fog. Uh, and because they play so much faith in their billionaire friends and started basically just hoping that the billionaire friends and the wall street guys would, you know, fix everything. And that became their main channel that w once that didn't work, they really had nothing left to fall back on. And when the pandemic hit, it was the, the, the back channels were useless and it was all over.

Anthony Scaramucci: (11:46)
I'm gonna say two things for editorial comment, my observation, uh, th our standing joke, Trump has never read a book and he's never written one. Although we had several best-sellers, we used to always tease about that, even when Steve Mann and I used to talk to each other, but he had very good instincts. I will always say that about him. He had very good instincts and his instincts were that we needed to do something to stem China's rise. I guess my question to you, was it too late where the forces already in play, where China is exponentially rising, and there's really not much that the Americans can do about it. Yeah,

Josh Rogin: (12:29)
No, I, I, I don't think, first of all, I agree with you on your analysis, but I don't think the goal is to stem, trying to thrive. I think that the goal is to try to shape it, you know what I mean? And then if we can't to protect ourselves and protect the things that we care about and the things that are important to our security and our national security and to our public health, by the way, and, you know, uh, it's that, that effort is just beginning and the Trump administration just played the first inning of it, and it's going to be a long game. Okay, it's going to last a generation. And when you see the fight in industry, and again, the big, what you read about Trump's political instincts is, is, is pointing to, is that, you know, the polls show that Americans want a tougher China policy.

Josh Rogin: (13:10)
They see the Chinese government's actions affecting them in their schools, in their markets, uh, in their tech companies and their social media, everything, right. If they're everywhere and in their public health. So they want somebody to do something about it. Um, so actually the Biden ministration has the chance to take the ball and run with it and actually do a better job if they choose to, but we don't know what they're going to do. I think, because I don't think they know what they're going to do. Um, but yeah, I think Trump diagnosed the problem. He was great at flipping over the chess board. Right. But he couldn't send it back up again,

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:40)
Is that analogy because he was flipping chess boards and card tables and kicking slot machines. And so, uh, the Western world is mostly in agreement about the horror of a potential human rights violation in parts of China. Right. But do countries outside the United States have the will to demand a change, uh, given its economic importance, particularly in Europe and Asia. Yeah, no,

Josh Rogin: (14:05)
It's kind of a weird dynamic in that sense, because you're going to have the United States in Europe being the champions of human rights, but it's actually, you know, the Muslim majority countries and the Asian countries that are most directly affected by China's human rights abuses because there are using Hong Kongers and Taiwanese and Tibetans and weekers and, you know, Kazakhs and all other types of minorities that happens that find themselves living inside China's borders. Those countries are, are, have a problem because they live there. They're not moving. So they got to deal with China one way or the other. And I guess the answer that I could give is that, you know, while we all want to change China, we have to re you know, resist this Eucharistic idea that China's going to become more like us and China's development will be determined by the Chinese people one way or the other.

Josh Rogin: (14:48)
So the thing that we actually have to focus on first is trying this in our countries, right. And on our soil. Right. And that's the, that's the most important thing. That's the thing we have the most influence over. And that's the thing we can really join with both Asian allies on and European allies, because they're facing the same thing. You know, whether you were in the Netherlands or you were in Japan, you know, when the pandemic hit and you wanted your factories in China to send you the masks that you thought you owned, because you thought you were in the factories, you realize that you didn't really own the factories. Right. And then all of a sudden you realize that, oh, wait a second, we've got a problem here. And so that's going to take the, the bigger solutions to sort of not decouple, which is, again, it's kind of a bumper sticker, but to reorient the way that we do business, to recognize the fact that there are certain things that we're going to have to route outside of China.

Josh Rogin: (15:35)
And a lot of that is the money by the way. And I know we're going to get to that, but you know, how the markets deal with Chinese companies, especially those companies that are committing atrocities, right? You want to fight atrocities. Well, it's probably not a good idea to funnel trillions of dollars of American and retirement funds into those companies that are building the concentration camps and shipping the human hair over here. Right. And, uh, you know, when you just think about the scope and scale of that challenge, you realize that it's really something that the United States really can't do alone.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:04)
You said we're going to get to the money. So, so I want to get to the money. And I want you to tell us what you'd like to say about the money. So I'm not going to ask you a question. I want you to frame it in the way that you want our viewers and listeners. Yeah,

Josh Rogin: (16:18)
Sure. Well, let me start. And, you know, by alluding to the story about you and my book, which is, you know, the story of when you came into the Trump administration, when the first time you tried, you decided to sell your, uh, firm to a Chinese company. And, you know, when that was reported, it was all reported wrong. But then when I read the reported it for the book, I came to an epiphany actually. And based on the research that I did with your help actually, and, you know, I, it seems to me that at that time, in 2016, you really couldn't blame wall street firms for thinking about these kinds of transactions were AOK because they had been going on for all this time. And no one had said boo about it. And when the national security community came and knocking on wall street store and said, oh, wait a second, you can't do this type of transaction. Now you can't do this type of transaction. Uh, for sure there was a lot of confusion and there was a lot of conflict and people didn't know what the rules were and the people inside this system didn't know what the rules were. And it was just a total mess. Okay. So I we'll go

Anthony Scaramucci: (17:16)
Back for a second there because I think it's important for people to understand the transactions were happening in a, bought a piece of Hilton. They had a piece of Georgia bank transactions were happening. They were actually referred to me by some very well known private equity people,

Josh Rogin: (17:31)
But you were a relatively small player compared to the billions and billions of dollars.

Speaker 5: (17:36)
Yes. No more training, no, every question.

Anthony Scaramucci: (17:39)
And I never complained about the Syphius decision to block it. There was never any whining on our part. We just moved on. And in many ways I'm grateful that I was able to keep control of the company, but yeah, it all worked out in the end point that I would like to make, or I'd like you to observe. And then you opine upon. And that is, I think wall street was going with the wave of the, the transactions. But I think the NSA was basically saying, wait a minute, some of these companies may be controlled by the Chinese communist party or the Chinese communist army, but the people's Republic, army of result of which they wanted those transactions to stop. And what's your opinion of all that, should they have stopped? Should they?

Josh Rogin: (18:27)
Yeah. So I, so I think what was happening was that the national security community was waking up to this idea that a lot of these investments were problematic for national security reasons. And they were having an internal debate over what to do about it at the same time. They're trying to deal with wall street, not just wall street, by the way, this happened with the tech industry with Hollywood, to an extent or on American campuses. So as the FBI goes around, knocking on all these doors, all these institutions, which protect their independence fiercely, and rightly because we live in a, uh, a pluralistic democracy, it's not the Chinese system, the government can't tell private companies what to do, but at the same time, these national security officials were trying to grapple with what was a real problem. And that real problem was that these acquisitions did have a national security implication and not everybody agreed on what it was.

Josh Rogin: (19:12)
So in that moment, in time that you had Congress dealing with it through Cepheus reform, you had wall street resisting, dealing with it, frankly, because they didn't trust a lot of what the Trump administration was doing because the Trump administration didn't have a lot of credibility. And then you have the national security community trying to manage all this stuff and in the dysfunction of what was going on in the administration. So again, that's my sort of, you know, uh, admission that like, you know, there was, there were plenty of blame to go around. And at that point you couldn't blame wall street for not just falling in line and saying, okay, well we'll just stop every transaction you don't like, but yeah. But when, once you got to like 20, 19 and 2020, I think the story changed. Okay. And basically what happened is you had a much better understanding and discussion of the ways in which wall street was funding Malaysian Chinese companies.

Josh Rogin: (19:57)
And by these, I mean the worst actors I'm talking about, the ones that build the camera's on the concentration camp walls, the ones that build the AI that find weekers in a crowd, and those makers disappear forever. And the ones that are building the missiles and the cyber spies that are attacking us all the time. And now the problem was that you had the commerce department and the NSC and the state department sanctioning those companies. Okay. And at the same time you had wall street increasing its investments in those companies through all sorts of vehicles, not just the CEOs, not just the reverse mergers, I'm talking about the index funds. Okay. I'm talking about directing huge amounts of pensions and other passive institutional investments. So what's the point of sanctioning a company like hick vision for a few billion dollars. If the index funds are going to bake that up for them, tenfold, you know, it's ridiculous. It's, it's a, it's a, it was a total contradiction and that still hasn't been resolved. And that's where the, the bleeding edge of the fight is now. And these wall street firms are still resisting this idea that, wait a minute, we're going to have to merge these two things. The natural, real national security concerns without overreacting. And the fact that these firms have are independent and have to look out for their investor interest. And that conversation is really hard, but it's really not going very well, to be honest.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:12)
Well, you know, it, it brings up this question and you write a lot about it in the book, and this is basically the foreign influence operations of the Chinese government. So describe that. What does that look like?

Josh Rogin: (21:25)
It means that, you know, if we don't have the same standards for Chinese companies that we have for all other companies, especially American companies, if we can't audit their books, if we don't know how much the Chinese communist party is involved in these companies, spoiler alert, they're involved in all the companies, right? Because the subtext here is that what changing thing has done is he's installed Chinese communist party committees and all these corporations and the ones that don't talk to the party line gets squashed. Okay, look what happened to Jack ma okay, look what happened to H and a, the guy that fell off the wall. Right. Look what happened to the head of, on bond who met with Jared and at the Waldorf, his story, he's gone 18 years in prison, right? So there's something going on in China that we've got to just be honest about.

Josh Rogin: (22:04)
And that's the fact that these companies are no, are all under the thumb of the Chinese communist party, but not all to the same extent. Okay. And so that means we have to think about what it means to do business with them. And, you know, right now that conversation is just impossible to have because we can't even audit their books. And there's been so much lax, uh, attention to the, how much they're in our markets and how much of our capital is going into their coffers. And so the panic amongst the national security people was like, okay, well, we just got to turn off the spigot. Okay. And that's kind of like an overreaction in a sense, but until the wall street firms, you know, get it in their head. And now I'm talking to you guys directly that this is not going away. And that the calls for increased transparency, accountability, and to stop Americans from passively investing in Chinese companies that are committing atrocities are not going away there.

Josh Rogin: (22:56)
You're going to have to deal with it sooner or later. And the argument is that this represents a material risk for your investors, whether you admit it or not, because eventually, you know, changing thing, when you squat squashes, Jack ma, that's going to affect our investments. Eventually when the guy falls off the wall, that's going to affect that company. You know, and eventually when people in America realized that his vision is building the cameras that go on top of the concentration camp walls, regular American investors are going to be like, wait a second, that we don't want to be involved in that. So I think the resistance to dealing with these problems on wall street has got to give, and then on the national security side, there's gotta be more understanding of the competing interest evolves.

Anthony Scaramucci: (23:35)
Yeah. I think it's fast. I'm going to turn it over to John and a second, but I want to talk about the south China sea. And I want to talk about some of the bellicosity of rhetoric that I hear from time to time about a potential military strike on Taiwan and the United States, uh, falling back on its obligations to the time when he's, what are your thoughts there?

Josh Rogin: (23:58)
Well, I have a quote in the book where a GOP Senator goes to president Trump in the oval office. And he says to him, it was just told to me by the Senator himself. And he says to him, listen, you know, I know you don't really care about Hong Kong, but if you let Hong Kong go, Taiwan is going to be next and that's going to be on you. It's going to be bad for your reputation. It's like playing to Trump's vanity is many officials often did, as you know, and Trump looks at me in the eye and he says, uh, we're 8,000 miles away from Taiwan. China's two feet away. If they attack there, isn't an effing thing we can do about it. That's what he said. That's what he thought. That's what the president of United States believes that it actually defending Taiwan as is our policy is not really the thing that we would do if push comes to shove.

Josh Rogin: (24:38)
Now, my opinion is that when you sort of backed down on things like Taiwan, like Hong Kong, you know, you emboldened teaching things, appetite, his appetite, rose with the eating and he'll push as far as we let him. And that actually the way to avoid a conflict in Taiwan is to deter choosing thing from even trying, right. And that means being a little bit tougher up front, rather than having to decide later, whether you send American or Japanese or Korean, uh, boys and girls to go fight the Chinese. Cause that's a horrible situation for all involved. So, you know, is the, are we over, you know, uh, hyping the Taiwan for it, perhaps, perhaps, but it doesn't mean that we can ignore it. And it doesn't mean that if we just say we're ignoring it, that they won't take that as a clear signal to advance.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:27)
So you didn't really a hundred percent answer the question. I'm not a journalist, but I'm going to give you a follow up now, go for it. They, they invade Taiwan. Yes or no.

Josh Rogin: (25:36)
Uh, eventually, but the question is whether it's in two years, five years, 10 years, 20 years. Right. And what we want to do is we want to deter that as long as possible, because we don't know what's going to happen in China choosing things king forever, but he doesn't live forever. And that system is got its own challenges. So it's not a question of if they will want to evade Taiwan, it's a question of when do they think they can get away with it right now? They don't think they can get, if they thought they could get away with it right now, don't do it right now. You know? And we'll see what happens in two years in four years. But I think our, our, we have to make it clear to them that they wouldn't get away with it to make sure they don't try

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:12)
It. I, I understood, you know, my, my thinking has always been that they have such strong integration in the economies that it just eventually falls into their hands one way or the other without a military invasion. But yeah,

Josh Rogin: (26:27)
But that's, that's what we saw in Hong Kong. Right? Exactly. So that's a cautionary tale. That's not a, that's not a model, right? The Taiwanese looked at the Hong Kong model. We

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:36)
Don't want that. No, I'm not saying I want that even for a minute because there's a great amount of freedom and independence in versus, you know, and, and, you know, believe it or not, I'm old enough to remember when the British controlled Hong Kong and visited there. And it was a totally different city than it is today. Um, but here's my last question. Before I turn it over to John, one thing on Hong Kong before, please, please.

Josh Rogin: (27:01)
So another, here's another decision for the wall street community. Are you going to, uh, are, are wall street firms going to continue to treat Hong Kong as a bastion of rule of law and justice and accountability and free markets though? It's not the case anymore. In other words, it is the Chinese government who are going to be able to have Taiwan and eat it too. And I think that's a, right now, the signs are that the big firms are trying to make it okay to do business in Kong Kong in the middle of the crackdown. And then I think there's a lot of people who don't like that at all.

Anthony Scaramucci: (27:32)
You want my opinion, Josh? Sure. Uh, the, you know, they, they will continue to try to do business there because they, uh, and they will, you know, use cognitive dissonance and say, they're doing that because they think they're in the camp that you described of people. The more business, more commerce will lead to more freedom, which will lead to a breakdown of autocracy. So not that that's true or that's an alibi to do the business. That's what they'll say, but, but I have a different question, you know, can Tom Patel, who John and I interviewed about six, seven months ago is a strategist wrote a great bestselling book on strategy that actually Nelson Mandela praised. He said that China is seven balkanized provinces, and there's a lot of independent streaks in those provinces. And it's not clear that the Chinese communist party can keep its hold on what we formerly know as China forever. Moreover, and I'm interested in your take on this. A one party systems have about a 70 year life expectancy, the Russian, uh, CCP, the USSR 70 years, one party system in Japan folded after 70 years recently, one folded in Malaysia about three years ago, Mexico, 70 years, the Chinese are in overtime 72 years in clocking. So is there any truth to what he's saying that there might be false under the surface of what looks like a fairly well knitted, uh, autocracy.

Josh Rogin: (29:11)
Yeah, no, I, I mean, I take a different view. So I mean, there's no doubt that there's severe challenges in China and challenges to the governance, but if you talk to the people in China and I do as much as I can, especially those Americans in Western who were still out to go there, but also regular Chinese citizens. It's clear that the Chinese communist party has a firm grip on power and a firm grip on the economy, in the military and on society. And in fact has expanded its control over those other provinces, right? What are those provinces to bet Jinjiang inner Mongolia, right? These are the places where the repression is the worst. There's a reason that they're sending millions of Han Chinese there and putting all the native people in camps, right? Because that they're, they're avoiding what this guy is proposing. And you know, bottom line is that, you know, we can't base our strategy on waiting for them to collapse because that may never happen. And you know, if you're a, uh, a 40 year old, uh, I'm 42, if you're a 42 year old person in China, you've lived your whole life receiving almost nothing but Chinese, uh, propaganda. And you probably support your government. You probably believe that everything's hunky Dory. And there are some people who know the truth is still support their government. So I, we can't just wish away this problem. We're going to actually have to deal with it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (30:25)
Okay. Well, you, you, uh, I'm turning it over to John Dorsey. Who's dying to ask questions and I might point out he has those designer millennial eye frames now. So he's going to try to look hip today. Go ahead, John.

John Darcie: (30:39)
I had to work on my appearance for the cameras now that we're, we're all movie stars in the zoom era, but, um, I want to talk about the future a little bit. You know, your book has a lot about Trump. You do. And we talked a little bit earlier about the Biden administration, but it seems like the Biden administration has been dealt a stronger position than maybe the Trump administration was dealt in terms of their leverage over China, with things like tariffs current fully in place. How do you think the byte administration is going to proceed on things like tariffs and other, uh, other things that maybe the, the Trump administration did related to China, they might use as leverage in the future. Right.

Josh Rogin: (31:16)
Great question. So right now I identify three camps on China inside the Biden administration. Roughly one is sort of the, uh, engagers, the optimists, right? This is led by people like John Kerry and Susan Rice who were part of that Obama administration last gasp strategy to focus on cooperation. Now, you know, of course, when you hear 20 blankets, we need some cooperation. We need some competition. We need some computation. That's true as far as it goes, but it's also kind of like, it doesn't tell us anything at all, of course, where it's going to be a mix of all of these things, but the people who wanted to focus more on cooperation, uh, those people don't have the ball right now, right? I'm the relationship. The people who are running the policy are Jake Sullivan and Tony Blinken and Kurt Campbell. And, uh, they're in the competition camp.

Josh Rogin: (32:00)
And because they've been given the ball because they're in control of the policy, you've seen a lot of the Trump administration, uh, uh, initiatives continued, right? They haven't traded away of the tariffs. They haven't, you know, they, they actually increased the sanctions there. The commerce department is keeping up all of its Walway restrictions. Uh, by, in large with a couple of the genocide, determination is reaffirmed. So as long as this camp has control, uh, you're going to see a lot of continuity, more multilateral. It's going to be a little bit nicer that could actually make it more effective. You know, there'll be more values stuff in there. The third camp of course, is the political camp, right? And these are actually, this is actually the most powerful camp. These are the people close to the president, uh, who were in charge of protecting the presidency and protecting his political agenda.

Josh Rogin: (32:47)
And right now they're siding with the competitors because they can read the polls, right? And the polls show clearly that Americans want a tougher approach towards China. And that's partially because of the pandemic, but not all because of the pandemic. So as long as the two out of three wins the day. So as long as the politics of the China issue, favor a tougher approach. And as long as the, uh, competitive camp, uh, is in control of the policy, uh, w we should see a bunch of continuity and not total continuity, but the test will come when the other camp mounts, its offense like when, and when the dangle comes and eventually Beijing will come with a dangle and they'll say, okay, do you want a climate field? Do you want it to Randy? If he wants something else? And then president vinyl will have to decide whether or not to take that dangle or not.

John Darcie: (33:30)
Right. I want to talk about president Obama. You talked about how there's that camp within the Biden administration of ex Obama officials that generally take a more conciliatory collaborative, if you will approach to China. Uh, they also drew some red lines in the middle east that weren't enforced gruesome red lines as it relates to the south China sea that weren't enforced. How much do you think over that eight year period when president Obama was president that China, since his unwillingness to confront them in places like the south China sea and were able to sort of consolidate power in a way that we had a general, I'm not going to name his name that we spoke to on the sidelines of one of our salt conferences that basically said when Obama began his presidency, if, if we had decided to invade China militarily, we could have probably succeeded in that invasion and subdued them on, on a certain level. Uh, you know, at the beginning of that presidency today, that is absolutely impossible to do. They've strategically built out all these military installations in such a way that we, we have no military leverage over them. How much do you think, uh, during that presidency, uh, China was able to ascend and, and, uh, and create that power structure that prevents us from really confronting them in a meaningful way.

Josh Rogin: (34:41)
Right? Well, you know, there's no doubt that, you know, the, the first big opportunity that the Chinese leadership saw was during the 2008 financial crisis. And then the next big opportunity was during the coronavirus prices, but in between they executed a number of five-year plans, as you know, uh, to advance their interests on a global scale. Now, you know, Gigi pink came to power in 2013, right? Even in 2013, he didn't have real good control. Uh, it took him a while to consolidate that control. And all during that time, when he was weak, uh, he was telling the Obama people, especially vice-president Biden, by the way, who we had 25 hours of dinner with when they were both vice-presidents, uh, that everything was going to be fine. And they signed a, uh, cyber security deal and they signed it. He promised not to expand militarize the south China sea.

Josh Rogin: (35:28)
And we now know that he was lying about all of that stuff and that he was abusing their, uh, trust and confidence and consolidating power the whole time until the point where he could, you know, throw off dang shopping's mantra of bide your time and hydro Spanglish, and actively promote what he now calls the rejuvenation of the China dream. And, you know, at that time inside the Obama administration, again, you have the same camp, right? You had the same divisions, you had the same people, right. And if you think about it, you know, back then rice and Kerry were the bosses. They were the national security visors secretary of state. Now they're the staffers and their former staffers are their bosses, if you believe that. Right. So the, the camps actually switched offices literally, but in the same building and they're sitting there. And so, you know, I, I, you know, again, just like everything else, like you could make an excuse for why they wanted to let that optimism play out. And there were, there were plenty of people inside the system, even in 2015 and 2016 that were like, Hey, wait a second, we've got a problem here. We gotta do something different. And I think my opinion is clear that the Obama administration was slow to respond to that evidence.

John Darcie: (36:40)
Right? Switching gears a little bit, you write a lot about China's digital despotism about how they've used technology, both domestically to, uh, control and surveil its population, and internationally been very aggressive in terms of stealing intellectual property, uh, and conducting all types of foreign influence operations. Uh, how does China, just for people that are less familiar with those operations, how do they use technology domestically and also internationally in their influence operations? And how is that a template for other dictators around the world in terms of, uh, digital despotism, as you talk about,

Josh Rogin: (37:14)
Right. Well, this speaks to Anthony Anthony's questions perfectly because you know, it, this is how they break out of that cycle of, of these, uh, dictatorships that ended up folding is that they buy their way out of it and they tech their way out of it. And, uh, you know, we've never seen a totalitarian authoritarian dictatorship that had these kinds of resources and those kinds of technology. And, you know, when we blasted radio free Europe and radio Liberty over the iron curtain, you know, into east Germany, uh, we have the technological advantage, you know, they couldn't stop it. And now they have the technological tool advantage in a lot of ways, especially on their own tariffs. And we can't get through the grid firewall, except in certain cases. And their tech companies are actually beating our tech companies. And then our tech companies can't compete because they get robbed blind.

Josh Rogin: (38:01)
And even when they don't get robbed, robbed blind, uh, they become hostages. I mean, just look what happened to H and M and Nike, the latest hostages, right? So what they do is they take this control over their populous, right? They represent a 1.4 billion Chinese people, and they get that those people have no choice. They have to buy whatever they say, do whatever they say, read whatever social media they say they have to, the party controls everything in a way that we've never seen before. So if Nike says, Hey, I don't really want to use slave labor produced cotton. Uh, okay, well then your whole businesses could put in a second and apple says, oh, well, we don't want to give the privacy data of our users make that available to anyone with an app. And then 10 Chinese companies come together to build the technology to get around that.

Josh Rogin: (38:46)
And apple can't do anything because the giant Chinese communist party, uh, holds, uh, an ax of literally over their head and could bring it down on them any time. Uh, so that just, and then how did they use the technology at home? Well, what they do is they are developing. I mean, when you talk about artificial intelligence, they take all of the data that because people in China don't have rights to their own data. Now that we have total control over a debt, but I'm just saying there it's worse. And then they use it to scoop up minorities and put them in internment camps. Okay. They have, they're using the technology to implement a racist mass atrocities, and then they're using it to go find those people in other countries. And if you're a weaker living in France and you get on a Facebook group and Francis pass, the link you clicked on is actually a malicious link that will compromise everything you have and lead to your family, getting scooped up.

Josh Rogin: (39:38)
So that's about as, uh, as, as malicious as it gets. And the social credit aspect is particularly pernicious because, you know, if you're the NBA or if you're Marriott hotels, or if your coach, and you dare to run a foul of like the unpredictable and delicate sensibilities of the Chinese communist party, you stand to lose billions of dollars in the, in the blink of an eye. And again, I would just, again, point to your, uh, wall street risk calculations. Is that factored in, is that factored into the cost and risks of doing business? I don't think so. I don't think that that most wall street firms or most corporations in America are looking at that and saying, oh, wait a second. Did the MBA factor in that one tweak, we cost them $400 million. Well, that's what happened. Okay. So as they get more repressive and use their technology in more insidious ways, that has an effect on our businesses and our impacts on our pocket books and our freedoms.

John Darcie: (40:34)
Right. Last question I want to ask you, and it's, you know, you talk about it in the title of your book. It's the battle for the 21st century between the United States and China? What is it that, that China is fighting for really, you know, do they have a different vision for the world? And they want to impose, uh, you know, th their communist system on the entire world. They, they want the Chinese culture to pervade every corner of the world. What is it they're really fighting for? And what is the battle that they're trying to win you? The United States, at least there's the perception that we're trying to fight for, you know, our, our liberal values, uh, that our country was founded on. But what is China? What is China's end game here when you talk about their 50 to a hundred year plans?

Josh Rogin: (41:15)
Right. Well, I mean, if you listen to what changing things says and read what he's written, uh, what you see is a very clear pattern of him talking about an ideological and political struggle with the west, where the values of like freedom of speech, journalism, you know, freedom of assembly, religion, that all of these things are seen by him personally, uh, not only is things to compete with, but as direct threats to the legitimacy of the Chinese communist party and its rule. Okay. So that's a way of saying that China's goal China will, the Chinese government will always say, well, we don't interfere in free societies. Well, what about the fact that they're exporting all of those technologies, uh, to, to dictators all over the world, that they're trying to recreate their model of repression and aggression, uh, and expanding their economic reach in ways that put these countries at a disadvantage?

Josh Rogin: (42:06)
You know, I think the, the, the best way to think of it, and I think is a very fair way to think of it is that China doesn't want to rule the world. China wants a world where its rule is uncontested. In other words, they want to make the world safe for autocracy. Okay. And that means not that we can't have a world order and international norms that can be enforced. So if they can just change the world, order enough so that their model, uh, is not challenged, and they're able to do what they want all over the world, while still enjoying the benefits that our world order gives them. They still want the access to our markets. They still want access to our capital. They still want all of that soft power influence. They just don't want to play by any of the rules.

Josh Rogin: (42:47)
That's the goal is to destroy the rules so that they can do whatever they want. And that's not a Chinese led world order, per se. That's just a world order that probably we can't live with. And I just to finish the thought, you know, that, I think what that tells us is that, you know, we don't, we shouldn't be in the business of trying to force the world to choose between the United States and China. We can't get into one of these situations where only one of us can survive. We have to somehow find a, uh, a relationship that both sides can live with to avoid the conflict that neither side seeks. And that involves convincing the Chinese leadership, that they can't have their cake and eat it too. And that involves fixing our democracy and fixing our, our systems so that they actually are better. And that they actually do what they say they're going to do and deliver for our people.

John Darcie: (43:34)
And do you think there's a path to that outcome? You know, talking about the acidities trap and avoiding a greater confrontation, is there a path to, it seems like China is enjoying a lot of the economic spoils that come along with, with their system and people while they pay lip service to human rights issues that people still still commercially do business in China. Are they not enjoying those spoils today? And is there a path to equilibrium,

Josh Rogin: (44:00)
Suffice to say, we're not doing well, we're not rising to this challenge. They bet they've got a 20 year head start, at least. Uh, but the first thing to do is to admit that you have a problem. And I think that is the, if you want to say silver lining of the chaos of the Trump years is that everyone sort of immense. We have a problem. Now we have to figure out what we can do about it. And, you know, the, the, the thing that we can do by the way is to actually live up to our principles. And if we actually enforced, you know, transparency, accountability, rule of law, justice, human rights, democracy of speech, true journalism, all of those things are not aimed at China, right? We don't have to make them about trying to those are about us. And if we just did all of those things, we'd be in a much better place than we are today. But no, to answer your question, we're not doing those things. And right now it's not going well.

John Darcie: (44:47)
Well, Josh, you talked in the opening about how you hope to kickstart this conversation. I think you did that in a great way with your book. Um, so thank you for writing it and thank you for coming on salt talks. We think these topics are going to be continually more relevant over the coming decades for, for young people like you and me, Anthony, you know, he's, uh, we're going to put them out to pasture soon. So he doesn't have to worry about these things quite as,

Anthony Scaramucci: (45:09)
Um, I'm younger than president Shea, be careful. Okay. I'll give you, as you both know, president, she is listening. He didn't like the last comment that you made Dorsey. So let me pull up the book. I think it's a brilliant exposition of what is going on. I congratulate you on the book, Josh, before we do let you go, what's next? What are you working on next?

Josh Rogin: (45:31)
They say writing a book is like having a baby. It takes two years for the pain to wear off before you want to do it again. Uh, I'm looking forward to, uh, you know, uh, a period of covering this administration, holding them to account, making sure that they don't, you know, forget everything that happens in the last four years, but also making sure that they don't repeat everything that happened in the last four years. It would be terrible if the partisanship and toxicity that pervaded our politics and our media continued and even got worse, because that is going to bleed into all of the issues that we have to solve. So we are where we are. You can't go back and fix the last four years, but we can at least get together on this thing and admit that, you know, we can't have the type of politics, uh, that we had in the past. And if my columns and my work and contribute to a common understanding of our shared experience and our shared humanity, and that's my goal, that's what I want to do next.

Anthony Scaramucci: (46:23)
Well, congratulations on the book. I'm looking forward to your byline and other stuff that you work on, and I want to get you to the salt conference. Maybe we can get a couple of people together and get them in the mix and discuss what's going on with the U S and China, apple, have you moderate something like that for us,

John Darcie: (46:43)
One, one name that we spoke about in this talk that we won't reveal that's within the Biden administration that focuses on Asia policy. That's actually confirmed to speak in September on these topics. So, you know, maybe, maybe we get you involved in that conversation. And

Anthony Scaramucci: (46:57)
I'm recommending your book to all of my wall street pragmatists that still liked Chinese Hong Kong cooking. Okay, Josh, we're going to try to get them to rethink themselves. It's a smarter play. It's a smarter

Josh Rogin: (47:11)
Play, to be honest about what's going on in China, it will be we'll end up doing better in the long run. Even if you take a short term hit.

Anthony Scaramucci: (47:17)
I think, I think it's well said, and I think that's probably true about most things in life, Josh. Okay. Most, most things take longer than 11 days. Josh Rogan. Don't forget that. Okay. You want

Josh Rogin: (47:28)
To be right at the, it's not in the beginning, right? Amen. All right. Well, thank

John Darcie: (47:31)
You. Your estimate. Don't talking about chaos. Don't underestimate the amount of chaos you can create in 11 days. Yeah. 11 days I rub it in guys. She's loosening rubbing it. All right. Well, thank you Josh again for joining us and thank you everybody for tuning in to today's salt talk, uh, about Josh's book chaos under heaven about the Trump administration's approach to China and the battle for the 21st century. Just to remind you, if you missed any part of this talk or any of our previous talks, you can access our entire archive on our website@sault.org backslash talks and on our YouTube channel, which is called salt tube. We're on social media. Please follow us. Twitter is where we're most active at salt conference, but we're also on LinkedIn, Instagram, and Facebook. And please spread the word about these salt talks. We love educating people on these issues, uh, and today being another important one, but on behalf of Anthony and the entire salt team, this is John Darcie signing off from salt talks for today. We hope to see you back here soon.

Don Lemon: "This Is the Fire: What I Say to My Friends About Racism" | SALT Talks #185

“The events that happened over the last five years uncovered the toxicity and ugliness when it comes to racism, the underbelly of society. I think the Trump administration exposed that… The boldness was fairly shocking.”

Don Lemon is host of CNN Tonight with Don Lemon and also serves as a correspondent across the network’s programming. He recently authored the book, This Is the Fire: What I Say to My Friends About Racism.

James Baldwin’s book The Fire Next Time marked the 100th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation and served as the inspiration for Don Lemon’s This Is the Fire: What I Say to My Friends About Racism. The civil unrest stemming from the death of George Floyd created the urgency to write personally about the ugliness laid bare by the last four years of former President Trump’s rhetoric and policies. Language coming out of the White House offered affirmation to those motivated by white supremacist ideology. “We know there is a resurgence of neo-Nazi’s which I think would’ve been hidden if not for Donald Trump. He had become their imprimatur.”

When watching Trump’s speech on January 6th, violence appeared inevitable following months of misinformation spread about President Biden’s victory. Vulnerability to such manipulation can traced to schools’ whitewashed teaching of the country’s history. This emphasizes the importance of curriculum that contains unvarnished truths and also highlights the significant contributions to the United States by African-Americans.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Don Lemon.jpeg

Don Lemon

Anchor

CNN Tonight

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darcie: (00:07)
Hello everyone. And welcome back to salt talks. My name is John Darcie. I'm the managing director of salt, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance technology and public policy. Salt talks are a digital interview series with leading investors, creators, and thinkers. And our goal on these salt talks is the same as our goal at our salt conferences, which is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future. And we are thrilled today to welcome the great Don lemon to salt talks. I know Anthony has been on Don show many times and, uh, we're, we're big fans of your show. They're on CNN, uh, Mr. Lemon, but Don lemon, anchor CNN tonight with Don lemon airing weeknights at 10:00 PM.

John Darcie: (00:56)
He also serves as a correspondent across CNN, us programming. Uh, he's based out of the network, New York bureau. Uh, he joined CNN in September of 2006. He's a news veteran of Chicago, however, and he reported reported from Chicago in the days leading up to the 2008 presidential election in which we saw a president Obama, a Chicago native would be elected the first African-American president, including an interview within representative Rama manual. On the day that he accepted the position of chief of staff for president elect Barack Obama. He also interviewed Anne Cooper, the 106 year old voter that president Obama highlighted in his election night acceptance speech. After he had seen, uh, Don's interview with Cooper on CNN. Uh, Don also served as the moderator for CNN political town halls and co moderated the first 2020 democratic presidential debate. And co-hosted color of COVID a special that addressed the pandemic's impact on communities of color. Don is also out with a great book that Anthony will talk about in the opening here called this is the fire talking about race relations in the United States, which is a must read, uh, in this era in any era, frankly, but hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, who I was alluding to who was a founder and managing partner of SkyBridge. I know Anthony has been on the show with Don many times. Anthony is also the chairman of salts. And with that, I'll turn it over to Anthony to begin the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:21)
So, so, so Don would Darcie wanted to say, but I had to take it out of the script that he loves your show, except when I'm on it. Okay. But I had a, I had a mark that out of the script, but just give me a sense for the type of people we're dealing with on Saltdogs.

Don Lemon: (02:36)
Did you hear that? He called me Mr. Limit. Yeah. I heard that. Yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:41)
Yeah. I mean, I, I may have to start calling you that I could, you know, at someday it could be sir lemon. You'd never know Don the way your career's going. I have no idea, but let, we could start out with sir, but I'm holding up the book for a reason. First of all, the covers. Fantastic. This is the fire. What I say, my friends about racism and obviously Don anchors, CNN tonight, a great cover. Why did you title it? This, I want you to go into the reasons why you've mentioned them in the book, but why do you title it this, and you write about your nieces and nephews about the fight to end racism, give us some sense for how this book came together and why you titled it

Don Lemon: (03:21)
That well, this book is a tribute to James Baldwin and it was fashion in, um, in a sense to, uh, to James Baldwin's book, the fire next time, which was my favorite book. And one of the first books, well, not one of the first book, but the book that really changed my life. And you can see, this is my original copy from one of the original.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:41)
We, we get a lot of young people that listen into Saul talks. Obviously I want them to read that book as well as this one. So for those young people, they're not as familiar with James Baldwin as you and I are. Uh, tell us who James Baldwin was and why he had such a big impact on Don lemon,

Don Lemon: (04:00)
James Ball with Don lemons. James Baldwin was a revolutionary, uh, writer and author and thinker of his time, uh, from the 1960s, seventies and eighties. Um, and do you remember he, you know, he would do talks with William F. Buckley and, you know, he was just a great thinker, um, and, um, a great, um, uh, thought leader of his time. And he wrote a lot about race relations in this country. He happened to be gay, a gay black man from Harlem. I'm a gay black man from the south. So when I picked up his book as a freshman in college, it really changed my life. And the book is called the fire. Next time. It's a short book. He starts off the book with a letter to his nephew on the 100 year anniversary of the emancipation proclamation. And so as I was sitting around Anthony, as you know, uh, at the matrix of really what had, what has been happening in the country over the last couple of years, but especially the, the unrest that took place last summer, uh, with the death of culminating in the death of George Florida and then the protests that happened.

Don Lemon: (05:00)
Um, and in that moment, I decided it was time for me to write a book about race and I wanted to, to be as impactful as the fire next time, which is my favorite book. And as powerful as that book and as revolutionary as that book, um, not that I'm James Baldwin, I'm not trying to be him. There's only one hand. Only one person could put words on paper like he did. Uh, and so this is the answer to that. He, in his book, he said, uh, when, when he talked about race, he said, God gave Noah the rainbow sign, no more water, the fire next time speaking specifically about the race issue in this country. And so my book, after all those events happen this summer, I said, well, this is the fire that James Baldwin talked about. We're in the fire now. And thus came my book and I begin it like James Baldwin with a letter to my great nephew. You

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:46)
Know, it, it, it it's fascinating. Cause I read obviously the works of James Baldwin as a kid, I got invited to a, this conference on race awareness when was in high school and, uh, Eddie Glaude, professor Eddie Glaude who, you know, obviously wrote a book last summer, begin again about James Baldwin. And so I find it fascinating these back with us, but something that struck me about your book that I'd like you to address is that you talk about your trials and tribulations with racism growing up where you did. I want you to tell our listeners and viewers where you grew up and some of those tribulations, but I want to ask you a question and ask you to think about it for a second, growing up and being where you are today, the arc of your career has been tremendous, but did you think, and I'll, I'll answer for myself. I thought the racism was going to decline as we were growing up, you know, the introduction of James Baldwin, Martin Luther king Jr. The idea that we're all the same and we should judge ourselves by the content of our character, but that did not happen. And so my question to you is did you think that growing up where you aspirational, idealistic like that or?

Don Lemon: (07:03)
Yeah, I think we're both the eighties. Uh, you know, I grew up was born in the sixties. The seventies shaped me, but the eighties really had, uh, had a profound impact on me because you know, the eighties were kind of, everybody was free.

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:15)
You you're not catching the smirking from Darcie who was born last week. Okay. Just want to point that out to you. Okay. You're not ignoring him. Try to ignore him. You're a fellow baby boomer like me. We have to team up on him. Otherwise we have no shot here. Nope. Nope. I'm

Don Lemon: (07:31)
Gen X, right? You're a baby boomer.

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:34)
Okay. All right. That's true. The last year of the baby boomers, Botox

John Darcie: (07:38)
That can make you look as young as Don, but keep going,

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:42)
But let me tell you something, there are much more Botox experiments ahead in my future Darcie. So it may not look that way now, but it's coming. Okay. So just take it easy over there. Botox, dude, I can barely move my face at this point. Notice if you don't notice,

Don Lemon: (08:01)
Let me see if I can barely have a glass

Anthony Scaramucci: (08:05)
Of lemon. I can barely have a glass of water at this point in my life. Okay. I'm using, I'm using double straws now on my Starbucks in the morning. Now Darcie's enjoying that because I'm getting roasted. Let's go back to your thoughts about idealism and where we

Don Lemon: (08:22)
Are. So I was a child of the sixties, really. You know, I don't remember much of the sixties. I was born in 66, right. But I remember the, the seventies and eighties and the eighties. That's when I was coming into my own, I was becoming a young man and an adult. And I went to a high school at first. I went to an all-black Catholic school and then ended up going to a high school that was predominantly white. Um, and so I started having interactions with all types of people and people began being open about, you know, intermingling and, and getting together. This was, you know, a decade after had become integrated in the south. I went to my high school a decade after it had become integrated. Um, and so I thought the same way, I kept thinking as I was growing up, well, this is going to change.

Don Lemon: (09:06)
It's going to die off. When the old people die off, you know, it's going to go away. Uh, and then the events, especially that happened over the last five years or so, just started to uncover, um, all of the toxicity and ugliness when it comes to racism, the sort of underbelly of our society, if you will. Um, I think that the Trump administration exposed that, uh, and it was a rude awakening for a lot of people. It wasn't surprising that it was there, but to the boldness, that, to the degree that it was for me was actually fairly shocking. And so, I don't know if you remember in the book where I said that Trump was, I hated to say it, but he was the president we, we deserve. And probably the one we needed in the moment. No, I mean,

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:52)
I'm, I'm going to get there. I think that's a fascinating part of the book.

Don Lemon: (09:55)
I was optimistic that racism would diminish as I got older five years. It has not done. Yeah, no,

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:03)
Not only that. It was probably cloaked, a little bit of anything. President Trump, as you point out of the book exposed, it may, maybe that will help us get to a better point. I want to go to your mom first and then we'll get to Donald Trump. But, uh, and I have not met your mom.

Don Lemon: (10:18)
It's weird. What's that? She loves you. I don't know why it's weird probably cause you turned on the orange menace and she does not

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:24)
Like it. And she probably is happy. I predicted a lot of the stuff that was going to happen, that she was, she drew comfort from that. Right.

Don Lemon: (10:31)
Can I tell you later when we talk about, you know, what are you exposed as far as race? He also, um, quite frankly, made people a lot more politically engaged because my mom was never that political and now she listens to everything. She despised him. And if she didn't despise him before he started attacking me, certainly afterwards, she couldn't

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:51)
Say, yeah, well, I mean, look, I mean, listen, you're, I have not met your mom yet. Although, uh, Dierdre my wife, Deirdre and I had a chance to see her on your new year's Eve special with Brooke Baldwin and uh, no surprise to viewer. She stole the show. Uh, you, you know, she has more charisma in her little finger than all of us do. Okay. You just beautiful manifestation of authenticity, but you write something in the book about traveling to Africa, with her and the emotions that you both felt in Africa and your connection to your mom. So can you share that with us? I don't want to give the book away, but there's some beautiful passages here that I want to talk about so that I can get convinced people to buy this book and spend the time to read

Don Lemon: (11:36)
It. Well. So long story short, we did a segment on CNN, all the anchors on, uh, tracing our roots. And so I had to go back to Louisiana and then of course, you know, back to the continent of Africa to do it. And we went to the slave coast, uh, the, the Cape coast castle on the slave coast last gold coast because they can overlap in Africa and, um, to trace the journey back to America. And so we ended up at this castle with the Dungeons where the slaves with, with shackles and it was just really this just heavy experience. Um, and once we got out to, you know, we'll tell you what happened in that dungeon. You can only imagine people in the dungeon and shackles for months. Sometimes we get to the place called the, uh, the door of no return where you go out and you board the slave ship. And it was the last, really the last land that anybody saw in Africa as they left to make that journey across the Atlantic and walking through that door with my mother and us holding hands was probably the most emotional experience I've ever

Anthony Scaramucci: (12:39)
Had in my life. I mean, it, it, it, it, it moved me to tears. Uh, Don, I have to say, that's why I wanted to address it. I folded the pages over your mother says, I have to confess something said, mom, I'm glad we came, but I'm glad I don't live here. Tell us what she means.

Don Lemon: (12:58)
Well, this was after that experience. And because after that experience, you go to, they changed the name. And when you turn around, which really made us cry and gave us optimism is a door of return. And so after we shot that the door of no return, the door returned, and we saw the kids playing in the sea, which I write about and carefree in the book. We go back to the hotel that night and we're just going over the day. And we were sitting by the sea. We have a bottle of wine. My mom opens up to me and talks to me about how, how much she loved me, loves me how proud she was of me or isn't me. And, um, she said, you showed me things. I'm, I'm the adult. I'm supposed to be showing you things and teaching you things, but you have showed me things that I had never thought that I would see or learn or do in my life.

Don Lemon: (13:43)
And I'm just so proud of you. And I just, I love you so much. Um, and then she said, but I have to be honest with you. I'm glad we don't live here because I don't, um, I don't know if I could accept or understand this degree of poverty. And, um, she said, if I'd lived here, I probably wouldn't know. Um, but she also said, we also wondered about those kids in the sea if they had a freedom. Um, and, um, a lack of, self-aware not self-awareness, but a self, um, consciousness that we didn't have as adults, because we knew America. And that we had learned too much about what people can do and the degradation that people can face because those children were so carefree. So there was, um, there were positives and negatives. She was glad she didn't live there, but she wondered just how free she would be in her mind, how carefree had we stayed there.

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:39)
But why you say something fascinating? The writing's excellent. By the way you say that this journey, uh, it's your own unique journey, but it's American. It's an journey. Tell us, tell us what you mean.

Don Lemon: (14:55)
Well, we went back as Americans expecting to have all of the luxuries that Americans have. You know, we get off the airplane if they're flying first class and we expect to get there and, and be in the four seasons and that's not going to happen or even to be in the holiday Inn. And that's just not what, what happened. Uh, I had been to Africa many times, but my mom had never been there. So she didn't understand the poverty that she would see. She didn't understand. Um, just how, uh, the, the, the lack of modern conveniences in many places that she would experience. And for her, it was real eye opening because she had never seen anything like that in America ever. And so we had a uniquely American experience where we expected everyone to cater to us and every, you know, everything to be ready for us and handed to us on a silver platter. We don't realize how, how you know, how good we have it here many times. Yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:50)
So it's an interesting dichotomy because there's, uh, there's a racially charged society. Uh, yet there's a lot of great things that are happening in America. A lot of aspirational things. And I, and I got from you when you use the word American, uh, to me, what got me goosebumps was you're here to inject hope. You're here to provide hope and you're here to move things forward. And so as an American who loves the country, you're about progress. Is that, is that what I'm getting? Am I getting the right?

Don Lemon: (16:21)
That was well, that wasn't from the C thing, the C thing was just sort of us going over. That was more about a personal experience in journey for us about how we felt personally, the door of return was that part of it was, that was the optimism part that we were carrying forward, that, that our ancestors, um, had, had had this horrible journey and experience in America. And then we came back to the Homeland and that we were going to carry this experience back with us, to inspire other people and to teach other people that they were survivors. And that there was,

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:55)
I probably can. I probably can joining them a little bit, but again, I guess my,

Don Lemon: (17:00)
But there was a history just beyond being a slave in America. That's all I wanted

Anthony Scaramucci: (17:05)
To say. Mala, it's brilliant writing. I want to shift gears a little bit to something contemporary to get your reaction that George Floyd murder was a tipping point for a lot of black people, a tipping point for white people, frankly, I think that the graphic depiction of that on television, the eight minutes, 40 plus seconds of that, uh, we literally are watching a murder before our eyes. Why was that incident uniquely catalyzing for the fight against racism because you and I have both known of those types of stories. Uh, and we had the situation with Rodney king when we were younger, but this seemed to be a real tipping point. Why do you think that was,

Don Lemon: (17:50)
I mean, had you ever seen anything like that? We listen again, we grew up were pretty close to the same age. You hear about it, right? People tell you about their experiences, and if you don't have to experience it, if it's never happened to you, then it doesn't exist. And then all of a sudden we're sitting at home in quarantine, not knowing many people where their next dollar was going to come from. If their loved one was going to survive. COVID if they were going to catch COVID what the next day or the next week or the next year was going to look like. So we're all open and vulnerable. And then on our television sets or on our, uh, these little computers that we all carry around in our pockets, these cell phones, we saw a man died before our eyes and someone sit there and just put their knee on his neck and Rob them of the God-given right, to be able to breathe. And there was no denying what we saw. And there was no denying the experience of African-Americans, especially African-American men at the, at the hands of some police officers. That's why it resonated so much. We were open and vulnerable and we couldn't take our eyes off

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:55)
Well. And I think you, you did an amazing job during that very tragic event, explaining it to the American people. Um, you're the rare black primetime host and, you know, look, I'm just looking at it objectively, Don, it's a very white industry. So how do you use your voice to cut through the noise and communicate to people about the systemic racism that we see?

Don Lemon: (19:20)
Um, I honestly, Anthony, that's a, that's a great question. And you know, it's tough, right? Because I, I'm not only representing myself, I'm representing a company as a company that can get sued or get, you know,

Anthony Scaramucci: (19:32)
Yeah. You're on a balance beam. You are, you are, the RC won't know this reference, but you're in the Nadia Comaneci, a broadcaster, you know, he's, he's Google, he's Googling her right now, lemon. He has no clue, but you know, you're on that balance beam every night and you're trying to strike the right chords of realism and authenticity, but you're also trying to wake up a group of people in our society that, you know, maybe they just haven't experienced it as graphically as you have, or, you know, people living in inner cities, et cetera. So how do you do it?

Don Lemon: (20:07)
I'm there for a reason. I'm there one because, uh, I think I do the job pretty well. I think I, you know, I'm a pretty, I do a pretty good job of anchoring a television to a show, but also, uh, I'm there because of my experience. That's what diversity is about. Well, I look,

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:21)
Look, you're, you're, you're being modest. Get you, do you do a great job? And let me tell you why. I think you do a great job. And this is just my observation of you, even when you were blasting me. Okay. When I was the white house communications director, and unfortunately I was trapped inside the Trump hotel watching you, and you were just blasting me. I was looking at this guy said, you know, this guy has a point, okay. I have to figure out how we're going to change the narrative. Here can remember taking my pen out, watching you blast me. And I was writing down how we were going to, I have to try to figure this out because a lot of the stuff that you were saying was true and you do it in a diplomatic way. Okay. But, but, so you're very good at what you do. So just cut right through it. Tell us, tell us in your mind editorially, what you're working on before you get off before the light, the red light goes on.

Don Lemon: (21:12)
Well, I, I listen one, I have to do my research and I have to know what I'm talking about. But two, now I've gotten to a place where I can speak with authority and to be quite honest, you and your former boss, uh, gave me, um, a sense of authority and urgency that I didn't have before, because I had to speak truth to power. Um, I always had to do that, but in this instance, in his instance, I had to make my voice louder and clearer. And so when I, when I go on the air, I have a responsibility to tell the truth. Not only to the people who look like me, especially to the people who look like me, but also to all of America, because all of America needs to hear that. And if I don't do it as the only black person in primetime joy, Reed is early prime. We are the only two people who share that space. And I did it for seven years by myself who is going to do it, Anthony Scaramucci. So I had to lean in and then, you know, take the slings and arrows and then worry about being fired or going too far. That, that is, that was second nature. So, um, that's how I feel. That's, that's where I am. That's why

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:22)
I admire, I want, I want to go back to an interview. I was at Atlanta, Georgia, you were interviewing Donald J. Trump, then candidate for president. He was describing the situation with Megan Kelly. I'm not going to go into what he said. It's not worth it. Uh, but you know what I'm talking about? And I, you know, and this is a poor reflection on me, by the way. So I'm just going to be very open about it. When I was watching him, I was like, okay, he can't be serious. This has gotta be part of a, you know, an act. He can't be serious, but you saw it seriously. And I guess I didn't. And a lot of people, frankly, didn't, that's my bad. I have to own that for the rest of my life. But was that an inflection point for you or did you know the nature of things prior

Don Lemon: (23:11)
To that interview? Um, that was an inflection point to me, but you know, you do the math and you, you, you do the calculus in your head, like, oh my gosh, what should I, how should I handle this? What should I do? And I didn't want to jump in on what he said in that moment and change it into something that it wasn't. And I didn't want to be a part of that moment in the sense that I wanted his words to speak for themselves and let people digest it the way that they, they should. And then I go back and I said, should I have called them out, said whatever. And then every people say, you know, I got what you were doing. So

Anthony Scaramucci: (23:44)
Listen, it done. That's a couple, that's gotta be four and a half years ago. I remember it vividly, maybe five years ago, five years ago, five years ago. So I remember it vividly and it left a big impact on me. You write in the book more or less. I'm paraphrasing now that Donald Trump didn't invent racism, but he made it more, uh, open. He was more almost like unashamed to openly express it live according to his prejudices. Uh, you write that, uh, he was like a symptom that alerted you, Don lemon and others for that matter to an underlying disease. Tell us what you mean by that.

Don Lemon: (24:21)
Well, that's what he was the percent rating. I think if you go down a couple more sentences, I think he said, I think I said the percent rating also, or tumor or something that drove us into the oncologist's office. And so that we could diagnose the problem and then take care of it. So that's, um, that's how I thought about it. He, he exposed, we, we know who the racists are. We know that the racists are, there are more racist in our society. And, and then we realized, we know that there's a resurgence of neo-Nazis and all of that, which would, I think would have been hidden. Um, if it had not been for Donald Trump, because those people felt that he was giving them legitimacy, how do you say it? He had become their imprimatur, right? We gave them a stamp of approval. And so, um,

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:06)
You were saying the quiet things out in the yellow bin. And they were like, okay, loud. Now we can say this.

Don Lemon: (25:11)
You can say the same. We don't have to wear hoods. We can wear khakis and polo shirts and March down city streets in the middle of the day, or, you know, an early evening with Tiki torches and we can do it with pride. And so that's what he did. And now we know, I don't know about you, but I want to know, I would rather know what someone is, where they're coming from, rather than you hiding your hand.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:34)
Yeah. Some of it's so ugly down there. Sometimes I say, Jesus, I don't want to know that much, but I get, I get the point that you're making

Don Lemon: (25:42)
I'm from the south. I grew up in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The Klan used to hand out literature, Anthony in front of my high school, on the weekends, we did not have schools sponsored. Um, except for sporting events. There was no crime. There were no parties. There was nothing like that because they didn't want the racist mixing. There was a big Baptist church across the street where the clan would handout literature. My best friend lived next door to the grand wizard of the KKK, not next door, like in a house, but on a giant, giant pieces of property, you know, land acres and said he was the property next door. So I know racism, but I know that when I was growing up, people hit it or they secluded themselves. They lived in places and they dared black people to live there. They didn't want black people to live near them. And then when that started to encroach, it kept moving further up. You had the white flight, so people kept hiding and moving and hiding and, and, and now you can't right, you cannot do it. And so now I believe that we are in the death throes of white supremacy in this country, simply because of demographics. And the proof of it is the reaction that people have had to this election and to Donald Trump. And the biggest evidence I have is the insurrection that happened on January 6th.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:57)
Amen. So we'll, let's go to that for a second. And then I'm going to turn it over to the young millennial. He's not even generation Z or where the hell you just called yourself. This guy is like fresh from the

Don Lemon: (27:08)
Biggest younger than millennials, right?

Anthony Scaramucci: (27:12)
He's like a hundred years younger than you. And let's just go to, let's go to this question about the insurrection. Uh, it's tied into the racism. It's tied into the dishonor of our democracy because ultimately you had a group of people, uh, that are feeling the heat that demography is changing. And, uh, they didn't like it. They didn't like the outcome. So give us your reaction to the insurrection.

Don Lemon: (27:40)
My reaction was I was sitting there watching, saying, oh my God, this is, as I write about in the book, if we don't deal with that, I write about Kristen Cooper and Amy Cooper remember in the park with the dog. And she called the cops on the guy because I, you know, he's a black man. And he said that he's bothering me in the park. And I write in the book about, unless you deal with this in a substantial way, then someone's going to come back with a bigger dog. Well, the bigger dog was the lie about the election that it was stolen. And then the bigger dog after that was the insurrection. And then who knows what the next bigger dog will be. And so what is that going to be a takeover of the government, a martial law, whatever. I don't know, you know, racist, marching down every major street in the country.

Don Lemon: (28:23)
I have no idea, but, uh, from the beginning I knew I knew what it was when I saw it. I knew when I saw his speech, that it was going to turn violent and I was sitting there watching it saying, oh my God, I cannot believe this. And you know, the first thing I saw was I, the first thing I thought was, I remember this last summer when there were black lives matter protestors in front of the white house. Uh, and they were gassed by the president or whoever. Um, William Barr, the justice department ordered them to be gassed. The president could make, could make a photo op in, in front of a church with a Bible. And then there were also black lives matter protestors who had gone to the Capitol that summer March did not try to go in, did not try to overthrow the government or overturn an election. Um, and then you had these guys do it. And I knew that they didn't get shot. They were able to go into the Capitol because they weren't black. If they would have been black or Muslims are Latinos, they would have either been shot. There's no way they would have let them in the Capitol. And these people, a lot of them just marched right into the Capitol. Senator, Ron

Anthony Scaramucci: (29:30)
Johnson would have been very fearful of them, but of course he was not fearful of the white people that were trying to kill Mitt Romney and Nancy Pelosi. So, and then he stands with the highest level of ignorance, uh, saying, what are you talking about? Why are you throwing the racist card at me? And so, I mean, we have a lot of that. What do you think of, I, I was about as a Paul does, you could be at that. I was embarrassed for him and his family. Uh, the fact that that's on tape forever is a stain on his family in terms of his lack of awareness and his lack of, uh, judgment about what's going on in our society. Uh, before I turn it over to John, one last question you're never

John Darcie: (30:15)
Going to get to ask about, because time's up,

Anthony Scaramucci: (30:18)
I'm cutting. I'm cutting into your time too bad. Okay. What do we do? What do we say to our kids? Give me something to lean on aspirationally. What do I say to my kids? Because your skin color is a little bit darker than mine and your hair is a little bit tighter and colder than mine. Not much in the winter. No, that's true. I'm from, I'm from, oh, you know, my family is

John Darcie: (30:42)
Tan, so he's suffering.

Anthony Scaramucci: (30:44)
I have no, I've got no spray, but I got a lot of Botox. Everybody take it easy. I'm still asking the questions. Okay. So, so tell me something aspirational. You've got a little bit more of a kink in your hair. Your skin is a little darker than mine. Uh, but I see you where I see myself, how do I, how do I, how do we make that happen for our country? How do we relax people that we are the same? What is the big deal?

Don Lemon: (31:13)
So when you said you see me and you see me as yourself, that means that you see my humanity, right? So we all need to start seeing each other's humanity, respecting each other's, humanity and loving each other. And then that it becomes that much harder to denigrate someone. It becomes that much harder to put your knee on the neck of someone. It becomes that much harder, um, to treat someone differently or to discriminate against them. If you see their humanity, which means you have to be in some, some, some sort of a relationship with them, uh, a friendship, uh, at least in acquaintance, and maybe even romantically to people who are of different ethnicities. So I think that is the thing that you should teach your kids. You should teach your kids to get friends and to be around people who are not just like

Anthony Scaramucci: (31:57)
Them. Exactly. And because then you you'll, you'll find that we're really not that different. Go ahead. And Mr. More,

Don Lemon: (32:03)
One more thing. You have to teach them. You've got end school. I think they need to teach kids the true history of this country and the, um, the contributions of African-Americans, which are often left out of history books and kids don't know it. And by the time those kids become adults, they wouldn't try to overturn an election by, by, um, storming the Capitol because they are basing their history and their knowledge on lies about the country.

Anthony Scaramucci: (32:30)
Well, well, well, very well said. I always recommend Jill Lapore pours book, these truths. Uh, it is quite a study, quite a graphic examination of the good in the United States, but also the perils and some of the bad. Go ahead,

Don Lemon: (32:44)
Mr. Darcie. All right. That's all the time I have guys. Thank you. See you later.

John Darcie: (32:48)
Can Anthony and send my contract. I get at least one third of the show. It's a bunch of crap, but, uh, yeah. Thank you for, uh, the same

Anthony Scaramucci: (32:55)
Agent as I am. That's why I don't have a television gig. Okay. We need to get lemons agent, but go ahead. Keep going.

John Darcie: (33:03)
I grew up in North Carolina, we were talking before the show, you detected still a lingering, a Southern accent. You grew up in Louisiana. You know, there's different types of racism that exists in our society. There's deep south, you know, handing out KKK flyers racism. And there's a nimbyism, you know, I think I live in New York now on long island. There's a natural segregation that takes place a voluntary segregation. If you will, where there's not maybe as much mixing of races here in New York, a blue state, a supposedly progressive area as there was when I was growing up, going to public high school in North Carolina, what are the different types of more sort of pervasive, quiet forms of racism that you think we need to chip away at in terms of, you know, nimbyism not in my backyard type of racism. And how do you experience that in day-to-day life? Not in a way that's in your face, people wearing hoods, but in a way that's just a little bit quieter and more pervasive.

Don Lemon: (33:55)
Well, I'm glad you talked about that. Cause I haven't heard nimbyism in such a long time that not in my backyard is, um, right. Uh, I think that you, you pointed out the main one is that is that we live in a place that is probably the most diverse place in the country, in the metropolitan New York area. And even, um, in the suburbs and people don't mix people, don't talk to each other and hang out and they ha the only time that they have any interaction is if they're forced to either, uh, in business or in schools. And then even there, they don't, you know, hang out with each other. That is one of the main solutions that I talk about, uh, personally, and that I want people to get out of this book is that you're the only way, the only real way you're going to do it is through relationships.

Don Lemon: (34:42)
And I know people say, oh, it's tough because people self segregate or, or we live in a polarized society. I say, John, it's not hard to meet other people. Look how I met Anthony. Anthony came into the green room or came onto the show. And what did I say to him? Or what did he say to me? Hey, would you like to go have a drink? You want to hang out afterwards, I'm having a party. You're invited come to my holiday party or come to come grill at my house. We're having a barbecue on Saturday or Sunday. That is not that hard to do. I don't care what anybody says. You can do that at any age and to get to learn about someone, because when you don't know people, you don't know them. And the only way you get to know them is it gets to know them, right? I mean, it's just as simple as that. It's, it's, it's simplicity. And so I think that that's the key that is really for me that quiet. Um, I don't want to call it flat racism, but it's, um, it is a racial blind spot, right? It is, uh, a step towards, as Anthony and I talk about all the time, a more perfect union, because again, nothing is going to get accomplished unless we all get to know each other as human beings. That's the first and major thing for me. Yeah.

John Darcie: (36:01)
It almost just, it feels like it's more convenient for people to just, you know, live in their bubble. And I think one of the things that the George Floyd incident did was say, we really need to confront this and actively educate ourselves. And the people around us, if we're really going to make a difference, it's not enough to be an idle bystander and watch this stuff happen. We have to be active participants. If we're going to teach people to love, you know, Nelson Mandela, as Anthony was alluding to earlier, people aren't born racist. You know, they have to be taught to hate. And if they can be taught to hate, they can be taught to love, which I think was,

Don Lemon: (36:32)
Let me tell you this, that I think people say that because, um, they want to make an excuse for the way that they've always lived, that they'd been living for a long time. And if, until you get out of yourself and you, um, you, you sort of breach that bubble or whatever it is of your comfort zone. Then again, it's not going to change. Look, I had a gay pride party. The June of 2019 Anthony Scaramucci was on the invite list. He couldn't Anthony, you didn't come. I don't remember. No. I came to that came to my pride party.

Anthony Scaramucci: (37:04)
I came to the pride party chore. So I didn't work in, I've been working on marriage equality with, with New York state since 2008. Of course I came to that.

Don Lemon: (37:14)
That's the thing I did not, not invite you to the pride party because you're a heterosexual man. I just said, Hey, we would love to have Anthony at the party. We had, um, you know, an open house for Christmas. We didn't say, well, we're going to invite this many white people, this many black people, this many straight people, this many Christians, this, whatever. We invited, every one I had a party. Remember I had the party and before the election, uh, oh no. During, after the election I had like a winter party. Yeah. You invited everyone. People were like your

Anthony Scaramucci: (37:44)
Engagement party at the townhouse that you were thinking about.

Don Lemon: (37:47)
You know, everybody was there. That was amazing. Everybody was there. I met another

Anthony Scaramucci: (37:52)
Person that used to pick on me. Okay. Joy basically. Yeah. No, not joy. Bihar. Uh, Dory Reed. Yeah. Joy. Reid. I met her in the living room at your party. I said, okay, let me go back. Let me go back to my Twitter feed. Joy got on. We had a great laugh and now I do her show. I mean, come on. I mean, that's how you break things down, man.

Don Lemon: (38:14)
That's what that's anyway. I'm sorry, John, go ahead.

John Darcie: (38:17)
And Anthony has a unique ability to make people that want to hate him. Not hate him when they spend enough time with them in a private setting. We also have that money too.

Anthony Scaramucci: (38:26)
Yes, exactly. And I'm a, like a fungus. I get stuck in your toe nail and I never go away. Okay. Lemon doesn't realize this, but he'll be talking to me when he's like 95 or so I'll be, of course I'll be 97 at that time go. And Darcie w

John Darcie: (38:39)
We try to keep the payoffs secret, Don. So thank, thank you for outing us there, but I want to talk about police brutality. So we talked about the George Floyd incident, but I think police brutality and policing is a very loaded topic. These days after the election president Obama talked about how the use of the words defund the police was not constructive in terms of trying to defeat Donald Trump, you know, but also on the other side on the right, you have just this hypocrisy around, you know, backing the blue and supporting police officers during the insurrection. You had, uh, insurrectionists beating police officers with signs that said blue lives matter, which was almost the height of parody in a tragic way. But you know, black people's experience, this is one of the conversations that really resonates with me, just listening to black people talk about their experience around law enforcement.

John Darcie: (39:27)
I've been pulled over before. I've had interactions with police officers, and I have never once felt threatened or unsafe because I've genuinely always felt they're trying to protect me. Whereas I think black people feel like police officers, not all police officers of course are sometimes trying to target them. But at the same time, I think the vast majority of police officers are there to serve and protect as, as, uh, as the slogan goes, how do we reform policing? And how do we avoid painting police officers with such a broad brush that alienates them? It just is such a complex topic. How do we tackle it? And we improve policing, uh, in a way that's constructive without demonizing the whole profession. Why say you

Don Lemon: (40:06)
Have to pick up this book because there's a chapter in there on policing where I talk about what they've done in Newark, uh, Ross Baraka. I think that talks about what they've done in Philadelphia. And there's a mention of San Francisco police chief as well on how they sort of revolutionize their police departments are in the process of doing so, listen, I'm not a policing expert, but I think what you, the way you start is is that you have to treat people with dignity. As, as I had been saying. And then also I think community policing is very important that police officers are from, or at least familiar with the community that they serve and that they're not seen as occupiers in the community that they're seen as part of the community. And they're there to be peace officers and not necessarily be occupiers. Um, you know, I have interactions with police officers, mostly for traffic tickets as an adult.

Don Lemon: (40:57)
Um, and I'm concerned as a person of means when I see a police officer, um, pull me over or in some way is looking to question me because I had experiences with police officers. I was racially profiled and I called the cops. The cops showed up and they thought the person that I call the cops on actually call the cops. And they were like, you go sit over there. And this gentleman called police. And then I said, no, excuse me. I called police. And you see that thing in their head, like, uh, like the world changes like in a second. Oh my gosh. Wow. Like, wait. Okay. So the black guy called the police on white guy. Wow. That's, that's interesting. So, um, I just think that police officers need to, um, need to know the people that they are there to protect. Remember, and remember that they're there to protect people, not necessarily, um, to throw people on the ground and, and treat them horribly. But listen, I also know that policing is very tough. I would not want to be a police officer. That's why I'm a journalist and not a police officer. I don't want that job, but in that job, you're supposed to know how to deescalate situations. And, um, and I hope the right kind of person is drawn to policing in the future rather than someone who just wants to crack heads.

Speaker 5: (42:14)
Well, Don's been a pleasure to have you on, I'm a huge fan of your show

John Darcie: (42:18)
All the time I did. We're running out of time. And I have to say, I only reason I questioned your judgment is maybe your booking department needs to revisit, uh, some of their decision making on their desks because you have Anthony frequently on your show and your ratings must plummet.

Anthony Scaramucci: (42:36)
Can I get the hell out of you? We have very good chemistry on that show. Okay. Anthony, call your mom. Do your mom going to know Tim, your mom. Dierdre, I'm just, I'm telling them

Don Lemon: (42:49)
The actors listening somewhere here. The more important

Anthony Scaramucci: (42:52)
Piece, the more important people, uh, above and beyond this particular Saul talk,

Don Lemon: (42:57)
The banks are very smart. I don't know why he does. He does. He always says that you're really smart. And he actually thinks Kellyanne Conway is really smart.

Anthony Scaramucci: (43:05)
Well, listen. I mean, I, I would agree

John Darcie: (43:07)
With the monkey thinks he's smart too, Don, you know, he's going to agree with you here.

Anthony Scaramucci: (43:11)
I, uh, I had, I hadn't talked to Kelly. Oh, you'll enjoy this part. I, I, uh, I ran into Kellyanne on a London based show in the evening and on a zoom. I hadn't seen her in four years, as soon as she was quite polite to me. But having said that, uh, I think she also respected the fact that, uh, I didn't let her, uh, former boss walk on me. Uh, I think, you know, so it was one of those interesting situations, but I want to hold the book up one more time before you go. Uh it's uh, this is the fire. Uh, Don, I gotta tell you it was a moving book. I don't say that because you're a friend. Uh, it was a moving book and I wanna encourage people to read it. And I think you made it digestible so you can get through it in an evening. Uh, and it's very well thought out and I think it will help people get to where we need to get to. And I want to get it in the hands of many people as possible. So thank you for writing it. And thank you for joining us on, on salty. How

Don Lemon: (44:12)
Many books did you buy? You bought it for your entire company, right? And all your,

Anthony Scaramucci: (44:15)
I did, actually, we, we did, we bought it from a, we bought a French brand. We bought it from the strand trying to help out the strand cause it's stolen. Independent bookseller, seriously went to the strand and lots of books. Yeah. We have a dealer with no, we have a deal with the SRAM. We buy it. We like buying books, you know,

Don Lemon: (44:31)
Good stuff, especially Don, it's a pleasure to meet you, Anthony and whatever.

John Darcie: (44:37)
It's a pleasure to be with you. And, uh, you know, this is the fire. I think it was a great title. As Anthony said, I'm hopeful that we can not take two steps forward. One step back. I feel like there's such an energy around this anti-racist movement today that I'm hoping that, that, uh, the fervor can continue and we can really make tangible progress over the next five to 10 years, sir,

Anthony Scaramucci: (44:57)
By the way, you make more money, not being a racist. I'm just telling you more diversity, more diversity on your team, better ideas, better energy. I don't get it. We gotta, we gotta push people, get the incentives. Right.

Don Lemon: (45:10)
You know, what's your, you got a nickname like mooch,

John Darcie: (45:14)
Just Darcie. Nobody calls me by my first name. It's Darcie. Yeah.

Don Lemon: (45:20)
Alright, got it. And Doris, thank you.

John Darcie: (45:23)
And thank you everybody for tuning in to today's salt. Talk with Don lemon of CNN out with a great new book. This is the fire talking about race relations in America. Just a reminder, if you missed any part of this talk or any of our previous salt talks, you can access them all on our website@sault.org backslash talks and on our YouTube channel called salt tube. Follow us on Twitter. We're at salt conferences are handled. That's where we're most active on social media, but we're also on Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn as well, trying to do more on all those channels. So we would love a follow there and spread the word about these salt talks. We've made them free and accessible for everyone. We love growing our community and educating people on a wide variety of topics. None more important than how to end racism. So please spread the word about this talk and others that we host. And on behalf of, uh, the entire salt team, Joe Alito behind the scenes, our superstar producer, Anthony, uh, this is John Darcey signing off from salt talks for today. We hope to see you back here soon.

Shabtai Shavit: Inside the Mossad - Israel's National Intelligence Agency | SALT Talks #184

“What connects people and the best recipe for healing conflicts is economic interests. In spite of what’s happened in the Middle East in the last few decades, I really do see an opening to change.”

Shabtai Shavit was director general of Mossad, Israel’s intelligence service, from 1989 to 1996. Shavit recently published his memoir, Head of the Mossad: In Pursuit of a Safe and Secure Israel.

Building shared economic interests represents the best way to resolve conflict and build lasting peace in the Middle East. There is currently an opening to achieve this goal with the recent normalization between Israel and key Arab countries following the Abraham Accords. The United States can play a major role by building a robust coalition that includes Israel and Arab countries. “The main common denominator between [Israel] and the Arab countries is the US leadership. I believe the change in guard in the US gives us the opportunity to be successful.”

On the global stage, Israel will continue to prioritize its relationship with the United States. Any Israel-China relationship will fit within Israel’s broader goals with the US.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Shabtai Shavit.jpeg

Shabtai Shavit

Director General, Mossad

(1989-1996)

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darcie: (00:07)
Hello everyone. And welcome back to salt talks. My name is John Darcie. I'm the managing director of salt, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance technology and public policy. Salt talks are a digital interview series with leading investors, creators, and thinkers. And our goal on these salt talks the same as our goal at our salt conferences, which is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future. And we're very excited today to welcome director [inaudible] to salt talks. Uh, Mr. Chavez was the director of the facade, which if you didn't know, is Israel's intelligence services from 1989 to 1996. Mr. Shavita held a variety of positions within massage, uh, for over 32 years until becoming the head of the agency in 1989, he served in [inaudible].

John Darcie: (01:02)
I might be butchering the pronunciation of that Israel's elite force and received an honorary advanced degree from Harvard university after retiring from work in the security services. Mr. Chavez was the CEO of Maccabi health services for five years. Uh, since 2001, Mr. Shavita has been the chairman of the board of the directors of the international Institute for counter-terrorism interdisciplinary center and her's liar advisor to the Israeli national security council advisor to the subcommittee on intelligence of the Knesset, uh, committee on foreign affairs and national security and a member of the N Y F D task force for future preparedness against terrorism. He's also the author of head of massage in pursuit of a safe and secure Israel, which was published by Notre Dame university press and hosting. Today's talk is Michael Greenwald, who is a director at Tiedemann men advisors, a multi-family office managing over 20 billion in assets, uh, from 2015 and 2017.

John Darcie: (02:00)
Michael was the U S treasury attache to Qatar and Kuwait serving in two us presidential administrations under three treasury secretaries and held counter-terrorism and intelligence roles requiring traveled to over 20 countries. Uh, in this capacity, he was the principal liaison to the banking sector in Qatar and Kuwait. He was appointed to the U S treasury team that crafted sanctions against Russia, ISIS, and Al-Qaeda using his diplomacy background. He serves as a trusted advisor for, to men, uh, managing senior relationships with families and family offices globally. Given his experience with sovereign wealth funds and the private sector in the middle east. He leads business development in the middle east forty-two minute advisors. Uh, I'm going to turn it over now to Michael to host the interview. I might pipe in with a couple of follow-up questions here and there, but Michael, go ahead and take it away.

Michael Greenwald: (02:50)
Thank you, John. And thank you. Saul talks for having us today and director it's a real pleasure to be with you. Uh, I'm so happy to be discussing your book, which, uh, is a page Turner and it is wonderful to have you again here today. So welcome. I want to begin director, you know, more than a hundred thousand Israelis have visited Dubai, uh, since the Abraham Accords, um, have come to fruition and you're seeing air travel, uh, opening up for the first time, uh, since last summer on Friday, the United Arab Emirates, and now it's the $10 billion fund to invest in Israel. And I want to first get your thoughts on what it means that this number of Israelis are traveling to the UAE. And what do you hope this fund to invest in Israel will mean for the future director? Well,

Shabtai Shavit: (03:55)
First of all, I would like to thank you for inviting me to, uh, talk to you. And, uh, it's a, it's a real pleasure, especially on these days of the, uh, of the pandemic. It gives you your, your, you are situated in, uh, in, in the end of the world and you, and you are talking live with the other end of the world. Share gives you a feeling of being free. Uh, well, the, uh, I, I, uh, I really don't see the, the Abraham, uh, agreements as a, uh, as a maybe unique opportunity for a window of opportunity to, uh, to bring to the middle east large and [inaudible] of, uh, stability instead of, uh, walls in skirmishes. And they always, and then never ending conflict between Israel and the Palestinians and, um, what connects people and the best recipe for healing conflict is, uh, um, economic interests.

Shabtai Shavit: (05:22)
And, uh, here in spite of all, what happened in the zap and in the, uh, in the middle east, in the last few decades, I, I, uh, I really do, uh, um, see an opening to, to change it, but of course, it's, uh, it's a matter of, uh, a, a relatively long period of time and it needs a, um, if you're quick conditions, so, uh, uh, to be, uh, met, uh, but, but by and large, it is, it is feasible. And, and the, and the, uh, what, what we have as a society, as people, as, as nations to, to win is, uh, makes, makes it very, very deserved to, uh, to invest the, uh, all day felt, which is, which is needed. So, um, the main area, the main common denominator between us, um, there are countries, most of them, especially the, the so many countries in the middle east, um, but we need for it to happen.

Shabtai Shavit: (06:47)
We need the, uh, leadership of, of, uh, of the us. Um, and they, uh, I believe that the change of guardian in the USA in the us also gives us the opportunity to, uh, to be successful, uh, and what's needed the form, uh, from the, uh, president president is to, uh, to change a little bit the, uh, former policy of America first and, uh, let's disengage from the world. And, uh, and, and deal only with domestic abuse, American domestic, domestic, eh, eh, issues. Now, uh, the middle east is a, is a hill since the beginning of time. And, and, and one of its scars characteristic is that all along his three, it was considered to be, uh, an area region, uh, which, which, uh, stability is not the one of its icons and symbols and, uh, you know, anybody or anybody who believes that he can, uh, leave the, uh, middle east and don't pay attention to it based on my humble experience, eh, it is a, uh, it is not a vision that can, uh, can, uh, become a troll.

Shabtai Shavit: (08:18)
Um, we ever saying that, uh, um, your main neglect the middle east, but the middle east would never neglect you. So, uh, it's a, it's a, it's a issue that, uh, the Alto two parties to these, to these Stango. So, uh, that's why I do believe, uh, the United States has the, as the leading power of the free world. Uh we'll uh, we'll, uh, we'll, we'll be connected and we'll invest a diamond and sources and resources, um, to the middle east. And, and now we do have, and you're opening with a very, was a very good, eh, eh, up to, uh, to be successful. So, uh, to put it very, uh, very shortly, what I, uh, what I see is a new excess of power, uh, being built in the, in the middle east, which will include, first of all, the U S as, as the leading a thumbnail, and then the, uh, three countries, Israel, Egypt, and Jordan, the fridge that, um, all of the heirs have a peace treaties, uh, since quite a long time.

Shabtai Shavit: (09:51)
And then the, uh, the emulates who, uh, joined the, uh, the, uh, Abram, uh, gods. And I also say Saudi Arabia is a major power that, uh, should be, uh, uh, a partner in, in, in this, uh, in this, uh, ex-US now these sexes, um, will, uh, will, uh, transmit to the rest of the world. The following measures will the following message, which says that the us is, is not disengaging from, from the middle east. The us is, uh, um, going to pay a major role in the, in the middle east. And, uh, the message will be, uh, will be, uh, targeted first of all, to China on the, on the global level to Russia on the global level, um, a signal to them that, listen, we are not, eh, uh, going out from the, from the playground. And, uh, then on the regional, uh, on the regional level, it really is, will send a very strong message to a Iran.

Shabtai Shavit: (11:14)
And to Turkey. Iran is, uh, is galloping 12, the, uh, acquiring a military nuclear capability with a military surface to surface your gloomy sides. And they, uh, Delcy is undergoing a, uh, a, um, a sort of a, uh, uh, uh, becoming again, eh, um, religious, the Shalia, you slamming jealous showy, and they, uh, and they cooperate and support, uh, some of the, uh, most extreme Muslim organizations. So this new axis will, uh, will be a buffer also vis-a-vis Iran and Turkey, which, which are considered to be original powers. And they, uh, at the end of this, uh, this process, it will bring hopefully peace between Israel and the Palestinians, because if the, uh, this axis will be engaged in, uh, in, in enhancing the idea of the peace and, um, and, and the Saudi Arabia will, will be a participant in it. And in all the, in order for them to, to join, uh, we'll have to, uh, all parties will have to, uh, base the, uh, uh, negotiation, eh, draft on the Saudi or the leg, eh, proposal from back 2003. And they, uh, I don't see either side, not the Palestinians and not, uh, Israeli, Israeli, whatever government it may have to, uh, to, uh, flannel, to be, to, to be opposed to such a proposal.

Michael Greenwald: (13:31)
So building on that director, and then you mentioned China, and obviously many of the Gulf states Israel's played in a unique intermediary role for years. And someone say that the role that Israel has played with, uh, weaponizing its, uh, cyber capabilities in its own Silicon valley and what it's been able to have our relationship strategically with the Gulf states and China and others that its intimidatory role has been very unique the same time. Uh, a number of the Gulf states have played a key intermediary role with China. How do you see what the Gulf states, um, can learn from Israel and what can Israel learn from the Gulf states? And in your book director, you spend time in Southern Iran in the early seventies. What do you think Israel can learn from a wall

Shabtai Shavit: (14:35)
Form form for me around? Well, the I'm smiling because the first answer that comes to my mind is, uh, is, uh, um, while stalling, uh, and, uh, and playing full time and by playing,

Michael Greenwald: (15:00)
I mean, obviously we know the Iranians are excellent negotiators.

Shabtai Shavit: (15:05)
They they've, I've invented this, uh, this out, you know, I, uh, I I've learned some of my Farsi in the Bazaar and the art of negotiation started in the Bazaar. It is an Iranian, it is an Iranian invention and, uh, you know, uh, imagining a home, well, eh, well, around the table, you have a group of Americans negotiator and a group of Belgium negotiators. Uh, I don't have any doubts whatsoever who is going to, uh, to warn the answer. Um, so this is the, this is the, uh, this is the first, the first thing that I learned and other things that I learned. And then, uh, it was, it was right those years at the, uh, mid sixties, um, that, uh, uh, you know, you know, that in order to, uh, you don't need protection if you have, if you have connections in, uh, in, in Iran.

Shabtai Shavit: (16:18)
And, uh, if I can, uh, if I can, uh, steal from our time two minutes, I try to give you a vignette from those days. Um, uh, like version any Iranian and Iranian partner of mine those years taught me one morning. You know, I, I'm going to the Bazaar to buy, uh, to buy clothes, eh, for, for short, uh, you want to join me and I, um, I joined him, so we went to job. We entered the shop, uh, the, uh, the guy in the shop didn't, uh, didn't know, well, and we started to, uh, to measure and to ask until about cloth and so on and so forth. All of a sudden the telephone in the shop rang and the, uh, shop on it went and took the, uh, telephone. And, uh, after a, uh, 30 seconds, he turned to us and he told us, uh, are you a Mr.

Shabtai Shavit: (17:21)
So-and-so the, uh, the, uh, eh, governor of, uh, of the region, uh, once you, and, uh, my partner, the union partner took the, took the phone and talk for a five, six, seven minutes. Um, he finished every, every sentence that he said by the words, yes, [inaudible] general. And then he, uh, he finished the, uh, the, uh, telephone call and, uh, then we bought what we bought and when it came to paying the, uh, the shop owner refused to, uh, to receive money from us. And it was about why we had connections. The, uh, the governor of the, of the region called us when we went out, my counterpart told me the telephone came from my wife. So he talk with, he was discussing with his mom as his wife, as if she were the, uh, secretary of the governor. So it's, it's a very colorful story, but, uh, it tells you what the, the, the, the what's behind dating in culture in, uh, in DNA and so on and so forth. So, uh, these are the basics

Michael Greenwald: (18:56)
That, that crystallizes, I think the art of negotiation, and, you know, I hope that, uh, the Israelis and the Iranians can maybe at one point go to the tailor together. Again, I want to build on Israel's relationship with China. I know that you dealt with the Chinese at different levels when you were director or at massage, where do you see the relationship with China going right now? It's a very sensitive issue here in the United States, the previous administration pressure, uh, you know, the prime minister and the government on how close the ties should be. Where do you think is the happy medium for Israel to have a strategic relationship with China, but also maintain and grow the strategic relationship with the United States without putting the relationship with China, uh, out of bounds and doing things that would potentially hurt the United States?

Shabtai Shavit: (20:00)
Well, let me, let me tell her the following. And of course I express myself only. I don't represent nobody and no one of the, uh, of the organizations it's I, uh, used to, uh, to belong in, in, in, in the bus in the past. Um, I believe I, I would rephrase your, your, your question or the answer to your question that we should define and cut out our, the nature of our relationship with China form our relationship with the us, meaning basically that between the two, I don't have any doubt. And I, and I think that nobody should have any doubt to whom to give the preference. There is no doubt that we should, uh, this, the define and build the relationship between us and the, and the, uh, us, and to come to a sort of an understanding, to what extent we, it would be acceptable fall following us, uh, that we, uh, that we, uh, build on the other hand, some relationship with the Chinese cause, uh, um, relationship between the us and Israel go back, uh, for so many years, a U us was the first, uh, the first country in the UN to support the, uh, inception and the, the establishment of the state of Israel, a relationship between Israel and the United States are based not only on fuel interests, but, uh, on, on, on the heritage of, of, of, uh, the Jewish, uh, uh, culture and, uh, and, and, and the Bible and so on and so forth.

Shabtai Shavit: (22:23)
And they, uh, and the us oftentimes, um, declared that, uh, the, the security and the survival freeze of Israel as, uh, as an independent country is one of the, uh, one of the pillars of, of the American foreign policy. Whereas with China, we, we do have a relationship that, um, it's nice to have, but, uh, those relationships when it comes to, uh, to well survival, um, we, Israel, we cannot, we cannot align them. So, uh, this is the balance. And according to this balance, or should say design and, and execute our way, our relationship with them.

Michael Greenwald: (23:17)
So director revoric turned to how Israel as utilized, uh, the COVID vaccine for its strategic influence. There was a part of your book that really, um, spoke to me as well as other people that have worked in, uh, professions of service and, and professional service. And you, you mentioned in your book, um, dealing with the eulogies, um, of, uh, some of the members of the saw that had died at the service, and it was interesting that you included those eulogies, um, you know, written over the years. And so, can you just maybe talk to us about why you included that part in your book and what it means to you when you read them about service and being away from your family during that time period? That was very tumultuous. Um, uh, um,

Shabtai Shavit: (24:25)
The, the basic logic of Silvis in, in, in Israel, and especially in, in the different security organizations, uh, starting with the idea of, and, and then the security, salvation animal sound is, uh, is based on the notion that, eh, we, people who self the, the country do it voluntarily. First of all, they don't do it for living. I can, uh, adjust in brackets 32 years. Believe me, I didn't know the amount of money that, uh, entered my bank account, eh, as, as, as my salary, when I wanted anything about, you said there was connected with money. I, I, uh, I talked to my, I talked to my wife, so, um, and the, the feeling of a, uh, an independent war that unfortunately never, never ends. And I, we went out, we are 72 years. Uh, we are 72 years since, since independence. Uh, there was no one decade was out any, I was out any encounter between us and, and our neighbors, some of our neighbors as in with the terrorist organizations. And there is Lord, they passing by without a casualty or [inaudible].

Shabtai Shavit: (26:29)
So the, the, our DNA's DNA of, of April, well, uh, well, uh, for, for the long after our alive, and this is maybe the, the, the uniqueness about our situation is compared to, as compared to other, other country around the world. And, uh, this is also the reason why you are, you're talking with me and, uh, I'm now, uh, um, 82 years old, uh, and you sit and talk to somebody who would pay a fortune in order to achieve, uh, you know, to achieve peace and, and to live and to live the Israel, uh, at peace with its neighbors, for, for my kids and grandchildren. So

Michael Greenwald: (27:33)
I want to build on that because my next question was about your grandchildren. Um, did you feel you were given your role and given the difficult areas you were tackling, did you feel as present in the lives of your children? Are you making up for that now in the lives of your grandchildren, and when, what are you hoping that when your grandchildren tell their children about you, how do you want them to describe you? What stories do you want your grandchildren tell their children, uh, about their grandfather?

Shabtai Shavit: (28:15)
You know, I am, I am a, uh, um, I am a great believer in, in, in, uh, in, in the equation that charisma is being, uh, is being expressed by deeds and not by stories. So, uh, because of this, uh, uh, definition, I, um, I've rarely, uh, discussed, uh, eh, things about, uh, about this, this issue, like, uh, any other issues I just to tell you on brackets that the, uh, the event, when the prime minister nominated me to, uh, to the, uh, to the job, there was a small modest event is with the BA all the big shots of the country. Uh, yeah, I thought that they, it was a, an opportunity for me to, uh, to say something about my, uh, how I see the world, how I see the threads, what, how I feel, I believe that we should, uh, address our problems. And, uh, I was standing vis-a-vis the appointment. His cell was delayed [inaudible] and, um, it was very well, very near to each other. It's all of Sunday. So in bending to the guy who stood the side to him, and he told him, Hey, listen, I did know the shops I know, knows to speak at all.

Shabtai Shavit: (29:59)
So, eh, I, I, uh, I'm happy that whenever I, I remember it, uh, my, my kids without me preaching, without me saying my kids, six of them, $3, they finished the army. Compulsor compa compulsory service, and three are now in the army. All of them, I don't know why I didn't use any connection, but all of them are serving in a, in, in, in elite units. Uh, they didn't learn it at school. They didn't say that they, they were not, eh, eh, led to. Uh, but, uh, this is the nature of the kind of lives that you, that you lead, which, uh, at the end of the day, influence your, your siblings smaller than anything else.

Michael Greenwald: (31:07)
So, director, I want to turn to COVID and how Israel has tackled it, because I think Israel has played a very important role and how it's used in the facade to first, um, you know, create control and order in the country, and then obviously to create its own sense of urgency, uh, to create, uh, find that vaccines working with, uh, different parts of the country. Uh, and so it's really being seen as a model. Uh, how do you S why do you think Maasai got involved with it with COVID in this capacity and how do you see Israel being talked about 20 years from now? Was this an inflection point for Israel coupled with the Abraham Accords to really blossom in a different economic way than it ever has before?

Shabtai Shavit: (32:06)
Look, it's a, it's an interesting, it's an easy question, but, uh, but, uh, I know, uh, I'm sure that some people who would listen to us now, not going to like my answer to that question, looking at it, in retrospect, it it's believe me itself, the purpose of, of, of a gimmick to, to some people without naming names, uh, judging it by the results, believe me, the, uh, the operation in which the Maasai board, the nuclear, uh, a, uh, stall book with, with all the millions of, of documents of the, uh, of the new, of the Iranian nuclear technology. I'm sure that 20 years from now, no one will remember that the Mossad was engaged to, by a vaccine sense and these kinds of things, but everybody would the member of the, uh, the operation that dealt with the Iranian nuclear project.

Michael Greenwald: (33:38)
So I want to turn to your thoughts on whether another Arab spring could brew among some Arab states. You think we're headed for a second round, do you see the, uh, another type of geopolitical earthquake happening of uprisings? Um, and if not, why do you think that wouldn't take place

Shabtai Shavit: (34:06)
Fell? So Foley took place at the beginning of the 2010, 10, and, and hence it took place because, uh, because they, uh, and I'm, I I'm talking bullets now a, uh, because they young generation in, in the Arab countries, um, underwent a sort of a, uh, intellectual revolution and, uh, and decided that it was time for the Arab countries who, uh, well, mostly to tell Italian kinds of countries to, uh, to change and, and to introduce, uh, to the middle east, a democracy and, and so democracy and, uh, and, uh, uh, um, liberal economy and freedom and so on and so forth. But it turns out that they didn't succeed because the result of the spring of solutions in the middle east brought in extremely slum instead of democracy.

Shabtai Shavit: (35:24)
And in order to beat the, uh, extreme Islam we had, we had the, uh, the, uh, different, uh, revolutions, uh, was the involvement of, uh, of a fault of the world, um, terrorism itself, expended and, uh, covers now all the world and the, uh, the, uh, extreme terrorism, which is based on, on religious, on, on religion makes the, uh, the, the, the confrontation and the end, the problem, even more difficult because of the nature of, of this kind of Islam being, being, being a Legion, religious. And, uh, yeah, eh, one gentleman who one molar Tula can the, tell me in the, uh, the, the, the, the future of the country or the future of the world. Uh, it's interesting that the only one countries who, who, who moved past the, um, spring revolution safely, well, the monarchies, it was Jordan and Morocco. And, uh, and to extort the sentence said the monarchies in the, in the, in the Gulf, they, uh, they cross this, uh, this era relatively, relatively well.

Shabtai Shavit: (37:04)
Now I, my it's not the feeling it's assessment is there that the young generation who, who, uh, uh, started it back in, in, in 2010, they still are around and the generation behind are there. And, and the urge fall for changing the, the, the middle east to become a better Middle-East economically, socially, politically, and so on. And so forth is, is, is still there. So I don't call out the, uh, the possibility that, uh, um, certain conditions, um, cause each other in a, in a given time. And we may, uh, we may see it a second chapter of, uh, of, of this say,

Michael Greenwald: (38:06)
Right? So I have two more questions for you director. Want, you talked about you going into the Taylor with your Radian counterpart and given what this administration in the United States is about to undertake with future negotiations with Iran, and what secretary of state Blinken is forming his team. How would you advise the United States from a negotiation perspective? What tactics, what areas of strength, how do you see the United States coming to the table from more of a position of strength? How can they exit the tailor, not having to pay for their suits?

Shabtai Shavit: (38:59)
Look, the, uh, the wrong speech that I, uh, gave you the, uh, the outset of our meeting. If, if, if this, um, speech becomes the strategy of the American foreign foreign policy, this alone will affect the, the, the, uh, the, the T the mind physician and the, and the strategy that they [inaudible] will shape in order to, in order to, uh, to style their negotiations around the table. Now, because if Iran realizes that not only the U S as the number one superpower in the world is staying in the middle east, but rather it's succeeds to build a very big coalition and especially a coalition where Arab countries and Israel are participating. Um, the Iranians are not stupid. They are, they are very smart, and it, it will, it will, uh, um, it will indicate to them that, uh, this coalition mean means business. And it is not only the United States that negotiate with them. It's the, uh, big top, we, the bigger part of the middle east and the Europeans, and, uh, they, they, it, it may affect them, their demands and their, uh, vision and, and so on and so forth.

Shabtai Shavit: (41:06)
Now, now, now, just to add to this, to be more, more practical, you know, the, uh, the, the, the existing treaty introducing to it, uh, a few addition, uh, demands or requests or long call it, whatever you like to call, but, uh, one that, uh, eh, and demands as regards to the, uh, what the experts call the, the sunset of, of the, of the, uh, eh, agreement, eh, the, uh, um, uh, the, uh, nuclear surface to surface Smith's size, which was not dealt with entirely with, in the existing, eh, contract, and also, uh, the issue of, uh, Iranians mingling all over the middle east and, and, and causing a troublesome havoc. So if, if, if the west, with the us succeed to deal with this, maybe one or two additional, eh, points that I don't recall it at the moment and succeed to extract form the Iranians, um, agreement on this issue, it could give us a, um, another generation of a relative peace.

Michael Greenwald: (42:40)
So, director, I want to ask you one last question before I turn it back to John and that's, if, if the prime minister asked you tomorrow to create a Passover Seder table, which countries besides the United States, would you have at that table during that Seder and why, so what countries are most important to Israel going forward besides the United States?

Shabtai Shavit: (43:21)
Um, I, it's a, it's a very good question. I never thought about it. We just, uh, we just got the news last night that, uh, we are going to have a regular Seder without any restrictions from the government because of the, because of the Corona. Eh, it will sound odd to you, but I'm going to tell you what I'm going to say, but if it, if it was possible, I would invite in addition of the Americans, I would invite the Chinese.

Michael Greenwald: (44:08)
Do you think they would like brisket and matzah ball soup?

Shabtai Shavit: (44:12)
I, uh, what I can tell you from my, uh, personal experience is that, uh, the Chinese, uh, think only good things about us, uh, in, in, in various issues. They even envious. Again, I can, I can give you another vignette. Um, when, when I used to visit, after making the round of meetings, and I, uh, during my term, I, uh, I visited the three, four times a year there, and they all do the simple cake. So after finishing the, the, the round of meetings with my counterparts, they took me to, uh, uh, to, uh, Pilsen was the number three on the police bugle, a ladder. He had three heads. He was the coordinator of all security services. He was the chairman of the, uh, nation say parliament. So say they have this body, eh, very small 6,000 members of, and he was the chairman of this body.

Shabtai Shavit: (45:35)
And the fairly, he was the fellow number three on the [inaudible] list. And in the each time during the first meetings, three, four meetings at the certain point of time, he used to, uh, to push the, uh, the, uh, the question, tell me, who's all there reminded me, who is all the, your us and the stories. They're all there. I, you can't tell me. So I had to, I had to tell him, you are older than we are. And then I thought, what, what should I do? What can I do? And it was the face to face meeting with him. I waited for him to drop the, uh, to, to, uh, to, to push the, uh, the question of any deed. I told him, listen, we have another calendar than you. Our calendar is the weight of, of, uh, the brains and all the, uh, you know, the regular calendar of fields since then. He never, he never asked the question again.

Michael Greenwald: (46:48)
Well, director, I, uh, I look forward to having Passover Seder with you. You are always welcome. And I look forward to that very much. I want to thank you so much for this wonderful conversation today, uh, for this fantastic book, which I recommend everyone to go out and read in John. I want to turn it back over to you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you.

John Darcie: (47:11)
Well, director Chavez. It was a pleasure to have you here on salt talks and Michael, thank you so much for moderating today's conversation. I look forward to having you again on salt talks out to talk about a lot of the things that you've worked on and continue to work on over at Tetum. And I love reading all of your articles that you send through out to your mailing list. So thank you so much for joining us. Uh, both of just a reminder, uh, for anybody who missed any part of this salt talk or any of our previous salt talks, all these salt talks are available on our website and on our YouTube channel salt.org backslash talks is the website. Our YouTube channel is called salt too. We've made all these webinars free during COVID to just try to educate people on a variety of things going on in the world. So we've really enjoyed that. We're also on social media on Twitter is where we're most active at salt conference, but we're also on LinkedIn, Instagram, and Facebook. And please spread the word about these salt talks, but on behalf of the entire salt team, this is John Darcie signing off for today. We hope to see you back here soon.

Adam Jentleson: “Kill Switch: The Rise of the Modern Senate" | SALT Talks #180

“The filibuster is deeply rooted in historical efforts to oppress black Americans, starting with efforts to preserve slavery in the 19th century.”

Adam Jentleson is the author of Kill Switch: The Rise of the Modern Senate and the Crippling of American Democracy. He is the executive director of Battle Born Collective and was deputy chief of staff to former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

The Senate has long had a reputation as the greatest deliberative body in the world. It holds an almost mythical standing, but beneath that veneer is a highly dysfunctional institution controlled by the narrow interests of select Senators. The Constitution’s framers built a system capable of adapting to each era’s unique challenges. Through the targeted and discriminatory strengthening of the filibuster, that framing has been undercut and the Senate has become a legislative graveyard. “I think the Senate is on the verge of becoming just another failed institution in American life.”

The filibuster is a relic of Jim Crow. It was innovated by John C. Calhoun to prevent the inevitable abolition of slavery. Its threshold was then increased to 60 votes, serving as a block against civil rights legislation for the 87 years between the end of Reconstruction and 1964. “Civil rights bills between the end of Reconstruction and 1964 were the only category of legislation that was stopped by this supermajority threshold.”

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Adam Jentleson.jpeg

Adam Jentleson

Author

Kill Switch

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darcie: (00:07)
Hello everyone. And welcome back to salt talks. My name is John Darcie. I'm the managing director of salt, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance technology and public policy. Salt talks are a digital interview series with leading investors, creators, and thinkers. And our goal on these salt talks is the same as our goal at our salt conferences, which is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future. And we're very excited today to bring you a very timely topic about the United States Senate with author and media contributor. Adam gentlemen, Adam, as I mentioned, is the author most recently of kill switch the rise of the modern Senate and the crippling of American democracy. Adam is currently the executive director of Battleborn collective and a former deputy chief of staff to Senator Harry Reid. So he's seen up close and personal the issues that we have with the modern Senate. He's a columnist as well for GQ and a frequent political contributor on MSNBC. And he lives, uh, near DC and Tacoma park, Maryland and hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci. Who's the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge capital, a global alternative investment firm. Anthony is also the chairman of salt and he has a little bit of experience in politics, but I'm not going to slam him today on his brief stint in the Trump administration. But with that, I'll turn

Anthony Scaramucci: (01:33)
It over to him. Listen, okay. Measuring this stuff

Adam Jentleson: (01:36)
By dog years at this point, just think of those two poor dogs that were thrown from the white house after 37 days. Okay. 3.36 Scaramucci, for those of you that are counting in Scaramucci. Okay. So, but apparently the dogs are coming back, but one thing is for certain Adam, I'm not coming back. Okay. I'm going to be stuck here in salt talks, talking to great authors like you. Uh, but I, uh, just a little bit of a true, you know, for your benefit. Uh, Senator Reed was super helpful to salt back in 2009. Uh, we decided to go to Las Vegas with the live conference when obviously way before the pandemic, uh, Vegas was being devastated by the last financial crisis. And so we elected to go with the air. He helped the range speakers for us. Unfortunately he couldn't make the first one, but he came to a few thereafter and, uh, no surprise to the people that know me.

Adam Jentleson: (02:31)
I am a donor of Senator Harry Reid. So I'm fairly bipartisan when it comes to donating, um, which got me in trouble with Donald Trump. But let's move on because we're talking about policy and we're talking about what is right for the country. I thought that spoke was fascinating. I'm going to hold it up for everybody. Okay. Kill, switch. Um, why did I think it was fascinating, Adam, because you're describing the history of the Senate that most Americans don't know, you're describing procedures in the Senate, which as we've learned from the rules about the parliamentarian, the procedures actually matter to the people in the Senate as they should. Uh, but you're also describing what needs to happen

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:13)
If we're going to have policy progress. And again, this is bi-partisan policy progress, which is what I loved about the book so much. So, uh, first of all, congratulations on the book. And then secondly, if you don't mind, tell us a little bit about your background and then I'd like you to talk a little bit about the book, you know, the skeleton of the book, the history of the Senate, et cetera. Some of don't give up all the great parts because I want people to go out and buy it, but I certainly want our, our viewers and listeners to learn from me.

Adam Jentleson: (03:42)
Sure. And thank you so much, John and Anthony for having me, it's really great to be here. Um, and thanks for reading the book. Uh, so about me, I, I started in politics. I didn't think I was going to go into politics, but I sort of grew up around it. My parents were teachers. Um, but my dad didn't put us,

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:00)
I just think we're going into pilot exam. It draws us in. Okay. It's like the Michael Corleone narrative. Okay. You can't, you can't get out either once. You're drawn in sorry to

Adam Jentleson: (04:09)
Interrupt, but no, no problem. Um, but yeah, no. So for me, I was in college in 2003 in New York city. And, uh, it was the Iraq war that sort of got the turning to politics. Um, I went to work from there on, uh, presidential campaign that year, uh, and for the next 10 years sort of bounced around between presidential campaigns and jobs and the sort of political campaign and nonprofit C4 type world. Um, and then I arrived in the Senate around 2010, uh, and that was sort of the defining, uh, professional experience for me. Um, I went straight to work for Senator Reed and spent my time within there, started in communications rose up to be deputy chief of staff to him. And so I was there through most of the big fights in the Obama administration. And, you know, the, the reason that I wrote this book is because of what I saw in my time there.

Adam Jentleson: (04:58)
And, you know, you get to the Senate and it's this mythical place. And you're told that it's this bastion of wisdom and thoughtfulness and bipartisanship. Um, and it's, you know, sometimes been able to live up to that reputation. But what I saw was a Senate that uses that reputation to cloak itself and hide the dysfunction that lies beneath it. Uh, and the experiences I had. There's got me asking questions about why is it this way? And when you ask these questions, you get very unsatisfying answers. They tend to be answers about Senate tradition and this sort of circular, it always comes back to sort of, it is this way because it is this way, you know, this is how the Senate wants it to be. Um, and I found those answers unsatisfying because what I saw was a Senate where it was shaped by power plays and it was shaped by individuals with narrow political interests, publicans and Democrats, uh, who would make power grabs and change the rules and shape the rules and shape and arms.

Adam Jentleson: (05:55)
And then explain it in the, in terms of grants that have tradition and try to explain how they were the ones standing up, um, for the framers vision and stuff like that. So I thought it would be helpful to write a book that tried to level set this and ground all of this talk in what the framers really meant and what they really intended to send it to be. And I'm not an originalist here. Um, I wouldn't claim that we should hang on to framers every word for, you know, thinking about how, what our laws should say and what our policies should be. But they did design a system that was capable of change and capable of adapting and meeting the challenges of new areas. And what we have today is a system that is incapable of change, but is incapable of passing common sense by partisan bills that have broad public support.

Adam Jentleson: (06:39)
Uh, and I think the Senate is on the verge of becoming just another failed institution in American life. And if it is unable to adapt, it's unable to change. If it gets too obsessed with preserving itself in Amber, um, it's going to be a failed institution and the country is going to be worse off for it. So that's what brought me to this book and what I hope the book does offer readers, tearing down some of that it's cutting through the fog and trying to get down to, to what it was really supposed to be and how it can change.

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:04)
So, so, okay, so let's go back. Cause I think this is instructive for our listeners, uh, and correct me if I'm wrong. Uh, the Senate is actually in parts of our Republican democracy are designed to protect minorities. I'm not necessarily talking about black or brown people. I'm talking about people that are in the minority as it relates to voting. And so we didn't want to have mob rule or just popular vote rule. The day we wanted to empower the states with some levels of rights and some levels of representations of the Senate is the mechanism for that. It is effectively two senators in Rhode Island, two senators in California, even though Rhode Island population is miniscule compared to California. Uh, James Madison, you write about James Madison and the book in the beginning, part of the book, uh, that explained the dangers of giving veto power to minorities potentially outweighed the benefits. Um, and so just for, for our listeners, step back for a second, tell us what you like about the Senate. Tell us what you dislike about the Senate and tell us about why the Senate was formed in the first place.

Adam Jentleson: (08:13)
Yes, yes. Yeah. It's, you know, the Senate was designed to protect minority rights. And when, like you said, when the framers were talking about minorities, they were talking about minority factions and specifically they weren't really thinking about vulnerable populations. They were more thinking about the status quo and, and the people in power. One of their overriding concerns was the threat of mob to property rights. They were basically afraid of the people

Anthony Scaramucci: (08:37)
They had to get these, they had to get these sob to ratify the constitution. So they needed each of those colonies, which were becoming states to do so. And so therefore this was an empowerment tool for that as well.

Adam Jentleson: (08:49)
Right, right. Fair enough. And, and, you know, I mean, I don't want to, you know, miss portrayed the Senate, it wasn't designed to be a of democracy per se. It was designed to be a bit of a break on the system, uh, and, and provide that protection to minority factions against the threat of mob rule. But the whole system itself was also supposed to provide that check, you know, that the checks and balances, weren't just the Senate. It was having a bicameral legislature having a judiciary and having a president. Um, and so it was the whole system that Madison designed that he saw as providing checks and balances. Even today, if you take the filibuster out of the picture, United States still has more checks and balances, what political scientists called veto players, uh, than any other modern democracy. So there are, there are a lot of checks even without the filibuster.

Adam Jentleson: (09:31)
Um, and I think that's good. The Senate should provide that check against majority mob rule. Um, it's a place where, you know, legislation goes to become more thoughtful, to be being debated more thoroughly to try to reach consensus. All that is very good. But with the framers were trying to do was strike a delicate balance. And we've lost that balance today. Um, as you said, Madison, who was sort of achieved champion of minority rights, wrote extensively about the importance of protecting minority rights, but he also very explicitly said that it was the goal is to provide the minority of voice in the process and a guaranteed role in the process, but never to provide them with detail. And he was explicit about this. He said, you know, when push comes to shove, basically I'm paraphrasing. Um, if, you know, consensus could not be attained, the majority should go forward.

Adam Jentleson: (10:19)
And he called the majority rule quote, the Republican principle, this was foundational for him. Um, and the reason it was, was that the framers had just had firsthand experience with what happens when you allow a minority to have veto power, because in the articles of Confederation, you know, the first draft of American government, the Congress in the articles had a super majority threshold for most major legislation. And it was a complete disaster. They couldn't pass anything. It crippled that emergent Republic during war time and they hated it. So they were very clear that they wanted to have checks and balances, but they wanted all decision points within that system to be majority rule, because they had seen firsthand that if you create a super majority threshold and by doing so, giving the minority veto power, because you know, 40% can, can stop. What, what 50% or up to 60% want to do, you're going to create a crippling system. So they call them. I mean, they, they said this explicitly. So that's, that's the balance that we're trying to strike. And we've tilted that balance far too far in the direction of giving the minority too much power.

Anthony Scaramucci: (11:19)
And the Republicans have taken advantage of this, of course, because they are in the minority. If you look at the voter registration, but yet states like north and South Dakota, they have the population of Manhattan, the island of Manhattan. Yet they have four senators between those two states. So the Republicans have figured out how to use these, uh, minority rules to their advantage Democrats from time to time have done as well. I'm not necessarily trying to pick on one group, what is a filibuster? Adam, tell our audience what a filibuster is.

Adam Jentleson: (11:51)
A filibuster is not what you think of when you think of a filibuster is not Jimmy Stewart standing on the floor, giving a long speech. At least it's not anymore. Right now all a filibuster is, is the ability of any individual Senator to raise the number of votes. It takes to pass a bill from a simple majority where it was for most of the sentence existence. And technically still is today, if you can get there. But, uh, what they're able to do is put a threshold higher than that majority today that had 60 votes in the path of the bills, passed the path to passage. And to throw that hurdle up, to throw that 60 vote hurdle up to every bill has to clear, uh, they don't have to debate at all. They'll don't have to go to the floor if they don't have to explain themselves, uh, they don't even have to make a public statement of any thought.

Adam Jentleson: (12:35)
All they have to do is send an email, became the other staff, just send an email to what's called a cloakroom, which was sort of the nerve center of power. Each party has one right off the Senate floor. When you see CSPAN or walking through those doors on the side, two of those doors lead to one leads to the democratic cloakroom one leads to the Republican cloakroom. So you just have your staff send an email and that automatically with one email makes a bill that should have a majority vote special for passage, go up to 60 votes. So that's all the filibuster is today.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:04)
The Republicans do that on the current spending bill.

Adam Jentleson: (13:07)
Well, so there's one category, um, of legislation that is exempt from filibusters and that's anything that can go through this process called budget reconciliation. Um, this was a process created in the 1970s that was supposed to be sort of a fast track for budgetary procedures. Congress was trying to sort of take back power from the executive at this time. This was post-Watergate. And so they wanted to say the president had too much power. The president was setting the budget and the spending priorities for the entire government Congress was trying to take that power back. So they created a special, fast track procedure to make it really easy to pass anything budget related. Um, and then they made, and then people started using that fast-track for all sorts of things. So in the eighties, Robert Bird stepped in and said, here's a, here's a new set of rules that restricts what can go through this backpack. Uh, and the basic restriction is that a policy's impact has to have a primarily budgetary impact. And the person who decides that is one individual, the Senate parliamentarian and unelected person who, um, both sides, respect, but gets to make that decision unilaterally. And, you know, it's a pretty restricted definition.

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:09)
Oh, the Senate, the Senate parliamentarian and parliamentarian has now become famous again was once famous in 2001. Tell us a little bit about that and tell us why they're famous again today.

Adam Jentleson: (14:20)
Yeah. So in 2001, um, the Senate parliamentarian had a big role in deciding the control of the Senate and, um, uh, some big debates that are going on around around the Bush tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts were going through reconciliation, this process, which put them in the spotlight. Uh, and so they had a big, big role to play there. And so basketball they're playing today, where the problem with debt with what Democrats are trying to do is that, you know, Republicans tend to use reconciliation for things that reconciliation was designed for like, like tax cuts. It's just, that matches up better with their policy agenda. It's easier for them to push tax best through a budgetary process than it is to push COVID eight or a minimum wage increase through a budgetary process. But just to demonstrate how restrictive this process can be, you know, minimum wage does have a major budgetary impact.

Adam Jentleson: (15:04)
There's no way to argue it. Doesn't right before this ruling came down, this congressional budget office came out with a report demonstrating, um, millions, hundreds of millions of dollars in budgetary impact for the minimum wage. But even that level of budgetary impact didn't meet the standard of reconciliation, which is it has to be primarily budgetary. So even though obviously a minimum wage increase would have a budgetary impact, it didn't rise to that level. And so that's how restrictive this process can be. So as people think about what else can move through it, I think people are trying to force climate change policies through immigration policies. I think now that we know where the parliamentarian stands, it's going to be hard to force these other policies through if minimum wage doesn't have a primarily budgetary impact. I think it'd be hard to argue that climate change policies or immigration have a primary.

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:50)
I think it's fascinating. I want to go back to the filibuster for a second, and then I've got some other follow-up questions about it, but you write in the book, uh, that a very, um, uh, Gus gentlemen, John Lewis, who's now deceased. He said that the filibuster is a Jim Crow Relic, uh, and the harm allowed by the filibuster extends far beyond Jim Crow. What did he mean by that? Uh, give us the historical context that he's speaking.

Adam Jentleson: (16:22)
So the filibuster is deeply rooted in historical efforts to oppress black Americans, uh, starting with the effort to preserve slavery in the 19th century, the chief innovator of what we would think of as the talking to the Buster, the Jimmy Stewart style filibuster was John [inaudible] who, uh, used it to increase the great

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:42)
New biography by the way about Calhoun out, uh, came out about two weeks ago.

Adam Jentleson: (16:47)
Yes. I really recommend asking any character that there should be a musical about him, but he would, would be an antihero. But, um, but he, you know, what happened was that the country was moving towards abolition and Calhoun could see that the majority of the country left to its own devices would abolish slavery eventually. Um, so he needed to increase the power of the minority to stop them from doing that. And so that's why he started to innovate the talking filibuster, but all through the 19th century, there was no rule that allowed the filibuster ERs to raise the number of votes it took to pass a bill. So the best you could do with this talking filibuster was to delay bills by giving a speech. And the way that we tend to think of what happened in the Jim Crow era. This is when senators figured out how to start using the filibuster to increase the number of votes it took to pass a bill.

Adam Jentleson: (17:35)
There was a rule put on the books in 1917 in response to a very embarrassing filibuster. The Senate was sort of humiliated when they filibustered to build their president. Wilson was trying to put through to arm American merchant ships. Um, there was a big public backlash, senators were being burned in across the country. So the Senate came back and said, all right, we need to give ourselves a tool to end filibusters when they get too extreme. So they created what's called cloture rule. And you can think of cloture as closure. It's bringing closure to a debate because every bill has to pass through this debate period before it gets to final passage. And if you're being filibustered, the only way to end that debate period is through a closure vote. Bringing closure to that, that vote was set at a super majority threshold. And the idea was that this would be a tool that senators could reach for if they filibuster was going on too long in a reasonable group of senators could come together and say, all right, that's it guys wrap it up.

Adam Jentleson: (18:25)
Let's move on to the final vote, which was at a majority festival during this period, Southern senators started using the filibuster and sort of grafting that super majority threshold onto the filibuster to apply effectively a super majority threshold only to civil rights bills, uh, civil rights bills between the end of reconstruction in 1964, where the only category of legislation that was stopped by this super majority threshold for 87 years. And I just want to make one last point on this, which is that we sometimes think that maybe America wasn't ready for civil rights until the late fifties and sixties, but the evidence shows otherwise, um, bills to end lynching bills to end poll taxes and bills to end workplace discrimination were passing the house of representatives by wide margins. They were coming over to the Senate where they had majority support and they had presidents of both parties ready to sign them.

Adam Jentleson: (19:17)
In fact, Republicans were much better on civil rights during this period than Democrats. Uh, the only thing that stopped them was the Senate filibuster. The American people wanted action on civil rights, Gallup polled, the issue of anti-lynching laws in 1937 and found 72% of the American people in support of anti-lynching laws. They pulled, uh, anti poll tax laws in the 1940s, and they found upwards of 60% of Americans in support. So we could have had action on civil rights decades before we started doing it. Uh, but the only thing that blocked it was the Senate filibuster,

Anthony Scaramucci: (19:49)
W w we're we're we're trying to figure out who the 28% is Adam, that that's, I guess for lynching, but I guess those are some of the people that stormed the capital, their descendants, or some of those people, but the reason, again, I think it's important to reference this. The reason why this book is so important is that I think that the average American particularly Americans that are managing money, like many of our viewers, they don't understand the system and the processes that are in place that are actually sludging up the ability for social progress, human progress, policy progress, uh, all of this Byzantine stuff that you're describing very clearly by the way, uh, is something that Americans need to know about so that they can, uh, help to force a change, uh, procedural or otherwise. So

Adam Jentleson: (20:41)
If I can just put on this Jim Crow air for one second, cause I think it demonstrates an important point, please. So, you know, so this was, you know, the early first half of the 20th century, right, where we built post-war America, we built the middle-class. We, we, you know, advanced a lot of the policies that GI bill, um, you know, building the highway system, all these things that we think of when we think of what made America great and allowed the middle class to pride, what's really important to think of during this period is that every other bill besides civil rights passed or failed in the Senate, based on whether it could secure a majority Medicare, uh, there was a great memo from LBJ, his top legislative aid writing to LBJ saying that he's confident Medicare is going to pass because he could count a majority of senators in support of it.

Adam Jentleson: (21:23)
After it was clear, it was going to pass a bunch more senators jumped on board and it got up to 70 votes, but Medicare needed to clear a majority to pass that skit. Uh, it never faced a filibuster. So only civil rights was the only category of legislation that was forced to clear a super majority threshold during the first half of the 20th century. So you look at the experience of every other issue and you look at civil rights, every other issue was dealt with in a relatively timely fashion, America faced the challenges that it fit, that it was facing successfully more or less on civil rights and failed today. We are applying the standard that we applied to civil rights to every other issue, every other issue, except for the budget stuff, except for yes. That's right, right,

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:03)
Right. Okay. So, so there's a couple of Democrats that want to keep this in place. Right? Joe Manchin is one of them. Um, what, what, why, why would they want to keep this in place?

Adam Jentleson: (22:14)
Well, I'm not totally sure, but I think if you asked your mansion, he would say that it's because of Senate tradition and bipartisanship, and there's

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:21)
An argument to my guest from Arizona is one of them as well, right?

Adam Jentleson: (22:24)
Yeah. Yeah. Well, I think what they would say I'm trying to do, do their argument objectively is that the filibuster is the last thing that would help facilitate bipartisanship because by insisting that you need 60 votes in this era where neither party is likely to control 60 votes in the Senate, in any point in the foreseeable future, it forces you to have bipartisanship, uh, because by its very nature, you have to have some Republicans involved to get the sixties. Um, but I would argue that the filibuster is actually stifling bipartisanship because the 60 votes is a pretty much an arbitrary number that they arrived at through a series of reforms through the latter half of the 20th century. Um, and you see a lot of opportunity to maybe get a few Republicans on board with certain policies and get you to 52 53, you know, maybe even 55 votes.

Adam Jentleson: (23:14)
Um, but you can't get the 60. And it's the impossibility of getting to 60 in our polarized environment means by partisanship is never going to happen. I look at things like the vote to call witnesses and the Trump impeachment trial. You actually had five Republicans crossover and vote with Democrats on that. So that was a bipartisan vote. You only need to clear a majority in that case. So it's succeeded, but let's say you had that on an infrastructure bill and five Republicans crossed over and voted with Democrats and you have 55 votes for an infrastructure bill. That would be a great bi-partisan achievement, especially in this day age to get five Republicans to support it, but it wouldn't pass because you couldn't get to 60. So even though it seems like it would facilitate bipartisanship by setting a basically impossible standard, it's actually making it impossible to get anything done in stifling, real opportunities for bipartisanship.

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:00)
So at the same time that this is going on, um, and again, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it was instigated by your former boss. Uh, some of these confirmations that once required 60 votes are now down to the minor majority, uh, which was working well for Democrats. And then all of a sudden president Trump flipped it on him and it started working well for Republicans as it related to Supreme court justices and federal judges. Uh, tell us the history of that. Tell us what, uh, Harry Reed got right. And what he did.

Adam Jentleson: (24:30)
Yeah, sure. So this is, you know, th the debates are nominations in particular, judicial nominations go back to the 1980s. Some people would trace it to the fight over Robert pork's nomination under president Reagan. Um, and this was an issue, you know, both sides argued over under president Bush Republicans, uh, tried to go nuclear themselves to, uh, confirm some judicial nominees. Um, that was when this gang of 14 arose and, and sort of took the wind out of that, uh, effort and forced to compromise. Um, but this is sort of 2013. And Reed's decision was with the culmination of a decades long fight over nominations. What Reed was facing in 2013 was Republican obstruction that had gotten, uh, beyond any historical reference point of president Obama's nominees. And I'm talking about his judicial nominees and his nominees to cabinet positions faced that. Let me put this way.

Adam Jentleson: (25:19)
Half of all filibusters in American history against presidential nominees were waged against president Obama's nominees, the other half of filibusters against president's nominees where all of American history combined. So that's how bad it was. It was extreme. And so what we faced in 2013 was Obama just been reelected and nothing had changed. I think there was a brief period after his reelection where people thought the tea party fever would break. Republicans would start working with Democrats that wasn't happening. His nominees were still being obstructed. He was on track to have the fewest judicial nominees confirmed in any president since before Reagan. So we decided that the only thing he could do was to go nuclear effectively and lower the threshold to confirm nominees from 60 votes to the majority, um, where it is today. Um, he exempted Supreme court, uh, as the one category that would remain at 60 votes because we just simply didn't didn't have the votes for it.

Adam Jentleson: (26:10)
Um, but every other, uh, nominee the threshold came down to 15. What that allowed us to do was to convert, to confirm a wave of Obama, um, judicial nominees in a year and a half that we still have the majority from 2013 to 2014. And so that got Obama on par with all other precedents. If we hadn't gone, nuclear Obama would have left office with the fewest nominees since Reagan Trump would've arrived with even more, uh, open vacancies to fill. Now you could argue as some Hab that by going nuclear, we let Republicans more traditional knowledge. Um, that's a valid argument. I personally believe that if Democrats, if the filibuster for nominees it's still been in place and Democrats had been filibustering Trump's nominees in February, March of 2017 when he was still riding high, but Mitch McConnell would have gotten rid of that filibuster in a heartbeat, uh, and confirmed all denominations going to confirm anyway, and then we went to confirm this last wave of Obama nominees.

Adam Jentleson: (27:07)
So I happen to think that it was worth it because of the nominees that we were able to get confirmed, that the caudal would would've gone nuclear itself. We know that you values judicial nominees more than anything else. I think the idea that he would have, let Democrats stand in his way with the filibuster is unsupported by the evidence. Um, so that, that went through, if anything, I think that what we got wrong was not going far enough, uh, not lowering the threshold for Supreme court justices. He, he probably would have if he could have, but he couldn't get the votes. I like to think about how the Merrick Garland fight would have been different. If Democrats had only needed to get 50 votes to confirm Merrick Garland, instead of 60, it was very easy for McConnell to keep, you know, 14 Republicans from breaking away, um, and getting to 60.

Adam Jentleson: (27:47)
It might've been a lot harder for him to, to prevent only three or four Republicans that breaking way. So, you know, I think we should go further. I think a majority votes Senate, fundamentally benefits, progressives and liberals, more than Republicans as from a progressive perspective, but even from a healthy, balanced perspective, I think our country is in a good balance. When liberals come in and expand the social safety net, expand rights, uh, to new vulnerable populations, and then concern has come in and trim it back and cut back spending like that's a healthy balance, but right now our government can't get anything done. And we're failing to meet challenges like global warming and income inequality and all these things, and we're crippled as a country. And so we've lost that, that balance between the two sides.

Anthony Scaramucci: (28:30)
So, you know, listen, you're, you're excellent at explaining it you're even better at writing about it, by the way. I thought the book was phenomenal. I have one last question that I have to turn it over to the millennial, although gentle you look a little bit like a millennial to me too. So I'm probably going to get mad at you before this thing is over that you're right at the cusp of two young people's may smack your two heads together, but the, uh, the title kill switch, I think is a very effective title. Drew my eye calls me to order the book, frankly. Uh, and then once I got it, I started reading it and I became fascinated by it. Um, why did you title it kill switch? And what is the reception for this in Washington DC?

Adam Jentleson: (29:13)
Well, I titled the kill switch cause I was writing it in the basement and I was looking at the electrical box in the basement and thinking to myself, you know, what is something that shuts down a system and, you know, in your electrical box, there's that kill switch that shuts down the entire system. And that to me is what the Senate has become. Um, you know, we think of it as a cooling sauce or a place where good ideas go to be, you know, uh, cooled and, and developed thoughtfully. It's not bad anymore. Now it's a kill switch. It shuts down our entire system's ability to process change in a thoughtful, constructive, bipartisan way. Um, so that's how I came up with, with the title there. Um, their assumption honestly has, has been very encouraging. Um, I've been, uh, very pleased, not just with how it has been received by Democrats, but also received by a lot of conservatives.

Adam Jentleson: (29:57)
Um, uh, max boot, the conservative intellectual, uh, said that my book convinced him, uh, that filibuster reform was necessary. David, from a former Bush speech writer has written very positively about it in the Atlantic. Um, uh, so I I've been, I think people have engaged with the material in a thoughtful way. Um, I, my politics are on my sleeve. I write, I state that in the book. Um, but I tried to approach it objectively to give Mitch McConnell equal time to try to help people understand what makes him tick, not just slam him. Um, and the same with, with Democrats and Republicans throughout the era. I mean, you know, as I explained in the book, Republicans were much better on civil rights than Democrats for a lot of the 20th century. And I tried to give, give credit where do there. So I'm, I've been very happy with the way it's been received. Uh, I hope, uh, folks, if they're interested we'll, we'll um, give it a try. Uh, but I think it's, it's, it's gotten a good reception so far.

Anthony Scaramucci: (30:51)
I'm going to turn it over to John Dorsey. Uh, I hope a lot of the things that you're recommending do come to pass for the United States, that he'd be very beneficial. And I think what you're saying is very balanced in terms of the course corrections that are needed, but also the expansion of our society as it relates to social justice and more progress for people that for whatever reason have been left out of the society. And so, uh, you know, one of the books that, uh, I'm sure you've read or know about is Jola Poor's book, uh, which really writes candidly about the American historical achievements, but also some of the things that were setbacks, uh, for America as it's rising towards social progress. So, um, amazing book, uh, Adam, I got to turn it over to your fellow millennial. Okay. So he'll try to outshine me now, but that's fine. In the meantime, I'm sh I'm showing your book to hopefully stop him from outshining me. The book is fantastic. Go ahead, John Dorsey. Yeah. I mean,

John Darcie: (31:50)
It's an incredibly relevant book and I don't know that you wrote about it, uh, with foreshadowing of the context that we exist in today. So it couldn't have been more timely in terms of, uh, what's happening in Congress, but you talked about Mitch McConnell. So I want to go deeper into that, you know, from a distance I look at McConnell and it's hard to figure out exactly what does make him tick and what his end game is and what he really wants. You know, he's somebody who has as much as anyone prevented progress from the left, but he also has been critical of Trump. You voted yes on Merritt Garland's confirmation, uh, this week. And, and he's somebody who every once in a while, he throws you an olive branch to signal that maybe he's not unreasonable and he's not just an obstructionist, but what does make him tick? And what's the method in the madness,

Adam Jentleson: (32:38)
What them tick is a desire for power. Um, I think that's basically, and I don't even, I don't say that necessarily in a critical way. I think that was probably true of Senator Reed as well. Um, but, but what makes McConnell especially effective at what he does is that he's able to cloak that sort of naked drive for power in this sense of institutional preservation and tradition. And he's better at that than anybody I've ever seen. But what was interesting in the research for the book is you go back and you see that this was a pattern. And that folks like Richard Russell of Georgia, who was sort of the biggest champion of the filibuster, uh, in the middle of the 20th century and an a valid white supremacist, I don't use that term lightly, his own words. He stated that his, uh, he said, uh, any Southern man worth a pinch of salt would give his all to preserve white supremacy.

Adam Jentleson: (33:27)
Uh, he was very open about the fact that his mission in public service was to preserve white supremacy. So I don't use that lightly, that those were his words. He similar to McConnell, uh, was an expert at, at making massive power grabs and changing the Senate in, in big ways and strengthening the filibuster in his own time. But convincing everybody that he was doing it in the service of traditional John Calhoun in his own time, same thing. He was the first person to start grafting this idea of minority rights onto obstruction in saying, we're not obstructing, we're trying to preserve minority rights. So I see a line, um, throughout history from Calhoun to Russell to McConnell, uh, in that ability to advance your own political interests and change the Senate in ways that advantage you, but it convinced everybody, but you're doing it in the name of tradition. Um, so I think it's, it's that what makes him tick is that drive for power and what makes them effective at it is this ability to sort of present himself as, as an institutionalist, as he does it

John Darcie: (34:24)
And his dislike for Trump. Do you think that's born out of a sorrel sort of a moral objection to things that have happened, whether it be the insurrection or things prior to that, or do you think it's the fact that Trump threatened his sort of Supreme power over the Republican party and how it operates?

Adam Jentleson: (34:42)
I think that McConnell has a complicated relationship with Trump because I actually think he owes a lot to Trump. As I write in the book in the period between 2014 and 2016 McConnell was in trouble. He was, uh, the top target of the tea party, um, who had just ousted John Bainer as speaker in October of 2015. So this was a very credible threat and they were coming after McConnell and saying, you're next? And Mark Meadows, uh, Mulvaney when they were in Congress were quoted saying, we're coming after you McConnell. And so when Trump came onto the scene, you know, McConnell opposed him and as he to the primary, but once you got the nomination, McConnell realized that Trump, he could sort of draft in Trump's wake and Trump would protect his right flank. And so I have trouble crediting McConnell's objection is deeply moral because through most of the four years of Trump's rise and time and power McConnell did everything Trump wanted him to do.

Adam Jentleson: (35:32)
He protected him to the, to impeachment trials. He protected Trump. It sort of lost a memory, but when Trump made a major power grab to end the government shutdown and unilaterally ship funds in a massive violation of Congress's power of the purse, carnal backed, um, at the time that was the thing everybody said, this is going to be the break. This is what's going to cause McConnell to break with Trump didn't happen. Um, and then, you know, he did eventually come out and acknowledged Biden's win, but he, it took him a month. And so right after the election McConnell went to the Senate floor and said it Trump's challenges to the election were valid. And I think that institutional stamp of approval on Trump's challenges for a whole month, did a lot to signal to other Republicans that they should, uh, support the challenges. So I have trouble giving him credit for sort of late in the game, trying to sort of recoup some, some respect and credibility, uh, and coming out for Trump's. I don't, I don't credit it as moral. Unfortunately I think it's, you know, he was, he was right behind Trump winning advantage him, preserve his own power. And I think that's, that's sort of just how he, how he works.

John Darcie: (36:32)
So we talked earlier about Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Kiersten cinema and Arizona being the two most noteworthy Democrats that are looking to preserve the filibuster because they think it will lead to some level of bipartisanship. But if you look at the stakes of current legislation, that Democrats are putting forth, like the John Lewis voting rights act, for example, uh, that would increase access to voting rights, uh, for future elections, cyclical forces indicate that Republicans could easily take back control of Congress in 2022, uh, in both both sides of Congress as well. Do they realize what's at stake? And how is the rest of the party trying to communicate and get through to them about the importance, especially at this moment in time, specifically of ending that Philip Buster,

Adam Jentleson: (37:17)
It's not clear to me that they understand what's at stake yet, but I think, I think they will be made to understand by the, by the, their, um, colleagues, because I think initially they thought they were going to come out. You're going to have to take the Stanford Senate tradition. I think they expected a lot of people to be cheering them on. I think they probably are a little bit surprised at how quick the consensus is formed against the filibuster. You have folks like David Brooks running column saying Democrats would probably get rid of it. I don't think they expected that. I think they expected to have more of a cheering section. And then in addition, I think they thought by standing in support of the filibuster, they will be opposing far left policies like Medicare for all the green new deal. Um, but it's very clear those things couldn't pass even in a 50 votes Senate cause Joe Manchin could vote against them.

Adam Jentleson: (37:57)
And that's that. Um, and, and what they're really standing away over must pass things for all Democrats like voting rights, uh, and other major pillars of the Biden agenda. So I think these four walls are sort of closing in on them in a way, because, you know, they're not standing against far-left policy, they're standing against the basic success or failure of the Biden administration and of all of their colleagues who were up on the ballot in 2022, you know, Mark Kelly, Kristin Sinema, his fellow Senator in Arizona is up again in 2022 because even though he just won election, it's a special election. So he has to run again. He needs accomplishments to win. He needs to be able to go to Arizona lawyers and say, look at everything we accomplished, especially to withstand the historical forces. You're talking about where the party that just won the white house usually loses the midterms.

Adam Jentleson: (38:42)
So I think at the end of the day, the pressure is going to build on them where their fellow colleagues and hopefully eventually the white house are gonna come to them and say, look, we've tried everything. We've exhausted all attempts at bipartisanship. Just look at this Republican party. If you think bipartisanship is just about the flourish, I don't know what you're smoking. Uh, and we got to get things done. So I think that's the pressure that's going to build on them. And I think within a relatively short amount of time, months, not years, that will become unbearable pressure for them. And I think you will see them shift. You've already seen mansion shift a little bit, I would think is very significant.

John Darcie: (39:15)
Right? Last question, before we let you go, uh, you can answer this one quickly, but we recently did assault talk to interview with Jonathan Allen of NBC and Amy Parnas of the hill. And they, based on the research they did for their book called lucky, which is about how Biden narrowly won the election. Their opinion is that Biden actually likes having mansion and cinema as a heat shield, he and other moderate Democrats, because they, it allows them to have cover, um, to not pass some of these more progressive pieces of legislation. Uh, but at the same time, they, they liked the idea of compromise and bipartisanship as well. Do you subscribe to that notion that Biden himself, uh, doesn't necessarily want rapid progressive, uh, legislation? Or do you think that's?

Adam Jentleson: (39:59)
I think, I think that's probably right. I think Biden is very comfortable in the middle. Um, I think some of the more, uh, lefty promises he made during the campaign, you'd be happy to see those fall away melt against the heat shield. But I think that what's going to happen is eventually, you know, it's going to become clear that it's not just the far left policies that are being blocked. It's the middle of the road policies too, like an infrastructure bill. And at that point, I think the conversation gets very serious about reform. And I think you can even expect to see the white house start to engage more seriously than because, you know, they love to see bipartisanship flourish agenda Saki at the white house press secretary said recently that it was their preference not to change the filibuster rules. Um, but you know, we all have our preferences and sometimes they don't happen. So I think what's going to happen is we're going to see that the filibuster is blocking not far left policies, but middle of the road policies too. And at that point, uh, I think the conversation is going to get very real about reform.

John Darcie: (40:52)
Well, Adam gentlemen, it's a pleasure to have you on salt talks. The book again is called kill switch. Anthony, if you want to hold it up, uh, one more time, again, extremely timely, given the environment we're in, in the conversation,

Adam Jentleson: (41:03)
Good for something on Dorsey's program. So that all Sears is a phenomenal book. I wish you great success with it. And you got to get your name and your voice out there because what you're offering is common sense solutions to some of the policy inertia and some of the policy Madness's out there. Uh, and I greatly appreciate reading it because it explained a lot of the reasons why we can't get anything done at them. So anyway, kill switch, Adam Jensen, uh, best of luck to you with the book. And, uh, hopefully we can get you to one of our live events, uh, when we get back out of the pandemic. It sounds great. It was great to be here, guys. Thank you very much.

John Darcie: (41:46)
And thank you everybody who tuned into today's salt. Talk with Adam gentlemen, author of a new book called kill switch about, uh, the Senate, how it was originally constructed and how it's operating in modern times. A fantastic again, very timely book. Just a reminder, if you miss any part of this episode or any of our previous episodes of salt talks, you can access our entire archive@salt.org backslash talks or on our YouTube channel, which is called salt tube. We're also on social media. Twitter is where we're most active at salt conference. We're also on LinkedIn, Instagram and Facebook as well. And please spread the word about these salt talks, but on behalf of Anthony and the entire salt team, this is John Darcie signing off for today from salt talks. We hope to see you back here soon.