♪♪ ♪♪ >> So this one is, uh, really special for me, um, to be able to welcome two people with whom not only do I get to work with, but I get to pal around with, and we laugh and we cry and we have fun.

I do more of the crying because they, you know, they just -- they just beat me up all the time.

But it's a real -- it's a real pleasure to welcome Alicia Menendez and Symone Sanders Townsend.

Alicia, uh, is, uh, my co-host at, uh, "MSNBC The Weekend," Saturday and Sunday mornings, 8:00 to 10:00 a.m. >> For the next few weeks.

>> For now.

We're making a move.

Uh, we're excited about that.

Um, she is the author of "The Likeability Trap" and host of the "Latina to Latina" podcast.

Uh, she's doing her thing out there.

Previously anchored "American Voices with Alicia Menendez" on MSNBC.

And prior to joining our network, uh, served as a correspondent on, uh, Amanpour & Company, uh, on PBS and formerly hosted, uh, a nightly news and pop-culture show on Fusion called "Alicia Menendez Tonight."

Uh, I only get to see her in the morning.

So I'm really curious about the nighttime Alicia Menendez.

I'm looking forward to that when we move to prime time.

Uh, her -- She's been noted, uh, as "Miss Millennial" by "The Washington Post," "Journalism's new gladiator" by "Elle," and a "content queen" by "Marie Claire."

>> That's when I was young.

>> So she's rocking and rolling and really, really pleasure to welcome you here to Howard.

Uh, and then, of course, Symone Sanders Townsend, my other co-host on "The" Weekend, seasoned political strategist and communicator.

She first came to prominence in 2016 as the national press secretary for U.S.

Senator Bernie Sanders' then presidential campaign.

At 25, she became the youngest presidential press secretary on record and was named to "Rolling Stone" magazine's list of 16 Young Americans Shaping the 2016 Election.

Go, girl.

Did that thing.

At 29, she published her first book.

"No, You Shut Up."

Of course, only Symone would have a book entitled "No, You Shut Up: Speaking Truth to Power and Reclaiming America," and served as a senior adviser for President Joe Biden's 2020 presidential campaign.

At 31, having been a part of a successful presidential campaign, she was appointed as a senior member of the Biden-Harris administration, serving as Deputy Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor and Chief Spokesperson to Vice President Kamala Harris.

Uh, and so she is no stranger to Howard University's campus, uh, given that affiliation and certainly, uh, has served as a resident fellow, uh, of both Harvard's Institute of Politics at the Kennedy School and the University of Southern California Center for Political Future.

So welcome to you both.

[ Applause ] I like to bring the big guns.

And here they are right here.

Um, and so just to frame this for folks, um, we were originally having -- planning to have this conversation about two weeks after the inauguration, um, because we wanted to have a conversation about the transition from the Biden administration to the current administration, as well as knowing what happened the last time we had a presidential transition, it went to hell in a handbasket real fast.

But the weather got in the way and so it got bumped to now.

So we're still going to talk about that.

But I heard a lot of stuff has happened since the inauguration.

And so... >> Today.

>> Just today.

>> I took a nap.

>> So the transition may be just a bit moot at this point.

Um, but we really want to look at the -- look at that in the context of, you know, how administrations come into being.

Uh, you certainly were a part of that in 2020.

Uh, I've never -- In all the stuff I've done in politics, have never been on that side -- I've been involved after the government has been set up and established and certainly during the campaign.

But the transition is a very special, unique moment, which is why it was so outrageous what happened, uh, after the 2020 election.

And then President Trump -- refusal to participate, refusal to actually give up the power that the American people have given him.

Speak if you could real quick, Symone, about what you saw coming in '20, um, versus what we see -- what we saw this time with Joe Biden going out and handing the keys back to Donald Trump.

>> Um, I think one of the biggest differences between '20 and 2024 is that there were the Biden -- the then Biden transition was ready to sign the memorandum, if you will, that allows, um, the transition to officially go in and start meeting with the people throughout the federal government and the transition teams to actually land and start the process of setting up what the next administration will be.

But the Trump folks were not -- They didn't want to sign it.

And so there were not meetings.

Usually you would have the teams on the ground well after -- a little bit after the election.

Definitely throughout the month of December.

And that didn't happen for us.

But there were conversations specifically with the vice president's team and even the president's team.

But the president was, like, not trying to participate.

President Trump at the time.

This time, the Biden administration was like, "What do you need?"

And they were like, "We're not trying to sign."

And now we know why.

Because they had done a lot of this work -- Ever since Donald Trump left office the last time, they've been working on the government this time.

So they didn't need, um, the MOU with the -- with the administration to land and do... >> Because they had a plan of their own anyway.

>> They had their own plan.

They had Project 2025 and they had all these people already.

They had the bodies ready.

They knew who they were going to put in, which was very different from the last go round.

Um, because they didn't -- they didn't know and they didn't have that.

So I do think that the swiftness that we're seeing from the administration in these last, what, has it been, six weeks?

>> Yeah, 50-something days, yeah.

>> Is due to the fact that they -- they were ready for the transition, more so than any other, I think, any other recent administration, even the Biden administration.

When we came in during the transition, we were still -- Like, the president did not know who his exact cabinet secretaries were going to be.

He used the transition time to walk through, vet the list, vet them.

There were some people that he thought it was going to be the person, then it switched up.

Donald Trump knew who his people were going to be this go round.

>> Alicia, you had -- And, you know, just so we can have -- We're not standing on formality here.

So y'all just jump in.

You know, because we -- we connect too much to do this whole interview thing.

>> Michael said, "Do not wait for me to ask you questions."

>> Please don't wait for me.

Just jump in and do your thing.

Uh, I'll just throw up some stuff as we go along.

But I wanted to get your sense of -- Because you were in a different position in '20.

Um, you were covering it as a journalist and host.

Um, how did from that perspective -- Because we've seen what the media went through, how the media covered Trump.

And now here we are.

You know, it's like déjà vu all over again to some degree.

But now there are more people in the pool.

You got the business community, you've got institutions of higher education, you've got all these other folks now sort of bending the knee in a way that we didn't see necessarily in the last term.

But those differences are much starker now.

How do you assess it from those perspectives?

>> He was just such an unconventional candidate that I think people were watching and waiting to see, was he going to be an unconventional president once he was in office?

And I think people were sort of watching and waiting so that they could do it correctly.

And then he very quickly began to sort of test the outer limits of what that looked like.

And I think you watched a lot of the press struggle with how to contextualize that he was breaking rules and breaking norms.

I think the difference to Symone's point about this transition is they weren't as effective during their first term as I think you can even measure them as having been in the last six weeks, because they didn't understand how government worked.

They had almost a disregard for how government worked.

I think this time they have learned their mistakes from the first go round.

They have studied things so that they understand where the money is, who controls which budgets, the things that have to run through Congress, the things that can just come from the president himself through executive order.

And I think the work that they did to get themselves in position for this second term, the press, by and large, has not kept up with the reality of the fact that this is not Trump 1.0.

This is not unconventional but unprepared.

This is unconventional, has showed us who they are and the way in which they are willing to not just break norms, but break laws.

And I think we're still watching the challenge of the press to articulate, um, the fact that... >> Why is that so hard?

>> I think it is hard.

>> The thing is the thing.

Right?

>> Yes.

But I think that part of it -- Well, one is there is such... >> [ Laughing ] >> I mean, you will give a rawer answer to this, I think.

But I think to be fair, I think part of it has to do with the fact that there is such a hyper focus on the part of so much of the institutional press in not being partisan, and we are no longer living in Dem, Republican, right, left, progressive, conservative.

We are now anti-democracy and pro-democracy, and you need to know very clearly which side of that you are on.

I think there are a lot of people who are still living in the old binary, and they want to be really careful that they don't seem like a Democrat or they don't seem progressive, and what they are doing then is not full-throatily saying, "What he is doing is anti-democracy and a danger to who we are and what this country is about."

And then the other thing that I think is harder to articulate is, like, we understand that there is no longer trust in all of these institutions and the institution of government and media as an institution.

And I think there are those who believe that by being very careful with their words, they are actually preserving what little trust there is left.

I think where the three of us are very much on the same page, is that if you want that trust, you actually need to speak plainly and clearly about what it is that's happening.

>> And tell them what you're seeing.

I really just think so many people are misreading the current moment.

Like, the elected leadership across the country and here in Washington, D.C., business leaders, the people within the media apparatus.

I think that they are misreading and misunderstanding the moment.

They think the anger that people have is going to pass.

They think that the chaos, you know -- Yeah, Chuck Schumer.

Chuck Schumer said... >> I knew it.

>> Chuck Schumer said... >> I knew it.

>> "Well, he'll be unpopular, uh, by next year, and then we'll be able to really do what we can do.

Because when you're next to a Republican on the treadmill in your biker shorts in the morning, all the inhibitions fall off."

That's what Leader Schumer said.

Okay, we are misreading the moment, honey, because to Alicia's point, not only are they prepared and knowing what levers to pull with inside the White House apparatus, they have infiltrated -- Like, the reason the institutions cannot be the guardrails is because they have infiltrated the institutions.

>> Including Congress.

>> Including Congress!

They have literally taken over the institutions.

Mike Johnson was the chief cheerleader for the insurrection.

He used to have a podcast with his wife, and they talked about all kinds of random things, including how he was talking to Donald Trump every day about how to challenge the election and the lawsuits they were bringing.

He is now the Speaker of the damn House of Representatives.

What is going on?

But you got people regularly being like, "Well, Speaker Johnson has really done a good job of keeping this caucus together.

He sure has put a --" These are not normal times.

And so I think the goal is -- The reason people are having a hard time, in my opinion, wrapping their mind around it all is because it's very hard for people to believe that folks really want to break the system.

>> Yeah, and that's... >> Want to break the thing.

>> Well, that goes to the heart of the transition.

Uh, I guess you could probably call it a transition malaise, where people just kind of think it's going to be one thing, And they just kind of walk through it, and they don't really pay attention to the fact that these other things are happening.

And I give you a very important case in point.

A year ago, in April, if not late March, around this time maybe of 2024, I know three people who, out of just concern for what's going on, on a Saturday morning, said, "Y'all, there is a 900-page document called Project 2025.

Have you read it?

Have you read it?"

We're all like, "Yeah, we read it."

And the three of us raised this question about what the next transition from one government to the other would look like, because they wrote it down.

They told you.

>> They wrote it down and they staffed it.

>> And they staffed it.

>> And funded it.

>> And funded it.

And people were like, "No, it's not real.

It's not going to happen."

>> And their echo chamber is also very good at being like, "Y'all are crazy."

>> Right.

>> They're all -- And Donald Trump -- "I never saw it.

I never read it."

>> Right.

>> And they repeat it over and over again on a loop.

>> And that sort of fuels this idea of normalcy that sort of infects the process because people think, "Well, it can't be that bad."

>> Well, because he said... >> "They won't do that."

>> To Alicia's point, their echo chamber is very good.

So they said, "Donald Trump said, 'Oh, I've never seen it.'"

The writ large folks are like, "This is not our policy."

I mean, Chris LaCivita, a very lovely man.

It's like, "Anybody that says it's our policy is deranged and stupid and you can't listen to them.

That is not our policy."

So the media apparatus, because they are trained to -- Okay, we ask the question, they give the answer.

We give a follow-up.

They give the answer.

They say it's not their policy.

We're supposed to take it for face value.

Meanwhile, all of the people closest to the then -- at that time -- once he won the president elect, were the folks who were the architects of the very document.

They say it's not their policy.

I'm just confused.

At what point do we use our critical-thinking skills, class?

>> Because that's step one.

And then there's sort of this step two, which is thinking, "Well, none of it actually applies to me.

It is for people who are not following the rules.

It is for criminals."

And so, like, one of the big stories this week has been this wartime law, Alien Enemies Act, that they are deploying against Venezuelan nationals.

And the thing that I keep trying to communicate to folks is they are starting with the immigrants and testing legal theories on immigrants with the intent of then testing that on legal residents and on citizens.

So for those who are watching and thinking, "Well, it can't happen to me because I'm a US citizen," they are trying to figure out if that is the case, because they want to know, with all of these things, how broad they can go.

>> And that's, for me, been the fascinating part of it.

And having been -- I can tell you, having been in a number of those rule rooms... >> Have been the architect of some of the stuff.

Can we just say Michael Steele has pulled the biggest coup on America?

Okay?

Michael Steele pulled a coup.

>> No, I just... >> It's the title of Symone's forthcoming book.

Michael Steele is not your friend.

>> Michael Steele is not your friend.

I am your frenemy.

Right?

Is that what it is?

>> The call is coming from inside the house.

>> Right.

Right, right.

Yeah.

And I, you know, changed the numbers.

So...

But that -- but, look -- that's part of -- but that is, for me, especially as someone who was there at the dawning of the Tea Party, um, who worked through that and lived through that... >> Who built the bench they are still working with.

>> Built the bench with... >> People say you need to say this more about yourself.

Okay?

That you recruited all these people -- Marco Rubio.

>> Nikki.

>> Nikki Haley.

>> Chris Christie.

>> Chris Christie.

>> Tim Scott.

>> Tim Scott.

>> Tim Scott.

Yeah, but this -- >> He's pivoting now.

>> But here's the difference.

But this is the important thing for a lot of folks like myself.

And it's funny you should bring it up because I was having this conversation over the weekend with some of my Republican friends.

We were just kind of in a moment lamenting because they were part of that team at the RNC with me, that when we went into the field to support the Nikki Haleys and the Tim Scotts and the Chris Christies and all of these folks, that person, Marco Rubio, um, that's not the same person today.

>> That's correct.

>> It just isn't.

And it's -- And a lot of people don't believe that or they don't want to believe that.

But I, hand to God, will honestly tell you that the 2009 version, the 2010 version of these individuals is 180 degrees away from the 2024 version.

And a lot of us have just, like, whiplash trying to figure out what the hell happened.

And you hear a lot of Republicans out there asking that question in their writings, if they're doing op-eds or on TV and elsewhere.

What the hell?

Who are you?

We don't recognize that.

And so this -- this -- this -- One of the things I realized very quickly was, within the political structure -- And this is -- You hear people saying right now, the Democrats, and I've been warning for this for about 10 years after the 2010 cycle.

The Democrats are now stepping into the exact same space that Republicans stepped in in 2009 and 2010.

>> Oh, it's the Tea Party moment, for sure.

>> That Tea Party moment.

>> I will lead the Tea Party.

>> It is a Tea...[ Laughs ] And the seeds were already there because in many respects, you go back and you look at Tea Party, Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street, two sides of the same coin.

Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders -- again, two sides of the same coin.

Bernie Sanders voter.

Donald Trump voter.

Two sides of the same coin.

So these universes exist.

The question is what forces them to behave a certain way or to do certain things that now, as we see with the Tea Party, which died out.

By 2014, that Tea Party that I worked with was gone.

This new thing was beginning to emerge.

What do we see happening on the Democratic side in that same vein?

Is this an inflection point, this Chuck Schumer, you know, white-flag moment for a lot of the base in the Democratic Party?

Is that the transition for them?

>> I think... >> I mean, because you made some news, you made some news.

Look, this past weekend, you know, she talked -- She wanted to call me out.

So let me call a sister out for a moment.

We were sitting there, and Alicia and I were just doing our little chitty-chat thing, and Miss Symone decided that she was announcing she was just leaving the Democratic Party and becoming an Independent.

And of course, the two of us are like, "Okay, so are you going to touch that or am I going to touch that?"

>> Nobody touched it.

>> Nobody touched it.

We just left it alone.

So maybe now you can explain.

>> Yeah.

Lots of people... >> That transition.

>> I went to dinner last night and I sat down and they were like, "So you're leaving the party?

You need to come back."

I'm like, "What is going on?"

Not the first time I've said that, but this is the time everybody was paying attention.

>> This is not the first time she's said that.

>> Look, when I say people are misreading the moment, people are like -- people are -- Literally someone said to me yesterday, very influential elected official, "Folks are going to forget about what Chuck Schumer did.

They're not even going to remember this."

And I'm like, "You're not understanding."

>> They said the same thing about the -- They said the exact same thing in the Republican Party.

>> People are not understanding.

It is not just about Chuck Schumer.

Chuck Schumer is like the straw that broke the camel's back.

People out there in the country are experiencing pure chaos.

If you are a Black woman in America, you went -- you heard all the warnings, you went out and you voted.

And people still did not do what they needed to do.

So if you are a Black woman, you are tired.

You are tired of people calling you when it's time for you to save democracy.

You are like, "I'm packing up my cape, I'm folding it up and I'm grabbing my Le Creuset pot.

Okay, I'm getting my flower arrangements.

I'm going to brunch, I'm getting a drink, and I'm not marching.

Okay, get somebody else to do it.

I don't agree with what's going on, but I'm not doing it."

If you are a young person out there in the country that is maybe not -- that you weren't really engaged.

You didn't feel like either of the parties were speaking to you, all this moment is telling you, is reinforcing to you is that the government is broken.

Is that the political parties are some BS and nobody is willing to fight.

So the lack of fight that is being exhibited by the Democratic Party apparatus at this moment, from the top, all the way down to the state level, the lack of coordination in the immediate days after Donald Trump's -- with him being inaugurated and then going out and doing what he already said he was going to do, and no plan from people in Washington, D.C., the governors -- The governors had a plan.

The state attorney generals that are Democrats, they had a plan.

But when people are looking at the broader apparatus, they're like, "Okay, I'm with my governor.

I'm not with my member of Congress."

>> Right.

Right.

>> And so I do think this is an inflection point, and I think we are going to see primary challenges in this next go round.

And I think people can dismiss the frustration and the anger and frankly, the hopelessness that voters, people across the country, people that don't even think of themselves as big "D" Democrats.

Right?

But just maybe are aligned with the Democratic Party apparatus, they are going to -- they are not going to go along with the "get along just because."

They're not doing the "this is the most important election of our lifetime.

We got to come together and do it."

They're doing the, "What are you doing for me?"

>> I think one of the things that's been interesting about the fact that you have these huge crowds showing up for Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and AOC, is that one of the things -- >> 9,000 or 10,000 people.

>> A lot of people.

>> They showed up for Bernie Sanders in 2015, 2016, too, by the way.

I will tell you, crowds don't vote.

>> They don't.

They don't.

But they express that something is happening.

And I think that one of the things that Donald Trump has succeeded in doing is this sense of there are people on the inside and people on the outside and the people on the inside are bad and wrong.

And like, we have to question them if they work at agencies, if they've ever touched the government, which is incredible, given that he has been president of the United States and is somehow campaigning as though he is an outsider.

Um, and I think part of what Warren, Sanders, AOC have the capacity to do is to take that frame of insider/outsider and say, "He's been lying to you about who's on the inside and who's on the outside.

He's made you believe that anyone who has ever touched an institution or is an institutionalist and has worked inside of this framework is bad."

And in reality, the insiders now are the people who paid to show up at that inauguration.

They are the people who are going to benefit from all of his policies.

And that leaves most of us on the outside.

I mean, if you are not a billionaire, you now have to be asking, "What are the rest of us willing to sacrifice so that he can now give tax cuts to billionaires?"

And I understand most people vote not on their economic reality.

They vote on sort of an economic projection or an idea of where they would like to be, but we are going to carry the costs -- in our children's schools, in whether or not our neighbor is able to eat, in our access to healthcare, and there's going to be a trade-off.

And I think that that cohort is uniquely able to articulate what that trade-off is and to say, "There's an inside and outside, but it's not who he's telling you it is."

>> Can I say that -- You know, I like to ask the streets, like, real regular people that don't do politics.

Maybe they hang out in the hood every now and then.

And so I asked some streets the other day about what was happening, what's going on, Donald Trump and everything.

And they're like, "Ooh, Elon Musk."

They were telling me, they said, "Look, people, they're still down with Trump.

He's about to --" I said, "What do you mean they're down with Trump?"

He said, "Well, Donald Trump is getting ready to tax us for everyone who makes under $150,000."

That broke through.

That broke through at the barbershop.

Elon Musk getting rid of, you know, giving the money back, that broke through.

I'm like, "There's no money."

>> It's just amazing to me.

I just had a conversation with our babysitter about how her tax bill is twice as high as it was last year.

And let me tell you, she's making under $150,000.

Like, the reality is not matching the messaging.

>> And that's also where they leveled up a few weeks ago that, um, everybody's going to get a $5,000 check from -- from the government.

>> Because you saw how those COVID checks worked.

>> Right, right.

>> I'm not going to lie, I even got a COVID check.

They was just passing them out to everybody.

I sent mine back.

>> I never got one, so I don't know what that's like.

I have no idea what a COVID check looks like.

>> I cashed mine.

>> But it's all about the signature on the check.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> That's it.

Now no one's making the economic leap of, "Okay, Government can't just hand out money because that money has to come from someplace."

And that goes to your point about the things that will get cut in order to hand out a $5,000 check to, uh, what, 300 million people?

How does that work?

You know, I don't understand.

>> I think they believe -- I think that there are people that believe what are being said.

And we have to realize, like, most people are not paying attention to every single little thing that happens, right?

Like, we are because we're professional politicos, as I like to say.

But most people are catching bits and pieces or seeing some of it on social.

They might be watching their local news, maybe not.

And I think that they remember these -- these -- these big gestures and big moments.

Um, everybody remembers Joe Biden talking about, "Oh, you ain't Black if you vote for Trump."

Because that was a -- that was a moment.

You remember the moment that went viral.

People remember randomly Donald Trump going into the barbershop in the Bronx.

>> Right.

>> And having the like -- And then they juxtapose and say, "Well, nobody else has ever come."

And I'm not -- I don't -- I am definitely, you know, in my former life as a strategist -- >> But let's be clear.

Remember he didn't go either.

He -- He actually called in.

>> He called.

He did.

>> He sent the brothers ahead.

>> But then he went in later.

>> Tim Scott and all those boys.

But he didn't.

>> This is true.

>> He did not show up.

>> But prior to the election, he went once in one barbershop.

>> One barbershop.

>> And everybody's like, "Well, Trump at least came to the barbershop."

I hear that often, and I'm just like.

>> Can't wait to see Bernie in the barbershop.

>> Yeah, well, Bernie in a barbershop would be interesting.

>> Well, he went one time when I worked for him.

>> Here's my core question.

And it's more of a psychology question than anything else, which is I think people really do come to public service because they want to be of service.

Like, that is the one thing, I think that gets perverted and contaminated over a period of time.

I think that's why some of these people who you recruited and felt were fundamentally good and principled people have changed.

And I think people lie to themselves about, "Well, if I'm not in the room, then who's going to be in the room?"

>> I heard a lot of that.

>> But there are so few opportunities in this life to take a stand and have a moment of courage and know that your grandchildren will read about you in the history books and say, "Wow, that was someone.

That was someone who changed the course of history."

If you are a Randall Republican in Congress right now, you just need to find three or four of you.

And if you got together and were ready to take a stand and you don't even need -- It doesn't even need to be impeachment.

It simply needs to be a banding together and not rubber stamping his agenda.

You would change the tide of what is happening now, because one of the final checks there is on his power would actually hold in place.

And my argument is like, "No one's going to remember that you repped, you know, Tennessee two.

What they're going to remember is that you were the person who actually dug deep when history required it and stood up."

And we hear all the same reporting.

Right?

There's reporting that members of Congress are scared.

And that their wives phone bank them during votes and say, "I'm scared.

Please just vote with him.

I just, I don't want to deal with him."

It's like, "That is fine."

You do not need to be a member of Congress, you always have the option of opting out.

Let somebody else do it who's actually going to go and represent the needs of their constituents.

And so I just -- My question to you is why?

Look, I get the sort of short-term calculus of safety and wanting to be in with the group.

I don't get the long-term calculus of, like, "You could be up there with the greats."

>> Well, because it depends on...

It's one of the things I learned as a public official, and I had to make a conscious decision.

Um, what was I willing to sacrifice?

Our political leadership today doesn't sacrifice anything.

What's the sacrifice?

They're not -- They're too afraid to give up their job.

They're defined by their office and their position.

They -- They're not willing to stand against the -- the tide that's rolling in.

Alright?

And just sort of stand there, you know, on the beach and go, "Okay.

Bring it."

Um, and I remember for me that that was important because my approach and it's something I try to teach young leaders today about leadership is it is absolutely a 2-way street.

Leadership is not just, "Hey, I'm the man with the title and the brass, right?"

Leadership is also those moments you're willing to follow someone else's leadership.

>> Yeah.

>> Leadership is being an example that others want to be like.

Um, it is hard in this day and age to be that kind of leader, where you're going to say, "I'm going to go out --" To your point, Alicia -- "And I'm going to declare, um, that the attack on our institutions, the attack on our judicial system, the attack on, um, uh, those fundamental things that our communities need is wrong.

I'm going to do that."

And the reason they don't do that is because when they go, they will go alone.

And when they go alone, that means everybody is going to scatter.

And when the press gets in front of them and puts a mike in front of them and says, "Symone said, Alicia said, Michael said," they're going to take you down.

People that you work with are going to tear you up and they don't want that.

They're afraid of that.

And so for me, I had to make a conscious decision to do the job as lieutenant governor of Maryland, as if it was the only time I'd get to do it.

Can I tell you how free it is to know that I only have four years to do a job?

Period.

I was the freest Black man in Annapolis.

Absolutely.

Because I wanted to go and reform education.

I wanted to reform my small business enterprise.

I wanted to look at our criminal justice system.

I leveled up a challenge against -- At that point, they just reinstated the death penalty.

I am a pro-life Catholic, so that means I am -- I support the fetus in the womb and I support the individual in the jail.

Right?

So life is life.

And so for me, it was a matter of, "I'm free now.

I can consistently make my argument for why the things that I want to do as a lieutenant governor matter and should matter to the people of Maryland."

And as it turned out, I only had four years, right?

I got off the ticket to run for the US Senate, got crushed in 2006, but I was still free in those -- in that race for the US Senate.

I was free in that term of office that I have.

And to this day, I have people who come up to me in Maryland and say -- Business owners who say, "You made a difference for my small business as we were starting.

Thank you."

>> That's the best.

>> That's it.

That's what -- That's what a public servant is there for, when someone says, "Thank you for solving that problem for me."

What our public leaders do today is they create the problem for the people they represent, and they exacerbate those problems.

And that transition from that kind of public service that was more concerned about the art of public service to what we see now, which is the grift, which is the social media, how many likes, how many -- how many followers I have.

People -- You're looking for followers that don't live in your district or live in your state, so why the hell do you care?

So that whole system has now been reoriented differently.

And when you're looking -- You talk about a Chuck Schumer who had that moment, in my view, to -- to make a declarative statement in a different way.

When you have -- and we talked about this on our show -- Hakeem Jeffries, whom we all admire and, you know, will likely be Speaker of the House one day.

But, you know, when he handed the gavel over to Mike Johnson, basically said, you know, "Now we'll just, you know, we'll take our swords and we'll turn them into our nonpartisan --" >> "The plows of bipartisanship.

It's time to lay down the sword."

>> I'm like, "Wait, what are you doing, dude?"

>> "...of campaigning and pick up the plow of bipartisanship."

I thought you were a member of the House of Representatives.

Aren't you always running for reelection?

>> Right, exactly.

>> I will hand it over to you, but I will say my family's Cuban.

We are in this country.

I am a product of this country because my grandparents chose to leave Cuba.

They left during the Batista years, um, and had planned to go back and got a letter that said, "Don't come back.

This is not the leader we thought it was."

And so, I, in particular, watch the Cubans who are in Congress, Republicans, and I think to myself, you know, you know through family legacy and lore and history, what it means when all of a sudden the press is being challenged and businesses do not have the freedom to operate.

Like, you do not have the luxury of pretending.

And in fact, most of your public service is built on that mythology.

So, you know, you know better because there are folks who I think sort of have this sort of like, "It'll be fine.

The institutions..." >> They don't think it's that!

>> We know!

>> They don't think it's Cuba.

>> Correct!

>> They don't think it's that.

They don't think it's Venezuela.

I would like to remind everyone that President Maduro is currently the president of Venezuela, and he is not the duly elected leader.

He lost the election, but he was the president and declared that he won it, anyway.

I am someone that believes that that could happen in our next election, if we have a presidential election at all.

I'm not hyperbolic.

I used to think the people that said that are just a little bridge too far, honey, come on back.

We gotta operate in reality.

>> He's defying court orders right now, this week.

>> As we speak.

And you've got the reporters saying, "Well, the White House says they can do it."

He's defying the court order!

I am just like, what is going on?!

It is extremely frustrating that many people are just not saying what it is that we are all seeing.

>> Well, that was my particular rant a few weeks ago when Symone leans over to me and goes, "So, tell us..." >> What would you have us do?

>> What would you have us do?

And my approach was just get off your fat ass and do something!

>> Yes, Michael Steele cussed everyone out on national television while people were having their Wheaties.

>> I did, having their coffee on a Saturday morning, but that...

But that is this moment in so many respects.

Look, I would love, and Calvin and I have, you know, a lot of conversations about this and you know, how we engage this campus and this university and the students here in a broader dialogue about the country and the political system and the parties, and that's very important.

And the thread that goes through that are, you know, policy threads, you know, ideas about who we are as a community.

What does it mean to be an institution?

Um, you know, the grande dame of HBCUs if you're Howard University, right?

You know, that has a legacy, that has a unique role in space and time.

And I think in this moment, the transition for all of us right now is... it's engaging, as you noted, on that, front that talks about, well, who we are as a country.

Are we a democracy?

Are we a republic?

What do those words mean anymore?

You throw them around, um, and we say them.

But what does it really mean?

I got into a little exchange today with a philosopher, theologian... >> I was like, "Who is he fighting with?"

We were both like... >> You know, I'm just imagining you going to the streets and being like, "Guys, but guys, are we a republic, or are we a democracy?"

>> But no, but it made me think...

It made me think about other aspects of, you know, not just in the land of politics and democracy, but in matters of faith.

Our faith traditions are being challenged right now.

Our economic system is being challenged right now.

>> They're not just being challenged.

They're being perverted.

>> They're being perverted.

So, how do we respond as a community?

How does a community like this respond?

Um, what does it take?

How do we show that we actually give a damn about what's happening to us?

Um, or do we just say, you know what?

Eh, it's okay.

Because the price of eggs and I'm going to get a check for $5,000 at some point, and I'm good.

>> There are literally just no eggs at the grocery store, >> Right.

>> Honestly, honestly.

For the bird flu.

Like, that's a big question.

I guess...

I think, you know, people talk about like, oh, what went wrong in 2024?

And da da da da.

I've got my thoughts.

But I do think that one of the things that I do agree with, I've landed on, is people don't care about defensive institutions.

Because for a lot of people in this country, the institutions have failed them.

And I'm like, no, no, we got to care about the institutions.

But most people, like, again, regular folk, they don't care about defending the institutions, but they are on board with defending the progress that has been made.

They're on board with defending, like, the gains that have allowed them the life that they currently have, even if they feel like it could be better.

>> And... >> You should write that down.

That's really good.

>> I know, right?

>> That was pretty good.

>> We're being recorded.

That's okay, I'm gonna go back and clip it.

And that's what I think people can come together on.

What is it do we believe?

>> I want to back up to the first part of that equation.

>> Michael, they're like "forget these institutions."

>> I guess I want to understand, and it's important, I'm not being cynical about it.

What... how do they define that failure of the institution?

How is -- which institution, and how has it failed them?

How has the department, how has USAID, how has Department of Health and Human Services, how has the Department of Housing, looking at these federal institutions... >> But it's not just federal institutions, it's institutions writ large.

And it is now getting... >> Breaking it down, breaking it down.

>> One of the things that they saw in, so we often joke because we're both millennials and because it's such a large generation, I'm an old, mortgage millennial and she's a baby millennial.

Very different.

But they saw all of... >> I just know we'll be in a meeting and we'll be on our phones and our EP is talking and me and Alicia are on our phones, and Michael's like, "Put the phone down!"

And I'm like, "We're listening."

>> I am total daddy.

I am like, "Okay, okay.

He's talking, you two stop typing and pay attention.

Alright?

Everybody, down."

>> Guilty.

But they started seeing in all of the research about our generation that there was, and this is going back 10 years, that there was a suspicion of institutions.

I mean, this is a generation that came of age during September 11th.

They saw a government that made unilateral decisions about where they were going to use America's resources, then it was our generation that disproportionately fought the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, graduated into the worst economy, saddled with the most student debt in American history, because we were of the generation that was like, "Everybody go to school, go to school, take out the debt.

It's good debt.

Don't worry, it'll all work out."

And then it did not work out for people.

And the frustration and the anger between what we were promised and then what was delivered.

Where do you direct that anger?

You direct it at sort of an idea that institutions, that the grown ups in charge, were telling you how it was going to be, and don't trust us.

It'll all work out.

And then when it didn't work out, you start to become more discerning and more suspicious of the institutions themselves, in a generalized sense of you can't just sort of take somebody else's word for it.

>> Yes, and I mean, the economic situation for the... we talk about millennials, but the oldest millennials are like 43.

45, this year.

They're turning 45 this year.

Somebody's like, "Millennial!"

The oldest millennials are turning 45.

The millennials are suburban moms.

>> And some of them are now in Moms of Liberty, which is like, part of it is it's taking this, this sort of nugget of truth.

>> They've been radicalized.

>> And then saying, "Well, let me explain to you what the problem is.

You're right.

You can't trust the institution.

And then you're like, "Uh-huh."

And they're like, "You know why?"

And you're like "Why?"

It's like, "Cause they're trying to indoctrinate your kid."

And you're like, "No, no, no, no, no!"

Like, that's not the challenge!

Right?

But it's, you can take that sort of distrust in an institution and you can spin it off in multiple directions.

And I think that there were forces on what let's call the right, even though I don't think that is accurate any longer, who harnessed that suspicion and used it to their ends.

Like, that's the thing about the Department of Education, the reason that there is a subset of Americans who are excited about the dismantling of the Department of Education is because they have bought into this lie that schools are indoctrinating their kids into a way of thinking.

>> You are of a generation that has seen benefits from the United States government.

You know, you are of a generation, there's a whole generation of people in this country... >> Just for the record, I'm at the, you know, you set me up again.

No, I'm at the tail end of the baby boomers.

So, I'm... >> A baby baby boomer.

>> I'm at the baby end.

Just like you were just describing where you were on the millennial... >> You and Barack Obama.

>> Right.

Exactly.

>> You've seen the immense amount of changes that have happened in this country.

And you've seen it go from worse to much better, >> Even in the course of your lifetime.

>> In your lifetime.

And for folks of our generation, we do not feel as though it has gone from to much better, every single year, every decade, it feels like it is worse.

>> It's a more difficult slog.

>> Yes.

>> So, from a political standpoint, when you're looking at the two political parties, then, because this is one of the things that I've learned.

And Tim Kaine, now Senator Tim Kaine, then DNC Chair Tim Kaine, and I would have these regular conversations.

People don't even know the extent to which we actually talked to each other during those two years he was at the DNC and I was at the RNC because we were trying to figure out what we were seeing happening within each of our respective parties.

How that was going to translate out on the streets.

And it translated a lot quicker for us.

It was interrupted for Democrats.

Occupy Wall Street happened and fizzled and went away.

Tea party happened and continued, morphed into something else.

Ultimately became MAGA.

And so, this idea of the difficulties you speak to, that's where the exploitive nature of the political parties come in.

Because going back to what I was talking about, these politicians today who are less interested in solving the problem of that suburban mom, but more interested in exploiting the problems that that suburban mom feels.

So, what do they do?

To the argument you laid out very well about, um... they are indoctrinating your kids, that CRT, right?

That's the transgender argument.

That's a lot of the cultural war stuff that's easy to play out.

But then, the other side of it is the more nuanced political stuff that you saw around immigration issues.

So, in 2020, what were suburban white women told?

Oh, the caravans are coming.

They're coming across the border.

In '24, what were suburban white women told?

Hmm, they're going to build, you know, section eight housing in your neighborhood, right?

I even said on one program, I said, I just looked at the camera and said, "For all you white suburban women worried about section eight housing coming to your neighborhood, meaning black folks, we've been here a long time, baby.

Don't worry.

We just saw you at the Giant.

Don't worry.

We're good."

Right?

In other words, the system is, the political piece is not solving those problems, but exacerbating them.

So, how do we get to the solving the problem side of that equation politically?

>> Two things.

One, you have to have people on the outside.

You have to have, we talk about young people a lot, but you have to have folks out there that believe that participation within the political process can be a vehicle through which change can happen in their lives.

There are a lot of young people in my generation that don't believe that.

I'm a young person that believes participation within the political process can change things.

Going inside can make a difference.

I did that.

That is not the prevailing thought of a lot of people out there, but you also have to have elected leadership that is willing to offer a vision of what the change looks like.

There's one thing to say, "Oh, our institutions are being trampled on.

The progress is being trampled on."

But what is on the other side of this?

I think we discussed it on the show the other day.

Someone about a couple weeks ago, Michael asked Andrew Weissman, what happens after?

Let's just say we get to an after.

Let's just say we get three, four, five years down the road.

How do you rebuild the government, literally, after?

And Andrew Weissman was like, "That's a good question!

We don't know the answer."

>> We don't know the answer.

>> And we have, to people, you have to proactively give someone the roadmap.

And we, you know, give them an outline.

We might not know the specific details, but we're lacking an outline.

There's all this trying to defend these institutions.

>> It's like you need, like, a Project 2029.

>> Yeah!

Yes!

'Cause what is that?

Where's the Project 2029?

Baby, '25, '26, '27, it's gone!

>> Maybe they learned from Project 2025 you don't want to be so out there.

>> We don't want to be -- yeah, maybe they got it in the pocket.

>> Maybe they got it in their pocket.

>> I just, that would be my two cents on it.

I just, I...

I think that if you really want people to believe back in the process, you have to, one, you have to have people willing to go in that connect and change it from the inside out.

But then, you also have to have a vision and it has to be believable.

But I mean, we talk about Bernie Sanders and Trump going into the barbershop, but again... And it's not just what Chuck Schumer did.

It's all the things he said after the fact, dismissive of the anger, suggesting that you know better than the people who are literally in the streets afraid of losing their Medicaid and their Social Security, the people who are literally putting their lives on the line in their communities every single day while you continue to go and get your check on your book tour for your book.

Okay?

You talk about you canceled your stops, but you was on "The View" today.

It is those people who also have not gone into the barbershops and the beauty shops and the Bible studies, as we used to say.

>> Yeah.

>> When's the last time you saw a member of Democratic leadership at a town hall, in a barbershop, in a black or brown neighborhood?

>> Right.

Alright.

>> And you know what, you're not gonna get a town hall like Bernie Sanders does in the north side of Omaha, Nebraska, where I'm from.

So, you're gonna have to go into the barber shop.

You're gonna have to go into Mr. Charlie's.

Ask Mr. Charlie on Thursday, can he ask everybody to come, and you'll be back, and then you need to go in there and people that probably don't even know that you represent them, you need to stand in there and talk with them and answer their questions and give your vision.

That's an extra level of work that I feel like the elected leadership is actually not willing to do.

Which is why I said what I said this past week.

And I'm tired.

I'm with these black women that's folding up my cape and ordering stuff from Williams-Sonoma.

>> Well, I think also part of what you're saying, too, is that there was an idea that demographic shift alone was going to carry the Democratic Party through this moment.

And I think part of the... >> That reality came home hard.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> And that across race and ethnicity, this idea of there are people who are getting things that I am not getting and the reason I don't have enough is because it is being given out to others.

Including, 'cause that I think gets to your USAID question, which is most folks may not know what USAID does, but it almost becomes a proxy for they're handing out money to other places that could be handed out to us.

>> Yeah, and that's the Ukraine problem.

And it sort of levels up in a way where you can argue the percentages that it's only one tenth of a percent.

>> Or that it's jobs, that we are literally taking the money and buying weapons made in America.

>> Exactly.

Exactly.

>> Can I just, you said this a couple weeks ago.

Some version of this.

But I think also, America writ large has to grapple with the fact that this is actually who we are.

>> Yep.

This is who we are.

>> And that a lot of people are willing to inflict pain on someone else if it means that they will be okay.

It's not that people didn't think that he would do the mass deportations.

He didn't think that he was going to try to, you know, put a target on the back of his perceived political enemies.

>> They were hoping he would.

>> They were hoping he would!

If that's going to get the groceries down!

If that gets the housing more affordable, have at it!

Deport them all!

I have heard people say that!

>> Right.

Yeah.

>> And so, the reality is that, you know, sometimes we are not good people.

And this idea of American exceptionalism, that we have convinced ourselves of and how we traipsed all across the world in doing so, this idea of American exceptionalism and that, oh, well, this moment, these moments that we've experienced in this country, they are just moments.

They are just blips in the timeline.

They're not actually characteristics of who we are.

No.

>> Right.

>> We are going back to, the Alien Enemies Act was World War II, the internment of the Japanese, Italians and Germans, Japanese Americans, Italian Americans, German Americans on American soil, rounded people up, put them in camps on American soil to the point where the American government had to pay reparations to the Japanese, the Italians, and the Germans that were interned.

We have yet to give reparations for the Black people, but that's a whole 'nother story.

But I mean, this is actually who we are.

We're just running the playbook back in different clothes.

Bigger words.

>> I heard there's a check, but they keep changing the date on it.

>> Okay.

They're backdating us?

>> They're backdating us.

>> Alright, I'm gonna just get in line for my check.

I'm like, what do they say?

I'm an ADOS, American descendant of slaves.

>> Right now, I want to thank you both for taking time and being with us here for the Gwendolyn and Colbert King conversation.

Thank you.

♪♪ ♪♪ >> This program was produced by WHUT and made possible by contributions from viewers like you.

For more information on this program or any other program, please visit our website at whut.org.

Thank you.