Glenn Greenwald
Politics • Writing • Culture
Dems' Attacks on the Green Party, Israel/Gaza's Effect on 2024, and More with VP Candidate Butch Ware
Video Transcript
September 20, 2024
post photo preview

Watch the full episode HERE

Podcast: Apple - Spotify 

Rumble App: Apple - Google


It's Thursday, September 19. 

Tonight: Over the past couple of months, Democrats and their leading surrogates have been dispatched to attack Jill Stein and the Green Party in ways quite vicious and systematic, in ways that I've never seen before. They ordinarily love to dump on the Green Party after they lose an election or to blame the Greens for their loss as if they own those voters by divine mandate and were stolen from them, and more so they like to do that after the election to avoid taking any responsibility in any way for their own losses. But it's very rare – I would say almost unprecedented – that they give the Green Party this amount of attention and oxygen by attacking them so vocally and continuously before the election. That, however, is exactly what Democrats have been doing over the last couple of months. They sent out their self-identified left-wing spokesman for the party, people such as AOC and Keith Ellison to lead the charge against the Greens. And it's very evident that their internal polling, as well as public polling that we've seen, must be showing very alarming data about how many Arab and Muslim voters and even young voters and African American voters intend to vote for the Greens in key swing states such as Michigan and Pennsylvania, because absent that alarming data, they would not be so vocally giving oxygen to the party. 

All of these unhinged attacks – AOC, called the Green Party a, quote, “predatory party” – have only fueled that party even more, giving them far more attention. One of the most beneficial results of all of this has been the elevation in terms of platform invisibility of Stein's vice presidential running mate, the newcomer to politics, at least as a candidate, Butch Ware. He's a Ph.D. in history from the University of Pennsylvania and someone who has come from a childhood of immense poverty, instability and deprivation, and yet where he's made quite an impact in a very short period of time due to his eloquent and clearly genuinely felt defense of his political and social values. 

Last week, both Jill Stein and Butch Ware appeared on The Breakfast Club, the highly popular political show among African Americans and others and had this very telling exchange with one of the hosts, Angela Rye, as she sought to join the Democratic Party and leading the charge in attacking that duo. 

 

Video. Butch Ware. September 13, 2024.

 

Prof. Butch Ware: I am personally offended by the way that blackness is being weaponized in this electoral cycle in order to justify white supremacist genocide in Gaza. 

 

Charlamagne Tha God: Expand, please.

 

Prof. Butch Ware: Malcolm said of Zionism – of the Zionist state, the Israeli state – he said that this is a white Jewish population, an Ashkenazi population being given power by white imperialists to remove brown Arabs from their land, he said, so, therefore, Zionism is white supremacy. In 1979, in “Open Letter to the Born Again”, James Baldwin said the same thing. He said the state of Israel was not created for the salvation of the Jews. It was created for the salvation of Western interests. When you go through Kwame Ture, Malcolm X, James Baldwin, Toni Morrison, Angela Davis, and Assata Shakur, these are all people who cited the Palestinian resistance movement, – not even to bring in Africans, not to mention Nelson Mandela, not to mention Thomas Sankara – who talked about Zionism as being the face of imperialism in the Middle East. Right? This is what the black radical tradition taught me. And the black radical tradition taught me that if we weaponize our blackness in favor of white supremacy, then we become apostates from blackness itself because blackness is not a race. It is an oppositional ideology to white supremacy. I'm a historian of Africa by training. Never before in human history had people speaking hundreds of different languages made themselves into one. People developed a common culture so that you and I can relate to one another. You and I can relate to one another on the basis of a shared culture. And we got our Latin and Caribbean brothers and sisters, you know, especially Puerto Ricans and Dominicans. But also, you know, more broadly, right? They share in that culture. That is a miracle. It's never happened before in human history. Because what happened is that an oppositional identity to white supremacy came into being, and that is us. And when I see that identity now being weaponized to justify the most heinous genocide in our time, like Harriet Tubman is rolling over in her grave right now. Sojourner Truth is rolling over in her grave right now. Bell Hooks is rolling over in her grave right now. Who did I miss? Do you know what I'm saying? The idea that we would weaponize something as sacred as black womanhood and then utilize this to justify blowing up Palestinian kids […] 

 

The more I watch Ware the more impressed I become and if he continues to try to build the infrastructure and the groundwork for a real third-party movement in this country, as he insists he intends to do, I have no doubt that his visibility and impact will only grow as it deserves to.

In a discussion we recorded yesterday – simply because I'm traveling tonight and cannot do the show live; even though you're looking at me, I'm not actually here, I'm traveling – but we sat down with him yesterday and we had a very wide-ranging conversation that covered his personal and political trajectory, his view of the two-party system, his answers to some of the most powerful and good faith critiques of the Green Party, what he has been learning from his ongoing conversations with Muslim, Arab, Latino, and Black voters and working-class white voters in key swing states, as well as his view on the various ways in which the U.S. is now engaged in two wars, at least, both in the Middle East and in Ukraine. Whatever your perspective is on his views and ideology, there is no doubt that he brings a new type of energy, passion, and advocacy to our national conversation. He's clearly a charismatic and compelling figure, and I think you will see that, as I did, in the 45-minute conversation that we had with him. 

For now, here is the interview that we conducted with the vice presidential running mate of Jill Stein on the Green Party ticket, Dr. Butch Ware. 


Interview with Butch Ware (VP candidate for Green Party) 

G. Greenwald: Dr. Ware, it's great to see you. Thank you so much for taking the time to come on our program and talk with us. We're glad to have you. 

 

Butch Ware: Great to be with you, Glenn. 

 

G. Greenwald: Absolutely. So, you have certainly had over the past several months a significant increase in visibility, definitely doing a lot of the rounds in the media, making people very aware. You've created a lot of positive impact on social media. So, I think people have a good understanding of sort of the summary background of who you are, where you've studied and what you've done but politically and ideologically speaking, could you talk about your trajectory from when you got into politics, what led you to the Green Party and how you became a candidate on its national ticket? 

 

Butch Ware: Yeah. Not sure I am in politics. I would definitely qualify myself as a public servant before I would qualify myself as a politician. And I think when reclassified as a public servant, then it's really been 20-plus years. I'm doing similar work, activist work, academic work, organizing work and bringing communities together. I'm trying to leverage the kind of public visibility as well as the kind of community backing to bring about social change. And I think that that was probably what put me on the radar with the campaign. I did an Instagram live with Dr. Jill Stein just to learn more about her candidacy, to learn more about the Green Party platform and after I did that, literally within 24 hours, the Green Party reached out to me about the possibility of running as the VP candidate. So I went through a lengthy vetting process, made a lot of phone calls, and reached out to mentors, people in the Palestinian community, the black community, and the Muslim community more broadly. And I also realized that, like, I actually have very deep roots with the Green Party that I hadn't thought about, you know, sort of actualizing. My closest friend growing up, Sean Young, was actually the son of the longest-serving and first-ever elected Green Party official in the state of Minnesota, on the south side of Minneapolis, Annie Young, who was like a backup mother to my single mom, basically is the one that taught me everything I know about public service and, you know, kind of being engaged in political life in the public. So, in a lot of ways, it made a ton of sense. And then, when I found out that Dr. Jill Stein had been mentored by Annie Young in her early days in the Green Party, I realized that, while some people might not have seen this coming, this particular move makes a lot of sense at a lot of levels. 

 

G. Greenwald: There's, of course, a long history that I think is deliberately whitewashed to make people think this never happened of third-party candidates, of independent candidates, having a very major role in our politics, going back to the century before during the Woodrow Wilson administration. Eugene Debs, the socialist candidate, was such a threat that they had to imprison him. Obviously, you go through the '60s and ‘70s, you're talking about things like the black power movement and radicals like Malcolm X and Marcus Garvey and the Socialists, the Weather Underground that grew up around the Vietnam War. I think in the last several decades, though, they've really kind of clamped down on this notion that, no, there's just a two-party system. Unless you're a billionaire, you can't really have any meaningful impact as someone outside of the two-party system. And a lot of people I know who now support the Green Party, who want an alternative to both parties, where people who originally, when they got into politics, had critiques of the Democratic Party, but at the end of the day, they felt like voting for them was the best way to advance their values, however unsatisfactory it was. And I'm wondering if that's the case for you. Was there a time ever in your kind of political consciousness when you saw the political world and social activism where you felt like the Democratic Party was a viable vehicle for you to do work in? 

 

Butch Ware: Never. Not for a single day in my entire life. And the reason is that Malcolm X, El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz, was, you know, sort of a mentor at a distance, temporally and spatially. I was born in 1973, Malcolm passed away before I came along, but the autobiography of Malcolm X led to my conversion to Islam and was the beginning of political consciousness for me, at age 15. And Malcolm warned about the Liberal. He described the Liberal as a fox, it bears its teeth and you think that it is smiling at you, but you are on the menu, whereas the conservative as a wolf, it bears its teeth and you know that it's there to eat. So, I've never in my entire adult life trusted either liberals or conservatives. And the two-party system that we – well, we don't have a two-party system – but the two parties that have come to dominate the American political system are dominated by liberals and conservatives. So, I've never thrown my lot in with the Democratic Party at any level. I voted for the Democrats in the first election that I ever voted – for Bill Clinton. I voted for Clinton the first time around, I was 18 years old, and I voted for Obama, in 2008. And I think that those are the only two times that I've actually voted in a presidential election. I'd have to go back and check on that. I think I voted in primaries at other points in time. My mom was somewhat engaged in Democratic Party politics in the city of Minneapolis, but because of Annie, we mostly stayed around Green and third-party movements. To return to your broader question that Bill Clinton election was the beginning of the end of viable options for third parties for a generation and the reason is Clinton sold out on campaign finance reform. My own understanding was that at that point in time, the Democratic Party was interested in campaign finance reform because all the corporate money was behind the Republican Party and this was something people now forget that Bill Clinton ran on. I was actually very much motivated by this because I thought that the influence of money in politics was going to make it impossible for people like Annie Young and others to do well and be successful. And what the Democrats found out is that if they went corporate, too, they could raise as much money or more than the Republicans could raise and we saw essentially for the past 30-plus years, the Clinton political machine dominate the Democratic Party and go further and further towards corporate selling out, to the point that they're now fundamentally indistinguishable. There is an ideological difference between, quote-unquote, “liberals” and quote-unquote, “conservatives” but there is no functional difference between Team Blue and Team Red when it comes to their beholdenness to AIPAC, to the war machine, to the 1%, to corporate dollars. And I made a social media post before I ever joined the campaign that said whether you vote Team Blue or Team Red, militarized fascism wins. Because what we're essentially seeing in the struggle between Democrats and Republicans is a struggle for factional control over the corporate machine of the 1%. Their patronage networks overlap fundamentally with AIPAC and the war machine. And there is just kind of a fight at the margin between certain kinds of identity groups on one side and Christian nationalists on the other but, ultimately, they serve the same corporate masters. And you are now seeing this with Team Blue as they recruit, you know, people that were well to the right of Ronald Reagan and, without blinking an eye, the Democratic Party embraces war criminals like Dick Cheney because, fundamentally, Team Blue and Team Red of the same team, I call them purple fascists. 

 

G. Greenwald: Yeah, it was really interesting when Liz Cheney talked about not only her endorsement of Kamala but also her father's. She made very clear it's not just because of animosity toward Trump or his comportment. She said very clearly I'm more comfortable with the Foreign Policy ideology of the Democratic Party and Kamala Harris and Joe Biden than I am with the Trump-led Republican Party and no one was even confused by that. For me, that made complete sense. If I were Dick Cheney and my views had been what they had been his whole life, I feel very comfortable in the Democratic Party as it's currently constituted as well. 

Let me ask you, just on a personal note, it kind of attracted my attention that you said, “Look, I'm not a politician. Don't call me that.” The reality is if you're running for any office where you're trying to get votes for yourself, by definition you sort of are, even if you don't think of yourself primarily as that, which I understand. I'm wondering, though, in the past, the Democrats attacked the Greens only when they lost and needed somebody to blame for their failures. They couldn't of course, (Ware laughs) So, after the elections are over, they’re going to reap scorn on Ralph Nader, in 2000 and then Jill Stein in 2016, to blame them. This time, I think it's the first time we're seeing this, there's a great deal of venom and attacks in a very coordinated way coming from some of the most prominent surrogates of the Democratic Party, AOC, Keith Ellison, coordinated DNC attacks, not just on both of you, but sort of on your person and your integrity. I mean, AOC called your party “predatory.” I'm wondering, I assume you knew you were going to open yourself up to attacks, but I'm wondering whether you understood or expected that it was going to be at the level of vitriol and kind of personal destruction that you're now seeing. 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
17
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
Colorado Gov. Jared Polis says Kamala Harris Would Combat "Rampant Antisemitism" on College Campuses

Colorado Governor Jared Polis tells Michael Tracey that Kamala Harris has been a staunch supporter of Israel and that she would rein in the "rampant antisemitism" he says exists on college campuses.

00:04:18
Michael Tracey Interviews Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO) in "Spin Room"

Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO) tells Michael Tracey that it makes sense for Kamala Harris to welcome Dick Cheney's endorsement because this election is about supporting someone who "respects the rule of law." He then avoids answering whether Dick Cheney respected the Constitution...

00:01:35
Michael Tracey interviews Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA)

Michael interviews Rep. Ted Lieu about Dick Cheney endorsing Kamala and whether he still believes Trump colluded with Russia:

00:03:00
Listen to this Article: Reflecting New U.S. Control of TikTok's Censorship, Our Report Criticizing Zelensky Was Deleted

For years, U.S. officials and their media allies accused Russia, China and Iran of tyranny for demanding censorship as a condition for Big Tech access. Now, the U.S. is doing the same to TikTok. Listen below.

Listen to this Article: Reflecting New U.S. Control of TikTok's Censorship, Our Report Criticizing Zelensky Was Deleted
WEEKLY WEIGH-IN: We NEED Your Help (& Input)!

What’s happening in politics that you want to talk about? Are there any burning topics you think Glenn needs to cover? Any thoughts you’d like to share?

This post will be pinned to our profile for the remainder of this week, so comment below anytime with your questions, insights, future topic ideas/guest recommendations, etc. Let’s get a conversation going!

Glenn will respond to a few comments here—and may even address some on our next supporters-only After-Show.

Thanks for your continued support through another week of SYSTEM UPDATE with Glenn Greenwald!

We hope you all have a great week and a happy Veteran’s Day!

post photo preview
post photo preview

Texeira sentenced to 15 years in federal prison for revealing what we already knew: that Ukraine was losing to Russia. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/11/pentagon-leaker-who-published-sensitive-information-that-ukraine/

post photo preview
Dems & Media Still Blaming Everyone But Themselves, Especially Voters; Trump Bans Pompeo & Haley, Appoints Stefanik: What Does This Reveal About Next Admin?
Video Transcript

Watch the full episode HERE

Podcast: Apple - Spotify 

Rumble App: Apple - Google


Good evening. It's Monday, November 11. 

Tonight: It has been 5 full days since Donald Trump was declared the winner of the 2024 election and, as such, the President-elect of the United States. To say that Democratic Party officials and corporate media personalities have not handled this news very well is to dramatically understate the case. At least since the Sept. 11 attacks, I have rarely seen such a frantic and unhinged reaction to any event as we're seeing toward this election result, and the spasms are, I'm afraid, nowhere near the end, but merely in their incipient stages.

To begin with, Democrats and their media allies need to explain to their faithful partisan hordes how this happened – why would people as honorable and decent and noble and patriotic as Kamala Harris and Tim Walz possibly lose a national election to a ticket led by a convicted felon and twice-impeached monster and insurrectionist who is literally the new Hitler, along with his Vice President whom they proclaimed to be, depending on the week, weird, fascistic, and a Silicon Valley puppet. There are two rules Democrats and the media must follow in offering an explanation – first, to identify who the villains are who caused this traumatic event, and secondly, to ensure that the villains are anyone other than the Democratic party, its leaders, its establishment ideology, and its media and secondly, they have to ensure that the villains are anyone other than the Democratic Party, its leaders, its establishment ideology, and its media. The one thing they all agree on is that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the Democratic Party. The same thing happened after 2016. People who voted for Trump are racists and misogynists, some argued. They are deceived and confused by a steady stream of disinformation fed to them by right-wing oligarchical media barons who somehow control the independent podcasts and shows that have become far more influential than CNN or the New York Times. Or it's Joe Biden's fault for not dropping out soon enough. It's just a problem of messaging – people never were told why the Democratic Party deserved their gratitude. Or it was all the left's fault for their excesses on culture war issues such as trans rights. 

Anything to avoid having to confront and grapple with the real rot at the heart of the Democratic Party: its corporatism and militarism which produces major benefits for a small clique of American liberal elites, while leaving everyone else ignored and abused. I've often said that the two most accountability-free professions on the planet are politics and punditry. No matter how much they fail, they never acknowledge their failures, find someone else to pin the blame on, and just merrily continue in their positions of now-rapidly diminishing influence and power. That is exactly what we're seeing right now, an attempt to shift the blame onto anybody other than the actual culprits, which are themselves. 

Then: There are many things one could say about the first Trump presidential term. That it was driven by rigid ideological coherence is not one of them. For all sorts of reasons – constant contrived scandals from the U.S. Security State disseminated by the corporate media, Trump's lack of familiarity with how the Swamp really worked, the conflicting factions he allowed deep into his government – it was hard to discern a clear political worldview from these first four years. Official Trump policies often conflicted with the President's rhetoric; his orders were often thwarted or ignored by unseen bureaucrats; Trump seemed unsure of himself when it came to particularly complex policy decisions.

Trump himself has acknowledged many of these problems and is explicitly vowing to avoid their repetition. But there are, of course, all sorts of ideological factions vying to influence him: none more dangerous than the neocons and warmongers who sometimes populated his first time and are eager to drive him into the very wars he insists he wants to avoid.

Those tensions were evident over the last several weeks as Trump's CIA Director and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, arguably the worst person and the first Trump administration was included in Trump's inner camp on some of his last campaign stops, clearly attempting to worm his way into a position of influence. But Trump, responding to the concerns of the anti-interventionist wing of his Republican base, preemptively announced that he would bar both Mike Pompeo and, for good measure, Nikki Haley, from any position in his administration and wish them the best of luck in the future. That announcement, combined with Trump's prior selection of J.D. Vance as his vice presidential running mate earlier this year, created hope that Trump would freeze out that standard DC warmongers and interventionists from tape shaping his top national security start. Donald Trump Jr. this week vowed that freezing such people out was his top priority and by all reports, Donald Trump Jr. is wielding more influence in the Trump camp than ever before. 

Today, however, Trump announced that he was appointing New York Congresswoman Elise Stefanik, a Nikki Haley clone, to Haley's old position as the U.S. ambassador to the U.N.. He also just announced moments before we went on the air that Congressman Mike Waltz, Republican of Florida and former Green Beret, somebody who has been quite hawkish in the war in Ukraine – he actually opposed Trump's attempt to withdraw from Afghanistan, is quite hawkish on China, though he is a NATO skeptic – will be his national security advisor.

None of these individual appointments standing alone will definitively signal what differences, if any, the second Trump administration will have from the first. But we do have some revealing clues thus far that at least are worth examining, especially because there is clearly an ongoing fight among those closest to Trump to shape how these differences might emerge. But it's definitely worth looking at since we have enough data points at this point to try and map out how we think that will evolve. 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
Trump’s Landslide Win: Our Analysis, With Journalist Lee Fang
Video Transcript

Watch the full episode HERE

Podcast: Apple - Spotify 

Rumble App: Apple - Google


Good evening. It's Wednesday, November 6, the day after the 2024 presidential election. 

Tonight: Donald Trump last night won the American presidency for the second time in a sweeping landslide. Trump won all seven of the so-called swing states. He is almost certainly likely to win more than 300 Electoral College votes. His lead in the popular vote over Kamala Harris is now almost 4 million, which would make him only the second Republican candidate this century to win the popular vote, the other being the wartime president, George W. Bush, in 2004. He also beat Kamala and her running mate, Tim Walz, in his home county in Minnesota. As striking as the massive margins are, is the breadth of demographic groups in which Trump made major strides since 2020. In fact, in virtually every demographic group other than college-educated women, Trump improved his vote totals from 2020 and 2016, chief among them among Latinos, but also Arab and Muslims, young people, and, by large distances, non-college-educated white men and white women. In other words, Trump, who has been branded by the national media virtually every day since 2015 as a racist, a white nationalist, a white supremacist fascist, owes his win in large part to the massive number of nonwhite voters who migrated from the Democratic Party toward Trump, starting in 2016 and into 2020 and even more so in 2024. 

On top of that, the Republicans took control away from the Democrats of the Senate and appear likely – it's not certain, but it appears likely – that they will maintain control of the House as well. The biggest loser in all of this, besides the Democratic Party and their neocon allies such as Liz Cheney, is the corporate media to say that they are becoming more and more irrelevant at a rapid speed is to severely understate the case. They spent the last week of this campaign focusing on such towering issues as how a joke told by a comedian at a Trump rally enraged celebrities such as Bad Bunny and Jennifer Lopez, thereby, according to them, jeopardizing Trump's ability to attract Latino and especially Puerto Rican voters, as if that's the first thing on their mind when they go to vote. They spent 48 hours melting in contrived indignation over their false claim that Trump threatened Liz Cheney with execution by firing squad. I suppose we'll see whether that actually is scheduled shortly, whether it's on pay-per-view or whatever. But at least as of now, it was a completely fabricated allegation that they spent two or three days full days drowning in and that most of their time over the past two months has been screeching that Trump is the new Hitler coming to put all of them – these very important people in the media, the pundits and the various politicians – to come and put them all into camps. 

None of that mattered in the slightest, and that is not only because corporate media is rapidly losing their audience to independent media outlets, podcasts and the like, but also because their lives are increasingly lived in a different universe than the millions of Americans on whose behalf they believe they speak. So many of them, these cable pundits and op-ed writers spent the day expressing pure bafflement – “I just can't understand why this happened. After everything we said about Trump, how can people go and vote for him in such large numbers” – while others spent the day blaming and heaping scorn not on the Democrats for losing, but on the voters for not doing what they were told. Particular scorn was reserved for Latino and Arab voters accused of being racist and misogynistic. Because, as we know, nothing enrages Democrats the more than one member of marginalized groups that they believe they own don't do as they're told. In sum, the leaders of the Democratic Party can never fail. They can only be failed by primitive, stupid, bigoted, and racist American voters who have a lot more to say about what is clearly a historical election. There is no figure like Trump in all of American history for multiple reasons and a bit later in the show, we are joined by the great, best creative journalist and my friend Lee Fang, who principally writes at his great Substack but is also a contributing writer for the British Journal Unheard. 

For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update, starting right now. 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
Election Eve Special With Michael Tracey, Briahna Joy Gray & Zaid Jilani
Video Transcript

Watch the full episode HERE

Podcast: Apple - Spotify 

Rumble App: Apple - Google


Good evening. It is Monday, November 4h.  I'm Michael Tracey, filling in once again for the enigmatic Glenn Greenwald, who is off doing something or other tonight. But we're going to have a jam-packed show for you because, as you might be aware, tonight is the eve of the 2024 presidential election, and therefore, there is much to discuss.  

I'm here in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, where the poor citizens of Pennsylvania have been absolutely inundated with campaign propaganda for an interminable period of time at this point, and hopefully will soon receive some relief. But for now, welcome to a new episode of System Update starting right now. 


Pennsylvania, as everybody is tediously aware, is ground zero for the 2024 campaign. The amount of propaganda that everybody is being bombarded with in this state is astounding. It was probably similar in previous years, but now it just seems like it's reaching a new level. You cannot turn on the television without seeing five consecutive ads from politicians who are criticizing other politicians. It's just suffusing the entire commonwealth and people might kind of just not be inhabiting the same world if you live in, I don't know, Vermont or Arkansas or Kentucky or Massachusetts or some other place that's not seen as hotly contested in this election. It's obviously to do with the structure of the U.S. electoral system where we allocate electors by popular vote in individual states, and then whoever gets the majority in the Electoral College wins. Therefore, people pour into the states that are seen to be the most critical to winning the Electoral College. And here we are in Pennsylvania. 

I've been across the country covering the elections. I've been in Nevada, I've been in Arizona, I've been in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and now here I am concluding the spirited and wonderful 2024 campaign season here. And tonight, I cap things off by just having gone to one of Donald J. Trump's final rallies. He could always, who knows, hold additional rallies if he wins or even if he loses, it's difficult to say, but at least as of this campaign cycle, one of his final rallies was this afternoon in Reading, Pennsylvania, spelled deceptively as ‘reading’ but all the locals know that it's pronounced Redding. 

So, make sure you have that down if you ever want to become a political prognosticator and discuss this particular micro section of Pennsylvania, the commonwealth. And there was an interesting occurrence at this Trump campaign rally that I was there to witness myself, where he gave a curious shoutout to a particular political ally of his. And so, let's play that clip of Donald Trump today at the rally in Reading, Pennsylvania. 

 

Video. C-SPAN. November 4, 2024.

 

Donald Trump: So normally you see all these jobs and everything, hundreds of thousands of jobs just because of the size. And they just announced, Mike, you'd be amazed at this, Mike. Look at our Mike. Look at that. He lost all that weight. You look so handsome. Stand up, Mike Pompeo. Stand up, Mike. He looks so handsome. Wow, man. I'm going to ask him how the hell did he do that? That's good. Good. That's great. 

 

I was sitting actually behind Pompeo further up in the in the arena style seating, and I saw him stand up. He waved to the crowd. Trump prompted the crowd to give Mike Pompeo a nice round of applause. One of the few people that Trump actually singled out for praise in this particular event. We've heard a lot one of the big Trump campaign themes is supposedly that he has this Avengers-style dream team of new people who are going to come into a second Trump administration and combat the deep state or bring peace and prosperity and justice to America. And I've always found this a bit odd because although people like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard and others promote this kind of fairy tale, Mike Pompeo has always been one of the foremost people in the Trump coalition, the Trump governing coalition. He was one of the few senior-level administration officials in the first Trump administration with whom Trump never had a personal falling out. Trump first appointed Pompeo as CIA director and then elevated him to secretary of state, in which capacity Pompeo served for the majority of the Trump presidency and carried out dutifully their joint policy initiatives. 

One of those policy initiatives was to basically declare jihad against Wikileaks, which when Pompeo was CIA director, he called a hostile nonstate intelligence service and then directed the resources of the executive branch to combating and ultimately prosecuting in the form of Julian Assange, who, of course, was indicted in 2019 and then again with a superseding indictment in 2020, he was extracted from the Ecuadorian embassy in London and thrown into Belmarsh Prison, and only a few months ago was he finally released, under the Biden Department of Justice. Assange and his counsel arranged for a plea agreement that enabled him to leave prison and go back to Australia. So, people kind of try to assert that there's some fundamental disparity or incongruence between Trump and Pompeo. Yet Trump has been going around praising Pompeo. He told the radio host Hugh Hewitt recently that Pompeo is among the people who are in consideration for another senior-level role in his forthcoming administration, which would make perfect sense because he and Pompeo were in total harmony, as far as anybody could tell, while Trump was in power the first time. Trump even went on Joe Rogan and favorably name-dropped Pompeo and then now here Pompeo is going around in the Trump entourage, campaigning with him and getting called out by Trump as one of his favored backers. So, I mean, people can have this hallucinatory view of like what Trump might do because are they bought into this whole RFK Jr. mythology where because like RFK Jr. might have some ancillary role at the Food and Drug Administration with like removing toxins from oil supplies that therefore Trump is going to have this new group of like heroic superstars to dismantle the Deep State, Trump himself is telling you who is within his sphere of influence and who is within his orbit. It's Mike Pompeo. If you're a person who views yourself to be an enormous defender of Wikileaks – as I've always been since, I don't know, 2009, 2010 – when they first became prominent in American domestic politics and international affairs as well, then it's just a massive bit of cognitive dissonance to be cheerleading for Donald Trump when he's telling you blatantly that Mike Pompeo is still in his good graces. Mike Pompeo also spoke at the Republican convention. I mean, this is not hidden. It's coming out of Donald Trump's own mouth.

If people want to employ some kind of circuitous reasoning and still claim that it's of urgent moral necessity to reinstate Republican executive power, okay, that's your prerogative, but at least go into it with some clarity as to what you're doing. You know, I didn't vote for either Kamala Harris or Donald Trump – not that anybody should particularly care about my own voting behavior, but I do think it's worthwhile to be at least transparent about what I've done. I've never bought into this whole taboo that certain journalists have where you're supposed to steadfastly conceal your own private political activity or voting behavior. That never made sense to me. And I wrote out a whole explanation of why I did this. This was an interesting thought, that people could look it up if they'd like, it was published over the weekend. 

AD_4nXdEJ_BfW6t1imNuIclwxBEmNKevp47kk-hDnOLMbZ2JxFZTV0k3tJYJt1xGySeTG4d1_3WBHCW9eoCPYdm98zvXmUzZB8U5KDdprnN3fESLiIjAgR8LEcSojmRcDBmaR_q0GITgrJwmW69Z1qZH6g5ZkA_HfGEdCjw_YQm0Zw?key=2-mmG9WhgpXSvyTMdsG5fLlz

But one thing that I am trying to do is call attention to the legions, the tens of millions of nonvoters who are constantly berated and hectored and lectured and scolded for not voting for one of the two major party candidates. Either they're voting third party or not voting at all, which I think is a perfectly valid position for people who are abstaining from the electoral process because they don't wish to concede that it has any legitimacy in their eyes. And there are so many voters across Pennsylvania. Before I get on to this, I do want to ask the producers to throw up the photo of the woman at the Trump rally who was sitting behind me. She was a Spanish-speaking woman. 

AD_4nXe1yz5-qh_NyhfE93OCESX2Qk_OHylrA-LlMohiO5bMpU9Eo9pxZRps5gceqyPma6uHXUB58llvnYWWyxhO1anEZiJSy90Ya3VOMvKSTuvd_zH9Y0J6sSe87ocJQWIYE3lTD-7Lhlb9wnoWY83eRsKjFF3LzeHcNDVL6aic2Q?key=2-mmG9WhgpXSvyTMdsG5fLlz

And before I get on to my larger point, I just do want to point out that if you go and sit at one of these Trump rallies, I mean, Reading, Pennsylvania, is heavily Latino and there were lots of people who were cheering when Marco Rubio – supposedly one of the former neocons, quote-unquote, who has been banished from the Republican Party under Trump but who is still also within the Trump sphere of influence, just like Tom Cotton, who is also sitting in the VIP section at this rally today, but, you know, I say too much in this regard, I guess, for some people. But I do want to point out, just like the very clear diversity in the demographics that are supporting Trump this time around, I mean, I think it's very much probable, almost even certain that Trump will receive a heavily diversified vote racially, ethnically and religiously tomorrow, probably superseding or exceeding the racial diversity of his vote in 2020 and 2016. And if anything, he might be going down with white voters overall, mostly highly educated white voters. If Trump does lose, it'll probably look something like college-educated white voters trending against him just as happened between 2016 and 2020. And it's not offset sufficiently by the increased level of support from racial minorities that he receives, including that woman who happened to be behind me at the rally. And there were lots of other diverse people at this rally. So, I mean, it cuts right against this fanciful idea that Trump is leading some sort of, quote, “Nazi” movement. I mean, it doesn't seem to include all that much of an appeal to, like racial purification zealotry if you're including within the current iteration of the mock a movement of very visibly diverse set of people. 

But anyway, the undecided voter I think is very interesting. I also wrote today an article for Newsweek where I went and surveyed lots of undecided voters in Pennsylvania and people, I think, have a misconception about what the prototypical undecided voter is this late in the election cycle. It's really not a voter who is determined to vote and is still trying to make his or her mind up between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. Those voters do exist. I mean, you would never know it if you look at Internet comment sections all day, but that title does exist. 

AD_4nXfsNvmDjgBUBFpI3QECNFmKNqyTO9KVj0PtvimMDBJPDJvxox8AsXdUBV5LBvOeKUrpVrGcHNF5ggXZtB2WVqHi6L9S_e3mRC4t74tBpa-JWbgPnKmKmhL_iqLAbju9l_Lxic6nBAt6qr0dgHs1lO-UNScd4hfG71wo7E3EMA?key=2-mmG9WhgpXSvyTMdsG5fLlz

But more often what you encounter are people who are undecided voters in the sense that they don't know whether it's even worth their time to go vote at all. They tend to have a disenchanted idea of the electoral process as a whole, skeptical toward the two major candidates, they might be more favorable toward one or the other, but the decision point that they've yet to complete in their thought process is whether to even vote at all. And interestingly, a number of these people if they were prodded, if they were maybe targeted by a competent Republican, get-out-the-vote operation – which we're told Elon Musk is funding in Pennsylvania, remains to be seen whether that's going to be effective – but I encountered more often than not among this like basket of voters who are undecided about whether to vote, more often – again, I grant this is anecdotal, but like, what else can I do in terms of conducting reportage than compiling anecdotes? – more often than not, these people who are undecided about whether to vote, they have like a preference for Trump. So, they could be amenable to motivational interventions on the part of some Republican apparatus to try to get them out to vote, to encourage them to be motivated enough to go act on their preference. But so far, they haven't been reached in that way, at least from what I have been able to gather in my sample size. So, it's 25 people and there are a lot of people who reflect this kind of profile. 

Yesterday I was out across different parts of most like Philadelphia suburbs, with Meghan O'Rourke, who is a producer here on the System Update show and we were just going to do Man-on-the-Street interviews. Sometimes people can kind of maybe snicker at the utility of conducting this kind of interview, but they're really pretty informative, I find, because you're kind of just doing a random sample of voters. I particularly wanted to see if we could identify nonvoters. People who are abstaining from the election, whether out of pure apathy, out of distaste for the two candidates, or for any other reason because I think that those segments of voters are under-analyzed. 

But first, I want to show you a clip of an interview that we did with a person who really reflects why I think more people should do more On-the-Street interviews because you're bound to encounter a voter or a would-be voter who just defies any stereotypical expectation you might have. So, let's go to the interview that we did with the young woman who was a Walmart worker. 

 

Video. Walmart employer. Norristown, PA.

 

M. Tracey: Yeah. So, what do you think about the election coming up? 

 

Interviewee: I think this election is very important this time. It's a lot going on, so we need a good president, you know? And I think Trump will be a good president, in my opinion, because he's actually done stuff in the office. I haven't really seen the vice president like really do anything, even though being vice president. Yeah. So, I just feel like a guy being a president is better in my opinion. 

 

M. Tracey: Really? 

 

Interviewee: Yes. 

 

M. Tracey: Explain. 

 

Interviewee: I feel like… What's her name? 

 

M. Tracey: Kamala. 

 

Interviewee: I feel like if Kamala was president, I feel like we will be in war with, like, other countries, because she will, like, I don't know. Females are very sensitive. 

 

M. Tracey: Wow. What do you like that Trump did when he was in office the first time? 

 

Interviewee: I can't remember. Okay. I know he did something. Some stuff. Like people said, I don't like Trump, but like, they have to understand, like he did do stuff while he was in office. 

 

I just wanted to play that, not because it's necessarily totally representative of anything in particular, but because you encounter all these amazing anecdotal stories about how people formulate their political views. And as somebody who covers politics for better or worse, day in and day out, you can kind of get into certain patterns or rhythms in terms of how you kind of just assume that the electorate is shaping up. And, you know, we came across a Walmart worker. She was actually 17, okay, but she was working at Walmart, so, she's not eligible to vote this year. But she says her family is all voting for Trump. She wants Trump to win. She has some striking views as to whether a woman should be in office and know she's a young Black woman who's a low-wage worker at Walmart and supporting Trump. So, I just throw that out there to say that there are so many manifestations of the voter that I think you only really encounter if you go out into the wild and just kind of talk to a random selection of people, get off the Internet. Not that the Internet is totally useless, but in terms of, you know, encountering people who are kind of out to defy your expectations as to how people arrive at their political preferences, it's useful to go out and talk to people. 

So, I had the bright idea of going to Walmart because I think that's sort of an instructive place to kind of talk to people who may be undecided or less engaged in the political process and yes, let's play that other interview that I did with the second woman at Walmart with her son. 

 

Video. Mother and son at Walmart. Norristown, PA.

 

M. Tracey: So, you said you have not really been following the election much at all. What do you know? To the extent that you know anything?  

 

Mother: I know that there is Kamala Harris and I know Donald Trump. Yes. 

 

Son: And I know the perfect pick. 

 

Mother: And he knows who he would pick. 

 

M. Tracey: Who would you pick? 

 

Son: Kamala Harris.

 

M. Tracey: Why is that?

 

Son: I don't trust Trump. I just don't trust Trump. I never trusted him. 

 

M. Tracey: What don't you like about Trump in particular? Like anything he did when he was president the first time that you didn't like? 

 

Son: No, I don't think I noticed anything yet. (talks to his mother)

 

Mother: You were young, you were just young. 

 

M. Tracey: How old are you? 

 

Son: Nine. 

 

M. Tracey: Okay. So, at the end of Obama and then Trump came in. 

 

Mother: Yup. 

 

M. Tracey: And what do you like about Kamala, if anything? 

 

Son: I don't know. I just… 

 

M. Tracey: You just like her as an alternative to Trump? 

 

Son: Yes. 

 

M. Tracey (To mother): And you just haven’t been following it. 

 

Mother: I just haven't really been following. I didn't have any problems when Trump was in. I thought he was fine before. But I don't really know who's doing what this year. Like who's, you know, what everybody's talking about. I just really don't keep up. 

 

M. Tracey: Have you voted in the past? 

 

Mother: I have not ever. Never in my life. 

 

M. Tracey: And why? You just don't think that there's enough at stake for you to… 

 

Mother: It's not that, I just... I just never have. I really never have. But if I had to pick one, I would go back to Trump. 

 

M. Tracey: Really? 

 

Mother: Just because he did fine before. Like, I just think I would choose him. That's it. 

 

I played that because she's obviously an infrequent voter – she has never voted – but she's saying that she has a preference for Trump. So, this is like the prototypical, modal voter that the get-out-the-vote operations that are run by both parties would want to identify and then try to urge or motivate to vote and it doesn't seem like that's happened with her. I can give you a bunch of other examples of people who fit a similar profile. 

One of my tentative theories here is that there is a fairly sizable untapped pool or voters who could lean Republican. My basic theory is that there does appear in Pennsylvania and other states to be a large, an untapped or seemingly untapped pool of potential Trump or Republican voters who need a bit of extra motivation given their skepticism of the system or their low propensity to vote at all, who could potentially be motivated to vote if they were made contact with by a get-out-the-vote operation. But the Republicans historically have not been as competent at utilizing get-out-the-vote methods as Democrats and so, if Trump does lose Pennsylvania, well, a large share of the reason will be that voters such as this have not been contacted, persuaded or engaged with by these well-funded billionaire-funded groups. So we're told, you know, we're flooding the state with ads, but apparently don't have the wherewithal to identify this type of voter, again, who says that she would prefer Trump but is just not interested enough in the election to go vote.

 

 Okay, so, now we're with Briahna Joy Gray. 


Interview: Briahna Joy Gray 

AD_4nXdgyFHIWMSJ1IMJS9XpWQVQQpr5f9FuF6EudfETwsQh2Md5VUjmrs3CZAS_wUCQyefuwpPKdl1TkB-Nsko7DUEcosaMqvvnOmHRuonkZfv3XgTHLxZwRjysQShCaJgSUw7MOiUtPfIcf1hEaQxRbkMbcYirT_PblQt2IwEt-g?key=2-mmG9WhgpXSvyTMdsG5fLlz

M. Tracey: So, Brianna, I wanted to talk to you for a while because obviously we're on, as you may be aware, the eve of the 2024 election, there could be some people out there who are still making up their minds. I would doubt that there are that many watching System Update and Rumble who are undecided, but you never know. 

One thing that I've noted, having gone around and surveyed undecided voters here in Pennsylvania, which is ground zero for an endless bombardment of propaganda – it's actually incredible, I mean, I know this happens every election cycle to some extent, especially post-Citizens United, which basically eliminated all constraints on political spending. But it really is incredible to see just how inundated Pennsylvanians are – I've talked to a lot of Pennsylvania voters who are undecided, partially because they're so alienated from all the endless propaganda that they're being bombarded with, that they kind of just are contemplating potentially not even voting out of spite. And I sympathize with that. 

So, did you get a chance to look at any of the articles that I sent you? I'm trying to basically postulate a certain type of undecided voter who exists out there in the universe who I think is under-examined and it's not somebody who's like making this a last minute impulsive decision between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. Most people who are determined to vote already have make up their minds. Those are the quintessential undecided voters. The undecided voters that I most encounter here in Pennsylvania and also around the country are people who are disenchanted with the electoral process. And they may have a mild preference for one or the other. Interestingly enough, they tend to express more of a preference for Trump in my experience but they might not be motivated to actually go and bother to vote. They don't think it particularly matters. 

 

Briahna Joy Gray: That doesn't surprise me at all. I mean, we do this every election cycle, right? What is the stat about there being more nonvoters than Americans who identify with either political party, record high numbers of people who identify as independents, right? And that is largely because people start to get to a certain age, it only takes a few election cycles to start to get the sense that no matter who's sitting in the Oval Office, your life is substantively the same. Now, I'm not going to sit here and say that there aren't meaningful differences that come around on a generational basis, that there are meaningful differences in terms of the labor conditions that people have to organize under, or, let's say, Roe (v. Wade) being overturned. But realistically speaking, practically speaking, for most people's lives, the consequences of organizing under Biden's Labor Department being better, it is meaningful, at the same time, fewer than 10% of Americans are in unions, and those numbers have not meaningfully dropped, despite the fact that we have a more pro-labor president in office. And again, that is not to say to diminish those gains. But the fact is, when you have wins that touch the lives, directly touch the lives of so few Americans, you find yourself facing a lot of disaffected voters. 

There are policies that have the potential to touch a lot of people in one fell swoop. Remember, Biden's announced student debt policy was going to affect 44 million Americans, 44 million Americans who are going to get $10,000 to $20,000 of their student debt canceled. Remember that. Remember how impactful the $1,200 checks were back in the early days of COVID. There are voters today still, I'm sure you encountered some of them, who will invoke those checks as long ago as they were, as some of the most meaningful interventions from a government they've ever experienced in their life. And yet Democrats have a tendency to, I would argue, purposefully avoid, but even if you're giving them the benefit of the doubt, set up their agenda, their policy, and did that strive more for small incrementalism, instead of the sweeping programs that I think could really win devoted, committed members of the base for many, many cycles going forward. And then the last point on that, I'd say that's Pennsylvania-specific. It's notable that fracking and Kamala Harris's flip-flopping on a fracking ban has been such a point of contention. She's seemingly willing to completely revise her 2019, and 2020 stance. Why? Well, there are only about 17,000 fracking jobs in the entire state of Pennsylvania. In fact, a majority of Pennsylvania voters are supportive of the fracking ban and are deeply concerned about the health implications of having to drink this luminous light-on-fire water that fracking creates. On the other hand, had she wanted to touch again tens of thousands of Pennsylvania voters, she could have focused on the fact that Pennsylvania voters are still operating under a federal minimum wage. That's the federal minimum wage that hasn't been raised since 2009, the longest period in American history since we've had a minimum wage. And then email. There are tens of thousands of minimum wage workers in Pennsylvania who are still on the federal minimum wage rate, you barely hear a peep out of the Democratic Party, about a $15-hour minimum wage, which isn't some far-fetched lefty agenda item. It's a core base item on the Democratic agenda. So, what is really going on here? It feels like many voters are increasingly disaffected because the Democratic Party is pitching their pitch to their donor base who care about things like a fracking ban, the energy companies, the defense contractors, and the like, instead of actually talking to the voters whose votes they need. 

 

M. Tracey: And look at who Kamala Harris is clearly tailoring her message to in the final weeks of her campaign. It's still bizarre to me to even utter this out loud, but it really is centered on Liz Cheney and disaffected, highly engaged, news-attentive Republicans who Kamala Harris apparently wagers that she'll be able to convince to come and vote for the Democrat. I don't know for sure that that is an impossibly crazy strategy. It certainly didn't work in 2016 for Hillary Clinton when she employed a version of it but you could argue perhaps that it might have worked to some extent for Biden in 2020. It's hard to say. I mean, Biden did largely win in the contested states because of major shifts within affluent suburbs, whereas the city centers like Philadelphia or Detroit or Milwaukee, actually trended marginally toward Trump. But that was offset by the major gains that the Democrats made in these affluent suburbs, which are increasingly, increasingly at the forefront of their electoral coalition. 

So, there's been a ton of energy expended on this show and other shows in the so-called alternative media ecosystem in dismantling the Democrats. And I'm always all for that. Okay? I can never get enough of it and I support Trump's principles but I do want to talk about Donald Trump, because one thing that's so maddening to me about this election cycle – and I spelled out in the other article that I wrote about my non-votes in the 2024 election – is that I consider myself, to some extent, a part of alternative media. I think it's a necessary corrective and has been a necessary corrective to the propagation of mainstream narratives and opening opportunities for people who might not have a traditional route to conduct journalism or engage in the media but I'm sorry to say – and people are going to get angry at me for saying this, who are watching – but a lot of alternative media this cycle has basically just been converted into a Republican cheerleading squad. I mean, Donald Trump can hand-pick “whatever podcaster, bro guy” – and I don't even say that derogatorily, I watch some of these podcasts – who he can go and banter with for an hour and a half and they won't ask him a single challenging question. And the list goes on. I mean, there are people who, you know, I would have had a much more respectable opinion a year or two ago who decided that their proper role in the 2024 election was basically just to join the Trump bandwagon. And if you want to vote for Trump, okay, fine but let's actually do some serious critique of his record, of his policy positions and it's just been virtually missing in these alternative media spheres, as far as I could tell. 

I don't know if you watch any of my introduction, but I happen to be at one of the final Trump rallies today in Reading, Pennsylvania. He pointed to Mike Pompeo, who was there in the Trump entourage, camped out on the campaign trail with Trump today, said what a great guy he is. He said on multiple occasions that Mike Pompeo was one of the people who is in consideration for another senior-level administration position. And for all we want to, you know, bemoan the Democrats relying on Dick and Liz Cheney, what's the substantive difference, really, between Trump parading around with Mike Pompeo? 

Tom Cotton was also there, one of the most virulent hawks in the entire Senate. Marco Rubio was in the entourage today. Lindsey Graham is a top surrogate. None of these people have been cast out of the so-called RFK Jr. reformed MAGA Republican Party or MAGA Party. I just think that there's such a torrent of confusion around this and a lack of serious critical examination that I sort of sometimes worry that the overwhelming focus that I have often partaken in, in criticizing and scrutinizing the Democrats has given way to the Trump and the Republicans, at least in these alternative media circles, kind of give being given a free pass. And there's just a flood of propaganda being repeated that is flattering to them without actually examining the record or what they would do a second time. So, am I crazy here? 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals