Ruwa: Thanks for having me.
♪♪
Judy: The president halts a
railroad strike.
Lawmakers shield gay marriage.
And Democrats shake up the road
to the white house.
To consider this week's news,
the analysis of brooks and
Capehart.
That's New York Times columnist
David brooks and Jonathan
Capehart, associate editor for
the Washington post.
Hello to both of you.
So glad you had a good
Thanksgiving.
You just reassured me that was
the case.
[Laughter]
Let's start with the newest
news, with the democratic party
is doing.
They took a vote today.
They are moving up south
Carolina.
This is the primary calendar in
2024.
It is more than a year away, but
with big consequences.
Jonathan: It's more than just
moving South Carolina up, it is
a total reorganization of the
calendar.
Cramming a lot in in the month
of February.
With South Carolina going first,
clearly what the party wants to
do is make sure that the first
state that votes in a
presidential primary election is
one that demographically looks
more like the country than Iowa.
If memory serves, about a
quarter of the electorate in
South Carolina is
African-American.
That makes a lot of sense.
I think there are a lot within
the democratic party, especially
after the bottle -- after the
debacle of the Iowa caucuses in
2020 are pushing for a state
more representative of the
country, having a say about who
the party of the nominee who --
the nominee should be.
David: If anyone had doubts that
Biden is running for reelection,
he took over the whole primary
process.
This is a state he's most likely
to win of all the 50 states,
which propelled him last time.
He said, we are going to do it
my way.
And so I think for the reasons
Jonathan said, it's not just
politics but probably the right
thing to do.
We want states that are more
diverse.
The one thing I lament, side
that I like going to Iowa and
New Hampshire, the people are
very earnest, but I lament the
possibility that it will end
small-scale retail politics.
A candidate like Pete buttigieg
can just live in Des Moines and
10, 15 people at a time build a
following.
Now there will be big states all
at once.
It will help the candidates who
have a lot of money and name
recognition.
An outsider, a Pete buttigieg,
frankly a Barack Obama will find
it harder to come from
relatively nowhere.
Judy: I remember Jimmy Carter
sleeping in people's guest
bedrooms all over the state.
I'm really going to miss the
Iowa state fair, the butter
sculptures.
Big competition.
Jonathan: I once saw the last
supper sculpted.
[Laughter]
It was a highlight.
Judy: I'm try to get an image of
that in my head.
A lot was going on this week.
Congress back in session.
They moved pretty quickly to
address this rail strike,
imposing the settlement on rail
workers.
Bipartisan.
What do you make of what they
did?
Is it good for the country?
Is it good for the real workers?
Jonathan: It is good for the
country in that if there had
been a rail strike, it would
have hit 30% of the economy.
It would have ground things to a
standstill right at the time
when American consumers, when
Americans are most sensitive.
That is when they are doing
their holiday shopping.
The supply chain conversations
we were having a year ago this
time, people losing their minds
that they could not get their
gifts.
This had to be done.
This president of all presidents
was able to cobble together the
deal in the first place that
then got rejected.
It is federal law that makes
president and congress able to
impose this deal on rail
workers.
The issues the rail workers were
about to strike over were not
insignificant.
Paid sick leave is something
that they need to discuss.
That is not an unreasonable ask,
especially when rail companies
are sitting on billions upon
billions of dollars in profits
last year.
But, you know, the workers had
no leverage, unlike fast food
workers or other workers around
the country for whom a strike is
that leverage point to get what
they need.
Judy: And they did not get the
paid sick leave.
David: The administration said
there could have been 675,000
job losses.
Nonetheless, not that I'm
singing solidarity every
morning, but basically the
government took away the
worker's right to strike, or
ability to strike.
That imbalance is the quotation,
if the railroad companies think
the government will take away
the ability to strike, that
alters how they will negotiate.
It alters the balance.
I worry about the moral hazard
of government stepping in.
It reminds me in an inverse
case, I thought the bailout of
the banks in 2008 was the right
thing to do.
Nonetheless it is clear that the
way the government behaved had
long-term moral and cultural
effects on this country because
people thought the system is
rigged.
If workers decide we lose the
ability to strike, the system is
rigged against us, that could
lead to some cynicism and
distrust.
Jonathan: That is why this law
needs to be changed.
It is not like the president and
congress said we will just make
you take it by fiat, the law
says they have the power to do
that.
To do what you are saying,
David, they need to change the
law to give those rail workers
an opportunity to strike.
Judy: Weighing against what it
would mean for the economy if
this was not resolved.
Another thing the two parties
came together on was on
protecting same-sex and
interracial marriage in America.
What does this amount to?
Jonathan: I'm smiling from ear
to ear, an out gay man in an
interracial marriage, I'm doubly
covered.
[Laughter]
In the grand scheme of things,
this is terrific to ensure that
if Oberg fell is rendered
unconstitutional, my marriage
will be recognized.
If over fell goes away, this is
the problem I have with the law.
My marriage is protected, but if
my husband and I moved back to
North Dakota where he's from,
same-sex marriage is banned in
the constitution and by state
UF I -- if obergefell goes away,
same thing when roe V. Wade was
overturned, 35 states instantly
banned same-sex marriage.
If we meet a same-sex couple
that wants to get married in
North Dakota, they would have to
leave the state, go somewhere
where marriage, where same-sex
marriage is legal, then come
home, and the state would be
forced because of this law to
recognize their marriage.
That is an unfair burden on
couples, who all they want to do
is protect the families.
More often than not these
same-sex couples want to get
married either to start a family
or protect the family they have.
If congress wants to do
something to protect lgbtq
Americans, and certainly
same-sex married couples, they
would pass the equality act.
Out of the house.
They need to pass it in the
senate in the lame-duck and
things would be great.
Judy: How much of a step forward
is this?
David: A significant step
forward, first on the matter of
justice.
There are now over 1 billion --
a billion, one million same-sex
couples.
[Laughter]
We will take away all those
marriages?
Is that pro-family?
I think that would be a
tremendous wrong.
Joe Biden says love is love and
people should get married.
The thing I'm also hopeful about
is that this represents a path
out of the culture wars.
The history of this is that in
2008 the lds church complained
against gay marriage in
California.
The blowback was so strong they
said we have to rethink this
issue.
They went to the lgbt community
and said let's have a
compromise.
Gay marriage will be on the
books, but our religious freedom
will be protected.
The government will not take
away our tax status.
They made this compromise.
This is sort of what happened
here.
The ccu, all the Christian
colleges supports this.
They were terrified that they
would get their tax status taken
away.
This was people coming together
across the culture war, saying
what you want is to protect your
marriages, we need our tax
status to not be taken away.
They did a deal.
That is the way politics should
work.
Judy: I see your face.
[Laughter]
I see the look on your face.
Jonathan: The religious
exemptions offend me personally
because there are some people
who are going to use their
personal beliefs and hide behind
religion to discriminate against
people like me and families like
mine.
There would be no legal recourse
for me and my husband or these
billion-million same-sex
couples in the U.S. To hold us
accountable for giving us the
services we should
constitutionally be able to
avail ourselves of.
David: I'm synthetic to that.
-- I'm sympathetic to that.
If you went to a baker and
wanted a wedding cake, he most
likely would have to bake it.
What they were worried about was
their view of scriptures that
does not support same-sex
marriages, they don't want to be
forced to perform gay marriages
or face losing their tax status.
I do not agree with them, but
there are many in this country
who believe this is what
scripture says.
I think it is a willing
sacrifice to give people the
religious freedom so we can live
together.
Jonathan: To be clear it is both
those things.
It's not putting their tax
exempt status to ris, but -- to
risk, but also not putting
themselves at risk for denying
service, I.e. Foster care or
other services.
Judy: Only a few seconds left.
It is a little over a week since
former president trump had
dinner with Nick Flynn test --
Nick Fuentes, the known neo-nazi
and every other now you can say
that is not positive.
-- Noun you can say that is not
positive.
We asked numbers of congress for
their reaction and many are not
commenting.
David: A lot did not comment.
More than usual, Republicans
condemned trump.
More than average.
Jonathan: It is reprehensible.
If a Republican was in
leadership, they should have
been there within hours about
finding out about this dinner.
This is what is leading to the
corrosion of political
discourse.
In our society we have people
who are openly anti-semitic and
no consequent is.
That is outrageous.