Rachel Maddow, welcome to The Daily Social Distancing Show.
(laughs) Trevor, it's great to see you.
Thank you for having me.
It's nice to join you in your hive from my hive.
This has-- this has been an interesting experience
for-for everybody in-in this world,
because we're doing the thing we do
in a way that we don't do it.
Today, we're gonna talk about your book.
And if I told people Rachel Maddow's on with a book
about a corrupt president who, um,
has explosive rhetoric and is extremely divisive
and has used the White House for his own ends,
people would be like, "Ah, Donald Trump."
And you're like, "No, you're wrong." Then they'd be like,
"Ah, you got me. Richard Nixon."
And then you're like, "No, you're still wrong."
And then you'd be like, "It's Spiro Agnew."
So let me ask you this. When we talk about the book,
is it good or bad that America has seen
something similar to this before?
I think there is a-a big piece of it that can help,
which is not that Agnew was a corrupt,
unbelievably corrupt sort of monster in the White House.
Like, we've seen that. We know what that means.
That's kind of dog bite-- dog bites man at this point.
The-the part of this that needs to be told
is the good guys in the story.
Like, we need to tell each other heroic stories
about public service and citizenship
-and civic responsibility that model good behavior. -Right.
And in this case, the prosecutors
and the Republican Nixon-appointed U.S. attorney
and the Republican Nixon-appointed attorney general
were all, like, paragons of nonpartisan responsibility.
And they're the reason that Agnew never became president,
which would have been a catastrophe for this country
in the abstract and especially right in the wake of Watergate,
which is when it would have happened.
And so it's the good guys that I feel like,
ah, that's the part-- Those are the guys who need to be famous.
That's the part of it that we-- that could help us now.
One of the lessons I'm learning right now though
that's different, even in reading your book, is
it feels like, in previous times,
the politics was more in the political world.
You know? Even with Nixon,
it didn't feel like it was, like, in the streets,
the way it is now. And, granted, I wasn't around for it,
so I don't know if that's how I'm reading it.
But this feels like it goes down to the ground.
Like, the man on the street is involved in this level,
if-if that makes sense, you know?
It's not a political thing. It is just a thing now.
And I-I sometimes wonder, I go,
do you think we've gotten to the point now
where your reality is only based on your political affiliation?
And that's what I struggle with in America.
'Cause you guys just have two political parties.
I'm not used to that. So, here you just have
it's this or it's this. It's blue or it's red.
I'm like, "What about purple? What about green?"
They're like, "No, it's blue or it's red."
And so I wonder. Because you're one of the people
who I know thinks about this and you convey stories
and people respect you. I wonder if you--
if you grapple with that-that paradox
that-that America is right now, where it's the United States
that is no longer united,
because it's literally split down the middle.
Yeah. And-and where we don't have an agreed-upon set of facts
or where one side just believes that, whatever the facts are,
w-we don't care. We have alternative facts.
We would rather look at things through our own lens.
Those are the only lessons that we listen to.
I mean, the-the thing that I think is helpful about history
in that point, like in the-- in the case of Agnew in Bag Man,
is that-- So, like, there's this moment
where Agnew goes, uh, to a Republican women's conference
in Southern California, and Nixon has told him to resign.
And the Justice Department has told him,
"You're gonna be indicted."
And he knows he is, like, on his way out.
And he goes up before this audience of, like,
kind of rabid Republican women and he says,
"I will not resign if indicted! I will not resign if indicted!"
And he starts screaming about the terrible, um, uh...
the media and how the media can't be trusted.
And the women in the audience,
some of them start screaming at the reporters.
I don't-- I don't think they called them
the enemy of the people, but it was the exact same thing
that you get, like, with-with Trump telling his supporters
to scream at the media.
And some-- And this is 1973.
Some of those women at that event
brought their own tape recorders to the event
so they could record Agnew,
because they knew "the lamestream media"
-would take it all out of context. -Oh, wow. Wow.
So there's been a-- there's been a thread of this
through American politics that isn't new,
um, and that people, I think,
who are the most sort of demagogic
have-have exploited for a long time.
Your show is not just the most successful it's been,
but it's the most successful show--
I don't even know how it's measured sometimes.
They go, like, weekly for these people for... (stammers)
Long story short, Rachel Maddow is number one.
-That's all I know. Congratulations. -(chuckles)
-Thank you. -Um, what I would love to know
fr-from your perspective, as somebody who is truly a giant
in-in broadcasting, is,
as Rachel Maddow, what do you think some of the tips
and tricks are that liberals don't have
that conservatives do have that they use really well?
'Cause there's no denying that Fox News are really engaging
and really good at convincing people of things.
And now Newsmax and OAN are outflanking them on that side,
where now they're going, "Oh, you guys are 'liberal'
in that way." And it's like, no, they're not liberal.
Is-is there something that-that liberals and Democrats
are missing in America in learning how to communicate
with people and convincing them of ideas?
It's a really, really good question
and one that I have thought about a lot.
I was also part of this experiment
where liberals tried to do AM talk radio,
uh, with Air America Radio for a long time.
And it was-- At that point, AM talk radio
was basically in a foreign language
or sports or church
or Rush Limbaugh. Like, that was-- that was it.
And so the idea that you'd, like, you know,
tune in to hear somebody wax poetic
about the Voting Rights Act, like, it was just... (beeping)
And it didn't work, you know? Uh, we-we tried,
and it didn't work. Um, so I have thought about this a lot.
I do think that there is something
that is a little bit magic about the right-wing media,
which i-- that-that the left-wing media will never do
and that I think liberals and centrists will never do,
which is that they tell their audience,
"You can trust no one other than me.
There are no facts other than those that I am giving to you."
-Ah. -If-- And-and you actually see that right now
with the president trying to discipline Fox News,
saying, "Oh, Fox News is now giving you fake news, too.
You have to go to the more pure..."
Like, that-that willingness to hive off
what you're offering from everybody else,
that's-- I will never develop that muscle.
You know, my show will always be,
"The Washington Post just reported this
"and the Associated Press just reported this
-and Fox News just reported this." -Right, right, right.
-"I-I trust other sources other than myself." -Yes.
I believe in journalism.
I believe in the fact-based world.
And so, therefore, I'll never tell you
to shut it off and only listen to me.
And the-the right has the opposite view of that.
And that explains why they've locked up so much
of their own market.
But I think it also explains
why they don't speak to the whole country.
They only peak-- speak to people
who they've already convinced to turn off everything else.
If there was a way to do, like, a-a... you know, like, those--
What are those shows called in America?
It's, like, Wife Swap, spouse spo-- swap-type things.
Would you ever do, like, a-a week or something on Fox
and talk to their viewers? Do you think you could convince
any of their viewers of a different reality?
I... Jesus.
-Uh, Trevor... (laughing) -(laughing)
Um, could I, like, wear a latex face
-of another person so I hold their audience -No.
-for more than one second? -That's what I want to know.
As Rachel Maddow, do you think
you could talk to them and say to them,
"Hey, I know you don't like me, but let me lay out my case"?
And-and, like, do you think you would be able to do that?
I-I-- You are not going to believe me when I say this,
but I sort of feel like I do that every night
in what I'm doing anyway. Like, I don't as--
I don't assume that my audience already thinks
all the same things that I do
-or that has-has the same perspective on it. -Right.
So I feel like I'm always trying to convince people
who don't otherwise come
from the same perspective that I come from
that what I'm saying is something to offer.
Like, here are the facts. Here's my take on it.
-Uh-huh. -Here's where I might be wrong.
Here's an expert who can tell me if I'm wrong.
-Here's... You know, you make of this what you will. -Yes.
Like, then, so I sort of feel like
I'm approaching that anyway. The thing...
The reason this is hard to imagine is
because I'm just trying to... I'm just trying to imagine,
like, the moment of walking into the Fox studios,
and the Fox executives being like,
"Do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do do."
"Really? Is this person going to sell erectile disfunction pills
"to our audience tonight? Really?
I think this might not work." But, you know, maybe.
-Anything's possible... -Ratings the ratings.
You never know. And if there's anyone who can be
as convincing in the opposite way to the people on Fox,
I think it could be Rachel Maddow.
Um, I know you've got to get ready for your show.
Thank you for taking the time.
Thank you for writing an amazing book.
I wish everyone wrote books like this about history, 'cause I...
Like, most of history is boring to read
unless it's written well, so congratulations
on an amazing story.
I hope everybody goes out and get...
goes out and gets it.
And, uh, I hope to see you again in person soon.
Trevor, thank you so much. You're great, my friend.
-Thank you. -Rachel Maddow, I appreciate you.