[music] I'm Alexander Heffner, your host on The Open Mind.

I'm delighted to welcome our guest today, Cenk Uygur.

Cenk, of course, is the founder of the TYT network and host of The Young Turks, which you can check out on any streaming platform and YouTube.

I've watched you for many years.

You are insightful.

I thank you for that.

And for sharing the knowledge you have in what was considered the margins, but really is now part of the millions of listeners and viewers you have each and every day.

So thanks for that, to start.

I appreciate it.

Thank you for saying that.

Cenk, let me ask you to fast forward to 2028.

If the Democrats have learned from you and Thomas Frank and Bernie Sanders and I might even add me.

Who would be the nominee?

Who would embody the genuine commitment to populism?

And to a more peace faring world?

Yeah.

First of all, we have to get out of the mindsight of first thinking about politicians because, this is a favorite of in, honestly, of mainstream media.

Oh, yeah?

Name me a Democratic politician that fits it other than Bernie Sanders.

Yeah, but that's part of the problem is that not a lot of them fit it right?

And that's what we're trying to get to.

And you saw I mean, we had one guy, Bernie, and he went from 1%, in national polling in 2015 to about 48% versus Hillary Clinton.

So obviously, there is a great thirst and demand for that kind of politician.

Unfortunately, not a lot of them exist.

So the one name I would give you this a politician is Ro Khanna.

And so he's really one to watch for on the House.

And probably the most economically populous person in Congress.

But let's expand our mind and our way of thinking about.

In fact, let's have an open mind and think about non-politicians.

So I would, propose that, John Stuart would be an amazing candidate.

So if you say, oh my God, he's just a celebrity.

And what is Donald Trump?

And actually being a celebrity is enormously helpful because mainstream media normally despises populists, if I'm being honest.

But a celebrity can break through that because mainstream media is also obsessed with celebrities.

And but soon in 2028, you might not have to break through mainstream media.

That has been the wall that has kept out populist for my entire lifetime.

But that wall is crumbling as we speak.

But other possibilities are labor leaders.

Sean O'Brien, Shawn Fain, people who are going to represent working class Americans because that's the heart of it.

Economically populist positions that represent the average American are overwhelmingly popular.

Popular, and unfortunately, most of corporate media my entire life has lied about those positions and painted them as radical or unpopular, when in reality they pull a two thirds or higher.

Right.

Forgive me for accepting that premise or frame that you said is most associated with mainstream media.

But we also have to be practical about, who is going to be impactful and work within the system that we have.

And, so I know you recognize that in that the next opportunity for a transformational moment in American political life is likely not going to be 2026.

It would probably more likely be 28.

And everything that Bernie said when I interviewed him in 2015 on The Open Mind came true.

A lot of what, Donald Trump has said to his supporters has also come true.

But I would submit to you, it's it's as much about the message in 2028 And, Bernie might have been a one note Bernie.

But what he said resonated.

And people believe and continue to believe what he says.

My point is that, is an important stance to take right now that as this second term evolves for President Trump, we are going to assess it on the basis of, whether it provides gains to regular people.

And, that kind of record keeping was not done effectively in his first term.

And, President Biden was there to be an adult when a pandemic struck.

My point is, how are you going to be assessing the credibility of populist victories in these next four years?

And the person who's viewed as credible in taking on, this populist mantle wouldnt they have to point out if and how that populist priorities were represented in the policymaking of 2024 through 2028.

Oh, 100%.

Look the key here is to be honest.

And I know that that's asking a lot of, some folks in media and politics, but, so if that sounds like a harsh statement to you, just hear me out on, what do I mean by that?

Well, okay, so Donald Trump is, for example, taking a lot of money for his inauguration.

We're going to do a story about it on The Young Turks tonight, $170 million.

And, you know, you see Zuckerberg, and Elon Musk, Bezos going to fet him, right?

So you should be honest about that and say, hey, look, that's his donor class.

He's looking out for them.

They're looking out for him.

But did we do that with Joe Biden?

Did we, say, oh, he also raised, an enormous amount of money for his inauguration, and he also did favors for those donors.

So, for example, he promised the public option.

He didn't even propose it.

He said it was a huge priority, didn't propose it.

And it's actually very popular.

Polls at around 70%.

Paid family leave polls at 84%.

He didn't fight for it at all.

And so when you look at that, it requires, folks in media to say, let's be honest about the establishment and this is not about left or right or Democrat versus Republican.

So in my estimation, and what the facts bear out, the establishment Democrats and establishment Republicans have been selling us out for the last 40 years.

So every deal, gets to what, tax cuts for the rich, tax cuts for corporations, giant $30 billion in subsidies to oil companies, the most profitable corporations in the world.

And who is tearing down the house saying, why are we robbing the American taxpayer of $30 billion and giving it to these incredibly wealthy executives who didn't earn it, don't deserve it, and it shouldn't have their hands in our pockets?

No one's doing it.

Why?

Because all of Washington serves the donor class.

So if you're not going to be honest about Democrats who also do it, if you're not going to be honest about establishment politicians that also do it, you will have no credibility when you challenge Trump on it.

Whereas when we talk about it on The Young Turks, they see us being equal and honest about all of those players.

And by the way, up and including Bernie Sanders.

So when Bernie Sanders didn't fight much when, Joe Biden took out $15 minimum wage from the first bill, Covid relief bill, we challenged him on it.

I said, we said, Bernie, that's your proposal.

You have to fight for it, you have to propose an amendment to put it in.

Look, it looks like he didn't want to do that because he knew that his beloved Democratic colleagues would vote against it.

And they did.

Eight of them showed their true colors and voted against it.

So these guys are not populists.

They're not progressive.

They're not even really Democrats.

They're corporatist establishment politicians.

And that's who Joe Biden is.

And if you're not honest about that, then they're never going to believe you when you criticize Donald Trump, you have to win over independents to win general elections.

And right now, the media has no credibility in that.

I don't think it's a hard ask, but apparently it's a monumental ask of other folks in media.

Right.

Well, I think that media will fail again if they don't assess these next four years through a rigorous criteria of, is President Trump, annexing Greenland and Canada?

But, you know, that is a distraction from improving wages, improving the quality of affordable care.

You know, again, there's some really visible criteria on which his administration will be assessed.

Did he end the wars?

Is the conflagration in the Middle East and Russia Ukraine over?

I mean, if he accomplishes that then it will be a significant legacy on which someone like JD Vance or others can succeed him.

My point is that if the media just keep talking about the war and bloodshed overseas and they just keep talking about, you know, the proposed, populist agenda instead of well, what actually has been delivered for the next four years.

I don't see anything different in who's going to be the Democratic nominee or who's going to be the Republican nominee.

I mean, a good conundrum here is the Affordable Care Act, right?

Or Obamacare.

It was a boondoggle for the insurance industry, right?

And you would be the first probably to point out that it was Joe Lieberman and Kent Conrad, two Democrats who sold out the public option.

There is no public option because of two Democrats.

Yep.

The point here is that the popular mainstream media narrative has been all these public opinion surveys show the Affordable Care Act is popular, I still don't understand that Cenk, maybe you can illuminate this.

That is the frame through which the mainstream media have told the story of affordable care.

Trump responds that the prices are out of control and they're not quality plans.

Are both things true?

How should we understand this?

Yeah.

So I'm going to address the Affordable Care Act in a second, because it's such an important question, but I want to say something that you mentioned in the beginning there.

Look, in terms of how to challenge Trump.

There's two wrong answers.

One is, let's be unbalanced.

Let's criticize Donald Trump, but not any of the establishment politicians.

Sure.

And that is, in my opinion, what mainstream media has done for the last ten years.

And that's why they have lost credibility when they criticize Trump, because you see them letting other politicians get away with it.

Again, including other corporate Republicans, right?

Sure.

So if you do it that way, you have no credibility.

But also it's not the right idea to go, oh, well, now Trump is in power.

So let's let him slide.

No, no, you should challenge Trump and challenge Democrats.

Challenge the establishment.

By the way, also challenge populist politicians if you can find them.

And progressive politicians, etc The job of the media is to hold a powerful accountable, not to appease them.

So if you do it fairly and equally, then you will gain credibility and be able to drive that message home.

Okay.

Now, in terms of the Affordable Care Act, you picked an excellent example because it's, you know, the Republicans called it Obamacare, but it had a different name before that.

It was Romneycare.

Because Mitt Romney, the Republican governor of Massachusetts, proposed a nearly identical bill in Massachusetts and passed it.

And before that, where did he get it from?

He got it from the Heritage Foundation.

Now, those are the same people who did Project 2025.

So do Democratic voters know that Obamacare was cooked up by a right wing thinktank?

No, they don't know that.

Why?

Because mainstream media never told them that.

Because it would make Obama look bad.

And again, it's not because they're Democrats or like Obama enthusiasts as much as media has really lost the thread on challenging the powerful, they find challenging the powerful to be heresy in a lot of ways.

And apparently, these polls are wrong.

Just like they said that Hillary Clinton would win, and some of them said Kamala Harris would win.

The polls that say that the Affordable Care Act is popular, they must be wrong.

Because I think in actuality...go ahead.

No, actually, Alexander, I disagree a little bit on that.

So now when you get to the substance of the Affordable Care Act, it was meant to be, basically a release valve.

A lot of pressure builds up because of corporate rule, and everything is oppressive.

The drug prices can't be negotiated.

They're sky high.

The housing prices are sky high, inflation hits, your groceries are sky high, etc.. And the media constantly tells you it's okay.

It's wonderful.

There's nothing wrong.

Let's just stick with the system and the status quo.

Right?

But then when you have something that gets so out of hand that you're like, risking a revolution, which was what we had with preexisting conditions.

So if you had a preexisting condition, you were denied.

And that got to the point where rage built up in the country.

And that's when you send in an establishment politician like Barack Obama to do a release valve or a Mitt Romney, by the way.

I mean, the 2012 election where they ran against each other, and I know this is going to blow the minds of a lot of your viewers, but their policies were incredibly similar.

Like, you heard that they were different because of identity politics, culture war issues, social issues, etc.

but when it came to economics, they were they were very hard to distinguish.

And so they did the release valve.

And since they did that, Alexander, then it was like, oh, well, that is better than it used to be.

And so before, you know, we were just getting absolutely crushed to oblivion.

And now I could breathe a little bit, right?

But is that good enough?

No, not at all.

Not at all.

Did prices go up?

Yes.

Did Obama mandate that we buy from private health insurance, which is actually the heart of the actual problem?

Yes, he did.

Why?

Because it was from the Heritage Foundation!

Right.

Of course they said, you must buy from private health insurance.

Yeah, your release valve analogy is a really insightful one.

I think now, in the wake of the assassination on the United Healthcare Executive.

And what you saw to be in the public domain sympathy or, you know, an alliance with the point that there's a cruelty of the insurance system we need another release valve.

I mean, or at better yet, sounder public policy to dictate, healthy outcomes, whether that's a public option or something else.

That is not incentivizing greed of insurance companies.

You recently sat down with Turning Points USA, Charlie Kirk in dialog.

And I admire you for having that conversation across difference, but also opening your mind to the possibility of, representing a true populist agenda, as opposed to a phony populist agenda.

What did you take away from your dialog with young, Trump supporters and, Charlie Kirk's organization that could give us a toolkit to actually find consensus for better policy over the next few years?

Yeah.

Look, that's why I love the name of the show.

Because, at The Young Turks, we always say two things we want out of our viewers is, open hearts and open minds.

So let's have empathy for one another.

Let's look out for each other.

But let's also have an open mind so that we have a diversity of opinion.

And so unfortunately, these days, and partly driven by the algorithm.

So I criticize mainstream media a lot, but there's certainly, plenty of criticism for social media, as well, because the algorithms are driving streams.

And they get into these ideological cul de sacs.

And so if you're not the most extreme, then you're not pure enough and you're with the other guys, and it creates what I call binary brain, right?

And, this also is true of mainstream media too.

If you criticize Democrat, that means you're helping Trump.

So don't criticize Democrats.

No, criticize both!

Keep an open mind and see what's right.

And by the way, praise both and give credit to both when they do the right things, right?

It's not just about criticism.

It has to be constructive.

But it's not just about Charlie.

I've now gone on dozens of right wing shows.

What I discovered was that the right wing base has changed.

So now that really requires an open mind, And it's been an interesting experience going through this online because it has created enormous pushback.

And the pushback is on the idea that you should have an open mind, and what unfortunately, what a lot of folks on my side are saying now is, no, just talking to the right wing makes you a racist or a fascist, that all 77 million people who voted for Trump are either racists or fascists or both.

And if you talk to them, that makes you complicit and a collaborator.

And then on top of that, if they wind up agreeing with you, they're obviously lying, and it's a giant trick.

And if you talk to them that you give them credibility.

I don't know if they know this, but they have the white House, the House and the Senate.

They don't need our credibility.

And the Supreme Court.

And the Supreme Court, right?

And then if you talk to them, maybe, maybe, maybe that could be okay.

But you have to yell at them the entire time and call them Nazis.

And if you don't, well, then it was worthless, because that's a really productive conversation, right?

Now, as anybody watching this can see, it's not like I'm short on criticism of the powerful, right?

And so what I notice there is.

Yeah, from time to time we get into fights, well get into a fight over Social Security, we'll get in a fight over arresting Doctor Fauci, which I think is mental, and etc.

but this base has changed.

I know it's so, so hard to believe because we dealt with what appeared to be an unmovable base for Donald Trump.

Trump said something they believe that 100%, they wouldn't be moved off of it.

But now, because they are not just listening to Fox News and they are listening to a variety of different podcasts, different media, different online shows, they now have a variety of opinions.

So that would be your takeaway?

Your central takeaway?

100%.

And what happened is within that panoply of different opinions, all of a sudden populist popped up because a lot of the country is populist.

They're anti-war anti-corruption.

They're in favor of paid family leave.

Like do Democrats know that the overwhelming majority of Republicans are in favor of paid family leave?

It's actually the establishment of both parties that's blocking it, not the Republican voters.

And you don't know that.

And you can't find that out unless you talk to them.

And when I did, that's what I found out.

Right.

And I think people were considering your particular, tweet or X post about the establishment and just wanting to be aligned with you that Elon Musk, if not Donald Trump, represented the establishment of capitalism.

Some would argue crony capitalism, but capitalism, and that that is something that, you have found in the way that it's manifested in American society in the last few decades to be objectionable to egregious.

And I think that the only thing that surprised me about what your message was, was this suggestion that Musk, too, represented something that was anti-establishment from an economic model.

To me, he still represents kind of the material capitalistic function.

And in his, admiration of Milton Friedman in his X thread like that seems to manifest pretty profoundly.

Yeah.

No.

Let me be clear about that.

So first off, are Trump and Musk part of a traditional establishment?

No, only because they're not in favor of the machine.

The machine is take donor cash, served donor cash, period.

Right?

So whereas Trump, takes donor cash and serves donor cash plus himself.

It combines systemic corruption with personal corruption.

And so I'm not unaware that, I mean, I have said every insult of Donald Trump that you could possibly imagine, except ironically, the one that his vice president said, about him being Hitler, right?

But they're not within the system.

What they're saying is, no, we want more for ourselves, right?

And that is making the machine and the establishment angry, but not because they're populist, but because they are fighting back against the rest of the machine, right?

It's like extra greed, greed on steroids.

Right.

But Trump, to be fair to him, has tapped into and has been a good politician in this sense.

I don't mean good in policy, but good in strategy, in realizing, oh, there's a populist strain in the country.

Oh, they want me to stick up for the average guy.

Now, in his case, is he actually sticking up for the average guy?

Not yet, not that I've ever seen, but he is at least pretending to speak out on behalf of the average guy.

And by the way, in politics that makes a giant difference.

So when one side, like Kamala Harris says, oh, I have a letter from 90 corporate CEOs saying that I'm the best.

Yeah.

Thats the worlds worst politics.

Exactly.

Yeah.

Oh, Dick Cheney loves me.

He's polling at 13%.

Right.

Whats wrong with you?

Right?

Right.

This is all terrible, terrible politics.

So Trump figured out the politics a bit better.

Now, in terms of what's going to happen next.

There's only one ray of hope here, and it's a significant one, which is that Trump likes to be popular.

And so if there was a single person who could reach him that would show him how to be popular, he might do it not in lieu of corruption, but maybe in addition to corruption, right?

Right.

And so if there was someone who said to him, hey, listen, brother, if you actually cut the Pentagon, you'd be shocked at how popular you'd be, if you actually raise taxes on the rich, 76% of Americans want taxes raised on the rich.

He wouldn't do that one because he's rich.

But [laughs] Yeah.

certainly Elon wouldn't do that, right?

But paid family leave.

He loses nothing from doing paid family leave.

And it would make him very popular.

Right.

But, theres not a single person around him that cares to tell him that message.

So you've got foe populist versus no populism on the Democratic side, minus Bernie Sanders, and Ro Khanna.

Last question.

You allude to Trump as a successful politician.

Certainly, coming back from defeat and January 6th to winning reelection.

The first nonconsecutive reelect since Grover Cleveland.

One of the things that's striking about Trump relative to most politicians in the past is the way that he responds, to events in real time, often on X or formerly, Twitter.

The most recent example of this was politicizing the fires in Los Angeles, and saying that the Democratic leadership was incompetent.

He had the answer when he was president before and had Governor Newsom, you know, listen to his idea, this would have been resolved, or the fires would have been fought more effectively.

it is this exact thing that Democrats Thomas Frank and Bernie Sanders and I've talked about this have failed to do, which is it's always been stigmatized, this idea of responding to an event in real time.

People might rightly acknowledge that Trump's first utterance is not empathy or sympathy for the victims.

Condolences for those lost, empathy for those who've lost homes.

But he's tapped into this sort of reactive politics that can be effective in, translating words into policy.

And, the Democrats had their initial response to Columbine been, we are going to strongly, protect schools and, prevent assault weapons from being in the hands of, would be mentally ill youth.

The whole politics of the gun safety and gun rights issue might have come out different.

Democrats have been afraid of so-called “politicizing issues”.

Trump's first instinct is to politicize everything, rightly or wrongly.

Is that a learning that we should have?

100%.

He's totally right about that strategy.

The fires are an excellent example.

And so, there's root causes of why the fires actually happen.

And a lot of that is the fault of the Democratic Party, which you can't blame what's happening in California on Republicans, Republicans have absolutely no power.

Karen Bass and Gavin Newsom's reactions were horrific.

They in the beginning said absolutely nothing.

They blamed one another, basically, you know, when Gavin Newsom, I think, famously said, oh, well, you gotta ask the local officials.

Like, he's not the governor of California.

And, so you have to be willing to call that out.

But, on the other hand, then you got the Republicans saying crazy things like, oh, it was because the fire department is run by women.

It's because the interior secretary is Native American.

And so that's DEI hire.

What!?

Doesnt have anything to do with anything!

Right?

But when the Democrats say nothing and the Republicans say something, well, that's an uneven playing field.

And so this idea that you're not supposed to react at the moment is nothing but an excuse for cowardly politicians who don't want to act.

So the Republicans mainly use it on gun control.

Whenever there's a mass shooting or a school shooting, they're going dont politicize.

Don't politicize.

First of all, whenever a politician tells you not to politicize something, you should laugh out loud everything is political.

Them saying not politicizing it is political.

That's them saying, I don't want to talk about it now because this hurts my politics.

Don't, don't, don't, don't talk about it.

Right?

So if the Republicans were to politicize the fires in a way that was rational, and Trump is so frustrating because he never does any homework, right?

If he had actually done homework he could make intelligent comments about dams and percentage of water that California uses or doesn't use.

Or how we clear out some of the shrubs and etc.

instead he goes, you got to rake the forest, and you're like, oh God, please, please stop.

Right?

But at the same time, it works because people go, I guess you had to rake the forest.

And that's the only answer that anybody's given me.

Right?

And the Democrats say nothing.

Right.

So, you should jump out and say, hey guys, we need to have a conversation about when we spend billions of dollars to preserve water.

Where is the water?

Right?

We need to have a conversation about how do we handle, wildfires in Southern California.

You know why?

Because there's wildfires!

There's going to be a wildfire next year.

And the year after that, and the year after that, there's nonstop wildfires.

If you haven't prepared for that, you've done anything right.

And if you're a Democrat and you think the answer is either more money allocation or whatever else it might be, that is the moment to jump in and say that.

I'll give you a last example, Alexander.

When I was a host on MSNBC, Obama made, a speech after the Egyptian revolution.

And, in that press conference, I was live on the air.

He said, we really value our, ally, Hosni Mubarak.

And it's amazing the, democratic revolution of the young.

And I'm like, wait, that doesn't make any sense.

You just said opposite things.

You can't say that you're in favor of Mubarak and the revolution against Mubarak.

And the executives at MSNBC pulled me aside after that and said, don't do that.

You have to give the president time before you criticize him.

And I asked how much time?

An hour?

A day?

A week?

And they had no answer because their whole point is, don't criticize the powerful.

Don't get into policy when it could make a difference.

No, when something happens, it is usually because of policy and when people are most animated and most paying attention.

That is when you need to take action.

Cenk, I thank you for your sincere pragmatism and commitment to intellectual honesty on these airwaves.

I hope this is the first of many future conversations between us.

Thank you so much.

I really appreciate it.

[music] Please visit the Open Mind website at thirteen.org/openmind Download the podcast on Apple and Spotify and check us out on X, Instagram and Facebook.

Continuing production of The Open Mind has been made possible by grants from Vital Projects Fund, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, Ploughshares Fund, Angelson Family Foundation, Robert and Kate Niehaus Foundation, Grateful American Foundation, and Draper Foundation.