[CHATTER]

[APPLAUSE]

GARY CUNNINGHAM: Wow!

This is exciting.

How many of you are
excited to be here?

[CHEERS, APPLAUSE]

I am your official
welcomer today.

And I just want to welcome you
to the University of Minnesota.

My name is Gary
Cunningham, and I

have been a fellow, an
administrator at the Humphrey

School, and an instructor
over the years.

And it is just fantastic to
see all of you here today.

Could you give it up?

Give it up!

[CHEERS, APPLAUSE]

Now, part of the
reason I'm excited

is because of my relationship
to Paul and Sheila Wellstone.

And I know that everyone that
lived in Minnesota at that time,

if you lived in Minnesota at the
time that Paul was a senator,

you had a story.

And I certainly have mine.

And when I originally
met Paul, I

was a lot younger and
probably taller, skinnier.

But I met him in the late '70s
and early '80s when I was one

of the leaders of the
Twin Cities committee

for the liberation
of Southern Africa,

working on divestment issues
here in the Twin Cities

and around the state.

I later--

[APPLAUSE]

Thank you.

I later had the--

was reintroduced to Paul
when we had the opportunity

to work together.

I was a volunteer for a
group called Northern Sun

Alliance, which was a safe
energy environmental group here.

And that was at the time
of Three Mile Island.

Some of you might
remember those days.

And at the time,
the Northern Sun

was part of a whole
coalition working

on stopping the power lines in
Central Minnesota at that time.

And I got to interact
with Paul later.

I got to interact with him again
when we worked together with

a number of other people,
including the American Indian

Movement and folks on Pine
Ridge Reservation and organizing

the international survival
gathering of Indigenous peoples

in the '80s.

I volunteered on both
of his campaigns.

And it was just a
powerful experience

to see people power in
action working with Paul.

I also had the opportunity
to work with Sheila.

Sheila was part of a symposium
we put together at the Humphrey

Institute on African-American
men in domestic violence

shortly before her
death, unfortunately.

It was a powerful
partnership to get

at this issue of
trauma and tragedy

that happens in families when
domestic violence occurs.

And then what do
we do about that?

It was definitely moving.

This work that I'm talking
about actually changed me.

It changed my life.

The one thing I'll
remember about Paul

is that he was not only a great
intellect, a great orator,

a great strategist, but
he also took action.

In addition to being a
good friend and ally,

Paul was so inspirational.

His themes were about making
a difference for people,

about creating a world where
everyone had opportunity to live

up to their full potential.

According to Paul, quote, "If
we consign ourselves merely

to the poetic, utopian
discussions of what should be

and neglect the prosaic,
practical work of electoral

politics, that is, we doom
ourselves to the margins

of political life," unquote.

My hope for today is that
we focus on what we can do

and not just as an abstract
discussion of what could be

or what should have been.

These discussions that
we're having today

begin to set a new framework,
a new direction for new action,

for new possibilities,
and for repositioning

the Democratic Party
to be successful

moving into the next century.

Can we give it up on that?

[APPLAUSE]

So one doesn't have to look far.

All you have to do is look
at this morning's paper

and to see how critical
this conversation is today.

Our local paper had a headline
in it that said, quote,

"Democrats are still searching
for a savior," unquote.

In this article, the chairman of
the Democratic Party, Tom Perez,

used colorful metaphors to
highlight the crossroads

the party is at today.

He stated, quote, "This is a
Rome that is burning movement.

This is a Rome that
is burning movement.

We may be playing
different instruments,

but we are all in
the same orchestra.

We need more people in
that orchestra," unquote.

In the same article, Vice
Chair of the Democratic Party,

our own Congressman
Keith Ellison, stated,

quote, "We are not
a leaderless party.

We are a leaderful party.

We have leaders like Tom Perez.

We have leaders
like Keith Ellison.

We have leaders like Nancy
Pelosi and leaders like Chuck

Schumer."

On the local level, right
here in good old Minnesota,

we have another
headline read, quote,

"DFL must spread its
reach," end quote.

The article goes on to provide
an analysis of the Democrats

of our strengths and
weaknesses in both the state

and legislative races.

Yes, the Democratic
Party is at a crossroads.

With that said, the day
today is about learning.

It's about educating
ourselves and others.

The focus will be primarily
on an analysis of the politics

today and exploring this
crossroads that we are at.

It's important to
note that we may

have some disagreement in this
room about the future direction

of the party and the
progressive populist movement.

However, the expectations
that we have today

are that we are going to have a
civil discussion where all views

and opinions are valued.

Can we get agreement
in this room

that everybody's opinion values?

It matters.

[APPLAUSE]

Because if we can't have
the type of discussions

that actually value everyone's
opinion in the room,

then we're not going to
move the ball forward.

We're going to end up
with stilted discussions

that people are
politically correct in

but don't really agree
with or buy into.

Strength comes from
diversity, not only

from racial, gender identity,
ethnic and intersectional

diversity but from intellectual
and philosophical diversity

and differences that
we have here today.

We are definitely
moving the ball forward

with this conversation.

We have to act together now.

We have to live up to the
aspirations of Paul Wellstone

when he said, we can all do
better when we all do better.

[APPLAUSE]

Now, I want everybody in here
to say, when we all do better.

I said, when we all do better!

[AUDIENCE REPEAT]

Finally, I'd like to thank the
Center for the Study of Politics

and Governance.

Can you give it up for them?

They helped organize
this event today.

[APPLAUSE]

And as I say in my
neighborhood, let's get it on.

Thank you.

[APPLAUSE]

JEFF BLODGETT: Good
afternoon, everyone.

My name is Jeff Blodgett.

I get to be your emcee today.

[APPLAUSE, CHEERS]

We're really looking forward to
an interesting and provocative

afternoon.

This is not a memorial
event, and we don't really

see this as a political
rally as Gary said.

This is a public learning event.

We hope to hear from
a number of people.

We hope to ask questions,
challenge assumptions, and give

us ideas about ways forward.

I've got a couple of
quick housekeeping items.

One, please put your
phones on silent

so that there is no disruption
during the programming.

And the second
thing is there will

be a couple of speeches
and a panel discussion

where we're going
to invite questions

from the audience,
Thomas Frank's

speech, the panel,
and also the talk

that Keith Ellison is doing.

The ushers were handing
out cards as you came in.

And just one note on logistics.

We're going to
pick those cards up

as soon as the
speaker is finished

talking, as they move over
to the chairs for question

and answer.

So if you do have a
question, write it out

before that speech ends.

Ushers will come down
and pick those up,

and we'll do our best to answer
as many of those questions

as possible.

So the title of this symposium
is the Democratic Party

at a Crossroads, The Wellstone
Way and Economic Populism.

And so we're using Paul
Wellstone style and practice

of politics as a
jumping-off point

to talk about today
and the future.

But we thought we would start
today with some discussion

about, well, what do we
mean by the Wellstone way?

And there's really
no better person

to give us that kind of
grounding as we start

our afternoon than Kari Moe.

Kari has had a distinguished
career as a senior leader,

going way back into the '80s,
with Mayor Harold Washington

in Chicago, and then many,
many years with US Senator Paul

Wellstone, and Keith Ellison
as their chief of staff.

She has built and sustained
high-performing organizations

for historic progressive
leaders over three decades.

She has trained and coached
dozens of young people.

And that's one thing
that's so great about Kari.

She's always developing the next
generation of people to come up.

She's currently the senior
strategist of the Writers Action

Group.

Please give a warm
welcome to Kari Moe.

[APPLAUSE, CHEERS]

KARI MOE: Hello,
Wellstone family.

I can't think of a better
person, my dear friend

and brother.

Jeff, are you younger
or older than I am?

My younger brother,
Jeff Blodgett.

Thank you, Gary.

Thank you, Larry Jacobs and
the Humphrey School team

for bringing us
together as a community.

It's really important when times
are tough to call the family

and the community together,
to reflect on the past

and think about how we
can move forward together.

That's what we're doing today.

Congressman Keith Ellison
gave me a question

for our gathering today.

He said, what does this
moment call on us to do?

This made me think of
the Sankofa bird, which

is from the language of Ghana.

The Sankofa bird is shown
facing toward the future,

with its head
rotated to the back

to pick the egg off its back
in order to move forward.

So it's about looking
back to look forward.

It's about taking
knowledge from the past

and bring it to the present
in order to move more wisely

into the future.

And so, in response to question,
what does this moment call on us

to do, it calls on us to look
back in order to move forward.

In the spirit of
the Sankofa bird,

I'm sharing stories about Paul
as a teacher, an organizer,

as a senator, and really
important for us today,

Paul's living presence
in Minnesota politics.

Paul taught us to have the
courage of our convictions.

He taught us to have heart and
stay close to people's lives.

He taught us to be tough
minded and organized to win.

I met Paul when I was 18.

He taught me political science.

One afternoon in 1973, Paul
stopped by my college group

house.

He looked unusually down.

He said the college didn't renew
his contract, which in effect,

meant that he was fired.

They said it was for
weak scholarship.

We thought it was
because he taught

the politics of race and class.

Paul challenged conventional
wisdom of political science.

He taught that politics
was about power, who gains,

who loses, who
benefits, who decides.

We didn't know if we could
keep Paulette Carleton,

but we were going to
fight really hard.

We believed, in fact, we
knew that Paul's voice was

essential for our community.

After months of letter
writing, sit-ins,

and a review by
outside experts, this

is a campaign that college
is still kind of mad about.

[LAUGHTER]

Paul was granted tenure.

[APPLAUSE]

It was my first big organizing
victory and it changed my life.

Paul had 15 more years of
teaching and organizing.

He inspired dozens of students
and community activists.

I bet many of you have a
personal Paul story, either

from meeting him or
someone in your family.

Or maybe you've
had the opportunity

to go to one of the
awesome sessions run

by Wellstone Action.

Throughout the '70s and 80s,
Paul crisscrossed Minnesota.

He listened to folks.

He listened to folks in
cafes and at county fairs.

Paul's economic agenda was
a kitchen table agenda.

He sat.

He drove many hours.

He sat.

He listened to families
about their struggles

to pay their bills.

He listened to their hopes
about creating a better future

for their children.

Paul's advocacy for fair
wages, the right to organize,

came from folks he
knew personally.

Paul never had to ask
his staff to quote,

"go find him a person," unquote,
who had gone bankrupt from

medical debt.

Paul knew their names already.

Wherever there was injustice
or abuses of corporate power,

Paul was there.

He stood with farmers
facing foreclosure.

He was even arrested sitting
in a bank with farmers.

He picketed with
striking workers.

Paul often summed up
his politics by saying,

I'm for the little fellers,
not the Rockefellers.

Paul knew that it was
necessary to fight

for progressive economic
policies and citizen power

in the electoral arena.

So once again, in 1989
and '90, Paul and Sheila

crisscrossed Minnesota but
this time in a green bus.

Folks from all over
Minnesota, some of you

joined Paul's green
bus campaign of hope

from Moorhead to Red Wing, from
the range to the Twin Cities,

young and old, all
races and religions.

Folks got on the bus.

Paul's campaign united
folks around a shared vision

of economic justice
and people power.

And against great odds with
a determined and energetic

grassroots campaign, Paul was
elected to the United States

Senate in 1990.

He brought his green bus
populism and your inspiration

to Washington, DC.

Paul started rocking the boat
early in his Senate career.

As a freshman on the
Senate Energy Committee,

he picked a fight with
Senator Bennet Johnston,

Democrat of Louisiana and
the very powerful committee

chairman.

Senator Johnston wanted
to pass an amendment,

it was kind of a
no brainer to him,

to drill for oil in the Alaska
National Wildlife Reserve.

Paul asked the national
environmental groups,

will you get on board and
support me in opposition

to Chairman Johnston?

We learned that
progressive work was

going to be a lot harder
when they said, oops,

we're not quite ready
to take on the chairman.

They didn't want
to take on a fight.

They were sure we'd lose.

But Paul was not deterred.

Paul's audacity
was a game changer.

The groups and other
senators joined Paul.

Senator Johnston's
amendment was blocked,

and ANWR has remained
off limits to drilling.

Big victory.

[APPLAUSE]

Paul's populism meant organizing
to curb privileges of senators,

including the fancy
lunches they enjoyed.

I remember being really
shocked by the amount of anger.

I mean, it wasn't just sarcasm.

It was real anger
from Paul's colleagues

when he introduced and
enacted a gift ban.

I tell this story because
it's really important

to know that when we have
our progressive leaders go

to make change on our behalf,
they get a lot of pushback.

And Paul took a lot of pushback.

He understood that
being affected, though,

required other work in
addition to rocking the boat.

And Paul navigated
this line very well.

He learned the senate
rules, he built alliances,

and he became an incredibly
effective senator.

Paul took courageous
votes on principle

against the advice of his
colleagues and sometimes, yes,

Jeff against the
advice of his staff.

Paul was the only Democrat
up for re-election

in 1995 to vote against the
Clinton welfare reform bill.

[APPLAUSE]

Other senators said, Paul, it's
been nice working with you,

but we don't think we're going
to see you back here next year.

They were wrong, thanks to
Paul's courage and your support

and your vision.

I was in Minnesota traveling
with Paul and Sheila

shortly after that
welfare reform vote.

We were in a shopping mall.

Several folks came up to us.

They said, Paul, we don't
agree with every vote you take,

but we know you're on our side.

And that was Paul.

Paul's principles of
grassroots organizing

extended to national politics.

He was always pushing
the Democratic Party

to spend more money on field
organizing and voter engagement.

His own campaigns built
legendary field programs

in voter turnout.

Minnesota led the nation
in voter turnout then,

and it still does to this day,

[APPLAUSE]

I want to talk a little bit
about how Paul's politics are

infused into Minnesota.

In boxing terms, we Minnesotans
punch above our weight.

Paul's vision and
politics were built

on the shoulders of Vice
President Humphrey, Vice

President Mondale,
and the working

folks who built the
Democratic Farmer Labor Party.

It's no accident that
Minnesota's the bluest state

in the country.

It's no accident
that Minnesota leads

the nation in voter turnout.

It's no accident that we have
a governor who courageously

increased taxes,
and now our state

is doing better than
neighboring states.

[APPLAUSE]

When Paul said that voter
ID could not be defeated,

Keith Ellison and a
coalition of activists

said, this is about our
neighbors being able to vote.

Win or lose, we're going
to take on this fight.

It's the right fight to have.

And what happened?

Vote no twice won the day.

Courageous politics
begets more courage.

It's no accident that
Minnesota elected Keith Ellison

to the Congress, the first
person of the Muslim faith

to serve there.

[APPLAUSE]

I think I can say that Keith
didn't run for the DNC--

he'll talk about that
more this afternoon.

He didn't run for
the DNC because he

needed more work to do.

Keith is taking the Minnesota
Wellstone-Ellison focus

on building power through
grassroots organizing and voter

turnout to the nation.

And you know what?

We're going to help him do that.

[APPLAUSE]

And so the power of
the Wellstone way

is that it has become more than
Paul's story, although that

is so moving and so rich
in and of love itself.

But the best of those
values have been infused

through Minnesota politics.

Let me just say a minute
about where we find ourselves.

We had a groundbreaking,
historic Democratic president,

Barack Obama.

An economic recovery was forged
out of the Great Recession,

access to health
care was expanded,

and curbs on Wall Street
abuses were implemented.

Yet in the same time, we lost--

my friends, we lost 1,000 seats
in cities and towns and states

and governors mansions
around the country.

While we were
focused nationally,

we were outorganized.

We were outorganized in
these towns and counties,

and we neglected our
foundation and our future.

We lost a high-stakes
presidential race in 2016.

You know the
consequences of that.

And I asked myself,
with the stakes so high,

how did we let that happen?

We didn't end up here
because of the mistakes

of one presidential
candidate or another.

My friends, this is on us.

So we're going to ask
ourselves this afternoon,

will we as voters and
Democrats and our party,

train and support candidates
who will work to improve lives,

people's lives with a
progressive economic policy

agenda as Paul did?

How are we and our
party leaders going

to train new leaders
from every community

and engage young people in
voting and running for office?

Are we, as Democrats, going to
spend more money on grassroots

organizing and getting out the
vote than we have in the past?

And what is our plan to win back
the 1,000 seats that we lost?

And we know we're not going
to do it in two years.

So, my friends, working for
justice is a life-long deal.

[APPLAUSE]

The best gift of a teacher is
that we own what they taught us.

So Paul and Sheila's stories
live because we own them.

They're in us.

So when someone asks you, what
is the Democratic Party going

to do, or why aren't
they doing this,

or why aren't they
doing that, what I've

started doing is I
say to them, what

are you going to do
to help the party?

What are you going to do
to help an organization

or help a young person?

Yes, they bear some
responsibility,

but they're not some of them.

They're not they.

They're us.

[APPLAUSE]

We're going to hear a lot
today about mistakes we've made

and how dire things are.

And we need to be tough minded.

We need to do the hard analysis.

We can't just gloss it over.

But I want us to hold
on to one of the gifts

that Paul gave us that's
now in me, which is,

it's an idea of radical hope.

Politics is not
about predictions.

Politics really is what
we create by what we do,

by the vision we have,
and by the future we

hope to create for our
children and our communities.

And the last thing
I want to say is,

I want to share with you lyrics
of a song that inspired me

every time I've experienced
a big political loss, George

McGovern, Ronald
Reagan, Donald Trump.

And I heard this song
out watching films

about labor organizing and
the civil rights movement.

And if you want to
listen to it, there's

an absolutely beautiful
rendition done by Judy Collins.

And I hope I can
get through this.

The song is called "Pass
It On" by Millard Lampell.

Freedom doesn't come
like a bird on the wing,

doesn't fall down
like the summer rain.

Freedom, freedom is
a hard one thing.

You have to work for it, fight
for it, day and night for it.

And every generation
has to win it again.

Pass it on to your
children, brother.

Pass it on to your
children, sister.

They've got to work for it.

Fight for it, day and night
for it with us by their side.

And every generation
has to win it again.

Thank you all for being here.

[APPLAUSE]

JEFF BLODGETT: Thank you, Kari.

Thank you, Kari.

So the flow of the day
from your agenda is this.

We are going to really have a
critique of the current state

of the Democratic Party.

We then want to move to what it
really looks like on the ground

and in communities with
a really dynamic panel.

And then a conversation about
a way forward for the party.

And then finally,
we have a wrap-up

from our special guest
from Massachusetts.

The moderator for
this next section,

if you've ever read a newspaper
in the last four decades

in Minnesota, you
may know of DJ Tice.

DJ is commentary editor,
a weekly columnist,

and a regular contributor to
the Playing Politics podcast

He's been a writer,
editor, and publisher

with Twin Cities journalism
for nearly four decades.

From 2003 to 2009, he was
the Star Tribune's state

political editor,
directing coverage

of the legislature, state
government, the Minnesota

congressional delegation
and elections.

Please welcome our moderator
for the next session, DJ Tice.

[APPLAUSE]

DJ TICE: Thank you
very, very much.

It's a tremendous honor for me
to be here today and participate

in this event.

I saw Paul Wellstone late
in the afternoon, the day

before he died, when he
stopped into our offices

at the St. Paul Pioneer Press,
where I worked at the time.

And he stopped in for
his endorsement interview

with our editorial board as part
of the very intense re-election

campaign he was
involved in those days.

And it has always been
a source of pleasure

and some consolation to me
to think back to what fine

form he was in at that time.

He was feisty that afternoon
and funny and friendly,

full of ideas and
confidence, and fascinated

as was not at all
uncommon in our years

of cordial disagreement,
fascinated that I

could see things the way I did.

[LAUGHTER]

But he was genuinely interested.

We parted warmly with many
issues yet unresolved.

And I remember very
well that, of course,

he was still talking as
the elevator doors closed

between him, wagging
a finger and saying,

we've got to talk
more about this.

Sadly, of course, we never did.

And my understanding
of many issues

has been impoverished
as a result,

as our state and
nation's politics

have been impoverished by the
absence of Paul Wellstone's

spirit and decency.

So for all those
reasons, it really

is an honor to be here today.

And I thank you for asking me.

[APPLAUSE]

It's also a treat, also a treat
to be here with Thomas Frank,

who I have come to
think of as perhaps

our most expert political
pathologist who candidly

and cleverly has diagnosed
grave ailments in both

of our major political
parties and their interactions

with their constituencies.

Above all, he has
dissected the way

Republicans and Democrats
both, in his view,

have betrayed the plain economic
interests of ordinary Americans

while beguiling the working
class with intoxicating

illusions, on the one
hand, of returning

to a traditional values
agenda that has little

to offer real people's lives,
or on the other hand, a vision

of boldly stepping
forward into an Emerald

City of globalized
innovation or globaloney,

as he calls it in his
latest book, a place

where unfortunately, in his
view, only an educated elite

is prospering.

It's worth thinking about
the fact that in 2004,

when Thomas Frank's What's the
Matter with Kansas came out,

American conservatism seemed
to be riding high, even

here in Minnesota.

But it was about to suffer
years of difficulty.

Similarly, in early 2016, when
Listen, Liberal hit the shelves,

Democrats felt
reasonably confident

of winning a third
consecutive White House term

and continuing to ride a
favorable demographic wave

into a new era of lasting
progressive consensus.

Now, one is tempted
to say that we all

know what happened after that.

But the truth is, none
of us really quite

knows what happened, except
that it has something

to do with the kind
of estrangement

of the broad working class
from the nation's elites

that Thomas Frank talks about.

So we're lucky to
have him here today

to help give us some clues
about what might happen next.

Please welcome Thomas Frank.

[APPLAUSE]

THOMAS FRANK: How
are you all doing?

What a beautiful day it
is here in Minnesota.

And it's a great honor for
me to have been invited

to this get together as well.

And I thank you for inviting me.

So let me tell you about what
I was doing last year in 2016.

I was spending-- well, I
spent basically the whole year

touring the country and
talking about the book

that DJ mentioned.

It's called Listen, Liberal.

I think they might have
copies of it for sale.

I don't know.

Maybe they do, maybe they don't.

Anyhow, Listen, Liberal.

And the way I would
describe it was

as a book about how
Democrats failed

when the conditions for
success were perfect.

Now think about
that, how Democrats

failed when the conditions
for success were perfect.

And I was not referring to
the 2016 election, by the way.

This was a statement
on economic inequality,

the way that the divide between
the rich and everybody else

in our society grew
and grew and grew

during the years of the Obama
presidency, despite the chances

that he got to take
action on the matter.

Because that's
what, if you ask me,

that's what the 2009
financial crisis was,

the perfect opportunity
to launch this country

on a different direction, to
put an end to this long era

of deregulation and
financialization that we've been

in since the '80s.

But go back to that phrase
I was using last year, how

Democrats failed when the
conditions for success

we're perfect.

Now we think it means
something very different.

Now that's a
reference to the way

they lost, of course, to
Donald Trump, the most

unpopular presidential
candidate of all time.

This is a guy that went
around the country mocking

different ethnic
groups in our society,

making fun of
handicapped people,

insulting the parents of
a soldier killed in Iraq.

He was caught on tape
boasting about groping women.

This is a man that had never
run for public office before.

His campaign manager,
Steve Bannon,

had never managed
a campaign before.

This is a man that knows
nothing about governing,

has no business being
in the Oval Office.

[APPLAUSE]

How do you lose to
a guy like that?

Well, Democrats found a way.

[LAUGHTER]

So what I want to suggest
here this afternoon

is that the two failures
I just described

are actually just
one big failure.

These things go together.

The Democrats failure to do much
of anything about inequality

arises from or springs
from the same source

as their failure to understand
Donald Trump and his followers.

And both of these things come
from the same class assumptions

of the Democratic party's
leadership back in Washington.

Now, let's talk about
the country that elected

Donald Trump president in 2016.

Let's talk about what this
country looked like last year.

It was a time of
brisk prosperity,

according to official
measurements,

with unemployment down
in the stock market up.

For Americans who worked
for a living, however,

nothing ever seemed to improve.

Wages didn't grow.

Median income was still well
below where it had been in 2007.

The labor share--
economists have

a way of measuring
these things, of course.

They call it the labor share of
the gross national product as

opposed to the share
taken by stockholders.

The share taken by workers
hit its all time low, folks,

in the year 2011,
and then it just

stayed there right through
the next couple of years.

In the fall of 2014, with the
stock markets hitting all-time

highs, a poll showed that nearly
3/4 of the American public

believed that the economy
was still in a recession,

because for them, it was.

Now, look, there was
a time in this country

when average Americans knew
whether things were going up

or things were going down,
because when America prospered,

the American people
prospered as well.

But these days,
things are different.

Let's talk about
some numbers here.

If you go from the middle
of the 1930s up to 1980,

the Great Depression up
to the dawn of Reaganism,

the lower 90% of the
population of this country,

a group that we might refer
to as the American people,

that group took home--

that group took home 70% of the
growth in this country's income.

That's the way it
was supposed to work,

and that's the way it did work.

If you look at the
same numbers from 1997

up till now, from the height
of the dot com bubble up

until today, you'll find
that this same group,

the American people, pocketed
none of this country's income

growth at all.

Their share of these
amazing good times

that we've been living
through was zero, folks.

The upper 10% of the
population, by which

I mean the country's financiers
and managers and professionals,

they ate the whole thing.

To be a young person in
this America, I think,

is to sense instinctively
the downward slide that so

many of us are on these days.

College costs are
completely out of control.

You all know this.

The university
where I got my PhD,

I went on the internet yesterday
and looked up what it costs

to go there today,
$70,000 a year.

Four years of that is north
of a quarter of a million.

It's almost $300,000
to go to college.

You want to go to
a school like that?

You take out a lot of loans.

And as I traveled the country
last year speaking to audiences,

I was forever meeting young
people who were $100,000

in debt.

These are young people.

They are just starting out
life in this uberized economy

of ours, with the
equivalent of a mortgage

and no house to show for it.

You can't sell your
college degree.

Now at the other end of the
social ladder, of course,

we know this, it's all
upside all the time.

Back in 1980, American CEOs
made about 40 times more

than their average blue
collar line worker.

Today, it's 335 times.

One particularly lucky
American Family, in fact,

has as much wealth as does 40%
of the country's population.

The main accomplishment of
the six high-achieving people

who make up this family
was to inherit shares

in Walmart, the
retailer that has sucked

the life out of
thousands of towns

in the part of this
country that I come from.

That's their achievement.

[APPLAUSE]

And that's where we are, folks.

That is where we are.

And it is now--

it is 10 years since the
financial crisis first

started going.

And that's where we are,
growth that doesn't grow

and prosperity that
doesn't prosper.

The country, people
now understand,

is simply no longer
organized in such a way

as to make its own citizens
economically secure.

And that's the country that
elected Donald Trump president.

We have to look this
thing in the eyes, folks.

We have to understand that the
middle class is disintegrating

in the great
middle-class nation.

And there is outrage, and there
is fury around every corner.

And you know this
as well as I do.

You scratch any surface,
and it comes pouring forth.

Now, you would expect--

everything that
I just described,

you would expect this to lead to
a revival of the political left.

And the reason you'd expect that
is because that's what actually

happened at similar times
in our history in the 1890s,

in the 1930s.

And yet, here is the
fascinating thing

about this period of inequality
that we're living through.

The politics of it
have been dominated

by right wing revolts that only
accelerate the disintegration

of the middle class.

It's Donald Trump today.

But in truth, and depending
on how you count it,

this is the fifth successful
conservative uprising

to happen--

I mean uprising, to
happen in my lifetime.

Nixon in 1968, the New Right
and Ronald Reagan in the late

'70s and early '80s.

You had Newt Gingrich
and what they

called the Republican
Revolution in 1994.

You had George W. Bush in 2000.

You had the Tea Party
movement in 2009.

Now you have Donald Trump.

And Steve Bannon is promising
a next chapter just next year.

It just keeps chugging along.

Now, to understand how
crazy all of this is--

I think this audience does
understand how crazy it all is,

but I want to illustrate
it, if you will,

with a picture of what
things looked like in 2009.

And I'm going to go back to the
year 2009 a lot in this talk

because I think for me,
that is the great turning

point of this century.

That is the most important year.

2009, the financial crisis
and the Great Recession

had happened.

They were in progress, and they
had discredited the philosophy

of free markets for good.

Here in this country, we
had deregulated Wall Street.

We had got down on our knees
and worshipped Wall Street.

We had put nice,
friendly Wall Street guys

in charge of
overseeing Wall Street.

And here, Wall Street
goes and poisons

the economy of the entire world
with its toxic mortgage-backed

securities.

And so 2009 seemed
to people like me,

it seemed like this was a
historical turning point.

George W. Bush
administration had

blundered into this incredible
series of disasters.

You remember the Iraq war,
Hurricane Katrina, the lobbying

scandal in Washington, DC,
and then economic catastrophe

on top of all that.

And it seemed like
the last straw.

And the wise men of Washington,
where I live these days,

they thought they understood
what was happening.

The tectonic plates were
shifting, they said.

Conservatism's decades long
reign was finally at an end.

The age of Reagan
was over, they said.

The liberal age of
Obama was dawning.

The pendulum had swung
one way, and now it

was going to swing
back the other.

That's just how history worked.

You don't have to do anything.

It just history goes one way,
then history goes the other.

So back in 2009, those
pundits in Washington

love to talk about
how the Republican

Party was on what they called
a political suicide mission.

They're saying this as
they watch the Tea Party

movement come up, and
they watch the Republicans

become take this bitter-end
sort of strategy.

And they said, the
Republican Party

is on a political
suicide mission.

They said its
candidates had zero

chance in the enlightened new
America we were living in.

The GOP was being sent to
the dustbin of history.

It was exactly the same script
that we saw all last year

that we're seeing
this year again,

with commentator
after commentator

insisting that Donald
Trump didn't have a chance

and that the Republicans
had destroyed themselves

by nominating him.

By the way, I think those
commentators back in 2009

were right about one thing.

Conservatism should
have died that year.

Conservatism should have
died after George W. Bush.

But it wasn't
something that was just

going to happen all by itself.

And the Republicans
weren't particularly

interested in their
own demise in 2009.

And they did the opposite
of what the pundits were

telling them to do.

You know what the DC pundits
advise in every situation.

You got to move to the center.

That's the vital center.

That's where the vitality is.

It's in the center.

It's the title of a book.

You got to do that.

They didn't want to do that.

Republicans didn't do that.

They did the exact opposite.

They stepped on the gas
instead of the brakes.

Instead of moving
to the center, they

purged their moderate faction.

They responded to the
failure of markets

by becoming free market zealots.

Do you remember
waving their copies

of Atlas Shrugged in the air?

And then in 2010,
this radicalized

Republican Party scored
its greatest victory

in congressional
elections in many decades.

They took some 600
seats from the Democrats

at the state level.

They purged countless
Republican centrists.

In 2014, they went on
to conquer the Senate.

And today, folks, the
tragedy is complete.

They control Congress, the
presidency, the Supreme Court,

and the most state legislatures
they have since the 1920s.

This is a-- folks,
this is truly a wipeout

for the Democratic Party
and also for those pundits

who so persistently took
Democratic victory for granted.

And remember the
background here, folks.

All of this is going on while
Wall Street loots the world

and while the middle class of
this nation falls to pieces.

13 years ago, I wrote a book
about right wing populism

in my home state of Kansas.

And I had a phrase for
describing what was going

on there that I was fond of.

I said, in Kansas, the
gravity of discontent

pulls to the right,
and to the right,

and further to the right,
the gravity of discontent.

Now, when I wrote that, what
I was trying to describe

was what I saw as a
kind of aberration.

Look at this crazy thing that's
going on out on the High Plains.

But today, the gravity
of discontent works

like that everywhere
you go in this country.

It works like that everywhere
you go in the Western world.

Look at France.

Look at Austria.

Look at Germany,
England, Holland.

This is happening
all over the world.

Why?

Why does it work that way now?

Why does the gravity of
discontent pull to the right?

Now, to stick with the America--

I'm not going to talk about
other countries tonight--

this afternoon, I mean, but.

One reason that
it works that way

is because our Republican
Party here in this country

is very comfortable with
the traditional language

of populism, by which I mean
the language of class anger.

And they speak this
language very naturally.

It just comes to their lips
without a second thought.

And they love to rail against
the elite and our rigged system.

And they love to complain about
the Hollywood millionaires,

and the arrogant people
that make our TV shows,

and the haughty professors
who indoctrinate our kids.

And they pretend, they
feign this kind of affection

for what they call
the real Americans who

inhabit this place they
call the heartland.

And this is the important point.

They deliberately mimic
left wing protest movements

from long ago.

That's what the Tea
Party movement was.

It was a fake, hard-times
protest movement,

modeled after what they saw in
history books from the 1930s.

Or you look at a guy
like Glenn Beck who

deliberately mimicked
Martin Luther King's

March on Washington.

Or you look at a
guy like Paul Ryan,

a congressman from
the next state over,

who once wrote an article in
Forbes Magazine that he called,

"Down with Big Business."

This is Paul Ryan wrote that.

[LAUGHTER]

And now in 2016 comes Donald
J. Trump, America's blue collar

billionaire is what
they called him.

That's what they called him
at the Republican convention,

the blue collar billionaire.

And in his speech
in Cleveland, which

was the high point
of his campaign,

if there was a high point--

[LAUGHS] it was this--

I was there.

He did all right
by his standards.

But the speech was fascinating.

Seriously, go back and--
go back and look at it.

It is fascinating.

And so are his TV commercials.

But if you go back and
look at that speech

that he gave when he got
the Republican nomination

in Cleveland, this
is what he said.

He pledged himself
to the working class

people who were left
behind by the recovery.

And by the way, he used
the phrase "working class"

all the time.

It was in his TV
commercials, for Pete's sake.

This is what Trump said.

I have visited the laid
off factory workers

and the communities crushed by
our horrible and unfair trade

deals.

OK, this next line is an exact
echo of Franklin Roosevelt.

These are the forgotten men
and women of our country,

Trump said, people who work
hard but no longer have a voice.

Then he tried to reverse the
traditional liberal criticism

of the right as being pawns
of the billionaires, the Koch

brothers and all
that sort of thing.

This is what Trump said.

Big business, elite
media, and major donors

are lining up behind the
campaign of my opponent

because they know she will keep
our rigged system in place.

Rigged system, he
stole that, of course,

from the speaker tonight,
Elizabeth Warren.

That was her phrase.

You see this.

He's swiping and swiping.

Trump goes on.

They are throwing money
at her, meaning Hillary,

because they have total control
over every single thing she

does.

She is their puppet, and
they pull the strings.

Now, you know my
opinion of Donald Trump.

I think the guy is a bigot.

I think he's a vulgarian.

I think he's incompetent.

He has turned out to be
a hypocrite on everything

he promised.

Do you remember
when he ran as being

an opponent of the Iraq war?

Look at what he's doing now.

It doesn't matter.

Look, this guy is--

[LAUGHTER]

He's going to turn out to be an
even more disastrous president

than George W. Bush.

But--

[APPLAUSE]

But look, when Trump said
those things in Cleveland

to that audience
watching on TV, when

Trump said those things, the
man connected emotionally.

And we have to understand that.

He was right when he said
that the system is rigged.

It is, folks.

He's right when he pointed out
that huge parts of this country

have been de-industrialized,
and that is a terrible thing.

What drives me absolutely crazy,
what made me crazy the day

I heard that speech, and
what has driven me crazy

every day since then,
is that those are things

that my side used to say.

Those are the things
that we used to be about.

[APPLAUSE]

So where are the Democrats in
this picture that I'm drawing?

Well, once upon a time,
you all know this,

protecting the
middle-class society was

the Democrats' primary mission.

That's what the Democratic
Party was all about,

and they would never
shut up about it,

protecting the
middle-class society.

And I can't help but think
that certain Democratic leaders

of the past, you put them in
this present day situation,

and they would have
known exactly what

to do about it, someone like
Franklin Roosevelt or Harry

Truman or Lyndon Johnson
or Hubert Humphrey or Paul

Wellstone, for example.

These guys would
have taken one look

at what Wall Street is
doing to this country,

at what's happening to ordinary
middle-class Americans,

and they would have swung
directly into action.

But many of our modern
Democratic leaders falter.

They know that
inequality is rampant.

They know it's awful.

They read that book
by Thomas Piketty,

and they cry big
hot tears about it.

But they cannot find the
conviction or the imagination

to do what is necessary to
put this thing in reverse.

[APPLAUSE]

And instead, what they do is
they give us the same kind

of high-minded policy platitudes
that they have been dishing up

since the 1980s.

They tell us, oh, inequality.

That's terrible.

Dude, there's nothing
anybody can do about.

Technology?

Oh, man, there's nothing
you can do about that.

Nothing you can do about
globalization, right?

Globalization, that
is god almighty

reaching down with his
invisible hand in human affairs

and rearranging things
just however he sees.

Nothing you can do about that.

That's globalization, right?

And so they promise us charter
schools and more job training.

And yes, they'll shovel
out the student loans.

But other than that,
folks, they got nothing.

Now, I want to
give you an example

of what I'm talking about.

And the example also
comes from 2009.

And I keep going back to
2009 because as I said,

I think that's very
important year.

That's the year the pundits were
declaring the Republican Party

dead in the water.

And the issue that
I want to talk about

is the issue of the
Wall Street bailouts.

You might remember this.

If you ask me, this
was the biggest issue

of our stupid century.

This was the inflection point.

This was the turning point.

This was the moment
where the United States

could have changed course.

This was the most important
moment of this young century.

This was the turning point.

And, folks, we missed the turn.

I want you to try to
remember what it was like.

Barack Obama had been
elected president

in a massive wave of
hope and enthusiasm,

and I was one of
the hopeful ones.

And he had the
country at his back.

He had the world at his back.

And then he
proceeded to continue

the bailout policies of George
W. Bush, essentially unchanged.

No big banks ever got
put into receivership.

No bailouts were unwound.

No elite bankers
were prosecuted.

Hell, they didn't
even get fired.

He did fire the chairman
of General Motors,

oh, but not Citibank.

No, he has seats on their board.

He had ultimate power of life
or death over these banks,

and he chose not to use it.

So what I'm saying
is that President

Obama and his Democratic
team refused to change course

when every sign was telling
them it was time to turn,

when it would have been good
for this country to turn,

I mean, economically
healthful for this country

to be shed of Wall Street, when
it was fully within his power

to turn, he had the
seats on the board,

when it would have been
overwhelmingly popular to turn.

I mean, we would have--

I mean, he would still
be beloved today.

I mean, he is beloved,
but more so we

would have amended
the Constitution

and given him a third
term, for Pete's sake.

And last--

[LAUGHTER]

--lastly, I think when the
country fully expected him

to make that change--

that's why we thought
we had elected him,

everybody expected it.

The Wall Street bankers
themselves expected it.

There's this moment very
early in his presidency

about a month in, where
he called the Wall Street

bankers down from New York to
a meeting at the White House.

And they go into the
meeting, and they

are ashen faced
because they know

what's going to happen to them.

This is the new
Franklin Roosevelt,

and he's going to take
them to the woodshed,

just like what happened to their
great grandfathers back in 1933.

They come out of the meeting,
and they're all smiles.

Nothing changed.

Instead, we foamed
the runways for them,

in the immortal phrase of
Treasury Secretary Geithner.

By the way, I hope Elizabeth
Warren talks about that tonight.

That was her first
great moment of fame

when she was discovering
these things.

Now, why is that?

Why did it happen that way?

Well, I want to rule out a
few things right off the bat.

Barack Obama didn't
play this greatest issue

of our time the way he did
because the white working class

rallied around its
friends on Wall Street.

That's not what happened.

He didn't do it because he
didn't have enough power.

He had plenty of power.

The presidency is an
enormously powerful office,

as we are reminded every morning
when we turn on the computer

and see what Donald Trump did.

[SIGHS]

[LAUGHTER]

Look, this is
unpleasant, but I think

we have to acknowledge
that Barack Obama played

this issue the way he did
back in 2009 because that's

the way he wanted to play it.

[LAUGHTER]

And I think--
look, this is a man

that I admire in
all sorts of ways.

I think he is a great man, a
historic figure, the greatest

orator of my generation.

But he played this
issue the way he

did because that's how he
wanted to do it that way.

That's the way he
wanted to play it.

There was no outside force.

It comes back to him.

That's where the buck stops.

But in truth, that just pushes
the problem back a little ways.

This doesn't start
with Barack Obama.

And you want to understand why
he acted the way he did in 2009,

you have to go back to the '70s,
and the '80s, and the '90s.

And back in those days,
if you're as old as me,

you will recall that the
Democratic Party was engaged

in a kind of civil
war over who they were

and what they stood for.

And there's all of
these-- you might recall

all of these different factions
within the Democratic Party back

then, fighting like cats
and dogs over what direction

the party should take.

But they all agreed
on one thing,

all of these different
reform factions

in the Democratic Party.

But they all came
together on one thing,

and that was that
the Democrats had

to turn away from the
legacy of the New Deal

with its fixation on
working class people.

Do you remember this?

The New Democrats, they
called themselves, the--

what were some of
the other groups?

The Atari Democrats.

There was a third one,
the new politics crowd.

They disagreed on everything,
but they came together on that.

You have to move away
from the New Deal.

And what Democrats had to
embrace instead, they said,

was this emerging
postindustrial economy.

And the people that
the Democratic Party

needed to identify itself
with were the winners

in this new economic order, the
highly educated professionals

who populate our innovative
knowledge industries.

And what do I mean
by professionals?

We all know the traditional
professions, lawyers, doctors,

clergy, that sort of thing.

These days, of course,
it's an enormous category

in your postindustrial economy.

It's a huge category of workers.

It includes basically everybody
with an advanced degree,

math PhDs who write derivative
securities, biochemists

who make prescription drugs.

I'm one of them, by the way.

Anyhow, not a biochemist, but--

[LAUGHTER]

--someone who writes books.

Look, back in the 1950s,
professionals were one

of the most Republican
demographic groups in America.

Today they are one of the most
Democratic demographic groups

in America.

They've completely
changed sides.

And that's by and large,
who the Democrats are today.

Today, they are a class party.

It's just not the working class.

They are the party of highly
educated professionals.

Now they have-- we all know
the Democratic party has

all sorts of constituent
groups, many,

many, many minorities, women
and the young, for example.

But professionals are always
the ones who come first.

They're the ones who
ride in the front seat.

They're the ones with their
hands on the steering wheel.

All the rest of us ride in back.

It is the tastes and manners
of this class that are always

celebrated by liberal
newspapers, right,

their favorite TV shows,
their special cupcakes,

their very fancy, fancy
coffee, the craft cocktails.

[LAUGHS]

I saw one in the paper
yesterday, artisanal charcoal.

[LAUGHTER]

I mean, it's just endless.

It goes on and on and on.

But I'm trying to make
a serious point, which

is this, that American
liberalism started

as a populist movement.

But today, it is the
opposite of that.

It is a movement of winners
and the highly credentialed.

And liberals have all of
these flattering phrases

for this favorite
demographic group.

They have all these
terms of endearment

that they've come up with.

They call these high-achieving
professionals, the wired workers

who will inherit the future.

They're supposed to be a
learning class that truly

gets the power of education.

And here's one you've
heard of for sure,

a creative class that naturally
rebels against fakeness

and conformity.

I want you to think about
this for a second, this idea

of the creative class,
the idea that creativity

is the property of a class.

And that we have to--

I mean, it's repugnant
when you think about it.

And that we-- and
furthermore, we

have to set up special
zones in our cities

to make the creative class
happy, literary zones

and stuff like that.

We have to negotiate trade
deals to protect them,

s that they don't leave our
country and move to Denmark

or somewhere like that
that loves them even more,

that builds even more Frank
Gehry buildings and zany stuff

over here, artisanal charcoal.

[LAUGHTER]

And here's the thing.

Democratic leaders, the
leadership of the party

is always drawn from
exactly this same group.

Think about the last--

well, the lives of Bill
Clinton, Barack Obama,

and Hillary Clinton, the
biographies of these people.

All of these people were
plucked from obscure lives

by fancy schools.

And you look at their
cabinet choices.

You look at Bill Clinton's
or Barack Obama's, the people

that were in their cabinets.

It's always these Ivy League
types, these highly successful

professionals whose
worth is established

by their achievements in
college or graduate school.

So I'm going to summarize
this down to one very

short statement.

And it goes like this.

Professionals, this
sort of magical class,

are the heroes of history.

They are the winners of
this debased dialectic

that I'm describing,
this dialectic

of creativity and innovation.

They also happen to be the
number one constituency

of the Democratic Party.

And Democratic
leaders are always

drawn from the ranks
of this exact group.

You see what I'm
getting at here, folks?

It is this shift of allegiance
from the traditional working

and middle class to
professionals that explains,

well, just about
everything that is

frustrating about our
modern day liberalism.

I mean, think about
it for a second.

How do you get a situation
like we're in today,

where inequality is growing,
where inequality is out

of control, where this country
is headed back to a 19th-century

pattern of wealth distribution,
and the party of the left

can't take advantage of it,
where the party of the left is

in a state of historic defeat,
where the middle class is

disintegrating, and people
are turning to a mountebank,

like Donald J. Trump?

How does this happen?

How is this possible?

Look, folks, it is only possible
when the party of the left

isn't interested in
its historic mission.

That's the only way you get
this combination of inequality

and defeat.

Why aren't they interested?

Why aren't they interested?

I want to go back one more time
to that question of the Wall

Street banks.

And what happened?

You want me to wrap it up,
or you want me to keep going?

What do you guys think?

[LAUGHTER]

[APPLAUSE]

All right, I'll wrap it up.

So, basically, long story short,
why did they bail out the banks,

why did they continue
those dreadful policies,

because those bankers
are their peers.

That's the face in the mirror.

That's their classmates.

And they express this
solidarity between, say,

the Justice Department, and
the Treasury Department,

and the Wall Street banks in
hundreds of different ways.

And it's all out there for
the researchers to find.

I started out--

I've got a lot of it
in Listen, Liberal,

but you can find it yourself.

They feel exactly the
same way about big pharma.

They love this industry.

It's filled with
creative people,

people with advanced degrees,
people they honor and respect.

They write trade deals
to protect these guys.

They say it's free trade.

Those deals protect big pharma,
and they protect Hollywood.

It's exactly the same
for Silicon Valley.

They love these guys.

I mean, Eric Schmidt was
at Hillary's side all

through the election last year.

Still she lost.

This is an industry that--

Silicon Valley, they think
these guys can do no wrong.

They look at them, and again,
it's the exact same thing.

These are us.

This is like looking in the
mirror when they see these guys.

What do they believe in?

What does the party of the
professional class believe in?

You know, there's only one
thing that really matters,

and that's meritocracy,
the idea that everybody

gets what they deserve
and what they deserve

is defined by how
they did in school.

And this is-- the point
that I want you to come away

from this gathering
with, is that this is not

a philosophy for
tackling inequality

or for criticizing inequality.

This is a philosophy for
rationalizing inequality.

These guys don't really
have a problem with it.

They look at-- those
farmers in Iowa

who are watching their way of
life blow away in the wind.

And they say, well, you should
have gone to MIT or something

like that.

The answer with
these guys is always

to push the problem back
onto you as an individual.

Why is your way
of life crumbling?

Because you did poorly
in grade school,

or you didn't study hard
enough in high school,

or you dropped out
of high school,

or you didn't go to college.

I mean, how many times have
you seen Thomas Friedman

or some other leading liberal?

Let's be honest about this.

Some leading liberals say,
well, inequality, it's all

happening because of education.

These people just needed
to go to a better school

or study the right subject
or something like that.

This is a philosophy of winners.

The Democratic Party
is a party that

is dominated by winners,
people that have done

so well in the new economy.

Then I was going to
criticize Hillary's strategy

in the last election.

But you all know what
happened there, right?

You all know what
happened to that.

[LAUGHS] Donald Trump.

This guy, I think, is
the perfect epitaph

for this period of
professional-class liberalism.

I mean, this guy is the
opposite of everything

that I've been describing.

He's utterly incompetent.

This is a party that
worships competence.

Remember Michael Dukakis?

It's not about ideology.

It's about competence.

Yeah, Donald Trump is
completely the opposite

of that, utterly incompetent.

He lacks government
experience completely.

He holds expertise in contempt.

He is indifferent to fact.

I mean, this man is a human
middle finger to the--

[LAUGHTER, APPLAUSE]

All right.

So what should our response
to the age of Trump be?

Now I know it is fun to
imagine that the battle is

between enlightenment
and ignorance.

And we're in some
great cataclysmic war,

and David Brooks is on
our side and all this.

But I can't help but think--

[LAUGHTER]

I can't help but think that the
right answer to fake populism--

and by the way,
the answer to that,

I think Paul Wellstone
would have given

is not to go around insisting
on what fine and tasteful people

we are with our
artisanal charcoal

and our fancy, fancy cupcakes,
but instead, to give voters

the real deal.

Show those Trump supporters
that we care about them

more than Trump does, that
yes, the system is rigged,

and Trump is the
guy that rigged it.

[APPLAUSE, CHEERS]

DJ TICE: All right.

THOMAS FRANK: DJ,
shall we do this?

DJ TICE: Yeah.

[APPLAUSE]

Well, this is an audience that
enjoys being told off, I guess.

[LAUGHTER]

Let Thomas get his--

give us a count.

THOMAS FRANK: Oh,
there it is, hey.

DJ TICE: Well,
thank you, Thomas.

Very stimulating to
say the very least.

I want to just
touch on one thing,

and then we'll go to
some audience questions,

because I want to get
a few of those in.

Toward the end of your
remarks, especially focused in

on the fact, as you see it, that
the Democratic Party has really

become the party
of what you call

the professional class,
the credentialed class,

the creative class.

You, very inventive in
coming up with terms for it.

And I wonder the
way you describe

it, the rift between that part
of America and the working class

seems pretty deep.

And I wonder, do you think
that Democrats, by and large,

understand how deep it is
and I would say multifaceted?

You focus very much on
the economic issues,

but there are
cultural elements--

THOMAS FRANK: Oh, yes.

DJ TICE: --at work as well.

You say toward the end of the
book in your, well deserved,

I told you so chapter that you
hear Democratic insiders saying

things like, we don't
really want to patch things

up with the working
class because they're

all a bunch of racists.

THOMAS FRANK: And
they have bad taste

and all that sort of thing.

DJ TICE: How does a--

THOMAS FRANK: It's
a class stereotype.

DJ TICE: --ever get to--

THOMAS FRANK: Its
a class stereotype.

And by the way,
this is I think--

I don't want to say I
was the first to write

about this particular
class understanding

of American politics.

Obviously, people have been
writing about class forever.

But this is something
that dawned on me when

I was writing What's the Matter
with Kansas, that there was

a hidden class struggle in
America or class conflict,

I should say, that
isn't widely understood

and isn't really talked about.

And that's between average
middle-class people

and professionals
who are, I call them

at one point, life's
officer corps.

Can I tell you one of the
moments when this came to me?

This is a very
19th century thing.

If you go back to the
Jacksonian era, in this country,

they actually people
decided that professional--

that the professions were
an aristocratic holdover,

and we had to do away with them.

And they abolished, like
legal licensing requirements,

the bar system in
a lot of states.

They abolished-- what's
up with the sound?

Is that me?

Am I doing that?

I'm so sorry.

Should I bend it?

There we go.

How's that?

Is that better.

It's because I didn't
shave this morning.

That's a bourgeois affectation.

[LAUGHTER]

So anyhow, in the
Jacksonian period,

there was this rebellion
against the professions.

And if you look at
the Knights of Labor,

lawyers weren't
allowed to be members.

And this runs right
through history,

but it's not well remembered.

And I was out in
Western Kansas and--

there's that noise again.

I'm too loud.

I'm too enthusiastic.

And there was a
Populist, by which

I mean an uppercase P, Populist,
a member of the People's Party.

And he spent the final
decades of his life building

an elaborate sculpture garden--

maybe if I hold really still--

a really elaborate sculpture
garden out in Western Kansas,

out of reinforced concrete.

And in the sculpture garden,
it illustrates Bible themes

and the themes of
the Populist Party.

It's a very left wing party.

You don't need to know
right now, but it was.

Anyhow, one of the statues
shows a labor crucified,

and it shows a working
man on the cross,

and he's being nailed there
by four different figures.

And the figures are doctor,
lawyer, banker, and preacher.

And when I saw this, I was like
a light bulb went on in my head.

And I'm like, aha.

This is more complicated
than people think.

And this runs like a little red
thread all throughout history.

And right now, it is in flames.

The problem is that
the Democratic Party

doesn't get this, doesn't
want to talk about this,

doesn't want to
acknowledge this.

And frankly, the Republican
Party doesn't either.

They just use stereotypes.

They say, the elite.

There's an elite
Republican group too,

of course, the Koch brothers,
the billionaires, you know.

DJ TICE: And yet--

THOMAS FRANK: I apologize, DJ.

I talk too much.

DJ TICE: Franklin Roosevelt,
who's clearly a hero to you,

was a great beloved champion
of the working class.

He was nobody's idea of
a working class person.

And in that age,
there were many people

who were certainly elite
by any definition, who

became great champions
of the working class,

and were recognized
by the working

class as their great champions.

THOMAS FRANK: The New
Dealers-- yes, the New Dealers

were a set of highly
educated or not so highly,

but you know, really smart
people came down to Washington

to run all the programs that
Roosevelt was putting in place.

And can I tell you
a little dilemma

I had when I was writing
Listen, Liberal, which

is a study of this
liberalism's sort of love

affair with the
professional class,

was watching them fail
in the Obama years.

And then there's a
very famous book,

I'm sure you're familiar with
it, by David Halberstam, called

The Best and the
Brightest, which

is a very similar
critique of how

the professionals in the Kennedy
and Johnson administration

got us into Vietnam.

They thought the Vietnam War was
the greatest thing in the world.

And these were all--
this is brought

to you by the political
scientists of America,

the Vietnam War.

And so this was really
depressing to me.

And I thought, well, because
when Bush had been president,

I really believed in
expertise in government.

I mean, this man--

do you remember
the kind of people

he was putting in
charge of the agencies?

I mean, the same kind of people
that Trump is, people that

don't know what they're doing.

And I really wanted to believe
in expertise in government,

but these stories were
very depressing to me.

And so I was looking for
the great story of when

expertise in government worked.

And of course, you've
just mentioned it,

the Roosevelt administration.

And so that's interesting.

So what's different about
Roosevelt's New Dealers?

What's the difference
between them

and say, Lyndon Johnson's
team of experts or say,

Barack Obama's team of experts
that screwed things up so badly?

What's the difference?

And once you ask that
question, it becomes obvious.

Roosevelt's New Dealers came
from the most amazing variety

of sources.

You look at their backgrounds.

They weren't all from Harvard.

They weren't all the very cream
of their academic discipline.

They came from--

Harry Hopkins was a
social worker from Iowa.

You look at Henry Wallace.

He ran a farm magazine in Iowa.

Or you look at--

who was the head of
the Federal Reserve?

Ickes, yeah.

Well, he was the PWA, yes.

Or you look at--

I'm trying to remember
the name of the man

that Roosevelt installed at the
Federal Reserve, the chairman

of the Federal Reserve.

Marriner Eccles,
Marriner Eccles, yeah.

Somebody called it out there.

He was a small town
banker from Utah.

He was a genius.

But he wasn't from Harvard.

He came from-- or the man that
ran Roosevelt's bailout agency

was a banker from Houston,
Texas, who hated Wall Street

and really wanted to
get even with them.

And he did proceeded to do it.

Even Roosevelt's Ivy Leaguers,
and he had a bunch of them,

were people like
Galbraith who said--

DJ TICE: So how does the party,
how does American liberalism

respond to this challenge?

How does it recreate
that kind of coalition?

THOMAS FRANK: The difference
is the New Deal was serving--

they used expertise to
serve a different group.

Now, the experts
are who we serve.

They are a class unto
themselves today.

As I mentioned in my talk,
they're an enormous group today,

enormous.

And they are basically
the upper, say 10% or 15%

of the income distribution.

And they're doing
extremely well.

And the Democratic Party
identifies with them

and likes to foster their--

is very happy that they're--

DJ TICE: Do the Democrats need
their Trump, their equivalent

of the blue collar billionaire?

Just as he straddles
in an implausible way--

THOMAS FRANK: I wonder.

Was it Bernie Sanders?

Was it Paul Wellstone?

I thought it was
Barack Obama in 2008.

I sincerely, folks, believed
that he was the Franklin

Roosevelt of my generation.

DJ TICE: But he is Harvard.

He was University of Chicago.

THOMAS FRANK: I know.

I didn't know to suspect
that at the time.

[LAUGHTER]

I went to the
University of Chicago.

That's the school
I was referring to.

And I lived in
that neighborhood.

And I met Barack Obama
at a house party.

And I thought he was the
greatest thing in the world.

That man, he's so smart,
and I admired him.

And I wanted him to succeed.

And when these things came to
pass, I was really bowled over.

And so I made it
my business to try

to understand what went wrong.

DJ TICE: Let's turn to a
couple of audience questions.

Thank you.

THOMAS FRANK: Oh, come on,
we can take longer than that.

DJ TICE: It says--

[LAUGHTER]

I drove three hours
from rural Minnesota

to join this discussion.

What advice or
urgings do you have

for small town and rural
Minnesotans where most of us

are working class?

THOMAS FRANK: Well,
I mean, this is

about-- we're supposed to be
talking about politics here.

And by the way, one of the
stories that just-- that just

breaks my heart.

I wrote a story about small
town Missouri a while ago.

And as we all know, small
towns went for Trump

in an enormous way.

And this is not because
these are rich people.

This is because these are people
whose way of life is crumbling.

And it just staggers
my imagination--

or that Hillary Clinton didn't
make some kind of outreach

to them, and that the Democratic
Party has basically washed

its hands of those people.

I still can't believe it's true.

Missouri is a state that--

Harry Truman was from there.

This was a profoundly democratic
place, once upon a time.

They've lost those people.

They lost Iowa.

They lost West Virginia.

I mean, all of these people--
and not because these people

identify with the Koch brothers.

They should be-- they
are natural Democrats.

But the party can't
talk to them anymore.

And I don't think
that requires advice

to the people who
live in those towns.

I think that the people
who need to be advised

are the people who run
the Democratic Party.

[APPLAUSE]

DJ TICE: It is astonishing
that in Minnesota's

seventh congressional
district, which is basically

the western part of the state,
north to south almost, which

has had a Democratic
Congressman for decades,

Trump prevailed by
something like 35 points.

THOMAS FRANK: Oh, man.

DJ TICE: It really
takes your breath away.

And something very profound
is happening there now.

It's always been a sort of
centrist swing kind of area,

though a Democrat who's
adapted to the district

has done very well.

I wonder to what extent is it--

we touched on the cultural
issues as well as or even more

than the economic ones.

You in What's the
Matter with Kansas

emphasized how the Republicans
have created this obsession

with social issues that
don't matter so much.

On the other hand, the
Democrats have also

put a tremendous amount of
emphasis on social issues,

particularly in recent years,
same sex marriage and so on.

And in places like far western
Minnesota, some of those issues

may not seem as
important as they

do in the urban area among
the credentialed class.

And they may not
even sit as well.

Do you think that's a factor?

THOMAS FRANK: Absolutely.

But the problem is
that I basically

agree with the liberals
on the culture war issues.

And it's very hard for me to--

I think that you can--

Let me put it this way.

DJ TICE: Do you agree
with the emphasis as well?

THOMAS FRANK:
There's different--

I think the emphasis
takes different forms.

The form that people--

I live in Bethesda, Maryland.

And these are people who
are very wealthy and very

enlightened, and they are
in love with themselves.

And they let you
know it all the time.

And this is disgusting
to the bulk of America

because they look
at these people,

and they say that's
rich people parading

around how virtuous they are.

That's what's really offensive.

The rest of it, I think this
country is coming around to,

and the country can handle
the liberal position

on the culture wars.

What they can't stand
is being lectured to

by people who believe that
they're superior human beings.

This is a democracy.

[APPLAUSE]

DJ TICE: We'll do one more.

Reads, the globalization
of labor markets

through trade agreements is
fundamental to the decline

of wages and the loss of jobs.

What do you suggest
Democrats do about trade?

And I would just add to that.

What do Democrats
do about the fact

that Donald Trump has
hijacked this issue?

THOMAS FRANK: Yeah, he sure did.

DJ TICE: And he's
actually done something.

THOMAS FRANK: Yeah.

Well, he hasn't really done
anything yet, but we'll see.

I mean, he killed the TPP.

So this is-- trade
is an issue that I've

been concerned with my
whole career in journalism.

I remember when NAFTA passed,
I was furious about it.

You remember organized
labor was against it,

and Bill Clinton ran over
them with a steamroller,

got Rahm Emanuel out
there, set up a war room,

and got NAFTA passed.

And NAFTA was designed--

NAFTA is not--

I have to constantly
remind audiences of this.

NAFTA says it's
about free trade.

That's N-A-F-T free
trade agreement.

But it's not.

NAFTA is an agreement
to protect assets.

It's an agreement about property
rights in Mexico so that

the Mexican government can
never again nationalize American

property in that country
like they did in the '30s.

That's what NAFTA was
negotiated in order to do,

and that's what NAFTA did.

It was deliberately-- Labor
didn't have a seat at the table

when negotiating it.

It was negotiated
by companies that

wanted to build
factories in Mexico

and didn't want to
get regulated or have

their property expropriated
by the Mexican government.

They negotiated the treaty.

The treaty did what they wanted.

It's not a natural thing.

It's not god in his
majesty reaching down.

It's not the invisible hand.

It was written by humans.

It was written by
a particular kind

of human known as a lobbyist.

And they got what
they wanted out of it,

and they got what they wanted
out of PNTR with China.

And they got what
they wanted out

of all the other
trade agreements.

And when working class people
are pissed off about these trade

agreements and they say, look,
it's ruining my way of life,

that's absolutely correct.

There are other things that are
also ruining their way of life,

but trade agreements have--

by the way, I speak at
unions all the time.

And they will tell you, it comes
up in every negotiating session,

management threatens
to move the plant

to Mexico or somewhere else.

Always, they always use it.

When Bill Clinton got that
done, he gave management

the biggest weapon that they
now have in their arsenal

to use against
their own workers.

And every union
I've ever spoken to,

they have not
forgotten that it was

Clinton that did that to them.

Why?

Because of the irony of it.

They gave money to that guy.

They went out and
worked for him,

and he stabbed them in the back.

DJ TICE: But, Thomas, the
question here is, what are the--

what has the Democratic Party
to do about the fact that Donald

Trump today--

THOMAS FRANK: He took--

DJ TICE: --is seen as the
champion of exactly the point

of view you're--

THOMAS FRANK: Well,
look, the Republicans--

Trump pulled off-- this
was, if you ask me,

trade was one of the
most important issues

in the last election.

Trump talked about
it in every speech.

It's in every TV commercial.

He talked about it constantly.

And it was particularly
potent because his opponent

was named Clinton.

And she tried as-- she tried
very hard to get out of it,

but she couldn't
get out of the trap.

But now remember, the Republican
Party also supported NAFTA.

Hell, they negotiated it.

They supported all
these treaties.

They supported the TPP.

And here, Trump is completely
reversing on this issue.

Well, we can do it too.

[LAUGHS] It's not that hard.

It's not that hard.

DJ TICE: Except you need
somebody to hijack the party.

THOMAS FRANK: Yeah.

Well, you got to
remember, most Democrats

did not vote for
NAFTA in Congress.

The Democratic caucus in
Congress was against it.

It was passed with Republican
votes and a handful of Democrats

that Clinton was able to--

DJ TICE: All right.

Well, before they bring me
another card, we'll wrap it up.

THOMAS FRANK: I am so
sorry that I talk so much.

DJ TICE: Don't be sorry.

It was fascinating,
and I think everybody's

enjoyed it very much.

Thank you, Thomas Frank.

[APPLAUSE, CHEERS]

JEFF BLODGETT: It's just
going to take a minute

to mic up one of our panelists,
and we'll start just briefly.

While we're waiting,
I did want to--

I also wanted to give my thanks.

I know that Gary did this.

I want to give my thanks to the
Humphrey School and the Center

for the Study of
Politics and Governance

for hosting this event, and
also to Common Roots Catering.

We're going to be taking a break
in a minute after this panel,

because even political junkies
can't sit in a windowless room

all afternoon.

And Common Roots
Catering has stepped up

and is providing
the catering today.

So please go visit Common Roots
Cafe down in South Minneapolis,

says thanks.

[APPLAUSE]

All right, so we promised
exciting, provocative.

I think we started off that way.

We're now going to
continue with, I think,

a really dynamic panel.

And I'm introducing
the moderator

of this panel, Kathryn Pearson.

Kathryn Pearson,
for those of you

who are at the
University of Minnesota,

she's an associate
professor specializing

in American politics.

Her research
focuses on Congress,

on congressional elections,
political parties,

women in politics.

She's written a book called
Party Discipline in the House

of Representatives.

She worked on Capitol Hill
as a legislative assistant.

So I think that qualifies
her as an expert, someone

who has one foot in
the practicing world

and one foot in
the academic world.

So please give a warm
welcome to Kathryn Pearson.

Thank you.

[APPLAUSE]

KATHRYN PEARSON: Thank you.

Thank you, Jeff Blodgett.

And thank you, Larry Jacobs,
for organizing this event

and for asking me to
moderate this panel.

The movement that Paul Wellstone
inspired in his public service

is an important part of
Minnesota political history

and Minnesota's
political present.

And there is enormous
value in reflecting

on the Wellstone way and the
state of the Democratic Party.

A key focus for this panel is,
what does the Wellstone way?

Economic populism and
grassroots organizing

look like on the ground in
terms of building and exercising

political power
through grassroots

organizing in this
challenging political moment.

What does it mean for
electoral politics?

And how does it affect the type
of campaigns and the candidates

that run?

How does it affect
policy making?

What are its limits?

I'm delighted to pose these
and other questions to three

well-known, very successful
grassroots leaders,

Jessica Byrd, founder and
principal strategist of Three

Point Strategies,
Javier Murillo,

President of SEIU Local 26, and
Jessie Ulibarri, Vice President,

Impact and External Affairs
at Wellstone Action.

Jessica's--

[APPLAUSE]

Jessica's consulting firm,
Three Point Strategies,

executes strategic
political programming

for people-of-color
candidates, campaign staff,

and organizations, and
she's enjoyed great success.

In 2016, she was named
the January Woman to Watch

by Essence magazine, 12 New
Faces of Black Leadership

by Time magazine,
and Rolling Stone

named her one of the most
influential millennials shaping

the 2016 election.

[APPLAUSE, CHEERS]

Javier Murillo has
turned the SEIU

into a political force
over the past decade.

A recent Star Tribune profile
of Murillo noticed that, quote,

"he and his allies pushed a
statewide minimum wage hike

to passage, secured higher wages
for workers at the airport,

brought target corporation
to the negotiating table with

nonunion janitors, and played a
big role in getting Betsy Hodges

elected mayor of
Minneapolis," end quote.

Murillo was also a Democratic
superdelegate in 2016

as a member of the Democratic
National Committee.

Welcome, Javier.

[APPLAUSE]

In his role as Vice President
for Impact and External Affairs

at Wellstone Action,
Jessie Ulibarri

travels the country
helping organizations

and political leaders
develop their strength.

Jessie draws on his impressive
experiences in community

organizing and his service
in the Colorado State Senate,

where he served as a
senator for four years,

where he sponsored and passed 39
pieces of legislation focusing

on workers' rights,
affordable housing,

and ensuring voting
rights and access.

So I think you'll agree this
is a terrific panel with which

to discuss these issues.

[APPLAUSE]

And while I welcome
the panelists

to talk about their
successes, I hope

that they will also be
candid about their failures

and the challenges
that they face

and how they fit
with the challenges

of the Democratic Party today.

These are challenging times for
political parties and organizers

in America.

Today's focus is on
the Democratic Party,

but there's no doubt that the
political environment poses

challenges both for
parties and citizens alike.

Politics today are
deeply polarized.

The two parties are
farther apart than ever

on many policy issues
yet closely divided

in the electorate, fueling
the competitive and negative

political environment
that we encounter.

The amount of money in politics
has increased dramatically

over the past decade.

While the number of
competitive state and federal

legislative elections has
decreased because most districts

heavily favor one
party or the other.

Partisan identification
is powerful.

9 out of 10 people vote for
their party's candidate,

and Americans have increasingly
negative views about people

of the other political party.

Americans consume
media that reinforce

their political beliefs, and
they don't hear the other side.

Surveys reveal
that large numbers

of people in the
professions that often

lead to a run for public
office are turned off

by the negativity in politics
and the rigors of running

for office.

As has been noted,
the Democratic Party

has lost considerable
ground since 2008.

Democrats have 36% fewer
governors, 20% fewer state

legislators, 19% fewer house
members, and 10% fewer senators.

Examining the 2016
election results,

the two parties voting blocs are
comprised of different groups

more so than ever.

Working-class
white men have been

leaving the Democratic
Party for decades,

but the 2016 election showed
an increase in this flight.

More working-class white
men voted Republican in 2016

than in 2012, whereas
whites with college degrees

were actually more
likely to vote Democratic

than in the past
couple of elections.

In 2016, whites without
a college degree

comprised a third of the
electorate and exit polls

that Trump won them
by 39 percentage

points, a big increase
over Romney's 25% margin.

At the same time, while
loyalty to the Democratic Party

among people of color remains
high, turnout in key states

dipped in 2016.

Economic inequality
has been rising.

And as political scientist
Larry Bartels and others

have documented, this
inequality is the result

of political decisions,
policies enacted or not enacted,

especially when
Republican presidents have

been in the White House that
have advantaged the rich.

But Democrats don't seem to
have been effective in spreading

this message.

Why not?

Political science
research also shows

that racism, sexism,
and white identity

fueled Trump's victory, with
white working-class voters

over and above
economic concerns.

And indeed, there
is a long history

of populists on the right using
racist rhetoric to rally voters

against the establishment.

So how do you appeal to
voters on economic grounds

and stay true to
other key elements

of the Democratic platform?

I know this is a lot of
questions in these opening

remarks, but we'll now turn
to opening reflections.

[LAUGHTER]

Do you want to start?

JESSICA BYRD: Hi,
how's everyone doing?

Yes!

Clapping?

[LAUGHS] I'm so
happy to be here.

Thank you for having me.

That was an awesome
introduction.

Thank you to Kari
for inviting me here.

It's so good to see you all.

And this is such a hub
of activism and a place

that I've really looked to
for the last several years.

So it's also good to
just to be with you all

and be around this energy.

As you said, my name
is Jessica Byrd,

and I lead Three
Point Strategies.

We like to say that we are
the electoral political firm

of the movement for Black Lives.

We serve at the intersection
of social justice

and electoral politics.

But I didn't always start
with such a big title,

and I definitely didn't intend
to build my own business.

I'm from Columbus, Ohio, and
my mom was a poll worker.

And we grew up in a really poor
working-class neighborhood.

But in order to make
a little extra money,

she always worked the
polls on election day.

And I have this
really fond memory

of my dad taking me in
one hand and some Shea

butter in the other
and walking me

across the street to
our polling location

where my mom would do
my hair while she read--

while she crossed off voters who
were walking through the doors.

There was one time that
my dad did my hair,

and we weren't allowed
to do that anymore.

[LAUGHTER]

But I know Jessie can
do his daughter's hair,

so it's no slight
on dads at all.

But what happened, though,
as I was watching voters

walk in, treat my mom like
she had some serious power,

they would pull this big
red curtain behind them.

And I just was like,
what are they doing, Mom?

Like, how do they know
what's on that ballot?

How did they get here?

How do you know who they are?

My mom was the person in the
grocery store who people would

walk up to, like,
I promise, Barbara,

I'm going to get registered.

And I'm like, we
are poor, people

living in a poor community.

And somehow you seem
to have a lot of power.

And so I followed that.

And I kept asking
those questions

for a really long time, until
I joined my first campaign when

I was 17.

And I've been
positively addicted

to campaigns ever since.

And the idea that you have a
message, you have a demand,

you tell all your
neighbors about it,

you run around in
your community,

and with understanding
your win number,

you can actually
win and transform

your communities, which has
always been and still remains

like the north star
of why I'm still

and haven't given up
on electoral politics.

And so I took a pretty
Democratic route

for the first 10
years of my career.

And in 2014, during the--
when Mike Brown was murdered

in St. Louis, Missouri,
in August 9, 2014,

I was working at a
large Democratic PAC.

I was overseeing a candidate
recruitment program

that I had built in partnership
with Wellstone Action,

and I loved my work.

I loved it.

I had recruited over
100 women of color

to run for office, and--

[APPLAUSE]

And I loved it.

And I really was--

I really am
committed to the idea

that nontraditional
voices deserve

to have a place in
our political system.

But as I was watching--
yes, and I'm going

to tell you more about that.

More clapping to come.

[LAUGHS] I love this crowd too.

As I watched Twitter
blow up and as I watched

many of my friends, who
were activists at the time,

go out into the streets
and be tear gassed,

and I watched them stand in
front of tanks in their cities,

as I watched them organize
under extreme duress,

I just had to ask myself
whether I was truly

doing electoral work in the
most unapologetic way possible.

And at the time, in 2014,
the answer to that question

was no, I wasn't, that my
electoral work was beating

Republicans, and that
wasn't enough to transform

our communities.

And so I left my
job, and I decided

to start my own firm to
essentially contribute

to the movement.

And the only skill
that I had been

working on for the last 10
years, which was electoral work.

And so I started to build
and to test whether or not

we could take this movement
energy, what we were doing

in the streets, the way
that we were winning

and building and demonstrating
to people what power looked

like, whether I could test that
by turning some of those folks

into campaign managers.

And so I've trained
hundreds of people of color

to lead campaigns.

I wanted to see if we could
take activists and turn them

into candidates.

And so I've trained hundreds of
candidates to run for office.

And thankfully,
just this past year,

the movement for
Black Lives asked

that Three Point Strategies
expand and become

the official electoral arm of
the movement for Black Lives.

And that's what we're
building right now.

[APPLAUSE]

So I lead a team of all
Black political operatives

that are serving specifically
to build the electoral capacity

of Black organizers,
Black leaders who believe

that electoral politics
is a tool on the path

to liberation and
freedom from violence

and state-sanctioned violence.

I'll tell you a little bit
more about that in a moment.

But I feel like
what we were asked

to do in this intro is
just to tell us a bit--

tell you all the big
questions that we're really

grappling with.

And for me, the big questions
that we're grappling with,

and I feel like the
movement for Black Lives

is really grappling with, is
how to take electoral politics

and not just make
it transactional but

transformative.

How to take a system that
has left out so many voices

and for so many of
us, we feel not only

extracts from our communities
but exploits our voices.

How to make that justice work.

How can electoral work
truly be justice work.

How do we take the
passion and the rigor

and the discipline that we have
when organizing in the streets

into the ballot box and to
demonstrate to people how

we can really change
their communities?

How can we kick the ass of the
political industrial complex

that continues to
rake us over the coals

by spending hundreds
of millions of dollars

on tools that don't work, and
losing and putting our lives

in very imminent danger?

How can we ensure that the
voices of our communities

are the voices that we
listen to at all times?

And I think those questions for
me, also brought me to a place,

as I'm sitting on
this stage and excited

to be a part of
this conversation,

that economic inequity can
never, ever be divorced

from race, not on this stage--

[APPLAUSE]

--not in any classroom,
not in our elections.

To divorce our economic equality
questioning, understanding

how to get it right
means that we also

have to be students of history.

And we've heard a lot of
history on this stage so far.

But what's so interesting is how
little we've talked about race.

When we know that even
the 13th Amendment,

even the ratification
of the 13th Amendment,

saying that emancipation-- the
Emancipation Proclamation that

said that Black people, whose
bodies this economy was built

on, could no longer be
indentured servants,

that we should go into the
workforce and have our rightful

place.

That was the rise
of the KKK to deny

the fact that stay your place--

stay-in-your-place violence
happens any time people of color

have progressive advancements
is to be ahistorical,

it's to be irresponsible,
and it's dangerous.

[APPLAUSE]

So I'll just close by
saying, I plan to bring that

to this conversation.

I plan to talk about
identity because I

think that it's the most
powerful thing that we have,

is our stories, who
we are, who our people

are, who our culture
is, why we're fighting,

why our bodies are
at extreme risk,

why public policy is
centering on our bodies.

And so I intend to tell you
more about electoral justice

as well as how we can achieve
a reflective democracy.

[APPLAUSE]

JAVIER MURILLO: So
I am Javier Murillo.

I am president of Local 26.

We are a union of janitors,
security officers, window

cleaners here in the
Twin Cities area.

And I am really so thrilled
to be here and so thrilled

that Kari asked me to come.

And thank you, Kari, because
I feel very deeply connected

to the Wellstone tradition.

Although I know that many
of you in this room tonight

knew Paul Wellstone
or Paul and Sheila.

That was not my experience.

I moved to Minnesota in
2000, originally to teach.

I taught at Carleton
and then at Macalester.

And in the fall of 2002, when
the country was heading to war

and Senator Wellstone was
the only incumbent running

for reelection who voted
against the Iraq War

resolution, my partner, John,
and I with some other friends,

decided to host a
fundraiser for the Senator.

And that fundraiser was
scheduled for Saturday.

And on Friday, we were
out shopping for it

when we got a call from a
friend saying that the senator's

plane had gone down.

We were in the midway on
that horrible gray day

and drove to the campaign
office because John remembered

that we were near there.

We stopped for a candle
because that's what people do.

And I've since seen
video of that day

of people beginning to gather.

And I now see friends
that I now know,

but back then, we knew no one.

And we did host that
fundraiser but--

and I just felt so--

after everyone left, we
were sitting on our sofa

and was sobbing.

And I said to John, I
said, I feel so ashamed.

And he was surprised by the word
I used and said, why ashamed?

And I said, I feel like I
felt so well represented,

and we put too much on him.

And we need to do more.

And I didn't immediately get off
that couch and change my life,

but I eventually sort of did.

By the end of that school year,
academia and I parted ways.

And I started working
as an organizer

and volunteered obsessively
on political campaigns.

And then when I was hired by
SEIU as a political organizer,

I thought it was a
first job in politics,

not a first job in
the labor movement,

and certainly not
putting me on a path

to become president of a union.

But being in a leadership
position in the union

and in this particular
union for me,

has really transformed
my way of thinking

about how we do politics.

And I had felt, as an
academic, that I just

felt too divorced from reality.

And I wanted to
work in organizing.

But what I realized in working
in negotiating contracts with

working-class people of color--

and let me just say right now
that working-class people--

when we say working
class and assume

that they are white people,
that is a really big problem.

[APPLAUSE]

And that's when we work
and negotiate contracts,

that you have to
be really grounded

in the reality of people.

You can't live in the
sky in terms of policy.

And that's what I treasure
about the work that I do.

And so through the
work in the union,

I've also done a lot
of work in politics

and Democratic politics.

I cringed a little when
Kathryn reminded everyone

that I was a superdelegate
last year because that

was really unpleasant.

[LAUGHTER]

For the record, I think
they should be abolished.

And I said that when
I was one of them.

[APPLAUSE]

But--

KATHRYN PEARSON: This
is going to be fun.

JAVIER MURILLO: Yeah.

But one of the things that I
find frustrating about the way

that we talk about politics
and elections in movement

work, and I want to be
clear, that's my perspective

in politics.

I work on campaigns.

I advise a lot of candidates.

I work in politics pretty much
obsessively but from a movement

perspective.

And from a movement
perspective, elections

are one thing that we do in
movement and not necessarily

the most important thing.

It's a very important thing,
but it's not the only thing.

And when you think of it
that way, that means to me,

I'm not searching for heroes.

I'm not searching for pure
people who I am-- who will just

do what I need them to do.

I know that whoever
we get elected,

we need to hold accountable.

And sometimes the best thing
that we can do for our friends,

for our friends, once they
are in elected office,

is annoy them a little and
be that pain in their sides.

[LAUGHTER]

Got myself.

And so that has been
one of my lessons

in how I look at politics.

Now I'll also say, just
for this panel, that I--

so I've lived in
Minnesota now 17 years.

So for all of you Minnesotans,
yes, I'm a newcomer.

[LAUGHTER]

And I am Puerto Rican.

And so I get into trouble
a lot in Minnesota

because sometimes when I
speak, I say what I mean.

[LAUGHTER, APPLAUSE]

And so I'm going to do
that right now and say

that my biggest frustration
with the analysis of the 2016

elections is the insanity
that has enveloped

our party since the election, to
say that-- with so many voices

saying that the problem has
been that the party relied

too much on identity politics.

Let me be very clear.

2016 was a banner year
for identity politics,

for white identity politics.

Donald Trump ran on
identity politics.

What people call
identity politics

is people who look like
us, asserting our rights.

KATHRYN PEARSON: That's right.

[APPLAUSE]

And so when we say that
identity politics is

the problem of the party,
that's what I hear,

that the problem is us
asserting our rights.

And where that comes
from is an analysis that

when we look at race--

and we just talked-- we
heard a lot on this stage,

there are many
things that I agree

with the first presentation
about how Democrats missed

an opportunity in 2008, 2009.

But when we can go
through an entire history

of the last few years
and not talk about race,

not identify this as a
driving force of this country

and of the 2016 election,
we have a very big problem.

And that is what leads to
this very simplistic analysis

that it's either class or race.

When you're a person of
color in this country,

you don't get to choose
between those two.

And so I just think
that as we look,

as we move forward and talk
about how we move forward

as a party, let us begin by
doing away with these facile,

completely facile
interpretations

that somehow it's one
thing or the other.

It is all these things.

And we need to address the
racial dynamics and the gender

dynamics of the 2016 election.

[APPLAUSE]

And that is not to
just replay history

or replay the old battles.

And moving forward
requires an analysis

of what we've been through.

And an analysis of what
we've been through,

especially the 2016 election,
must begin with racism,

must begin with misogyny.

And then let's move
forward from there.

[APPLAUSE]

JESSICA BYRD: Oh, yeah.

JESSIE ULIBARRI: Thank you.

So I get to be on this amazing
panel that is young, brilliant,

brown, and gay.

And I love it so much right now.

My name is Jessie
Ulibarri, and I'm

the vice president of
Impact and External Affairs

for Wellstone Action.

So although I'm not rooted
here, I live in Pittsburgh now,

this is part of my adopted home.

So who here has been to
a Camp Wellstone before?

Some of you all?

That's great.

So we train folks every single
day to step into their power,

to take back their communities,
and to change the choices

in electoral politics,
public policy, and community

organizing.

It is the legacy of Paul
and Sheila Wellstone

that we actually changed
the world by our actions.

It is us stepping forward
into our own power.

And then when folks
actually don't move forward

when they don't do the right
things, we can replace them.

That's actually how
a democracy works.

So let me tell you a
little bit about my story

and why I'm so excited
to be on this panel,

because I totally agree with
what my panelists just said.

And I'm ready to have
this conversation

fully in the light of day.

You know that saying, some man's
trash is another man's treasure,

I am trailer treasure.

I grew up just north of
Denver, Colorado in a community

called Commerce City.

It is surrounded by an oil
refinery, coal-fired power

plant, five landfills, and
the Rocky Mountain arsenal,

which still holds chemical
waste from our chemical weapons

program.

I grew up in a trailer
right in the middle of that.

So when you just said, we can
never divorce race and class

and gender, my community,
which was predominantly

folks of color, predominantly
immigrant, predominantly

refugee, lived there.

And the decisions, land use,
policy decisions, the desires

to give tax credits to oil
companies and coal-fired power

plants happen in
my neighborhood.

It is my cousins and my
kids that have asthma

because of those decisions.

So growing up in that community
and living that experience,

it was never a possibility that
we could divorce race, class,

and gender and be a
little fancy boy who

loved to read sci-fi novels,
talk about sexual orientation,

too.

When we say identity
politics, it

is actually about living
into our full humanity.

It is politics of conviction,
the way that Paul and Sheila

talked about it.

Be true to yourself
and your beliefs.

And that's what folks are
calling for in this moment.

I have the great
honor and privilege

of working with an
amazing team of trainers

who go across the country.

And they meet people
where they're at,

people who've never
before organized

and don't know what it
means to try and advance

a city council policy
agenda, what it looks

like to try and run for
office for the first time,

don't come from
wealth, people like me.

Last night, I was loving that I
got to eat with Vice President

Mondale and Senator Klobuchar,
but I was the only person

of color in a room of 20 folks.

That has to change, y'all.

It just has to change.

[APPLAUSE]

So I'll give you my quick story
into how I got into this work

and then why I train
and do what I do.

As a student at the University
of Colorado Boulder,

I got involved in
politics young.

I ran my first voter
registration drive in 2000

when I was 17.

And it was because I couldn't
vote against George W. Bush.

But I made sure every single
18-year-old in my high school

class could.

[LAUGHTER]

So I had a little
chip on my shoulder.

Going to college, the
first person in my family

to go to a four-year university.

And when I was
there, I realized I

was one of a handful
of students of color.

In 2003, it was the
first time I got

to testify in a committee at
our state legislative body,

and it was for our
in-state tuition

for undocumented students.

So many of the kids
I had grown up with,

who were my close friends
from the earliest ages,

were not able to go
forward to get a university

degree like I did, simply
because of where they were born.

And I went and testified.

I was so excited, and
I got to be there.

And this was a
Republican-controlled committee.

We had a Republican
governor at the time.

But I still was able
to go speak my piece.

That's part of what we
do in our democracy.

I testified.

Others testified.

And I left without consequence.

But every single
undocumented person

who testified in that
committee was reported to DHS

at the time, ICE, by
the committee chairman.

[GROANING]

That was my first experience
with our democracy.

And I said, geez, it
will get better, right?

I'll just work harder, and the
Democrats will do something.

So in 2006, when we finally
got a Democratic majority,

what did they do?

They passed me a
show-me-your-papers law.

They outlawed in-state
tuition and did everything

in their power to exclude our
community in a special session

to win elections, not to
exercise their power, not

to exercise their core beliefs.

And I said, this is the party
that I fought so hard for.

This is the party that I ran in
2004 voter education campaign

for youth, not using a voter
file but using census maps.

This is the love of my life.

This is what I want to do.

And this party is
breaking my heart.

But I stayed committed.

I went to Washington, DC.

I worked for a
member of Congress

on comprehensive
immigration reform,

as my whole state was
doing the opposite thing.

Fast forward a few
more years in 2010,

and we're still going through
the impacts of the recession.

And our Senate Democratic
caucus in the state legislature

was having a debate, not
the full Senate, the Senate

Democratic caucus, about
getting rid of tax exemptions

for corporations or the
free breakfast program

for hungry kids.

Those were the choices that our
Democratic party were making.

And I said, there's no way
that this is the party--

[CHUCKLES] of the people.

We need to change it.

So when I had an opportunity to
run for office, I did in 2012.

[APPLAUSE]

I became the youngest person
elected to the state Senate

at the time.

And I ran because I
knew I could actually

change the course
of human events side

by side with my community,
because I had been organizing

with my community.

And that's maybe the
biggest challenge.

We actually need people
every single day,

not just during a campaign to
be talking to their neighbors,

engaging in deep
conversations about how

to move things forward.

So in my first
year in the Senate,

we passed that
in-state tuition bill.

I got to chair the full
Senate when it passed.

Guess what, I also got
to pass the largest

investment in affordable
housing in the state's history.

I got to pass the earned income
tax credit for working families.

I got to make sure that
civil unions happen.

So, folks, if they
got a raise, weren't

fired because of the ring,
they wore on their hand,

like me and my husband.

This is what it means to
live into our politics.

And so we just
heard, and I agree,

we can't look at
2016 in a vacuum

and just say it's about
the economy, stupid.

Let's look at the history that
was presented by Mr. Frank.

And I want to offer
a complementary view.

We talked about 1968, and
look, a conservative revolt.

But what happened in 1968?

The Civil Rights Act,
round of assassinations.

Martin Luther King,
Jr. at the time

was at a sanitation
workers strike,

saying that we must
work on race and class

together, that we all do
better when we all do better.

Doesn't just mean the New Deal,
which allowed some people's

incomes to rise while they
were segregated communities

and redlining happening
under the New Deal.

We all do better.

When we all do better means we
all do better when we all F-ing

do better.

I want to add that
word in there.

[APPLAUSE]

So 1968, we talked about
this conservative backlash

without talking about race.

And somehow, magically,
we fast forwarded to 1980

where we also didn't talk
about the Willie Horton

ads or the crack epidemic or any
other thing that was impacting

communities of color, just as if
the conservative attack wasn't

actually about white
identity politics.

And then let's fast forward
to the contract of America,

and the convergence
of the moral majority,

and white nationalism,
and welfare queens.

This has always been
about race and class.

KATHRYN PEARSON: Always.

JESSIE ULIBARRI:
Let's go to 2010.

It wasn't just 2010
happening in the vacuum

of an economic recession.

We had our first
Black president.

JESSICA BYRD: My God!

[LAUGHTER]

JESSIE ULIBARRI: And this
is where we will fail,

and this is one of the most
concerning things to me.

If we can only imagine talking
about economics, divorced

from race and gender and all
of the other power structures

that influence our
lives, we will lose.

We will lose our base.

We will lose on policy.

And those of us who
aren't lucky enough

to live with all that
privilege won't do better.

That's what's at stake.

Our parties are in disarray.

They're not well organized.

And we're in a
challenging moment.

But let's be honest, we've been
here for a long, long time.

KATHRYN PEARSON: That's right.

[APPLAUSE]

Thanks to all three panelists.

We've started with some really
powerful remarks and examples.

And all three of you, either
directly or indirectly,

have posed some real tensions
between grassroots organizing,

particularly around
issues of race and gender

and the Democratic Party.

So if we're thinking from the
Democratic Party's perspective

and the number one goal
is winning in 2018,

winning in 2020, and winning
means mobilizing the base,

and winning also
means getting voters

who voted for Obama in 2008
and Trump in 2016 back.

So what's the message?

How do you fit with
the Democratic Party

with this strategy,
operationally, ideologically?

What are the tensions, and
would you ever support primaries

from the left?

JESSIE ULIBARRI: Yes.

JAVIER MURILLO: Yeah.

JESSICA BYRD: Yeah.

[LAUGHTER]

My whole work is primaries
on the left, so yes.

Oh, am I starting?

KATHRYN PEARSON: Sure.

JESSICA BYRD: OK,
I'll get started,

and then I hope that
this is a conversation.

So I would say a few things.

I want to finish me saying
my whole work is primaries,

nonetheless, not to
be just antagonistic,

but because people of
color, we live in cities,

and we live in the South.

And the places where we
can access the ballot box

is in places where white
men are already serving.

And that's just the truth.

90% of elected leaders in
this country are white.

65% of them are men.

Only 5% of elected
leaders are Black people.

And we also, when engaging
in electoral politics,

completely leave the
South on the table

where 40% of Black people live.

And so my whole job is
to clear boulders out

of the road for Black
people and people of color

who are attempting to
access our democracy.

And that means that we
have to beat the people who

are protecting power.

And so I believe a few things
to answer your question.

One is I think that we
have to get really, really

comfortable with the fact that
folks who have been left out

of the system are making
demands now to be a part of it.

And so the only thing
I know about power

is that in order for
some people to have it,

others have to give it up.

And so that means--

[APPLAUSE]

--one is that we need to
have people power campaigns.

I'm sure we're going to
talk about that a lot.

And I feel like we
overuse that term.

But what I mean is that
our communities have

been saying what they need
for a really long time,

and we're not listening.

We're not responding to all
of the negative campaign

ads that are on TV.

We're not responding
to the ways in which

multimillion-dollar
campaigns are

being done in our communities.

We're responding when we
feel like our neighbors are

connecting to us around a
very clear message about how

we engaging in a specific
action, such as voting, showing

up to a protest, showing
up to an event, actually

helps us to move the
ball forward around what

we want in our lives.

That's when we're showing up.

And so I think
that means one, is

we need to figure out
how we challenge the DC

political consultant
class around its media

and around the way that we are
spending so much money online.

We also need to challenge
the fact that even

our progressive institutions
say that money is the only

viable way that a person can
think about running for office,

that having the most money,
raising the most money,

spending the most money.

And we have to challenge that by
saying that we're no longer cost

per voter's.

We're actually human beings
that have very specific issues,

and we need you to talk to
us about them year round.

[APPLAUSE]

And then I think that we have
a very, very, very real problem

right now with our
news and our media.

And it's complete
irresponsibility

around getting us the
information that we need.

And the way that
some of us also play

into the noisiness of the
way that we get information

to our friends and our neighbors
and actually start to educate

each other on the facts.

JESSIE ULIBARRI: I'd love
to add something to it too.

[APPLAUSE]

So I think one of the things
that we have to do in 2018,

2020, yes, we have to
see primaries emerge,

and we have to see people
actually step into their power.

And the value of
that in changing

what our democracy looks like
is not just an act of diversity.

It is actually
changing the substance

and the form of elected office.

And I want to give an example
specifically in Baltimore.

So in Baltimore, we were hosting
a Camp Wellstone just outside--

actually in Virginia.

And state legislator
Cory McCray had

sent a group of young
activists, people

who had been working in
their communities, and said,

you should go to Camp Wellstone.

And that weekend was
transformative to them, not just

because of our
wonderful trainings,

but it was also because
that was the day that there

was information in the tape
released of Freddie Gray's

death, his murder.

I'll correct my word.

And there were young folks
there who said, this is my city.

And riots erupted, which is
the language of the oppressed.

That's how Martin says it.

And those folks said we couldn't
just go back and organize.

We actually have to change
the power structures.

And so this young
crew of folks said

that they were going to run
for city council together.

They all lived in
different wards.

And they ran, and they won.

And they took over city council.

And I think one
person in particular,

her name is Shannon Sneed, she
was 8 and 1/2 months pregnant

when she was knocking on
doors the last few weeks

of the election.

She had her kid just like
three days after the election

and showed up to be sworn in
with her kid on her stomach.

She was there, and
she was the person

fighting for an increase in the
minimum wage to $15 an hour.

That progressive
majority is also

taking on the police department.

We can walk and chew gum, y'all.

We can.

We can do it.

But the people in those
positions of power matter.

We have to be recruiting
people to challenge

our current structures,
because if they're not

serving our needs,
if politics is

not about the improvement
of people's lives, then

why are we doing it?

[APPLAUSE]

So Shannon shows up to
city council meetings

with her beautiful
newborn and talks

about what does it look
like to make a city more

accessible for families.

And that's not just about
having a family bathroom.

It's about living wages.

It's about changing the dynamics
where corporations run a city,

Under Armour specifically,
that big old corporation

in Baltimore.

We have to change the choices.

And if not, we're just being
complacent about the status quo.

We have to be
willing to do that.

One of the biggest challenges is
we hear oftentimes, especially

in entrenched party systems
and structures, wait your turn.

And our response is, well,
then do your damn job.

[APPLAUSE]

JAVIER MURILLO: I'll
just add one thing

from your question,
Kathryn, just about what

voters we should be chasing
for in 2018 and in 2020.

I think it's
important because we

talk about in the last
election, turnout.

I think you mentioned
some of the numbers

that white working-class men
voting more Republican than ever

before.

But in states in the
Midwest and the states

that were the margin,
what we actually--

what we saw in Wisconsin was
a decrease in and turnout,

general turnout, of
white voters included,

but a much bigger decrease
of African-American turnout.

But that word, "turnout,"
makes it sound like people just

didn't want to show.

We also had a voter
ID law in Wisconsin

that was designed
for specifically

to do what it
accomplished, which

was to keep Black
people from the polls.

And so--

[APPLAUSE]

And then what we have
seen since is this--

so the estimates are that
between 200 and 300,000 people

in Wisconsin don't have access
to the kind of government-issued

ID that's required.

Then there was a more recent
study that looked at who

actually was kept away and said
maybe 17,000 people actually

decided not to vote, or they
couldn't vote because they

didn't have ID.

And then there's this
debate about whether-- well,

is that the margin of victory?

And then I'm reading all
this debate back and forth

and thinking, this is insane.

Democrats are-- because it's
largely a Democratic debate--

are debating whether it was
17,000 that were suppressed

or 200,000 that are repressed.

And shouldn't we instead just
be saying that the suppression

period is a problem?

Voter access to voting should
be a core issue of our politics.

And we should be figuring out--

[APPLAUSE]

I mean, here in Minnesota, in
2012 when marriage is on the--

when the ban on
same sex marriage,

Republicans had looked at a
lot of different amendments

to put on the ballot.

And all of those that
they were looked at,

the progressive world had a
plan for, except voter ID,

everyone shrugged and said,
yeah, that's really popular.

And that campaign was taken on
by Congressman Keith Ellison

and by Minnesotans for a
fair economy, a table of SEIU

and our community partners,
community partners.

The marriage amendment, we spent
$11 million to defeat that.

The campaign for voter ID was a
ragtag group of organizations.

All the staff were
in-kind but one.

And we did not go up
on the air until late.

And we spent about $250,000
in ads at the time,

if I remember correctly.

And the point-- and we won
that by a larger margin,

and we won that across
Minnesota, in greater Minnesota,

with a message that worked
in greater Minnesota.

We can do this if we
are set on doing it.

And it's only when we shrug
and say that we can't.

And so we absolutely, I
think, just this issue

is so key for Democrats to
look at access to the ballot.

That's why they're doing it.

That is why they are doing it.

And they're not embarrassed
about saying it.

KATHRYN PEARSON: OK,
we're going to move now

to some questions
from the audience.

And I'm going to direct specific
questions to only one person.

And if you could try to answer
in a minute or so or less,

so we'll have room for
as many as possible.

Jessica, what advice do you have
for women trying to get involved

in the political realm?

And I'll just add that
a recent survey showed

that women were more likely
to be discouraged from running

for office after the 2016
election than encouraged,

whereas for men it
was the opposite.

JESSICA BYRD: So a
minute or less, OK.

So one thing is--

I would just say
you got to do it.

If you wait for
someone to ask you,

you're going to wait forever.

What we know is that there
are two things at work.

One is you have to put
together a campaign that

is connected to your values
as well as is competitive

and winning.

And I want to--

I know that there are a
few candidates in the room,

two of my favorite
are in the room.

So I'm just going to shout out
Erica Motter and Peggy Flanagan,

who are here, who are running
people-powered campaigns that

are centered around
their communities

and talking to voters
every single day.

And that's possible.

Use Google.

Honestly, don't wait
for some magical person

to give you all of the answers.

The internet does have them.

It's confusing, but
it does have them.

Check out your Secretary
of State's website.

Go to the Board of
Elections website.

Folks try to
intentionally confuse us

by changing the rules a lot.

They're not going to
confuse you though.

You're going to
write them all down.

You're going to know how much
it costs to file for office.

If you have to get a certain
amount of signatures,

plan in advance.

And then what I would say
is take your cell phone.

And I want you to upload it.

You might have
already done this.

But turn it into an
Excel spreadsheet

while you're watching scandal or
whatever your favorite show is.

Turn on Parks and.

Rec Leslie Knope is my hero.

You're going to
start to organize

the hundreds of contacts that
I know that some of you have.

That's your army.

Those are the folks who
you're going to call first.

If even 10 of those people
would jump up and down

at the thought of you saying
you would run for office,

you should fucking run.

And then--

[LAUGHTER]

--two, I just wanted to name
in probably my over a minute

is there are very real
structural barriers that

are intended to keep
us from running.

We should run anyways.

So you're going to
deal with gatekeepers

who tell you that you're not
whatever enough in order to run.

You're going to deal with
maps that the numbers don't

make sense and doesn't
feel like it's your time.

Run anyways.

You're going to find
that raising the money

is really, really, really hard.

And you're also going
to find that getting

your voters to the
polls on election day

is way harder than it should be.

But the more of us run,
the more that we can get

inside those places, the
more of us can be like Jessie

and can actually change
that from the inside,

so please do it.

KATHRYN PEARSON: Thank you.

[APPLAUSE]

A question to Javier.

As a young activist working for
left candidates in this city,

there are people in this room
who question whether people

like me or Democrats.

Can young people
count on Democrats

to promote our interests?

JAVIER MURILLO: That's
a great question.

So I think-- this is also an
aftermath of the 2016 election.

And when I see what's going
on with the national party,

one of the things that's
very depressing to me

is I feel like that
the very real divisions

within the Democratic Party
are not only not being healed,

but they seem to be cementing.

And that is a real problem.

I thank god that
Keith Ellison is

willing to serve as vice chair.

And I hope he's able to
build more power in the DNC,

because he is someone who
can lead us in healing.

[APPLAUSE]

What we are seeing, I think,
and I will say-- so I said--

let me say what may not
be obvious to everyone.

But when I said that
being a superdelegate

was really unpleasant
last year is because I

was a Clinton supporter.

And so I had lots and lots of
voicemails and text messages

and whatever from a lot
of people really mad

at me from Sanders supporters.

And I think that what the
primary divisions have masked

for a lot of Democrats
is understanding

that young people
being energized

around progressive ideas
is only a good thing.

[APPLAUSE]

I go back always to when
President Obama signed

the executive order
DACA, the Deferred

Action for Childhood Arrivals.

I've worked on immigrant
rights for a very long time.

In 2010, I led SEIU's
national immigration campaign.

We as a movement, the
immigrant rights movement,

shushed the dreamers
all the time.

The dreamers who we
elected, Barack Obama,

and the administration said,
we'll do health care first,

then we'll get to
immigration reform.

And the mainstream
immigrant rights movement

behaved ourselves.

And we waited, and
we never got it.

The dreamers did not
behave themselves.

They kept doing sit-ins.

They polarized on their friends.

KATHRYN PEARSON: That's right.

JAVIER MURILLO:
And the one victory

that we have had in recent
history on immigrant rights

movement-- in the
immigrant rights movement

was that executive order.

And it was a big lesson for me.

It was a lesson for
me, first, it was like,

oh, I guess I'm old now.

[LAUGHTER]

And how did I know
that I was old?

Because I didn't listen
to the young people who

were saying this was possible.

And I am not at all-- this is
a lesson that as we get older,

I think we have to
keep relearning.

But I think it is
only a good thing.

Now, I will also say to my
young brothers and sisters

that we need to be in dialogue.

We need to be in
conversation, that there are

things about the experience--

I feel like I--

there are things that we
can learn from each other.

But I think that people are
pushing the party to the left

and be more representative.

Hallelujah and
welcome and thank you.

[APPLAUSE]

KATHRYN PEARSON:
And finally, we just

have time for one more question.

This is to Jessie.

What can we learn, both positive
and negative, from the Bernie

Sanders campaign?

JESSIE ULIBARRI: So I think
what we can learn from Bernie

and other candidates
who are running

for state and local
office, who are

winning right now in elections
or heading into elections

in just a couple of
weeks, is that we actually

have to set a competing
vision and actually, inspire

folks and not just scare them.

We saw that with Bernie.

We saw that with Paul,
that politics really

should be about the
improvement of people's lives.

And what I'll say,
my stepson is 19.

So he grew up with
ever present war.

He grew up through
the Great Recession.

And we keep talking
about these wonder years

when things were good,
that he has never seen.

He's only lived under
cloudy, gray skies.

And we keep saying, well, it
is actually blue up there.

Just one day you'll see it.

And he'll say, I have no idea
what you're talking about.

And we keep pointing out
how gray those clouds are,

and it does nothing to
inspire his confidence.

We have to set a
vision that actually

does say we believe in
our public structures.

It's not going to be Amazon
relocating their headquarters

somewhere that's
going to save a city.

What if we just invested in
our damn roads and schools

and institutions?

[APPLAUSE]

And what would it look like
for all of us to be free?

Kari sang us that song
that every generation

has to fight for freedom.

What would it look like if
Black and brown and white folks

and queer folks and young
people and old people

actually lived with dignity
in this country together?

What would that look like?

[APPLAUSE]

That's the vision
we have to inspire.

And I see it in
city council races.

I see it on school board races.

I see it in state
legislative races.

And we got to see a lot of it
from two candidates on the left

last year, too.

KATHRYN PEARSON: Thank you.

Well, thank you so much to our
panelists, Jessica Byrd, Javier

Murillo, and Jessie Ulibarri.

This was a really terrific
discussion and very insightful.

And thanks to the audience.

[APPLAUSE]

JEFF BLODGETT: Thank
you, panelists.

Thank you, Kathryn.

Really terrific discussion.

It's break time.

We're running a little bit late,
so we're going to try to get

back here at 3:20, folks.

3:20 if you can so that
we can stay on schedule.

So break time until 3:20.

[CHATTER]