Extended Interview: Abdul El-Sayed

So, I have some questions for you that. are. pretty close to identical to questions. that I asked your opponent. And we're. going to start with some of those. Why are you running for US Senate? >> Shouldn't be this hard. Shouldn't be this hard in the richest. most powerful country in the world to. afford a tank of gas. or your groceries, or to pay your rent. or your mortgage. Shouldn't be this hard. to see a doctor. And it doesn't have to. be. It's a choice we make about what. kind of politics we have. Right now, we've watched politicians. get bought off by big corporations. And.

those corporations have their way in. Washington, D.C. And it means they do. two things. They suppress our wages, they raise our prices, and we end up. bearing the brunt of it. I'm a doctor. who rebuilt health departments, put. glasses on kids, took on corporate. polluters, eliminated medical debt. I. know I'm not supposed to run for office. I got an 11-letter first name, it's got. sounds that come out of parts of. people's throats most people don't know. they have. But I also know it just shouldn't be. this hard. And so, you know, we built. this campaign the old-fashioned way, going everywhere, talking to everyone. And I believe in that kind of politics. And if we're going to actually get our. democracy back, it's going to be that.

kind of politics. Democracy is a. process, not an outcome. And it's about. working the process. >> Out of that range. of issues and ideas, what is the most important issue that. you hear about from Michigan voters in. this campaign? Pick one. >> Had you asked me 5 years ago, I'd have. said healthcare. It still is really, really high on people's. minds. I think right now we are barreling. toward a world where the most important. issue I hear about every day is AI. It is foundationally going to change our.

economy and change our economy at a time. scale that we cannot adapt to. And if. that happens, or if AI slips human. control, or gets taken by some terrorist. group who wants to create a bioweapon, or it ends up in an arms race where we. end up, you know, winning but then. losing half of what it meant to win in. the first place, which is preserving. humanity, all of these outcomes are. really, really quite scary. I hear it in. so many different ways. >> Yeah, tell tell me about that. Do you. I mean, this has been a very important. elite-level conversation over the last. couple years, but are you about it on.

the trail? >> It comes in in two different ways. One. is students saying. so I just took $60,000 in loans and the. job that I was supposed to have on the. back end doesn't exist anymore or might. not exist in 10 years. Or it's folks in. rural communities who say they're trying. to put a data center in my backyard. I. already can't afford my utilities and. I'm worried about what it's going to. mean for our water. These are These are issues that people. are definitely afraid of and it shows up. in just. all kinds of ways. But I also think that, you know,

it goes back to the health care. question, too. You know, they promised. us that AI was going to cure cancer. I. haven't seen a cure for cancer yet, but. now it's being used in this arms race. around prior authorization. This arms. race between hospitals and insurance. companies to figure out who can bill. more or pay less for health care that's. getting whittled away and we forgot what. the point was, which is to provide. people care, not to make money for a few. large corporations. It all kind of. really goes back to the same issue, which is why I want to get money out of. politics. They put money in pockets. >> So make it for all. >> Conveniently, that's this was also one. of the questions that I had for Mike.

Rogers, which was what should Congress. do. about the risks of AI? >> I think there's a couple of things. Number one, we need a cabinet-level. agency that is going to. invest in and focus on regulating the. inside of the AI industry, kind of like. an FDA or an SEC. for AI. We need to also make sure that. there are no AI or AI no-gos, meaning AI. shouldn't fire a weapon, shouldn't fire. you, shouldn't be able to deny you. health care. When it comes to the corporations.

themselves, I think they need to be. divested from traditional big tech. They. need to be reborn, rebuilt as public. interest corporations. And I think we. need democratically appointed. >> Nationalized? >> Not nationalized, but democractically. appointed leadership at 50% of. the board. So you're talking about sort. of a a public-private. >> Right. And is that Is that about. democratic control? Is it about sharing. wealth? What's the goal? >> In part, it's going to be democratic. control, in part sharing wealth. The. other thing I think that needs to happen. is that you need 50% of their value held.

in what could quote it kind of be called. a sovereign wealth fund. Um, and the. point here is this. Number one, you need. to make sure that the risks that we are. barreling toward are thought through at. the at the board governance level. That. we're not just inadvertently following. this uh this this micro scale incentive. to create technologies that could kill. us all. And that if the CEOs are right. that this is going to potentially take. 50% of the white collar jobs in the. order of 5 to 10 years that part of the.

value that might be created isn't just. held by a few uh billionaires in San. Francisco, but instead uh is held in. part uh in the the the the wealth of the. federal government to be able to. reinvest in A the capacity for job. creation, but B the capacity to make. sure that folks who are pushed out of. the economy uh aren't left destitute. And then the last thing I'll say is that. we need the terms of engagement for data. centers. This really is where the rubber. hits the road for a lot of folks. And. those terms of engagement are the. following. Number one, you need. community benefits agreements that are.

negotiated in good faith transparently. uh with local communities with the. ability for the local community to say. we don't want this here. Two, if you're. going uh to put a project in a local. community, it cannot raise utility. rates. Three, it has to make sure that it. improves reliability. Some of that. revenue that's created goes to improve. reliability. Uh four, you cannot touch. our waterways at all. And five, all. union labor. And I think that terms of. engagement needs to exist at the federal. level. And until then, we need local and. state moratoriums. >> What about the frontier where. companies are pushing forward? Would you.

limit that? >> Full on pause. >> Full on pause. >> Okay. And what happens then? The the. instant question. What happens in if we pause and China. doesn't? >> See, I I just don't think that that's. a. I don't I don't take that as seriously. as a lot of people do. Here's why. A lot. of the frontier research is just. spoofing our models. >> China's research? >> China's research. And it'd be like, you. know, you're pulling a a skier on a. boat. And you speed up the boat and you're. like, the skier is still so close. We. got to speed up. Skier is still so.

close. Well, it's because you're pulling. the skier. And I think that's in part. what's happening, right? And they've. been very, very good at just mocking our. uh technology. So, I think if we slow. down, I think we've we'll find that a. lot of what China is doing is more about. the dispersion of this technology than. it is around on frontier research. And. at the same time, I think we need an. international treaty. I think we need to. be working with the Chinese cuz at the. end of. >> Cuz eventually eventually. [clears throat] the water skier can. still swim and catch up. >> I mean, that's where the analogy. >> Sorry, you're just just just running. running with the running with the. metaphor.

>> But eventually, yes, they they are going. to be able to hop on a jet ski and catch. up. But the the point that I'm making. here is that I think all of us are. interested in the preservation of. humanity, right? Because, you know, in. China there are humans, too, and we're. humans, too, and creating robots that uh. get to this point of recursive. self-improvement, kind of like that. horror point in Fantasia where you've. got the the mops with the buckets that. are self-creating. None of us want to. get there, and none of us want to see. what happens when you open Pandora's. Box, and all of a sudden AI has far. exceeded our control. So, I think we all. have an incentive to get this right, but.

to understand that we are going to have. to figure out how to work together, similarly to what we've done when it. came to other potentially um. uh humanity. risking uh technological endeavors, like. like nuclear power, to be able to. contain the potential threat, and work. together to make sure that we are. focused more uh on protecting humanity. than just simply what the micro-scale. incentives might look like. >> Set aside AI. Pick one economic issue that you think. should be the priority for the next. Congress.

>> Monopolies and oligopolies. We live in corporatism. We we don't live. in capitalism. I'm a capitalist. Capitalism is about the leveraging of. supply and demand to allocate capital. It's about free entry and exit into the. market. If you read Adam Smith, he'll. tell you that there's no market without. morals. He'll tell you that the biggest. risk to capitalism was never government. regulation, it was always monopoly and. oligopoly. And I think when you think. about the most lucrative sectors of the. economy, they are dominated by a few. very, very powerful corporations now. When you get a monopoly or oligopoly, it. has two clear powers in the economy. The.

first is the ability to in fact raise. prices on you, which is why we can't. afford so much of what we can't afford. And it has the power to suppress wages. They act as what economists call. monopsonists, meaning that they can. suppress. uh the effort for us to trade our labor. on a market to make a good living. And. so you're watching as. our ability to get paid for the work we. do is stagnating while the prices we pay. goes up. We solved this problem like. over 100 years ago.

And that was because we we created the. Federal Trade Commission. We empowered. it to break up monopolies. and oligopolies and we've basically. walked away from that and we've allowed. a lot of these huge corporations to be. able to accrue power. I'm going to. >> Just Just give me an example because. just one. one thing that has tended to happen in. these debates is that anti-monopolists. will identify a company and they'll say, "Look at Walmart, you know, it's. cornered the market on everything." And. then next thing you know, Amazon comes. along and Walmart doesn't look so.

powerful. Or in Silicon Valley, Facebook. looks dominant and then 5 years pass and. you have companies like Anthropic and. Open AI as dominant players. So what's. an example of a monopoly that you know, holds power over an extended period of. time in our era? >> I'll give you one example. Uh DTE, our. local utility. They have raised our rates faster. than in 46 other states over the past 20. years. They buy off almost every. politician in our state so that they all.

look the other way and they just make. money hand over fist and that comes out. of our back pockets. And rather than. invest that money in improving our. reliability, I mean, I lose power two or. three times a year for three or four. days at a time. That's one example. Similarly, everybody out there watching. probably has a phone in their pocket or. their purse. That phone is probably made by one of. two companies, Samsung or Apple. You think about the carriers on those. phones, probably AT&T, Verizon, or. T-Mobile. That's just one example. Similarly, you talked about Amazon. versus Walmart. Yeah, you're trading one.

oligopolist for another. And it's. actually a perfect example. The reason. that other one comes along is because. that one has no incentive to actually. compete and so they start to ossify. They don't really change their business. practices and you get another one that's. able to build a more powerful monopoly. on top of it. But either way, either. way, you don't have many players in the. game. It's not like people are choosing, do I go to Walmart or or Amazon or. another place? >> there are advantages of scale where. prices while, you know, bigness drives down prices for a lot of. people. Walmart drove down prices. Amazon drove down prices, right? >> Until they start driving them up. Right?

Until until Amazon basically becomes the. marketplace, can compete with any. product on its marketplace, can under. cut their price and then raise their. price because now they're the. monopolist. That's just not how the. system has worked. I mean, unfortunately, this is just a truth of. of economics that when you have a. monopoly, you are able to charge. whatever price you want to charge. Americans right now are not complaining. cuz things are too cheap. We're all. complaining cuz things are too. expensive. And I think that's a big part. of it. The other thing, you know, I. think we need is a union. I think unions.

are one of the most important antidotes. to monopsony, right? The ability of a. few. employers to set the price for what. they're going to pay in employment. Unions empower you to then stand up and. say, "Listen, we're going to. collectivize our labor and we're going. to make sure that if you're going to. suppress our wages, we are going to push. back." It's about leveraging exactly. those same economies of scale against. the corporations that have managed to to. to to lower our. overall wages. >> Could you describe your opponent. in the most fair-minded terms possible?

>> I think he's a man who at one point said. he wanted to serve publicly and then. started playing the game and got. addicted. I think, you know, for him. >> I'm not. >> I'm trying to be fair-minded. >> quite passes. >> I'm trying to be fair-minded. Look, I I. think at some point like I think early. on his career, he he really got into. public service for the right reasons. I. think at some point you start to play. the game and you start to take the rules. of the game as fixed. And the rules of. our game in politics are about taking. corporate money to do corporate bidding.

And then make money on the back end off. the same corporations you were. regulating. And I think he played that. game. It worked out really well for him. He made 14 million bucks and moved to. Florida, bought a mansion and two. yachts. And he's watching Donald Trump. play that game and make billions. So, he's like, I better get in while the. getting's good. I mean, look, I I don't. I think I think he's somebody who has. never asked why things are the way they. are. >> Okay. >> I think he's somebody who. for him it's just like I guess I guess. this is how it. >> I'll just say this was a challenging a. challenging question for both of you.

And leave it at that. Let's go into your. biography. Tell me how your family came. to the US. >> My dad wanted to make cars. And you know, he was the eldest son of. the smartest person I ever met who never. got to go to school. My grandmother. She. was 19 of 14. Raised. uh her six of eight kids to whom she. gave birth. Two died before the first. birthday. My dad was her eldest, so he. watched his two siblings pass before he. turned five. And he was a great student. And he. you know, I remember him telling me the. first time he saw a full-page spread in.

a magazine of a Corvette. And he was. like, I want to make that. And um. and that's what he did. He uh. >> How old was he when he came to the US? >> I think well, let's say he came in 1978. Uh. so, he's in early 20s. Um came to do a PhD at this university. at Wayne State. And uh. and became an automotive engineer. Worked at GM at the Tech Center. Um. helped to design 96 uh Corvette. And for. the car lovers out there, that was also. the engine that was put in the 96. Impala, which is the fastest boat you.

ever saw. And met and married my mom. She came to the United States. Uh they realized that after creating the. one thing that they ever created, which. was me, they had deep creative. differences and got divorced. Uh and. both remarried. I was raised by my dad. and my stepmom, Jackie. Uh she is a. daughter of the American Revolution from. Gratiot County, the middle middle of the. state. Uh she is the daughter of Jan and. Judy Johnson. I was siblings Jeff and. Jenny Johnson. You get the the picture. here. Um I should have been Jabduhl, but you. know, uh missed that boat. Um and you.

know, I I grew up with uh with my dad. and my stepmom uh and two siblings. I've. also got two other half-siblings on my. mom's side. >> What was it like growing up as a child. of immigrants in Michigan? >> Pretty great. I mean, I moved around a. lot, so I spent some of my childhood. years in Missouri, some of my childhood. years in. uh in Florida, uh but was back um by the. fifth grade. And, you know, people talk about. code-switching, right? Trying to figure. out like where you fit. I was raised in. this family where my dad is an Egyptian.

immigrant, my my stepmom's a daughter of. the American Revolution. Really. understanding these differences in. perspective and culture, but also coming. to understand how to sort of explain the. least common denominator of things. You. know, in a given summer, my my folks out. to Egypt um where I'd, you know, be the. only one in the family who went. Spend. like 4 months there with my teta, my. grandmother, uh my grandfather, my my. aunts and uncles, my cousins. And then I'd come back at the very end. of the summer uh to a cottage on a lake. in the middle of Michigan, Macomb. County. And the crazy thing about it is, you know, whether it was my teta Soad or.

my grandma Judy, one of the things you come to appreciate. is these two women could not have. imagined the lives that one another. lead, but I got to live. part of them with both. And I I remember. explaining one grandmother to the other. grandmother. But the thing about it is, when your. grandmother makes you your favorite. meal, kisses you on the forehead, tells. you it's going to be just fine, it feels the same. And those are the I. think the least common denominators of. what make us human. And so, in a lot of. ways, I've never been able to take for. granted that I was normal in any room I. walked into. Not one.

Not even my own house. And that's a gift because you get really. good at having to explain yourself and. having to understand how people. understand you. Um and I really. appreciate that. >> If you're elected, you'll be the first. Muslim senator. And you know, there's a lot of people. Muslim, Christian, otherwise who are. raised in a religion and it doesn't. stick. Why did faith stick for you? >> I think anybody of faith has on-again, off-again relationships with one's own. faith. Faith is a choice one makes every. day, right? And.

um in my younger years, I certainly. rebelled. uh um and it was something that that. kind of came back to me in college. Um. and I was sort of out from from. underneath my my family and trying to. make sense. uh of the world. And the thing about. faith is that it reminds you you're. small in the eyes. of God, right? And. when you realize that you are small. relative to everything else around you. You don't even need faith for this, but. like staring at the ocean does this. Staring at a mountain does this.

Thinking about how you fit within the. cosmos does this. And when you appreciate how small you. are and the fact that, you know, on. average, you know, you and I are. right around the same age, we're about. halfway done, right? Um, you start to to. think about like what what is it that I. mean here? And how does one's life make. meaning? And you start to realize that the things. that matter [clears throat] the most in. in the world are the ways that you. relate to the people around you. And you. know, like I said, I've never really. quite fit in anywhere, um, but I've.

always sought to find that least common. denominator, um, to ask, you know, what. does it mean to have the things that I. had? I had a front row seat to what my. life should have been. I was, you know, born in the United States of America. I. got to go to amazing public schools. I. got to get go to get a medical. education. I got to, you know, go to. Oxford on a a scholarship. Those are. opportunities my cousins couldn't. imagine. Crazy thing about it though is. I could go 15 minutes from where I grew. up. and there were kids growing up in this. city whose opportunity sets looked a lot. more like my cousins than mine. And you start to think, okay, what is my.

responsibility to my fellow humans. around understanding that I am small and. insignificant in the the broader eyes. And it's also a discipline. It's a it's. a way of orienting your life. I know. you're a devout Catholic. And it's it's. those rituals that you can touch to that. help to provide a certain subtext of. meaning, a baseline almost, uh, in the. song of your life. And it's always been. really meaningful for. >> Tell me tell me something about how that. faith shapes your politics. And tell me. something that is. like Catholicism or Judaism specific to.

Islam. >> You know, there is this, uh, notion of speak the truth even if it be. against yourself. And I try to be like radically honest. You know, for me I've always tried to. find the. incoherence of a thing to to try and see. it and look at it. Um, and I think I bring that to my politics. every single day. What are the. inconsistencies that we hide from in our. politics? What are the places where. we're not quite consistent with what we. say we want to do? Let's talk about.

those things. And that honesty, I think, is really really important. There's also. just a command to justice. There's this. saying of the prophet, peace be upon. him, he said, um. "I was commanded to be. uh charitable with my neighbor so much. that I thought that when I died, my. neighbor would inherit my wealth.". And that notion of just charity, I know. it's shared by so many of the great. faiths, um but that that sort of notion. of like the responsibility that you have.

to the person next to you, with whom you. share the space, and the responsibility. to be honest and direct, even if you're. speaking against yourself, those are. things that I take really seriously and. I try to bring to my politics. And at. the same time, you know, as a person of. faith, um. you know that the the beauty of this. place is that you and I love our. country. And despite the fact that your faith. might be different than mine, there's a. lot that we share and some few things. that we don't. It's amazing to me that in this country, neither your faith nor mine, nor somebody else's, gets to dictate how.

we live our lives. That's an amazing. thing. I mean, you know, my family um immigrated from a. place where you don't have the freedom. of your speech. And as a kid growing up as a Muslim, especially somebody who experienced 9/11. uh as a junior in high school, where I had to become a lot more aware. of what my faith identity meant for me, it's an amazing thing that in this. country we have the freedom of our. religion. And nobody gets to read their. faith into the law to the exclusion of. anybody else, whether you're a person of.

faith or person with no faith at all. And that's a civic that's a civic faith, a civic religion, um that in this. country, as we practice our politics, we. have to cling onto. That is, again, that. lowest common denominator of what makes. us all American. >> Let's talk about ideas of justice in. politics. You ran for office uh in 2018, right, for the first time. You were. endorsed by Bernie Sanders in that race. I know you like to say, "I'm a. capitalist." You've said it already in. this interview. Were you ever a socialist?

>> No. I'm not a I'm too much of a scientist to. actually believe in any sort of. ideology. Like, at the end of the day, any of these things are really about. like process. Even as a capitalist, right? Like, I'm not a capital C. capitalist. I'm a capitalist who. understands that like a really good way. to be get the most value is to enable. people to have the basic means and then. if they've got a great idea and the. wherewithal to work, they can create. really. really cool things with that. You see it. work every single day. And so like I I. just don't do ideology. I'm like a.

person of faith and everyone else brings. evidence. And so there are things that. seem to me to be quite obvious. So like. Roth as a point, right? The idea that you should have guaranteed. health care in the country. Anybody who tells you that's. anti-capitalist is not really. understanding how capitalism works. It'd. be like saying, you know, if you want to go play. football, right? There are some players. who are faster, some players who are. bigger, some players who are stronger. But, you know, not everybody needs pads. No, I'm so sorry. I don't care how big, strong, fast you are, everybody gets a. basic set of pads and a good helmet and. then you get to go play, right? And to. me, health care, child care, good.

infrastructure, good schools, those. things to me are like giving a player. pads so that they can go and play and at. least understand that they're not going. to get like catastrophically injured, God willing, uh in playing the game. >> So, what do you think about the. Democratic Socialists of America, which. is a group that. you've been associated with, again, despite being a proud capitalist, right? Do you think that they're. generally right about things? Do you. think that they're too ideological. >> Again, I don't really think about them. as a group. >> Never? >> Like, you've never.

>> The the question is not to. >> You you only see people, not groups? >> No, no, no, I'm just saying like as a as. a as an organization, I understand why. you might want to ask me about my. association with a group that everybody. wants to fit me into. >> I'm not asking about your association. I'm asking, what do you think about them. as a force in your party's politics? Do. you think that they're a force for good? >> they're right about some things and I. think they're not right about some. things. >> Give me one thing you think they're. wrong about. >> I think some of the like So, I'm running. for US Senate. I I I think. >> I've heard. >> Right? And like to run for US Senate and. say you want to abolish the Senate seems. kind of inconsistent, don't you think?

So like obviously there's a a number of. things I also. >> You got to tear down the master's house. with the master's tools. >> It's also the socialist thing that I. just don't agree with. Like I think. Medicare for all is a really great way. to guarantee everybody health care. Also, it's actually very highly. capitalist if you think about it. You're. just saying. >> a socialist idea. in health care that you would disagree. with? Just. >> Well, it's not necessarily that I would. disagree with it. I just don't think it. would work here. It's like, you know, we. get compared to the UK and Medicare for. all gets compared to the UK is not.

single payer. It's single provider. >> Right. >> It's like every hospital is government. run. That's not what I'm advocating for. I'm just saying that health insurance in. the year of our Lord 2026 doesn't have. to be a product. You can just give it to. everybody and then from there people can. decide where to use their health. insurance they get from the government. It's actually not a government takeover. of health care. It actually is the. freeing up of a market in health care. because right now our health care market. gets squeezed by the negotiation between. the health insurance industry and.

providers. So what happens now is that. the rate that gets set is not. transparent, which by the way is in. complete violation of the principles of. capitalism. So we don't have capitalist. health care at all. And the best way to. allow every doctor or every provider to. be like, "Hey, let me put up my shingle. and see if I can compete." is to make. sure that we hold the the insurance part. so that everybody gets to participate in. that market and go and decide and shop. around their health insurance wherever. they want to go. If you want to see a. flourishing of the health care system, pass Medicare for all and watch how many. different kinds of providers are able.

then to compete. But right now we're. seeing less and less competition because. if you're a private practitioner, you. own your own business in health care, you're not getting the same. reimbursements as the big guys. >> Before we. go deeper into Medicare for all, I asked about your disagreements with. the DSA. I want to ask about your disagreements. with the former president of the United. States, President Obama. He's endorsed. you. He's campaigning for you, I think. this week in Michigan. In the past you. have been pretty critical of, let's say,

the Obama-era Democratic Party. Give me. that critique. What was wrong with the. Democrats under Obama? >> I think there are things that we could. have done. um. more of. I think there are things like. you know, the ACA was amazing policy. I. mean, I I I'm so grateful I got to do. what I did in the era post-ACA rather. than before ACA. I would have loved to see us go further. when it comes to like a public option, right? You think about, you know, there's a lot. on on immigration that I critiqued,

right? Um war and drones. And I was. clear about my critiques. Now, you know, people want to argue that. somehow because you can critique an era. or critique a a president that somehow. you deeply disagree with him. I don't. I. mean, President Obama did what he did. and in doing that enabled me to do what. I'm doing. I get to do what I do. because President Obama did what he did. And my part is to say, "Look, where I. had fair critiques, all right, you take. the baton and try and try and build. further." But I also understand I'm. building on the edifice he built. And.

also, he was doing it at a different. time than the one that I'm doing it in. And so, it's impossible to disaggregate. what I'm hoping to get done in the. United States Senate from the leadership. that he showed in the times in which he. showed it. And then there are some. things he did that were masterful. You. think about the JCPOA. We're at war with Iran because Donald. Trump, with the lack of general nuance, wisdom, and intellectual capacity that. he has, decided to tear up that. agreement only to take us to war that. everybody could have told you was going. to be almost impossible to pull out of. because, of course, the Strait of.

Hormuz. And here we are paying more in. gas, more in groceries, and paying our. taxes, losing the lives of our. servicemen and women over a war we never. had to fight. >> Your critique of the Obama era I think. was shared by a lot of people in Joe. Biden's White House. And if you look back at, especially, the. first year or so of the Biden. administration, there was a sense that. they were going to go bigger and do more. than Obama did. They did a bigger. stimulus. They had lots of new spending. on new programs. They had a more liberal.

immigration policy in certain ways. Donald Trump won. in 2024 after the Biden presidency. Was. it Democratic policy or Democratic. politicians that lost? >> [sighs and gasps]. >> I'm going to say it's Democratic. politics. Let me explain why. I think we have. in this era. failed to understand. the nature of public communication. And part of that is you you look at the. Inflation Reduction Act.

It's a a basket of really important. policy. that nobody fully understands or can. capture. And. part of what you're doing as a. politician is you're asking the public. to empower you with the means to achieve. a certain policy end. And then ideally you achieve it, take it. back to the public and say, "Here's what. we did. Now I want your support to do. this other thing.". The problem with the way that we've. often done politics as Democrats is we. do these big omnibus bills that we don't. really communicate about. And so it's a. lot.

And in the minds of the public it's so. little, but it's so much. And so I think. that's part and parcel of where our. failure was. The other part is and I've. I've been very clear about this. is the corruption of our aims because of. the power of corporations in our. politics. I think in the 1980s when you. saw Reaganism defeat unions. Democrats went to corporations to. support their campaigns as well. So when. you have Republicans funded by. corporations and Democrats funded by. corporations, at the end of the day.

corporations win. And so if you can't. talk about what you want to do for the. working people against the very people. who are disempowering working people, you got to find something else to talk. about. And so we ended up talking about. all kinds of other issues that opened up. these culture wars. But politics isn't. about culture war. Politics is about the. allocation of scarce resources. And so. there's a reason I and a lot of us don't. take corporate money because we believe. that the responsibility that we have is. to fight for working people and you. can't serve two masters. >> Isn't there a simpler explanation.

though? You mentioned the Inflation. Reduction Act under Joe Biden and you're. suggesting it wasn't adequately. explained. But the reality was that inflation. itself rose under Joe Biden. to heights not seen since I think the. early 1980s. And that was seen as a consequence of. Biden's policy. Or on the culture war. and cultural issues, if we want to call. immigration a cultural issue, the Biden administration, despite saying. that they intended to secure the border.

and everything else, presided over one. of the largest waves of illegal. unauthorized immigration in recent. American history. Were those Those weren't just failures. of communication, right? Those were. failures of policy. >> was a policy, no question. But when it. came to the when it came to the southern. border, it was a failure of policy, no. question about that. >> Okay. >> When it comes to inflation, I think. that's a much more complicated picture, right? A lot of what kicked off the. inflationary cycle is policies under. Donald Trump, of course, because of a. contain a failure to contain a pandemic. that could have been far better managed.

And, you know, you you look at the the. the lag time between that, right? That. level of inflation is unacceptable. You. look at what Donald Trump is doing now. though, he's like inflicting unforced. errors uh in a tariff war and a war in. Iran. There's another piece of it this. though is also, you know, there's a. hypocrisy when it comes to Democratic. values and Democratic policymaking, particularly when it comes to foreign. policy. The mismanagement of Gaza, the. funding of a genocide. I think these. things under the Biden administration. became a glaring. blaring red light around being able to.

say, "Well, if you were for human rights. and you're for international law, you. cannot be subsidizing a genocide with. our tax dollars." So, I think you take. that whole basket and people look at. that and you say, "Well, there's a lot. of failure there, but we can and must do better." Now, look, problem with our political system, of course, is that you normally have one. of two options. Donald Trump, in so many ways, created so many of the. circumstances that Joe Biden was trying. to clean up. And in so many ways, has.

made them worse. And you look at where. we are now, you look at, you know, the. the the bond market going topsy-turvy. You look at the fact that he thinks that. AI should just we should just let it rip. and we're on the cusp of recursive. self-improvement that could be. disastrous. You look at the big ugly. bill and the fact that he's pulling. healthcare from the poorest folks to. give a tax cut to the richest people. All that is extremely inflationary. You. look at the war in Iran. You look at the. terror war. And you see a failure of. leadership not because the guy is. trying, but because the the guy is. basically given up on actually trying.

>> But in running against the Republican. Party, in running against Donald Trump, right? You have your own policy agenda. And it's reasonable for voters to look. at what happened. under the Biden administration and ask. are we going to repeat the same story? >> Well, Russ. >> Well, let's just take two We'll take two. issues and start with Medicare for all. >> Sure. >> Your favorite issue. Heard it many times in campaign rallies. in the last couple of days. Medicare for all is a very expensive. program. How do you pay for it without.

>> American healthcare? >> without American healthcare is very. expensive. >> let's just step back. You're you're a. smart guy, right? American healthcare is. insanely expensive. >> When they're flattering me, yeah. >> 19 cents on the dollar for every dollar. spent in our economy. It's attributable to a third a third of. all bankruptcies attributable to. healthcare. We carry $225 billion in medical debt. This system is not working. And the idea that the frame of reference. on healthcare ought to be Joe Biden's. policies who famously did very little on.

healthcare. seems to me to be a little bit. inconsistent. The frame of reference on. healthcare ought to be the healthcare. system we have right now, which is about. to be made a whole lot worse because. you're about to find a whole lot of. people kicked off their Medicaid. And. when that happens, what's going to. happen is this. adverse selection. You're going to see a. death spiral in the insurance industry. We already saw our premiums go up 15%. last year. They're going to go up even. more than that now. Why? Because when. you kick enough people off of Medicaid, the hospitals have to figure out where. they get that money. What are they going. to do? They're going to pass that cost.

onto insured patients. Those insurance. companies are going to pass that cost. back into the form of premiums. You're. going to see premiums go up and more. people are going to get priced out of. healthcare because of it, which is going. to kick off this absurd spiral. So, things are going to get a lot worse. Medicare for all is about recognizing. that in this moment, we don't actually. need to continue to allow these health. insurance companies to dictate what. happens in our health care. We can. guarantee it for everybody. We can take. 20% off the top of all of the costs of. health care by addressing all of the. blow, all of the the $10 million. salaries for for health insurance CEOs.

and address the problem and guarantee. everybody health care in the process. >> But the centers of cost in American. health care are not just the insurance. companies. And the insurance companies. themselves play a very unpopular but. real role in disciplining health care. spending, saying they won't cover. certain things. Centers of cost also. include things that are popular. People. love hospitals. They love their doctors. American doctors are very well paid by. international standards. American. hospitals make a lot of money. Medicare.

for all basically says, "We're going to. take this very expensive system. and we're going to push a lot more money. into it and we promise your standard of. care won't change, right? I just think. that ends up being a very expensive. proposition and I just want you to tell. me how you're going to pay for it.". >> So, as you know, I want to tax. billionaires their wealth. As you know, I tax billionaires about. 8%, right? We as a society agree that's. probably better to have an economy that. provides everybody basic health care. than one where a billionaire can make an.

extra billion dollars. You're returning what, 4.6 5 trillion. dollars back to the economy. You can use. that to subsidize a lot of the cost of. health care. Now, if you have the choice between paying an. insurance company a premium to have to. pay a deductible on the back end of that. or. being able to pay FICA. a touch more for health care you won't. lose when you lose your job or turn 65. or get married or get divorced. That is ultimately going to be less. expensive. Which do you choose? I think the.

American public would rather have that. durable health care that costs less. The. other thing I'll tell you is this. >> And do you think that that are. >> the the other thing I'll tell you is you. talked about the disciplining of the. costs. Health insurance does not. discipline the cost. We created all of. these uh out-of-pocket costs, this. effort to push more of that cost back. onto everyday people in the form of a. deductible and a copay. because famously, the insurance. companies don't actually want to press. down. And so, what's what's happened is. that you actually don't have any payer. big enough to negotiate back down. So,

what would happen? Pass Medicare for. all. Medicare becomes the payer for. most. I'm not I don't want to take away. anybody's private health insurance, but. everybody's covered. It's like It's like. public school, right? Everybody can go. to public school, even if you want to. pay for a private option. And it now has the power. It will. immediately take up the cost. So, Medicare reimbursements have to go up. substantially then from where they are. right now because you have to pay for. the cost of the system as it is. But. over time, Medicare can reduce the speed. at which prices are going up. And that's. something that no other payer can do in. our current system. So, if you actually.

want to address the rising prices, you. don't kick You don't uh create a system. that allows any insurance company to. just tell you that you're insured when. there's nothing sure about it except. you're going to end up paying more. What. you do is you actually cover everybody. and you create an incentive to stop the. speed at which the prices are. increasing. >> But all of this is happening against a. backdrop where the US population, like. every developed world population, is. aging. We have fewer younger taxpayers. paying into the system. And existing programs, Medicare and.

Social Security. >> Notwithstanding all of your efforts. around. >> Notwithstanding that. >> You You have children, too. >> We both tried to address it. >> But Medicare and Social Security, as. they exist, programs that you obviously. definitionally support, are themselves. likely to run out of money at a certain. point. I just think in the story you. tell, what happens is even if you find a. source of taxable income from the. wealthy and plow it into the system, that money ends up propping up the. existing system. And you And you do To. go beyond it, to do what you want to do,

you are in a zone of middle-class tax. increases that. >> here's my question to you. This is actually the the real issue. >> You can't ask me questions. >> Well, it's a conversation. You told me. we're going to have a conversation. >> I did. That's right. >> How is having kids? You have five of them. How expensive is it? >> I don't know if my employers are. watching this show. It's considerably. expensive. >> It's very expensive, right? Does your. partner work? >> She does, yes. >> Yeah. And so that means that you probably had. to pay $2,000 per kid for child care.

Think about the albatross that that sits. on our economy. Think about the premium. that you have to pay for health care for. all of your kids. And I'm just going to say I'm about to. walk in to a room full of very young. people who are looking at the future and. saying, "There's no possible way I could. possibly have a kid." So if the issue in. our country is stagnation when it comes. to the capacity to have children, the. question we really ought to ask. ourselves is, "How do you make it easier. to have kids?". So Ross, how do you make it easier to. have kids? Maybe we should stop making. it so expensive to have kids, which. means that if the only argument that we.

have about America is we can't possibly. do anything to make it easier to have. kids, we are going to have a race to the. bottom. And I get it. A lot of people are going. to say, "Well, we're going to ban. abortions and we're going to tell people. to go out there and have kids." Yeah, that doesn't really quite work. What. tends to happen when you ban abortions. people just get abortions, they're just. not safe. >> But the whole I like I appreciate that. >> You need to be invested but just hear me. out. You need to be invested in the. means of making it easier to have. children. That means you have to address. the rising cost of having kids. So if. your argument is that we can't have. child care, we can't have health care,

we can't subsidize housing, we can't do. these things, do not be surprised when. all of a sudden we age past the point at. which we are viable. I'm trying to. address that problem and I've got my. solutions for it. The our party that. wants to tell me that they're. pronatalist, their solution is, "Let's. cut taxes for the billionaires and let's. go to wars we have no business fighting. and somehow uh if we we we we rub two. sticks together we're going to get. people to want to have kids." It's it's. not serious. So I'm just trying to be. serious about what the problem is and I. think the problem is we have made it too. expensive and if we cannot make it.

cheaper. do not be surprised when people don't. have kids. >> Immigration. You mentioned. that you support abolishing ICE. You have also said just now. that the Biden administration border. policy. was a failure. I think this is one example of a larger. reality where you have a lot of. Democratic politicians right now. telling voters that yes, mistakes were. made in the Biden presidency, but don't.

worry, this time. we're going to secure the border. even while we're getting rid of the. agency that does interior enforcement. Why should voters trust the Democratic. Party with immigration policy even if. they dislike. ICE or dislike Donald Trump after what. happened under Biden? >> Well, take a look at what we have now. Do we like what we have now? Do we like. the idea that ICE is running around. shooting people in the face or the back. of the head? Shooting at the cars where. there are 5-year-old children? Is that. working? So, I rather think of this as being.

iterative. You and I both well know that. the agency that enforces the border is. not ICE. That is Customs and Border. Protection. So, I think we can secure the border. We. can invest in that ability to keep it. secure. And we can go back to a time when we had. something more like INS that was able to. enforce immigration policy without. shooting people in the face. >> Why didn't Why didn't the Biden. administration enforce the border? What. was the problem? >> the politics of it at the time were. complicated. I think. uh you had Complicated by what? I mean,

complicated by a lot of advocacy, right? And I think we've learned the lesson. And I also think that it's important for. us to realize that. the idea that. politicians don't learn from what comes. before them because it was done by a. different party is kind of ridiculous, right? There are things that some. Republicans have gotten right. It's just that they also get a lot of. things wrong. So, learn from the things. that they get right. and fix the things that they got wrong. >> So, do you think the Trump. administration has gotten border. enforcement right?

>> I think there are ways to do border. enforcement that borrow from the broader. goals. without doing it. in contraposition to a lot of our. our our highest ideals around human. rights. You can humanely enforce the. border. I think the problem with the the the um. Trump administration is that most of. what they do is inhumane, whether it's. ice enforcement, whether it's. uh it's it's it's the border. I think. >> But your party But your party, I watched. the 2020 primary. Your party decided. that border enforcement in general was.

inhumane. >> And we got that wrong. >> Okay. One more social cultural issues. question. We talked earlier about your faith, about Islam. A lot of Muslims. have, like a lot of Christians, have. traditional con- traditionalist. conservative positions on issues like. abortion, same-sex marriage, transgenderism. I've had Michigan Democrats tell me that. Donald Trump made inroads with Muslim. American voters in this state on those.

issues. Do you feel any tension between your. faith. and being part of and a champion of a. very socially liberal and culturally. liberal party? >> See, this is the irony of uh the Trump. line of attack on me, which is like, "Oh, he's both uh he's both an Islamist. and a socialist." I'm like, "Well, you. know, I'm a constitutionalist. And under. the Constitution, I think rights are. rights are rights are rights are. rights.". The minute you assent to government. taking anybody's rights, whether you use them or you don't, you are assenting to government taking.

everybody's rights. And I believe in. rights. And even though somebody might use. rights that you don't understand, you. would never mean to use yourself, you. still got to show up and fight for those. rights. And that's the thing about this. moment. I think it is a responsibility. for us to stand up against the risk of. government making incursions on any of. our rights, to build the kind of. continuum, the kind of coalition where. any of us and all of us who have our. rights at risk are standing up and. fighting for all of our rights. And I.

think this is an important. responsibility. So, I, in conversations. with folks in the Muslim community, in. conversations with folks in the LGBTQ. community, the point I always make is to. say, "Listen, I don't care whether or. not you will ever use a right that you. were fighting for. Understand that the. failure to show up and fight for that. right is a failure to show up and fight. for your own. So, whether people are. trying to take your right to put your. face on the ground 35 times a day in a. mosque, or 34 times a day in a mosque, or people are taking away your right to. love who you love, I think we all got to come together and.

say, "No, no, no. We are not going to. allow government to take rights, cuz. that's what the Constitution protects.". >> Is there any area where, as a religious Muslim, in a party that. has a lot of secular voters, you think. secular liberalism gets something wrong? >> As a matter of civic life, I stand for folks' rights under the. Constitution. I live my life a particular way, but I love that I get the choice of. doing that, and that other people get. the right the choice of doing what they.

choose to do. And I think that's the beauty of this. country. And that's exactly it. >> So, no So, that's a no. You don't think. there's anywhere where. cultural liberalism goes wrong? >> No, but they See, this is the problem. that I think this is where you and I. have slippage. You keep talking about. cultural liberalism, and I'm talking about constitutional. rights. Culture is about choices that. people ought to make. Constitutional. rights are about the ability to make. those choices. I will always fight for. the ability to make choices, to live who you are. But, I think at the end of the day, the.

question of culture and the question of. politics are separate. And this is This. is This is actually I think where where. the Republicans tend to get it wrong and. they don't understand. The fact that one. can show up and fight for a right that. one may never ever use is exactly what. the Constitution is supposed to protect. in the first place, right? Because I. don't need people to understand why I. pray the the way I pray. I just need. people to decide that if they try to. take away my right to do it, that that's. wrong under the Constitution. Similarly, I don't need anybody to understand. >> to What about, since this is a flash.

point in these debates, what about the. rights What about the rights of. parents to control over their children's. education? Cuz a lot of places where. there's tension between Islam and Muslim. voters and what I'm calling cultural. liberalism are around issues like what. is taught in school, what happens with. transgender kids on sports teams, and so. on, right? Like, these are places where. rights are in conflict, right? Do you. What What do you think happens there? >> I don't know that that's actually true. I think we manufacture these social.

issues cuz here's the thing about it. Ross, you have an iPhone in your pocket, probably. Or is it an iPhone or a. Samsung? You have a phone in your pocket, right? You can get access to everything and. anything in the whole world, all the. world's information in your pocket. The notion somehow that you are going to. prevent your child from being exposed to. something that you may find disagreeable. and that that is going to be because of. school is so profoundly outdated. Because, of course, you have all the. information and they have all the. information. So, here's the thing about. it. I think it's really important for us to.

recognize that the free flow of. information is actually a beautiful. thing. It's really important. And the. most important thing you can do is not. try to protect a person from seeing a. thing, it's about trying to make sure. that as you coach your kid through the. world, that you are engaging with them. and saying, "Here's what I believe. Here's what you may see in the world. You get to make your choices about who. you're going to be in the world, but. that's going to require us to make do. with the fact that like the internet is. a real thing. And this debate about. like, quote unquote, what's taught in.

the classroom, I think has been made. into a cultural flash point because a. lot of the folks who want to make this a. topic of conversation don't want to be. talking about the real issues that we. face in our lives. I mean, I'm just. going to say like, a lot of the culture. war issues that get fought right now are. about trying to distract us from the. fact that we can't afford our gas, can't. afford our groceries, can't see a. doctor, are worried about whether or not. our kids are going to have a good life. And instead, we're out here talking. about who gets to play what sport, which, you know, should be the question. of the people who govern sports. I'm not. running to govern sports, right? My.

interest is in making sure that people. have the ability to live a good life, that they can have the health care that. they need, that they can. breathe clean air, drink clean water, that they've got good schools that are. well-funded in the first place. >> All right, let's talk about an issue. where. there's a lot of agreement between more. secular progressives and Muslim American. voters. And that is the critique of. Israel, Israeli policy. You alluded to the Gaza. war already, and America's relationship. to Israel. In your view, what's wrong. with America's relationship with Israel?

>> Number one, we have been told that we are pursuing a. two-state solution only to aid, arm, and. abet the very people who are trying to. foreclose on the possibility of a second. state. So, it's incoherent on its own terms. Number two, I don't know about you, but I don't pay. my taxes to buy another country a bomber. or a tank. That's Israel, that's Egypt, that's. Saudi Arabia, that's Pakistan. My interest is making sure that our kids. get good schools, that we have. functional roads, that we're paying for. things like health care and child care, and we're spending billions to do the.

worst things. Three, the state of Israel did a. genocide. I don't think that's disagreeable. You. don't look at anybody who actually. studies this stuff, and they'll say it's. a genocide. The human rights community. in Israel. says that it was a genocide. And so, the notion that our money was. spent to do a genocide by a foreign. government, and that we cannot continue. to have a conversation about this, to me. is deeply problematic. Finally, we are. actively fighting a war that we have no. business fighting. This has been the. goal of one person in our civics for a.

very long time. Not even our civics, in. international civics. And that is the. prime minister. of the state of Israel. And we're told. that Israel is our ally. But I'm just so. sorry, but like if you're walking with a. friend and you see a bear, and you're. like, "Maybe we should just steer clear. of the bear." And your friend's like, "No, we ought to poke the bear." I don't. know if that that person is really your. friend. And so, I just think that we've. got to really rethink this the nature of. this relationship based on a position of. principles. Just simply based on a. position of principles. Now, I. understand that we have a bipartisan. consensus that Israel is an ally. I.

understand that most politicians aren't. willing to say anything otherwise. But. that may have a lot more to do with the. nature of political spending, which is. why I want to get back to money out of. politics. When I ran in my primary, one. organization spent more than any other. organization to beat me. That is AIPAC, who is focused on making sure that. politicians do not say what I just said. >> Let's go back to that list of countries. that you had earlier. Not just Israel, but Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and others. I think there's a lot of people.

uh including. Jews, including Zionists, people who. support Israel in various ways, who. look at Israel's war with Gaza and say. if it wasn't genocide at least there. were war crimes, it was a bad thing. There's a lot of people. who disagree with the US decision to go. to war in Iran. But some of those people look at the. progressive left, which you are a. champion, and say. there's a zeal. about Israel that isn't there when you.

talk about the crimes of other countries. in the Middle East. Just to take Saudi. Arabia. Saudi Arabia just just let me. finish the question. Saudi Arabia is. unlike Israel a dictatorship, not a. democracy. Saudi Arabia is ruthless and. cruel in all kinds of ways. Saudi Arabia. killed a lot of people in Yemen. to very little attention from left-wing. politics in the US. Saudi Arabia as far. as we can tell may have also supported. the decision to go to war with Iran. I'm. sure you're going to tell me that you.

oppose all that, you know, you you don't. love our alliance with Saudi Arabia, but. we're sitting here. and you know, there's a crowd gathering. outside that's going to cheer for you. I'm skeptical that if you went outside. and just talked about Saudi Arabia. instead of Israel that you would get a. kind of hyped up enthusiastic reaction. Why do you think. Israel stands out. as. a place of anger and critique in a way. that other countries in the Middle East. do not? >> The scale of spending.

>> Just the the scale of US spending. >> The the scale of US spending. The scale of those war crimes. And the impact on our politics. There is. not a. I don't know. >> You don't think Saudi Arabia has a big. impact on our politics? >> As big as as big as AIPAC? >> Is is there any. >> I'm just going to tell you in my own. election, right? They spent I I overall. spending 70 million in the primary. alone, okay? 33 of which was spent by. AIPAC. So, can you point to any other. >> I would say that Saudi Saudi well, part.

part part of it is. >> You're a smart Ross, you're a smart man. Do you really think that there is any. entity on behalf of the Saudi government. that is as strong as AIPAC is on behalf. of the Israeli government? Come on. >> I think that this Saudi this First of. all, there is not um. Basically, half the world's Jewish. population lives in the US, and half. lives in Israel. Half of Saudi Arabia, you know, like. Sa- Saudi Arabia is. Let me put it this. >> You brought up Saudi Arabia. >> I did bring up Saudi. >> You don't like the example you brought.

up. >> No, no, I do like the example I brought. up. Saudi Arabia has exercised lots and. lots of influence over US foreign policy. in all kinds of ways. So, all kinds of. debate All kinds of debates around 9/11. and the Saudi and the Saudi role in. 9/11. But, there is not. There is neither I'm saying there is not. It's I agree with you. There is neither. sort of There is a very powerful Saudi. lobby in Washington, D.C. It's not a big. organized force in US. elections, but in part because there. isn't a big anti-Saudi.

lobby or movement operating on the on. the political left. >> you think? >> I'm not I'm not I'm not going to defend. Saudi Arabia. I'm not going to defend. Egypt. Like, I I I really like I am I am. principled in my opposition. But, when. one organization spends $33 million in. one election. on behalf of the interests. of the foreign policy of a foreign. government, yeah, there there's going to. be a a big response there. And I just I. just look I just I want to be clear. about this. >> But, this is a There's a dynamic. interaction. The spending The spending.

is also reflect reflection of the fact. >> here's the here's the other challenge. >> You have an outsized critique of Israel. that. >> So, you think it's the outsized critique. that created the policies? Like, that. created AIPAC, that's that creates the. response? >> I think the response is a chicken. >> interpretation. >> of politics is a chicken and an egg. debate. >> I know. And And the the question of what. comes first really dictates the way you. see things. But, you know, I I don't. ever get the question of Does Palestine. have the right to exist? I don't ever. get the question of Does Israel have the. right to do a genocide? I don't ever get. the question of Does Israel have the.

right to our tax dollars? >> Does Palestine have the right to exist? >> Yes. >> Does Israel have the right to exist? >> So, up up. >> if there is a shared understanding. >> Wait, you said. >> Let me just let me just let me just. understand. I believe, and this is the. this is the problem with this debate. We. start from where we sit, rather than. start from principles. You're a. principle guy, okay? I've heard you do. this on your podcast, I don't know how. many times. I believe in equal rights to peace, dignity, and self-determination for. Palestinians and Jewish Israelis alike. If the Palestinian people decide. and the Israeli people decide that they.

want two states for two people, and they. decide that on equal terms, I'm for it. If they decide that they want one state, shared in a different way, I'm for that. If they decide that they want 23 states, or land for all, I'm for that. I want to start with the process. Like. we were going to talk about democracy. Democracy is not an outcome, it's a. process. I'm very process-oriented. I think that. the process ought to start with the the. the the notion that there is a. self-determination. among Palestinians, which has never been. respected. And our public policy has.

never respected. >> Okay. So, >> But the thing that's the. >> to No, no, if if we want to talk about. the right of Israel to exist, it has to. exist alongside. a Palestine. that. is the consensus of both of these. communities. >> But that is that is the argument. That. is the argument for the two-state. solution, which, however, >> that's actually not the argument for the. two-state solution. >> Two-state solution assumes that both. Palestinians and Israelis want. independent states. >> Except for that's not de facto how it's. operating. It's operating right now as a. salve to tell us that what Israel is.

doing, right, is somehow consistent, because we keep saying we're for a. two-state solution. >> Okay, but why don't not why not just say. I'm for a two-state solution that a. better and real one? >> Because I don't know that the. Palestinian people have had a voice to. say that they want a a a state. I don't. know because we've never actually. allowed for equal rights to peace, dignity, and self-determination. I start. with the process in mind. >> Okay. And right now don't you think we. >> just let me finish the point. Too often. when this question is asked, we start. with the currently existing state of. Israel that is existing in. contraposition to the possibility of a. state of Palestine. We have to start on.

that premise, and then from there we. say, "Okay, where do we carve out a. Palestinian state?" That's not equal. rights to peace, dignity, and. self-determination. So, again, I want to. be clear about this. Equal rights to. peace, dignity, and self-determination. Now, anytime I say that, people like to. interpret that as being in in in. anti-position to anyone community. It's. not. It's in recognizing that these two. communities should have equal rights. And our public policy, both de jure and. de facto, has run roughshod over the possibility. of any sort of Palestinian. self-determination. And we run over. that, right? In the notion that we say,

"Oh, well, how come you won't agree to. this thing that we all keep telling. ourselves we're for, despite the fact. that we are operating in complete. contraposition to it?". It's not serious. >> I think one reason people ask you you. that, and they've asked you that a lot, right? Is that they are looking for. a recognition from you. that there is. no world where Israelis don't want a.

Jewish state. So, there's no reason for you like. you're you're saying, you know, if. Israelis want this and Palestinians want. this, then that's then that's what will. happen. Why not just say, "So, do we. know Israelis want a Jewish state? And therefore, there should be a Jewish. state and a Palestinian state?". >> I I don't know that I actually don't. think that I don't know that that's. true. I think the question right now is, "How do you empower two communities with. equal rights to peace, dignity, and. self-determination to have the. conversation amongst themselves to see.

where that where that lays out?" But, the problem is that process has never. been dignified. You know, the the challenge with this. conversation, really, right? Is that we. have not dignified the. self-determination needs of. Palestinians. And here's the big. question, ultimately, is it really comes. down to where should we put our tax. dollars and how. My focus is always. going to be on Michigan. And right now, the same money that's being spent over. there should be money that's spent over. here. I want to be clear. When it comes. to the well-being of the Jewish. community here, I am lockstep in. standing with Jewish safety. I I grew up.

in a predominantly Jewish community. I'm. really grateful for that. And it's not. about the disagreements with anyone. community and their need for. self-determination. It's in asking, how. do we allow these two communities to. come together in a conversation to talk. about how best to navigate their mutual. draws and claims to a land. And I don't. think we've done that. And too often. when you take the currently existing. state of Israel and you take its claims.

as being the most important, what you. are by definition doing is saying that. the claims to self-determination are not. equal. And ultimately, our. responsibility is to stand up for. international law. Our responsibility is to hold every. country accountable to the same set of. ideals. Right now, we're aiding, arming, and abetting a government that has been. dead set on foreclosing on the. possibility of Palestinian. self-determination. We. subsidize the genocide with our tax. dollars that should be spent here. I. want our tax dollars spent here.

>> One more foreign policy question then. You want to end the war with Iran. >> Yes. >> You want the Senate to use. their war war powers to end the war with. Iran. What do you do if Iran doesn't want to. end the war? If the US says the war is. over, we're pulling out, and Iran says, great, now we're in charge of the Strait. of Hormuz forever and ever, world. without end, amen. What does the US do? >> Well, how did we get to the JCPOA? You know, we pretend like the only thing. we have is our sabers.

And we rattle them or we use them. That's Donald Trump's logic. We got to. the JCPOA because there are other needs. that Iran has. Iran does not want to be. a pariah. There's a lot of power that we can. inflict that is not just. war. Because right now, the war doesn't seem. to be ending, and all that's happening. is escalating, and that war is. spreading. So, I think we need to end the war, and. I think we need to get back to the. negotiating table to get to the kind of. space where we can get to where we have. a pathway like we had at the end of the.

Obama administration. >> Let's bring it back to Michigan. politics, but connected. to the foreign policy discussion we've. just had. One of the big questions around your. campaign. is about Jewish Democrats and whether. they will vote for you. And there are Jewish Democrats out there. who would say. what I was looking for. from Saed was reassurance that at the. end of the day, whatever happens with.

the peace process or anything else, he. will support. the existence of a Jewish homeland in. the Middle East. Do you think. that you were saying enough to reassure. those voters that you were on their. side? >> Well, let me broaden that conversation. out. Wherever our disagreements are when it. comes to Israel, there are a lot more of. things that we agree on here. The right to pray as you choose to pray. Safety for religious minorities. The. right to choose. These are things we all agree on.

The sanctity of our democracy here at. home. There is so much more that we. agree on than we disagree on. When it. comes to standing up for Jewish. Americans, I will be right there. I. understand what it's like to fear what. happens at my place of worship. So, I'm hoping that the things that. bring us together are bigger than things. that that draw us apart. And I'll say. this. again, I do not reject the idea that we. should have equal rights to peace, dignity, and self-determination. I just. reject the idea that we are anywhere. near that in our current conversation. And I want us to get to a point, this is.

my hope, that a Jewish child growing up. in the homeland and a Palestinian child. growing up in the homeland can look. forward and say my life is not going to. be at risk because of the violence. That's what I'm That's what I'm trying. to build toward. I don't think we are anywhere near there. right now because if there is not a. clear opportunity for the Palestinian. people to have their right to peace, dignity, and self-determination. alongside the Jewish people's right to. peace, dignity, and self-determination, I fear that we're just going to end up. right back in a silence uh uh a circle. of violence.

>> I'm sorry. I. I'm going to push you one more time on. this. >> Ross, you know. >> The world The world The world is filled. with nations. that have. historic ethnic identities that have. that are not just sort of sister systems. but are nations for peoples. And it I. don't think it's hard to say there. should be a Japanese a Japanese nation. for the Japanese people. There should be. an Egyptian nation for the Egyptian. people.

I just I I feel like that should be. something that should be easy to say. >> of the Palestinian people? >> I think the Palestinian people deserve. to have a homeland. >> In I mean. I would say generally historically I. would support a version of the two-state. solution which creates problems because. yes, there's. Gaza and there's the West Bank and. they're separated. It's not the ideal. landscape for a state. >> on Gaza and the West Bank? >> I think that that I think that I think I. think that I think that I think that it. is. >> I think that the small pieces of it that.

have been like now annihilated and the. parts that are being encroached upon by. by settlers. >> I think that there was a very plausible. scenario that would have gotten the. Palestinian people. >> Every version of this conversation goes. back to some time in history where it. could have been. I don't want to go back. some time in history. I want to go in. the future. And look, the hard part is. this. This is exactly my point. You. proved my point perfectly. I want equal rights to peace, dignity, and self-determination for Palestinians. and Jewish Israelis alike. And the. problem with saying yeah, we're going to.

just take as fixed the idea of the state. as it is implies that you are just. taking whatever's carved left and there. is no actual real opportunity for. self-determination for the Palestinian. people. It's like hey, listen, after I. eat, then you can have my seconds. I. just don't think that's fair. I think if we're serious about this, we're going to have to bring peoples. together and ask how do we navigate this. shared understanding of the space? You. you made the point perfectly for me. Is that when I ask you what about. Palestinian self-determination, you're. like I guess we could carve a state out.

there, maybe. It's not serious. So I'm. just saying look, right now I'm not I'm. not disagreeing with what you're saying. >> I think that it is I think that it is. more serious. >> I'm not disagreeing with what you're. saying. >> than a than a theory of. purely hypothetical negotiated future. that ignores the realities of borders. that have existed for decades. Now, yes, I think I think it is I think it is more. realistic and probably delivers more for. the Palestinian people right now, but. you are getting me to deliver opinions. and I'm going to stop and ask you I'm.

going to ask you. >> need to Let me just finish my point. Do. we need to get from where we are to. where we're headed? Yes. Are we headed to where we want to go? No. So, what I'm trying to do is say, "Look, or in order for us to get to where we. need to go, we're going to have to. figure out how to have a conversation. that dignifies equal rights, peace, dignity, and self-determination. And. right now, our foreign policy. does not do that. And I would like us to. get to a point where it does. >> Last question. >> Mhm. >> Same as one we asked your opponent. This is a very fraught, high-stakes. Senate race. Lots and lots of money has. been spent in it.

What's the biggest thing that you think. is different in US politics if you win? >> The ability to run a campaign and win. against big money by engaging with. people, having a conversation about who. we are and who we want to be. I take the idea that you can persuade. people really seriously. I go. everywhere, I talk to everybody. I go on. Fox News. I go talk to, you know, you. name the podcast. >> Talk to me. >> I'm talking to you, right? Even though I. have misgivings about the people who run. your your your your whole station, the.

all of CBS, but I'm talking to you because I want to. have a conversation with the broader. public. I think if we can have a. conversation together, our politics can. shift, but right now that's not how we. do politics. Right now, we allow a few. corporations to pay huge amounts of. money. By the time this is done, right? All of the outside spending will have. reached a third of a billion dollars. just to beat me in a campaign. Why? Well, because I'm willing to tell you. what I think. Because I'm willing not to. play that game. I don't take money from. corporations. I want to stand up to. them. I want to fight for working. people. So, that's what changes. It's.

the ability to actually have a voice in. the United States Senate that says, "Look, whether it's corporate money and. dark money going to Republicans or. Democrats, that's the problem.". I think we need to have a conversation. about who we are and who we want to be. That's the kind of political movement. that we're building here in Michigan. And God willing, that's the kind of. political movement uh we will have. because that's what our framers intended. us to be. Government of, by, and for the. people, not of, by, and for. corporations, billionaires, and special. interests.