Democrats’ SECRET WEAPON for midterms SURGES into spotlight

I'm joined now by writer for the New. Yorker, Charles Duhigg. Charles, thanks. so much for joining me. Thanks for. having me. So, you wrote an excellent. article. for the New Yorker about what MAGA can. teach the Democrats about organizing and. also infighting. So, first of all, why. did you decide that it was important to. publish this? Well, so I had a book that came out. about two years ago now called. Supercommunicators, which is about the. science of how we communicate, what's. happening inside our bodies and our. brains as we communicate with other. people and how we connect with them. And. I was kind of confused by something I.

was seeing in the world, which was that. on the left, there's such dismissiveness. of MAGA, right? There's such a sense. that the the Trump embodies. very little authenticity on policy. positions, that that this is a purely. emotional response, and yet MAGA has. been so successful. And I wanted to. understand MAGA as a communication tool, what is it doing that's so successful? What is the science behind why MAGA has. spread and become so durable? And so, that's why I wrote the piece. And so,

you've written about the fact that. Democrats can really steal from the MAGA. playbook here. Absolutely. >> you've pointed out that the foundation. of Republicans' winning strategy. actually steals a lot from Obama's 2008. campaign. So, can you speak on that? Very much. So, so Obama's campaign if if. you I I know that you recall this and. hopefully listeners do as well. Obama's. campaign was the most successful. campaign at drawing out volunteer. leaders and having them recruit other. people to go to go basically advocate on. behalf of Obama, right? They the turnout.

was amazing and in part it was because. they basically ignored the playbook that. most presidential campaigns used up to. that point. Until that point, volunteers. were seen as a necessary but very risky. part of a campaign. It the odds of a. volunteer going off script, of saying. something wrong, of creating some kind. of like weird social media moment, campaigns needed volunteers, but they. wouldn't give them very much power. They. wouldn't give them very much authority. Obama did the exact opposite. What he. did is he said, "Look, if you want to be. a volunteer leader, we're essentially. going to make you like a little.

franchisee of the campaign. And we're. going to tell you you can go do whatever. you want. Try different things. Experiment with different messages. Try. different approaches." And the result of. pushing that leadership down to the. local level was that you built an. infrastructure that helped people learn. how to become great campaigners on. behalf of Obama. And both he and the. Dems won overwhelmingly. And you're. exactly right. There was a book that was. written about it called. um Rulebreakers. that became the required reading within.

the Republican National Convention as. Republican National Committee as well as. within Tip Turning Point USA, right? The. group that was started by Charlie Kirk. Because this strategy of pushing. leadership down, of building. infrastructure to train people to become. leaders in their own communities, to. become little cells of a huge. organization, it's incredibly effective. And it's one of the things that the. Democrats have have forgotten a little. bit how to do. Well, doesn't that also. translate to these thought leaders in. the messaging space? I mean, when when.

you. when you kind of imbue a lot of these. people with some sense of authority, doesn't it also make them more committed. to the cause? And so then you have these. people with big audiences, for example, who you know, they feel like like now. they've got an in, they have some some. close connection with the candidate, for. example, and they've got a big audience, then they can use that close connection. to kind of proselytize their audiences. Absolutely. And you see that happening. on the right all the time, right? They. And it's important to draw a distinction.

nowadays between MAGA and Donald Trump, because MAGA is its own thing, independent of Trump. But just look at. who's who's supporting Trump and who's. talking to their audience about him. You. have people like Laura Loomer, right? Who's. as far as I can tell, nuts. And she is. out there stumping for Trump. But then. you have other people who are more. mainstream Republicans. You have Ralph. Reed, the guy who ran the Christian. Coalition and now runs something called. the Faith and Freedom Coalition. He's. out there stumping for Trump, too. What happens when you push down. leadership is you do lose some control.

over the message. You You don't know. that everyone's perfectly on script, but. what you get instead is you get people. who proselytize for you passionately, and that's more powerful. You know, you draw a distinction between. mobilizing and organizing. So, what is. the difference, and why does that matter. right now? So, mobilizing is what the. Democrats are really good at right now. So, mobilizing is getting people out in. the streets. It's No Kings Day. It's the. the Women's March right after Trump's. first first inauguration. It's getting. millions of people to turn out to call.

congressional offices, to donate some. money. But, often times that turnout only lasts. a day or two. Right? You're calling on. people to show a great unified wall of. support for a very short period of time, and it can be very impressive. It gets. you headlines, and gets you on TV. Organizing is almost the opposite. Organizing isn't about get getting. millions of people out in the street. Instead, it's about building leadership. infrastructure, so that you push down. leadership, that you create tens of. thousands, or even potentially millions. of people into people who feel like they.

have an investment in this campaign, an. investment in this movement, and are. going to do what they can on the local. level to make it become real. Organizing is basically what franchise. franchising is. And both mobilizing and organizing are. both really, really essential to a. social movement. You have to have both. of them. But, in particularly in the early part of a. movement, organizing is much more important than. mobilizing. As one person I said I.

talked to, she And she's someone who. studies social movements. She said, "Look, the thing about a a rally or a. big march is that's a tactic in search. of a strategy. When you have a big rally, when you have. a big march, when you have No Kings Day, it shouldn't be because some centralized. group in Washington D.C. is telling. everyone when to show up and then they. all go home and never talk to each other. again. Instead, what you should have is. that the rally is a natural outgrowth of. these thousands and tens of thousands of. small groups that exist in each city. that say, "Actually, we're all going to.

come up with come out with our. membership today. We're all going to. march on the same day, but it's it's an. expression of our community rather than. an attempt to build community.". So, why have Republicans under Trump. been effective at this kind of. organizing and Democrats not? And and. and I I think that this this part of the. conversation's probably going to veer. off into a lot of Democrats' brand. problems, but I'm I'm curious what you. think on this point. Well, I think the. number one issue when I talk to experts. about this and people who study it is.

they say, "Look, if you look at what. MAGA has done right now, what they've. done is they've been really effective at. creating a huge tent. They've basically. said, 'If you're willing to wear the red. hat, then you're a member regardless of. what you believe. You could be pro-life, you could be pro-choice, you could be. someone who doesn't care about. immigration, you could be someone who. thinks that immigration should be. outlawed completely. It doesn't matter. We have room for you within our tent as. long as you wear the red hat and you say. that Trump is the greatest thing ever.'". Now, let's compare that with what's. happening on the left, where there has. been a huge number of litmus tests that.

have been brought to bear on who belongs. to that membership, right? If you say. that you are a little wishy-washy on. trans rights, you're not going to be. welcomed within the Democratic Party. You're certainly not going to be. welcomed within their marches or their. protests. If you're someone who's. pro-life, there's really no room for you. in the Democratic Party. And so, this is. the fundamental distinction between the. right and the left right now is that the. right has basically said, "We will. welcome everyone." Charlie Kirk, Turning. Point USA, when he was talking to. someone from on the stage who was gay, he would say to them, "I don't approve.

of your lifestyle. I don't think the. Bible says that it's okay, but as long. as we agree on immigration, you're. welcome here." And on the left, what we. say to people is or what the left says. to people is, "You know, you might agree. with us 95% of the time, but if you're. pro-life, if you're anti-trans, if you. if you question how we should use. pronouns or you use the wrong pronouns, then you don't belong here. And that's. been a big distinction. So, a critical response to that would be. well, this is a movement where.

being pro-life is antithetical to the. whole core of the left anyway. And so, why would we make room for somebody who. says that they don't believe in a. woman's right to choose? Like just as, you know, playing devil's advocate here. and. >> Absolutely. And I'm I'm painting with a pretty broad. brush here, right? Like like [laughter]. the the the Democratic Party is actually. like tens of thousands of different. different opinions. But but from the. broad brush perspective, you're exactly. right. Whether a movement or a political party, whatever it is, an organization, there.

has to be some core values that everyone. agrees on. And if you don't have those. core values, then you're not really a. movement. I think the question for the. Democrats is what are the Democratic. core values? Are the core values that. you have to be pro-choice, you have to. be you have to feel like January 6th was. an insurrection, you have to think that. um you know, we should raise up certain. voices and lower other ones based on. based on the color of your skin or your. beliefs? Like there's an interesting. question I think we're going to see this. played out in the in the next.

presidential campaign. What are the core. values of the Democratic Party? Cuz. you're right, there has to be a small. handful of core values that every. Democrat says, I that's what I'm signing. up for. But right now, there's a huge. number of core values and there's no. prioritization. There's no one saying, "Look, it's okay to be pro-life and to. be a Democrat because we both agree that. democracy should persist." The Democrats. as a party have to decide what the core. values are and it has to be a somewhat. limited number of core values that.

creates a a big enough tent to encompass. a a majority of people. And I guess how. do you do that calculation? I mean, I. guess this is the million-dollar. question is like what is the calculation. where you are willing to to to you know. compromise on certain issues and on. certain values in deference to allowing. more people into the coalition so that. you can actually hold power to do some. of what you claim to care about doing. without losing yourself in the process, without losing the identity of the party.

in the process. I mean I think the. technique for figuring out that balance. is an election, right? So so if you had. told me 15 years ago that the Republican. Party would basically only have one. value and that value is that they all. are willing to support Donald Trump, I. would have told you you're nuts. Yeah. Right? That doesn't seem like a good. strategy and yet we have two elections. to show us it was a great strategy. Now, the fact that there's no internal. integrity into the MAGA movement, right? That the MAGA movement basically is.

built around one guy and support for. that one guy, that now threatens the. movement. And when the next election. might show us that they made a mistake. in going too far. And I think we're. going to see the same thing on the left. What we're going to see I think for 2028. is we're going to see a really crowded. field of people in the Democratic. primary trying to become president and. they're each going to be trying their. own little formula. This is what it. means to be a Democrat. Here's where I'm. willing to compromise, here's where I'm. not willing to compromise. And we'll. find out they're all running their own.

experiments, we'll find out the outcome. of that experiment when people show up. to vote. You know, I've been particularly focused. on this issue of imposing purity tests. Um obviously, I know I I think it's a. bad idea not just because we we need to. be reaching out to more people, but. especially in this moment, Democrats. lost the popular vote, they lost the. House, they lost the Senate, they lost. the White House. Our only goal right now. should be figuring out how to bring more. people, not excluding people from the. movement because we don't have the.

numbers right now to continue winning. And granted, we'll you know, we'll see. over-performances, but that's in these. special elections and probably the. midterm elections because. uh it's in large part a referendum on on. a very unpopular president and his uh. party that emboldens him. But, I I I I. think that that's that's exactly right. in terms of what the priority right now. needs to be uh to build a coalition to. actually get something done. And I think what's interesting about So, So, you're you're advocating for a. certain experiment, right? The. experiment is let's build the biggest.

coalition. This core value that we. should be organizing around is winning. And And there will be other people who. say, "Look, does that mean that you're. willing to to say racist things? That. you want your party to say racist. things? That you want your party to turn. its back on on divisive movements like. Black Lives Matter because it might. exclude some people?" It's an. interesting question. It's an important. question. And it's worth remembering. that during the Obama campaign, the. first campaign, there was an order that. came down or advice that was given to.

all the volunteers. If you encounter a. voter who says something racist, do not try to talk them out of their. racism. Right? Because the goal here is to elect. the first black president. And as long. as they're willing to to support Obama, it doesn't matter if they're racist, it. doesn't matter X or Y or Z. What matters. is that they see something in this. candidate that they can get behind, whether that be economics or anything. else. There All campaigning is an act of. compromises. And it's a question of.

when we look to our moral values, when. we look to the integrity of a party, when we look to our realism about what. it takes to win, which compromises are. we comfortable with and which aren't we? You know, a pushback to that that I. would imagine some folks listening would. have is. that it is that very act of compromising. on your values that makes you an. undesirable movement in the first place. And that if you just double down on a. truly authentic a truly authentic, truly.

values-driven, principles-driven, um campaign, then people will come. Like. if you build it, people will come. And. and they'll point to Zephyr Teachout, um who has stayed relentlessly on. message based on his values. They point. to the movement that Bernie built, who. has been relentlessly on message. And. so, that would directly conflict with. this idea that you have to compromise to. bring more people in, because in fact. there is a whole faction of people uh.

who will just look at at kind of that. pure, authentic, values-driven person. and and therefore movement and say. that's what I want and I can you know, I. can this way I don't have to surrender. anything. I So, I think you're you're. you're exactly right that what we're. seeing right now within the Democratic. Party is a basic fight over should we be. conciliatory and move to the center? Is. that the is that as a strategy, is that. going to get us more voters? Or should. we remain pure and fight for the sort of.

the the things that are. for some people seem fringe or some for. some people seem far left, because that. authenticity will draw people to us. Now, what's interesting about the. examples you just mentioned is let's. look at Bernie and let's look at. Mumdani. So, Bernie has stayed. consistently on the left, consistently. very, very pure in his values, and he. that does attract a number of people, gets people excited. But he's never been. a real contender for the presidency, right? And in fact, I I would argue that. if he was representing anywhere besides.

Vermont, he probably wouldn't be in the. Senate. Mumdani on the other hand, Mumdani actually does exactly what I was. describing, which is he says, "Look, here's a certain set of core values. I'm. a socialist. I believe in the. redistribution of wealth and that should. be done. I'm I I feel very strongly. about the Palestinian cause." There's a. small handful of things where he refuses. to compromise, but if you look at the. rest of his policy judgments, they are a. set of compromises, right? He kept Tish. as the as the um police commissioner, someone who comes from a billionaire.

family who at was as as embraced by the. right as it is by the left. The things. that he's doing right now on for the. city of New York are very much centrist, middle of the road, because he. understands that's what he needs to do. to build his coalition to get things. done. We we tend to sometimes see. compromise and ideological purity as in. as an opposition to each other. But, they can sit as very uncomfortable. bedfellows very easily, which is to say,

here's the set of things that I refuse. to compromise on, but the rest of it the rest of it I. understand I might need to compromise on. in order to get my priorities into the. world. Last point here, and I want to I want to. tie this back to what we just saw, the. State of the Union, for example. How. does How does Trump's I I would say. message, but I I I'm actually going to. say inability to recognize what the. message is, which is, you know, the. issue that he ran on, this issue of. affordability. He refuses to admit that. there's a problem in deference to his.

own ego. And in doing so, I think he's. sending a message to Americans that like. nothing is going to get solved if the. person in charge of solving them isn't. going to acknowledge that any problems. actually exist. Um I think that's what. was taken out of, you know, that that. that's largely my takeaway from State of. the Union. And so, how is that. instructive for Democrats as we head. toward midterms? Well, I I think you're exactly right. I. I think that um I mean, it seems likely. that the Republican Party is going to. get walloped in the midterm elections, right? And in large part because they've.

tied themselves to Trump, and Trump. refuses to kind of acknowledge an issue. that many American voters feel very. personally, that of affordability. Now, that being said, so what do we. learn from this? Well, I think what we learn is we learn. that. at the end of the day, it's really. important to be. both a realist and an optimist. Right? I. mean, I think the problem with what. Trump is doing right now, setting aside. the ideology, whether you you you agree. with him or not, is that he presented.

what to many voters seemed like an. optimistic view of the future of. America. Make America great again. We're. going to return manufacturing. Those of. you who have lost jobs are going to get. your jobs back. We're going to close our. borders to these hordes of criminals who. are coming across the border. I'm not. saying this is right. I'm saying this is. what he sold. He sold He sold an. optimism that people believed in. Enough. people believed in to elect him. president. But that optimism has to be. tempered by realism. It And good. politicians know this and they do this.

Obama did this really, really well. You have to temper what you believe and. hope will occur with the realistic. viewpoint so that when you're talking to. voters, they know that you're being an. honest broker with them. You're not. selling them a fantasy, but in fact, you're willing to recognize what. actually happens in the world. I would. actually argue that one of the reasons. that we had such with Biden was that he, much like Trump, invested in the. optimism without embracing the realism. It's clear that he should not have run. for president. It's clear that we should.

have. should have had a primary. But just as. Donald Trump is right now, Biden fell in. love with the hope of a future without. being realistic about and reflecting to. the American people what what they know. to be true as realism in their own lived. experiences. And I think just as Biden ended up. losing, I think the Republicans and. Trump are going to lose in the midterms. Last question on this, building off of exactly what you just. said, I think a lot of people will.

hear what you said about Trump offering. up optimism, but we saw an entire first. term where he promised, you know, an. infrastructure law that never. materialized, a middle class tax cut. that never materialized, a jobs boom. that never materialized, a manufacturing. renaissance that never materialized, a healthcare plan that was cheaper and. more comprehensive that never. materialized. He was still able to win. in in in a subsequent election. And so, there does seem to be a little bit of a. disconnect between the fact that yeah, generally you want politicians who are.

going to offer up some realism so that. people know that they're not just being. bullshitted. But at the same time, you've got somebody in Trump whose only. legislative achievement in his first. term was a tax cut for millionaires and. billionaires. And yet, he was still able. to sell this narrative, this fairytale, that he was some populist champion. And. we got conned once in the first term. from someone who never delivered for. working class Americans. And it's. happening again right on cue in the. second term where he promised cheaper. rent, cheaper housing, cheaper. groceries. He talked about issues that.

were so granular that he was talking. about eggs, the price of an egg. And yet. now, of course, he comes in, he passes a. tax cut that overwhelmingly favors. millionaires and billionaires. He builds. himself a $400 million ballroom, buying. Kristi Noem Gulfstream jets, hosting. crypto dinners where he's doubling his. net worth. And so, why why is he able. And And look, that's not to say that. there isn't some pushback because his. his approval rating is at a record low, but it's still 36 to 40%. And so, for a. lot of people, realism notwithstanding, they're still.

willing to to to back him. And so, why. does he not have to abide by the same. structure, the same rules that I think. other politicians have to abide by in. that sense? So, I I think there are. times in our history where. the voting populace is wiser and less. wise. And I feel like we're in a less. wise. place right now, both on the left and. the right. And I think the reason why, and this gets back to the one of the. core arguments of Supercommunicators, my.

book, is that. we have very much forgotten how to have. conversations with people. on the other side of the aisle. Right? We have We very much forgotten how to. have conversations with people who we. disagree with, where those conversations. are civil and we understand each other. And if you think about the moments of. our nation that we're most proud of, it's not moments when everyone agreed. with each other. It's moments when. people knew how to disagree with each. other in a civil, productive way, and. that made them a more intelligent voting.

electorate. You know, you look at the. Civil Rights Movement. You look at the. build-up to World War I. You look up. build-up to World War II, the aftermath. of World War II. You look at what. happened after the Great Depression or. the First Industrial Revolution. America had many, many different. opinions, and those opinions were often. wildly disparate between individuals. And yet those individuals knew how to. discuss their differences, how to. understand what the other person was. saying, and even if they didn't agree. with each other, they knew how to.

connect and move forward. That's. essentially what the Constitutional. Convention was, right? It was people who. hated each other coming together, arguing for months, and then writing a. constitution that we still live with. today. I would argue that the problem here is. not Donald Trump. The problem here is. not that. the. the demagogues who are getting on stage. The problem is that so many of us don't. want to have conversations with people. that we disagree with, that we've lost. we've forgotten how to connect. And as a. result, we've lost the ability that an.

electorate has at its best, which is to. be both judgmental and temperate at the. same time, to have core values, but also. create a big tent that welcomes everyone. in. That's what we've seen in the past. That's what we saw under previous. presidents, and I think we're going to. see it again. But it's about. individuals, the people watching this. show, listening to this podcast. It's. about all of us going out and having. those hard conversations and really. trying to understand what the other. person is trying to say to us, and. speaking in a way that they can.

understand us. Perfect place to leave off. Charles, for. folks who are looking to see and hear. more from you, where can they go? Uh you can I have a newsletter called. the science of better. You can find me. on my own You can sign up for it on my. website um Charles Duhigg d u h i g g. dot com or you can buy one of my books. this uh Supercommunicators or The Power. of Habit. Awesome. I'm going to put that. link right here on the screen to your. website and also in the post. description. Charles, super interesting. conversation. I appreciate the time. Thanks so much. Thanks for having me.