Why Some Politicians Don't Want You to Show Up to Vote | Senator Raphael Warnock on The Interview

There are partisan actors. There are. craven politicians in our country. who don't want people to show up. >> I'm David Marchese, and today I'm. interviewing Senator Raphael Warnock. Senator Warnock, a Democrat who. represents the key swing [music] state. of Georgia, said that the Supreme. Court's decision in April to narrow the. Voting Rights Act [music] has poured. fuel on the redistricting arms race. >> It would be irresponsible in this moment.

[music]. for Democrats to unilaterally disarm. We. cannot. >> He's also a reverend and says there's a. lot the right doesn't understand about. Christian values. [music]. >> I have to ask whether the religion. is more performative than substantive. >> [snorts]. >> Warnock has a new [music] book called. The Crooked Places Made Straight, Reflections on the Moral Meaning of. America. But the book at the forefront of his. mind is perhaps, unsurprisingly, the. Bible. >> The acid test. of one's faith is the depth of your.

commitment to the people who are on the. margins. >> [music]. >> Here's my conversation with Senator. Raphael Warnock. Senator Warnock, thank you for taking. the time to be here with us today. >> Great to be with you. >> It's an interesting time to be talking. to you. You have called the Supreme. Court's recent ruling on voting rights. Jim Crow in New Clothes. And you know, we're in a a moment where. voting rights. it's a very fraught issue, more fraught. in a way than it's been in decades, I. would say.

And. I I I want to know a little bit more. about sort of your personal relationship. with voting rights, because your parents. and grandparents grew up in the in the. Jim Crow South. So, can you can you tell. us a bit about what voting rights means. to you from a family perspective? >> Yes, um you know, I talk a lot about. voting rights uh because. you know, for me voting rights is not. just one issue alongside all of the. other issues we fight up. and struggle and debate about in our. democracy is the very house.

in which we live. It's the framework in. which we get to fight for the things. that matter. And so, I'm a child of the South. My my mother grew up in Waycross, Georgia literally picking somebody. else's cotton in the 1950s. And because of the arc of progress in. this country. uh over the last 60 years. uh I often say the hands that used to. pick somebody else's cotton got to pick. her son to be a United States Senator.

And so, this this story of of fighting. for voting rights doesn't feel distant. to me. We we've only been a democracy in a real. sense since 1965. And what it it seems to me we are. witnessing in real time. is an assault. on those basic voting rights. Uh and it's been stepped up over the. last few years. But let me. >> Let me be really clear. >> Sure. >> I I don't separate this right now.

black voters. are at the center of the debate that. we're hearing. But I I think that the Supreme Court has. has committed violence. against our whole. the ways in which ordinary people can. have a voice in our system. It the same the same Supreme Court that. has gutted section two. of the Voting Rights Act. gutted section five in 2013. is also the same Supreme Court. responsible for Citizens United. And so,

whether we're talking about black voters. or white working class voters, ordinary. people, the voices of the people are. being squeezed out of their democracy. And as someone who whose parents. uh. lived through that that ugly history, I. take deep offense and I'm very concerned. about our our country. >> I think there are those who. would. point to your.

being able to be elected as senator and. and you know, this is sort of. underpinning the logic of some of the. Supreme Court's decisions lately, but. the fact that you you are a senator is a. kind of evidence that you know, the. Voting Rights Act as conceived is no. longer. as necessary or as important as it was. So, what's your response to that kind of. logic? >> Well, the folks who say that don't know. how I got here. Even in my last runoff, state officials in Georgia. looked at the anatomy of my victory.

In the runoff, which by the way is. itself a vestige of the Jim Crow South, they cut the the runoff in half and as. we in terms of the number of weeks and. then as we were going into the runoff. that weekend, state officials in Georgia said, "Sorry, you can't vote first weekend of the. runoff." And they were referencing an. old law in Georgia that said you can't. vote first weekend if it's a few days. after a holiday. And so they said their.

hands were tied. So, I decided to untie their hands and. sue them. So, it took a court decision and two. appeals. so that students who are home that. weekend, so that young people, so that. working class, poor people who are. disproportionately black and brown could. turn out and vote. About 70,000 people. voted. I won. by 100,000 votes. This is how voter. suppression works. It's the ways in.

which you begin to chip away. at people's access, which again. disproportionately impacts black people, brown people, poor people. That's how. you swing an election. Roberts. put forward this theory. that we don't we no longer need the. protections of the Voting Rights Act. That's what he said in 2013. But what has happened in the years since. that awful decision in 2013, Shelby.

versus Holder? Yes, I'm sitting here, but the fact is. the gap. in voter turnout, the racial turnout. gap, has actually. grown wider. since 2013 and. has grown twice as fast. in the states that used to. have to pre-clear, that were under. Section 5, Southern states primarily. Uh.

it's grown twice as fast in those states. now that we have lost the protections. of Section 5. Roberts has long felt that. we didn't need voting rights at the. Voting Rights Act. He he despises the the Voting Rights. Act. >> you think that's the case? Why do you. think he feels that way? >> have to ask him, but he has felt this. way. since he was a young lawyer. in the Reagan Justice Department. It was. the Congress in the 1980s, the US Congress that overwhelmingly.

said, "Look, the impact. matters.". And a young Roberts said, "No, it. shouldn't be impact. You should have to. show intent." He was saying that as a. young lawyer in the 1980s, just. 15 years or so after the Voting Rights. Law was passed. He's never believed in. it. uh in my in my view, and and he's. carrying it out decades later. >> But I want to ask a little bit more. about the Kelly decision in particular.

So, a lot of the discussion in the wake of. the Kelly decision. has has been about its partisan. implications. You know, it's like the. you know, the it's provided an. opportunity essentially for Republicans. to carve out. uh, seats for themselves that they. didn't have before. And. in that discussion it's conflating race. and partisanship. Sort of like. collapsing two things into one. And. what does focusing on on the.

intertwining of race and partisanship. get right in terms of understanding the. Kelly decision and and what does it get. wrong? >> Look, the idea that you can just. completely separate these things. I think is on its head false. Basically, the decision said you can. engage in partisan gerrymander. >> Right. >> As long as it's not racial, it's just. partisan. It's dishonest. The decision is. dishonest. Um, when [clears throat].

uh, LBJ passed the Voting Rights Bill. into law, he said, I think I just gave the South. to the Republicans. for a long time. And those words were were prophetic as a. result of that decision, the old Dixiecrats in the old Democratic. Party. left the Democratic Party. And where did they go? They went to the. Republican Party. So, the irony of this. moment. is that the same uh, partisans who were.

attacking voting rights in the 1960s. are now attacking yet again. >> You just brought up LBJ saying, you. know, passing this is going to lose the. the South for the Democrats and it ended. up, like you said, to be to be true. That was a. you know, I I guess you could call it. like an unintended negative consequence. of the Voting Rights Act. Can you. foresee any unintended negative. consequences for the Republican Party in. the wake of the the recent Supreme Court.

decisions about voting rights? >> Yeah, I think that. they may get some outcomes that they. they don't expect. Yeah, there there. could be some surprises that come. I do. see opportunities. And I think I think. that they have unleashed something. potentially. uh that they that they did not. anticipate. Uh and that is the deep. offense. that people will feel not just black. voters, certainly black voters, but but people of moral courage, people.

who just have a sense that everybody's. voice needs to be heard. I think that. there that we we may witness a kind of. turnout that could completely change the. math. of gerrymandering. I think we're seeing. historic voter turnout in the early. voting in Georgia right now. >> Given that. sort of this this gerrymandering battle, this like I I do think race to the. bottom is what it is in terms of in. terms of of fair representation for. people like that is that is a fact that.

that's happening. Do Democrats have any. choice other than to. participate in that race to the bottom. right now? >> If I had my druthers, we'd get rid of. gerrymandering. And I've got bills to do so. So, Republicans can join me anytime. I have. a bill right now. If they join me in that effort, we could. get rid of gerrymandering, right? But in. the meantime, it was Donald Trump. who called into the state of Texas. and literally said, "Give me more.

seats.". Again, politicians thinking about. themselves rather than the people. And the Supreme Court poured fuel on. that fire. It would be irresponsible in. this moment. for Democrats to unilaterally disarm. We. cannot. In fact, I think blue state. governors, given the reality that we're. in, have a have a moral obligation. uh to look and see. where, you know, we can increase our. opportunities to win.

>> In you would probably know these numbers. better than I do, but I think in in a. when President Biden was elected in 2020. the voter turnout was huge and and the. percentage of people who voted eligible. voters who voted was probably mid-60s, I. would guess. So, there is there is like. you're suggesting. >> America yeah, that and that's the irony. of this moment that even when we have. so-called historic turnout in America is. nowhere near what it ought to be. >> Well, that that's that's my question. Aside from.

outrage or moral outrage about. a given political event, what do you think is the key. to. getting that getting those huge numbers. of people who are either disengaged or. alienated from the political process to. show up and vote? >> Well, first of all, let's be clear that. that there are partisan actors, there. are craven politicians in our country. who don't want people to show up. They.

really don't want um this diverse, multi-racial, multi-generational. coalition that I that that sent me to. the Senate. showing up. And part of the reason why I. know that they're craven politicians. again who don't want them to show up is. we haven't even put the infrastructure. in place. to receive them. I mean, look, do you. remember that there was that big debate. um about SB202 and folks were talking. about the fact that you couldn't bring. water. >> Yeah. Could you explain what SB202 is.

>> Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, yeah, this this is the voting law in my. view is voter suppression law passed in. Georgia right after I won and Jon Ossoff. won. Uh it did things like said, you know, people couldn't bring water to folks in. line you know, while they were standing. in line, couldn't bring refreshments and. there was a lot of outrage about that. I actually think we were asking the. wrong question. The question we ought to be asking is. why are people in line so long that they. want lunch?

>> [laughter]. >> I don't want refreshments when I go to. vote. I want to be able to vote. Now, we. all we're all entitled to our own. opinions, not our own facts. The data. shows that black and brown voters. have to stand in line a lot longer. than their white counterparts. The. experience around voting in some. neighborhoods doesn't look the same way. it does in others. If you're working-class person, uh and you got to take off from work to. vote, that is a kind of poll tax in my view. We we should have weekend voting. We.

shouldn't be fighting it. We should be. able to. uh people should have mail-in voting. We. shouldn't be fighting it. We should We. should be making it easy to vote. >> But do do you have any sense of. you know, when we talk about the legions. of people who are not voting, uh do do. you have a sense of sort of how that. breaks down between. people who. uh. find that there are obstacles. to their ability to go vote as opposed. to people who are disengaged? Like is is.

one a bigger problem than the other? >> There's no question that disengagement. is a real issue in our country. I mean, I I think that um. we've made our politics. too much about the politicians. I mean, if you if you listen to the way. we talk about politics in America. in the public square. and with res- with respect in the media,

too often it's about the politicians. >> It's like sports and talking about the. quarterback. Yeah. >> it like it's like it's sports. Which. politician is up, who's down, who's in, who's out. And I think working-day. people, ordinary people, are saying to. themselves, who cares? And so, this is why I got involved in. something as messy as politics. I mean, it was a you know, there's a. degree of peril for a pastor to get. involved in this. It's messy. But I have a faith.

that uh. you know, requires me to be engaged. You. know, when I think about my own journey, you know, I grew up in public housing, first college graduate in my family, and here I sit. with four degrees including a PhD, pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church, a US. Senator. Who gets to do these things, right? What keeps me up at night. is that it would be harder for me to do.

those things now than it was for that. kid growing up in the 1980s. >> Because of attacks on. >> Be- because of growing inequality, because of attacks on things like the. Pell Grant, because of our refusal to invest in the. next generation, because of our. obsession with with the culture wars, rather than focusing on. American competitiveness. And now And. now we're dealing with AI and all of. these things. There are the whole range. of issues we really need to be focused.

on, but right now we've got demagogues. who are distracting us with the politics. of division, and I think people are. turned off. >> I want to switch gears just for a. second. I was uh. just because I saw it kept showing up on. the uh best-seller lists, uh. your colleague in the Senate uh John. Kennedy's book, How to Test Negative for. Stupid, has been a big best-seller. He's. a Republican Senator from from. Louisiana. And so I was I was reading. it. And towards the end, he does kind of. just like a.

uh rapid-fire assessment of various. hot-button issues in America. And he. when he writes about race, and [snorts] he says that America's not. a racist country, and the country's. history is proof. that it's not a racist country. I think. it's pretty easy to imagine someone else. saying, "Actually, the country's history. is proof that racism is pretty deeply. embedded.". Uh. but I don't think Senator Kennedy's view. is wildly out of line with the view of.

a lot of conservatives and how they see. race in the country. And it made me. wonder about in for you, like, where do. you find. common ground there when there's such a. fundamental disagreement about. the country's history when it comes to. race? >> He is oversimplifying a complicated. issue. I've always said that America has a. complicated story. All families, I know this as a pastor,

all families have a complicated story. And I embody the complexity of the. American story in my own story. Um I had an older father, you know, World War II era veteran. And as a kid, I remember him telling me the story. about how when he came home, uh he had to give up his bus seat. to a teenager.

while wearing his soldier's uniform. And that wasn't that long before I was. born, but he had to give up his seat. But now, his son sits in a Senate seat. I love this country, flaws and all. But part of how you love somebody is you. tell them the truth. And um. I'd be irresponsible to sit in this seat. while ignoring the fact the land of the. free is the mass incarceration capital.

of the world. I got a brother who went through that. system. He made a terrible mistake. What. he did cannot be justified. But he was a first-time offender, nonviolent drug-related offense. Went to prison, was sentenced to life. without parole. Nobody died. Nobody got. uh. no one was was hurt violently, you know, physically. Nobody even got high. Long story. And yet I sit here.

That's the complexity of the story that. perhaps I know in a way that's different. from my colleague and friend John. Kennedy. >> In your new book, you. write about how, you know, Christians in. the United States have. in the past stood on the wrong side of. justice, you know, slavery being the the. prime example. And you also write about how, if for.

example, uh you know, how Speaker Mike. Johnson spent a lot of time praying in. the Capitol's chapel. uh in advance of the passing of the One. Big Beautiful Bill, which is a bill that. you describe as Robin Hood in reverse. You're just robbing the poor to to give. to the wealthy. And you know, I I was reading those things sort of in. in in the same context of, you know, people of faith and people of sincere.

faith, which I I believe Speaker Johnson. is, taking political actions that, you know, you see as ungodly or or. immoral. And. it's was interesting to me that. I didn't really. feel like in the book you you directly. grappled with the question of how you. understand when. fellow believers. take positions that that you can't.

morally abide. So, from like a. theological perspective, how do Do. understand that? >> For me the the acid test. of one's faith is the depth of your. commitment to the people who are on the. margins. And um. I'm a Matthew 25 Christian. >> What you do unto the least of us you do. unto me. >> You do unto me. >> Yep. >> And so I don't understand how you read. that,

say a long prayer, you know, you know, hold hands with your. fellow legislators, and then cut a trillion dollars, one. trillion dollars, out of Medicaid. calling it waste, fraud, and abuse. What. are you saying about those people? And. so in light of that, for me, um I have to ask whether the religion. >> [snorts]. >> is more performative than substantive.

You know, like to use these fancy words, but you. know, we we we I'm a I'm a trained. systematic theology theologian. There's. something called the hermeneutics of. suspicion. >> Tell people what that is. >> Well, it's when you when you when you. look at a text or you look at the world. and you and you with a critical view, where you ask the hard questions. So I. want you to know that I apply that same. hermeneutics of suspicion to my own. faith. I examine myself and I ask and I. and I invite other people to ask, what's. really driving this? Why are you taking. that view? Why did you vote this way.

actually on that? What's really driving. it? I know you say that you're you're. focused on on this issue and I've seen. it with my with my colleagues, you know, usually if you ask politicians enough. questions about why they're voting what. they're voting, it's somewhere is. connected to their politics. And so the. question I always ask myself, you know, am I so committed to self-preservation. that I can't be effective? And so. I think that the speaker has a certain. agenda.

and a certain view. And it is what that you know, I think I. think that that's that that that. obviously plays a huge role. And there's. a there's a long history of that. I mean, you know, the. there were many [clears throat]. Christians on the wrong side of slavery. They were on the wrong side of Jim Crow. segregation. And so part of. the obligation, I think, of a person of.

faith. is to ask yourself, what are you. actually worshipping? What are you actually committed to? Are you committed to the poor? Are you. committed to the despised and the. rejected? Would Jesus agree with the actions of. ICE. in this moment. in which we're seeing organized cruelty. on our streets, masked men jumping out. of unmarked cars, separating families,

uh terrorizing whole communities of. people whether they're. uh documented or not, whether they're. citizens or not. What is it in the. gospel, I would ask my colleagues, what is it in. the gospel. that says that this is this is right? Do unto others as you would have them do. unto you. There's some variation of that in all of. the great faith traditions, in Judaism, in Christianity, and Islam,

and the Baha'i faith, all the great. traditions. And um. you know, that that's the question I. think that people aren't asking. themselves deeply enough because if you. do, you might act actually have to make. some decisions that make you a little. bit uncomfortable. >> What's a decision you've made that's. made you uncomfortable? >> I don't know. That's that's an. interesting question. I I mean, look, as someone who votes all the time in the.

Senate. um. you know, there are always these. different interests and people. speaking into your ear. about what needs to be done. And on the one hand. there is the desire. uh to fight, to work for the people that. sent you there. There's also. the recognition.

that if you can't stay in that seat. you can't do those things. So, if we're honest, all of us who are. in elected office live in that tension. You know, and I'm in a purple state. The same state that sent me to the. Senate. voted for Donald Trump. So, those are the That's Those are the. politics that I navigate every single. day. What helps me in that regard. is that while I do love this job.

and it's a dream job because when I get. a victory, the scale. of the victory. is something that be hard to do almost. anywhere else. So, I do feel a moral. obligation to try to stay in this seat. to do the work. But, what does help me in that regard. and I I hope puts me above being just. another. uh transactional politician. is that I don't need this job. I really don't. I mean, in terms of my.

own sense of personal fulfillment and my. own sense of somebody-ness, if you will. I don't need this job. >> Because you have Ebenezer. >> Well, because I have a project. And that project is change, that project. is human fulfillment, that project is. justice, and I don't need any particular. job to do that. >> You know Mark 12:17, right? >> You tell me. >> I love this. You Tell tell the Tell the.

Christian preacher the. >> [laughter]. >> the the the scripture Believe it or not, I don't memorize I haven't memorized the. whole Bible. >> It's a It's a It's [laughter] a famous. line. It's Render to Caesar the things. that are Caesar's, and to God the things. that are God's. >> Yes. >> How do you understand that line? >> Uh pay your taxes. >> [laughter]. >> Uh show up as a good a good citizen. Uh but don't bow down to Caesar. That's. what it means to me. >> Yeah. >> Like. you know.

>> I didn't mean to test you on that one. >> Yeah. [laughter] Yeah. Yeah. >> But it is a [snorts] it is a. a. a piece of of scripture that's about. church and state. And I I really want to. understand. for for you. a man who is driven by his faith, who. who is a is a pastor. >> What I'm. >> How do you under How How How Where are. the lines that that you draw if you draw. them? And this isn't a leading question. This.

is a question from from Comes out of. sincere curiosity. But this is. How do you. delineate between sort of. when you're. driven by. faith and when you're driven by. sort of the the the the the public good? Cuz it it can't it I don't know that it. can be a perfect overlap of those two. circles. Maybe maybe it can. You're in a better position to to tell.

me. >> I'm driven by the values in my faith. >> Yeah. >> And it's the values and not the creeds. that I try to take in a responsible way. to my work. But those values, in my view, are. resonant in all of the great faith. traditions. and in and in people who claim no faith. tradition at all. but are people of moral courage. love. truth-telling. >> [snorts]. >> justice-making.

compassion. empathy. looking into the eyes of your neighbor. and seeing a glimpse of your own. humanity. that that's what drives. my work and and not and not the creeds. of the faith. and you didn't ask me but you know I'll. I'll venture out a little bit into the. wars and so and say that this is what. drives my view for example. on the whole issue around reproductive.

choice. I get a lot of attacks from folks on the. right who try to challenge. my pastoral identity. my Christian identity I'm I'm I'm. unbothered by that on the LGBTQ. you know question. you know on on you know for for me we we. live in a diverse democratic republic. and on the issue around choice. you know um I have a deep deep reverence.

for life. and I have a profound respect for choice. the question here is whose decision is. it. and. uh I think that that a a woman ought to. have autonomy the ability to decide. >> I was about to call you reverend instead. of senator. >> I I I I answer. to both. reverend the the the the. what what you just described the.

how you get attacked on the right uh. uh. from people who are against your uh. positions on uh on women's choice or or. LGBTQ. I have to believe that certainly many of. the people who are attacking you are. authentic in in their belief that your. positions are. ungodly. Now, I apologize if this is if. this is like a. religion 101 question, but how do you. know you're right? Why why do you.

how do you have confidence that your. position is the moral one? >> Oh, if you absolutely know. And. look, there's things that I clearly. believe deeply. But faith isn't about knowing. Faith is just that. It's an act of faith. [clears throat]. That that is part of my core identity. I. don't even respond to people who say. that cuz they clearly didn't grow up in. my church. They don't know.

>> People who say what? >> question my Christian. sincerity, authenticity. Like I don't. even have time for that. It's so basic. to who I am. I often joke that that you. know, I grew up in a Pentecostal. holiness tradition. My my folks that seemed speak to spoke. to us in King James English. Thou shalt wash the dishes lest thou. smite thee with my rod and my staff. When I when my dad dropped me off to. college, I was looking for him to give. me a few dollars and you know, I'm one.

of 12 children in my family, first. college graduate. He was generous. But you know, he had. didn't have any money. He literally. looked me in the eye. as I was you know, looking for a few. dollars to get through my first. semester, you know, I needed to buy. books. My dad looked at me in the eye and in. King James English, he said, "Silver and gold. hath I none. >> [laughter]. >> But such as I have give I unto thee. The. Lord Jesus Christ go with you, son.". That's the household I grew up in. So, I. don't I don't I don't have time with. people you know, for people who want to.

question my my my faith identity. I I believe. in um. you know, I I'm I'm part of the Kingian. tradition. And that movement changed America. And at its height. Martin Luther King Jr. and Rabbi Abraham. Joshua Heschel. marched together. Rabbi Heschel said, "When I marched. alongside Dr. King,

I felt like my legs were praying.". So, where where is there room. for him. and the Hindu. and the Sikh. and people again who who are agnostic? Folks who are atheists. >> or searching. >> or searching. And maybe in part because. the expression of the God that they're. hearing. that is a racist, classist,

misogynistic, homophobic God, they don't believe in that God, so they. call themselves atheists. Well, the. Christian pastors got a message for. them. I don't believe in that God, either. >> [laughter]. >> You know, there's a a lot of discussion. on [snorts] the right about Christianity. being under attack in this country. Um. >> [clears throat]. >> Vice President Vance, for example, talks. about a war being waged on Christians in. the United States. Do do you understand where that.

perception comes from? >> Yeah, well, who's waging the war? >> Well, he would say another thing he said. is that the left has labored to push. Christianity out of national life. >> think. I think. that war on Christianity, my view of the. faith. >> Mhm. >> is cutting a trillion dollars out of. Medicaid. Because Jesus spent much of his. ministry, read the Gospels, healing the. sick, even those with pre-existing conditions. That's what leprosy was. He never billed.

them for his services. They're taking. health care away. That's what a war on. Christianity looks like to me. I often say that I'm not a senator. who used to be a pastor. I'm a pastor in the Senate. But this pastor who serves in the Senate. does not. want to live in anybody's theocracy. Christian, Jewish, Muslim. I don't want to live in anybody's.

theocracy. And um. what they are asserting is a kind of. dangerous. Christian nationalism. You know. I I'm struck by by J.D. Vance. you know, saying he's defending the. faith on the one hand, but he seems. more than willing to attack the Pope. when the Pope doesn't agree with his. politics. or when the Pope is just calling us to. think about peace.

I mean, did you hear him? He He. literally said. uh you know, the Pope needs to be. careful when he's talking about. theology. J.D. Vance. who is the newly converted. Catholic. uh newly converted uh Catholic. uh and writes a whole book talking about. his conversion, which. in and of itself is interesting to me. Um. uh. you know, seeming more than than willing.

to attack the Pope and say that he needs. to be careful about talking about. theology. He's already instructing the. Pope. on how to be a good Pope. And so I I think you see the um. the callousness. I think you see the. hubris. The willingness. to attack the church and the Pope. himself if it gets in the way with his. in the way of his political agenda. I'm not impressed. >> [music].

>> On the interview, we talked to our guest. twice. So, I called Senator Warnock and. we spoke about the Antichrist. Senator, thank you for taking the time. to speak with me again. I appreciate it. >> Great to be with you. >> There's something I want to ask you. about that I find just I. find bonkers in the public discourse. right now and I think you might you. might be well positioned to to offer a. perspective on it. So, I was reading. about. James Talorico in Texas and apparently.

some of his opponents refer to him as an. Antichrist. [clears throat]. And also Tucker Carlson has talked about. whether Trump is the Antichrist. Peter. Thiel in in private talks apparently is. often talking about the Antichrist or is. saying perhaps Greta Thunberg is is the. Antichrist. I cannot recall a time in my. living memory when the subject of the. Antichrist was in political or public. discourse. Does it make any sense to. you?

>> No. No, I mean I I I think. I think that that um. that we're in a moment where folks are. weaponizing whatever they can grab and. religion. is not unusual that religion becomes a. part of that. So, I what I I try. I I don't use my my faith. uh as a cudgel. I don't I don't use it as a weapon. I. use it as a bridge. And and this this. this this fight about the Antichrist as. you're describing it, if you think about. it, get beneath the religious language,

what it really is is a way of saying. who's inside and who's outside. Who belongs and who doesn't. Who's on. the side of good, who's on the side of. evil. And what I'm trying to do is remind us. of of who we are as an American people. >> You know, you and I spoke maybe a week. and a half ago, something like that. And. when we were talking, I had asked you. about. if you'd made any decisions that you. were uncomfortable with. And you said that everyone in elected.

office lives in the tension between. wanting to do the right thing. and the realization that you need to. stay in the seat that you're that you. hold so that you can continue to try to. do the right thing. But you didn't actually give me an. example of a decision you'd made that. was difficult in that way. So can you. share a specific political decision or a. political vote you you made where you. felt that tension most strongly? >> You know, I one of the things that I. wish I had pushed harder for.

is voting rights. There was a a moment. where. um. the there was an effort to. raise the debt ceiling. I was literally. a freshman, I'd just gotten here. We were 50/50 Senate. And. um. I warned [clears throat] my colleagues. that I felt very strongly that we needed. to do everything. to put out the fire. that was raging against our democracy in.

the wake of January 6th. This was months. after that. State legislatures all across the. country. including my own state had released. dozens of voter suppression bills. And I was worried that we might get to a. place in our democracy where we would. have crossed the Rubicon. and it would be very very difficult to. get back. And so that was a tough. decision for me. I I I literally thought. about thought seriously [clears throat]. about withholding.

my vote. on the debt ceiling deal. But the. concern was that. you know, you're talking about the. American economy. and that the people that I worry about. the most, the most vulnerable members of. of my state. Uh, know, poor people, middle class people, that. it would hit them the hardest. Um, and so I I still do wonder about. that decision. I. as I'm watching what's happening, I wonder if I made the right decision,

that maybe I should have pushed harder. >> And so you're saying you you could have. withheld your vote in order to. gain. >> My my that to to argue that that if you. wanted if you wanted my vote on this, >> Uh-huh. >> we needed to find a path. to get voting rights passed. All the. Democrats were on it. But we had two Democrats who are no. longer in office. who were not willing to make any. adjustment to the filibuster. We weren't. even trying to get rid of the. filibuster, just making an adjustment.

uh, so that we could get this done. And. the process we were working. >> Manchin. >> There Manchin and Sinema. And I I. thought seriously, uh, and and. and prayed some long nights about. whether I should should, uh, put my foot. down completely on that issue. I talked. to folks that I respected a great deal. At the end of the day, I was worried. about the economic pain that it would. create uh, for folks. And so I went with. the caucus. But as I'm watching what's.

unfolding right now, I don't know if. that was the right decision or not. I do. know that we should have pushed harder. to get voting rights done. >> And and let me stick with voting rights. for a second. So you're you're against. gerrymandering. But also when we were. talking earlier, you said that you do. feel that Democrats have a moral. obligation to compete with Republicans. as far as redistricting goes. So so what. But what is the way out of this. sort of doom spiral of of competitive. gerrymandering? Like can can you.

describe a world in which these this. problem has been solved and and. districting is fair? Like. how do we get there? What does that look. like? >> I I that the democracy would be better. off. if we had more competitive congressional. districts in our country. And so, each. side would lose a something lose a. little something. We'd have to give a. little, get a little. Uh but I actually. think that at the end of the day the. country would be better off and I have a. bill. that would do just that. We could ban.

partisan gerrymandering uh right away if. the Congress decided to do so. I've got. my bill so far. I've got no Republican takers. Uh but I'm a preacher the doors of the. church are open and I'd I'd love to see. us find a bipartisan path uh towards a. democracy where the voters are speaking. and rather than politicians picking. their voters, the voters are picking the. people that they want to represent them. >> But districts would be drawn by. independent committees or something. Is.

that what you're going to suggest? >> independent bipartisan committees. >> We were also talking about the voting. rights in in the context of of Justice. Roberts and and Alito and and you said. that you believe Justice Roberts. despises the Voting Rights Act. And that. you know, that may or may not be the. case. I don't know what's what's in his. heart. But but his opposition. to it it has to do with jurisprudence, right? It not race. But my my question. to you is whether or not jurisprudence.

can be in in the context of the Voting. Rights Act can be disentangled from. race. Or is opposition to the Voting. Rights Act de facto racist? I think that what the Supreme Court did. the other day. was deeply. intellectually. dishonest. Um you you cannot disaggregate. uh the ghosts of Jim Crow and the.

reality of race in our country. uh from the struggle around voting. rights. Uh. I wasn't making a comment about what's. in. uh the Chief Justice's heart. Uh. but the legacy of the Roberts Court. is that through the Shelby case, uh through the Calay case, and through the Citizens United case, uh they've done a lot of damage. uh to our democracy and our electoral. system. >> But But I I I guess another way of.

asking the question I was trying to get. at is, you know, what you describe as. intellectual honesty? Is that tantamount to racism? >> What I'm concerned about, let me put it. this way. What I'm concerned about is. impact. Which is the very thing the court. decided that they won't even consider. Uh they won't deal with the impact of. the decisions that they're making, and we're seeing in real time the. consequences of that as literally you've. got southern states.

that are in the middle of an election. deciding to pause the election, throw. out votes that have already been cast, so that they can draw lines to get a. partisan advantage, and then claim, you. know, that it's not about race. Well, in. many cases it's not. It's about power. But people who are greedy about for. power, people who want to hold on to. power, they will use anything to hold on to. power, including race. >> I'd like to ask you about something that. Justice Clarence Thomas said in a speech.

at the University of Texas not that long. ago. He said, "Progressivism seeks to replace. the basic premises of the Declaration of. Independence and hence our form of. government. It holds that our rights and. our dignities come not from God, but. from government.". >> [snorts]. >> So he he's basically suggesting. progressivism is anti-God, immoral, and. anti-American. So you're a progressive politician and a. pastor who just wrote a book about. American morality. What do you think. Justice Thomas doesn't understand about.

progressivism? >> Well, it's it's uh it's rich to hear. from someone who's spent their career. working in in government. that that somehow government doesn't. have a role. to play in making sure people have their. voice. I don't know I don't know what to. make of of what Justice Thomas is. saying. Uh. I I know that he. uh seems seriously compromised to me. um by you know the the. the gifts that he's received over the.

years. And it it is it's just interesting to me. that Republicans are so obsessed right. now. with playing with the lines. Uh Justice Thomas, along with his. colleagues, are complicit in this. And I. do wonder what they're thinking as. they're watching this. Um but you know, I guess if they are as partisan as they. appear to be, maybe they're happy with. this. >> And just the last question for you. Um. you know, I think.

sort of the one of the animating ideas. of your book is that in. a lot of ways America has has you know, its moral compass has gone awry or it's. it's lost its its its way morally. What. what sort of. practical specific signs are you looking. for or should any of us be looking for. that would make us think. uh America has found its way morally? >> What would that look like? >> Yeah.

>> Isaiah says that the glory of the Lord. shall be revealed. And all flesh shall see it together. I. don't mean to preach here, but I have to. tell you that as a preacher I used to. think that that text meant that the. glory of the Lord is so amazing and so. overwhelming that that all flesh will. see it and you can't help but see it. because it's God's glory after all. I actually read it in the reverse now, particularly in this moment. I think I. think that the insight, again, whether. you're a person of faith or not, I the insight that that the prophet is. is laying out for us.

is that there's some things we can only. see. when we get together. >> Senator, thank you again for speaking. with me. I appreciate it. >> Great to be with you. >> [music]. >> I'm Lulu Garcia-Navarro. >> And I'm David Marchese. >> And we're the hosts of The Interview, an. audio. >> [music]. >> and video podcast from The New York. Times. >> Every week we interview fascinating and. influential people from all walks of. life. [music]. >> Subscribe to our YouTube channel so. you'll never miss an episode.