democracynow--2020-02-26--"The Billionaire Election": Anand Giridharadas on How 2020 Is a Referendum on Wealth Inequality

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : Two out of seven .
That ’ s the number of Democratic candidates in last night ’ s debate who are billionaires .
Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer were at either end of the debate stage in Charleston , South Carolina , with front-runner Bernie Sanders front and center , facing a barrage of criticism from his challengers .
He was flanked by former Vice President Biden and Senator Elizabeth Warren , Senator Amy Klobuchar and former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ African-American and moderate voters in a battleground state .
This is moderator Norah O ’ Donnell questioning Bernie Sanders during the debate , which was sponsored by CBS and the Congressional Black Caucus Institute .
AMY GOODMAN : So , this was the final debate before Saturday ’ s primary in South Carolina and Super Tuesday , when 14 states will vote .
South Carolina TV station WCSC reported the Charleston County Democratic Party offered tickets to people who sponsored the debate at a cost of $ 1,750 to $ 3,200 per sponsorship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ only guaranteed way to get a ticket ” to last night ’ s debate .
In a few minutes , we ’ ll go to South Carolina to get reaction there , but first we ’ re joined here in New York by Anand Giridharadas , editor-at-large of Time magazine .
His book is called Winners Take All : The Elite Charade of Changing the World .
On Sunday , he had a cover story of The New York Times Week in Review titled “ The Billionaire Election : Does the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Welcome back to Democracy Now !
, Anand .
ANAND GIRIDHARADAS : Thank you for having me , Amy .
AMY GOODMAN : So , that ’ s pretty astounding .
Two of the seven Democratic candidates , considered so often the Republican — the people ’ s party , are billionaires .
What does this say to you ?
Who were on the stage last night .
ANAND GIRIDHARADAS : Running to replace a self-described billionaire , who actually probably isn ’ t one .
You know , let ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you just showed those shots of , because I think it ’ s a metaphor for what I have called the “ billionaire election , ” or the billionaire referendum that 2020 is .
So , you ’ ve got these seven people on stage .
On two ends are actual billionaires .
The two candidates in the middle , Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders , are candidates who have risen to prominence precisely on the platform of running against billionaires and the idea that billionaire power is excessive and is suffocating the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have the $ 1,700 to $ 3,200 tickets , which captures the way in which the Democratic Party is an ostrich , not understanding that we live in an age in which people are actually rising up against plutocracy , and this is the kind of , you know , foot fault that you don ’ t want to make .
And then you have , you know , CBS , this big corporation , hosting the debate .
Twitter is collaborating .
That ’ s owned by a billionaire .
Billionaires are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy that has generated so much of the rage this year that is being — that is presenting itself in the election .
And so , this is an election in which you have to have a stand .
You have to know where you stand on the question of billionaires in order to vote in this primary and in this general election .
If you don ’ t have a perspective on billionaires , you can ’ t actually make this choice meaningfully , because for very long in this country , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ billionaires is they are like helium balloons .
They ’ re just people who happened to have drifted up from among the rest of us .
That ’ s been the story .
And yes , they had more , and maybe the gap was a little too high , but they were just people who drifted up , and maybe if we could get more people a little helium and drift them up , then we ’ d be better off .
A new story is emerging , a truer story , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ folks , and certainly that class of people , is up there because they are standing on other people ’ s backs .
And they stand on people ’ s backs by using and abusing tax havens like Bermuda — hello , Bloomberg .
They stand on people ’ s backs by profiting from an economy , like the financial sector that has destroyed the American dream for so many people — hello , Michael Bloomberg .
They stand on people ’ s backs by lobbying for bottle-service public policy that is of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the public .
And I think Americans are actually waking up to the fact that we have been living in this , what I call this winners-take-all America , in which the country is not being run for Americans .
It is being run for money .
I actually have gotten tired of the language of inequality , even though I wrote an entire book about it — multiple books about it , because I think people don ’ t — it doesn ’ t click with people , what we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you are someone listening to this who ’ s not — I mean , you ’ re probably not , because you ’ re watching Democracy Now !
— but someone who ’ s not so excited about the inequality issue , think about it this way .
In every year , in this country and in all countries , a certain amount of future rains on all of us .
A certain amount of progress rains on all of us .
A certain amount of innovation rains on all of us .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Latin word for new stuff .
And the question then becomes : When that new stuff , the future , progress , rains on us , who gets it ?
Who harvests the rainwater ?
And what has actually happened is the future has become a thing that is privately gated and enjoyed and monopolized by very few people , which means that you can be living in an age where extraordinary things are being invented , the internet is being invented , medical advances are happening , but if you are not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fruits of the future , you are stuck in 1979 .
And that ’ s true as a matter of wages for many people .
It ’ s true as a matter of health access for many people .
It ’ s true as a matter of information access for many people , who are listening to media that is distorting their minds .
And I think what ’ s at stake in 2020 is we wake up to the idea that either we are going to resign ourselves to living in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re going to actually muster the gumption to remind billionaires that they are living in our country .
AMY GOODMAN : I want to go not to last night ’ s debate , but the Las Vegas debate , the time when Mike Bloomberg , you might have called him the piñata in Nevada .
And this is the exchange between Senator Sanders and former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg .
This was moderated by MSNBC .
AMY GOODMAN : If you can respond to that , Anand Giridharadas ?
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ I worked hard for that money.
” ANAND GIRIDHARADAS : I mean , first of all , just , you know , it ’ s so interesting , given that this is — you know , it ’ s an election .
It ’ s a contest about actually connecting with people .
It ’ s so interesting to me that being that rich , as Michael Bloomberg is , makes there be no one in your life who actually tells you how you come across to people .
I mean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a large piece of cheese that ate a robot .
You know ?
It ’ s hard to even make up how unable he is to connect to people .
But he ’ s probably just surrounded by people who are like , “ Oh my god , sir , you are connecting !
” Which is part of the problem of being a billionaire .
That exchange was so telling .
And what happens in Vegas absolutely must not stay in Vegas , because what he is arguing is the — he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happens to be rich running in a progressive primary .
He is running as a rich guy with all the rich guy intuitions , which is , “ I am worth $ 60 billion because I earned that , and nobody else had any part in that.
” And that is an ideology that just frankly does not belong in the Democratic Party .
And it ’ s just — it ’ s a kind of 20th century — it ’ s just — it ’ s old , to be honest .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ mean , I know , through my reporting , a number of billionaires , who just absolutely don ’ t think that anymore .
Right ?
That ’ s not even cutting-edge thinking within the circle of billionaires .
Right ?
I ’ ve had billionaires text me , being like , “ What ’ s this guy doing ?
” Right ?
Like , this guy — like , let ’ s be just clear for a second .
Michael Bloomberg is making billionaires uncomfortable with his defense of billionaires .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can attest from my iMessages .
So , I think we ’ ve got to think about this notion that he ’ s articulating .
It ’ s a notion in which his wealth is somehow independent of all the extraordinary things in society that we ’ ve all paid into , from public schools to public roads to the financial regulators who allow him to build that kind of business .
You know , Michael Bloomberg — look , anybody watching this should feel grateful to America .
But Michael Bloomberg should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anybody watching this .
Right ?
Like , all of your lives , watching this , are sort of dependent , pretty dependent , on America being a functioning society with nice common things .
But his life is really , really dependent on those common things , because , more than anybody watching this , he really depends on Wall Street regulators doing their job .
He really depends on the United States court system doing its job well .
Nothing he does is possible without that .
He really depends , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people , on there being a widely educated , well-educated workforce .
And so , it feels particularly churlish , when you have an obligation to be 60 billion times more grateful than the average person for public systems , to denigrate them and claim that everything you made is your private prerogative that you could have done in any context in the world , without any of these shared systems .
AMY GOODMAN : I want to go back to Michael Bloomberg , but this is last night in South Carolina , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the 2018 midterm election .
AMY GOODMAN : So , you ’ re the author of Winners Take All : The Elite Charade of Changing the World .
He said , “ Look how I used my money.
” ANAND GIRIDHARADAS : You know , it ’ s so interesting .
I was thinking about this .
I wish I was prescient enough to write this book because I knew Michael Bloomberg was going to run for president .
I didn ’ t .
But I wrote it precisely out of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
And so , a few years ago , the phenomenon I noticed about America , that led to the book , was the Bloombergs of the world have two sides to them .
If you look at Michael Bloomberg ’ s philanthropic activities , which rhyme with the activities of many , many people like him — we can ’ t deny that .
A lot of money being given away , maybe more than in history .
Not a lot — not a big percentage for a lot of people , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 400-some billion are given away in America every year .
A lot of money .
And I looked at people like him giving money away , doing these ends , changing the world , giving back , making a difference — Africa , Africa , Africa .
They love Africa .
All this talk about these activities .
But then , inconveniently , I looked at a second thing , which is also true about people like Michael Bloomberg , which is that if you looked at the actual economic data , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the fruits of the future .
They were monopolizing progress .
So , on the one hand , they were doing all these nice things , which Michael Bloomberg absolutely does , and , on the other hand , they were actually increasing , not decreasing , their share of the pie every year .
So , it started to make me wonder : What ’ s the relationship between all these nice activities and the bad activities , the hoarding , the generosity and the injustice ?
And the conclusion I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the kind of giving that folks like Michael Bloomberg do is the wingman of their taking .
The kind of generosity they engage in is the wingman of the injustice they uphold .
And the making a difference that they talk about is the wingman of their making a killing .
And you see in Bloomberg how , because he is using his wealth to attempt to purchase the presidency .
That ’ s certainly a way in which , you know , having that money and using the reputation glow of philanthropy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot of people who have endorsed him are people who have benefited from his charitable largesse .
Right ?
So you use this making a difference to actually increase , not decrease , your power .
In an age of plutocracy , which we are in , the central issue in this country is whether you ’ re going to find a way to break the stranglehold on wealth and power of a few people at the top .
And if you do not have a plan to do that , you , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perpetuate that .
AMY GOODMAN : Would you say that the billionaires election , talking about it that way , is sort of a coded way , a coded critique of capitalism ?
And now , when you have Michael Bloomberg coming into the race — he won ’ t be in South Carolina so much as Super Tuesday — his pouring millions into taking on Bernie Sanders and trying to make this an issue about socialism , redbaiting him as much as possible , trying to pose it as “ You either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ANAND GIRIDHARADAS : This is such an American talking point that Michael Bloomberg is engaged in , that we all need to educate — first of all , you know , I think — look , I think there are some people who had a great life in the 20th century , who should have considered remaining in it .
Right ?
Like , if your framework — like , if you are still running nuclear drills in your mind — right ?
— you may not belong in the 21st century @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — and I see it on TV all the time .
Like , there are people who clearly have Cold War trauma , and I feel for them , but we ’ re not actually in the Cold War anymore .
Right ?
We ’ re in just a completely different era .
Right ?
And just as it would have been unhelpful in the Cold War to be like talking about what we need to do in the trenches of World War I — it ’ s just not a helpful framework @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s just not now — it ’ s not particularly helpful now , in 2020 , to be reliving your own Cold War trauma as guidance for the United States .
Michael Bloomberg is trying to present this old American talking point , that you ’ ve got two choices , people : We can either be a Goldman Sachs country , or we can be Maduro ’ s Venezuela .
Those are your choices .
Those are your — that ’ s the whole choice .
We have come to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fascinating , where our understanding of gender is more fluid than our understanding of capitalism , socialism and democracy .
It ’ s remarkable .
I never would have expected that .
We ’ ve made tremendous progress in understanding that it ’ s not like men , women , nothing in between ; it ’ s complicated .
People fall all kinds of places on that distribution .
But capitalism and socialism ?
No , no , no , it ’ s one or the other .
The reality is , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or read a book , every country in the world , with maybe a couple of exceptions , has some mix of capitalism and socialism .
When you ’ re on the highway , the thing beneath you , socialism ; the things on the highway , capitalism — the cars and the trucks carrying stuff .
When you are on Wall Street , the banks , capitalism ; the regulators that make sure that brokers are not stealing their money , socialism .
Right ?
When you work for 40 years at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and have Social Security and Medicare take care of you , socialism .
Right ?
It ’ s early in the morning .
I have , already in the course of this day , by eating certain things , engaged in capitalism .
By taking a car here , engaged in capitalism .
But I have also benefited profoundly , just by 8 a.m. , from socialism , from the fact that people — you know , there were roads .
It was nice to have roads on the way here .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You know , all the ways in which capitalism and socialism are actually part of every hour of our lives , let ’ s end this ridiculous binary and have some understanding of economic fluidity .
AMY GOODMAN : Anand Giridharadas , thank you so much for being with us , Time magazine editor-at-large , his new book , Winners Take All : The Elite Charade of Changing the World .
And we ’ ll link to his New York Times cover story of the Week in Review called “ The Billionaire Election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or to us ?
” When we come back , we go to Charleston and Columbia , South Carolina .
Stay with us .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: Two out of seven. That’s the number of Democratic candidates in last night’s debate who are billionaires. Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer were at either end of the debate stage in Charleston, South Carolina, with front-runner Bernie Sanders front and center, facing a barrage of criticism from his challengers. He was flanked by former Vice President Biden and Senator Elizabeth Warren, Senator Amy Klobuchar and former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who all tried to appeal to African-American and moderate voters in a battleground state. This is moderator Norah O’Donnell questioning Bernie Sanders during the debate, which was sponsored by CBS and the Congressional Black Caucus Institute.
NORAH O’DONNELL: Senator Sanders, we haven’t had a national unemployment rate this low for this long in 50 years. Here in South Carolina, the unemployment rate is even lower. How will you convince voters that a democratic socialist can do better than President Trump with the economy?
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Well, you’re right. The economy is doing really great for people like Mr. Bloomberg and other billionaires. In the last three years, last three years, billionaires in this country saw an $850 billion increase in their wealth. But you know what? For the ordinary American, things are not so good. Last year, real wage increases for the average worker were less than 1%. Half of our people are living paycheck to paycheck. Eighty-seven million Americans have no health insurance or are underinsured. Forty-five million people are struggling with student debt. Five hundred thousand people tonight are sleeping out on the street, including 30,000 veterans. That is not an economy that’s working for the American people. That’s an economy working for the 1%.
MICHAEL BLOOMBERG: I think that Donald Trump thinks it would be better if he’s president. I do not think so. Vladimir Putin thinks that Donald Trump should be president of the United States. And that’s why Russia is helping you get elected, so you’ll lose to him.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Oh, Mr. Bloomberg. Let me tell Mr. Putin, OK, I’m not a good friend of President Xi of China. I think President Xi is an authoritarian leader. And let me tell Mr. Putin, who interfered in the 2016 election, tried to bring Americans against Americans: Hey, Mr. Putin, if I’m president of the United States, trust me, you’re not going to interfere in any more American elections.
AMY GOODMAN: So, this was the final debate before Saturday’s primary in South Carolina and Super Tuesday, when 14 states will vote. South Carolina TV station WCSC reported the Charleston County Democratic Party offered tickets to people who sponsored the debate at a cost of $1,750 to $3,200 per sponsorship, calling it the, quote, “only guaranteed way to get a ticket” to last night’s debate.
In a few minutes, we’ll go to South Carolina to get reaction there, but first we’re joined here in New York by Anand Giridharadas, editor-at-large of Time magazine. His book is called Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World. On Sunday, he had a cover story of The New York Times Week in Review titled “The Billionaire Election: Does the world belong to them or to us?”
Welcome back to Democracy Now!, Anand.
ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: Thank you for having me, Amy.
AMY GOODMAN: So, that’s pretty astounding. Two of the seven Democratic candidates, considered so often the Republican — the people’s party, are billionaires. What does this say to you? Who were on the stage last night.
ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: Running to replace a self-described billionaire, who actually probably isn’t one. You know, let’s just stick with the physical scene that you just showed those shots of, because I think it’s a metaphor for what I have called the “billionaire election,” or the billionaire referendum that 2020 is. So, you’ve got these seven people on stage. On two ends are actual billionaires. The two candidates in the middle, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, are candidates who have risen to prominence precisely on the platform of running against billionaires and the idea that billionaire power is excessive and is suffocating the American dream for people. Then you have the $1,700 to $3,200 tickets, which captures the way in which the Democratic Party is an ostrich, not understanding that we live in an age in which people are actually rising up against plutocracy, and this is the kind of, you know, foot fault that you don’t want to make. And then you have, you know, CBS, this big corporation, hosting the debate. Twitter is collaborating. That’s owned by a billionaire. Billionaires are the stewards, the captains of an economy that has generated so much of the rage this year that is being — that is presenting itself in the election.
And so, this is an election in which you have to have a stand. You have to know where you stand on the question of billionaires in order to vote in this primary and in this general election. If you don’t have a perspective on billionaires, you can’t actually make this choice meaningfully, because for very long in this country, the story that we have told about billionaires is they are like helium balloons. They’re just people who happened to have drifted up from among the rest of us. That’s been the story. And yes, they had more, and maybe the gap was a little too high, but they were just people who drifted up, and maybe if we could get more people a little helium and drift them up, then we’d be better off.
A new story is emerging, a truer story, which is that a lot of those folks, and certainly that class of people, is up there because they are standing on other people’s backs. And they stand on people’s backs by using and abusing tax havens like Bermuda — hello, Bloomberg. They stand on people’s backs by profiting from an economy, like the financial sector that has destroyed the American dream for so many people — hello, Michael Bloomberg. They stand on people’s backs by lobbying for bottle-service public policy that is of private benefit to them but detrimental to the public. And I think Americans are actually waking up to the fact that we have been living in this, what I call this winners-take-all America, in which the country is not being run for Americans. It is being run for money.
I actually have gotten tired of the language of inequality, even though I wrote an entire book about it — multiple books about it, because I think people don’t — it doesn’t click with people, what we’re actually talking about. So, if you are someone listening to this who’s not — I mean, you’re probably not, because you’re watching Democracy Now! — but someone who’s not so excited about the inequality issue, think about it this way. In every year, in this country and in all countries, a certain amount of future rains on all of us. A certain amount of progress rains on all of us. A certain amount of innovation rains on all of us. Right? “Innovation,” the Latin word for new stuff. And the question then becomes: When that new stuff, the future, progress, rains on us, who gets it? Who harvests the rainwater?
And what has actually happened is the future has become a thing that is privately gated and enjoyed and monopolized by very few people, which means that you can be living in an age where extraordinary things are being invented, the internet is being invented, medical advances are happening, but if you are not in the gated community that enjoys the fruits of the future, you are stuck in 1979. And that’s true as a matter of wages for many people. It’s true as a matter of health access for many people. It’s true as a matter of information access for many people, who are listening to media that is distorting their minds. And I think what’s at stake in 2020 is we wake up to the idea that either we are going to resign ourselves to living in a country that billionaires rule, or we’re going to actually muster the gumption to remind billionaires that they are living in our country.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to go not to last night’s debate, but the Las Vegas debate, the time when Mike Bloomberg, you might have called him the piñata in Nevada. And this is the exchange between Senator Sanders and former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg. This was moderated by MSNBC.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: What we need to do to deal with this grotesque level of income and wealth inequality is make sure that those people who are working — you know what, Mr. Bloomberg? It wasn’t you who made all that money; maybe your workers played some role in that, as well. And it is important that those workers are able to share the benefits also. When we have so many people who go to work every day and they feel not good about their jobs, they feel like cogs in a machine. I want workers to be able to sit on corporate boards, as well, so they can have some say over what happens to their lives.
HALLIE JACKSON: Mayor Bloomberg, you own a large company. Would you support what Senator Sanders is proposing?
MICHAEL BLOOMBERG: Absolutely not. I can’t think of a ways that would make it easier for Donald Trump to get reelected than listening to this conversation. This is ridiculous. We’re not going to throw out capitalism. We tried that. Other countries tried that. It was called communism, and it just didn’t work.
AMY GOODMAN: If you can respond to that, Anand Giridharadas? And also talk about when Mike Bloomberg said, “I worked hard for that money.”
ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: I mean, first of all, just, you know, it’s so interesting, given that this is — you know, it’s an election. It’s a contest about actually connecting with people. It’s so interesting to me that being that rich, as Michael Bloomberg is, makes there be no one in your life who actually tells you how you come across to people. I mean, he has the charisma of like a large piece of cheese that ate a robot. You know? It’s hard to even make up how unable he is to connect to people. But he’s probably just surrounded by people who are like, “Oh my god, sir, you are connecting!” Which is part of the problem of being a billionaire.
That exchange was so telling. And what happens in Vegas absolutely must not stay in Vegas, because what he is arguing is the — he’s not just a guy who happens to be rich running in a progressive primary. He is running as a rich guy with all the rich guy intuitions, which is, “I am worth $60 billion because I earned that, and nobody else had any part in that.” And that is an ideology that just frankly does not belong in the Democratic Party. And it’s just — it’s a kind of 20th century — it’s just — it’s old, to be honest. It’s just old. I mean, I know, through my reporting, a number of billionaires, who just absolutely don’t think that anymore. Right? That’s not even cutting-edge thinking within the circle of billionaires. Right? I’ve had billionaires text me, being like, “What’s this guy doing?” Right? Like, this guy — like, let’s be just clear for a second. Michael Bloomberg is making billionaires uncomfortable with his defense of billionaires. This is a true fact, that I can attest from my iMessages.
So, I think we’ve got to think about this notion that he’s articulating. It’s a notion in which his wealth is somehow independent of all the extraordinary things in society that we’ve all paid into, from public schools to public roads to the financial regulators who allow him to build that kind of business. You know, Michael Bloomberg — look, anybody watching this should feel grateful to America. But Michael Bloomberg should feel 60 billion times more grateful than anybody watching this. Right? Like, all of your lives, watching this, are sort of dependent, pretty dependent, on America being a functioning society with nice common things. But his life is really, really dependent on those common things, because, more than anybody watching this, he really depends on Wall Street regulators doing their job. He really depends on the United States court system doing its job well. Nothing he does is possible without that. He really depends, when you’re hiring that many people, on there being a widely educated, well-educated workforce. And so, it feels particularly churlish, when you have an obligation to be 60 billion times more grateful than the average person for public systems, to denigrate them and claim that everything you made is your private prerogative that you could have done in any context in the world, without any of these shared systems.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to go back to Michael Bloomberg, but this is last night in South Carolina, talking about the influence his money had on the 2018 midterm election.
MICHAEL BLOOMBERG: All of the new Democrats that came in, put Nancy Pelosi in charge and gave the Congress the ability to control this president, I bought — I got them.
AMY GOODMAN: So, you’re the author of Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World. He said, “Look how I used my money.”
ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: You know, it’s so interesting. I was thinking about this. I wish I was prescient enough to write this book because I knew Michael Bloomberg was going to run for president. I didn’t. But I wrote it precisely out of a curiosity of people like him. Right?
And so, a few years ago, the phenomenon I noticed about America, that led to the book, was the Bloombergs of the world have two sides to them. If you look at Michael Bloomberg’s philanthropic activities, which rhyme with the activities of many, many people like him — we can’t deny that. A lot of money being given away, maybe more than in history. Not a lot — not a big percentage for a lot of people, but more money is flowing, $400-some billion are given away in America every year. A lot of money. And I looked at people like him giving money away, doing these ends, changing the world, giving back, making a difference — Africa, Africa, Africa. They love Africa. All this talk about these activities. But then, inconveniently, I looked at a second thing, which is also true about people like Michael Bloomberg, which is that if you looked at the actual economic data, they were monopolizing, as I said earlier, the fruits of the future. They were monopolizing progress. So, on the one hand, they were doing all these nice things, which Michael Bloomberg absolutely does, and, on the other hand, they were actually increasing, not decreasing, their share of the pie every year.
So, it started to make me wonder: What’s the relationship between all these nice activities and the bad activities, the hoarding, the generosity and the injustice? And the conclusion I came to in the book is that the kind of giving that folks like Michael Bloomberg do is the wingman of their taking. The kind of generosity they engage in is the wingman of the injustice they uphold. And the making a difference that they talk about is the wingman of their making a killing. And you see in Bloomberg how, because he is using his wealth to attempt to purchase the presidency. That’s certainly a way in which, you know, having that money and using the reputation glow of philanthropy can help you. Second, a lot of people who have endorsed him are people who have benefited from his charitable largesse. Right? So you use this making a difference to actually increase, not decrease, your power. In an age of plutocracy, which we are in, the central issue in this country is whether you’re going to find a way to break the stranglehold on wealth and power of a few people at the top. And if you do not have a plan to do that, you, by default, have a plan to perpetuate that.
AMY GOODMAN: Would you say that the billionaires election, talking about it that way, is sort of a coded way, a coded critique of capitalism? And now, when you have Michael Bloomberg coming into the race — he won’t be in South Carolina so much as Super Tuesday — his pouring millions into taking on Bernie Sanders and trying to make this an issue about socialism, redbaiting him as much as possible, trying to pose it as “You either have me, or you have Cuba.”
ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: This is such an American talking point that Michael Bloomberg is engaged in, that we all need to educate — first of all, you know, I think — look, I think there are some people who had a great life in the 20th century, who should have considered remaining in it. Right? Like, if your framework — like, if you are still running nuclear drills in your mind — right? — you may not belong in the 21st century. Like, a lot of the — and I see it on TV all the time. Like, there are people who clearly have Cold War trauma, and I feel for them, but we’re not actually in the Cold War anymore. Right? We’re in just a completely different era. Right? And just as it would have been unhelpful in the Cold War to be like talking about what we need to do in the trenches of World War I — it’s just not a helpful framework for the Cold War, because it’s just not now — it’s not particularly helpful now, in 2020, to be reliving your own Cold War trauma as guidance for the United States.
Michael Bloomberg is trying to present this old American talking point, that you’ve got two choices, people: We can either be a Goldman Sachs country, or we can be Maduro’s Venezuela. Those are your choices. Those are your — that’s the whole choice. We have come to a place in America, which I find fascinating, where our understanding of gender is more fluid than our understanding of capitalism, socialism and democracy. It’s remarkable. I never would have expected that. We’ve made tremendous progress in understanding that it’s not like men, women, nothing in between; it’s complicated. People fall all kinds of places on that distribution. But capitalism and socialism? No, no, no, it’s one or the other.
The reality is, for any person who’s actually traveled or read a book, every country in the world, with maybe a couple of exceptions, has some mix of capitalism and socialism. When you’re on the highway, the thing beneath you, socialism; the things on the highway, capitalism — the cars and the trucks carrying stuff. When you are on Wall Street, the banks, capitalism; the regulators that make sure that brokers are not stealing their money, socialism. Right? When you work for 40 years at IBM, capitalism; when you retire and have Social Security and Medicare take care of you, socialism. Right? It’s early in the morning. I have, already in the course of this day, by eating certain things, engaged in capitalism. By taking a car here, engaged in capitalism. But I have also benefited profoundly, just by 8 a.m., from socialism, from the fact that people — you know, there were roads. It was nice to have roads on the way here. It made it a much faster commute. You know, all the ways in which capitalism and socialism are actually part of every hour of our lives, let’s end this ridiculous binary and have some understanding of economic fluidity.
AMY GOODMAN: Anand Giridharadas, thank you so much for being with us, Time magazine editor-at-large, his new book, Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World. And we’ll link to his New York Times cover story of the Week in Review called “The Billionaire Election: Does the world belong to them or to us?”
When we come back, we go to Charleston and Columbia, South Carolina. Stay with us.


democracynow--2020-02-26--Headlines for February 26, 2020

Headlines for February 26, 2020

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is warning Americans to prepare for an outbreak of the coronavirus that ’ s rocked China and hammered the global economy — saying it ’ s not a question of “ if ” but “ when ” the virus will come to the United States .
The warning came as new coronavirus cases spread far beyond China ’ s Hubei province , the epicenter of the outbreak , where more than 50 million people remain on lockdown .
Overnight , more deaths were reported in China , Italy , Japan and in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been quarantined after contracting coronavirus .
In Iran , where the public health system has been decimated by U.S.-led sanctions , a lawmaker says 50 people have died of coronavirus infection in the city of Qom alone .
Elsewhere , Algeria has reported its first case , and Brazil has reported its possible first patient .
In the U.S. , San Francisco Mayor London Breed declared a state of emergency Tuesday , even though there have been no reported cases in the Bay Area .
Dr. Nancy Messonnier , director of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Respiratory Diseases , warned Americans to prepare for serious disruptions to daily life .
Dr. Nancy Messonnier : “ Some community-level interventions that may be most effective in reducing the spread of a new virus , like school closures , are also the most likely to be associated with unwanted consequences and further disruptions .
Secondary consequences of some of these measures might include missed work and loss of income .
I understand this whole situation may seem overwhelming and that disruption to everyday life may be severe , but these are things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now .
”

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is warning Americans to prepare for an outbreak of the coronavirus that’s rocked China and hammered the global economy — saying it’s not a question of “if” but “when” the virus will come to the United States. The warning came as new coronavirus cases spread far beyond China’s Hubei province, the epicenter of the outbreak, where more than 50 million people remain on lockdown.
Overnight, more deaths were reported in China, Italy, Japan and in South Korea, where a U.S. soldier has been quarantined after contracting coronavirus. In Iran, where the public health system has been decimated by U.S.-led sanctions, a lawmaker says 50 people have died of coronavirus infection in the city of Qom alone. Elsewhere, Algeria has reported its first case, and Brazil has reported its possible first patient.
In the U.S., San Francisco Mayor London Breed declared a state of emergency Tuesday, even though there have been no reported cases in the Bay Area. Dr. Nancy Messonnier, director of the CDC’s Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, warned Americans to prepare for serious disruptions to daily life.


democracynow--2020-02-25--Bernie Sanders's Key to Success in Democratic Primary? Organizing in Black & Latinx Communities

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
, democracynow.org , The War and Peace Report .
I ’ m Amy Goodman , with Juan González .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : We turn now to the 2020 Democratic presidential race , where Senator Bernie Sanders ’ s campaign continues to ride the wave of its decisive victory Saturday in the Democratic presidential caucuses in Nevada .
Sanders ’ s win came with support from young voters , union members and Latinx voters , who strengthened his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won 73 % of the Latino vote in Nevada , a remarkable victory that supporters hope will bode well heading into Super Tuesday and races in California , Colorado and Texas , where there are large Latino populations .
This is Sanders addressing supporters on Sunday in Houston .
AMY GOODMAN : That ’ s Senator Sanders speaking in Texas .
Through March 17th , the Democratic primary calendar will run through seven of the 12 states where Latinos constitute at least 10 % of the total eligible voting population .
For more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , D.C. , by the architect of Sanders ’ stunning success in Nevada , campaign senior adviser Chuck Rocha , political strategist , self-described “ Tex/Mex Redneck , ” founder of Solidarity Strategies , the largest Latino-owned and -operated political consulting firm in the country .
Chuck Rocha , welcome to Democracy Now !
Talk about the significance of the win in Nevada , what you did on the ground , and this whole issue of investing in organizing , actual organizers , respected in the community .
I think Chuck Rocha was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We just lost him for the moment .
We ’ re going to try to get him back .
Chuck , can you hear me now ?
AMY GOODMAN : Great .
So , I was just asking you about the significance of your win , Senator Sanders ’ win in Nevada , with the majority of Latinx voters going with Senator Sanders .
You had the culinary voters , I think , in seven of the eight or six of the seven major casinos , where thousands of service workers are .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in supporting Senator Sanders .
But the strategy of actually investing in and paying organizers on the ground that are respected in the community , recognized as the leaders in the community ?
CHUCK ROCHA : It was a big key to that .
It was a big key to the success .
It ’ s going to be a big key in moving to South Carolina and other places .
We did things differently than what most campaigns have done .
I ’ ve been organizing and doing campaigns for 30 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other campaigns would be doing .
And Senator Bernie Sanders ’ philosophy from the beginning is getting new people to participate in our democracy .
And I knew we had a green pasture with Latinos in Nevada .
Because of a caucus , you have a small group of folks who had participated .
In Nevada alone , 100,000 Latinos had registered to vote since the last caucus .
So there was a lot of folks there , a lot of folks who generally vote in a primary .
And also , these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who are trying to make a living , who really resonate with Bernie Sanders and our message .
So we went strategically in there early , eight months out .
We spent money in the community .
Importantly , we hired that community , and we treated that community with priority .
That sounds like it ’ s something that should be normally done in every campaign , but it ’ s just not done in the Latino campaigns .
It ’ s never done in a Latino campaign .
Actually , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at all .
Democrats show up there in the last minute .
They ’ ll do geo TV ads .
They ’ ll go to black churches .
They ’ ll set up taco trucks in front of an early-vote location and think that ’ s their Latino or their diverse outreach program .
And we did it completely different .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And what was different about your approach ?
CHUCK ROCHA : I ’ ll tell you the backbone of it , is we don ’ t have a Latino @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any staff .
Because we ’ ve had people of color at the senior level of this campaign since day one — I ’ ve been there since day one — we ’ ve integrated the people of color and diverse outreach into every programmatic thing that we do in the campaign .
What I ’ d seen that had been done , which is a big mistake in all campaigns , is they ’ ll silo off the African-American outreach , silo off the Latinos .
They ’ ll give them no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no power .
They ’ ll use them as window dressings .
And then they never really understand what ’ s going on holistically with all of the campaign .
So , with this campaign , we did it different and made it a central part , a central theme of everything we were doing , so everyone was talking to each other .
We made it a part of the overall field apparatus .
In Nevada alone , the person who was running the entire field operation was a woman of color @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the community .
So , guess what .
Everything that we did filtered through a lens of cultural competency .
Not only were we there early and spending a lot of money .
Our products were just better , because they were made and delivered by people from the community .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : Now , I wanted to ask you .
There was a New York Times article that came out today that said that so far in these first three primary states , that the turnout that Senator Sanders was predicting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to come in this election , that the turnout has not been really up to the level of what the campaign was expecting , that , yes , the senator has won increasing numbers of votes , but that there is really , so far , no evidence that there ’ s been a significant expansion of the electorate .
I ’ m wondering your response to that .
CHUCK ROCHA : I would take exception to that .
I was on the ground in Iowa and in Nevada , in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been doing this work .
It may not have been up amongst everyone , but in the places where we doubled down to grow the electorate .
I would draw your attention to college campus counties in Iowa , where the turnout was more than it was in 2008 , which we all know was historic because of Barack Obama .
I ’ d also draw your attention to satellite caucuses in Nevada , where we had the first Spanish-language satellite caucuses ever .
In that , you had like 500 people show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 98 % of those folks .
But these are new people coming into the system because of Bernie Sanders and the work that we ’ ve done .
And that ’ s exactly the kind of strategy you have to have to beat Donald Trump in the fall .
AMY GOODMAN : So , we ’ re of course moving into — well , there ’ s the debate tonight , and then there is the primary in South Carolina .
Senator Sanders did not win the African-American vote in Nevada — it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ took that .
As for South Carolina , Biden does seem to be polling ahead , and his vote count is being — in the African-American community is being eaten into by Tom Steyer and also Senator Sanders .
What is the strategy for Senator Sanders in South Carolina ?
CHUCK ROCHA : Amy , I ’ m so happy that you asked that question .
I ’ m super proud of what we ’ ve built down there .
So , we ’ ve had people on the ground longer than any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taken the same philosophy that we have in Nevada , and you can see what our results were .
Our staff in South Carolina is over 80 % African-American and over 80 % from South Carolina .
And we ’ ve had the most staff on the ground since any campaign .
And the very first time we paid to advertise to voters in South Carolina , it was to African Americans .
We ’ ve also had a robust bilingual program to Latinos in South Carolina .
Our philosophy is organizing on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cover to protect you , and turning out this diverse electorate by showing them respect and showing up more — or , showing up more early that any other campaign ever has .
And you ’ ve seen the results and the fruit of our labor in Nevada .
And we feel certain that that ’ s going to happen in South Carolina .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And , Chuck Rocha , your reaction or response to the entry into the race of Michael Bloomberg , the enormous amount of money he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percentage in the polls , and obviously polls have to be taken with a grain of salt until people actually vote , but has continued to increase as a result of this saturation advertising .
Your strategy for dealing with the Bloomberg juggernaut ?
CHUCK ROCHA : You know , I ’ ve been doing this a long time .
I haven ’ t really done much else in my life other than organize and do campaigns .
So I base everything off of , normally , mistakes I ’ ve made in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen other folks make .
I have no way to really understand how this flood of money is really going to affect the overall electorate .
Look , we ’ re going to take it head-on .
We have a lot of people .
We have way more people than he does .
He can go out and buy all the things that he needs to buy , and he can ’ t make up the time that we ’ ve been spending in these areas .
But what we don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a little disgusting in politics , is all of this money being able to buy your way into this race .
People will say , “ Oh , Chuck , you ’ re spending money for Senator Sanders.
” Absolutely , we are .
And we ’ re getting that money $ 5 at a time from teachers , from plumbers , from union workers .
That ’ s really what makes us different .
We feel like we are a party of the people .
It ’ s proud for me , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every time Latinos give us $ 5 , I ’ m taking that $ 5 , and I ’ m reinvesting it into our community .
That ’ s what we feel like the philosophy and the backbone of this campaign is built on .
And we welcome Bloomberg into this race .
We feel like it ’ s really good to distinguish between what he stands for and Senator Sanders .
But we really don ’ t know what kind of impact all that money ’ s going to have down the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I wanted to ask you about the media ’ s increasing emphasis on Senator Sanders ’ views on Castro .
It happened on Sunday night on 60 Minutes , on Monday night , CNN town hall .
But this is Senator Sanders saying that he opposed the authoritarian nature of the Castro regime but lauded Cuba ’ s literacy program , reiterating his comments last night on CNN .
AMY GOODMAN : So , Chuck Rocha , can you talk about the media ’ s emphasis on this ?
Of course , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump was pulling that back .
And then the media going on to say he ’ s clearly going to lose Florida because he ’ s talking about Castro , which the media is asking him about .
CHUCK ROCHA : You know , I laugh , because it ’ s the media who just — what Bernie Sanders said is the same thing Barack Obama said just a few years ago .
The reason I love working for Bernie Sanders is not — A , he ’ s always stood for working @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were , how young you were , what the color of your skin is , that he has been steadfast for regular folks .
That ’ s A .
B , he always says exactly what ’ s on his mind , and from a very honest place .
He just said , “ I am against all authoritarian states , ” and listed every single one of them .
But because he says one positive thing about putting people ’ s education and the things that have went on down there , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fit right into that perfect little angle that the Democratic consultants and folks in South Florida , and is exactly what you want to hear , it ’ s just showing that he ’ s in first place , that we ’ re bringing lots of people in , that the Democratic and the corporate media folks are really nervous about Bernie Sanders .
You just heard me say in the first 10 minutes of this interview that we ’ re doing things different by empowering people .
That puts a lot of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ folks who have been in power in this party for a long time .
So , when he don ’ t fit right in that box where he ’ s supposed to fit about something about Cuba , they just — their hair is on fire this morning on all the TV stations .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : Chuck Rocha , I wanted to ask you — you ’ re from Texas .
And Texas has always been known as a — at least now for 40 , 50 years , as a Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Could you talk about what is happening in Texas , the demographic changes , and what the future looks like in Texas ?
CHUCK ROCHA : I ’ m one of the few political consultants who actually worked in Texas .
I ’ m old enough to remember , because I was paid to work in a race for Ann Richards , when Democrats still won statewide there .
The state has went through lots of transformations , has become really red since my dear friend Ann was the governor of Texas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now is this Democrat — this demography , this whole growth of Latinos in the state .
Now , what you have — and the difference between them and California is there ’ s been a direct investment in California to register , educate and turn out Latinos .
There ’ s never been that kind of investment into Texas .
So that ’ s why you saw someone like Bush , who , when he ran for governor , got 44 % of the Latino vote .
Like , I ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this .
But what ’ s happening now is the growth is so expedential and getting there so fast .
And guess what .
Young folks , young black kids , young brown kids , young kids overall , they ’ re not scared to buck the system , and they really feel like there should be a real change .
And guess who speaks to that real change who ’ s running for president .
Bernie Sanders .
Just this last weekend in Texas , we brought out 28,000 people in Texas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something really special going on there , because — I ’ ve told you what we ’ ve done in Nevada .
Can you imagine scaling that up in Texas , investing in the community , empowering that community and then spending money talking to Latinos who have never been talked to ?
We ’ re going to take a chance in Texas , and I think Latinos are going to deliver Texas for Bernie Sanders exactly because of that .
AMY GOODMAN : Chuck Rocha , we want to thank you for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senator Bernie Sanders ’ presidential campaign .
Thank you so much for being with us .
That does it for the show .
Tune in next Tuesday night for Democracy Now !
's Super Tuesday live special broadcast .
We 'll be doing it jointly with The Intercept from 7:00 Eastern Standard Time to midnight right here at democracynow.org and on many stations around the country .
Democracy Now !
is currently accepting applications for a development manager position , as well as news production fellowship and news producer , all here in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to all of our job openings at democracynow.org .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We turn now to the 2020 Democratic presidential race, where Senator Bernie Sanders’s campaign continues to ride the wave of its decisive victory Saturday in the Democratic presidential caucuses in Nevada. Sanders’s win came with support from young voters, union members and Latinx voters, who strengthened his status as Democratic presidential front-runner. Sanders won 73% of the Latino vote in Nevada, a remarkable victory that supporters hope will bode well heading into Super Tuesday and races in California, Colorado and Texas, where there are large Latino populations. This is Sanders addressing supporters on Sunday in Houston.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: And the reason we are going to defeat Trump is that Americans, regardless of their political views, are sick and tired of a president who lies all the time. … Trump, every day, is busy demonizing the undocumented. Oh, he just hates the undocumented. But when he was a private businessman, he loved the undocumented. He hired hundreds of them in his resorts so that he could exploit them and pay them low wages.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s Senator Sanders speaking in Texas. Through March 17th, the Democratic primary calendar will run through seven of the 12 states where Latinos constitute at least 10% of the total eligible voting population.
For more, we’re joined in Washington, D.C., by the architect of Sanders’ stunning success in Nevada, campaign senior adviser Chuck Rocha, political strategist, self-described “Tex/Mex Redneck,” founder of Solidarity Strategies, the largest Latino-owned and -operated political consulting firm in the country.
Chuck Rocha, welcome to Democracy Now! Talk about the significance of the win in Nevada, what you did on the ground, and this whole issue of investing in organizing, actual organizers, respected in the community.
I think Chuck Rocha was not able to hear that question. We just lost him for the moment. We’re going to try to get him back. Chuck, can you hear me now?
CHUCK ROCHA: Yes ,ma’am.
AMY GOODMAN: Great. So, I was just asking you about the significance of your win, Senator Sanders’ win in Nevada, with the majority of Latinx voters going with Senator Sanders. You had the culinary voters, I think, in seven of the eight or six of the seven major casinos, where thousands of service workers are. The rank and file bucked the leadership, in supporting Senator Sanders. But the strategy of actually investing in and paying organizers on the ground that are respected in the community, recognized as the leaders in the community?
CHUCK ROCHA: It was a big key to that. It was a big key to the success. It’s going to be a big key in moving to South Carolina and other places. We did things differently than what most campaigns have done. I’ve been organizing and doing campaigns for 30 years, and I knew what the other campaigns would be doing. And Senator Bernie Sanders’ philosophy from the beginning is getting new people to participate in our democracy. And I knew we had a green pasture with Latinos in Nevada. Because of a caucus, you have a small group of folks who had participated. In Nevada alone, 100,000 Latinos had registered to vote since the last caucus. So there was a lot of folks there, a lot of folks who generally vote in a primary. And also, these culinary workers, who are working-class folks who are trying to make a living, who really resonate with Bernie Sanders and our message.
So we went strategically in there early, eight months out. We spent money in the community. Importantly, we hired that community, and we treated that community with priority. That sounds like it’s something that should be normally done in every campaign, but it’s just not done in the Latino campaigns. It’s never done in a Latino campaign. Actually, it’s never done in diverse communities at all. Democrats show up there in the last minute. They’ll do geo TV ads. They’ll go to black churches. They’ll set up taco trucks in front of an early-vote location and think that’s their Latino or their diverse outreach program. And we did it completely different.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And what was different about your approach?
CHUCK ROCHA: I’ll tell you the backbone of it, is we don’t have a Latino outreach department at the headquarters or in any staff. Because we’ve had people of color at the senior level of this campaign since day one — I’ve been there since day one — we’ve integrated the people of color and diverse outreach into every programmatic thing that we do in the campaign. What I’d seen that had been done, which is a big mistake in all campaigns, is they’ll silo off the African-American outreach, silo off the Latinos. They’ll give them no budget. They’ll give them no power. They’ll use them as window dressings. And then they never really understand what’s going on holistically with all of the campaign. So, with this campaign, we did it different and made it a central part, a central theme of everything we were doing, so everyone was talking to each other. We made it a part of the overall field apparatus. In Nevada alone, the person who was running the entire field operation was a woman of color, a Latina, bilingual, from the community. So, guess what. Everything that we did filtered through a lens of cultural competency. Not only were we there early and spending a lot of money. Our products were just better, because they were made and delivered by people from the community.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Now, I wanted to ask you. There was a New York Times article that came out today that said that so far in these first three primary states, that the turnout that Senator Sanders was predicting, a historic turnout that’s going to come in this election, that the turnout has not been really up to the level of what the campaign was expecting, that, yes, the senator has won increasing numbers of votes, but that there is really, so far, no evidence that there’s been a significant expansion of the electorate. I’m wondering your response to that.
CHUCK ROCHA: I would take exception to that. I was on the ground in Iowa and in Nevada, in a lot of the places we’ve been doing this work. It may not have been up amongst everyone, but in the places where we doubled down to grow the electorate. I would draw your attention to college campus counties in Iowa, where the turnout was more than it was in 2008, which we all know was historic because of Barack Obama. I’d also draw your attention to satellite caucuses in Nevada, where we had the first Spanish-language satellite caucuses ever. In that, you had like 500 people show up to these caucuses. We won 98% of those folks. But these are new people coming into the system because of Bernie Sanders and the work that we’ve done. And that’s exactly the kind of strategy you have to have to beat Donald Trump in the fall.
AMY GOODMAN: So, we’re of course moving into — well, there’s the debate tonight, and then there is the primary in South Carolina. Senator Sanders did not win the African-American vote in Nevada — it’s much smaller — but Biden took that. As for South Carolina, Biden does seem to be polling ahead, and his vote count is being — in the African-American community is being eaten into by Tom Steyer and also Senator Sanders. What is the strategy for Senator Sanders in South Carolina?
CHUCK ROCHA: Amy, I’m so happy that you asked that question. I’m super proud of what we’ve built down there. So, we’ve had people on the ground longer than any other campaign, and we’ve taken the same philosophy that we have in Nevada, and you can see what our results were. Our staff in South Carolina is over 80% African-American and over 80% from South Carolina. And we’ve had the most staff on the ground since any campaign. And the very first time we paid to advertise to voters in South Carolina, it was to African Americans. We’ve also had a robust bilingual program to Latinos in South Carolina. Our philosophy is organizing on the ground, with all the air cover to protect you, and turning out this diverse electorate by showing them respect and showing up more — or, showing up more early that any other campaign ever has. And you’ve seen the results and the fruit of our labor in Nevada. And we feel certain that that’s going to happen in South Carolina.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Chuck Rocha, your reaction or response to the entry into the race of Michael Bloomberg, the enormous amount of money he’s spending on airtime? And his percentage in the polls, and obviously polls have to be taken with a grain of salt until people actually vote, but has continued to increase as a result of this saturation advertising. Your strategy for dealing with the Bloomberg juggernaut?
CHUCK ROCHA: You know, I’ve been doing this a long time. I haven’t really done much else in my life other than organize and do campaigns. So I base everything off of, normally, mistakes I’ve made in the past or mistakes I’ve seen other folks make. I have no way to really understand how this flood of money is really going to affect the overall electorate. Look, we’re going to take it head-on. We have a lot of people. We have way more people than he does. He can go out and buy all the things that he needs to buy, and he can’t make up the time that we’ve been spending in these areas. But what we don’t know, and what I think is a little disgusting in politics, is all of this money being able to buy your way into this race. People will say, “Oh, Chuck, you’re spending money for Senator Sanders.” Absolutely, we are. And we’re getting that money $5 at a time from teachers, from plumbers, from union workers. That’s really what makes us different. We feel like we are a party of the people. It’s proud for me, as a brown man, to say every time Latinos give us $5, I’m taking that $5, and I’m reinvesting it into our community. That’s what we feel like the philosophy and the backbone of this campaign is built on. And we welcome Bloomberg into this race. We feel like it’s really good to distinguish between what he stands for and Senator Sanders. But we really don’t know what kind of impact all that money’s going to have down the road.
AMY GOODMAN: Chuck Rocha, I wanted to ask you about the media’s increasing emphasis on Senator Sanders’ views on Castro. It happened on Sunday night on 60 Minutes, on Monday night, CNN town hall. But this is Senator Sanders saying that he opposed the authoritarian nature of the Castro regime but lauded Cuba’s literacy program, reiterating his comments last night on CNN.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: They went out, and they helped people learn to read and write. You know what? I think teaching people to read and write is a good thing. I have been extremely consistent and critical of all authoritarian regimes all over the world, including Cuba, including Nicaragua, including Saudi Arabia, including China, including Russia. I happen to believe in democracy, not authoritarianism.
AMY GOODMAN: So, Chuck Rocha, can you talk about the media’s emphasis on this? Of course, President Obama normalized relations with Cuba before Trump was pulling that back. And then the media going on to say he’s clearly going to lose Florida because he’s talking about Castro, which the media is asking him about.
CHUCK ROCHA: You know, I laugh, because it’s the media who just — what Bernie Sanders said is the same thing Barack Obama said just a few years ago.
The reason I love working for Bernie Sanders is not — A, he’s always stood for working folks, no matter how old you were, how young you were, what the color of your skin is, that he has been steadfast for regular folks. That’s A. B, he always says exactly what’s on his mind, and from a very honest place. He just said, “I am against all authoritarian states,” and listed every single one of them. But because he says one positive thing about putting people’s education and the things that have went on down there, like — and it didn’t fit right into that perfect little angle that the Democratic consultants and folks in South Florida, and is exactly what you want to hear, it’s just showing that he’s in first place, that we’re bringing lots of people in, that the Democratic and the corporate media folks are really nervous about Bernie Sanders. You just heard me say in the first 10 minutes of this interview that we’re doing things different by empowering people. That puts a lot of risk at a big group of elite folks who have been in power in this party for a long time. So, when he don’t fit right in that box where he’s supposed to fit about something about Cuba, they just — their hair is on fire this morning on all the TV stations.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Chuck Rocha, I wanted to ask you — you’re from Texas. And Texas has always been known as a — at least now for 40, 50 years, as a Republican state, in terms of presidential races. Could you talk about what is happening in Texas, the demographic changes, and what the future looks like in Texas?
CHUCK ROCHA: I’m one of the few political consultants who actually worked in Texas. I’m old enough to remember, because I was paid to work in a race for Ann Richards, when Democrats still won statewide there. The state has went through lots of transformations, has become really red since my dear friend Ann was the governor of Texas. But what you’ve seen now is this Democrat — this demography, this whole growth of Latinos in the state. Now, what you have — and the difference between them and California is there’s been a direct investment in California to register, educate and turn out Latinos. There’s never been that kind of investment into Texas. So that’s why you saw someone like Bush, who, when he ran for governor, got 44% of the Latino vote. Like, I’ve lived there. I’ve studied this. But what’s happening now is the growth is so expedential and getting there so fast.
And guess what. Young folks, young black kids, young brown kids, young kids overall, they’re not scared to buck the system, and they really feel like there should be a real change. And guess who speaks to that real change who’s running for president. Bernie Sanders. Just this last weekend in Texas, we brought out 28,000 people in Texas for Bernie Sanders. There’s something really special going on there, because — I’ve told you what we’ve done in Nevada. Can you imagine scaling that up in Texas, investing in the community, empowering that community and then spending money talking to Latinos who have never been talked to? We’re going to take a chance in Texas, and I think Latinos are going to deliver Texas for Bernie Sanders exactly because of that.
AMY GOODMAN: Chuck Rocha, we want to thank you for being with us, senior adviser to Senator Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign. Thank you so much for being with us.
That does it for the show. Tune in next Tuesday night for Democracy Now!'s Super Tuesday live special broadcast. We'll be doing it jointly with The Intercept from 7:00 Eastern Standard Time to midnight right here at democracynow.org and on many stations around the country.
Democracy Now! is currently accepting applications for a development manager position, as well as news production fellowship and news producer, all here in New York City. You can go to all of our job openings at democracynow.org.


democracynow--2020-02-25--#MeToo Founder Tarana Burke: Harvey Weinsteins of the World Can't Exist Without "Systems of Power”

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : Yeah , I wanted to bring Tarana Burke back into the conversation .
Your reaction , given this verdict now ?
And obviously , Weinstein still has to face now trial in Los Angeles for other accusations of — two accusations of sexual assault there .
What ’ s going to be the impact , in your sense , on the # MeToo movement as a result of this historic verdict ?
TARANA BURKE : What I ’ m trying to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of us who are on the ground doing this work are trying to do is use this as an example of why we have to examine the larger systems .
I really don ’ t want people to rest on this verdict as an indictment of the whole movement , or a victory even for the whole movement , or to think that our work is done .
What we have to do is look at people like Harvey Weinstein and unpack that .
What type of power and privilege was he surrounded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , these things , these crimes , for 20 and 30 years , right ?
He ’ s an individual person who did this , but individuals don ’ t operate in isolation .
You can not — you don ’ t become Harvey Weinstein overnight without having systems of power around you to keep you in that position .
So , really , as the new trial happens and as we get to his sentencing , we ’ re going to keep a close eye on that , but use that as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issue of sexual violence and how it affects people who aren ’ t in positions like Harvey Weinstein or who aren ’ t actresses in Hollywood or people who have access to the same kind of resources .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And what we ’ ve seen with a lot of these cases , not just with Harvey Weinstein , but with Jeffrey Epstein , that there were people around them — JUAN GONZÁLEZ : — that were perfectly aware of what was going on , and helped to facilitate his crimes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been no prosecution or attempt to go after these folks .
TARANA BURKE : No , and there has to be accountability across the board .
Yes , the person who perpetrated the crime needs to be accountable for the harm that they caused .
But other people are causing harm , and if we turn a blind eye to the systems that they operate in , then we ’ ll just have another Harvey Weinstein .
Right now there ’ s another Weinstein being groomed , there ’ s another R. Kelly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exact thing .
That ’ s why we have to upend the systems .
AMY GOODMAN : I wanted to go back to a clip we played earlier of Ambra Gutierrez , one of Weinstein ’ s accusers .
I mean , this one is an amazing story .
In 2015 , she saw — she was with Harvey Weinstein .
He attacked her .
She raced from the attack to the New York police precinct .
At the precinct , she said one of the police officers said , “ Oh , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wired to return to Harvey Weinstein to see if he would admit that he groped her .
She did that .
She got it on tape .
But then Cyrus Vance refused to bring the case .
She was there yesterday , and she reacted to the verdict against Harvey Weinstein .
AMY GOODMAN : So , that ’ s the story behind Ambra Gutierrez , to understand her bravery as she ’ s sitting there responding to the verdict .
Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance called Weinstein a “ vicious , serial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who are calling for Cyrus Vance to resign , among the cases , around Dr. Hadden , the Columbia University OB-GYN that Evelyn Yang , the wife of the former presidential candidate Andrew Yang , spoke out against , saying that she went in , she was seven months pregnant , and he sexually assaulted her .
Since she spoke out at a rally , 40 more women have come forward , bringing the total to 70 women who came out against Dr. Hadden .
Now , unbeknownst to her , he had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assaulted , but allowed to go back and continue to practice .
He never served a day in jail .
So , many are calling for Cyrus Vance to resign over this or to bring charges around Dr. Hadden , who simply lost his license .
TARANA BURKE : See , it ’ s ridiculous that it takes 90 women to get two convictions , 60 and 70 women to come forward to get attention to these issues .
And the fact that Cy Vance didn ’ t bring a case against Harvey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s had other evidence , is something that we do have to look at .
I mean , his statement yesterday was great , but you can ’ t — that doesn ’ t erase what you didn ’ t do .
So many of us will never see the inside of a courtroom .
So many survivors will never have a moment like we had yesterday .
We will never see this kind of justice , if you will .
And part of it is because of people like that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ powerful men like Harvey Weinstein never also have to see the inside of a courtroom .
And that ’ s problematic .
This is about — this is why I keep going back to the systems .
He is a part of that system that perpetuates this continued violence against survivors of sexual violence .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And what are the kinds of changes , reforms to the law , that you think need to be made to make it — to level the playing field for women who are targets of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ TARANA BURKE : Well , some of it is around statute of limitations , right ?
There ’ s a lot of conversation across the country around the statute of limitations .
We ’ ve just seen New York roll back and make this window so that people who have institutional violations can come forward and prosecute , you know , bring claims .
So we have to look at the different — there are like hindrances all throughout the laws , and I really think there should be a close examination , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s statute of limitations , whether it ’ s the preponderance of evidence .
These are all things that have to continuously be looked at .
It ’ s like how technology advances over time , and you have to move along with the times .
The laws have to change with the times .
AMY GOODMAN : Rosanna Arquette , if you could also respond to that question ?
And , of course , Harvey Weinstein ’ s lawyers say that they are appealing .
They kept repeating yesterday that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and he repeatedly said , “ I am innocent .
How can this happen in America ?
” ROSANNA ARQUETTE : How could this happen in America ?
Well , it ’ s finally happening in America , and it ’ s been a long time coming .
And hopefully this is just the beginning .
This is just the beginning .
There ’ s also another court case that ’ s happening in Los Angeles for Harvey Weinstein and many new women , and one of the which was 16 at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of — lost that tape , apparently , the tape of Ambra Gutierrez .
Her tape was missing .
And thank God for Ronan Farrow and Ambra .
They figured it out , and she had had it somehow recorded herself .
I don ’ t know how it worked out , but they got it .
And that ’ s great .
And I ’ m sorry , I ’ m — AMY GOODMAN : The kind of sisterhood that was formed around this case , I think of the cover story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women wearing black , arm in arm , all saying that they were victimized by Harvey Weinstein .
What has taken place with that kind of sisterhood ?
I mean , in your case , Rosanna , your case is not going to trial , and so many women ’ s cases are not .
AMY GOODMAN : Due to statute of limitations .
Oh , are you thinking of bringing a case ?
ROSANNA ARQUETTE : No , no , no .
I mean , you know , I think about — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
You spied on my life .
We ’ ll see .
We ’ ll see .
All in good time , I think .
There ’ s a lot of other people that need to have their day in court before me .
That ’ s for sure .
But the sisterhood , the sisterhood started by Tarana Burke years ago , the # MeToo movement and her help , helping women come forward and being able to share their stories and heal in a safe space , you know , she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all a part of that across the world holding hands in this sisterhood .
People we ’ ve never met , people — I hear from people every day , who — “ Thank you , thank you , ” and tell me their stories , be it online .
And it ’ s quite extraordinary , what Tarana has created .
AMY GOODMAN : And , Tarana , let ’ s end with you talking about how you began to organize this movement so many years ago , revived by the hashtag @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the words “ Me Too.
” You were dealing mainly with black and brown girls and women , who have a much harder time of coming forward and confronting their accusers .
TARANA BURKE : Absolutely .
I mean , I couldn ’ t even imagine having this kind of outcome 15 years ago , right ?
And I think that it ’ s important , even relating it to today .
Our work is around healing , and it ’ s around ending sexual violence .
And although moments like yesterday feel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ symbolic , and they mean — they are very important to survivors , you can ’ t adjudicate healing .
And we have to remember there are still lives that were ruined by this man .
There are so many careers that were upended .
There were people who will never have their dreams actualized because of this individual .
And there are people like that across the world .
And so , the work I started was about making sure that the people who say “ Me Too ” have the resources @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know that healing is possible , but also that they ’ re empowered to do the work to end sexual violence .
And that ’ s really what our focus is .
We want to make sure that we have consistent interruptions and interventions in wherever sexual violence is , so that , ultimately , we can get to a place where it ’ s not normal , where it ’ s not OK , where the laws meet the crime and the action , and where we move even beyond a crime-and-punishment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the harm that they cause in the lives of other people .
AMY GOODMAN : Well , we want to thank you both so much for being with us , Tarana Burke , founder of the # MeToo movement , executive director of the newly established group “ Me Too ” International , and Rosanna Arquette , award-winning actress , one of the first women to share details of Weinstein ’ s sexual misconduct .
Thank you for joining us from Los Angeles .
AMY GOODMAN : When we come back , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senator Bernie Sanders ’ chief Latinx organizer , as Sanders continues to ride the wave of his decisive victory in the Nevada caucuses .
Stay with us .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Yeah, I wanted to bring Tarana Burke back into the conversation. Your reaction, given this verdict now? And obviously, Weinstein still has to face now trial in Los Angeles for other accusations of — two accusations of sexual assault there. What’s going to be the impact, in your sense, on the #MeToo movement as a result of this historic verdict?
TARANA BURKE: What I’m trying to do and, I think, what those of us who are on the ground doing this work are trying to do is use this as an example of why we have to examine the larger systems. I really don’t want people to rest on this verdict as an indictment of the whole movement, or a victory even for the whole movement, or to think that our work is done. What we have to do is look at people like Harvey Weinstein and unpack that. What type of power and privilege was he surrounded by that allowed him to do this, these things, these crimes, for 20 and 30 years, right? He’s an individual person who did this, but individuals don’t operate in isolation. You cannot — you don’t become Harvey Weinstein overnight without having systems of power around you to keep you in that position. So, really, as the new trial happens and as we get to his sentencing, we’re going to keep a close eye on that, but use that as an example to talk about the larger issue of sexual violence and how it affects people who aren’t in positions like Harvey Weinstein or who aren’t actresses in Hollywood or people who have access to the same kind of resources.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And what we’ve seen with a lot of these cases, not just with Harvey Weinstein, but with Jeffrey Epstein, that there were people around them —
TARANA BURKE: That’s right.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: — that were perfectly aware of what was going on, and helped to facilitate his crimes, in effect. But there’s been no prosecution or attempt to go after these folks.
TARANA BURKE: No, and there has to be accountability across the board. Yes, the person who perpetrated the crime needs to be accountable for the harm that they caused. But other people are causing harm, and if we turn a blind eye to the systems that they operate in, then we’ll just have another Harvey Weinstein. Right now there’s another Weinstein being groomed, there’s another R. Kelly being groomed, to do the same exact thing. That’s why we have to upend the systems.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to go back to a clip we played earlier of Ambra Gutierrez, one of Weinstein’s accusers. I mean, this one is an amazing story. In 2015, she saw — she was with Harvey Weinstein. He attacked her. She raced from the attack to the New York police precinct. At the precinct, she said one of the police officers said, “Oh, again?” and then had her wired to return to Harvey Weinstein to see if he would admit that he groped her. She did that. She got it on tape. But then Cyrus Vance refused to bring the case. She was there yesterday, and she reacted to the verdict against Harvey Weinstein.
AMBRA GUTIERREZ: I can say that right now I’m happy to see that those years that I lost of my life are getting back. Of course, there is a lot of work to do, and I’m here to, you know, be there and speak to people so that situations like this will never happen again. And yeah, this is my mission right now.
AMY GOODMAN: So, that’s the story behind Ambra Gutierrez, to understand her bravery as she’s sitting there responding to the verdict. Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance called Weinstein a “vicious, serial predator.” There are many right now who are calling for Cyrus Vance to resign, among the cases, around Dr. Hadden, the Columbia University OB-GYN that Evelyn Yang, the wife of the former presidential candidate Andrew Yang, spoke out against, saying that she went in, she was seven months pregnant, and he sexually assaulted her. Since she spoke out at a rally, 40 more women have come forward, bringing the total to 70 women who came out against Dr. Hadden. Now, unbeknownst to her, he had been arrested six weeks before she was assaulted, but allowed to go back and continue to practice. He never served a day in jail. So, many are calling for Cyrus Vance to resign over this or to bring charges around Dr. Hadden, who simply lost his license.
TARANA BURKE: See, it’s ridiculous that it takes 90 women to get two convictions, 60 and 70 women to come forward to get attention to these issues. And the fact that Cy Vance didn’t bring a case against Harvey Weinstein over the years, when he’s had other evidence, is something that we do have to look at. I mean, his statement yesterday was great, but you can’t — that doesn’t erase what you didn’t do. So many of us will never see the inside of a courtroom. So many survivors will never have a moment like we had yesterday. We will never see this kind of justice, if you will. And part of it is because of people like that, who sit and they gatekeep so that powerful men like Harvey Weinstein never also have to see the inside of a courtroom. And that’s problematic. This is about — this is why I keep going back to the systems. He is a part of that system that perpetuates this continued violence against survivors of sexual violence.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And what are the kinds of changes, reforms to the law, that you think need to be made to make it — to level the playing field for women who are targets of these assaults to actually get justice?
TARANA BURKE: Well, some of it is around statute of limitations, right? There’s a lot of conversation across the country around the statute of limitations. We’ve just seen New York roll back and make this window so that people who have institutional violations can come forward and prosecute, you know, bring claims. So we have to look at the different — there are like hindrances all throughout the laws, and I really think there should be a close examination, ongoing, at these laws, whether it’s statute of limitations, whether it’s the preponderance of evidence. These are all things that have to continuously be looked at. It’s like how technology advances over time, and you have to move along with the times. The laws have to change with the times.
AMY GOODMAN: Rosanna Arquette, if you could also respond to that question? And, of course, Harvey Weinstein’s lawyers say that they are appealing. They kept repeating yesterday that he sat there like a man, and he repeatedly said, “I am innocent. How can this happen in America?”
ROSANNA ARQUETTE: How could this happen in America? Well, it’s finally happening in America, and it’s been a long time coming. And hopefully this is just the beginning. This is just the beginning. There’s also another court case that’s happening in Los Angeles for Harvey Weinstein and many new women, and one of the which was 16 at the time.
Cyrus Vance lost a lot of — lost that tape, apparently, the tape of Ambra Gutierrez. Her tape was missing. And thank God for Ronan Farrow and Ambra. They figured it out, and she had had it somehow recorded herself. I don’t know how it worked out, but they got it. And that’s great. And I’m sorry, I’m —
AMY GOODMAN: The kind of sisterhood that was formed around this case, I think of the cover story of New York magazine with a hundred women wearing black, arm in arm, all saying that they were victimized by Harvey Weinstein. What has taken place with that kind of sisterhood? I mean, in your case, Rosanna, your case is not going to trial, and so many women’s cases are not.
ROSANNA ARQUETTE: Not yet.
AMY GOODMAN: Due to statute of limitations. Oh, are you thinking of bringing a case?
ROSANNA ARQUETTE: No, no, no. I mean, you know, I think about — you know, you spied on me. You spied on my life. We’ll see. We’ll see. All in good time, I think. There’s a lot of other people that need to have their day in court before me. That’s for sure.
But the sisterhood, the sisterhood started by Tarana Burke years ago, the #MeToo movement and her help, helping women come forward and being able to share their stories and heal in a safe space, you know, she created that. And we’re all a part of that across the world holding hands in this sisterhood. People we’ve never met, people — I hear from people every day, who — “Thank you, thank you,” and tell me their stories, be it online. And it’s quite extraordinary, what Tarana has created.
AMY GOODMAN: And, Tarana, let’s end with you talking about how you began to organize this movement so many years ago, revived by the hashtag, completely credited to you, of the words “Me Too.” You were dealing mainly with black and brown girls and women, who have a much harder time of coming forward and confronting their accusers.
TARANA BURKE: Absolutely. I mean, I couldn’t even imagine having this kind of outcome 15 years ago, right? And I think that it’s important, even relating it to today. Our work is around healing, and it’s around ending sexual violence. And although moments like yesterday feel really good, and they’re symbolic, and they mean — they are very important to survivors, you can’t adjudicate healing. And we have to remember there are still lives that were ruined by this man. There are so many careers that were upended. There were people who will never have their dreams actualized because of this individual. And there are people like that across the world.
And so, the work I started was about making sure that the people who say “Me Too” have the resources they need to heal, that they know that healing is possible, but also that they’re empowered to do the work to end sexual violence. And that’s really what our focus is. We want to make sure that we have consistent interruptions and interventions in wherever sexual violence is, so that, ultimately, we can get to a place where it’s not normal, where it’s not OK, where the laws meet the crime and the action, and where we move even beyond a crime-and-punishment framework, so that people are accountable for the harm that they cause in the lives of other people.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, we want to thank you both so much for being with us, Tarana Burke, founder of the #MeToo movement, executive director of the newly established group “Me Too” International, and Rosanna Arquette, award-winning actress, one of the first women to share details of Weinstein’s sexual misconduct. Thank you for joining us from Los Angeles.
ROSANNA ARQUETTE: Thank you.
AMY GOODMAN: When we come back, we’re going to talk to Senator Bernie Sanders’ chief Latinx organizer, as Sanders continues to ride the wave of his decisive victory in the Nevada caucuses. Stay with us.