Trump and Hamilton

Donald Trump, Hamilton's nightmare

It’s interesting to imagine what the world would be like if 43 of Trump’s 304 electors had defected to Clinton

 

15

 

2

CHRIS GAY

AUGUST 30, 2019 7:00PM (UTC)

The original article appears on WhoWhatWhy.org.

It’s perhaps fortunate timing that a federal appeals court has just decided that the 538 people who actually elect a president are not bound by the popular votes of their respective states. The United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver ruled last week that Colorado acted unconstitutionally in 2016 when it reversed the vote of “faithless” elector Michael Baca, who wrote in former GOP candidate John Kasich even though his state had gone for Hillary Clinton.

That may sound like judicial overreach, but it’s not. The framers of the Constitution wanted some degree of popular participation, but they were also wary of direct democracy, inflamed as it often is by overheated, under-informed voters and the populist know-nothings they tend to support. If the framers were here to make their case, President Donald Trump would be Exhibit A.

There are too many examples to choose from, so let’s confine ourselves to Friday. That’s when Trump 1) ordered American firms to leave China and preferably return home; 2) declared Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell an “enemy” because the Fed isn’t cutting rates sharply enough to counteract the economic damage Trump’s trade war with China is doing.

Let’s take these in sequence. It’s not clear where Trump derives authority to “hereby order” private companies where they can do business, unless he intends to impose sanctions via the various emergency powers available to him. Is that the plan? Does Trump even have a plan, or is he just winging it as usual, vomiting up whatever half-baked fever-thought happens across his brain, this time in apparent response to a new round of Chinese tariffs on US goods?

In any event, no one — particularly Republicans constantly howling about government “picking winners” — should want the president to have that sort of power. Just to indulge the idea a bit further, how would forcing companies back to the US square with Trump’s own criticism of China’s state-directed capitalism? How would anyone even begin to unscramble the egg of globalized productionwithout creating economic havoc?

00:00

As for the Fed, Trump doesn’t seem to understand, or care, that the central bank is not supposed to be an instrument of partisan politics. It is supposed to be a technocraticinstitution (granted, that’s somewhat aspirational), using the best metrics available to pursue its “dual mandate” of price stability and full employment. It’s also supposed to “lean against the wind” of economic conditions (in the oft-quoted words of longtime Fed Chairman William McChesney Martin), easing up when growth slows and tightening when inflation looms. People argue about whether that’s how the Fed really operates, but no one says monetary policy should be dictated by the electoral prospects of whoever is in power.

That Trump is a profoundly, even petulantly, ignorant character is beyond dispute at this point, and his ignorance has consequences. Friday’s steep slide in stock prices is the least of them. As a New York Times op-ed observed in June, Trump’s uninformed musings about the US-Japan security treaty displayed “a strategic cluelessness and historical ignorance that would disqualify a person from even a modest desk job at the State Department.”

Which, of course, calls into question the whole relationship of intellectual competence to power, no small matter in a society that obsesses over SAT scores and graduation rates, and claims to be alarmed by its growing cultural illiteracy. But what does it say about intellectual achievement that the least accomplished call the shots?

SPONSORED BY QVC

The Comfy Original Oversized Stars & StripesSweatshirt

The Comfy Original Oversized Stars & StripesSweatshirt

SEE MORE →

The framers had no illusions that what pollsters euphemistically call “low-information voters” were qualified to govern, or even to choose directly who would govern. That’s why they created a system of electors, chosen by state parties for each election. They are supposed to be “men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station” of president, according to the Federalist Papers, the series of essays in which James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay provided rationales for what was then a proposed constitution. Putting presidential elections (and Senate elections, too, until 1913) at one remove from the popular rabble “affords a moral certainty that the office of President will seldom fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications,” says Federalist 68, attributed to Hamilton.

“Seldom” turns out to be a critical word here. Some modern editions of Federalist 68 say “never.” (I’m going by the so-called McLean edition of 1788, which is supposed to reflect the original text.) If Hamilton meant the latter, maybe the system he helped create needs an overhaul. If the former, maybe he understood that an occasional Trump is unavoidable. Faithless electors, after all, could just as easily defect in favor of a demagogue as against. If the rabble is the only reliable vox populi, maybe there should simply be no electors, though it’s hard to imagine the framers buying into the sort of relativism that makes no distinction between qualified and unqualified.

It’s interesting to imagine what the world would be like today if 43 of Trump’s 304 electors had defected to Clinton, giving her the requisite 270 needed to win.

Trump would be braying from the sidelines about stolen votes and fake elections, and maybe he’d have an army of pitchfork populists at his back. But at least he wouldn’t be a threat to democratic norms, the economy, and foreign relations. If we’re lucky, he’d merely be what he always was, an annoyance.

Anthony Kronman - The Assault on American Excellence - Book Review

The author, a blue blood former Dean of the Yale Law School, makes the case for educational elitism in our climate of cloying egalitarianism and political correctness.

In making the case for elitism, the idea that a college education should be for training leaders and thinkers in our country, rather than just vocational training, the author quotes John Adams and Tocqueville extensively.  He certainly writes from the point of view of so-called elitist schools like Yale.  Both believed in a natural aristocracy of intellect rather than an aristocracy of inherited wealth: this kind of aristocracy was inevitable and natural.

Is a Yale degree more aristocratic than an Auburn degree?

A democrat outside academia and an aristocrat within the walls.  P. 72

"For the past forty-six years, Bakke has been the starting point for all debate about the meaning and value of diversity in higher education."  P. 124

Whereas Justice Stevens defends the Bakke decision, this former Dean says that the decision has been a disaster for equality in college admissions.

Dictator in Action

President Donald J. Trump has asserted that he has the authority to force all U.S. businesses to leave China. The 1977 law he cites was passed to define and restrain presidential assertions of power, not to enable a president to cut off economic ties with a trading partner

Trade Wars

Trump retaliates in trade war by escalating tariffs and demanding companies cut ties with China

The Dow Jones industrial average fell 600 points, the business community ratcheted up criticisms of the president, and the prospect of a global slowdown confronted world leaders descending on the Group of Seven summit.

By Jeff Stein, Taylor Telford, Gerry Shih and Rachel Siegel ● Read more »

Stuck Elevators

Elevators ARE scary contraptions. It always makes me nervous to enter one. Alfred Hitchcock refused to enter the things. Thank goodness it's a rare occurrence these days.
I still remember being in one on the campus of Calhoun Community College in Decatur, Alabama, in 1987. I was the sole occupant and the elevator stopped and the lights went out between floors.
I heard someone say, "Don't worry! We'll get you out."
My entire life flashed across my mind. I remembered that Little League game in 1961 when I hit the home run, the only time I was personally mobbed after touching home plate in a baseball game. It was glorious.
My memory was interrupted in a matter of minutes as the lights came on and the elevator moved and the door opened to a floor. I used the stairs in vacating the building. 
I never found out nor did I desire to find out exactly what precipitated the stoppage in service.

John Paul Stevens - The Making of a Justice - (Book Review)

Recently deceased, Justice Stevens left us with this magnificent autobiography.  A native of Chicago, he attended law school at Northwestern.  He was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Ford in 1975.   Little did anyone realize at that time that he would become the leading liberal judge of his time.

Republican Presidents do not appoint judges like Stevens anymore.

Traces his ancestors.  P. 5

Came from a family of Republicans.  P. 17

Undergrad at the U. of Chicago.  P. 33

In the Navy!  P. 35

Choosing Northwestern law over the U of Chicago.  P. 53

President Gerald Ford nominated John Paul Stevens to the Supreme Court seat being vacated by the legendary liberal icon William O. Douglas. He was confirmed by the Senate on December 17, 1975, and joined the court two days later.
President Ford came to the court for the swearing in ceremony, which was short and sweet, but was also profoundly significant because it exemplified the independence of the judicial branch.
President Ford had followed his constitutional duty to nominate Judge Douglas's successor, attended the swearing in, and then withdrew from the process as his duty had ended.
Justice Stevens says that "at no time---either before or after I took the oath of office---did President Ford seek to influence my performance of my job."
Imagine the Constitutionally mandated independence of the branches of the federal government. Imagine the integrity of the process of nomination and consent. Imagine our government working the way it is supposed to work.
Imagine as John Lennon would say. We can only imagine today.
Justice John Paul Stevens, The Making of a Justice, p. 133-34


Justice Stevens supported Roe based on liberty rather privacy.
"I thus endorsed the separate opinions of John Harlan in "Griswold" and Potter Stewart in "Roe"---both of whom had relied on liberty rather than privacy --- as the correct basis for their concurring votes.
Criticism of Roe became more widespread perhaps in part because opponents made the incorrect argument that only 'a right to 'privacy,' unmentioned in the Constitution, supported the holding. Correctly basing the woman's right to have an abortion in 'liberty' rather than 'privacy' should undercut that criticism."
Justice John Paul Stevensons in "The Making of a Justice" page 151.

He defends Bork.  Oh well, he wasn't perfect!  P. 234


On the other hand, Justice Stevens has kind things to say about Robert Bork.
You Supreme Court fans will recall that President Reagan nominated Bork to replace the retiring Lewis Powell in the summer of 1987. Democrats mounted a furious attack to defeat the hapless Bork in the Senate 58 to 42 mostly because, as Stevens notes, it was believed that Bork would vote to undo Roe v. Wade.
Justice Stevens says that Bork was a distinguished Marine Corps vet, that he was the best Solicitor General who served during his time on the bench, and that he was eminently qualified.
But Bork had an unruly looking beard, talked too much during his confirmation hearings, and led Democrats to believe that his views on the Equal Protection Clause were idiosyncratic.
Attacks on Bork were misleading with unfair comments on his character. Liberals nitpicked him to death as if he were a legal outlier. As was said eventually, Robert Bork was Borked.
Stevens says that the Bork experience started the view that a candidate's political views are more important than qualifications. As though if a candidate is qualified he/she should be confirmed regardless of perceived political views.
Those days over OVER, Justice Stevens. I humbly disagree with the great Justice here, if I understand him correctly. A candidate can be technically qualified, a President can nominate whomever he/she wishes, but the Senate can consider the entire record of a nominee including the nominee's perceived politics and character.
-Justice John Paul Stevens, The Making of a Justice, p. 234

Touching visit to Normandy.  P. 236

Offended by Reagan swearing in Justice Kennedy at the White House.  P. 237

Rejects Scalia's view that independent prosecutors are not necessary.  P. 239

Flag-burning is speech and therefore First Amendment protected.  P. 248

Justice Marshall supporting Stare Decisis.  P. 269

Justice John Paul Stevens makes clear his view of Justice Thomas. Even though he admires Thomas's life history, and I can understand that, he says that the appointment of Thomas "resulted in the most important change in the court's jurisprudence that took place during my lifetime." P. 273
Though Stevens says that he and Thomas remained friends, the two disagreed on almost every important ruling.
I get the impression that he thinks that Thomas has highly idiosyncratic views, even more severe than Scalia, and that he is almost always wrong. Hard right views is the way we mere mortals would phrase it.
Justice Clarence Thomas is one of the most dangerous people in our country today. Easy to see from Justice Stevens's book.

Friends with Clarence Marshall despite differences of opinions.  P. 274

Casey affirms Role on the basis of liberty.  P. 282


Justice Stevens's blow-by-blow account of the lawless 5 to 4 decision in Bush v. Gore in 2000 explains it all.
His conclusion in 2000:
"Although we may never know with complete certainty the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law." P. 373
And concluding in 2019:
".. . . . i remain of the view that the Court has not fully recovered from the damage it inflicted on itself in Bush vs. Gore." P. 374
It was this decision which began the current descent of the Supreme Court into partisan destruction.


Justice Stevens makes clear the fraudulent nature of the Heller decision. 
He notes that Congress passed a law in 1792 that makes clear the intent of the 2nd Amendment.
"That statute quite clearly identifies the type of weapon which which the members of a well-regulated Militia were being armed. Consistent with the text of the 2nd Amendment, it does not mention weapons of self-defense such as handguns."
He goes on to cover additional historical evidence to buttress the point.
He points out that when he joined the Court in 1975 the unanimous decision in United States vs. Miller established that the 2nd only applied only to weapons used by militias.
"Heller is unquestionably the most clearly incorrect decision that the Court announced during my tenure on the bench."
Nino Scalia's 5-4 con job is what he's talking about.
You gun lovers can believe what you desire---guns for everybody!--- but not on the basis of the clear intent of the Second Amendment. Your fight is with Justice Stevens who served on the Supreme Court from 1975 to 2010.
-Justice John Paul Stevens in The Making of a Justice

Justice Stevens wrote the dissent in the Citizens United case. His account of how the ruling came down details the horrendous particulars of how the ruling came down. The right 5 people were on the court at the time to make it happen. Five is the magic number on the Supreme Court. Five people can do anything they please. Constitutional interpretation is in the mind of the interpreter.
Justice John Paul Stevens, The Making of a Justice, p. 500-503

Enough

Enough is enough.
Too much is too much.
It’s not over till it’s over.
It is what it is.
What goes around comes around.
Well, well, well.
Enough is enough.

“Texodus,” House Democrats’ favorite new 2020 phenomenon, explained: House Democrats’ path to a bigger majority runs through Texas.

By Tara Golshan

5 August 2019

Vox

And another one.

Rep. Kenny Marchant on Monday became the latest Texas Republican to announce he will not run for reelection, leaving a suburban district between Dallas and Fort Worth up for grabs. He is the fourth Republican in the state to bow out of the 2020 election; three of them represent very competitive districts.

The nonpartisan Cook Political Report rates Marchant’s district as a “toss-up,” opening up a major opportunity for Democrats. Last week, Rep. Will Hurd, the House’s only black Republican, who represents a border district in Texas, also said he would be stepping down. Hurd was seen as the only Republican who could hold on to his border district, which runs from El Paso to San Antonio — a district that voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. Rep. Pete Olson, who represents a quickly diversifying Houston suburban district, is also not running for reelection.

House Democrats are reveling in a “Texodus” as they increasingly see an offensive strategy to grow their House majority running through the Lone Star State.

These incumbents are seeing the writing on the wall.

“Nobody should be surprised by this,” UT Austin professor Jim Henson told Vox, adding that Republican retirements are happing “in places in the state where you’re seeing rapid population growth, [and] the composition in these districts [is] changing. It’s just not very attractive to some of these Republicans to be looking at a very tough election fight.”

Texas has become a major battleground for Democrats in recent years. Donald Trump’s margin of victory in the state was notably slimmer in 2016 than it has been for past Republican presidents; he won by nearly 9 points over Hillary Clinton. In 2018, the top Republican on the ticket, Sen. Ted Cruz, beat Rep. Beto O’Rourke in the Texas Senate race by just over 2 points in a year when Democrats flipped two Texas House seats.

Democrats think they might be able to do even better in 2020.

Texas is a battleground for House Democrats

House Democrats’ targets going into the 2020 election really come down to what happened in the midterms last year.

In 2018, six incumbent Texas Republicans kept their seats by less than 5 points, including Hurd, Marchant, and Olson. The three others are Reps. Michael McCaul, Chip Roy, and John Carter. Carter won by just 3 points against Democrat M.J. Hegar, a female veteran who is now running for the US Senate against John Cornyn.

These seats represent the inroads Democrats made last year, but also the power of incumbents, who were able to eke out wins in what was hailed as a blue wave election cycle. Incumbents have clear advantages in elections. They have more name recognition, their campaign and fundraising infrastructure is already set up, and, simply, they’ve won before.

The open seats are good news for Democrats. Hurd ran the closest race in Texas, beating Democrat Gina Ortiz Jones by fewer than 1,000 votes. Ortiz Jones is running again and had been out-fundraising Hurd in the months leading to his retirement announcement. That race is already leaning Democratic, with a voter base that is 71 percent Latinx.

That diversifying population is a common story in competitive districts across the country, and particularly in Texas. In Olson’s race, for example, a growing Asian population has opened doors for Democrat Sri Kulkarni, a foreign service official under the Bush and Obama administrations, who closed the margin of Olson’s 19-point win in 2016 to just 5 points in 2018. Kulkarni is running again in 2020.

And as Sean Trende, a political analyst with RealClearPolitics, pointed out, Texas’s sprawling suburban geography is also increasingly a path forward for Democrats.

For a long time, that meant Democrats represented the urban areas and Republicans had a hold on suburban districts. But 2018 showed a shift in that dynamic, as Democrats regained the House majority in large part by winning typically conservative-leaning suburban areas.

Henson doesn’t think Texas Republicans aren’t necessarily “freaking out,” as some on Twitter have speculated. But the GOP definitely recognizes the demographics in the state are changing — a dynamic that can be seen in the pragmatic bills the Texas state legislature took up this year, rather than red-meat issues for the conservative base like the controversial “bathroom bill.”

“Look, Republicans in Texas are aware that their advantages are not what they used to be,” Henson said. “I think 2018 was a wake-up call that the shift in the national environment probably accelerated the pace of political change in Texas in a way that surprised Republicans and, frankly, surprised some Democrats.”

Trump has put the ordinary story of congressional retirements into a new light

Every election cycle comes with its fair share of retirements, but the presence of President Donald Trump suggests something here is different. The 2018 midterms brought a near-record number of Republican retirements. There are several explanations for this, as I explained last year.

For one, being a member of Congress isn’t what it used to be. Congressional leadership has increasingly centralized decision-making away from individual lawmakers, and that’s even worse for House Republicans, who are in the minority. To put it bluntly, the job can really suck.

Then there’s Trump. The 2018 midterms showed that Trump has made it too difficult for Republicans to run in more moderate districts, like Hurd’s. Just ask Mike Coffman, the Colorado Republican who tried to hold on to his seat in suburban Denver in 2018. “Donald Trump is about Donald Trump, and what Donald Trump is, is he wants to be the center of attention every single day,” Coffman told me after his loss. “He wants to dominate the news cycle every single day, and good luck trying to get a message out of that.”

And while Trump’s approval rating has generally been positive in Texas since taking office, his popularity in the state isn’t as strong as the state’s deeply conservative reputation would suggest. Trump’s approval rating has dropped 4 points since he took office, and his disapproval rating has increased 12 points in that time, according to Morning Consult’s polling.

Hurd, notably, was one of the four Republicans who voted to condemn Trump’s racist comments telling four Democratic congresswomen of color to go “back” to where they came from.

House Democrats have a 38-seat majority in the House, which they’re looking to expand in 2020. These announcements are a clear win for Democrats, who have a path to victory in districts increasingly less interested in what Trump’s Republican Party has to offer.

Springdale, AR

The city of Springdale, AR, had a council meeting to declare the city as pro-life.  Here is the shirt that a protester wore:

Kendi

Ibram X. Kendi: Racism Isn't An Identity, It's What You're Doing In The Moment

August 13, 20194:47 PM ET

RACHEL MARTIN

FacebookTwitter

How to Be an Antiracist

by Ibram X. Kendi

Hardcover, 305 pages 

purchase

Note: Audio for Part 2 of this interview will be available tomorrow.

Ibram X. Kendi

Jeff Watts/Courtesy of American University

The writer Ibram X. Kendi has made a name for himself by tackling one of the most important — and one of the most sensitive — topics in America today. 

His 2017 book, Stamped From the Beginning, is a history of racist ideas in America, and his new book is called How to Be an Antiracist. It starts with a moment in Kendi's own life: He was a high school senior taking part in an oratorical contest honoring Martin Luther King Jr., delivering a speech that ultimately won him first place.

"And in this speech, in which I thought I was being so progressive and so radical, in fact I was expressing a litany of anti-black ideas, particularly about black youth," he says. "I talked about 'black youth don't value education' and I talked about 'black youth keep climbing the high tree of pregnancy,' that 'black youth are not trained well by their parents,' and this majority-black crowd of 3,000 largely clapped. And really, that was the moment in which I recognized just how many racist ideas, anti-black racist ideas, I had consumed over the course of the '90s — a time that many of these ideas were mainstream."

---

Interview Highlights

On the definition of "antiracist"

I define an antiracist — and I should say that the book, as you know, is sort of anchored on all of these definitions, because I think it's critical for us to define terms in order to have productive conversations about race. But I define an antiracist as someone who is expressing an antiracist idea or supporting or an antiracist policy, policies that yield racial equity, while antiracist ideas talk about the equality of racial groups, and I'm very deliberate in arguing that we should be striving to be antiracist as opposed to self-identifying as not racist.

Sign Up For The Books Newsletter

Get book recommendations, reviews, author interviews and more, sent weekly.

E-mail address

By subscribing, you agree to NPR's terms of use and privacy policy.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

I define an antiracist as someone who is expressing an antiracist idea or supporting or an antiracist policy, policies that yield racial equity.

Ibram X. Kendi

On the difference between antiracist and not racist

What we should remember — and I don't think many Americans realize this — is that eugenicists, when they were called racist in the 1930s and 1940s, their response was "I'm not racist." When Jim Crow segregationists in the '50s and the '60s were called racist, their response was "I'm not racist." Today, when white nationalists and white supremacists are charged with being racist, their response is "I'm not racist." It has long been this sort of term of denial in which people refuse to recognize the way in which they're actually being racist. And so I don't think people realize when they say that, they are connecting, very deliberately, with white nationalists and and Jim Crow segregationists and eugenicists.

On the idea that the term "racist" isn't a pejorative

So two years ago, Richard Spencer, a white supremacist, helped organize the Unite the Right rally, which ultimately led to all these violent clashes between white supremacists like him and antiracist protesters — one of whom was killed. Richard Spencer once said, " 'Racist' is not a descriptive term — 'racist' is a pejorative term," and in fact, many Americans, not realizing it, agree with Richard Spencer — when it is in fact a descriptive term. It describes when a person is saying something like, "This is what's wrong with a racial group." It describes when a person is supporting a policy that is creating racial inequity. And what's interesting is people change. You know, "racist" is not a fixed term. It's not an identity, it's not a tattoo — it is describing what a person is doing in the moment, and people change from moment to moment.

AUTHOR INTERVIEWS

Hear Part One of this interview

On pushback to using the word "racist" and whether it means you have to understand someone's intent

I think that again, that is based on this definition that a racist has racist bones in their body, a racist has a racist heart — but I don't really define racist at all by intent. I define it based on what a person is saying. The idea — is this idea keynoting hierarchy or equality? And I define policy based on its effect, purely and simply. And so if the effect of a policy is an injustice or an inequity, it's racist. And I think journalists can do that. You know, if someone says, "This is what's wrong with black people," they can say that idea is racist. If a policy is is leading to inequity, they can call that policy racist. We no longer — the way we should be defining "racist" and "antiracist" — have to worry at all about intent.

RACE 

How Northam, Neeson Can Represent 'Racism Without Racists'

CODE SWITCH 

Is It Racist To Call Someone 'Racist'?

On the idea of President Obama's election ushering in a post-racial society

This idea of a post-racial society was quite possibly the most sophisticated racist idea ever created, because unlike previous racist ideas that specifically told us how we should think about particular people of color or how we should think about this particular racial group, what post-racial ideas did was, it said to us, "Racism doesn't exist — racist policy doesn't exist," in the face of all of these racial inequities. And so then it caused us to say, "OK, this inequity, like the black unemployment rate being twice as high as the white unemployment rate, it can't exist because of racism. It must exist because there's something wrong with black workers." So then we created our own ideas to understand racial inequity all around us, and now we're seeing the effects of those ideas even when they're extremely lethal.

On the claim by some Trump supporters that Obama's election made the nation more divided

I actually think that it polarized Americans, because it allowed people to spread this false notion that, look, you have a black president. This black president is a representation of people of color taking over. And when people of color take over, they're going to ruin white lives, even though the evidence showed that he and others like him were actually creating equal opportunity, were actually making, in certain ways, the lives of white people better. But it allowed people to manipulate Americans into believing that the problem, that the reason why they were struggling, was because of black politicians or Latinx immigrants. And then it said to those very people, "I will be your savior."

"Racist" is not a fixed term. It's not an identity, it's not a tattoo — it is describing what a person is doing in the moment, and people change from moment to moment.

Ibram X. Kendi

On whether President Trump fits his definition of a racist

Without question. And in many ways, he embodies nearly every aspect of a racist. He's someone who regularly expresses racist ideas, like Latinx immigrants are invading this country, that Mexicans are are animals, that black people live in hell, that their communities are infested. But then he simultaneously is supporting policies that specifically target racial groups. We're seeing what's happening at the southern border, primarily targeted towards Latinx immigrants. We see the ways in which his policies — he's not seeking to protect black people being killed by police. We can see the Muslim ban. And then when you put that all together, when we charge him with being racist, what does he say? He says, "No, no, I'm not racist. I'm actually the least racist person you've ever interviewed. I'm actually the least racist person in the world." And so his consistent denial of his racism is the heartbeat of racism.

On where America is now

I think in certain ways we are better off. Yes, we've had a march of racial progress, but we've also had a second march of racist progress in which policies that are racist and ideas that are racist have become more sophisticated over time, which means that they're harder to identify and challenge — which means they're having a huge effect on our society without even knowing it. And so obviously, black people, let's say, are doing things and are able to do things now that they were not able to do 50 years ago, let alone 150 years ago. But then simultaneously we have this emergence of white nationalist terror. We have people being mass incarcerated. We have people continuously being shot by police. We have the racial wealth gap, which is currently growing.

On how working toward antiracism affects his own life and whether he calls out friends and family for racist actions

Sometimes. And the reason I say sometimes is because I think what's critical for us is to build up the type of relationships in which we can call out people. And so with people in which I have those types of relationships with, that I've built that type of relationship with, I call them out. For those that I have not built that type of relationship, but I'm in the process of building that type of relationship, I do not — but I'm planning to do so when I feel as if I've gained their trust.

But the way this happens personally is for us to define terms — you know, what is a racist idea? And then, when we express those ideas, for us to acknowledge, you know what? That idea, based on this simple definition, is a racist idea. I'm not going to say it anymore. I'm gonna think differently. I'm going to strive to be antiracist, and in striving to be antiracist, I am no longer going to think that there is something wrong with people of color and that is the cause of the disparities in our society or that's the cause of my own personal struggles. I'm going to look for and identify racist policies, and I'm going to join those policymakers and those organizations who are striving to eliminate those racist policies and put in antiracist policies that create equal opportunity for all.

Emma Talkoff and Jessica Smith edited this interview for radio, and Petra Mayer adapted it for the Web.