Deconstructed

Bill Shireman, founder of In This Together, joins host T.J. O’Hara on Deconstructed to discuss the divisive political environment within which we find ourselves... and what can be done about it. Mr. Shireman is an author, social entrepreneur, environmental policy innovator, and serial political activist. He is the President and Founder of Future 500, a non-profit that strives to build trust between companies, advocates, investors, and philanthropists to advance business for the common good... as well as the surrogate founder of BridgeUSA, a youth-led nonprofit organization that creates spaces on high school and college campuses for students to have an open discussion about political issues. He also ran in San Francisco’s most recent primary for District 17’s State Assembly seat... as a Republican... which means he is an eternal optimist.

State Senator Brian Jones joins host T.J. O’Hara on Deconstructed to discuss California politics. Senator Jones represents the 38th District that covers the vast majority of San Diego County. He previously served six years in the State Assembly before being term-limited under California law and also served as a member of the Santee City Council both before and after his term in the State Assembly. He currently is the Vice Chair of three Senate committees and sits on four other committees as well as five Select committees. Senator Jones is also in the minority in California as a registered Republican.

In the California Senate, there is a supermajority of 31 Democratic Senators and only 9 Republicans. Perhaps he is used to fighting the odds as there was a supermajority of 60 Democrats versus 19 Republicans and 1 independent in the State Assembly. Yet, he continues to make progress.

Senator Jones talks about the camaraderie in the Senate. While the Parties often disagree on bills that are before them, he speculates that 70-85 percent of Democratic bills that pass do so with some level of  Republican support. Of course, he notes that 100 percent of Republican bills that pass do so with Democratic support because, otherwise, the supermajority could quash anything tendered by his Party.

Last year six of Senator Jones’ bills passed and five were signed into law by Governor Newsom. Interestingly enough, the one that was vetoed by the Governor had the most union support and was sponsored by the SEIU. This year has been even better with nine bills being passed by the State Senate to make it to the Governor’s desk; two of which have been signed.

T.J. asks what tends to slow down or kill bills. Senator Jones explains that special interest groups are most frequently the cause. If a bill doesn’t fit their agenda, they try to suppress the legislation.

T.J. then brings up the Senator’s short videos called, Are You Kidding Me. The Senator explains the humorous origin of the videos and his commitment to not only exposing some of the dysfunctionality of what is happening at the State level but also potential solutions.

The two then engage in a discussion of the hidden taxes that often arise because of bills that make it through the process. Senator Jones raises the recently passed minimum wage law that requires food service workers to receive $22 per hour in wages as an example. He notes that the cost  will undoubtedly be passed on to consumers. He also cites the surcharges that are included in every utility bill that go unnoticed by taxpayers as well as the $1 per gallon gasoline tax that the State collects. Coincidently, with regard to the latter, a rebate check will be sent to California motor vehicle owners just before the November election... except in the case of some active-duty military personnel.

Senator Jones is a strong environmentalist, but a realist as well. He talks about the ongoing movement to ban gas stoves in all new construction and the highly publicized mandate to only allow the sale of EV cars by 2035. He speculates that there will soon be a legislative attempt to move the EV mandate to an even earlier year.

The Senator cites that one of the problems is how California determines who is an “effective” legislator. He suggests that the parameters make little sense.

T.J. queries the Senator about crime (including the $950 theft allowance), homelessness, and California’s public education system... all of which are spiraling out of control. Senator Jones addresses each issue describing their cause and the possible solutions. Listen to hear his assessments and determine if they align with yours. If so, Senator Jones is up for re-election this year.

Ilya Somin, Professor of Law at George Mason University and the author of Democracy and Political Ignorance: Why Smaller Government Is Smarter, joins host T.J. O’Hara on Deconstructed to examine the reality, scope, and impact of political ignorance. Professor Somin is a broadly published author and political commentator whose work has been featured by virtually every major media outlet both in print and on the air. His book provides a deep dive into the sad state of voting in the United States and what, if anything, can be done about it. For those of you who have worked hard to “Get Out the Vote,” this is an eye-opening interview that puts things in a proper perspective.

T.J. opens the conversation by joking that, while his guest has done extensive research on the subject of political ignorance, he could have saved time by simply “reading a few conflicting posts on social media.” Professor Somin describes social media as “just the tip of the iceberg” when it comes to political ignorance. In fact, he points out that many people who engage in political discussions on social media may have a deeper awareness of what is transpiring politically than the average voter. However, they may also be far more biased.

Professor Somin defines “political knowledge” and contrasts it with “political ignorance” to provide a clear line of demarcation. He then shares some frightening examples of just how politically ignorant the majority of voters may be. To add a little “icing to the cake,” he also shares what type of non-related events often dictate who wins a local or state election.

There are characteristics that increase the probability of someone casting a vote, but they have little to do with whether that vote will be even remotely “informed.” However, do not despair. Professor Somin explains why there is an argument to be made for “rational ignorance” (i.e., the potential to influence the outcome is not worth the investment in time). He also shares a theory that suggests that political ignorance is okay because voters can leverage shortcuts to gather a superficial level of understanding of the candidates and issues (a theory in which he does not believe).

T.J. thinks the second segment of this interview is one of the most important that has ever aired on Deconstructed. In it, Professor Somin makes a series of extremely important analogies that compare partisan voters to sports fans. From a love for their candidates and commitment to their Party’s positions to a dislike and, in some cases, an absolute hatred of anyone and everything related to the opposing Party. T.J. thinks every partisan voter should listen to this segment and do some soul searching to determine how well the fan analogy describes the way they feel and behave when it comes to political issues.

Professor Somin also examines the impact of opinion leaders in the media. He describes why they are held in high regard by their audiences but probably shouldn’t be. In effect, they are a source that satiates the confirmation bias of a particular Party’s “fans” but offer less in the way of legitimate insight.

Then, T.J. asks what can be done to overcome the impact of political ignorance. Professor Somin describes the power of “foot voting” (moving to a different local, state, or even national jurisdiction). He also cites the advantage of curbing the size of the federal government to heighten the value of foot voting.

In the closing moments, Professor Somin reviews the flawed “restriction of the franchise” method that some theorists support as well as an innovative approach involving paying voters to increase their knowledge that he finds to be worth considering.

If you’re smart, you will take the time to listen to this interesting conversation. If you’re not, feel free to just cast your vote... like the vast majority.

Ross C. Anderson, known to most as “Rocky” Anderson, joins host T.J. O’Hara on Deconstructed to talk about politics and the Justice Party.  Mr. Anderson served consecutive terms as the 33rd mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, from 2000 to 2008.  Upon leaving office, he founded High Road for Human Rights that now functions through the Justice Party, which he helped form in 2011.  In 2012, Mr. Anderson served as that Party's presidential candidate, drawing attention to issues that the major Parties were ignoring.

Mr. Anderson, who had been a life-long Democrat, begins by describing why he left that Party.  At one point, he had been a Democratic nominee for congressional district in Utah.  His relationship with the Party began to unravel after he argued on behalf of same-sex marriage only to have 20 Democratic colleagues hold a joint press conference to distance themselves from his position.  He describes his disappointment and what he believes needs to happen to affect real change.

TJ raises an issue both he and Mr. Anderson ran on in 2012 that remains a focal point for the Justice Party: systemic corruption.  Mr. Anderson cites the corrupt campaign finances, which neither major Party is willing to address.  He shares why he believes a movement, similar to the Civil Rights movement, will be required to force change in this area.  He also addresses the favoritism the major Parties show toward the financial industry.  He talks about various aspects that led to the economic collapse our country suffered in 2008... and how the financial institutes were afforded a bailout while the victims were left homeless.

The two then shift to a discussion about how the Justice Party is different from other Third Parties.  Mr. Anderson describes how the Justice Party does not require a singular allegiance.  You can join the Party and remain a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green or other Party member if you choose.  He also describes that the Justice Party’s focus is on issues such as universal healthcare, a higher minimum wage, the end of government abuses such as warrantless surveillance, the end of presidential-made wars, and the end of financial corruption (as he previously addressed), just to name a few.  It is all about organizing grassroots activism.

If the Justice Party were to run political candidates again, Mr. Anderson stresses that it would be to raise political awareness to get people on the same page, and then organizing and mobilizing them.  He shares a fascinating example of a march that took place in Salt Lake City years ago; how it took place versus how it should have taken place.  In his opinion, it’s not about voting for politicians until you elect someone who will do something; it’s about joining together to create a level of public pressure that will force the changes we need.

Mr. Anderson also says that, even if the Justice Party does run candidates, it will never allow them to serve as a “spoiler.”  If it appears that certain candidates might split the vote in a meaningful way (i.e., Ralph Nader in 2000), they will be required to withdraw from the election.

TJ then raises a question about the student debt issue that is of a growing concern.  Mr. Anderson talks about the underpinnings of the problem.  He describes how federal legislation was passed that made student debt non-dischargeable in bankruptcy... and who voted for that change and benefited from it.  What he reveals might shock you.  He also describes what other countries are doing in the area of education.

Scott Greytak, Director of Advocacy for Transparency International U.S., joins host T.J. O’Hara on Deconstructed to talk about that organization’s war on corruption. Transparency International U.S. (“TI U.S.”)is part of the world’s oldest and largest coalition against corruption with national chapters in more than 100 countries. Its purpose is to “give voices to victims and witnesses of corruption, and work with governments, businesses, and citizens to stop the abuse of entrusted power.”

Mr. Greytak describes the type of transnational corruption his organization addresses, which involves the use of public power for private gain. He cites the backstory behind the Russian invasion of Ukraine as an example. Defining that country as a kleptocracy, Mr. Greytak explains how Russia privatized many of its public industries and assets after the fall of the Soviet Union. This led to the creation of a class of billionaire oligarchs who profited by “pilfering from the Russian state.”

Then, Mr. Greytak talks about how the Russia-Ukraine conflict has places a spotlight on how the United States and other countries have been complicit in allowing Russian wealth to be taken from that country and placed in financial safe havens around the world and particularly in the West. He explains how TI U.S. is committed to exposing and shutting down the loopholes that have been exploited to move those funds (estimated to $300+ billion). When TI U.S. is able to accomplish its goals, it can identify where the money has gone, reclaim it for the people of the country that has been wronged, and to hold their leaders accountable for their transgressions.

T.J. notes that Transparency International also focuses on election integrity and asks what TI U.S. is doing in that regard. Mr. Greytak explains that the U.S. office supported the Freedom to Vote Act that unfortunately did not make it through the United States Senate. It is also supporting a conflict of interest bill that is directed at creating greater transparency of congressional members’ stock holdings, and it is working to boost whistleblower efforts that help expose corruption.

Mr. Greytak compliments some of the work that the media has done to create an awareness of what contributes to the kleptocracies that have arisen across the globe. He specifically talks about the Pandora Papers, an exposé created by hundreds of journalists across the world that examined the practice of moving and hiding enormous sums of money through various financial vehicles with the purpose of avoiding taxes, ownership visibility, etc. He describes those he calls “the enablers” of corruption, which includes U.S. accountants, lawyers, and corporate information agents who help the kleptocrats exploit loopholes that permit money laundering. They are rapidly becoming a target of TI U.S., and Mr. Greytak gives the example of two Russian kleptocrats who have recently been caught.

T.J. then raises the issue of government seizures. He asks if there is any audit trail to make sure that such seizures are not, in and of themselves, subject to corruption (i.e., Where exactly are those 185 foot yachts that we hear are being seized, going?). Mr. Greytak talks about the Global Magnitsky Act, which permits the freezing of assets and the revocation of visas. He points out that the United States has a strong body of law that protects against unjust seizures. He also notes that the Biden Administration is pressuring to accelerate the ability to apply such powers, but TI U.S. does not want to “cross the line” in a way that would lower the United States to the same type of behavior his organization is trying to prevent.

Brian Mistrot, Founder and President of One Nation Movement, joins host T.J. O’Hara on Deconstructed to talk about his new political organization.  Mr. Mistrot has an interesting background in politics.  In 2015, he founded a political Party known as American Moderates.  Then, he merged it with other established Parties from across the nation to form the Alliance Party, which is now the fifth largest political Party in the country.  After serving as that Party’s National Chair until late 2019, he left to rally other activists to form One Nation Movement.

Mr. Mistrot is quick to point out that his new organization is not a Party, nor does it endorse candidates or other Parties.  As a 501(c)(3) organization, it is precluded from doing so.  Instead, it is an organization that tries to articulate issues, identify solutions, and direct them to the attention of an extremely limited target market.

The leadership team of One Nation Movement is composed of several nationally recognized conservative leaders.  The movement targets the five-to-ten percent of registered, center-right Republicans who are believed to be “persuadable.”  While this may seem like it has an innate bias, Mr. Mistrot explains why its focus is not.  The organization’s goal is to address three primary issues: (1) Democracy (voting integrity); (2) Climate Change; and (3) the National Debt.  Its premise is that these three issues impact everyone regardless of political affiliation, and there are rational solutions that merit better messaging.

Mr. Mistrot describes One Nation Movement’s position on each of these critical issues.  His organization is not structured as a “think tank.”  Instead, its messaging is crafted upon positions developed by partner organizations that offer expertise in these areas.  The key, as he describes, is organizing a following with whom the solutions can be shared; the One Nation Army as he describes it.  If One Nation Movement is correct, targeted voting blocks can be swayed to select better candidates and stances on the issues, which will create a better outcome for all Americans.

Mr. Mistrot debunks the thought that there was measurable fraud in the 2020 presidential election.  One Nation Movement’s messaging tries to arm its “Army” with information that supports that.  He gives several examples of how the election was challenged, how those challenges were tested, and what the results of those tests were.

He also addresses Climate Change using data from organizations such as NASA.  One Nation Movement’s position is that there is no doubt that Climate Change is real and significantly affected by human behavior and global industrialization.  Correspondingly, it delivers that message clearly to its target market.

While time did not permit a “deep dive” into National Debt, Mr. Mistrot touched upon the size of the challenge and the critical need to address it.

He also shared the organization’s nexus with The Lincoln Project and how One Nation Movement is designed to use the same approach and tool set that garnered success for that organization.

The interview provides a fresh perspective of a segment of conservative politics that does not default to extremes.  Instead, One Nation Movement exclusively interacts with malleable voters who are open to innovative ideas and solutions.  Given the normal approach of the Parties that panders to hyper-partisan positions whose success is measured by how loudly and angrily they can be argued, it will be interesting to see whether this organization can have a more fruitful impact

Michael Maxsenti, co-host of the podcast Front and Center with Steve and Michael and an advisor to the new Common Sense Party of California, joins host T.J. O’Hara on Deconstructed to talk about the podcast and the novel new party that is trying to shake things up in California. Mr. Maxsenti is a political activist who has been at the forefront of a number of initiatives designed to overcome the political divide. Along with his political interests, he also brings a strong business perspective having enjoyed a distinguished career prior to his involvement in the public sector.

Mr. Maxsenti begins by describing the purpose of Front and Center with Steve and Michael. He shares how the first nine shows focus on principles that can create unity without uniformity, unity with diversity, and an environment in which we can move from an age of separation to an age of reunion. He then describes how the show is now evolving into exploring political initiatives with people and organizations that are working toward similar goals. Tom Campbell, Founder and Chair of the Common Sense Party of California, became the podcast’s first guest with that shift in focus.

After discussing Mr. Campbell’s background, Mr. Maxsenti provides an overview of when and how the Common Sense Party of California came to be. He tells the story of how he became affiliated with the new Party and ties it to something he observed Elon Musk do to successfully disrupt markets as well as a Buckminster Fuller quote that inspired him. Listen to learn how those pieces fit together.

Mr. Maxsenti goes on to provide insight into why the Common Sense Party of California was formed, and how it centers around principles without requiring its members’ and candidates’ commitment to a specific orthodoxy. He explains why that is important and how the input of members will be instrumental in the party's direction.

When T.J. presses him on how it differs from other emerging and existing third parties, Mr. Maxsenti describes the party’s initial focus on California as opposed to the national stage.  That allows the party to capitalize on certain structural differences that California offers such as term limitations and Top Two Primaries. He explains how those two elements in particular can jump start the party’s statewide impact in a way that can serve as a model for others.

T.J. then asks about the party’s candidate pool. Mr. Maxsenti describes the party’s focus on candidates who align with its principles even if they may not align with all of its members’ generally embraced positions. He also explains another major point of differentiation. The Common Sense Party of California will not only endorse its own candidates, but in races in which it doesn’t have its own candidate, it may endorse other candidates who reflect the party’s principles but may be running under the banner of another party. Learn why that may become a particularly important part of the party’s strategy.

Front and Center with Steve and Michael is a unique type of podcast, and the Common Sense Party of California certainly fits that same mold. There is much to discover about both. Listen to the show, and you will have an excellent starting point to evaluate whether they “speak to you” in a way that motivates you to get involved.

Gabe Fleisher, the founder of Wake Up to Politics, joins host T.J. O’Hara on Deconstructed to talk about delivering political news in a meaningful and unbiased way. Mr. Fleisher is a bit of a political prodigy who became interested in politics during the 2008 presidential campaign at the age of six. Three years later, as a more experienced aficionado of the space, he launched a newsletter that first reached an audience of one (his mother) but now starts the days of over 50,000 subscribers in every state and dozens of countries.

Wake Up to Politics is a quick and easy daily read that gives you all the essential facts you need to follow American politics… without any partisan bias or opinion. Mr. Fleisher (now a student at Georgetown University) explains how the newsletter is structured in segments that are designed to keep people informed of what is happening each day. He describes how it first addresses a single critical issue in slightly more depth, and then, provides insights into various policy issues before evolving into a glimpse of the day’s calendar for various political leaders. He ends the newsletter with a section called, “Before I Go,” which lightens the mood with a brief overview of something meant to bring a smile to his readers’ faces. The stories are all supported with links that allow interested individuals to easily seek additional details if they choose to do so.

T.J. mentions some of the political leaders that Mr. Fleisher has already interviewed (a diverse group that includes President Biden, Speaker Pelosi, Senator Cruz and Paul, and former Secretary of State Clinton) and asks him to share what those experiences were like. The two also discuss the time Mr. Fleisher “scooped” The New York Times and The New York Post on then-NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio’s plans to run for President; a journalistic coup that also earned him an interview with the mayor.

T.J. then asks Mr. Fleisher to project what may be important stories in the areas of immigration, foreign policy, and the economy. The Administration’s announcement of discontinuing Title 42 tops the list with respect to immigration, the Russia/Ukraine conflict, China, North Korea’s missile testing, and the Iranian nuclear negotiations arise in the discussion of foreign affairs, and inflation looms large with regard to the economy.

Near the end, Mr. Fleisher shares how he thinks younger generations may view politics.  He doesn’t pretend to speak for everyone but rather provides some insight into how “hate speech” regulations and censorship on social media platforms may impact political feelings.

Listen to hear what Mr. Fleisher has to say… and then, consider whether you would like to Wake Up to Politics.

The Honorable David M. Walker joins T.J. O’Hara, host of Deconstructed, to discuss our country’s foreign and domestic economic challenges and President Biden’s proposed budget, and he certainly has the background to do it.  For nearly ten years, Mr. Walker served as Comptroller General of the United States and head of the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) under Presidents Clinton and Bush (43).  In addition to serving these appointments for Democratic and Republican Administrations, he also received nominations from Presidents Reagan and Bush (41) for other appointments and was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate each time (as he was for Comptroller General).

The discussion begins with Mr. Walker commenting on recent revisions he made to his 2020 book, America in 2040: Still a Superpower?  He shares why he thinks our Nation’s withdrawal from Afghanistan will accelerate the challenge that China presents.  He also addresses why he predicted that Russia would invade Ukraine after the Winter Olympics (which came to pass) and his related concerns about China doing the same with regard to Taiwan.

Isaac Saul, the founder of Tangle, joins host T.J. O’Hara on Deconstructed to talk about Tangle and media bias. Mr. Saul is an experienced political reporter and an accomplished journalist. In 2016, he was named by Yahoo News as one of the 16 people whose writing shaped the 2016 election, and in 2020, Forbes Magazine recognized him as one of the 1,000 “upstart entrepreneurs redefining the American dream.” His newsletter and podcast, Tangle, is an independent, ad-free, subscriber-supported newsletter that provides balanced insights into major political issues in an effort to combat media bias.

Mr. Saul suggests that most political reporting today has a slant, lacks context, lacks transparency, and fails to answer fundamental questions that readers want to know. That paradigm drove him to create Tangle.

He describes Tangle and the format that separates it from the pack. It covers the biggest political news story of the day in a unique way – by providing a range of excellent sources from the Left, Right, and Center so that readers can form a more informed opinion. He also includes a section called “My Take” that allows him to provide his own, unfiltered thoughts on the issue not to convince, but to distill the facts in a less argumentative way.

Tangle’s uniqueness doesn’t stop there. It also has sections that answer readers’ questions, “A story that matters” that covers a major story that’s being drowned out by media clickbait, a “Numbers” section that shares the most interesting numeric data from the last 24 hours, and a feel-good story under “Have a nice day” to “wash it all down” as Mr. Saul likes to describe it – all in about a 10-15 minute “read” because he knows your time is valuable.

Does Mr. Saul occasionally make a mistake? Of course, but he posts corrections at the very top of the page on the very next day. When was the last time you saw a publication do that?

T.J. then begins asking questions about a particular article about media bias that Mr. Saul wrote. The two explore whether the media is as biased as people like to suggest and, if so, what impact it has.

Mr. Saul describes elements of bias that exist and what may have fostered them. Some are systemic and have been embedded in the field of journalism for years. However, some are far more recent and have been enflamed by our Nation’s expanding political divide. He provides a recent and disturbing example of how two of the most elite newspapers shaped the exact same story in ways that might make one suspect they were describing two different incidents on two different planets. It offers a glaring example of why single-source news can lead to wildly skewed thinking.

If you see value in responsible journalism, you will see value in Tangle. Listen to the interview and then visit the website to begin to experience what political journalism should be.