This week, Farai Chideya and her guests discuss the Covid-19 vaccine, a Golden Globe-nominated film, and the future of the Republican Party. Businesswoman Bertica Cabrera Morris and Professor Geraldo Cadava share the diversity of the conservative Hispanic experience. Dr. Celine Gounder, an infectious diseases specialist and epidemiologist, explains why the lack of public health infrastructure, especially technology, impacts the distribution of the Covid-19 vaccine. Business of entertainment contributor Casey Mendoza discusses two major Black films making waves in the upcoming awards season. Plus, political journalist Errin Haines of The 19th and Professor Tiffany Jeffers of Georgetown Law dive into the repercussions of the January 6th insurrection for the Republican Party, members of Congress, and voting rights across the country.
EPISODE RUNDOWN
1:24 Businesswoman Bertica Cabrera Morris talks about her relationship with the Republican Party as a Hispanic conservative.
6:15 Cabrera Morris says she doesn’t agree with the behavior exhibited at the Capitol on January 6th, and that it harmed organizers in the Republican party like herself.
11:47 A listener shares their response on the SPEAK platform, to the question, “How have your priorities changed since the beginning of the pandemic?”
14:41 Professor Geraldo Cadava explains that the Republican Party has fed divisions between Latinos and African Americans for political gain.
16:51 Cadava explains that Hispanic Republicans will often point to the ways the Democratic Party has let down or alienated Latino voters, giving the Republican Party room to grow their base.
17:58 Dr. Celine Gounder explains how the variants of Covid-19 present new and different challenges to controlling the pandemic.
19:54 The vaccination process is hampered by the lack of health infrastructure, including basic technology for scheduling patients, says Dr Gounder.
21:38 Dr. Gounder dives into what is needed for a more equitable distribution of vaccines.
25:54 Casey Mendoza gives an overview of Golden Globe-nominated film, One Night in Miami.
27:28 Mendoza talks about the ways award shows have adapted to include movies that are streaming during the pandemic.
29:22 The documentary film MLK/FBI looks at how strategically the FBI worked to discredit the Civil Rights Movement.
30:40 Errin Haines and Tiffany Jeffers break down the recent events in Congress in the weekly political roundtable “Sippin’ the Political Tea.”
31:13 Farai Chideya talks about being impacted by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez’s Instagram Live video recounting her experience of the January 6th insurrection.
33:13 Jeffers looks back to the Civil War and Reconstruction to draw comparisons to the divisions in politics today.
35:31 Haines and Chideya discuss the Republican Party’s response to Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green.
37:14 Voters who changed their party registration after the election may be key to understanding the future of the Republican party, Chideya explains.
42:02 Jeffers makes the case that granting D.C statehood could give Capitol Hill staff and D.C. residents more security.
46:35 The burden that people of color endure when taking the time to vote needs to be addressed to ensure a more fair democracy, Chideya says.
Farai Chideya:
Thanks for listening and sharing Our Body Politic. As you know, we're new and creating the show with lots of input from listeners like you. So I want to ask you a small favor. After you listen today, please head over to Apple Podcast on your phone, tablet, laptop, or anywhere you listen and leave us a review. We read those because your ideas matter to us. Thanks so much.
This is Our Body Politic. I'm the creator and host, Farai Chideya. Today we’re talking to a Cuban American political influencer about being a Trump campaign surrogate, and what conservatism means to her.
Bertica Cabrera Morris is a Cuban-born conservative businesswoman based in Orlando. She's volunteered for many Republican Presidential campaigns over the years, including former President Donald Trump's. In fact, in 2020, she was a board member of the campaign organization, Latinos for Trump. I'm pleased to welcome her to the show. Bertica, thanks for being here on Our Body Politic.
Bertica Cabrera
Morris:
Thank you, Farai. Nice to be with you.
Chideya:
Yes, really appreciate your time. I want just to start with the beginning, which is the story about how you became a Republican. Can you let us know?
Cabrera Morris:
Absolutely. I am a Cuban-born person, American by choice. Came through Cuba through Spain and went to live in California. I started going to college after I was of age and I was able to become an American citizen. They asked me when I went to register to vote, what I was. I said, "What I do know is that I have a lot in common with who my governor is," and my governor name was Ronald Reagan. So they said, "Well, he's a Republican," and I said, "Well, that's what I am." And I've never looked back since.
Chideya:
So what does being a Republican mean to you in terms of your values or your political choices?
Cabrera Morris:
Well, I think that me as a Hispanic woman or the Hispanic descent, there are three things that are very important in my life. Number one is jobs and the opportunity to work, a group of people that encourage a small business, less government. Number two, it's very important for me, the security of the country, because where I came from, the security is a big deal. I'm a mom of five kids and it worries me. I need to have a strong leader. Number three, I think very importantly for me is life and that a baby is conceived and is alive at that time. I think that you can be a Democrat or a Republican and believe in that, but it seems like it's more of a conservative belief than there is of a liberal one.
Chideya:
So how did you serve during the 2020 campaign? I understand that you did play a role.
Cabrera Morris:
I usually volunteer. I don't have a job, I don't want a job in a campaign, I want to be able to tell the media and the folks why Hispanics should not be labeled in one way or another. I don't like labels. As you know, you hear many times, well, minorities are all Democrats or Hispanic or all Democrats. Well, not necessarily. We all have our own minds and our own ideas. So I told a lot of stories. I did probably over 700 interviews during the past two and a half years.
Chideya:
So why do you think people, some people at least, are so confused that Latinos are not in one party and where do you see opportunities? More importantly, where do you see opportunities for the GOP to retain Latino voters, Hispanic voters, or even gain in the next presidential election?
Cabrera Morris:
I think that the reason that you see the Hispanic voters going the way they do is for what I told you at the beginning. It has to do with jobs, opportunity to do business, less regulations. I don't think that Hispanics are that involved in politics because we're very busy working, just like the African American community is. We're just working people. Whoever makes that easy for us to achieve our goals or whoever looks more like we do, we're going to be more attune to be in that party. I believe that the path that we were this past four years was a good path of inclusion in every area in the Asian community, the African American community, the Hispanic community.
Hispanics are very diverse. We have Black, Chinese, Jews, you call it, Lebanese. When you look at my DNA, it's almost funny. My husband said, "Oh my gosh! You have American... " What is it called? "Native American. How could you be?" And I said, "Cubans are from America." So, that's what we are, we're just like everybody else.
Chideya:
Yeah. And how do you feel at this point? President Trump never officially conceded the election, most Republicans, but not all, believe that he lost, and there was the violence at the Capitol on January 6th. As a Republican, how are you processing all of the events of the end of the Trump presidency and do you think that January 6th, for example, harmed the party?
Cabrera Morris:
Well, Farai, I do think that January 6th harmed the party, not the Republican party, but it harmed those people that work very hard in the president’s campaign like I did. I didn't agree with what happened, I don't agree with this kind of behavior. It was sad that the other 300,000 people that were peacefully demonstrating were overlooked and that most people did not know that they were even there. So I believe in peaceful protesting, I don't even know who those crazy people were. When President Trump was elected and I went to the swearing-in ceremony four years ago, I remember walking down a street... and I actually have a picture of this, and I was in the middle of a mob of people dressed in black.
They looked like ninjas and they had arms in their hands, bats. I found myself in the middle of that crowd, which it was similar to the crazy crowd that went into the Capitol, and they were not really people that I knew. A lot of them had accents that were different than mine. They were hateful. I don't believe that Hispanics or anybody would agree with that. No. So I think that left a big dent in our country.
Chideya:
I definitely very much appreciate what you said. I will say though that the people who went into the Capitol on the sixth, some of them wanted to kill Vice-President Pence, who is definitely not a Democrat. I mean, this is pushing the envelope of what politics are to the outer edges. Do you think that the Republican party at this point needs to make an internal stand on what is acceptable and what's not, including people like Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene who has called for violence at times? I mean, do you think that the Republican party now in order to keep including people like you who appreciate peaceful protest has to be very firm about violence?
Cabrera Morris:
I think that I can turn that back at you and say, "Do you think the Democratic Party has to be very firm with the people in Wisconsin, in Oregon, and in all those places? Absolutely, they both have to, because this is an American issue. I wouldn't consider this a party issue.
Chideya:
I respectfully take your point. I do think that there has been some debate within Congress about whether or not to censure members who have called for violence, I mean actual members of Congress, who have called for violence. Both the Democrats and the Republicans have these different wings. Sometimes I describe them as the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wing and the Nancy Pelosi wing. In the Republican party, you might think of it as the Mitt Romney wing and the Ted Cruz wing or... There's different things. How would you describe yourself just in terms of what is your favorite politician right now? Not including President Trump, I don't know if he would have been, but someone who's an office holder right now.
Cabrera Morris:
First of all, I think that there is an in-between those four groups of people that you've said. So, Ocasio-Cortez or Nancy Pelosi are extremes. In the middle of that, there are many Democrats that I could live with, and the same thing in the Republican party. I was one time a friend of Mitt Romney's and I never could vote for him again and I could never vote for the crazies either. So there is a middle ground in here of people like me that are just business people, want to do business, want to live in a good country that is secure. Those are the people that I would work with. I like Mike Pompeo a lot. I like Nikki Haley. Now, these are not people that are elected today.
I work a lot with the Republican Governors Association. My governor in the state of Florida, Ron DeSantis, is doing a very good job. That's what I believe. I believe that we've done a good job this past four years and that we need to continue to do a good job with electing people that are that kind of people. In fact, in Orlando, where I live, we had a fabulous cadre of Hispanic candidates, but very conservative candidates. We had a friend of mine, Maria Elvira Salazar, got elected in Miami. I would love to have a Republican woman also at the highest office. Salazar would be fantastic. So I'm very hopeful of the future.
Chideya:
Thank you, Bertica.
Cabrera Morris:
Thank you, Farai.
Chideya:
That was Bertica Cabrera Morris, a Florida business woman and long-standing Republican voter and organizer.
Every week, we invite you to participate in the creation of the show by calling into the SPEAK line. We've been asking you, how have your priorities changed since the start of the pandemic? This is what one listener had to say about the end of the work commute.
Panelist:
I realized how much I truly cherish being connected to the outdoors, having a view of birds in my backyard and with my cats at home. I'm calmer if less of my time is spent during the day just trying to get somewhere. So my priorities have shifted in that I really want my life to have more time where I don't have to spend traveling to and from work.
Chideya:
Our number is 929-353-7006. That's 929-353-7006. Or go to ourbodypolitic.show and scroll down to find a Google form to respond in writing.
You just heard from a Cuban American about what she envisions for the future of the Republican party. Now I'd like to add some more context to the idea of the Hispanic Republican. That's the title of Geraldo Cadava's latest book. Cadava is professor of history in Latina and Latino studies at Northwestern University. He says that in every election since 1972, about a third of Hispanic voters have voted for Republican candidates.
Geraldo Cadava:
More Cuban Americans have voted for Republicans than members of other Latino groups. In recent years, I think Venezuelans have gotten a lot of attention as well. In this most recent election, Columbian Americans voted for Trump at greater rates than others. But I wouldn't want to say that only Cubans, Venezuelans, Colombians have been loyal Republicans. The truth is, Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans have also voted for Republicans in significant numbers also for the past 40 or 50 years. And it's been for a range of reasons, including religious freedom, and that's not just the politics of abortion, but also religious liberties and the inclusion of prayer in schools and the general blurring of religious and public life.
Also, a kind of pro-capitalist outlook and anti-socialism. And these have been issues not just in this election, but really for the past 40 or 50 years as well.
Chideya:
Part of the GOP's recruitment of Latino voters of course involves race and race relations. Cadava says he often hears Hispanic Republicans talk about their Spanish identity.
Cadava:
For a long time, Latinos studies scholars have talked about how and have noted how an affinity for Spanish identity was a kind of affiliation with whiteness as opposed to indigeneity or Blackness. And there are ways in which that played out in the Latino community over the years. The Republican party also kind of fed divisions between African Americans and Latinos by arguing that the Democratic party had reached out to African Americans and catered to their civil rights interests and the Democrats were the party that represented African Americans whereas the Republican party was going to represent Hispanic interests.
Not all of those things are connected directly to whiteness, but there was a kind of divide and conquer strategy used by the Republican party to separate Hispanics from African Americans.
Chideya:
In the last general election, that's November, 2020, Latinos helped deliver wins for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris in states like Arizona, Wisconsin, and Michigan, but that's not the whole story.
Cadava:
The greater surprise, I think, this time was that Donald Trump also won a greater number of votes in 2020 compared to 2016, not just a greater number, but also a greater percentage. As to why Trump improved his performance not only in South Florida, but also South Texas and then even states where he didn't make a great effort or counties where he didn't make a great effort like New York and the Bronx and where Chicago is and where Los Angeles is, I think there are a lot of theories. We don't really know, but I think that's what we're going to have to explore.
Chideya:
Cadava says Latino conservatives are optimistic about the reach of their message.
Cadava:
The conservatives that I've interviewed, they would like to believe that conservatism among Latinos is just on the rise and that newcomers are more conservative than previous waves of newcomers and they would like to believe that Democrats just fundamentally misunderstand the motivations and ambitions of recent immigrants. And they say that Latino immigrants don't want to be... or Latin American immigrants I should say, don't want to be kind of lumped in together with all other Latinos as an American minority group.
Cadava:
Other theories have to do with how Latinos were kind of alienated by the "radical left" and the identity politics of Democrats and the idea that Latinos only care about immigration and Democrats didn't make much of an effort to reach out to them early on in the election cycle. So another theory of how Trump did better is that Democrats themselves didn't really engage or reach out to them early enough. So the truth is probably a combination of all of these things.
Chideya:
Geraldo Cadava is author of “The Hispanic Republican: The Shaping Of An American Political Identity, From Nixon To Trump.”
Over the past few weeks, virus cases in the US have been falling faster than at any point in the pandemic. That's partly because an estimated 100 million Americans have already had COVID. Unchecked spread is dangerous. At least three variants are already loose and spreading and they appear to be more contagious. They may also pose another problem.
Dr. Céline Gounder:
We're seeing that if you have had a prior infection with coronavirus earlier during the pandemic, that immune response is not protective against the South Africa and Brazil strains and there may also be reduced protection from the vaccines.
Chideya:
That's Dr. Céline Gounder, a practicing infectious disease specialist and epidemiologist at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine and Bellevue Hospital. She also served on the Biden-Harris transition COVID-19 advisory board during the transition period. Welcome, Dr. Gounder.
Gounder:
It's great to be here, Farai.
Chideya:
I'm going to just jump straight into this. I was pleasantly surprised, close to pleasantly shocked, that I got a vaccine appointment with all of my stats; I'm 51 and a half, I'm Black, I'm overweight. All of those may or may not have played into it for later this winter and I do wonder how I was prioritized and if it was correct. I can't help but think about all of the reports I've been reading about how wealthier and whiter groups of Americans are going to lower income neighborhoods with Black people and other people of color undermining efforts to reach people who have been hardest hit by COVID. So, what is the scope of the problem and what can be done?
Gounder:
I think one aspect of this that people have underestimated is how complicated it is to figure out who is "higher priority" than another. For example, the New York Times just ran an editorial about, we should prioritize giving vaccines to people in a zip code for people from that zip code. And while that sounds like that makes a lot of sense, you have to then look at what are the systems in place to actually allow for that. And one of the big disasters, frankly, of this past year and even longer term is how little has been invested in public health bioinformatics.
So this is the tech systems that allows you to register people, to call people for an appointment, to schedule people. If you don't have a system that allows you to have people register according to zip code, how are you then going to be able to prioritize people based on that? So what we have to understand is we are working with very archaic, rudimentary systems. This is why in Florida for example, people were resorting to using Eventbrite and SurveyMonkey to schedule appointments. This speaks to how bad the tech systems are in public health.
Chideya:
Given the informatics issues you mentioned, what are the solutions available now, because we're still at the beginning of the rollout?
Gounder:
So I think this is where we do have to have some measures in place; for example, having community health workers who would reach out to the community, register people in the system, go door to door, go to the workplaces where they're at. In a sense, what I'm proposing is a bit of a hybrid between what Baltimore is doing, where they've hired up a Baltimore health corps of people to do contact tracing, but also now to help with some of the vaccination, registration, and rollout; and then also what Harris County, so Houston, has proposed, which is getting people registered, but then you are randomized sort of in tiers based on your priority as to when you'll actually get an appointment when you get scheduled.
Gounder:
So there are attempts like that being made to try to be more equitable. I do think this is a situation where we need to step back and also say, "Gosh! We have allowed our public health systems to languish for decades now." I've even seen some public health departments that have DOS-based systems, if you can believe it, for their tech. You have some-
Chideya:
Yeah, DOS being an early computer programming system, like very early.
Gounder:
Yes, exactly, like for people who weren't born yet. Exactly. And you have some health jurisdictions that have one public health nurse. So it really means that we need to invest in public health and not just healthcare understanding that that is how you achieve more equitable health outcomes for everyone.
Chideya:
This is not a medical question, but how do we keep our hope up? I mean, I'm not going to lie to you, I am bored out of my mind. I'm staying the course to try to stay healthy, but this is the time where, especially if you're really a bit skeptical of the preventative work that you can do yourself and washing your hands and wearing a mask and distancing from people, that it's kind of hard to keep up the resolve.
Gounder:
Yeah, that's a tough one. I think for those of us who work in the hospital, who work in other settings where we see this every day, where we saw the surge after Thanksgiving, where we saw the surge after Christmas and New Year's, I think we are tearing our hair out frustrated with the situation. And for people who are sort of at home in bubbles, insulated from what is happening inside the hospital, what is happening in other settings like that, I think there's this bizarre disconnect, you could say, as to what reality is. And I'm not really sure how to bridge that. I might say, "Well, go volunteer in a hospital and see it firsthand," but that's obviously dangerous. So I think that's a difficult one.
Chideya:
It's a question of privilege. And I am speaking my privilege as a stay-at-home worker for whom boredom is even possible.
Gounder:
Yeah. I wish I could be bored.
Chideya:
Yeah. I think that's more than fair. So what is the status of trust building between the public and healthcare and science professionals and how do we rebuild some of this trust?
Gounder:
Yeah. I think unfortunately this past year there's been tremendous damage done and I think that is going to take time to rebuild. I do think some important steps have been taken. The communication from the US government is now being led by scientists and experts. It's not going to be led by politicians, by people with a political axe to grind or agenda. You do need to have people who are trusted in the community be the ones communicating to that community. But I do think what we are seeing in many instances is a lot of fear and lack of trust in the system.
And you can't bulldoze through that lack of trust. No matter how many trusted messengers you enlist, you actually need to change the system. And this goes back to what I was saying earlier about under investment in public health. You need to make those investments.
Chideya:
Well, Dr. Gounder, thank you so much for your wisdom.
Gounder:
It's great to be here.
Chideya:
Dr. Gounder is also the host and producer of American Diagnosis, a podcast on health and social justice.
It's award season, so I brought back Casey Mendoza, our business of entertainment contributor to talk to us about two big features out now. Regina King has just been nominated for a Golden Globe for best director for One Night in Miami, based on a play by Kemp Powers. It tells a fictionalized account of a meeting between four, key Black figures of the 1960s; Malcolm X, Sam Cooke, Jim Brown, and Cassius Clay, later known as Muhammad Ali. Hi, Casey.
Casey Mendoza:
Hi.
Chideya:
Tell us about One Night in Miami.
Mendoza:
It's a very intimate film. I almost want to call it a bottle episode, because so much of what happens happens in one room, these four men really just having a conversation about the nuances of their success and what it means to be a Black icon during the 1960s.
Chideya:
And what timing, right? Historically, we're in some ways reliving... I'll just editorialize, the failures of what we as a nation didn't incorporate from what happened in the 1960s.
Mendoza:
Absolutely. And I actually got to go to a Q&A with Regina King and Kemp Powers about this film and they spoke with such nuance on how relevant this film is today, because the film that touches on Malcolm X's struggles dealing with the FBI, it asks questions about what it means to be a successful Black entertainer during this time period without pandering to white audiences but also without turning their back on their Black supporters and fans.
Chideya:
I haven't seen the film yet, I am so excited to see it, but one of the things is that it's on the streaming platform, Amazon. What do you think will happen to the process of judging for awards with so many films being released? Even if they might have one drive-in theater here or there effectively on streaming platforms, how does that sort of change the evaluation game?
Mendoza:
Of course. So obviously, 2020 was an unprecedented year for the entertainment world. So the Academy did change their rules allowing films that were originally supposed to have theatrical releases. Even if they forewent that theatrical release and chose to do a streaming release instead, it would still be eligible for categories like best directing, best picture, et cetera. So it still has this chance, and a huge chance honestly, at getting those nominations and winning those awards even though it was released on Amazon Prime.
Chideya:
Tell us also about MLK/FBI, the documentary about Martin Luther King Jr. and how the FBI targeted him. Tell us about that one.
Mendoza:
Both films are very relevant for this time period. One Night in Miami touched on Malcolm X, the surveillance he faced from the FBI. The surveillance MLK faced by the FBI is the point of this documentary. And I think it kind of contextualizes the civil rights icon in a way that really shows the struggles that he went through, because today, we see MLK as this popular, revered figure in the civil rights movement. But at the time, the documentary really shows how much he was considered an enemy by the US government and also a rather unpopular activist figure among the American people.
In 1966, Gallup Poll found that only a third of respondents had a positive opinion of Martin Luther King during the 1960s. And I think that's really important to know and realize when we remember him today.
Chideya:
And I also understand that the director of MLK/FBI is Sam Pollard who worked on the groundbreaking Eyes on the Prize, so he's so familiar with the territory. What did you learn from watching this?
Mendoza:
In the past couple of years, ever since the FBI files on MLK and also other Black activists during the time were released to the public, we've known for the past couple of years the extent to which the US government tried to discredit this movement. But I got to see in almost this more intimate setting or through more personal perspectives how pervasive it was. The FBI wiretapped King's personal phone calls, bugged us hotel rooms, and even hired informants to keep tabs on who he was meeting with. It was truly a full onslaught of FBI resources.
One of the people they interviewed for this documentary was former director of the FBI, James Comey. He was interviewed and he called it the darkest part of the FBI's history, simply because of how many resources were driven to discredit the work of activists during the time.
Chideya:
Casey, it's always great to talk to you. Thanks again.
Mendoza:
Of course, thank you.
Chideya:
That was Casey Mendoza, business of entertainment contributor and reporter at Newsy.
Now it's time for Sippin' the Political Tea, our weekly round table covering all things politics and the news. This week, our contributors are Errin Haines, editor-at-large at the 19th, and Tiffany Jeffers, professor at Georgetown Law and Our Body Politic legal analyst. Hi, Tiffany.
Tiffany Jeffers:
Hi, Farai. It's so nice to be back.
Chideya:
It's great to have you. And hi, Errin.
Errin Haines:
Hey, better to be heard than seen, I guess, these days. Okay. So look, the halls of Congress were a flutter this past week to say the least. But, Farai, I wonder what struck you about what you saw in Congress this week?
Chideya:
I was really struck by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Instagram live about the siege of the Capitol and mentioning that she had been a victim of sexual assault in the past and that this had brought up the past. And I thought it was just really courageous how she said that also it was disturbing that she had to reconnect people to her humanity and her vulnerability in order to say how horrible the siege was. I mean, we should, at this point, take it at face value that the siege was something where people were trying to kill then Vice-President Mike Pence, let alone Nancy Pelosi and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Chideya:
This was not just a partisan peril, this was a bipartisan peril, and now some people are trying to paper over that. So I thought that was really an important moment.
Haines:
Tiffany, I want to bring you in here. Right after the January 6th insurrection, Congresswoman Cory Bush was among the first to call for sanctioning some of her colleagues for their participation, possibly involvement, in the events of that day. There were colleagues of hers, Republican colleagues, who had participated in the efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election and a House resolution including Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene. Tiffany, I'm wondering if you think there's some legal precedence for this kind of resolution.
Jeffers:
There's absolutely legal precedence for this type of resolution, Errin, and it's important that we sort of break down the structure of the resolution itself. Initially, it's a call for an investigation into the events that predicated this attack on the Capitol. And that's simply an investigation. Now, incorporated within the resolution is a request if there is a finding for sanctions, including expelling members that in fact did if they're found to have violated their oath of office. So the precedent comes in historically from members of both the Senate and the House of Representatives during the Civil War time and they were expelled for disloyalty to the union.
It's a small number of individuals, I think 15 total, between both Houses that have actually been expelled as the highest form of sanction. I think, Errin, there's an argument here to be made; a correlation between attempting to overturn election results as a direct undermining of democracy specifically because there's no evidence that's been substantiated that there was voter fraud. It's not that Representative Bush is indicating that the request to investigate voter fraud is in and of itself a violation of oath, it's that the investigation was complete; the cases were filed, the courts have ruled, and yet these Congress people still move forward with these unsubstantiated claims without evidence of voter fraud and it's a continual undermining of democracy.
So again, I think there can be a correlation between the undermining of democracy here similar to the complete disbandment of the union by starting a new confederacy during the time of the Civil War.
Haines:
Tiffany, you're making such good points here, and as we kind of evaluate the state of our union in this moment, President Biden, Vice-President Harris are talking about healing and unity in this country. But there are folks like Congresswoman Bush who are saying that that doesn't happen without accountability, right? And just the idea of trying to get to a shared set of facts, an investigation would be something that may go a long way to doing that. So House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ended up giving an office reassignment to Representative Bush. Let's just play a clip here from MSNBC's The ReidOut of Congresswoman Bush explaining why she changed the location of her office.
Congresswoman
Bush:
I moved my office because I am here to do a job for the people of St. Louis, they deserve that. And what I can not do is continue to look over my shoulder wondering if a white supremacist in Congress by the name of Marjorie Taylor Greene or anyone else, because there aren't others, that they are doing something or conspiring against us.
Haines:
So Congresswoman Taylor Greene has not been shy about her belief in QAnon conspiracies, and yet Republicans applauded her on the floor of the House on Wednesday and House GOP members were threatening to remove Representative Ilhan Omar. Farai, I want to come to you and ask, what is going on in the halls of Congress.
Chideya:
There was a lot of internal scrutiny of the Republican party externally and then definitely discussions internally about what they should do about Marjorie Taylor Greene, a representative who has espoused violence and supported QAnon and she basically in front of her Republican party members made a case that she no longer believed in QAnon and that she disavowed her past statements, and these have been some very strong statements. And now the Democrats are left to consider what their options are for housekeeping and moving ahead with those options. But the Republican party has decided that they will not censure her.
And I think that this has a lot to do with Trumpism's strong support. And so, by not standing up to Representative Taylor Greene, what signals is the party sending? That's the state of play based on what happened on Wednesday.
Haines:
Farai, might this be the end of the GOP as we know it? I mean, I think we're in a moment where you have a lot of Americans that are questioning where they stand with this Republican party given everything we've seen. There are now reports that are record number of Americans have left the Republican party, leavers who were horrified by the insurrection and leavers who felt GOP leadership didn't support President Trump enough.
Chideya:
So we did see a small number of people, single digit thousands, transferring their registration away from the Republican party after the election. And there's no other reason for people to switch parties right after an election unless they are dismayed by what their party is doing. There is no election that happens like the day after, but these were people who clearly were like, "I've got to make a change."
And I am going to be really interested to see in subsequent races people who abstain from voting who had been loyal Republicans, because essentially what happened during the Roy Moore-Doug Jones contest, where Moore was accused of stalking teenage girls at the mall for sexually inappropriate reasons, white evangelical Christian voting went down. It wasn't that people switched parties and voted for Jones, they simply stayed away from a race where there were too many conflicts with their values. And I think some centrist Republicans are really having a values conflict, but they also aren't in control of the party right now.
Haines:
Yeah. Tiffany, let me come to you to ask, I mean, are there precedents in US history for this kind of split in a political party?
Jeffers:
I don't know that there are precedents in US history for a split, but I certainly think an ideological shift has occurred multiple times over US history. And again, going back to the Civil War, during the reconstruction period, those efforts of attempted reunification and compromise led to the beginnings of party shifting of what in the '50s and '60s became Southern Democrats transitioning from that Republican party ideological base to the Republicans that we know today. So there are times of ideological shift.
I don't know whether people actually leave their party or whether the party base just begins to transform their particular sort of the mechanisms they believe are institutionally important to govern themselves as citizens of this country.
Haines:
Yeah. President Biden ran a campaign starting to say this is not who we are, but really by the end questioning if this is who we want to be. And I think that that could be a moment where white Americans, particularly Republicans, are really reckoning with those kinds of identity politics. And so I think as journalists, it's imperative on us to continue to cover how that unfolds and what that looks like as people wrestle with some of the issues that both of you raised. So Farai, you mentioned Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Instagram live retelling of her ordeal during the insurrection. So let's just circle back to that a bit. We've got a clip that I want to play here and then we'll talk about it on the other side.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:
The response in the last three, four weeks is we did the right thing. I would do it again. So if that is your stance, and that means they continue to be a danger to their colleagues, because what they are saying is, "Given those same conditions, I will choose to endanger my colleagues again for political gain."
Haines:
Farai, what can be done to keep our legislators safe moving forward?
Chideya:
Well, one of the things that's happening right now is that General Russel Honoré who took military command of New Orleans after the levees ruptured after Katrina, very principled and well-respected in many different parts of society, was brought on to investigate the Capitol police. And that investigation is ongoing. I don't know the exact terms of the investigation, but what we heard with Representative Maxine Waters when she came on the air is that she specifically queried the Capitol police about how people were being kept safe and got sort of vague reassurances and then everything went to heck.
During the siege, she actually called up the head of the Capitol police, who later resigned, and was like, "What's going on? You said we'd be safe." So I think that there's a lot happening in terms of that, but the question of, is the call coming from inside the House, are people inside Congress actually part of the narrative of the siege? What needs to happen to keep people safe is a thorough reckoning, a thorough, fact-filled reckoning of who was complicit and who incited people.
Haines:
Yeah. Tiffany, what about you? What are your thoughts on this and what other legal means might there be to ensure safety in the halls of Congress?
Jeffers:
So I actually agree with every one of Farai's points, but on a more practical level, legally speaking, I think it's important moving forward to really consider something that's been on the table for Democrats for a while, which is D.C. statehood, allowing residents and legislators of D.C. to govern themselves and protect themselves by, number one, just having the authority for local D.C. government officials to activate the National Guard in times of emergency would be one very practical step in ensuring the security of the Capitol building and just overall residents in D.C.
Haines:
Absolutely, and it's something that was brought up early in the wake of this insurrection with this new Congress. So it is interesting to note that many leading the calls for accountability are Black women and women of color. And again, I think this just speaks to the record number of women, the record number of women of color in Congress, and perhaps what may be seen as the power of strength in numbers.
The former President is being charged with incitement of insurrection. His lawyers are arguing that his speech is protected by the First Amendment. Tiffany, I want to ask you, is former President Trump in fact protected by the First Amendment.
Jeffers:
Donald Trump is not protected by the First Amendment. He's arguing this 1969 Supreme Court case entitled Brandenburg v. Ohio. What we saw prior to this 1969 Supreme Court case was the clear and present danger standard. So speech that caused a clear and present danger was not protected by the First Amendment and the 1969 Brandenburg decision narrowed that scope breaking that rule down into two parts; the speech has to insight eminent lawlessness, and we know imminent means current, and that speech has to actually likely achieve that result.
So when we think about Donald Trump's remarks and tweets days before the incitement and the date of the actual insurrection, he said statements like, "They're not taking this White House, we're going to have to fight like hell." "If you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore." So in his remarks on the day of the insurrection, he directed protesters to walk to the Capitol and "stop the steal". Those are just a few of the statements that House managers are arguing are the incitement speech and actually achieved the result of the insurrection.
So I think the evidence supports the argument that there is no first amendment protection for this speech. But Trump's defense team really only has to convince one third of senators that are present for the vote that this is a viable defense. So we'll see what happens at the trial.
Haines:
Well, thank you for clearing that up because I did not go to law school. Even though he's out of office, former President Trump's unproven assertion of widespread voter fraud has now spawned over 100 across 28 States that restrict voting rights. That's according to the Brennan Center for Justice. Tiffany, what's the state of voting rights across the country today?
Jeffers:
Errin, voting rights are in a very precarious position right now. I'm very concerned, especially as a Black woman. I read Carol Anderson's One Person, No Vote, and she really lays the foundation for how Republicans have systematically dismantled and disenfranchised voters. It culminated in 2013 with the SCOTUS Decision, the Supreme Court decision that completely dismantled the 1964 Voting Rights Act. So these bills are attacking absentee ballots, mail-in ballots, trying to increase voter ID laws and signature laws, and it's really just a tool to disenfranchise Black, brown, and indigenous voters.
But what's set in place is that during his presidency, Donald Trump appointed 234 federal judges, and so if these bills are passed by state legislatures, these judges are the individuals who will be determining the constitutionality of these particular pieces of legislation. And without the teeth of the Voting Rights Act, there's a very real possibility that the gains progressives have made are going to be completely undone and more people will continue to be systematically disenfranchised and I'm really concerned.
Chideya:
I would just jump in to say that I think that one thing that we have to keep an eye on is the unpaid civic labor that it takes for Black people and people of color to vote, which includes the time spent waiting in line instead of earning a paycheck. There was an incident during the last election cycle in 2020 where a bunch of Black people were basically districted out of one district that had ample voting facilities and districted into a majority Black district that was already overburdened. Like this is some gangster stuff and people who hold positions that may seem relatively low key or obscure can end up making decisions that add to the time and effort it takes for Black people and Latinos and for working class and lower income people to vote because privilege follows power and I'm keeping an eye on things like that.
Haines:
Yeah. Well, I absolutely am doing the same as somebody who works for a newsroom named for the 19th Amendment and we know that that there was privilege and power at work in that moment. Even as millions of women were enfranchised, there were millions of women who were also excluded from the franchise. Voting, unfortunately for women of color in particular, it's something that we have to stay vigilant about. And we know that elections have consequences, and this is some of the clearest proof of what those consequences are, but I know that all of us are continuing to pay attention to how this is going to play out and how effective these efforts at frankly what is 21st century voter suppression could be. So, yeah, that seems like a good place for us to end. So with that, Tiffany, I want to thank you for joining us this week.
Jeffers:
Thanks, Errin.
Haines:
And Farai, it's always a pleasure to sip the political tea with you.
Chideya:
Oh, Errin, fabulous as ever. Thank you. That was Errin Haines of the 19th, and Tiffany Jeffers of Georgetown Law.
Thank you so much for joining us on Our Body Politic. We're on the air each week and everywhere you listen to podcasts. Our Body Politic is produced by Lantigua Williams & Co. I'm the creator and host, Farai Chideya. Juleyka Lantigua Williams is executive producer. Paulina Velasco is senior producer. Cedric Wilson is lead producer and mixed this episode. Original music by Kojin Tashiro. Our producer is Priscilla Alabi. Michelle Baker and Emily Daly are assistant producers. Production assistance from Mark Betancourt, Sarah McClure, and Kojin Tashiro.
Funder Credit:
Funding for Our Body Politic is provided by Craig Newmark Philanthropies and by the Jonathan Logan Family Foundation, empowering world-changing-work.
Chideya, Farai, host. “Speaking with Hispanic Republicans, Vaccinating the Country Equitably, and Who Faced Accountability for the Insurrection.” Our Body Politic, Diaspora Farms LLC. February 5, 2021. https://our-body-politic.simplecast.com/