Every week Grant Reeher, Political Science Professor and Senior Research Associate at the Campbell Public Affairs Institute at Syracuse University, leads a conversation with a notable guest. Guests include people from central New York — writers, politicians, activists, public officials, and business professionals whose work affects the public life of the community — as well as nationally prominent figures visiting the region to talk about their work.
Mehrzad Boroujerdi on the Campbell Conversations
Mar 28, 2026
Mehrzad Boroujerdi
Program transcript:
Grant Reeher: Welcome to the Campbell Conversations, I'm Grant Reeher. The war in Iran continues to occupy the political attention here in the United States and around the globe. And here with me today to provide some deeper context and understanding of the situation and how it might develop is Mehrzad Boroujerdi. He’s one of the leading experts on Iranian politics, and currently serves as the vice provost and dean of the College of Arts, Sciences and Education at Missouri University of Science and Technology. For many years prior to that, he was on the faculty at the Maxwell School at Syracuse University. Among his many publications is a massive compendium of the biographies of all the political leaders and elites in Iran. It's titled "Post-Revolutionary Iran: A Political Handbook." Dean Boroujerdi, welcome to the program.
Mehrzad Boroujerdi: Thank you, Grant, for having me.
GR: We really appreciate you making the time. So let me start with something I heard you say the other day. It really caught my attention, and I wanted to get you to talk about it again. I've heard you argue that the Hamas attacks against Israel on October 7th, 2022 are essential in understanding the decision making regarding this current war with Iran, it really provided a turning point. Explain that briefly.
MB: Sure, my pleasure. Yes, so, October 7th really became significant in the sense that, you know, that terrorist attack by Hamas convinced Israel that, you know, they want to go and try to really subdue Hamas once and for all, right? And therefore, we have had this ferocious war, you know, for the last few years, even though supposedly, you know, a peace deal has been reached, there are conflict and killing, it still continues on that front. What was significant about that was that Israel then decided, all right, not only am I going to be going after Hamas, but also I want to try to weaken Hezbollah because of its attack from the Lebanese, you know, land, right? And then, you know, they went ahead and did that with a great deal of success. And then the question was, well, you know, while we are on it, why not go after the puppet master, which is Iran, right? Because of Iran's support for those two entities. Therefore, Netanyahu, who as we know, you know, has been the longest serving prime minister of Israel. And from the get go, you know, he has been dreaming about, you know, a regime change in Iran. I think he managed to really use the weight of the October 7th events and, you know, convince President Trump that this was really the time to go after Iran. So, as a result, we had the 12 day war of 2025, right, where, with US help they really managed to, you know, destroy a good chunk of Iran's nuclear capability. The fact that it was such a one-sided event, right, you know, led President Trump to declare victory. However, for Netanyahu, this was an unfinished job, because if his endgame is regime change in Iran, right, calling it quits after 12 days, they feel that they still have some unfinished business. And therefore, my sense is that, you know, he really did his best to try to convince Trump once again that we can go and this time bring about regime change, right? So that's how President Trump, you know, was declaring things such as, we do the bombing, then the Iranian masses, you come out and you take things into your own hands. Of course, this is happening after the, you know, December-January uprising in Iran, where, you know, millions of people express their opposition to the regime, right? So, they felt it's ready, the situation is ready. And yet I think they perhaps underestimated the resilience of the Iranian state in terms of staging a fight, right? And I think that's why we are now, you know, into whatever day, you know, for the fourth week of this conflict, right? Imagine Grant, you know, we're in 2003 when the US toppled Saddam Hussein, it took three weeks. So, this conflict is already, has taken longer than the 2000 war with Iraq. In 1991, when the US went to get Saddam out of Kuwait in that Gulf War, that thing also took 41 days, right? So, we are approaching that type of a, you know, time limit where U.S. military excursions have lasted, you know, 4 or 5 weeks, etc. but there is really no end in sight right now that this is going to pan out the way Netanyahu and Trump were envisioning it.
GR: Really interesting comparisons to previous US involvement there in that region. You've anticipated a couple of my other questions here, I wanted to draw on one of them. One thing that I have heard in the criticisms of the Trump administration and this war is that it has been overly influenced and perhaps even duped, depending on who's making the criticism by Israel. It sounds like you are saying, well, let me ask it this way, would you go that far in that account of why we're here?
MB: Yeah. I wouldn’t go really that far to say they were duped, because, you know, my exposure to the US government has led me to believe, right, that this idea of regime change and, you know, confronting Iran dates back, right? Many, many decades even, right, because of the hostage crisis and everything that that happened with Iran. So there have always been contingency plans, you know, by various US agencies, you know, to think about, you know, what might happen in Iran, right? But I think this time the forceful personality of, you know, Netanyahu, perhaps President Trump's lack of experience with the Middle East, the fact that he dispatched two real, inexperienced negotiators, right, to carry on the conversations with Iran, Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, etc. I think all these elements and what they were seeing in the streets of Iranian cities led them to this false assumption that this is really the moment to do it. You see, what is fascinating is that Iran, since 1979 really, has been sort of the Bermuda Triangle for various US presidents. I mean, think of Jimmy Carter, right? What happened to him? Lost the election as a result of the Iran hostage crisis. President Reagan, the Teflon president, right? His reputation got damaged because of the Iran contra, you know, affair and so forth and so on. You know, Clinton tried to deal with Iran, you know, his secretary of state apologized for the 1953 coup in Iran, etc., hoping that, you know, there will be reach, but it didn't happen. And now I think this is the last chapter, right? President Trump really getting involved in a military confrontation that, of course, is going to, you know, leave an indelible mark, right, in the lives of ordinary Iranians for years and years to come, because the damage, even, you know, four weeks into this conflict is already more than the eight years of war between Iran and Iraq, right? Because the Iraqis could not really inflict that type of damage on Iran's infrastructure the way U.S. and Israel have been able to do over, you know, 13,000 strike points so far.
GR: Yeah, really interesting points. I'm Grant Reeher, you're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media and my guest is the Iranian politics expert Mehrzad Boroujerdi, and we're discussing the war in Iran. So, what has been Iran's kind of master counter strategy to these attacks? How is it seeing what it's trying to accomplish or trying to avoid?
MB: Right, so, I think from the Iranian perspective, it's important to realize that they feel, you know, that they are the morally right party. Meaning what? Meaning that, you know, it was President Trump that in his first term got out of the nuclear deal with Iran, the JCPOA, right? So, they feel, you know, they remain faithful to it, it was Trump that left the thing. Then they feel that they were negotiating twice. One in 2005 and now in 2006 with the US administration and then all along, right, the next day, the US attacked them along with the Israelis, right? So, from their perspective, they say, you know, we've done some wrong, we do not trust this administration, all right, we are not going to be fooled and, you know, get involved in a third round of, you know, negotiation only to be bombed again, etc.. President Trump might be buying time for orchestrating yet another attack for us, right? So, they are coming at this, you know, with that type of a mindset. Now, it's also important to realize that these guys have a realistic sense of their capabilities. They know that they are not really a match for the combined power of Israel and the United States, militarily speaking. Yes, they have, you know, an adequate supply of drones and missiles, right, that are, you know, indigenous to Iran. They made these things because, remember, Iran, a country of 92 million, has an enormous human capital, a highly educated, technically savvy population. And, of course, the government over the last four decades has concentrated a lot of its, you know, energy and money into building up its military industry, right? So, the Iranian strategy is that, okay, if we cannot be a match for the US, you know, Air Force, Israeli Air Force, what it is that we can do? Their thinking is that, all right, we will fire as many of these missiles and drones that we have as a way of doing a number of things, inflicting political pain in Washington and Tel Aviv so that these folks will rethink their decision about continuation of the war. But parallel to that, they think that by closure of the Strait of Hormuz, one of the most, if not the most important choke point, right, for global economy, they realize that they can, you know, play havoc with the world economy, and, you know, successfully so, so far, right? They have shown that they can really increase the price of oil. They can impact this stock market and everything else around the globe, right? I mean, it's fascinating, Grant, when you think about it, that it's not just the price of oil that is going up, everything is now going up. Fertilizers, right, you know, semiconductors, because they need helium, the gas helium, right? Much of that gas comes from the Gulf region, right, etc.. So in the Iranian thinking that, you know, this is now a contest between military might of U.S. and Israel on the one hand, and the economic pressure that they can exert on this global economy, etc. and as such, they are going after their neighboring states because they know, A, these are key players in the world economy, countries such as UAE and Qatar, right? And that they have, you know, Washington listens to their concerns. So, by attacking them, right, they are sending the message to these folks that you need to become active, otherwise, look what we can do to your countries.
GR: Well, and so is it fair to say that Iran's goal is probably survival? Is that what they're thinking? And then in that regard then, it sounds like the way you've just described it, Iran has some pretty good comparative advantages in this if that's their goal.
MB: It does, it does, but also some important liabilities. You see, this also remains a regime whose legitimacy is contested domestically, right? It has a population that does not necessarily care for the Islamic Republic because of its repressive policies domestically, right? So, the question really for them right now, it's an absolute case of existential angst at the moment. They want to survive this war, right, and for them, survival, lack of regime change, is success enough regardless of what type of price they have paid in terms of destruction of the infrastructure, right, that's the bottom line, all right? But the question really is, what will remain of Iran as an entity, as a nation state the day after? What will these folks inherit? How will they be able to rule? How fragile of a state will it be economically, politically, right? You know, you have to feed 92 million people three times a day type of thing, right? And that's going to be a challenge for what remains of this state.
GR: You're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media. I'm Grant Reeher and I'm talking with Mehrzad Boroujerdi. He's a leading expert on Iranian politics and the vice provost and dean of the College of Arts, Sciences and Education at Missouri University of Science and Technology. So, to follow up on what we were talking about before the break there in how Iran sees this, you also talked about what Israel wants, what Netanyahu wants, and what the United States and the Trump administration might want. Is there a probability that the Trump administration and Netanyahu, or the United States and Israel are going to start to see this thing differently as it continues to play out?
MB: Yes, absolutely. I think it's important to keep in mind that the US aims and the Israeli aims are not, you know, the same, right? As I said before, I think Netanyahu wants regime change, if not disintegration of Iran as a whole, because, again, his argument has all along been, as Israel being such a tiny country, Iran, one of the largest, you know, in the Middle East, and this history of animosity between the two, he wouldn't be shedding any tears if Iran disintegrates. You have a Kurdistan of Iran, you have a Balochistan and so forth and so on, right? But for the Trump administration that has other concerns, right, as a global power that has to deal what's happening with China, what's happening with, you know, Russia, Ukraine, conflict, etc., etc.. right? The US should not, cannot be as gung-ho as Netanyahu is about regime change in Iran. I think for the Trump administration, either leadership change or even behavioral change on the part of Iran might represent success, right? So, the question is, I think that moment will come, indeed. You know, there is reporting, recently about how Netanyahu was, again, encouraging Trump for calling upon the Iranian public to come out and try to demonstrate under, you know, these circumstances. And apparently the White House said no, right, because they knew what was going to happen and they have seen this movie before type of thing. So, I think it's just a matter of time where these differences, you know, appear. But look, you know, U.S. is the senior partner in this coalition, right? And just like Trump did last year with the 12 day War, when he applied the brakes and said, enough is enough, right? He can still do that. Israeli planes without, you know, support from the US in terms of aerial fueling and so forth and so on will have difficulty, right, conducting all these sorties over Iran, day in and day out. So, I think what the White House decides is going to be crucially important.
GR: So, you've covered a lot so far, but what would be the most important thing you think we haven't talked about yet that our listeners need to know about this situation that they might not know or sufficiently appreciate? What else do they need to know? Go ahead.
MB: I think it's important to realize that this was a war of choice, right? I don't think the US really was facing any imminent danger from Iran. And look, at best Iran is a regional power and a fragile one at that, right? If you compare it to, let's say, a next door neighbor like Turkey, right, that is a major player politically, economically, militarily, etc., Iran is not there. So, I think this was a war of choice. And, you know, with the war of choice, you have to, A, ask questions about its legitimacy and also, what price do you want to pay? So for example, imagine if, you know, the current reports about us sending, you know, Marines etc., there, you know, for a, you know, ground offensive, right, materializes, then okay, this is a really a deepening of this conflict, right? And it's going to have repercussions because, you know, again, considering the assets that the Iranians have, you know, we will see bodies come back in bags, you know, again and again. So, this is something that I think the audience need to, you know, keep in mind. Secondly, you know, I think it's important to know that, both sides need to be able to come out of this conflict with the ability to save face, right? So, they have to be an off-ramp where both sides can claim some sort of a victory, right? It's not going to be a zero-sum game type of a scenario because again, of the internal dynamics, I mean, imagine for the Iranians, right? Total surrender is tantamount to political suicide, right? You have been attacked by two countries and you give in, right? So whatever legitimacy is left for the government will be lost in the eyes of the public. So, they cannot, you know, do that, they have to fight back as much as they can, etc.. On the other hand, we also know President Trump is not the type of politician who likes to, you know, suffer any defeats, right? So, you need to couch this in such a way that he's able to come out and still sell it to the American public as some sort of a political success story.
GR: If you've just joined us, you're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media. I'm Grant Reeher, and my guest is the Iranian politics expert Mehrzad Boroujerdi. I wanted to ask a couple more personal questions if I could. You're originally from Iran, you know, you grew up there as child. And you also have some tragic family history in that country. Does that complicate the way you're seeing things right now? Does that make it difficult for you?
MB: Yeah. So my father was assassinated in the course of the Iranian revolution by a number of individuals who then came to occupy the most important military post in the country. I mean, the commander of the Revolutionary Guards, Minister of Defense, secretary of the supreme, you know, National Security Council, right? So these guys became household names in Iran in terms of the important positions that they have occupied. So, two of these individuals have so far been killed in the American Israeli raids, right, so in that sense, you know, I say justice served for these individuals. But, you know, Grant, really, throughout my career, I have tried to keep these sort of personal feelings, etc. separate from my, you know, more objective, you know, academic analysis of Iran, right? And indeed, up until recently, I wasn't even talking about what had happened to my own family as a result of, you know, these things because I wanted to sort of, you know, establish my own credentials and not necessarily, you know, be under the shadow of my father and what happened to him in this sense. So even today, you know, I try to formulate, I think a position that is morally right, meaning saying no to the Islamic Republic because of its oppressive reign, but also no to wars, because, you know, we have seen how destructive really wars can be, right? You know, I am from the southwestern province of Iran, near the Iraqi border, right? And I saw how my city of birth was basically damaged in the course of the Iran-Iraq war. And years later, over 30 years later, you know, these places have still not been reconstructed to what they were, you know, supposed to be, right? So that and, you know, the negative experiences that we had in this country with the Afghanistan war, with the Iraq war, right, leads me to believe that, no, war was not really the solution to settle, you know, this dispute. Iran was a nuisance for the American, you know, political establishment, but again, something that could have been dealt with short of a hot war.
GR: And going back to where this goes from here, you talked about the importance for both sides to save face and be able to claim victory of some kind. Okay, so what would it take for productive negotiations toward that end to happen, and what's the likelihood of that?
MB: Right. So, at this moment, the positions of the two sides are diametrically opposed, right? They are, you know, but, you know, that's sort of part of the posturing that has to happen in any type of negotiations, right, both sides put on their most maximalist demands and then they negotiate down from those type of, you know, positions. There can be common denominators that can, you know, lead one to think that an eventual agreement is reachable. Let's look at it this way. Iran's nuclear facilities really have been destroyed, right? Since last year, Iran has not been able to do any enrichment, so why not make that into, you know, a positive point? Why wouldn't the Iranians, for example, say, okay, you know, we cannot really do any enrichment, but now we are going to present it to you as a, you know, part of a package for which we are getting to get brownie points, right? No more enrichment, etc., but as a matter of necessity, they can't do that, all right? But this means they have to change some of the rhetoric and discourse about insisting on this right for enrichment and so forth that, frankly, has gotten us into trouble in the first place. On the other hand, I think, you know, Trump might be able to say, now, look, I killed the Supreme Leader, and many of the Iranian military leadership, I have inflicted serious damage on Iran's, you know, military infrastructure from, you know, naval forces to Revolutionary Guard forces, etc., etc.. right? So, he can, you know, come and claim victory in that sense. And perhaps if they have the diplomatic dexterity, right, and foresight to be able to realize that again, the other side needs to save face, right, then I think, you know, we can have the contours of an agreement. So, for example, you know, Iran's support for its proxy forces. I don't think it is, you know, something that is a sacred cow that the Iranians will not touch, right? That can be part of the negotiation. After all, Hamas and Hezbollah have been weakened, right? The Israelis are not going to let go of, you know, Hezbollah and Lebanon anytime soon, right, because of geographical proximity, Hezbollah has a front seat, you know, from southern Lebanon into Israel, etc.. So, if the Iranians are rational and I think they are a rational actor, right, they will then think about what it is that I can give up and what it is that I can get in return. Promise of no longer, no more attacks, lifting of some sanctions because they have to put their economic house in order, right? And you need some of that frozen Iranian assets to be able to do some of that reconstruction, etc.. Keep in mind, that on top of all this thing, you have a rather inexperienced, brand new supreme leader that needs to establish his credentials and so forth.
GR: So, we've only got about a minute, and I hate to put you in this position with only a minute to answer, but I wanted to make sure that I squeeze this question in, you've kind of already anticipated it, but I want to put you in the Situation Room with President Trump, okay? We're in the situation that we're in now, it's Thursday, March 26th. What's the most important thing that you would have to tell the president?
MB: I would tell the president, look, the longer this conflict continues, the longer US national interests and that of our allies is going to be damaged, right? So, let's find a creative way to bring this thing, you know, to an end, right? You have managed to inflict enough harms that Iran is not going to be a nuisance, right, in a serious manner, right, forget the rhetoric, the action. I mean, for a long time to come, right? Call it quits, you know, declare victory, etc. and move on.
GR: Okay, we'll have to leave it there. That was Mehrzad Boroujerdi. Dean Boroujerdi, I just want to thank you again for talking with me. I have learned a tremendous amount about this region and situation that I didn't know before. So, thanks for making the time.
MB: Thank you, Grant, for having me, it was a pleasure.
GR: You've been listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media, conversations in the public interest.
Oxana Shevel on the Campbell Conversations
Mar 21, 2026
Program transcript:
Grant Reeher : Welcome to the Campbell Conversations, I'm Grant Reeher. In America, we seem to pay attention to only one international issue at a time, and lately, that's been the conflict with Iran. But the war in Ukraine carries on. And with me today to bring us up to date on that and also deepen our understanding of it, is Oxana Shevel. She's a professor of political science and director of the International Relations program at Tufts University. She's also the coauthor with Maria Popova of, "Russia and Ukraine: Entangled Histories, Diverging States". Professor Shevel, welcome to the program.
Oxana Shevel: Thank you for inviting me.
GR: We really appreciate you making the time. Let me just start with a basic question for you. What's the current situation in Ukraine? Where do things currently stand?
OS: The current situation is not that different from where it has been some months ago, and in some way even a year ago, when, of course, President Trump was thinking or saying that he could end this conflict very soon, like, you know, absolutely one day. But the conflict obviously still continues. And, in a way, Ukraine continues to resist Russian invasion, Russia continues to insist on maximalist aims. And this is why, I'm sure we'll get to the details, but this is ultimately why there is no settlement, because the demands and the interests of the two sides remain irreconcilable. And that has to do, again, with Russia wanting to subjugate Ukraine and Ukraine wanting to be a free state. And, you know, maybe the only sort of recent difference, and that's of course, was the war in the Middle East. The price of oil changing in a way that benefits Russia, so that's a concern. And at the same time, the weather improved in Ukraine and Russia has been freezing Ukrainian population with the strikes on the heating infrastructure through the coldest winter in recent history. So that's in a way, you know, a positive change in Ukraine that spring is here. But other than that, the conflict is pretty much where it has been for some months and years.
GR: And when you say, this is an obvious point but I want to make sure that our listeners are all on the same page with you, when you say that the war in Iran has helped Russia because of the oil, you mean because they are able to sell it for a better price and there's a higher demand for their oil, correct?
OS: Yes. There is high demand for the oil. Some sanctions have been eased. And again, you know, this war is very costly for Russia. They have been projecting an image of, you know, and I think in a way, some Western observers, including political leaders, are kind of buying this narrative that, you know, one way or the other, Russia has to win because it's bigger, stronger and so forth. But in a way, you know, Russian economy has been suffering with the sanctions and all of this. And the price of oil is very important for the war effort because, you know, certain prices projected as too they have to sell oil for at least that much. And now this price has been up a lot. So, in that sense, that's what that meant. Yes, that the increase in the price of oil helps Russia.
GR: And when you said that Russia is hanging on to its maximalist aims, just explain what maximalist means there in this context.
OS: Yeah. This is essentially what Popov’s and my book is about. That we have wrote this book, we were motivated to no small extent by trying to push back against the narrative that has been very prevalent in certain circles. This is sort of this realists take or perspective on the conflict that basically says that, well, you know, it’s bad that Russia invaded, but ultimately they invaded because they felt threatened by NATO expansion. And that's really what the conflict is about, that, you know, Ukraine had a change of government in 2014, it was going to enter NATO, it is threatening Russia and Russia invaded. And that's kind of what the root cause of the war is, right? But, you know, those who study Ukraine, who have studied Ukraine and Russian relations, who studied Ukrainian and Russian history as we have and many other experts in Ukraine have, do not buy this argument. And then again, the question becomes, what are the root causes of the war? And as we argue in the book, the root causes of the war is Russia's desire to not let Ukraine slip from its grasp. And we're not talking about just geopolitically, you know, of course, I mean, Ukrainian membership in NATO was never realistic and if it were ever was, Russia would look like it. But that's not really the main, neither necessary nor sufficient condition, we can say. And what it really goes down to is Russia not being able to accept Ukraine that is sovereign, that does its own thing in all sorts of policy areas, from historical memory politics to cultural development to economics. And again, we see this history of Russia becoming increasingly unwilling to accept this kind of Ukraine. And that's ultimately what this war is about. And so even if we look at specific, you know, disputes over, say, the territory in the Donbas, like I think some in America would say, and I think, again, that's part of the view in the current administration that there's some bunch of, you know, almost destroyed territory, what's the big deal? You know, just give it to Russia and then the war is over. But in Ukraine, nobody believes this because what ultimately it would mean that this is heavily fortified territory. If Russia were to take this territory, just opens the way for new aggression. And we've seen this since 2014, first Crimea, it's on the Crimea. Well, it wasn't on the Crimea because then there Donbas. And then sort of Donbas why it's not really because when they invaded in 2022, they go straight for Kiev. Why go straight for Kiev to decapitate the government if you are supposedly protecting Russian speakers in the east? Which, by the way, are the ones suffering the most from the bombing. So again, sort of in the same irreconcilable position, it ultimately goes down to Ukraine being determined, increasing this whole since ‘91 and especially since 2014, to have its own past, to be oriented to Europe, to be sovereign country, to not be under Russian dictate and Russia increasingly unable to accept that. And that's really why we have the clash of irreconcilable objectives, which have been there in ‘22, in 2014, and they’re here in 2026.
GR: So, I want to ask you a question about the United States for a moment, and then I want to come back and follow up on some of the things that you just said. Do you think that in the United States, the public attention on this war in Ukraine, despite the fact that it's the largest war in Europe since World War two, do you think that Americans are kind of suffering from an exhaustion of sorts with their waning attention or do you think it's the war with Iran has sort of pushed it out from people's attention span? What's your sense of that?
OS: Yeah, I would maybe mention two things here, because first of all, I think when we look at the opinion polls and, you know, if the American public believes that, you know, Ukraine should be supported and deserves U.S support, we still see substantial support. So this is, you know, this notion that, you know, Americans are tired. Actually in Ukraine there are memes about tired Westerners, like who should really be exhausted. It's not the westerners, but Ukrainians. But sort of that aside, first of all, there is still support, right, so even if, say, the administration is less skilled and less eager to support, I think the public understands, again, like this is, you know, very kind of the story that the smaller countries attacked by bigger country, by right and wrong. And this is really the conflict with right and wrong is very clear. There are many wars around the world, and when conflicts have lasted for generations where, you know, it's sort of confusing. Like who are the good guys? And I think here it really isn't confusing. But then again, you know, as you opened this program saying that the only one foreign policy issue seem to be kind of dominating the headlines. So, I think this is part of that, right? So again, we have a new conflict, obviously media attention has turned to that conflict. And then there is just less front page space, right? For everything else. And of course, you know, so I think in some sense it is understandable, but on the other sense, of course, it is also something to say, like, is this all media? Or to the working, you kind of latch onto whatever is in the news right now. So, I think both of these things are going on, as I said, the thing that is still substantial support and that's important to realize, but also the way the media prioritizes what to cover, something that is new and happening now and this sort of, you know, big and consequential in that way dominates the coverage.
GR: I'm Grant Reeher, you're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media and my guest is Tufts University political science professor Oxana Shevel. And her recent book is titled, "Russia and Ukraine: Entangled Histories, Diverging States". So, let's talk a bit about this entangled history part of your argument and your book. How are the histories entangled and why is that so important?
OS: Yeah, I think this is very important. And this is why we chose the ‘entangled’ as opposed to ‘common’ or ‘joint’ or something like this. Because even to say that countries had like a common history implies that there is some sort of similar interpretation of what has happened. With the Russia and Ukrainian case, even though, of course, there has been a lot of developments that affected these territories together and separately, the way how this history is narrated is what really matters. And here we have a sense of, again, two narratives. So, the narrative that has been dominant since the imperial period in Russia and then in the Soviet period and remains in the post-Soviet Russia, maybe with some modification in the early 90s, but now it is back in full swing, uses this narrative that Ukraine and Russia belong together by right, that, you know, all the good Ukrainians, but all is for Russian or wanted to be with Russia and whoever was against it were somehow traitor. So, if you look at any figures in history, be it the early 18th century leader hetman Mazepa who betrayed the Russian Tsar by joining with the Swedes. He betrayed the Tsar, eight? Sure, but for what purpose? He betrayed the Tsar because he wanted Ukrainian territory and Ukrainian Cossacks to have great autonomy that Tsar's promised but then took away. So, what I'm saying here, and we also talk about it in the book, that the same history could be narrated very differently. It could be narrated from the standpoint that there was always a Ukrainian political idea. Yes, it was very different, its shape it took was very different in different historical periods. And these attempts have failed before in no small part because Russia would not allow it, right? But then again, that was oppression of these people and groups and interests who stood for greater separation. There was all sorts of crimes committed from the 1930s, you know, the famine and earlier in the previous centuries. But this history has been suppressed. It has been suppressed in the Soviet period, it has been suppressed in the Cyrus period. And Ukraine only begins to recover in the post-Soviet period. And this is why Russia would not tolerate it, because as far as they're concerned, and again, because it serves as the grand narrative, if you are trying to say, you know, Ukraine and Russia belong together and you have some historical justification for it, like, it makes it the stronger argument, right? But this historical narrative is like, well, here is another instance when there is contestation over the future of Ukraine, when there are people and groups in Ukraine who actually don't want to be under Russian rule, right? And now they are actually succeeding, right? This sort of, you know, the entangled history becomes narrated in a very, different ways. And this is actually has been one of the key issues in the post ‘91 period, because once Ukraine became independent state for the first time in, you know, in history that the state has been established and lasted more than just a few years, then, you know, there is actually this recovery of historical memory that is now talk about Soviet oppression, about Cyrus oppression, kind of rethinking of personalities such as Mazepa. Like, was he really a traitor, or was he in some way a positive character because he betrayed the Tsar for the reasons that actually were pro-Ukrainian, right? And if there is absolute rejection of this kind of, you know, historical developments in Ukraine because it goes to weaken this myth of eternal Russian-Ukrainian unity and everybody being on the same page and on the traitors wanting to, you know, break this unity. So, history in that sense is very important because again, we see Putin is completely wedded to this imperial reading of history. And he talks about, you know, he tried to convince (unintelligible) of all people, you know, going back to 11th century and concocting some arguments as if whatever happened there somehow explains and justifies what he does now. But that goes to the entangled problem, right? So, it is entangled in a way that developments in Ukraine and Ukrainian-Russian relations could be narrated different ways, and they have been narrated in a certain way by the powerful states, empire Soviet Union, Russia. And now Ukraine is doing it differently, and Russia just cannot tolerate that.
GR: When we come back after our break, I want to follow up with you and then ask the other piece of this, which is about how the how the governments go in different directions, post ’91. You're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media. I'm Grant Reeher and I'm talking with Oxana Shevel, she's a political science professor at Tufts University and the coauthor of a recent book on Ukraine and the war with Russia, titled, "Russia and Ukraine: Entangled Histories, Diverging States". Well, as I said before the break, I want to sort of ask the other piece of this. You laid out how the histories are entangled, there's competing narratives here. But the governments, the states, how do they diverge after ‘91? They go in kind of different directions. Tell us about that.
OS: Yeah. This is also an important element in our book because in a way, our book is, you know, as I said already, in one way, it is pushing against this narrative that, you know, war is NATO's fault, but it is also not just a book about Russian imperialism. (unintelligible) The argument in the book is not that, you know, look, Russia was always imperialistic towards Ukraine and now that Ukraine, you know, it's trying to narrate its history and distinct identity, that's why Russia lashed out. That's a big part of it, but it really works in conjunction with divergence in political regimes in Russia and Ukraine. So, in other words, you know, the explanatory factors are, one, is this divergence in identity politics and Ukrainians increasingly committed to narrate its history and establish its independence, statehood and nationhood. And Russia is increasingly committed to not allow this to happen. But war only becomes possible also when Russian regime becomes fully autocratic and Ukrainian regime is increasingly more pluralistic. And why does it work this way? Because first of all, you know, democratic Ukraine is additionally kind of threatening to Russia because if you are saying that here is this country that is essentially just younger brothers and they're able to establish a functioning democratic regime, but then shall we say, join the European Union, forget even NATO, like, we could say, you know, people in Russia might say like, well, why, you know, if Ukraine can accomplish this, like, why can't we, right? And that creates a challenge to the political regime. But also more importantly even, that if you have a pluralistic, at least somewhat pluralistic political system, as Russia had in the 1990s under Yeltsin, there is a debate, it was in Russia, there has been a debate. First of all, not absolutely everybody was pro-imperial in Russia. There were some voices, you know, (unintelligible) would be one example, (unintelligible) was killed, who was, you know, explicitly not kind of pro-imperial in the way that, you know, Putin and most of the Russian elite was. But even among the pro-imperial elite, there was a disagreement about what to do with Ukraine, right? So, if you have a pluralistic system, there is, the war is not the only option, right? Like you could say they talked about creating so-called liberal empire, which basically the idea was that Russia would become a functioning democracy, would become, you know, strong market economy and all other countries, first and foremost Ukraine, would naturally gravitate to it. And yes, Russia would still control everything, but it wouldn't be this liberal empire, right? So, this would, what would basically they were saying, and this is in the way it explains why invasion happens when it happens and not earlier, because this imperial thinking about Ukraine really had been there all along. Yes, it stands under Putin but it has been there all along. But through the 90s there was a political space in Russia to basically for political class to disagree what to do, right? And then that environment, it makes it much harder to say, like, we are going to send tanks across the border and we are going to bomb Kiev, which Putin is able to do as a personalistic dictator by 2022. But this is something that would have been essentially much, much less likely had Russia retained a degree of political pluralism, right? On the other hand, had Ukraine become an authoritarian state, which was a possibility when pro-Russian President Yanukovych, who was in power, first he fails to come to power in 2005, then he comes to power in 2010. And during the three plus years that he was in power, he actually tries to mold Ukraine kind of into Russia number two, like Belarus. There is closing of independent media, arrests of political opposition, he begins to change identity politics to (unintelligible) have political regime in Ukraine had been more authoritarian, maybe invasion wouldn't have been necessary because Yanukovych essentially could have delivered vassalized Ukraine to Russia in a way that Lukashenko did in Belarus. So, in our book, we talk about the interaction of these two factors. On the one hand, identity politics that was pulling apart. It was, you know, great imperial kind of bent in Russia and greater commitment to independence in Ukraine. And then this regime dynamics that was also falling apart and the way they interacted that really explains both the invasion and the timing of the invasion, say.
GR: Well, it sounds to me also and this is a question I wanted to ask you, you've kind of already just answered it. What you've just described then also demonstrates why it's going to be so hard for this conflict to get resolved, because there are deep differences in fundamental commitments to the kind of government you're going to have and what your national identity is and about that's going on here. I mean, that's tied into the conflict, and so it's going to be very tough, it seems to me, to untangle that, right?
OS: Absolutely. I think this is why, you know, we are where we are and there is no resolution in sight, even though after, you know, years or year now almost of intense diplomacy and various, you know, attempts. Because again, the fundamental irreconcilable difference in positions and again, the regime type is also very important because this whole emphasis on like how (unintelligible) this, as Russia says, and I think Trump agrees with it, that Zelenskyy somehow is a problem, right? Like if you get rid of Zelenskyy, then like everything. But Zelenskyy is a democratically elected leader. He is beholden to what Ukrainian society would not allow. And Ukrainian leaders have learned that in recent history that when they go against societal kind of preferences, society rises up, right? So, this notion that you can just install some puppet somehow, all right, and I think that was the plan all along, this is why they went for Kiev. And they actually flew Yanukovych, the post-president they flew him to Minsk in the early weeks of the war. The hope was that they would take Zelenskyy out and install Yanukovych, and then they can wash their hands. I mean, Putin said they didn't intend to occupy, right? Like, yes, they didn't intend. Even they think that the puppet could run the country. But Ukrainian society is just different. It will not, you know, and history is there, like it shows, it just would not accept this. And this is in a way sort of a tragedy that I mean, neither Russia elites and Russian political class wants to understand it. And I think also, you know, many in the West don't quite understand it. So, if we think about what it would take for it to resolve, I mean, one thing I think, you know, if we're talking about settlement like long term, right, some sort of stable peace, I think it would take change in Russia. I can't imagine as long as Putin is in power or somebody like Putin, that we would have like the true end to the conflict and sort of like a new beginning, no, you know, war is over. Because that would be, again, the goals are not achieved, right? Even if somehow they capture more territory, right, like the border, whatever, as a square kilometers. As long as the government in Kiev sits, and as long as it's sovereign and it does its own thing and it is not under the control of Russia, the goals of the special military operations, Russia calls it, are not achieved, right? And which means Ukraine would be constantly threatened. So again, you know, for the fundamental settlements, it may take, you know, Putin leaving office, you know, through death or otherwise before even a possibility. Even if he leaves, it doesn't mean it'll happen, but at least it opens the possibility. And I think this is very important to realize that it's not just Zelenskyy, you know, it's not some sort of specific sliver of territory, is it is about these irreconcilable objectives.
GR: That's a really important point about the necessary potential, necessary change in Russia itself, but also a depressing one, I'm thinking about ending the conflict. If you've just joined us, you're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media. I'm Grant Reeher and my guest is Tufts University professor Oxana Shevel. I want to apologize in advance for this next question, because it's going to seem almost perverse, really. And particularly given that you yourself are Ukrainian, as I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong, but you are Ukrainian. OS: Yeah.
GR: But I have to ask it because I wonder if some of the international community, the leaders of other countries, and maybe some of the people in other countries haven't had this thought cross their mind that in some ways, this entire situation, in part because of how you have explained how deeply problematic it is, that this situation would be in some ways simpler and easier for the world if the Russians had just occupied the country, taken over the country, as many people thought that they would, that, you know, many people thought Ukraine would fall very quickly, in some ways that would be simpler. I know you don't see it that way, but I just had to put that question out there.
OS: I appreciate the question. I think whoever asked this question should really ask themselves, what do you mean by simpler? Like, simpler for whom and simpler in what way? Because let's imagine this scenario, right, that Russia has succeeded to occupy Ukraine, as you know, most expected. We know from evidence that whenever Russian occupation authority moved in, they had, literally, kill lists of all the people who they considered to be not sufficiently loyal for Russia. So, people have been arrested, people have been tortured, people have been detained, people have been disappeared, right, we have mass graves. That would have been happening on the scale of a much larger, basically with whatever territory they occupied, that would have been happening. Is that simpler, right? It is simpler maybe because in the West, people wouldn't know about it because no independent media is allowed to operate, right? So, to say it is simpler, I think it's a little bit of a misnomer, right? It is simpler as in, like, it's not in your news, but it is still happening. And these crimes would have been happening on a huge scale. Think about refugees. We've had some 6 million people who left at the beginning of the war, people would not want to live under occupation, right? We would have tens of millions probably, you know, certainly many, many more millions going to Europe, creating, you know, challenges associated with this. And then we would have also, which is maybe the most consequential thing that would not make it simple at all, if you think you in the medium to long term, as opposed to like immediate short term, this aggression is rewarded, right? The world essentially allowed a democratic country to be gobbled up by this resilient dictatorship on pretense. And then, you know, this aggressive, emboldened Putin is now on the border with Western Europe, right? What is there to prevent him, especially if the narrative is that, you know, we can't sort of, “Russia cannot lose” because it has nuclear weapons and then the worst thing happens. What is there to prevent him to go next? Why not Moldova, which is not even the NATO EU member? They have the Transnistria region with Russian speakers. In fact, that was original plan, if Odesa were to fall, like, you know, the map’s were shown that that’s Russia’s next goal. What about Estonia? They have, you know, plenty of Russians and those in Estonia, the government is quote unquote Nazi as far as Russia’s concerned. Who is going to go fight over Estonia, right? So, like that would be at least a question. So, I think if we begin to think in sort of what actually it would mean, and we can continue this list, like what it would actually mean for the world, for the West. I think the idea that it would have been simpler, I think it begins to collapse pretty quickly. So the only way it would be simpler if, you know, you can sort of close your eyes and close your ears and say, like, you know, people may be killed in Ukraine and thousands and tortured, but I don't read about it in the news because our journalists are not allowed to report and I'm going to pretend that it's not happening, right? I think that would be maybe the only way in which it would have been simpler.
GR: We've got about two minutes left, and I want to try to squeeze in two more questions if I can. So, I'm going to put you all under a little bit more of a time pressure here at the very end. The first one is a personal question and again, I know you could talk about this for quite a long time, but if you could be brief. I mentioned that you were Ukrainian, how has it been for you as a Ukrainian to see all this unfold, from a distance?
OS: You know, I grew up in Ukraine and now I’ve lived in the US longer than I lived in Ukraine. And I certainly, you know, I identify with Ukraine in some sense, but I'm under no pretense that it is somehow harder for me, given what people are going through in Ukraine. So, I consider myself, you know, even though of course, I'm affected maybe more than somebody who does not have family in connection with Ukraine, I'm very aware that whatever problems I have or whatever stress I may be under is nothing in comparison with what people are going through in Ukraine. So, I try to do my bit including, you know, talking to the media and writing academic and policy facing work to educate the people of what goes on. I feel like that's the contribution I can make to share my expertise, so that's what I would say.
GR: Okay. And then my last question here and again, we'll have to be very brief under a minute. If you were advising President Trump, what would you be telling him to do? What should America be doing? Very quickly.
OS: Pressure Russia. That would be my advice, pressure Russia. Don't believe Putin's gaslighting, this whole notion that they are like inevitably winning, that Ukraine has no cards. If you look at the evidence and the course that they’re suffering, Russia, and the sort of snail pace in which they may be, you know, take something over and the strain the economy is under, US has a lot of leverage. Pressure Russia, make Putin see that he cannot accomplish more than he already has. And he has to be forced to an agreement, ceasefire or the current contact line that Ukraine is willing to go for. So, I think that would be my advice, don't fall for Russian gaslighting.
GR: We'll have to leave it there. That was Oxana Shevel, and again, her recent book is titled, “Russia and Ukraine: Entangled Histories diverging States” and certainly understanding how complex and interwoven these two countries are, and you'll get that through this book, will help you understand why this war has been so hard to end. Professor Shevel, thanks so much for taking the time with me, I really learned a lot from this conversation.
OS: Thanks very much.
GR: You've been listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media, conversations in the public interest.
David Oppenheimer on the Campbell Conversations
Mar 07, 2026
David Oppenheimer
Program transcript:
Grant Reeher: Welcome to the Campbell Conversations, I'm Grant Reeher. Diversity is a concept that's at ground zero of our political wars in recent years, and my guest today has written a history and a spirited defense of the idea. David Oppenheimer is a clinical professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley, and the author of a new book titled, “The Diversity Principle: The Story of a Transformative Idea.” Professor Oppenheimer, welcome to the program.
David Oppenheimer: Thank you very much. It's a delight to be here with you.
GR: Well, we really appreciate you making the time. So, I want to set the stage for our listeners by doing one thing myself here, and then I'll start asking you questions. But I wanted to read what you name as the diversity principle, and it's the very first page of your book. And so, it's a short paragraph. I'll read that, and then I'll come in and ask you a question after that. Here's the diversity principle, “People with different backgrounds, experiences and viewpoints benefit from engaging with each other. That's why it's important for people who are insiders to expand their circles to include outsiders, and vice versa. The experience of being an outsider is often influenced by age, religion, ethnicity, gender, race, language, disability, economic class, and other forms of identity. Compared with groups that are more homogeneous, diverse groups do a better job of solving problems, making discoveries, teaching and learning from each other, and improving democratic discourse.” A very good summary I think of an idea that is somewhat slippery at times. So let me ask you this to start, you tell a history of this principle and this idea, where and with whom does your story start?
DO: Well, my story starts with Wilhelm von Humboldt, one of the great figures of the German or Prussian Enlightenment and the founder of the University of Berlin in 1810, where he decided to create an experiential university which has become the model for research universities around the world, and decided to include Catholics and Jews in order to benefit from a more diverse learning community.
GR: Interesting, okay. And so, my next question is going to force you to kind of take something that you spend almost 200 pages writing about, but to condense it into a reasonably brief answer. How does this concept then wind its way into higher education more generally? That's the University of Berlin, but where do we go from there?
DO: So, Humboldt influences John Stuart Mill and Charles Eliot, the transformative 19th century president of Harvard University. Eliot takes Humboldt's ideas and applies them at Harvard, and transforms Harvard from a sort of a sleepy college into a great university through bringing in, again, Catholic students and Jewish students and faculty and black people and immigrants and poor people with scholarships. And when he steps down, says that the thing he's most proud of about Harvard is the deep diversity in terms of racial and ethnic and religious and class diversity. And once it becomes part of the DNA of Harvard, it spreads to other American universities, it spreads to free speech law, it spreads to academic freedom law, it spreads to civil law, to civil rights law. And it all carries from there from Humboldt and Mill, or the Mills, to Eliot.
GR: And then in your story, you kind of locate this as you just did in the academy. And, you know, the things that you just articulated are things that we would associate with almost any university in the United States with, you know, a couple of exceptions, I guess. But then how and why does commerce and science come on board this diversity train that was originally put on the tracks by the academy?
DO: Well, businesses figured out the value of diversity through business school professors who were one foot in the university and one foot in the world of commerce. There was this early, very influential article called, ‘From Affirmative Action to Affirming Diversity’. And once business school professors and then psychology professors started testing the idea that diversity really has measurable value, they found that it did. They found that companies, for example, with more diverse boards and more diverse C-suites and more diverse management, made more money. And that was the point of what they were doing. And scientists, one, began studying diversity in many environments and finding that it really made a difference, and two, finding that in science, in science labs that were more diverse, they were making more important discoveries.
GR: Interesting. And then one of the things that I wanted to see if you had any thoughts about, I was thinking of some of my own discoveries about diversity that I've made along the way, and one of the ones that kind of surprised me when I first came upon it was in the workplace in the United States, you could argue that really one of the biggest leaders is the United States government. That they do quite well in comparison with the private sector. And not only if we think about the military, but the civilian workforce as well. I don't know if you had any comments about that.
DO: Well, one, I completely agree that the U.S. military, has been much more diverse and has done a much better job of creating opportunity for women and for black Americans and Hispanic Americans and Asian Americans than private industry. And then second, yes, the government, all the way back to the reconstruction period, and with the exception of the Wilson administration, which was really terrible toward black federal employees, but with that exception the government has had a more diverse workforce, and has been better at having rules that required employment decisions to be made, looking at a broad pool instead of simply, oh, I've got a friend who could work for us, let's hire him.
GR: I'm Grant Reeher. You're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media, and my guest is University of California at Berkeley law professor David Oppenheimer, and we're discussing his new book. It's titled, “The Diversity Principle: The Story of a Transformative Idea.” So, you have kind of a two-pronged way of talking about this concept. And it's, you know, the way that it gets argued about. And one is sort of as an issue of fairness and as an issue of justice. But you've also emphasized the fact that, hey, you know, it's not just a good thing to do, it's good for business, it will make you more money. And so there's the self-interested aspect of it from a collective perspective. I was wondering if you had some reflections on, as this concept then is wending its way and becoming more and more accepted in different kinds of realms of our lives, is there an impact back on the concept itself? Does the concept itself go through any formative changes in that process?
DO: Well, it certainly has, from an idea that seemed like a good idea into the business world, where it was very heavily analyzed by the business consultancies who were training, HR people and training businesses and looking for feedback. And that's how we saw the movement from a diversity principle to diversity, equity and inclusion. As businesses concluded and their consultants concluded that they were recruiting a more diverse workforce, but they weren't bringing them into the community of the workforce so that there was no sense of inclusion. And in the absence of inclusion, they weren't fully gaining the benefits of diversity.
GR: Interesting, interesting. And I wanted to pick up on that. You know, you mentioned DEI, it's obviously a, you know, like a flashing neon light political phrase right now. Do you think that this concept has suffered in recent years with what many people perceive as a hyper focus, especially on the left, on gender, race and sexual orientation as the be all and end all of diversity that, you know, has that sort of weakened the strength of the concepts some way, do you think?
DO: Well, certainly it's important that we recognize that there are all kinds of diversity and all kinds of diversity contributes to the diversity effect. So, for example, there's a criticism that American universities are too left.
GR: Yeah, I want to come back to that a bit later, but go ahead.
DO: Okay, Well I'm sorry to jump ahead.
GR: Oh no, it's fine, it's good.
DO: But certainly, I agree and I probably agree more from having studied diversity, that we need conservative voices on our faculties in order to, one, improve our own research as professors, because we're hearing voices that today we're not perhaps hearing enough. And two, improve the teaching of our students. So just as it's important that women's voices be heard, just as it's important that racial minorities be included in the community, just as it's important that people with disabilities be part of the community. I think it's also important that there be political and ideological diversity in order to gain fully the benefits of diversity.
GR: Yeah, I wanted to come back to that. I wanted to ask you a different question, though, might be related to it in a way. And it's about the academy, and it's based in part on my own experience, but you've already alluded to it. In this focus on certain kinds of diversity, there also seems to me to be a return and an embrace of what I thought as a society, we were trying to work away from in the name of diversity, if you will. And that is the notion that the differences between genders, between races are essential, that they are immutable. And that seems to me to go against Martin Luther King's notion of being, for example, judged by the content of one's character rather than the color of one's skin. There is this essential quality being put on that. Not by everyone, but I think it's fair to say by some people in the assumptions that they make. How does that fit with diversity and your principle, does it sort of work against that purpose in some way?
DO: Well, it seems to me that the experience of growing up as a member of a racial minority in America, or the experience of growing up with a disability in America, or the experience of growing up as a woman in America, affects a person's understanding of critical issues. And let me give you an example that I think shows that a commitment to diversity is not a commitment to essentialism.
GR: Okay, great.
DO: One, on our Supreme Court we currently have two black justices. They couldn't disagree more about most issues. Although I have to say no one would accuse me of being anything other than a liberal, and yet I am an enormous admirer of the civil procedure opinions of Justice Clarence Thomas. I teach civil procedure, I teach his opinions with great admiration. But as much as it is true that the two black justices on our court diametrically disagree about almost everything, look at Justice Thomas's opinion in Black v. Virginia, a case in which the then eight white members of the court agreed that burning a cross was a political statement that deserved recognition as a political statement under the First Amendment. And Justice Thomas's eloquent opinion about how burning a cross was not a form of political speech, it was a form of terrorism and intimidation that deserved no recognition under our First Amendment. This was part of his experience growing up as a black man in America, that I don't think any of the white justices on the court, liberal conservative, however you want to describe them, understood.
GR: That's a great example. You're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media. I'm Grant Reeher and I'm talking with David Oppenheimer. He's a professor at the University of California, Berkeley Law School and the author of a new book titled, “The Diversity Principle: The Story of a Transformative Idea” and we've been discussing the ideas that he raises in the book. Well, I wanted, David, to come back to something that you alluded to before the break, which was the criticism of higher education, that there isn't sufficient diversity of viewpoint or ideological diversity there. And it has struck me more in recent years. I've been in the academy for 30 plus years now, and it seems to me that it is a real problem for DEI and for those that are advocating diversity. I guess I wanted to ask you, do you think that that fact, you and I seem to be in agreement that there isn't a lot of ideological diversity in higher education, or at least that a lot of institutions, mine, Syracuse University, the faculty is overwhelmingly liberal, overwhelmingly Democrat, you know, to the tune of beyond 20 to 1 I think in terms of party identification. I'm sure, well, Berkeley has an international reputation for being on the left. Do you think that this has been a problem for the concept itself? Do you think that this has hurt the notion of diversity?
DO: Yes. I think that if the advocates of diversity policies came from every part of the political spectrum, and I think that if the academy, which has been one of the major sources of the advocacy for diversity policies, represented itself a more diverse political environment, that people would be more open, and particularly conservatives would be more open to considering the value of diversity. And instead, I think what happens is that they try to carve out viewpoint diversity and say, well, viewpoint diversity is a good thing, but other kinds of diversity are not real.
GR: I see. So, that's your criticism of the criticism then.
DO: Right. Well it was, by the way, John Stuart Mill had a great response to that. Mill wrote about that and spoke about it in this remarkable speech at Saint Andrew's, where he was the rector of the college, now university. And he said that it's essential to one's education, that you be exposed to people with different ideas, and what gives people different ideas is their experiences and their backgrounds. And that means that you need to include people from lots of different nationalities and religions in order to gain a diverse and therefore richer education.
GR: Yeah. This one's a big question. Why in the end do you think that this concept, particularly in recent years, is so ripe for attack and exploitation from the right? There's lots of things that conservatives could be upset about, why is this one such a magnet?
DO: The power of the diversity principle is that it encourages us to create greater opportunities for women and for people with disabilities and for black Americans and Hispanic Americans and Asian Americans. And that, I think, is threatening to white men who, and now you can put this two ways, who worry about losing their supremacy is how a liberal would put it. Or, who worry about becoming themselves the victims of discrimination is the way a conservative would put it. But either way, there is this strong sense of self-interest in opposing the lessons of the diversity principle.
GR: Well, let me push you on that a little bit. If you've just joined us, you're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media. I'm Grant Reeher and my guest is Berkeley law professor David Oppenheimer. So, I have heard that response before, and what doesn't fully convince me is how that accounts for the conservative attacks on this principle from people who aren't white males. And there are a lot of them, you know, that self-interested argument, if that's what's driving it at the core. How do you fit that in to that?
DO: One, I dispute that there are a lot of them.
GR: Okay.
DO: If you look at it statistically. And certainly, black conservatives, conservative women, benefit within conservative circles from the fact that they are not white men because they make good spokespeople, because there's this symbolic value. I get that.
GR: Go against type, yeah.
DO: Yeah. But I think if you look at data on who opposes diversity policies, it's mostly white men who are driving this.
GR: Okay.
DO: So that would be my response to that.
GR: Okay. We've got about five minutes or so left, and I want to try to get a little more personal now with some of my questions, if that's okay with you, because you hinted some of those things in your book. One of the blurbs for your book says that you were formerly a skeptic of diversity, now you're a believer. So, tell me quickly, I know you could go into great detail, but why were you previously skeptical? I assume it's more than just the fact that I'm looking at a white man right now.
DO: Oh, yeah, my skepticism came from thinking that this was just sort of a pop psychology excuse for including small numbers of women and minorities and not a principle aimed at creating a more equal and fair society.
GR: Okay. And why did you change your views? What happened?
DO: I discovered the long history and the depth and the thinking of the people who have developed this idea. And the more I read, and the more I studied, both about the history and about the current scientific, empirical data about the power of diversity, the more I realized that this is a real thing and this has to be taken seriously.
GR: When you were doing the research for this book and the writing of it, did you have your own sort of diversity ‘a-ha’ moment in terms of the people that you discovered and you were writing about?
DO: Well, in a sense, in that three women emerged in the history who either I hadn't heard of or I didn't appreciate their significance. And I came to realize that for each of them, they contributed both amazing ideas about diversity, and they contributed diversity to the development of those ideas. And those were Caroline von Humboldt, who was married to Wilhelm von Humboldt and clearly had a major influence on his sense that the world is such a vast place with people who are so different, and that those differences contribute to the power of ideas. And then Harriet Taylor Mill, who for 25 years was John Stuart Mill's companion and lover, and then when her husband died, they married. And she was the co-author of much of his work and the lead author of some of his work, which I hadn't understood. He always said that she was his co-author, but people couldn't believe it because she was a woman. And it's been amazing to see how we have finally, in this century, begun to recognize her importance. And then finally, Pauli Murray, who was probably the most influential civil rights lawyer of the 20th century in the United States, maybe the most influential lawyer in the 20th century in the United States, and the role she had in convincing Thurgood Marshall to take a diversity approach to his arguments in the cases that led to Brown v. Board of Education, to convincing Lady Bird Johnson to get Lyndon Johnson to get the Senate to keep sex discrimination in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Her convincing the ACLU to hire Ruth Bader Ginsburg and then convincing her to appreciate the diversity element in the arguments that they constructed together about sex discrimination and the 14th Amendment. And then at the height of this remarkable legal career, and as, I think the first black woman to be made a tenured professor at Brandeis became an Episcopal priest.
GR: Well, we'll have to leave it there. That's fascinating, and a really interesting story about how you went through your own story when you were writing the story of this principle. That was David Oppenheimer. And again, his new book is titled, “The Diversity Principle: The Story of a Transformative Idea,” and in the spirit of the book, I will say that whether you agree or disagree with his argument, your understanding of the issue will be enhanced by grappling with it. Professor Oppenheimer, thanks again for talking with me. I really, really appreciate this and really, really learned a lot.
DO: Thank you so much for having me.
GR: You've been listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media, conversations in the public interest.
Andrew Guthrie Ferguson on the Campbell Conversations
Feb 28, 2026
Andrew Guthrie Ferguson
Program transcript:
Grant Reeher: Welcome to the Campbell Conversations, I'm Grant Reeher. When it comes to generating data that can be used against us by the government, are we are own worst enemies? My guest today has a lot to say about that. Andrew Guthrie Ferguson is a professor at George Washington University Law School, and he's the author of a new book. It's titled, “Your Data Will Be Used Against You: Policing in the Age of Self-Surveillance." Professor Ferguson, welcome to the program.
Andrew Ferguson: Thank you so much for having me.
GR: Well, we really appreciate you making the time. So, I'm going to spend, I think, most of our time just unpacking a very provocative sentence that you write near the beginning of your book. You write, “you are, at best, a warrant away from having your most intimate personal details revealed to a government agent looking to incarcerate, embarrass, or intimidate you.” There's a lot to unpack there. So, that's going to be our roadmap. But first, I thought it would help to set some of the context for this by breaking down some of the building blocks for your analysis in your argument. So let me start with this one, you write of certain kind of data sources, and it's right in the title of your book, you call them ‘self-surveillance’. Just give us a clear idea of what that means, the kinds of data mines that you're talking about there.
AF: Sure. So, if you live in a world where you have a smartphone in your pocket or a smartwatch on your wrist, or drive any modern car that is essentially a smart surveillance car, or have a ring doorbell camera on your front door, an Alexa in your home, use the internet, ask Google questions, you are creating data about yourself. And the thing that I think we haven't fully recognized is that all of our smart devices are surveillance devices. In fact, that's sort of what you're purchasing. You're purchasing some insight about yourself, about your life, about your patterns that you think will add value to your life. The downside risk is that all that data is available to law enforcement, to prosecutors. And it is, as you said, at best, a warrant away from being revealed. And what the book does is try to explain how we have sort of built this world of self-surveillance. Not to judge us, we are all digital citizens in one way or another, but to recognize that these purchases and these choices have costs and that we haven't really wrestled with the costs of that self-surveillance.
GR: So, in your book, you take the first several chapters breaking out that different kind of data, and you just gave us an idea of that when you just listed the different kinds of devices that, you know, a lot of us have, certainly almost everybody has the cell phone, the smartphone. And you talk about data that's in and about our homes, and you have one about our things, our bodies, our cities, our papers and our likes. Now, some of those I think we understand immediately. And when you just described that list that you gave, you know, we all can relate to that. I was curious to hear you spell out a little bit about what our cities and our papers mean in those chapters. That's less clear on the surface.
AF: Sure. So, we as a society have invested a lot of money in building surveillance devices in our cities. Whether they're automated license plate readers that catch the license plates that drive down your streets, cameras that are connected to real time crime centers where police can surveil the city streets from the comfort of their command center. Whether it is other forms, you know, drones and other new technologies that are watching us. That is a form of self-surveillance. It’s democratically mediated, it's our city council saying that we think that we can buy a world of safety through surveillance. But these are choices. Choices that we make with our tax dollars, we make with our elected choices of representatives. And it is another form of this world where we are building surveillance devices for when we go out in public, but also, of course, as we are in our home. And the papers part, again, the chapters that begin the book talk about how our homes have been transformed into smart homes, our bodies have been transformed using biological markers, be it your Fitbit or your smartwatch or your smart pacemaker or whatever it would be. But papers, papers also date back to the founding fathers. We have papers, effects, persons in homes as our Fourth Amendment protections. And most of what we do now is mediated through a digital form that takes the place of papers. You know, my parents used to get a bank statement in the mail, literally every month, that they saved in the attic so we would have boxes of papers and that was your financial records. Now it's all digital on your phone. We used to write letters. Again, they actually had love letters that they wrote back when they were courting in the air and now people have, like, texts and maybe an email or two to do that. But all of that digital information is recorded somewhere, usually held by some third party, and is available if there is a criminal prosecution, if there is a warrant, if there is a desire. And what I don't think we realize is that that exposure, that digital exposure, leaves us all very vulnerable to political winds that change, to certain kinds of targeted prosecutions. And it's something that we should just have a conversation about, and the book is trying to start that conversation.
GR: Yeah. Just a couple of quick observations about our cities. I just want to, you'd be interested in hearing this, but that question and that issue has been one that has come up in Syracuse, because Syracuse has been instituting these. It has been framed as something that will make the city run more efficiently and provide better services. But at the same time, there has been conversation about this idea that we are, you know, increasing our sense of monitoring. And I remember I worked several years ago over a number of different summers in London, and it was often said, I remember it being said that because of the heavy use of CCTV, that pretty much anywhere in London, you were on television somewhere. And I remember taking some comfort in that as a pedestrian walking around. But I see the other side of this now that you bring it up.
AF: And that's part of it, it's that duality, right? It's not that smart cities are bad, it's not that security cameras are bad, but in an unregulated world, in a world where that technology can be weaponized for other things that we didn't agree to or don't think is wise, we run into problems. And that's the hard part. We are not wrong in thinking that maybe certain forms of surveillance will help law enforcement. It will. And the book is actually filled with stories of people getting caught because of their data and like, bad people getting caught because of their data. And that's not a bad thing. The danger is that who is bad or what is criminal can change politically, can change because of who's getting targeted and without rules and regulations to limit it. It really does expose all of us to essentially the whims of who's in charge and what they want to prosecute.
GR: Yeah, anyone who's watched British crime television knows, the first thing that detectives all go to is the CCTV. But you're right, the double edge-ness. I'm Grant Reeher, you're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media, and my guest is George Washington University law professor Andrew Guthrie Ferguson and we're discussing his new book. It's titled, “Your Data Will Be Used Against You: Policing in the Age of Self-Surveillance.” So, give us some more examples, maybe some of the ones that you think are most telling or the most intriguing or the most disturbing of how the information can be used against us. I mean, we understand that there are some good things that can be done with it, but as you say, it depends on whoever is in power and using this. Give us some examples of things we might want to be worried about.
AF: There’s a story that I think both captures the promise and dangers and just difficulty of these issues. (It) involves a gentleman who had a smart pacemaker in his heart. So, I think we can all agree that the medical inventions and interventions that allow someone to live better because their heart is beating at a certain way and recording that data for the individual themselves so it can take care of themselves, go to the doctor, but is also that data is also being forwarded to the doctor's office is a good. That's actually the kind of thing that we should encourage, we would like. But the case in the book is when detectives go to the doctor's office and get this guy's heartbeat and use it against him in a criminal case, because, and this is the tension, he was involved in some insurance fraud. He was basically, burned down his house, claimed it was, you know, an accident when really it was arson. And the detectives wanted to disprove his story by showing that his heartbeat didn't match what he said had happened. And this is, you know, the detectives aren't necessarily doing anything wrong in the sense of they have a crime, they're trying to investigate it. But the idea that our own heartbeats could be used against us in a court of law, I think raises some really difficult questions of, are we okay with that? Because the truth of the matter is, there is nothing too private. The data from your smart bed, your smart toothbrush, your period app that tracks your menstrual cycle, your digital diary, whatever it is, there is nothing too private that cannot be obtained with a warrant. And those stories are only going to multiply and grow as we become more dependent on technologies. When we have sensors in our home, listening to our conversations called Alexa or Echo, or we have video doorbells on our doors watching what we're doing. And there are reasons for that. There are reasons why someone might want to buy those technologies, but the danger is you are surveilling yourself far more than you're surveilling anyone else. And the question is, is that trade off worth the while?
GR: And to that point, let me put the question to you that a district attorney might put to you. And you probably will anticipate this, but the information at least is reliable in and of itself. I mean, what we conclude from it, we can debate. But, you know, in the case that you just made the gentleman's heartbeat was what it was. And so, if we compare that, say, to eyewitness testimony, which is notoriously unreliable, or say a false confession that is, you know, pulled out of somebody by overly aggressive police tactics. The question is, if I'm innocent, why should I be worried about this? I mean, couldn't I probably just use this to prove my innocence more often than it might be used to indicate a false guilt?
AF: I think that there are, you know, strong arguments for why there's law enforcement use. But I also think that, you know, if you're pregnant in a state that just criminalized abortion, like, you being innocent might mean something different, right? Your smartwatch is revealing, you know, certain pieces about your heart and your bodily, you know, your heat and everything else. And your period app is revealing, you know, certain very private things. And, like, what is criminal can change. If you walked out of the house with ‘No Kings’ protest sign, guess what? Your doorbell camera probably caught that. And that might be evidence to use against you in a way where, suddenly, dissent in certain forms is criminalized. And so that's sort of the tension there that we have a reality of, like what is criminal and can prosecutions be weaponized? At the same time, there is no question that this data is helpful for law enforcement. But what's weird or what's strange or what's different is that we have now just opened our lives up in ways where that data just wasn't available, you know, for decades, you just couldn't have found what was going on in someone's house. But now that they put, like, a cat-cam to watch their cat while they’re away at work, suddenly we have a perfect record of what's going on inside their house. And the question is, should the normal rules where we really couldn't have gotten that beforehand, now apply to this new world where we've created so much data? And we all do it, right? Google, the things you Google, probably has a better sense of what's going on in your head and your immediate concerns then lots and lots of other people. Maybe more than your spouse, right? You might Google like what is this strange rash? Before telling your spouse about the strange rash or whatever it would be? And like, the fact that those sort of thoughts now put out to a third party are open for government investigation is problematic because, ‘what is that rash?’ might be like, ‘how do I obtain an abortion?’, or, ‘how do I get services for my trans kid?’, or, ‘how do I protest a government I don't think is actually in the way I think is law for a constitutional?’. And the fact that all those digital trails and thoughts are now potential evidence against you is a problem. There are good things when there are, and there are cases in the book that talk about like, people are like, how do I dispose of a dead body or how do I get rid of the smell? And like those are also quite revealing about someone's culpability in a crime. But right now, we don't have rules that distinguish between those two, and we haven't, as a society, agreed about whether we trust the government to have all of our intimate data to use as they wish.
GR: And want to come back and explore exactly what the situation is regarding government rules on that when we come back from the break. You're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media. I'm Grant Reeher and I'm talking with Andrew Guthrie Ferguson. He's a professor at George Washington University Law School and the author of a new book titled “Your Data Will Be Used Against You: Policing in the Age of Self-Surveillance,” and we've been discussing the book and the difficult and thorny issues that it raises. I wonder if part of the reason why we're in the situation we're in is just the rapidity of the change in this arena. I mean, it's, you know, I've been around for a while, I'm relatively old and I've seen a lot of different changes, and this one just seems to have come pretty quickly, even within the internet age. Do you think that's, like, we're just not catching up to the reality of this? Is that part of it?
AF: I think that there is a disconnect between the speed that the technology has evolved and just become so consumer-friendly, and the laws and rules and regulations around it. I also think it's hard. I think that sometimes the reason why you don't see legislation covering some of this information is that it's very difficult. Like in the book, I actually try to take a piece of it. I'm trying to actually focus on not data privacy writ large, but again, it would be wonderful if we had, you know, a federal regulation on that or even, data protection in a certain sort of European framework. I'm really talking about, could we set up rules about how this data can be used in criminal cases and criminal prosecutions? In part because that's my background, I teach criminal procedure and criminal law. I was a former public defender before teaching, so I see the world in sort of the criminal process. But also, I think it's just an easier balance. Like, we might be able to come up with agreements about this is okay, this is not okay, oh, this is really private, maybe we want to have a higher standard and it's not going to be perfect, but we might be able to move forward.
GR: So, tell us what the current rules are, generally, regarding the criminal justice use of this data. Is it sort of like the general warrant? You know, I have a reason to go to a judge and I say, here's why we could use this data and the judge decides one way or another?
AF: So, a lot of the data that we create and we give off to third parties doesn't even need a warrant to be obtained. You've either given it up as sort of a condition of using it, using the technology that you probably signed some form you didn't read, and agreed that law enforcement get access with sometimes just a request, but sometimes a subpoena. Sometimes you literally paid for it, right? You paid your taxes, paid for the camera that's capturing where you're going and what you're doing out there. Sometimes, if it gets a little bit more private data, there is a warrant requirement. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution requires a probable cause warrant. Again, a pretty low standard. It’s definitely lower than 51%, that's like a preponderance of evidence, so it's lower than that. It can be wrong. And really, with a predicate like allegation, there's a crime, it's pretty easy to get almost anything that has been created. So, all of your work in your computer, on your phone, with a warrant, it's all available. We have not seen federal law that would regulate this kind of technology in any real way. Like, you know, a lot of the federal laws that exist were written, like, decades ago. And while we seen some states move to sort of counteract sort of consumer privacy, sort of how the company and the individual might interact and your control of your data, most of those state privacy laws have a law enforcement carve out. So, law enforcement get access, but we'll limit how the companies get access. And so, we have not had a national debate about whether or not this data should be used against us. There is, you know, percolating cases. The United States Supreme Court is hearing a case on geofence warrants, which is the idea of using a warrant to get your Google data, your location data. So, in that case, a gentleman was accused of robbing a bank, and his cell phone basically gave him away because he was there. But in order to get the cell phone information about this particular defendant, the police had to essentially search your cell phone data and my cell phone data. In fact, everyone, like 500 million people of Google, were in this sensor vault that they sort of collected everyone's location data. So, to find the one bad guy they actually surveilled us to probably if we had Google services enabled on our phones, which most of us do. So that's, you know, part of the tension. So, the courts are slowly moving forward. The legislators, I'm not sure we're seeing a whole lot of action in Congress right now, but maybe we could be. But the point of the book is to kind of to try to provoke citizens and communities and families to sort of debate this, discuss this, in the hopes that we could push this conversation forward.
GR: You mentioned some states doing some things. Is there any state in particular that you would regard in the forefront of thinking about this from a criminal justice perspective?
AF: One of the interesting states, Illinois, had this thing for biometric evidence. And so, there's this law called the Biometric Information Protection Act, BIPA, that was the first sort of biometrics. So, think about facial recognition, think about the ability to take your sort of biological marker data. And because Illinois had a law, it actually somewhat thwarted companies trying to move nationally because every time they had data from Illinois citizens, they could, like, run afoul of this. So, Facebook, which, of course, has everyone's data, also had Illinois citizens. And when they were running their own facial recognition matches, it could create a problem. And so, in certain states, for certain kinds of data, there are some protections. But no state, even California, which tries to be ahead of the curve on a lot of these sort of privacy and definitely has some consumer privacy laws that are good, haven't really figured out what we can do and what the balance is. Essentially, I think the fair takeaway is if you build it, if you create the data, the police can come for it and use it against you.
GR: Interesting. If you've just joined us, you're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media. I'm Grant Reeher and my guest is the law professor Andrew Guthrie Ferguson. You know, when you're talking about this and I think about the politics that would surround it, it would seem to me that, although it does tap into some areas where there is deep partisan division, I mean, criminal justice obviously is one where Democrats and Republicans have really fought pretty hard against each other in recent years. It also seems to be the case that there's a lot of room for political overlap in terms of concerns about privacy. On the one hand, suspicions about how government might overstep or misuse something. I'm just curious to get your sense of your reflections on the political environment in which these conversations are going to happen.
AF: I think it's bipartisan because both sides should realize that their data can be used against them. You know, just a few years ago, people who were a strong sort of Second Amendment supporters were really concerned that the federal government would come up with like a federal database of gun owners and be able to, like, bang down their doors and steal their guns. Well, with automated license plate readers that read, you know, who's driving their cars, of you put an automated license plate reader outside a gun show, or a gun range, or a place you buy ammunition, like you don't need that federal database, you can find out who you are. All of our data reveals the things we do and whether we want to, you know, privately pray in a certain community, whether we want to protest in a certain way, it all gets revealed and it can be used against us. Like, ironically enough, like, Donald Trump's data was used against him. Like, he was actually upset that his texts and stuff were being used in a criminal prosecution and felt the same sort of violation. This feels like it's wrong. And we're seeing now, as the Trump administration is using this data to go after, like, you know, Jim Comey, who, you know, former FBI director, like literally a career prosecutor about a straight an arrow as someone might think that despite his, like, political, interference, like, not necessarily the person you would think would be targeted to have his data targeted and revealed about him, but he too is now a target and it shows that everyone is vulnerable. Even if you are powerful, even if you're affluent and privileged, like the aperture of surveillance of who is being targeted has expanded far beyond where we used to target, which tended to be poorer communities, black and brown communities, places that did not have the political voice to respond. But now, everyone who uses a digital device, who uses digital means to communicate, has essentially revealed themselves and is still simply sitting there, vulnerable to the political winds shifting to target them.
GR: Setting aside the government for a minute, just thinking about private companies, publicly owned corporations that have this data, they pretty much have carte blanche, right, to use it, or at least they often set that up if I'm going to join some kind of system that I've checked the box somewhere, or I'm thinking of employers. You know, you and I work at universities, I'm assuming that the university can, at any time that it wants, go and look through our emails. Am I right about that?
AF: You are. And you've agreed to that. And sometimes you get that, you know, pop-up screen when you log back on. That's true. And what's even, I guess, more difficult for the company is like, if you're a U.S. company and a law enforcement officer with a duly authorized warrant shows up to get the data, there’s really, there's not much you can do. That’s the law, you have to turn it over. So, if you have it, and some companies have chosen not to collect it, but if you're a data collection company and that's your business plan, like collecting it is what you're doing, so if you have it and they come for it and they have a warrant, it's very hard to push back. It's very hard to say no. And that means that the warrant protection, the that we kind of have in our back in our head, oh, there's some judge, you know, who will make sure this isn't abused, isn't that protective. It's not nothing, it's something, it's better than, you know, not having it at all, but it shouldn't give you confidence that your data will remain secure. Because it's very easy to get a warrant to get it.
GR: We've only got about a couple minutes left, and there are two big questions, and I'm sorry that I'm going to be unfair to you this way, but two big questions I want to try to squeeze in at the end. One is, give us an idea of at least the kinds of changes you might like to see. I know you said the main point of the book is to stimulate our conversations about this, but, are there any big changes that if you could wave a magic wand, you'd like to see?
AF: Sure. You know, toward the end of the book, I have separate chapters, I have a book essentially written for judges to say, this is what you could do using the Fourth Amendment to sort of strengthen our protections of data privacy using existing law. And my various, you know, academic theories about this. I have a chapter for legislators, like if you are in the legislature and you're concerned about the issues raised in this book, here's how you can build in certain kind of heightened protections or build on parallels that (we) already have in the law is actually not that high a step to do it. We can do it pretty easily, and I try to lay out what those answers would be. And then for communities and what communities can do and how communities can support this sort of collective action. I purposely don't focus on individuals because that's sort of a false framing. I think if it’s always, like, I can't negotiate with Amazon or the FBI as an individual, like I can't change those terms and services. But as a community, we can say maybe we don't want this kind of technology, maybe we don't want to share our data in certain ways. And legislators can regulate any of this or all of it if they wish to. If they had the political will, they could easily make those choices.
GR: Well, let me focus on the individual with about 30s left. I get what you're saying about we don't have the same leverage that governments do at different levels or judges. Well, if you could just, with a couple seconds left, what advice would you give us as individuals to practice better self-surveillance hygiene? I suppose is the way I would put it.
AF: Sure. I mean, you should educate yourself. I think you should make informed choices about whether you really do need the cat-cam to watch your cat when you're working. Whether the connections, right, you can have a ring doorbell and not connected to a larger system, you can make those choices. You can not necessarily click ‘I agree’ and give away all your data for all reasons just because you're too lazy to figure out what, you know, where it might go. And more importantly, you can support the advocacy groups, the community groups that are pushing back against these technologies in more cohesive and forceful ways. And so, like, there's a whole chapter on supporting the journalists who are exposing the technology and the legislators who are doing some real hard work on this.
GR: Well, we'll have to leave it there. That was Andrew Guthrie Ferguson, and again, his new book is titled “Your Data Will Be Used Against You: Policing in the Age of Self-Surveillance.” If you're already paranoid, my advice is not to read this book, but otherwise it is a fascinating read as well as eye-opening. Professor Ferguson, thanks again for talking with me, really appreciate it.
AF: Thank you.
GR: You've been listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media, conversations in the public interest.
Will Barclay on the Campbell Conversations
Feb 21, 2026
Will Barclay
Program transcript:
Grant Reeher: Welcome to the Campbell Conversations, I'm Grant Reeher. My guest today is Will Barclay. The Pulaski based Republican has represented New York's 120th State Assembly district since 2003 and was the minority leader of that chamber from 2020 until just last week. He recently announced that he was stepping down from that position, and that he would not run for reelection to the Assembly this coming November. Assemblyman Barclay has been on the program several times in the past. Assemblyman Barclay, it's bittersweet, but welcome back to the program.
Will Barclay: Thanks, Grant. As always, I appreciate you having me on. I will say this is the first interview I have done since I made my announcement that I wasn't seeking reelection and since I've stepped down as minority leader. So, I always appreciated your interviewing style and I think you give a good, fair shake to all sides, so I appreciate that and look forward to talking with you today.
GR: Oh, that's very nice of you, well thanks so much, I appreciate that very much. Well, let me just start with a basic question about the timing of your decision and the timing of your announcement. What were some of the factors that went into that for you?
WB: Well, I think primarily the biggest factor was personal. I served for 23 years. You know, I live in Pulaski, I have two boys and my wife, and they put up a lot with politics and I think I put my time in. So, the timing just seemed right from a personal perspective. I’m 57, so I'm not, I'm older, but not so old that I can't do other things in my life and I figured if I kept running for reelection, some of those other things that I would like to do, you know, I had a shorter time period to accomplish them. So that was a primary reason that I decided to get out. There's other factors, like outside income for one that played a role, but I would say that was a relatively minor role. And I think also it's good to have new blood come in to, you know, I have been leading the conference for six years, I gave it my best shot and there's a lot of successes I think I had there, but it's always good to, I think, get new energy. So that also played a role and I feel very confident with the new leadership that's come in in our conference that's going to lead it appropriately going forward.
GR: You mentioned in the course of that, the outside income limitations and I appreciate that you did that. I was going to ask you about that and concerned that it might be a little sensitive for you, but you brought it up. So, what I'm assuming that is that, you know, there's this new rule, new law, and it's been challenged, but it looks like now it's going to take effect next year. And it limits the outside income that state legislators can make, I believe it's $35,000 a year. Is that correct?
WB: Yeah, that’s correct.
GR: So, I guess what I'm taking from this, then, is that you are a lawyer, and you've had a law career so that that was going to constrain your ability to push out on your law career, is that what you mean?
WB: Yeah, I'm involved in a number of different things, but yes. So, there is, you know, Mrs. Barclay would like me to earn more money. (laughter) I think anybody's family would like to see spouses, you know, earning more money. So, again, that played a role. But I don't want to overblow that, even though I do find that outside income limitation, really a misdirection by the state and bad public policy. You know, we have public financing of campaigns, now we're going to have full time legislators. And what you're going to see is full dependency by members of the legislature on leadership, because they control all that power. And if you don't have enough income or outside job, you're less willing to take, in my mind, risk. And this was never meant to be a full-time legislator. In my mind, I think it's important that we can attract people with backgrounds, you know, with all different occupations. And I worry that, you know, making this a full-time legislature just will not attract maybe some of the people that I think would be very helpful to good government and legislators. But I don't want to dwell too much, because that was a bit. I’m (unintelligible) it didn't play any role, it did play some role. But, you know, I could have gone on for 2 or 4 more years with, you make a very good salary in the Assembly, so it wasn't like we're going to be impoverished by any sense of it, but it did drive me. And one thing, Grant, it did point to sort of a bigger issue that, you know, I've had frustration with all my time serving down there, but I think it's become more acute over the years is the one-party rule. And we hear a lot about the Republicans drifting right. You know, I don't change my ideology. A few issues I've changed on, some to the left, frankly, and some to the right. But, generally I've had my same beliefs since I've been down there. Where I've seen the biggest drift is from the Democrats moving more to the left and that's because it's hard to have a check on that, because, you know, they control the Senate, they control the Assembly and they control executive branch. So, it's been very hard. And that frustration has probably grown in me over the last few years. And that's another reason I think maybe someone new in my position can give a different, maybe it’s perspective or a different fight than I've been doing. Not that I think I did a bad job, but again, I think some new blood, can re-energize things which I fully support.
GR: Well, you know, it's interesting, this is not about you now, with the income. I'm thinking about it more generally, but you brought up something I hadn't thought about, of creating a lack of something to fall back on if you're in the legislature and thinking then about this needing to be your career because you're doing it, not only full time, but it is your entire livelihood. And what just went through my head really quickly was thinking about Congress. Members of Congress know when they get out that they've got, they can take that time in Congress and leverage that into something that they can make quite a bit of money at. And we see all sorts of former members of Congress doing that. I guess that's less true for the state legislature. And so that's a yeah, I hadn't thought about the way it might affect things differentially in that regard. It's an interesting point. Well, let me ask you about some of the positive things, and then I do want to dive into some of the things that you just brought up where your frustrations have been. But what do you think you're going to look back most fondly about your service in the state legislature? What’s going to rise to the top of your fondest memories?
WB: Well, I'll talk public policy and some of the successes we had there. But I think what, you know, I went down there, I thought I would serve six years and here I am serving, by the end it’ll be 24 years. And, you know, the reason being is because I love the people that I was able to work with. And I love my colleagues on both sides, I mean, many on both sides of the aisle. So, I ended up making friendships a lot more deeper than I thought, maybe when I first went down there in the first few years that I served that ended up, I think, keeping me there longer than maybe I initially thought I would, so that was good. I think from a public, one thing I love, I love this area. As I've told you many times, I'm 8 generations, so I'm not moving out of the area. My boys are ninth generation, they love here. I love trying to help my area, Oswego County, particularly is where I'm from, Pulaski. So, you know, I look back and some of the successes, some of the things I've been able to accomplish for the area, and that makes me very proud and makes me think my time in politics was worthwhile. Probably on the apex of all that is being able to save the Fitzpatrick nuclear plant. Albeit I didn't do that alone, but I certainly played a, I think a large role in able to save that end up saving thousands of jobs. And lo and behold, look, now we're even looking at possibly getting another new plant here in Oswego County. So, you know, if I had to point to one thing that, I guess I would say was probably my greatest success or the thing that brought me the greatest happiness in the whole thing was saving that plant. There's a lot of other things, being in the minority, I was like, you know, I didn't have the opportunity to pass a lot of state-wide type of legislation, but I can point to a number of things that either we were able to stop or get reform on that I'm also very proud of because I thought the best I could, I was able to use the bully pulpit to sometimes be able to either stop legislation or shame the Democrats into making changes to that legislation. So, there's a whole host of things I'm very proud of during my career and made it all, for me, made it all worthwhile doing it. Even though people often say, you know, you're in the minority, you can't get anything done. I never, like, took that to heart. You can. You just have to have a realistic perspective on it and not think you're going to be able to change the world in a day.
GR: I'm Grant Reeher, you're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media, and my guest is New York State Assemblyman Will Barclay. So, in a similar vein there, thinking about the institution itself, the way the institution works. What do you think your biggest impact was as minority leader on either your conference or the Assembly more generally?
WB: Well, I can speak very easily on my conference. One thing I saw when I came in, and some of this started with the prior leader too, but we wanted to become more professional. I wanted to have our members be able to have an in-depth understanding of all the issues, so when they were questioned on it or when they had to make a decision on how to vote or what to support, they had all that information at their fingertips. And, you know, one thing I'm again, very proud of, again, I didn't serve in any other conferences in Albany, but I think we brought some professionalism to this operation. And again, it wasn't just me, it was a whole team that was able to do it that I think our members are probably as well informed as any other legislators in Albany. So, I'm very proud that I also think I left a unified conference. Sometimes regional and ideological differences can really weigh on a conference, but at least in my feelings, maybe you could ask some of my fellow members of the council, they may disagree, but I feel like we're very unified going into, and it's necessary to do it because, again, our voice has been diminished as Republicans in Albany. So, if we're not all singing from the same hymnal, it's very hard to get a point across. And I would also extend that to the Senate Republicans. You know, in the past there has been differences between the Senate and the Assembly Republicans mainly because Republicans used to be in the majority, but, we've been able to work very effectively together, I think, over the last few years. And I'm very proud of that relationship too.
GR: Well, you mentioned that your views, some of your views changed over time while you were serving there, and some of them, you said, even moved to the left from where they were originally. I'm going to frame this a little differently and say, when you look back, what do you think was the most significant thing? Or issue that you were, at the time, wrong about as you look at it now?
WB: Yeah, I can think of two things. One, this may not seem as big and probably for younger listeners, they might not even recognize it, but the indoor smoking ban was something that I didn't support. But, personally, it turned out great. You know, I love to be able to come home from a restaurant or somewhere or not smell like smoke. And I didn't realize maybe that impact that it would be afterwards. But, you know, I often concerned my ideological standpoint about the heavy handedness of government, but that was one, I think if I could do over, I probably would vote for. Another big one is gay marriage. And I think that's the country's evolved substantially and I think our party has evolved substantially since that vote. But that was another one that I voted opposed to, and maybe if it was today I might not, you know, I probably I would support gay marriage.
GR: Interesting. I tell you on the first one, I appreciated that the first time I, through several summers I worked in London for a good chunk of the summer. And the first time I went over there and I went into a pub, it was like, oh my God, you know…
WB: Right.
GR: Where is this fog coming from? And it was secondhand smoke. And I remember I just realized how much I appreciate that.
WB: Yeah, it's shocking, isn't it? I mean, you go to some other states or places and it is, it's almost unbearable.
GR: Yeah, yeah. That's interesting. You're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media. I'm Grant Reeher and I'm talking with New York State Assemblyman Will Barclay. The Pulaski Republican who represents the 120th district, served as minority leader of the chamber until just the other week. And he's announced that he will also not be seeking reelection to the Assembly this coming November. And we're discussing his career and some of the things that he will most take with him when he leaves the institution. So, I wanted to come back and ask you a bigger picture question. It's kind of related to some of the themes that you introduced earlier, and I hope here I don't veer off too much into editorializing, but it does strike me that with your retirement, what we have is yet another loss of a particular kind of conservative, a particular kind of Republican that New York used to be famous for and used to excel in. And here's my description of it, and then you can tell me if I've got you wrong and, attach another question to it. But it's a mold of a principled fiscal conservative who doesn't get worked up too much over social issues, isn't a barn burner in that regard, wasn't always entirely predictable politically, and who could talk across the aisle, work across the aisle, and again, as I said before, wasn't really a political bomb thrower. So, two questions here. Do I have you about right? And then my bigger question is, is this political species or subspecies endangered in New York or worse, is it becoming extinct? What's going on?
WB: Well, it's interesting, I think there's a lot of maybe answers I could give to that. You know, again, as I said, you know, I think I stay pretty ideologically similar to when I started my career, other than a few issues here and there where I haven't been. You know, I don't consider myself maybe a bomb thrower, but I certainly believe that I speak as loudly as I can on issues that I strongly believe in, and I encourage Republicans to continue to do that. Maybe where you might see a little difference in me and maybe some others in the Democrat or Republican Party is, I never took anything personal, really, Grant. You know, I see my colleagues, particularly from the city, who have just really very, very different political views than I have, but they're representing their constituency, and they're trying to do what they think is best for their constituency, so I never take that personally. Sometimes, personalities and people bring in different, you know, things, unfortunately, it's just not my personality for that. I think I can see, even though I disagree and don't always understand where they're coming from, at least can understand that perspective. I think things have changed in politics, and maybe I am becoming (unintelligible) or maybe that's why it's good that we'll have new leadership in the Republican Party. But, you know, the social media aspect of it, the soundbite aspect of politics, that has certainly accelerated over the last several years, so it's harder and harder. I remember when I started to put a press release out and probably get some coverage on it. Now you really have to do social media, you have to react quickly. And sometimes I think with that quick, fast reaction, you don't always get maybe careful consideration of the issues, unfortunately. And then you're kind of stuck on a train going down a rail. So, I still think, you know, I wince a little bit when people say, well, you're not really a bomb thrower. I’m not a bomb thrower, but I certainly hope people know I spoke loudly down there, and I fought for the issues that I strongly believe in, and I certainly didn't shy away from any debate on those issues and I'm still willing to enter that fray. But yeah, one, I didn't make it personal, so I think that might differentiate me from some. And maybe my ability to react quickly isn’t as strong, or my willingness to do that is probably less than maybe some other elected officials on all sides, both sides of the aisle.
GR: Interesting. Okay, thanks. Getting back to something that you were talking about earlier as well, sort of where the state is going politically, where it is. The question I wanted to put to you - the states lost three congressional districts in the last two censuses. It's on track to lose two more in the next one in 2030. So, we will have gone in New York from a peak of 45 seats way back in the 1940s to 24 after 2030, in all likelihood. Do you think there's ever going to be a serious reckoning with this in Albany? I mean, in the broadest respects, it does seem like the state just keeps doing what it's been doing in terms of spending and taxes, it sets a new record every year. When is this going to get a serious look?
WB: Well, I'm hoping this next election, frankly. And maybe that makes me the optimist here, but, yeah, it's tough to say. I think as you continue one party rules from I mean, just from 2020, I think to 2024 we lost 900,000 people in New York, so something's not going right. And, you know, I lay the blame on the feet of the one party rule in Albany. You know, they talk, let's take affordability. You know, we hear more and more about affordability. The governor certainly mentioned it a lot in her State of the State, she's mentioned it on the campaign trail everywhere. But I don't see anything coming out of her office or out of either the majorities in both the Senate Assembly that really is addressing affordability. And so what we see is more, for instance, you know, environmental type, sticking with the environment, for one, you know, every year there seems to be onerous types of mandates coming down to electrify things or go to non-fossil fuel based generation. Well, there's a cost to all this. And now people are starting to wake up and they see their utility bills skyrocket. And of course, you know, the Democrats will blame everything. They blame the president, they blame greedy utilities, you name it. But ultimately, if anybody looks at it, it's really because of the policies that were created in Albany that have a huge expense to them. And it’s not just environment, there an issue of health care you could go down, you know, any almost anything out there, housing, you name it, is because of a lot of policies that we pass in Albany. I always say these things, you know, theoretically may sound good, but we don't pass laws in a vacuum and there are real world consequences for some of the stuff we do, and those real world consequences are coming home to roost. So the challenge Republicans have, we've always had is probably, maybe, the ability to point where and why those problems are happening. I think one of the challenges we have is, unfortunately, in my opinion, Democrats now control a lot of institutions in New York and across the country, whether it's not for profits, whether it's higher education or any education institution for that matter, the media all tends to be, and I don't want to sound conspiracist, I mean, this is just the reality I think we deal with, tend to be left wing. So, it's very hard for Republicans to get a counter message out. So, every time I've run, and I've had an opponent, Grant, that my opponents always run on the issues that I have run on and basically run on the same message that I've run and they've just been able you know, they can, I've been successful because I happen to be in a, you know, pretty good Republican district, but they tend to run on our issues. And then people say, oh yeah, he cares about or she cares about affordability. But ultimately they go down and they vote on these things and they'll give a good reason why they want to vote on these things. But, that whole affordability or any of those types of consequences of those policies seems to go out the window.
GR: Do you think it has something to do with upstate / downstate? Downstate often gets blamed for this, too. And I was thinking about this and I was thinking, well, New York City needs a thriving New York State and if there continues to be outmigration from the state, eventually it's going to turn around and bite New York City, even though New York City may not be experiencing that outmigration. Is it, do you put it more at the party level versus urban, suburban, rural?
WB: Well, I think that definitely plays a role. I mean, there's no doubt that the stronghold the Democrats hold in New York City allows them to be on the offensive upstate, you know, in a real political type manner. You know, so, you know, they have districts down there, I think they have something like 40 or 45 assembly districts with 90 plus Democratic registration. You know, that's almost as much as we have as a Republican conference in the Assembly. So that just gives them the ability to be on the offensive in so many other areas. Now, you asked me, do we have any hope for things changing? I think so, because we've been able to pick up five seats in the city that maybe, you know, even eight years ago, we would never have a dream of picking up those seats. So, there is some realization of the problems that have been created by these policies, but, it's still very hard. So, yeah, from a, just a political ability to get things, they start with such a bigger base than a Republican does upstate. And unfortunately, a lot of the population loss is our base. It’s a lot of rural areas that are losing their population that maybe traditionally voted Republican. So that compounds the challenge or the problem.
GR: If you've just joined us, you're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media. I'm Grant Reeher and my guest is New York State Assemblyman Will Barclay. We’ve got about, only about four minutes left or so but I want to try to ask you some more personal questions, if I can. And I apologize that I'm not going to be able to give you very much time to dig into these. The first one is, you mentioned your age originally when we were talking earlier, you know, you recently turned 57. In politics these days, that's actually pretty young. You also recently turned down an offer to run for lieutenant governor. So, what, if anything, might be next for you politically, do you think?
WB: Well, I'll never say never, Grant. And, you know, I'm happy to stay in the fray. I still, again, love this area and still want to fight for it. So, I don't have any political aspirations going to, you know, maybe some would say Congress would be a logical step, but that doesn't interest me at all at this time. But again, who knows? Things change. I'll never shut the door and I’ll always consider it, but it really comes down to, one, is it right for, you know, me personally and my family, but also, do I think I would be the best person to, you know, fight for the issues that I believe in.
GR: And what would the 34 year-old Will Barclay, that's how old you were when you started in this position, be most surprised about the political career of the 57 year old Will Barclay?
WB: Well, one, I never thought I'd be in the politics this long. So that's probably the biggest eye opener would be for me. I never expected that I would have the honor of serving as the leader of my conference, so that was the other kind of eye opener, you know, circumstance I would be if I was 34, now. But, I don't know, I would hope, you know, I had a lot of optimism when I came into office. I still have optimism, it hasn't worn me down that much. But ultimately, you know, it's public service. And I hope, you know, if I was 34, I would still be willing to take up the mantle of public service that I know now as a 57 year old.
GR: Well, that may be a perfect segue to my final question. And that is, what advice, encouragements or cautions would you give to, say, a 25 year-old version of Will Barclay contemplating going into politics right now?
WB: Well, I love that because I do talk to a lot of school groups, I talk to college classes, I have the opportunity. I would say go for it, it's worth it. It can be frustrating as hell, I think is an understatement. But ultimately, anything you can do to help your community, I think fighting for, you know, public policy and issues that you believe in is a very honorable and worthwhile thing to do. And when you see you can make changes, it makes, you know, the, the 23 years, 24 years and I will be doing this all worthwhile.
GR: So, just, we have one more minute, I'm going to follow up on that. And that's that my students, one of the things they tell me about why they don't want to do this is because of the nastiness. And you said earlier you're able not to take it personally and you don't make it personal. What's the secret sauce there in 30 seconds or less for how you're able to do that when other people aren't?
WB: You know, I'm smiling because I remember when I first was going to run. There used be a blog, believe it or not, and I don’t know if there’s even blogs around anymore, that was ultra made everything personal, ultra critical of, it would have been me and everybody. I said, my God, I'm not going to be able, this would be too much. You get thick skinned after a while. It doesn't bother you as much, and sometimes it can be very funny. So, I think all the benefits of doing it and being in that arena far outweigh the negatives, and there are a lot of negatives, but I don't want anyone to be naive about it. But again, it's a worthy undertaking in my opinion.
GR: Well, one of the pastimes that you and I share is fishing. So maybe it has something to do with dealing with the disappointments of fishing somehow.
WB: Yeah, exactly right. So what do they say? A day fishing is better than a…
GR: Bad day of fishing is better than a good day at work. (laughter)
WB: Exactly.
GR: Well, unfortunately, I have to leave it there. That was Assemblyman Will Barclay and Assemblyman Barclay I just want to thank you. And if I can, if it's okay, I want to thank, by extension, your late father as well, who I knew, for both of your service that you've given to the state of New York. Very important and should be appreciated.
WB: Well, thank you. And again, thank you for always being a great interviewer. And, you know, you debated one of my, when I was running for the Senate, too, and I always appreciated that debate and that didn't work out the way I hoped it would, but…
GR: But you got a fair moderator. (laughter)
WB: I did get a very fair shake in that, so I appreciate it, Grant. And I hope you won't be a stranger too.
GR: Okay, me too. You've been listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media, conversations in the public interest.
John Zogby on the Campbell Conversations
Feb 14, 2026
John Zogby
Program transcript:
Grant Reeher: Welcome to the Campbell Conversations, I'm Grant Reeher. My guest today is the pollster, John Zogby. Mr. Zogby is the founder of the Zogby International Poll and with his sons, Jeremy and Benjamin, he serves as senior partner at John Zogby Strategies. He's also the author of a recent book, it's titled, “Beyond the Horse Race: How to Read Polls and Why We Should”. Mr. Zogby, welcome to the program.
John Zogby: Hey, Grant. Good to talk to you again.
GR: Good to talk to you, always good to see you. So, my questions are going to be driven by your book and also your background. They'll also be driven by my own background, as you know, I’m a political scientist. So, I'm going to draw on some of the discussions I hear from my colleagues when we're talking about polls and surveys, get your take on those. And then I also wanted to ask you some questions about some recent survey and poll data that's been out there and has been in the news. So let me just start with a basic question here, one question that always comes up a lot regarding polling in recent decades is how all the big changes in communication technology have complicated it. I mean, let me just throw out a couple things. You know, landlines are basically gone, people don't answer the phones if they don't know who's calling them when they see the number coming in or the person. It may be harder to find certain demographic groups to tap for their opinions and so on. So, I just wanted to get your sense as a pollster, what in your view are the biggest challenges for polling that have arisen since those golden days when we all used to have landlines and answered the phone when it rang?
JZ: Well, of course it's technology and non-response, or low response rates. When I started in business in 1984, response rates averaged 65%. Two out of three that you reach, actually reached by phone we're willing to conduct a survey. However, change has been part of this business from the beginning and the pace of change has increased greatly. So, you know, imagine in the 30s, 40s and 50s, folks like Gallup and Roper and Harris would develop sampling points throughout the United States, identify people in each of those sampling points to travel to those sampling points, mail envelopes to them with survey questionnaires, instructions on First and Elm Street, fifth door on the left-hand side, and conduct the survey over 3 to 6 weeks, mail the surveys back. And that's, you know, providing everything that went out came back, then you'd get results. Well, our world got faster, things move more quickly. We moved to the telephone. As you pointed out, that was a perfect world. 95% of people had a landline telephone and socially, they welcomed a long-distance call, making them feel important. And then that all dissipated. The answering machine, *69 when they would call you right back and find out who you were, call waiting, that sort of thing, and we had to adjust. You know, by the mid to late 90s, response rates had plummeted to 15%, in major metropolitan areas, 7%, 6%. So, we have always had to adjust. The internet was not welcomed just as, incidentally, the telephone wasn't welcomed in the beginning. How are you going to know who you're talking to? Same thing with the internet. And now, of course, you know, technology has changed rapidly and people who conduct polls can't wait 3 to 6 weeks. Frankly, Grant, they can't wait 3 to 6 days. They want their data and analysis right away. We've had to make those adjustments. So, for every advance, and it has been an advance, there have been detractors.
GR: So let me ask you a question about the phones specifically and how things work today. Has there been discussion, among you and your polling colleagues about simply just moving away from phones entirely to, say, the internet? I'll just tell you, political science research in recent years has essentially done that. That all political science survey is done by the internet, but that has introduced a whole new set of problems. But how are you folks dealing with it? What do you do with that?
JZ: We have well, we had a very large 124 phones call center in Utica. We don't have that anymore, we farm it out, you know, to call centers. I mean, that's obviously one change, but we encourage as much to be done by internet, by email as possible. We also use text to web, so we'll send out emails, we'll also send out texts, but ultimately inviting people to a secure web site to conduct the poll. To answer your question directly, there are still some applications where you really can only do it by phone. If it has to be spontaneous, if it has to be ultra confidential, not to say that the internet can't be confidential, but there are applications, very small areas or very targeted audiences, you know, may require the phone. But I would say, you know, of our survey work, 85%, 90% is online.
GR: I'm Grant Reeher, you're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media, and my guest is the pollster, John Zogby. He's the author of a recent book titled, “Beyond the Horse Race: How to Read Polls and Why We Should”. So, polling regarding the elections always involves this subset of people that are called likely voters, whether that's likely voters in a primary or likely voters in a general election. How do pollsters identify those people, and does that introduce some kind of inevitable error or challenges? I'm remembering, I think I'm remembering this right, but you correct me, I believe that was one of the problems in the early polling that thought Dewey was going to beat Truman, right? Was the guess about who was going to be voting in that election. So how do you folks deal with that?
JZ: Well, first of all, that's 1948, a long time ago. And, the last polling was done two weeks to ten days before the election. And so, those who have read about it or may even remember it, that's when Harry Truman was on his famous whistle stop, and he had built momentum at the top, you know, two weeks before the election. He felt he was going to lose the election. That's why he manically, you know, traveled throughout the country. ‘Give ‘em Hell, Harry!’. And so, there was the issue of timing as well. And to a great degree, there still is the issue of timing. So, first of all, likely voters we ask, we have 3 - 4 question screen that we use to determine if they’re likely voters. Now, of course they could be lying, but it has served us well. You know, what does anybody get out of lying to a pollster? And then how do they create a conspiracy of a thousand people who are also lying? That's, it doesn't happen. You know, I think folks like to beat up the polls and say, oh, you were five points wrong. But when you're talking to 1500 people, five points wrong ain’t so bad. You know, when you think about it, you at least get a direction. So yeah, we poll likely voters when it comes to politics and policy because they're the ones that matter.
GR: And you mentioned some of the pollsters getting beaten up recently. And I wanted to ask you kind of a more specific version of that. There has been a lot made of the supposed inaccuracies of polling in very recent years, and particularly regarding Donald Trump and elections that either he's in or he's been heavily involved in. And there's been a lot of different kind of effects that have been hypothesized to be going on that might be driving some of that, maybe people, you know, a bias and who's responding and not responding. And like you said before, maybe not necessarily a conspiracy, but a general sense of, you know, I'm going to tell the pollster some garbage because they don't like Donald Trump or whatever. What do you think's going on there? Is there anything real in that? Is there a Donald Trump effect of some sort?
JZ: No, I don't think so. I think if we close our eyes and picture, you know, the red, ‘Make America Great’ cap again, Donald Trump has a lot of people who are ready to jump and scream and write and attend rallies and be proud that they're for Donald Trump. That secret Trump effect, maybe you could have said at one point on college campuses. A professor may not have seen it in his or her best interests to be wearing a MAGA cap, or to sit at lunch, in a...
GR: (laughter) That's putting it lightly. I can tell you from my experience at the university. Not that I would put on a MAGA cap, but I could just tell you if someone did, their life might be in danger. But anyway, go ahead.
JZ: But, you know, there hasn't really been anything measurable. Donald Trump finishes strong. And the thing is, many of the pollsters conduct their last poll Friday or Saturday before the election. I try to keep the lights on longer, so I'll go till Monday night. Sometimes I've even gone into Tuesday morning, meaning, of course, Election Day to capture that last minute spark or whatever happens, or the last-minute lack of spark where you begin to see. Let me give you a prime example, you know, in January 2008, the focus in New Hampshire was Obama having won the Iowa caucuses against Hillary. And usually a candidate gets a big, huge bounce after Iowa, and then there's two weeks into New Hampshire. This one year, Iowa was on Thursday and New Hampshire was on Tuesday. And so, there was momentum up to Obama, you know, by Sunday night leading by 12 points. And then, Monday night, Obama is still leading by 12 points, we get to 5:00 and our last 125 calls had Hillary leading by six. So now what do I do? You know, do I report that, or do I do what the responsible thing is? It's a running average. I've got to average the previous 24, 36 hours in with that and I still came out with an Obama double digit lead. Hillary won by six. And so, we all got it wrong, we all got it wrong. And part of the problem is, there are some folks who love to bash the pollsters, you're only as good as that last number you put out. No nuances. Those are seen as excuses.
GR: Well, so quick follow up on that and then we'll have our break in the middle. But, so just to clarify, you do not think though, as I have often heard and read in the media, that there is a systematic underreporting of Donald Trump's support in polls, not approval rating, but you know, trying to predict what the voting outcome is going to be.
JZ: I do not. But there is a noticeable difference between our polling and a few others, and other polling, mainly like the networks and so on, over-representing Democrats under-representing Republicans.
GR: Interesting, okay. You're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media. I'm Grant Reeher, and I'm talking with John Zogby. The pollster is the founder of the Zogby International poll, and with his sons, Jeremy and Benjamin, he serves as a senior partner at John Zogby Strategies. He's also the author of a recent book, it's titled, “Beyond the Horse Race: How to Read Polls and Why We Should”. I want to, John, to pick up on the point that you made, which was that the mistake that pollsters tend to make these days is not the one that I had identified in terms of some specific Trump effect, but rather they oversampled Democrats as opposed to Republicans. Why is that happening? What's going on there?
JZ: Initially, it was a demographic thing. Back in the 80s, you are more typically a Democrat as a blue collar person and as somebody who, not afraid to share opinions and wanted to feel important that somebody was asking you. Republicans more than likely to be, you know, suburban, professional, and not wanting to be bothered on the telephone. The interesting thing is, though, that I determined that an adjustment needed to be made for a political party. That we were getting, maybe 1 or 2 points more Democrats, maybe 2 or 3 points fewer Republicans, that's a 5 or 6 point swing. And given the fact that 90% of self-identified Dems are going to vote Democrat, then same thing with Republican, that could impact the election result. What I was finding in my colleagues and I mean, the top of the line colleagues, was that they were coming in with 15, 16, 17 point swings, like 42, 44% Democrat when it should have been like 36, and 28% Republican, 24% Republican. And you know, that bothered me, because that was really skewing the results. There was a seeming real Democratic bias in it. And there were two implications. One was folks at the New York Times told me they used out of work actors and artists on the telephone to make their calls, and immediately, boy, you know, some middle class, some blue collar woman would say, “ Good afternoon, I'm doing...”
GR: Right, right.
JZ: The other thing is that, personally, I'm a progressive Democrat. My firm has always, I hope, been independent. And I became, like, the darling of Republicans.
GR: For pointing this out.
JZ: For pointing that out. And Rush Limbaugh and the New York Post and all of that, you know, adopted me. It was said at one point that Republicans are going to be naming their firstborn, Zogby at some point. And it stuck in my craw a little bit, but that was the honest thing, that it was more of a demographic and partisan thing, and not based on whether the candidate was black or, like the Bradley effect that we talked about or Obama effect or the Trump effect that they talk about now.
GR: That's fascinating. And, well, you also have to remember, John, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and so that's why that happened. But it's fascinating that political polarization amplifies this problem. I hadn't really, I hadn't made that connection before. Political polarization is just involved in so many different things, it's fascinating. Let me move to a different kind of polling, which is approval ratings and President Trump's recent approval ratings, in particular. They've been very low, dipping below 40% in some recent surveys. Is there a particular number regarding those that suggest either a tipping point or an inflection point? Is there like a panic level for Republicans in terms of Trump's approval rating and have they hit that?
JZ: Well, generally, if you hit, you know, in the high and mid-30s, that's the real trouble. That's on the surface. When you look at those numbers, though, and you see that Trump was elected with over 50% of the vote, that's the second real trouble. That means he's dropped 17 points. When you realize that 42% is the MAGA base, and there are polls that have him well under that MAGA base and getting trounced among independents. You have to ask, where is he going? Where's he going with numbers like this? So, it's more a dynamism than it is a hard and fast rule.
GR: Right, placing it in context like that, yeah, that's a very good point. You know, I'm sure you saw this, Gallup recently announced that it's no longer going to do its regular approval ratings of the president. It’s been used for so many years, 88 years, I think, and they're going to stop that for other officials as well. What's going on there? What do you think is happening?
JZ: Well, you know, several years ago, after the aggregators, you know, the Nate Silver’s, the Real Clear Politics of the world where they aggregated averages of polling and waited for certain track records and so on. The focus became too much on, did you get the election right to the percentile or did you get it right within a point and a half? A whole point and a half. And Gallup said that they weren't going to do the presidential horse race anymore because they were tired of being embarrassed.
GR: Okay.
JZ: Pew followed with the same thing. Now you won't see any daily tracking from any of them. Now, you're not going to see anything from Gallup, I think Pew will follow shortly. I stopped, doing, you know, the daily tracking or the frequent polls. Number one, we didn't need it anymore and number two, like Gallup, I didn't need anybody telling me, oh, you got the last election within 1.8, that placed you 23rd among pollsters for having a 1.8 differential between your polling and the final result. So, the focus became too much on, I think the Icarus syndrome. The aggregators had a few elections where they flew too close to the sun and, you know, this kind of science I don't think was ever designed to tell you exactly how much the election, down to the 10th of a percent. I was fortunate to get a lot of those right, but I don't consider myself wrong if I'm off two points.
GR: Gotcha, yeah. Well, yeah, the point prediction problem. I assume, though, that there will be organizations that will tell us how many people, or what percentage of people are approving of Donald Trump, right? That information will not be lost to us completely, correct?
JZ: No, it won't, but there is a further problem, and I promise I'll take 30 seconds on it, and that is the standard deviation. So, we're getting at a 42% average when you'll have five polls that have 47%, that neighborhood, and five polls that have 36-37%. That's not the way you should be getting a mean, you know, of 42 or 43%. You should have them mainly clustered around that average number, then here and there, an outlier. So, I believe what's happening is you've got polls with a distinct Democratic bias, polls with a distinct Republican bias, and what they're doing is they're coming up with, I think, what is an artificial average.
GR: Very interesting. If you've just joined us, you're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media. I'm Grant Reeher, and my guest is the pollster John Zogby. Let me ask you one more question in this vein, then we'll turn to something else. But the generic ballots, these are, you know, if the election were today and all you knew was one candidate was a Democrat and the other one was a Republican, who would you vote for? And they're heavily used in the midterms, and they've, been a lot of discussion about these in recent weeks that the Democrats have opened up, you know, a pretty good lead, historically, over the Republicans. I think it's ranging from, you can correct me if I'm wrong, like 3 to 6 points right now, depending on who's doing it. Does that spell real trouble for the Republicans in the 2026 midterms?
JZ: Yes, today it does. So, let's look at that generic ballot. It's not the greatest measurement, but it is very useful. And overall, because of gerrymandering and because of Republican domination of state legislatures who do the reapportionment every ten years, the Democrats need to lead by four and a half to 5% to be nationally, to be in the territory where they're gaining seats. So right now the average is at about 5% lead, which means they're not in comfortable territory, but they're in, you know, they're heading in that direction. When you add to that, though, the special elections that they have won, or at the very least overperformed, say in very red districts, Trump may have won the district by 20 points, Democrat lost in a special election for whatever it is, state legislature by four points. Then you're seeing that, and I think that's mainly on the basis of independent voters swinging way over to the Democrats now. But there's a long way to go, a long way to go.
GR: Interesting, yeah. I'm thinking of the special election in Tennessee where Matt Van Epps won, but it was much closer than expected. So, we've got about, oh, really just a couple of minutes left, unfortunately. I could talk to you all day about this stuff, but, in a couple of minutes left, I want to turn to a couple of things that come more specifically out of your book, and I'll start with the title. If you could briefly just tell us, other than the fascinating conversation we've had so far, why should citizens pay attention to all these polls?
JZ: Well, I think we want to feel connected. We want to feel that, hey, this is my opinion, but is the majority with me? Is the minority with me? Am I part of a very vocal, intense minority? But I want to feel connected. I want to know where my opinions stand as far as the Main Street is concerned. And, you know, secondly, I do want to have some kind of an idea of who's ahead. I don't need to know who's winning, or going to win, not this early, but, you know, have some sort of an idea where voters nationwide stand. That is supposed to prevent the notion, oh, he'll never win, nobody at the barbershop supports him.
GR: I see.
JZ: Which usually is translated into, nobody in America supports him. Why? Because I was at the barbershop.
GR: Right. Or my grandmother or whatever.
JZ: My grandmother, who was usually, you know.
GR: Right. So, we've only really got a minute left. I mean, these are going to have to be sort of our lightning round. What was your worst mistake as a pollster? I know there's a longer story there, but what was your worst mistake? You're very open about your mistakes.
JZ: My 2004 election had the numbers absolutely correct, Bush over Kerry. I thought Kerry was going to win and said so.
GR: Interesting, okay. Finally, things pollsters hate, you've already indicated why, but I do want you to make some just one word point predictions for 2026 midterms. In the House, who comes away with the majority? How many seats?
JZ: As of today, Democrats 20-plus seats.
GR: Wow. That's a big shift. And then what are the chances, percentage-wise, in your view, that Democrats could retake the Senate?
JZ: Less so than the House, but I think it's, I think they're both in play. In fact, there’s some, you know, some new races that weren't expected.
GR: Interesting, interesting. Okay, I’ll have to leave it there. That was John Zogby, and again, his recent book, it's titled, “Beyond the Horse Race: How to Read Polls and Why We Should”. John, thanks again for talking with me, this is fascinating. I had fun and I also got better informed, thank you.
JZ: Thank you. Grant.
GR: You've been listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media, conversations in the public interest.
Nathan Sanders on the Campbell Conversations
Jan 31, 2026
Nathan Sanders
Program transcript:
Grant Reeher: Welcome to the Campbell Conversations, I’m Grant Reeher. My guest today is Nathan Sanders. He's a research affiliate at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University. And he's also published a new book with Bruce Schneier titled, "Rewiring Democracy: How AI Will Transform Our Politics, Government, and Citizenship", and he's here with me today to talk about that book. Mr. Sanders, welcome to the program.
Nathan Sanders: So glad to join you, thank you.
GR: We appreciate you making the time. So, we'll get into the specific topics that are covered in your book, but first I wanted to ask you just a couple of basic, big picture items to set the context here, and the first one is the most basic of all. All of us have heard by now of artificial intelligence. Most of us have probably intentionally used AI to answer some question or another, but to just start us off, could you give us a very, very concise definition of what artificial intelligence is and what distinguishes it from high powered computing more generally?
NS: Oh, it’s such a great and foundational question, and I acknowledge that almost everybody, especially those who are experts in the fields, defines AI little bit differently. In our book, we try not to get bogged down in the technical distinctions and all the variations of how AI models are built, and instead we adopt a very broad definition. That, for our purposes, AI is any technology that replaces a cognitive function that used to be the exclusive domain of humans. So that does include technologies like large language models, which are used to do things like generate text that you might use in writing an email, or also to control external systems like software systems that maybe used to have required a human in control, but it does include other forms of AI as well. Think of, for example, Google Maps or navigation software that's helping you plan a route from point A to point B, something that is a very hard, challenging computing and used to be something only humans can do you, you think of that AI as well, as well as computer vision models, other forms of natural language processing and predictive machine learning as well.
GR: All right. Well, I'm glad I asked, and it is already complicated. Now, your book is about the application of AI in the politics and the public policy arena. Let me just start with kind of the end if I can, and that is, could you give me, say, your two biggest hopes for how AI could improve what we do in the politics and public policy arena and on the other hand, your two biggest concerns or worries about it?
NS: Sure. In terms of hopes, one thing I am optimistic about is the ability of citizens, of people to leverage any new technology and including AI, to enhance our power as citizens of democracies. We have some great case studies and examples of what that looks like around the world in our book. We talk about citizens groups using AI to watchdog the government to incorporate instances of public corruption. We write about a great example of a group in Brazil that's been using AI for that purpose for about a decade, long preceding the current modern developments and large language model technologies. We talk about groups of citizens in the US and elsewhere around the world who are using AI to improve how citizens can have their voices heard in policymaking processes, helping people to articulate their views about the laws that should govern all of us and communicate that in an impactful way to the legislature. So there's obviously a huge risk, and we see this as the central risk that AI poses to democracy, of the technology being used to concentrate power and make the already powerful more powerful. But I am optimistic about citizens groups leveraging the technology to switch those dynamics. In terms of fears, I already mentioned the biggest one, that it will be used to concentrate power. And of course, we do see examples of that around the world. We see AI as a fundamentally power magnifying technology, and that means that pro-democracy advocates that want to reform good governance using the technology, they can use it for that purpose and it can be effective. But just as well, elected officials and others with authoritarian tendencies that want to use AI to control citizens and to enforce unjust policies, AI will magnify their power as well, and we can see examples of that around the world today also.
GR: We'll get into some of those a little bit later. I wanted to ask you a more of a historical question as a follow on to that. And I was thinking about this and I was wondering how would AI compare with technological innovations of the past that have also had great impacts on politics? I thought of three right away. One very simple one is simply the ability to amplify a voice, you know, voice amplification. And then of course, you have radio, then you have opinion surveying and polling. And then an obvious one would be television. Those are all the ones that came to mind to me. Do you think that AI is going to have a more dramatic effect than those kinds of technological innovations, or will it be comparable or less? I don’t know.
NS: Well, I think you're right to locate AI along a historical spectrum of new technologies that, when they're introduced, affect not just politics, not just government and administration, but really everything. I'm not a historian, but I know historians and economists have a classification of what are called general purpose technologies, technologies that really do change and transform everything. Maybe some people differ about what belongs in that category, but it includes things like telecommunications and includes things like railroads and includes things like universities as knowledge generation technologies. And I do think we can locate AI along that spectrum. In terms of political applications, you know, we see AI transforming the way that people interact with candidates and elected officials in a way that extends the progression of the introduction of whistlestop tours on the back of railroad cars, moving into broadcast communications like radio, moving into visual communications with television, moving into the internet and social media, and now it's getting the ability to not just broadcast opinions, but to individually respond to questions, tailor conversations to an individual person, and even exchange information in a two way communication with many, many individuals at mass scale in a way that previous technologies just wouldn't have made possible. And once again, that capability can be applied to good purposes that most of us and most of your listeners would probably think are beneficial. And it can definitely be applied in negative ways as well.
GR: I'm Grant Reeher, you're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media, and my guest is the data scientist Nathan Sanders. And we're discussing his new book. It's titled, "Rewiring Democracy: How AI Will Transform Our Politics, Government, and Citizenship". So, let's get into some of these things more specifically and you have given us clues about the arguments that you, the two of you make in your book. But how would AI affect democracy specifically? You talked about the concerns about concentrating power in the way that citizens might do things, but how will it affect democracy as a system of government? And I'm going to define democracy here very broadly in the way that you defined AI as being a system in which the people, usually through elected representatives and their leaders, give laws to themselves. And I think that's sort of the fundamental essence of it. How do you think AI is going to affect us?
NS: It's a great question and of course, it's a broad one. In our book, we do go through in-depth applications across all the major branches and systems of governance, politics, citizenship, the judiciary, the administrative branch.
GR: And I want to get into some of those, each with you, as we go on. But go ahead.
NS: And maybe what I can do to start that conversation is just to share an example that we think is really interesting, that we've just written an update to the story we shared in the book of the most recent happenings that, specifically talks about how citizens and candidates, voters and candidates engage with each other. We just wrote a story about what's happening in Japan right now with a brand new political party called Team Mirai that is really reimagining how politics works and using AI as a tool in that reimagination. This is a party that was founded by a 30-something software engineer named Takahiro Anno. And at the time we wrote the book, he had just run for office for the first time. He had run for governor of Tokyo, and he is, as an individual software developer, had made some tools to help him get the word out about his platform and views, and to get feedback from people that were novel and helped him reach hundreds of thousands of people in the Tokyo electorate in a way that a individual candidate traditionally couldn't do. Now, since we published the book, he's now been elected to the upper chamber of the Japanese national legislature, the Diet. So, he's effectively a senator now in Japan, and he has founded a political party, and he's now receiving public funding that is distributed to Japanese parties, and he's using it to advance that vision. He's hiring engineers and using it to build new political technologies, not just for his party, but open source tools that the entire Japanese electorate can use. Let me just give you one example of what that looks like, to make clear how this is so different from how politics is practiced today elsewhere. He's developed an AI interviewer tool that allows many, many individual voters to have a conversation with a representative that can explain a policy position from this party's platform and, crucially, get feedback on it. All of these dialogs are available for anyone to see online, and my coauthor Bruce Schneier and I have reviewed some of those. We've seen really interesting examples of voters learning about proposals to reform the structure of the Diet, to change the structure of the legislature, being informed about those and reacting to them saying, well, I like this aspect and I think it could lead to this, but I don't like that. And then the outcome of this interview process is a recommended change to the policy proposal to the candidate's own political platform, his written political platform. That changes something the candidate reviews and either says yes or no to. And then the voter gets a response, they get to see was the suggestion that I made in this interview accepted? Is that now part of this party's platform or not? This is being done on a scale right now of thousands of voter conversations and thousands of responses. But the technology is so scalable, we can see it being applied at a scale of millions. And I think that kind of individual voter interaction and the responsiveness to voter inputs and preferences could really change how politics is done.
GR: Interesting, interesting. Two things come to my mind listening to that story of yours. I want to put these things to you as follow up questions. One is, transparency seems to be absolutely the key, though, in having that process be trusted and not feel like it might be being manipulated. Would you agree with that?
NS: I do for sure.
GR: Yeah. And other thing that popped up in my mind is, it has to do with age and politics. We see in the United States right now, I think there's a collective frustration among many younger voters, and I'm going to define younger sort of in political terms, being like under 55, with the age of the leadership. It's certainly been a big conversation in the Democratic Party. And I wonder, and also the fact that, older citizens vote in higher proportions than other citizens and so therefore they get more attention paid to them. I mean, it's no accident that, you know, Medicare and Social Security are often called the third rails of American politics. You don't touch them without risking your own political death. Do you think this might, the effect of this technology might get at that? That somehow this is going to provide more openings for younger people to have more power?
NS: A great question. First of all, I agree with your premise. I think that age is emerging as an increasingly important dynamic that's controlling political outcomes, not just in the US, but around the world, especially in places with an even more skewed age distribution in their electorate like Italy and Japan.
GR: Right.
NS: The political scientist David Runciman has written really powerfully about some of those dynamics, and I think they do intersect with AI. Bruce and I have been watching the polling on voter understanding and preferences about how AI is used in government, and it's changing over time. But one of the things that is maintained, steady trend, is that younger voters tend to be more informed about AI and not necessarily more favorable or open to its applications, but at least more informed about its potentials and risks. I think that as that changes over time, it will manifest in our politics. One thing that we're already seeing in the US is a huge local response to the citing of data centers, the compute infrastructure, the physical infrastructure that's used for AI models. Many communities across the country have really risen up to reject the idea that the negative externalities, the environmental effects, the impacts on energy prices of that infrastructure would hit them locally in their communities. I think that's really just the starting point of a larger grappling with how AI is changing society. That will happen, at a national level. You know, to me, the biggest political implication of the growth of AI is the concentration of wealth and power. The fact that we have a very small number of companies, mostly located in the US, mostly in one city in the Bay area, that are concentrating wealth at just an enormous, unprecedented scale. Multitrillion dollar valuations built on the future potential of AI. The political implications of that concentration of power I think are really severe, and I haven't yet seen either of our major political parties or most of our major political leaders in the US really identify solutions to that growing concentration of power or organize a political response to it. I'm confident that will happen, and I hope that parties will adopt a position that it is bad to have that concentration of power. It seems clearly an existential democratic risk to me.
GR: You're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media. I'm Grant Reeher and I'm talking with Nathan Sanders. The data scientist is a research affiliate at Harvard University's Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society. And he's the coauthor with Bruce Schneier of, "Rewiring Democracy: How AI Will Transform Our Politics, Government, and Citizenship", and we've been discussing his book. So, Nathan, right before the break, you really set out a pretty serious, specific concern about concentrating power, and the way it might play out in the United States. And one of the things that popped into my mind as a political scientist when you said neither party has really started a real conversation that's critically examining this, is because then no one wants to go after the goose that's laying the golden eggs when it comes to campaign financing. I mean, these folks give a lot of money. And so that's one thing that I think is going on. But how did the two of you see this problem being tamed, what could we do?
NS: Well, if you don't mind, I'd love to just pause for a moment on that question of campaign financing.
GR: Sure.
NS: And then I'd love to go on to talk about solutions to the broader problem. I think you're absolutely right. We're seeing really a capture of government and elected officials by the wealthiest industries in our country. And increasingly, that lobbying spending is being funneled through AI technology companies and it's having a real effect. When we talk about solutions to mitigate the risks that AI is proposing to democracy in our book, we note that a lot of the solutions are not really specific to AI or specifically about AI. And we do think renovation of our campaign finance system is critical to control and mitigate risks of the development of the technology. That is a solution, campaign finance reform, that is responsive to the risks of how AI is manifesting in our politics today, even though that's not a solution, that itself is inherently about technology, so I'm really glad you raised that.
GR: Yeah, yeah, it's interesting. You know, now that you say that, the Supreme Court has been pretty firm on its view about how money is equivalent to speech and how corporations are equivalent to individuals, and thinking about that connection between money and speech. AI may change that, I mean, AI may be the thing that, kind of the straw that breaks the camel's back on that. I hadn't thought of that before, very interesting.
NS: I hope we do grapple with that and it does lead to some change, I agree with you.
GR: So, you've got a part of your book, and this gets a little bit more into the weeds, but, about how AI could affect and improve how government itself works, the actual administration of government. Tell us a little bit about that.
NS: Yes, that's right. We see examples in the US and around the world of government agencies leveraging AI to change how they operate, in some cases to improve efficiency, in some cases to augment their capabilities, to help them do things they couldn't do before. In fact, in the later days of the Biden administration, about a year ago, they published an inventory of AI use cases across the federal government. And it may surprise people that even at that time, we're talking about really reporting from 2024, how many active applications of AI already existed in US agencies. It was more than 2000, it's really happening at a very large scale. And it ranges from everything from agency officials trying to write emails faster by using AI assistance like Grammarly, you know, really kind of small scale granular use cases, to agencies that administer billions and billions of dollars in government benefits trying to automate that process using AI. And we see, especially as we've transitioned from the Biden to Trump administration, a pretty clear change in the policy and guardrails around how it's being implemented, how the technology is being implemented in agencies that we're concerned about. If you don't mind, I can share a specific example of what that looks like.
GR: Absolutely.
NS: So in the US, one of our largest agencies is the center for Medicare and Medicaid Services that administers health care benefits for millions of Americans and represents a massive amount of money. Those benefits are often lifesaving, critical to people's lives. And, you know, for CMS and for other health care administrators, they face a life or death question, often thousands of times a day, which is, will you authorize a health care provider to perform a medical service, or will you say, no, I'm not going to pay for it. So under the Biden administration, there was an initial policy laid out that allowed for CMS and the insurers that work with it to start using AI in that administration process. And they laid out some pretty clear guardrails for when human review is required, when it's appropriate to use automated decision making, when you disclose that, etc., etc.. The Trump administration has come in and now issued new guidance with a pretty different posture. They've done two things that concern us and that we've written about. One is really to peel back those guardrails and to leave more of those decisions in the hands of corporate insurers and the technology providers that those insurers use. And the second, they've put in place some financial incentives that some people have criticized as effectively a bounty on denying care, saying that you will get a financial incentive if you build an AI system that says no. That's where the incentive is being placed. To us, this is a form of what we would think of as tech washing. The idea that if a computer says it, it's true, or it's objective or it's okay. We urge people not to think of that kind of use case as an objective use of technology, but rather asking technology to encode a policy decision, to encode a set of values. The technology can be used to encode the value that our goal is to save money by saying no to people's healthcare needs. It can also equally be used to encode to say, we need to say yes as quickly as possible to people who need care, so they don't have to wait for a decision. Those are two totally different uses of the same technology.
GR: That's really interesting in that distinction. You've given me a phrase now I'm going to commit to memory, ‘tech washing’, I love that. If you've just joined us, you're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media. I'm Grant Reeher and my guest is Harvard University data scientist Nathan Sanders. So, you've also got a very intriguing chapter about how it could affect the court system. And, you know, there's so much that is subjective in the criminal justice system. So, I’m really curious for you to share with our listeners a bit, how you see that playing out.
NS: Well, you know, we see transformative effects of AI being used in judicial processes around the world. And one of them has grown since we wrote about it in the book. We wrote about the use of AI in the Brazilian judicial system. Brazil is a society that's maybe even more litigious than the US, which is shocking. They have millions and millions of court cases processed per year, and many of them are cases brought by citizens against the government, they're effectively accountability cases. The Brazilian court system spends about 1% of GDP every year just administering cases, and it spends another roughly 1% of GDP paying out penalties assessed to the government when they're found responsible in those cases. So, it's a really significant large scale issue in Brazil. Part of the problem that they've been facing is an ever growing backlog. There are so many of these cases, they just can't process them all. And the problem gets worse and worse every year. And so starting several years ago, again, before the advent of technologies like ChatGPT, the Brazilian judiciary had started adopting AI technologies to improve the efficiency of that process, to automate decisions such as how should we distribute our litigators who represent the government across cases, to put the best people in the cases where they can have the biggest impact? Using it really for administrative procedures as opposed to making decisions on behalf of judges. And they found that and reported that to be effective, they've actually turned around that backlog. So now it's shrinking instead of growing, which is a big deal for that judicial system. But the response that has been reported is also interesting. Litigants are also using AI to automate filing cases and to write court documents. So now they have an even faster growth of new cases. And it's created this arms race, both sides using AI for opposing purposes. And the question is, is that good or bad and how should we change that? You know, I think it's clear to see what the risks is. If ultimately the legal system is just machines talking to machines, that sounds disastrous. On the other hand, we hope that there's a potential upside to this, which is that there's a real accountability function for the judicial system to play. And if more people are able to represent their concerns to the government by bringing litigation, and if the judicial system is more efficient and processing those concerns, that's a good thing for democracy. We need to see how this plays out, but those dynamics, I think, will be important in other countries too.
GR: That's very fascinating. We've got about three minutes left and I want to try to squeeze in a couple questions if I can in that time. I want to go back to the citizens here because you talked about that a lot at the at the beginning of our conversation. For the average citizen is not going to wrap their minds in their hands around all this. So for the average citizen out there, what should they be paying most attention to when it comes to AI and politics? What is the thing that they got to keep their eye on, do you think?
NS: I urge people to think about that problem of concentration of power and to demand that their political parties and representatives present real solutions. And we present alternative vision in the book for how AI can be developed. There's nothing inherent about AI as a technology that says that it has to be developed by a few companies with trillion dollar valuations. There's nothing about the technology that says that it has to be trained at such a large scale, and so repeatedly, that it uses enormous energy and environmental resources. There's nothing about the technology itself that says that only the richest individuals and companies can profit from it and capture value from it. And there's nothing that says that only that small group of people can decide how models are trained and what biases they may be subjected to. Instead, we present an alternative vision of AI developed not by big corporations, but by people and the systems that we put in place to represent us in government, a public AI model. You know, when we started writing about this several years ago, the idea of a public alternative to corporate AI didn't exist in the real world yet, but today it does. We have examples like the Apertus model in Switzerland. This is a effective large language model, a modern AI model that was trained by government institutions in Switzerland and offered as a public good for everybody to use. This is an alternative vision of how AI can be developed that can be more sustainable. By the way, the Swiss model was trained on national compute infrastructure, that is hydro-powered, powered by renewable energy and doesn't require value to be captured by corporations, but instead captured by people, and the technology can be built for public benefit.
GR: So, my last question, we got about a minute left, kind of a bottom line question for you to return to where I started. I want to have you put yourself on a scale here. And then maybe just say a couple quick words about it, in terms of how optimistic or pessimistic you are about the future here in this regard. If 1 is the end of civilization as we know it, and 10 is Doctor Pangloss, this is going to create the best of all possible worlds, where are you? What's your number?
NS: Great question. I think I'm right in the middle. I think I'm a 5. You know, I'm an American, I see a lot of things to be pessimistic about in our government today, a lot of things. But I'm very optimistic ultimately about us as citizens steering our government and exercising our democratic control. And I'm optimistic about us leveraging new technologies to increase our power as the public.
GR: That's great. It's a great place to end. That was Nathan Sanders. And again, his new book is titled, "Rewiring Democracy: How AI Will Transform Our Politics, Government, and Citizenship". It's incredibly illuminating. And it's also, as Nathan just suggested, a call to action to all of us. Nathan, thanks again for talking with me, I really learned a lot in this conversation.
NS: My great pleasure. Thank you for having me.
GR: You've been listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media, conversations in the public interest.
Brandon Rottinghaus on the Campbell Conversations
Jan 24, 2026
Grant Reeher: Welcome to the Campbell Conversations. I'm Grant Reeher. My guest today is Brandon Rottinghaus. He's a political science professor at the University of Houston and the co-host of "Party Politics" on Houston Public Media. He's with me today because he has a new and timely book out. It's titled "Scandal: Why Politicians Survive Controversy in a Partisan Era." Professor Rottinghaus, welcome to the program.
Brandon Rottinghaus: Hey, thank you for having me.
GR: Well, we really appreciate you making the time, so let me just start with a question that gets at your title there. Basic question about the book. Obviously, political scandals have been around as long as politics has been around. But has there been some kind of historic, recent historical inflection point in scandals, in how they play out? Where things began to turn that caught your eye?
BR: Scandals are definitely an indicator of our politics, in some ways a lagging indicator. The kind of things that are affecting American politics also affect scandals. So to answer your question very bluntly, polarization is really the biggest driving factor in terms of changing the way that we see scandals and the less impact that they have over time. So the premise of the book is, in part, that scandals appear less damaging in a polarized era. Politicians ranging from Trump to Santos, who survive these kinds of behaviors that would have basically ended careers years ago, the partisan identity that people have basically shields politicians, even amid very serious criminal indictments or wrongdoing that's been discussed. So really it's about polarization. But it of course, is got tendrils around all kinds of other related incidents and things that are affecting our politics, like our siloed media environment or, just a kind of new age of politician who doesn't have the same degree of shame because they've seen lots of scandals come and go and understand that surviving them is a mix of, guile and media strategies, and a lot of other things. So in a nutshell, basically, the thing that's affecting politics more broadly is also affecting the lessened impact of scandals.
GR: Remember, in the McCarthy era, there was, I forget which senator or other political figure, put this question to McCarthy. “Have you no shame, sir?” I guess I guess the answer now is no, I don't. Well, you've brought into the conversation here a bunch of things that I wanted to follow up with you on. So you've kind of set the terms for how we're going to talk here. But we have talked about political polarization on this program many different times with different authors. It always helps, I think, though, just give a super quick thumbnail description of what we mean when we say political polarization.
BR: Yeah. There are really two things I think at work. And these are kind of political sciencey explanations, but they've got roots in the way that people think about each other and how they interact with the bigger political system. One is motivated reasoning, where people effectively believe what they want to believe, and even if they are convinced of something by someone else, or they have alternative information, they still believe what they believe. So that's where partisanship thrives. It's like a germ that, if you cover it and keep it warm, it will continue to grow. And so people, once they believe something, it's hard to get them to unbelieve it, or they're willing to find things in the world in news, in the conversations with people that basically already support what they believe. So that's one.
GR: Confirmation bias.
BR: Yeah, precisely. And the other is just a kind of sense of tribalism in politics. And people call it in the field affective polarization, that I don't like you because you're of a different political party from me. There are actually lots of real-world examples of this that aren't about politics. It works for sports. It works for race and ethnicity kind of bias. So there are a lot of ways that this kind of motivated reasoning, and and this of affective polarization will work together to reinforce partisanship, but effectively, people are retreating to their own camps, and that hyper partisanship is creating a moment where politicians can retreat to their base and basically survive a scandal they didn't years ago or wouldn't have years ago.
GR: I was thinking of this topic in part, more as it's sort of a general cultural thing, and we'll come back to the polarization lens and the other specific political factors for this. But I was thinking, as I was reading through your book, is there a particular moment in time where, at least in my lifetime, it felt like something changed, and I wanted to run this by you. The one that I came up with was Bill Clinton's scandal during the primaries in 1992 with the Gennifer Flowers affair. And I remember at the time, the expectation among my colleagues was that Clinton would back out of the race. He’d drop out. He didn't. He ultimately survived at a very famous, thing he said to the New Hampshire primary voters. He'd be “with them till the last dog died.” Would you pick that, or is there other, is there one moment that kind of stands out to you where it begins to feel like something shifts?
BR: That's a really great point. And I think that's a moment that you're certainly seeing a lot of that change in the book and in other scholarship. I use the 90s as a kind of cut point for a politician, so it makes sense to basically have it as the pre- and post-moment. I do think that the moment that preceded it is as important as the moment you describe. The moment that preceded it was Gary Hart being essentially be in the middle of a scandal where he was reported to have an affair, and as a married man, and it was a media feeding frenzy. It ultimately didn't show anything definitive, but it definitely suggested that the scandals that are affecting people are now really killing careers. But a short four years later, you have Bill Clinton surviving what was more or less the same kind of scandal. Part of it was about his own initiative. Part of it was the politics of that moment allowed it to happen. But I think you're exactly right to pinpoint that as one of those pivot points. And, to be able to see what that transition looked like from a prior scandal, to me, also was telling, because these scandals aren't isolated, they don't exist in a vacuum. They're all building on each other. And so politicians recognize that other people have been in similar situations, and they've used a certain kind of playbook to get out of it. And that really is, I think, the tale of the tape you're seeing scandals really unfold in ways that we hadn't before. And even though the kinds of things politicians do to embarrass themselves, their families tend to be kind of similar. It's still the case that now that they're able to wiggle out of them in ways that they weren't before.
GR: You know, they've you mentioned Gary Hart. This was a situation where the truth is stranger than fiction. On the boat was "Monkey Business" where this supposed to have taken place. And then, as I recall, the woman involved, Donna Rice, went on to make quite a bit of money selling jeans on television. I'm Grant Reeher.
BR: Yes, all about recovery.
GR: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, somebody was the better for it, I suppose. I'm Grant Reeher, and you're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media, and my guest is political science professor Brandon Rottinghaus. He's published a new book titled "Scandal: Why Politicians Survive Controversy in a Partisan Era." So, just to think about the current era we're in and, basic question on this. If you're a politician, you get caught in one of these. What kinds of responses are currently the most effective? Is it just digging in? Is it ignoring it? Is it attacking your attacker or what? What what do you what do you see people doing?
BR: That's a it's a really good question, and definitely one that gets to the heart of how politicians' strategies have changed. Part of the reason they're able to solve these things and to, to be able to survive these things is that they are effectively using this new playbook. A lot of people look at Donald Trump as being the architect of this playbook, but he is not the only one. There are a lot of authors on this kind of playbook, but in a nutshell, a lot of what happens is that you do see the kind of retreating to the base where politicians will say things like, this other great political force, the opposite of us, the others are trying to get you, but I'm in the way. So a lot of politicians like Matt Gaetz, for instance, use almost literally this exact language to say that there's this unseen liberal democratic force that's out to get your, the kind of voters that he cares about, the constituencies he cares about. And he's the only one in the way. So he gets snared in these types of scandals. It's obviously wrong and misleading to imply these are happening, but it is a useful tool for politicians because they are harnessing this affective polarization, this hyper partisanship. So that's one thing that they do. We also look at other projects. In other projects, we look at stonewalling, where politicians simply say nothing or claim this is a political witch hunt that also can be effective in certain kinds of situations. It depends a bit on the specifics. So we find is that when politicians stonewall, they're more likely to do so if they think the truth won't be revealed. That is, if it's something that's kind of private, or maybe it's a complicated legal issue that won't ultimately be resolved before they leave office, they can essentially stonewall and push the boundaries. So there are some very common techniques we're seeing. And it is, I think, wearing on the American people a little bit to see the lying or even outright falsehoods, even when presented with evidence that a person has done something wrong.
GR: Yeah. The stonewalling certainly. I can think of a whole bunch of examples that come to my mind with that. Let me ask you this hypothetical question again. I want to go back in time. I ask you to go back in time. What do you think is the most important example of a past scandal that did end someone's political career? That if it were to happen today, you think the person at the center would probably have survived it?
BR: Yeah, it's a good question. We see a lot of times where scandal still do hurt politicians. One recent example is Governor Walz in Minnesota. Although the scandal itself wasn't connected to him, it definitely affected his administration in the perception that he could do a good job. So there is definitely still times where this happens. I think the kind of scandals that now exist that would have in the past hurt a candidate typically involve morality, something that a person has done that creates, a negative experience for themselves, their family, maybe something that is hypocritical, they contradict themselves either as a moral question or maybe as a political question. These are the kind of things that, in the past, a politician might get tripped up on. But in the kind of current moment you're likely to see them survive, those, because either the voters don't really care and or you've got the politicians with tools that let them sidestep this. And, we can't ignore the voters in this because voters are willing to forgive in ways that they weren't before. It's not necessarily that they're doing this out of the goodness of their heart, or they see a kind of, moral clarity from this kind of apology or absolution. But they rather see this as a partisan fight, and they're willing to back the partisans that they like, even in the conditions where there's something bad going on with that person.
GR: You know, I wanted to ask you about this, this potential example, because it gets at your argument about partisanship, I think, and that was Richard Nixon. I have heard, usually they're Democratic commentators, but I've heard commentators say, if Richard Nixon were to have Watergate today, he would have hung in there. The reason why ultimately he decided to resign was because they didn't have the votes among the Republicans. There's a there's a famous moment where he's confronted with this fact. He says, how many do we have? It's like, “no, almost none, sir.” So today, though, with the partisanship, you could easily imagine, like all the Republicans just sticking with him, and you're not going to get two-thirds of the Senate to convict. I wonder, do you think, do you think Richard Nixon survives Watergate in 2026?
BR: I think the short answer is yes, in part because, as you're describing, you definitely see a kind of unity. Now, you didn't see before this actually happened for Bill Clinton when the scandal, accusations came out, all of the delegation, including all of his cabinet, stepped up and said, we support the president. We're backing him. So obviously, it's something that is a useful tool. And although there's no academic work exactly on this, I've long thought about the way that unity matters to politicians and how that gives them this bigger shield. So that I think that's definitely kind of one major element here. I think Nixon would have survived. I mean, to some degree, he did survive. The way I kind of track this in the book is that we can look at these survival models that basically track how long a person survives in office after a scandal, and it's getting longer and longer as time goes on. So in a polarized era, you see politicians hanging on for longer. And that definitely is something that would have been a plus for Nixon because you can just kind of drag things out and, he resigns early, but it wasn't, it wasn't immediately, he definitely hung in there for several years before the kind of facts caught up to him. The last reason, I think, that it's the case that the Watergate would have been, more of a nothing burger back then, is that the media now don't have the same kind of reach. This fact that we're seeing two things happening. Number one, the media itself is kind of winnowing and in narrowing, that's something that scholars have shown that does have an effect on reducing the likelihood of the scandals are revealed. And the other is that people just don't believe the media. So you have reports that come out that say, Richard Nixon involved in these things. You've got Woodward, Bernstein kind of digging, getting each of the individual, members of the staff and sort of picking out these sort of moments of wrongdoing. And people just wouldn't believe it.
GR: So they would just say, I'll just say, oh, that's "The Washington Post," right? If you're a Republican, that's "The Washington Post."
BR: Yeah, precisely. And they definitely did that too. But the process is so much more aggressive now. And I think that divide is so much more clear now that it's really a challenge to get people to believe it when they're confronted with actual wrongdoing from politicians.
GR: You're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media. I'm Grant Reeher, and I'm talking with Brandon Rottinghaus. He's a political science professor at the University of Houston, and we've been discussing his new book. It's titled "Scandal: Why Politicians Survive Controversy in a Partisan Era." The one thing that I was thinking about a lot because I observe a lot of local and regional politics here in this area, are the dynamics of this different at different levels of office? For example, we still have a lot of officeholders here in upstate New York who resigned amid these scandals fairly early on. They don't, they're not able to hunker down. Do you see any dynamic in that regard at different levels of office?
BR: That's such a great question. We don't have great data on the level of scandal below, say, Congress. The book in this case uses presidents, governors, and members of Congress, House, and Senate. So we don't have a lot of details about what happens at the lower level. So I'll just start there. I'd love to do more of that, because I do think you're right that if we're seeing this pattern, we ought to see it all the way down the way. I do think that you see moments where politicians are willing to stand up and kind of fight back against these kinds of scandals, for instance, I just saw a headline and read a story last week about a local mayor in a North Texas town, and the kind of accusation against him were that there were some fraud issues at work. And the city council used its power to sanction that mayor, and the mayor said, basically, quote, "I wear it as a badge of honor." So there is, again, a kind of tribalism at work. Politicians might use these scandals as a way to be able to aggravate the base. One of the reasons that scandals are less impactful and that scandals really, in some ways, can be a positive for a politician, is that they use it to raise money, they can use it to aggravate their base. And those kind of partisan appeals do have serious impacts in terms of how politicians are able to survive. So in a way, having a scandal is like, positive, as a, as a political, kind of tool. So, I do think you're seeing it at other levels. Again, there's no universal like sort of playbook for scandal. We don't see it happening in every case. Right. Because people are different. The scandals are all different. The level of government and your support is all different. But what we do know is that institutionally, the stronger a person is, the more likely they are to survive. So the kind of inputs in politics we think of as powerful, like having more members who support you, more money, a longer term in office. These are all things that basically are, the elements that help a politician survive a scandal.
GR: You've given me an idea for a new political novel, and that's a president that intentionally creates their own scandals…
BR: I love it.
GR: In order to raise money.
BR: I love it.
GR: Well. And perhaps in that vein, my next question for you is one that you probably anticipated from the very beginning. The elephant, both literally and figuratively, hovering over this book and hover, hovering over this conversation is, of course, Donald Trump. Has he simply taken this to another level, or has he changed, you've said he didn't invent this? In an earlier point, our conversation. But has this been a qualitative shift with Donald Trump, or it's simply just taking this out on the axis further?
BR: I think that Donald Trump is a continuation of the kind of trends we've seen in how politicians are able to survive scandals. One of the things the book does is look closely at the resign rates for members of Congress and for governors and for presidents and their staff over time. And you see a bit of a safety uptick for the moment where Donald Trump comes into office, that is, they're able to survive scandals a little bit longer. But really, the 90s were the time where politicians were surviving scandals pretty significantly, and in the 70s, they would survive them a lot less frequently. So you're seeing a kind of gradual movement. It's not a linear movement because things kind of go up and down, and depending on how you cluster the cases and the data, it can change. But definitely, you see a change with Donald Trump. The fact that he is the most scandal-ridden president in history definitely gets him a spot on the Mount Rushmore of scandalized.
GR: Oh, he's got ideas about that, I understand.
BR: Yes, and it is definitely something that we've seen before. But what's interesting is that part of the book looks at the kind of legacies of presidents and what happens when they're caught in scandals. Does it change perceptions of their legacy? And so, in a different kind of world, I do this survey of presidential greatness with a colleague of mine at Coastal Carolina. And so we looked at to see whether or not scandals were impactful in terms of legacy of presidents. And we found that it was modestly true. Most of the scandals didn't have that much of an effect. The only times it did, or for Donald Trump in his the Ukraine scandal in his first term, and for the Teapot Dome scandal, those are the two scandals that actually had an impact on the perception of presidential greatness. So it definitely is wearing on him a little bit. There's no question that it's creating political controversy, and that is getting him off message, which to me is probably the most damaging thing. I don't think it's going to be a criminal matter. It's not going to be a moral issue. I think people are past that in terms of thinking about where Donald Trump is. So to answer the question briefly, basically, Donald Trump didn't start this, but he certainly has found a really, I think, intense and really clear rhythm for how to survive a scandal.
GR: If you're just joining us, you're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media. I'm Grant Reeher, and my guest is the University of Houston political science professor Brandon Rottinghaus. There's been a lot of discussion recently about lawfare, and that is using the criminal justice system to both pursue and hopefully eliminate political opponents for those who are using it. Again, Donald Trump has used this very aggressively. He was also arguably, subject, of it. Letitia James announced that she would prosecute Donald Trump before she was even elected to the New York State Attorney General's office. So has lawfare changed this, or do you see this as just another tool in the toolkit about this different way of doing scandals?
BR: This is highly problematic in a system like this where you've got very thin guardrails in some instances between the executive branch and DOJ in terms of those prosecutorial conduct. So I definitely think this has to be resolved. And in the book, I do offer kind of some solutions for how to fix some of these issues or address some of these issues. So I think you're exactly right to pinpoint this. Certainly, that's part of what's going on there. Scholarship in the late 1980s that did imply that the future of politics, especially as tribalism increased, was going to be about using scandals against each other. And you definitely see that as part of the way that these kind of events unfold. The thing is, like we said, that people and voters especially tend to look past these things because it feels like it's everywhere, right? It feels like these are just kind of riddling the entire system. So any person who runs for office of any type is going to get some kind of criticism when people perceive this as being either really important and the worst thing politicians ever done or not an issue at all. So that divide still exists in a way that's problematic. But definitely, the use of these kinds of tools to attack opponents is highly problematic. And part of this story. It's not exactly the full story because you do still see politicians, opponents bringing out these things. And that can be damaging. You still see, the ways the media are investigating that also have impacts in terms of releasing and revealing these scandals. So there are a lot of other ways that scandals get unfolded. And to the extent to which people are willing to use these against each other, you're certainly, I think, seeing lawfare as part of that story.
GR: Yeah, I'm very concerned about it, too, and I just don't see the mechanism that's going to end it. Bottom line assessment, thinking about how scandal has changed, and you associate very convincingly partisanship with this. You've done that in our conversation too, but it's there in your book, has either party on the whole, you think benefited from this change in the way that scandals now are going down and being responded to, someone come out on the better end of this?
BR: That's a great question. The short answer is no. That scandals tend to affect all politicians of both parties, and you don't see the kind of impact of surviving a scandal greater for one party or the other. But I use that as a control variable, and it never shows up a significant to the kind of more technical language. So the I think implication from that is that really it affects everybody almost equally. We see politicians of both parties struggling through these scandals and finding ways to be able to navigate them without having any kind of real serious kind of implications.
GR: And we've got about a couple of minutes left, and I've got really one major question that I wanted to make sure that I gave you a little bit of time to speculate about. I want to look to the future now. Been asking you a lot of questions about the past. You've spoken to this a little bit, but where do you see all this going in your scandal crystal ball? Are we headed for, to paraphrase Bill Clinton, the end of scandal as we know it?
BR: Yeah, that's a great question. I do think we're seeing some changes in terms of how people perceive scandals. So, for instance, one of the things I do in the book is ask people survey questions about scandals to come. So, like you said, we're looking at scandals in the past that involve fraud or things like that. But tomorrow scandals are going to be when a person is found to have, nude pictures on the internet, or they've smoked marijuana or done drugs in a time where it was not legal to do that. So I probe people in surveys about these kinds of things and find what really is, I think, true from what was the moment when scandals mattered, where there's a certain morality that people still retain, there's still, kind of resistance to, and really forgiving people for some things that there are problematic from a moral or legal perspective. So there is still a bright line for a lot of people. And I think that's a good thing because we should have these. The book ends in a way to suggest that we need these scandals that essentially they are like a canary in the coal mine, that we're in a world where if we don't have these revelations of wrongdoing, then we might simply miss it, or politicians might get away with it. Those things are difficult from a legal perspective, but I think from a systemic perspective in American politics, we need to have these scandals show us why things are bad and then how we can fix them. There are different ways we can do this. We can increase civic education. We can revitalize the media, especially local media. We can depolarize information systems. These are all things that give us a chance to be able to make sure people understand the impacts of scandal and put it in its right place. I have a series of questions people should ask themselves in the book. That basically is a guidepost for figuring out when something goes wrong, how bad is it? And if it affects a politician you don't like, does it change your opinions of things? And I think it gives people some self-introspection when it comes to thinking about these different issues and the way that we can solve them and have them really impactful going forward.
GR: Okay, we'll have to leave it there. That was Brandon Rottinghaus. And again, his new book is titled "Scandal: Why Politicians Survive Controversy in a Partisan Era." And as Professor Rottinghaus just alluded there, if you read the book, you'll leave with some questions and guideposts to help you sort things out as a citizen. And so that's the best mark of a political science book. Professor Rottinghaus, thanks again for talking with me. I really learned a lot from this conversation. Appreciate it.
BR: Thanks, Grant.
GR: You've been listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media Conversations in the Public Interest.
Elaine Pagels on the Campbell Conversations
Jan 17, 2026
Elaine Pagels (Princeton University)
We take for granted that Christianity is well established. Indeed, it's the most popular religion in the world. But a close look at what we know about the historical Jesus and the aftermath of his death reveals that outcome was far from obvious. This week, Grant Reeher speaks with renowned biblical scholar Elaine Pagels, whose most recent book is "Miracles and Wonder: The Historical Mystery of Jesus."
Program transcript:
Grant Reeher: Welcome to the Campbell Conversations. I'm Grant Reeher. My guest today is the renowned biblical scholar and writer Elaine Pagels. She's a religion professor at Princeton University, and among her many recognitions and awards are a MacArthur fellowship, a National Humanities Medal, and the National Book Award. She's here with me today to discuss her newest book. It's titled "Miracles and Wonder: The Historical Mystery of Jesus." Professor Pagels, welcome to the program. It’s a thrill to have you on.
Elaine Pagels: Thank you. I'm very glad to be here.
GR: Well, we really appreciate you making the time. So let me just start with this question. It's a little bit quirky, but I wanted to start with it. What's the most important thing about the written material that forms the Gospels? Either the four gospels that make up the first four books of the New Testament, or any of the others that you write about in this book, and others that most people today don't know or most people today don't sufficiently appreciate.
EP: That's a hard question. What is the most important thing? Somehow, the power of the person who was Jesus of Nazareth comes through this material, even though it's got all kinds of miracle stories, it's got all kinds of things that sound very unlikely. It's remarkable that that sense of somebody who lived 2,000 years ago is vivid to people all over the world and often in many different ways. I think that's astonishing, actually.
GR: Yeah, yeah. No, it really is when you sit back and think about it. And one of the things I loved about this book as I was reading it is you do that all the way through. You sort of take a step back and remind the reader of the big picture. One of the things that I wanted to ask related to that is, and you write about this in the book, the historical context in which all of these gospels were being written. You talk about that being important to understanding parts of their content. Just tell us briefly about what was going on when the Gospels were being written.
EP: Well, when I was growing up and was taken sometimes to a sort of nice Methodist church, I saw pictures of Jesus with children on his lap and flowers around. And it was all very pastoral and all very nice. It looked very much like California, right? What we don't remember is that Judea, land of Israel, is between—always has been between—enormous empires. And at that time, it was also under siege by Rome. The Romans had been allies of the Jews, and then they were so powerful that they just dominated the whole country. And whenever anyone tried to start a revolution against the oppression of Roman power in Judea, they were brutally murdered. There were forests of people who were crucified as Jesus was on the charge of insurrection, as he was. And so it's about war. And the death of Jesus certainly reflects the context of war, because he was accused of starting a revolution against Rome. That was the charge. And the birth of Jesus probably shows that too. But it's not that pastoral, lovely scene so much. It's a very ancient part of the world that has been lived in for so many years. And there's enormous amount of warfare that's going on.
GR: Yeah. And I was struck by something that you pointed out, that the writers of the Gospels were writing at a time when they were worried about their own lives. And so that is a lens through which we can interpret some of the decisions they made about the kinds of stories they told or didn't tell. And I think that's an important point of understanding it. I wanted to shift a bit and sort of ask you a question you probably get asked more frequently, which is, you've spent so much time with us thinking about this. You must by this time have a picture in your head of what Jesus was like as a person, his personality, what he was like to be around. You said that it comes through in the Gospels. I'd be very curious to hear your own impression of that.
EP: Well, that's a good question. As I mentioned in the book, there's not one word about what he looked like. So you've got all kinds of portraits. That's why I put paintings and photographs in the book of totally different views of what he looked like. I have the sense of a powerful, charismatic, remarkable person with quick changes of moods. And what else? Then it becomes a kind of mosaic of different views of somebody who can be compassionate and welcoming to people who are in need, somebody can be harsh to people in authority. Contemplative, maybe foolhardy in some ways. But there are so many different interpretations that when I think of a mosaic, for 2,000 years people have been making pictures either visually or psychologically or religiously of who Jesus was. So I'm sure I'm affected by all of those different portraits.
GR: You mentioned that he could be harsh and again, a personality that varied. One of the things that I was struck by being a neophyte in all this, when I first began reading about this topic of the historical Jesus several years ago, was the fact that he wasn't always nice to his own family. And I'd be curious to hear you talk about that and if you think it means anything for the message of the Gospels.
EP: Well, the first thing we know is that the family wasn't very nice to him. That is, the earliest gospel written is the "Gospel of Mark," is just 17 pages and the others are both "Mark" expanded, "Matthew" and "Luke." And what "Mark" says is that when he went to his hometown, people didn't believe that he was a prophet or a preacher, or had any right to talk like he was, or to try to heal people by divine power. They just thought, who is this guy? We know his mother. We know his brothers. There are four of them, and we know his sisters. Who does he think he is? And he said nobody believed in him. His family went out to stop him when he was speaking in public. And it says because they thought he was out of his mind, which is something you don't expect to see. Translators kind of avoid that. That's the Greek, but they make it a little better in English. And they also are very—several of the gospels say his brothers didn't believe in him. So the picture there is of a disrupted family, a mother. And the strangest part of it for me is that they called him—who is this guy? He's the son of Mary. Now, you don't call a Jewish boy son of Mary if he has a recognized father, because it's always a patronymic. But they called him Son of Mary, and they speak of his maybe seven siblings. And so, when the others come up with stories about virgin birth, you begin to wonder what's going on.
GR: Yeah. Yeah. Right. No, you speculate about that in the book. Yeah.
EP: And critics always said that he was the son of a woman who was rather disreputable and probably illegitimate. And that's the reason that Matthew and Luke make up biblical stories for a birth story that probably wasn't historically true.
GR: Interesting. I'm Grant Reeher, you're listening to the Campbell Conversations, and my guest is the biblical scholar and writer Elaine Pagels. She's published a new book. It's titled "Miracles and Wonder: The Historical Mystery of Jesus." So, I'm a political scientist, so of course I'm going to ask you this question about his leadership style. Can you say a bit more about how you'd characterize him as a leader of other people?
EP: Well, I'd be interested if you would comment on that, because I didn't really focus on it much. He was obviously somebody who drew people to him in a very powerful way. And it seemed they would do anything for this man. They would go to the death for him. And that's quite remarkable. How he did that? He didn't have any natural authority as far as we know. He was brought up in a family that was not remarkable. He perhaps wasn't educated in the way we think of it, although he would have learned the scriptures by heart the way Jewish boys did, the way Muslim boys learned the Koran and boys in India learned the Indian scriptures. But somehow, he had great power to compel people to believe that the end of time was coming, that all the hopes of Israel were coming to a great climax, and the world was about to be transformed.
GR: Yeah. I was thinking as I was reading, I thought, which president has the leadership style that I feel like I'm getting here, and I couldn't come up with any. And the irony was the most religious president, genuinely, knowledgeably religious president we've probably had, arguably Jimmy Carter, at least in the modern age. Certainly, other presidents knew their scripture, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Garfield. But obviously, there's very little similarity in those leadership styles. So it is perplexing. One of the things that you marvel at and you've already spoken to it earlier in our conversation is, but I want to draw you out a little bit more is how and why this movement of early Christianity, with all the challenges that it faced, including the sudden death of its leader, was able to succeed and ultimately has changed the world the way it has. Is there one thing more than anything else, you think that's made that possible in your view?
EP: That's such a hard question. His message was that God was going to come and bring the world to its conclusion and everyone was about to be judged. And you have to get ready. And strikingly, many people today believe that in the same way, Jesus may come tomorrow. Amazing, isn't it? That he preached a message which didn't happen. And then he was brutally killed. And nevertheless, the movement started. And the only thing I can think of, it probably would have gone away. People would have left. They would have thought he wasn't the person we thought he was. We thought he was a prophet. We thought he was going to maybe rule the world. But he's dead. And he was helpless. It's only when people said he's alive. And they came to the conclusion that he was, even though he had died, many people said they saw him. And then they give you so many different kinds of stories that these stories came from many kinds of sources. Without that, I can't imagine that it would. Except I did mention, as you may remember, being a professor of political theory and science, that there was a movement in the 20th century in New York about a Hasidic rabbi in New York Menachem Schneerson, whose followers said he was the Messiah and the Holocaust in Europe was the signs of the times—the worst things had happened in the world. The end was about to come. And this rabbi, a famous and charismatic rabbi, was going to rule the world. And he died. But the movement didn't die. It's grown all over the world. Now it has many thousand followers. The followers of Menachem Schneerson. So if you thought it couldn't happen, it does happen. Even though Schneerson has—actually, people say they've seen him since he died. There are many stories like that.
GR: Yeah, and I was thinking of this in a secular way that it's sometimes said that the moment makes the leader. And in a sense, if that leader hadn't appeared the moment would have made another one. And I was thinking about that in this case with Jesus. And it's hard for me to imagine that that would be the case. Although your story suggests that I probably need to rethink that. I want to come back and ask you a different version of that question after the break. You're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media. I'm Grant Reeher, and I'm talking with Elaine Pagels. The biblical scholar and writer is a professor of religion at Princeton University. And we've been discussing her newest book, "Miracles and Wonder: The Historical Mystery of Jesus." You mentioned about the importance you think in making this movement grow and last over the hundreds of years that it has this notion of Jesus coming back to life or having some sort of everlasting life, and then that gets translated and you talk about this in your book to a more general proposition for everyone. And that promise of everlasting life, however it is we understand it—if it's explicitly corporeal or if it's a different sort of more abstract—that's been an enormous draw, obviously, for many people. Other than Jesus, of course, is there any one person in this story who gets the most credit for crafting and putting forward that message in Christianity?
EP: Well, the obvious person is Paul, the apostle who never met Jesus and never knew him, and actually turns it into a very different story about a being who comes down from heaven and goes back and saves us from sin. That is quite different. But even before that, I think there's something else about the message of Jesus, Grant. And that is that the gods of Greece and Rome were patrons of the rulers. Right? And if you want a favor from a god, you go to a temple and you pay money, so that the god will give you what you need. You make a sacrifice. It could be Zeus. It could be the goddess Roma. It could be anybody, any god. But you have to pay. This teacher, from a humble background, said that God could be with anybody. It was astonishingly democratic in our sense of the word. That people could say that a man who had no social status to speak of was speaking for God, and that you could join the movement, and God loves you. No matter who you are, you could be a slave, and you could join the movement. You don't have to pay. You can go and worship. And in fact, if you or I were a destitute woman without a husband's support or a child with no parents, you could go there, and they would give you food. They would take care of you. So this is a movement that welcomes people at the bottom, and that's really outraged the aristocrats. It was enormously inclusive because if you could take God with this Jewish peasant from the provinces, he could be with anybody. And anybody could be welcomed.
GR: Do you think, given how it has lasted and grown, as you point out, a third of the planet itself is Christian, do you think that Christianity will still be as prominent in the next millennium as it is today? It's going to look really far ahead there.
EP: That's a very interesting question, but I don't think I'm equipped, and I wish I were a prophet. I don't know because when I think about politics and questions like that, there's so much uncertainty. In many ways, we see many people moving out of, particularly Christian, structures of value systems. Many people have dropped that. And I think many more will. At the same time, there are others who are joining. This is still the fastest-growing movement in the world, particularly in Africa and Latin America. And I think the appeal for that is exactly the reason that I was looking at those anthropologists—that people say, well, if you join this movement, you're a human being. You're valuable. God loves you. No matter who you are. You can be a person that is not even human in some societies, as the Dalai people were regarded recently called untouchables, but they joined Christianity with great joy because it tells them how valuable they are. So that there's movement in both ways.
GR: Yeah. And that speaks to the democratic appeal that you were talking about before as well, when you talk about these recent movements. If you've just joined us, you're listening to the Campbell Conversations. I'm Grant Reeher and my guest is Elaine Pagels, and we've been discussing her new book, "Miracles and Wonder." You talk a lot about where there are no clear consensus among scholars regarding important facts and questions, and then you sometimes offer your own speculations based on the available evidence and your interpretation of the texts. That's where the mysteries are, beyond the biggest one, of course, and that's where the mysteries remain. I was wondering, is there one of those mysteries, more than all the others, that you'd like to be able to solve to your satisfaction before you depart planet Earth, and at least in the form that you have?
EP: Well, the most convenient one before I depart planet Earth would be the one about resurrection. I guess growing up among scientists and having married a theoretical physicist, I always thought, well, these are just fantasies. I was certainly brought up—my father would just say, no use for religion anymore. We've got science, and this is all nonsense. So the idea that life after death is a possibility is just not open. But since that time, I've had different kinds of experiences, some of which made me think—what do we know? So I would really like to know about that. And I don't expect to get any information until we all get there.
GR: I couldn't help wonder, as you've set forward some of your hunches and speculations about where there are different accounts and where scholars have different ideas about it, whether as an intellectual and scholarly matter, we have now reached the point of diminishing marginal returns, absent discovering new material to examine. Is that something that you and your colleagues discuss? Like, where are we in our collective journey? Have we kind of reached the end in one way?
EP: Well, that's an interesting question. I remember when my husband was taught that physics was over a long time ago, and now it's starting all over. But actually, we only have a handful of information, of actual sources. Now, of course, you can find a cave somewhere with a lot of more ancient texts in it. And the secret gospels that were found in Egypt are an example of that. They really challenged the way we thought about Christianity before. But this idea I started out as a historian to what do we know historically? And the answer is not much. So I began to get very interested in why this person, who is so elusive to track historically, is so powerful. And it's really about the visions. And it's about 2,000 years of reinventing and re-exploring those stories. And projecting into them different content. That's why I wanted to look at see how movie makers use the story of Jesus, and one can use it as a South African director can to speak about apartheid and the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, and how Jesus is depicted as a kind of Steve Biko figure, a revolutionary against apartheid, who dies in the cause. We could think of Jesus as some kind of teacher. That is, the messages that people associate with Jesus are compassion for all people. Openness, not responding with anger toward others who are violent. It's a kind of teaching that is fundamental to human beings. It's something like the Buddha teaches, although not identical, but certainly comes from the Hebrew Bible. Very ancient. So that's something we can use without becoming Christians necessarily. Also, many people think that he's the savior of our souls. And that's another way to have a personal relationship with Jesus. I was reading the work of many anthropologists who study the way people speak to Jesus or to other divine beings, and engage in strong relationships with them. And a psychiatrist might say, this is delusional. I met 12 at Stanford at one lunch, and I asked them if they thought anyone who had a religious experience was delusional. They all looked at me somberly and they said, well, yes, but other people will say, well, that's not delusional. That's a helpful way of encountering the many possibilities that human beings have that we may not be aware we could develop.
GR: Plenty of issues to sort through. We've got about a minute and a half left, and I want to try to squeeze in two questions on this. And this first one's more personal. I have to ask it. It's how do you come down on all of this? And I'm only going to give you a few seconds. I'm sorry, but how have your views changed as you've aged on that question?
EP: Well, that's a big question. I wrote about it in this little memoir called "Why Religion: A Personal Story." I started out as an evangelical once for a year as an adolescent, and I'm not that now, but I understand that these traditions are not foolish. They have many deep insights about human behavior that actually transform people's lives. So people sometimes say to me, are you a Christian? I want to say, well, that's the tradition I was brought up in, and it's familiar to me the way English is familiar, but I don't feel that I'm defined by it. I do love this tradition. I love English language, too. But that doesn't mean there aren't others. Nevertheless, it is a valuable tradition. Otherwise, I wouldn't have spent my life devoted to trying to understand it.
GR: Sure. Yeah, absolutely. Well, only a few seconds left. I have to say, I don't want to spoil this, but I love the way you ended your book. And I was wondering, as I was reading it, how is she going to wrap all this up?
EP: So was I.
GR: So the only thing I want to say about it is, and you can kind of almost do yes or no, but was it in any way influenced or intended to speak to our current political climate?
EP: Well, it couldn't help be, since we're all immersed in that. And what I realized that I love about these stories in the Bible, whether you quote unquote, believe them or not, is that they suggest that no matter how terrible a situation can be and seemingly impossible to resolve, there's always hope. And that's spoken not just to our political climate, but to people for millions of years. So yes, I think that's the way I saw these sources and what they can do for us.
GR: Well, we'll have to leave it there. That was Elaine Pagels. Again, her book—really, it's a book I devoured and I will reread—is called "Miracles and Wonder: The Historical Mystery of Jesus." Professor Pagels, thanks for writing this great book. And again, it's been a real thrill to have you on the program.
EP: Well, thank you. I very much enjoyed our conversation.
GR: Me too. You've been listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media. Conversations and the Public Interest.
Chris Libonati on the Campbell Conversations
Jan 10, 2026
Chris Libonati(fulkram / centralcurrent.org)
Program transcription:
Grant Reeher: Welcome to the Campbell Conversations, I'm Grant Reeher. My guest today is Chris Libonati. He's the managing editor of Central Current an online media outlet in Central New York. He also has experience as a crime and politics reporter at the Syracuse Post-Standard. Chris, welcome to the program, it's good to have you on.
Chris Libonati: Well, thanks for having me. It's good to talk to you, Grant.
GR: You bet. So let me just start with some real basic stuff. We'll get into Central Current in a second, but let's just start with the context and the landscape that things like Central Current are entering into. Remind our listeners what's happened to local news coverage of public issues in recent years in Syracuse, but all over I think the same phenomenon has happened, just bring us up to date on that.
CL: Yeah. All over the country, I mean, you know, for decades now, local newspapers have closed, or shrunk. You know, it can be the Syracuse Post-Standard, but it's also Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, Buffalo News and, you know, it's not just in New York, it's everywhere. And there are communities all over the country, often smaller communities who are losing, you know, just simple local papers, that, you know, even had only 3 or 4 reporters before, and now you have none. Central Current, you know, kind of grew out of a national effort. Well, it grew from locally, but out of a national effort to expand reporting in communities that need more of it. And then, frankly, all communities need more reporting. This is not just a Syracuse issue, this is a nationwide issue, local newspapers are closing nationally.
GR: Yeah. I have a couple colleagues that study the media and they've really driven this point home when I have heard them speak. So, in fact, you know, you hear this phrase, 'food desert' a lot, but then you have these small towns that you were talking about that are being called 'news deserts', and I think what you spoke to illustrates that. So I'm going to go now to Syracuse, and I'm going to make a, I guess I'm going to make a confession here publicly, but one of my slight irritations over the years, is the Post-Standard's apparent reluctance to acknowledge that they've cut back on their local and regional news coverage in recent decades. Instead, they often point to, hey, we've got added content on our website and, you know, this is really it's better somehow. It seems a bit misleading to me. But anyway, you had some experience at the Post-Standard before you took on this position. I would be very interested to hear your views more specifically on how, because they're the, you know, they're the big players in our market, obviously, how their local news, especially public and political affairs news coverage has changed in recent years.
CL: You know, honestly, so I started there in late December of 2017.
GR: So a lot of this stuff had already happened.
CL: Yes, yes, absolutely. So, I came in kind of, I think I was at Syracuse University, and Newhouse while it was changing and honestly, you know, I think I kind of, I missed out on it in the way that, like, the local reader got to see it, right? Because, you know, during layoffs and cutbacks, I just wasn't as avid of a reader of the Post-Standard, and I was probably more reading the Democrat and Chronicle in Rochester, because that's, I'm from Rochester. And I used to take the newspaper to school every morning with me while I was in elementary school. So.
GR: Oh, wow.
CL: Yeah. So, and I think though, like, what has happened at the Post-Standard, you know, the Post-Standard cut early, right? They cut or they saw the tide coming and not the Post-Standard really advanced media and the Newhouse family. In some ways they were ahead of the curve in cutting, right? Because now newspapers are, you know, you see it at the Buffalo News, right? They're doing they're cutting now and I think in some ways it's like, it was take your medicine then or take your medicine now. And that's not to say that, yeah, it's just unfortunate that that's happened. And I think that the truth is, you know, in some ways what you, you don't necessarily, very obviously lose like common council coverage or legislature coverage, you lose issues coverage in some ways, right? Like, you think about, you know I was talking to someone, like, the Post-Standard years and years ago had a labor reporter, you know, well before, probably before I was born, honestly. And someone was complaining to me about that at one point. You know, obviously we have Sean Kirst and, you know, that wasn't a cut, you know, but Sean did leave and it was a loss to the community. I think that it's not necessarily the people that work there and the reporters that work there, but just in aggregate resources. And I think that, yeah, I can tell more of a broad story than a specific one, but I think, though I will say, and one of the benefits of the Post-Standard, I do think things have been very consistent since 2017, and that is the benefit of having taken kind of the medicine, so to speak, in the early 2010's, I'd say, is that it has steadied. And, you know, there is, I guess there's something to be said for that, right?
GR: Yeah, no, it makes sense, I hadn't really thought about it that way, but you're right. I didn't know that the Post-Standard had done this earlier than everybody else but, and you know, and then they cut back to the three days of sort of a genuinely new paper paper, and, yeah, but it's been steady since then. Well, so, let's then transition from that into Central Current. So give us a brief history of Central Current, you were present at the founding. What do you see as Central Current's place in the local media landscape, and what was the history of its story and its founding?
CL: Yeah. So the organization started with the board. So, you know, a couple of our founders, Tony Malavenda, Larry Bousquet got together, and I guess, Tony was like, you know, Tony Malavenda was somewhat unaware of the movement in nonprofit news, and he had kind of gone to a group of people that he knew, and he was like, you know, maybe this could be a nonprofit. And lo and behold, there's nonprofits all over the country, all over the place. And it gave them a bit of a blueprint, right? It made it a little more simple to kind of get that started. They hired Julie McMahon, former editor, you know, also a colleague, former colleague at the Post-Standard to kind of get it rolling.
GR: And I spoke to her when it was just starting up. So you're kind of like the second chapter now, but go ahead.
CL: And so we, I came over because, you know, what I told one of my editors when I was leaving, one of my editors at the Post-Standard was, you know, I was just kind of like, I want a bit of a feel like a college newsroom and not in all the college age, you know, activities or whatever, but trying things out. You know, that was what, when I was at the Daily Orange, you know, it was like, can we just do a story this way, because we we say so, you know? And I think in legacy media, you get locked into, well, we are the paper of record and we need to look and act like the paper of record. And that is not to say that we don't hold ourselves to a very high standard, but that is to say that that very high standard does not have to be a barrier to creativity. And to exist and to succeed, we have to be creative. And I think it was both freeing and backing myself into a corner where, no, I have to be creative. It is innovate or kind of die out, right? That is the mentality. And I wanted that, you know? That was a challenge to me. There is something to being the first reporter somewhere and that's what I was. I was going to set the tone for who we wanted to be even without editing power, right? Or editing responsibility. And that was, that's how I got here. And I think probably telling people that I wanted a feel of a college newsroom, and maybe it was not the way I should have said it, because, like, back then, because it's just a hard feeling to capture if you haven't been there recently. And, you know, when I left, I guess I'd been out of the D.O. for five-ish years and I thought that there were things that we did there that could apply to a professional, I mean, they are a professional newsroom, but, you know, something like a nonprofit.
GR: Yeah, no, it's interesting. And you're still here, and you don't look too hung over to me,
CL: (laughter)
GR: So I don't think you that you've gone in the bad direction there. I'm Grant Reeher, and you're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media. My guest is Chris Libonati, he's the managing editor of the media outlet, Central Current. So, you mentioned Malavenda and Bousquet. Where does your funding come from now?
CL: Yes, we have a bunch of different places, but so it's about, we think about, on the business side, Maximilian Elye, our executive director thinks about it in about four pillars. So it's a grant funding, a sponsorships, major donors, and then grassroots donors, which is like membership, or we don't have subscriptions, necessarily, but that would be the small dollar donors, however you want to frame it.
GR: And what would be the relative size of these pillars? And, you know, and where does some of that grant funding come from?
CL: Yeah. So, major donors and grant funding tend to be, for us, tend to be the bigger fund, you know, I can't give you a percent off the top of my head, but those tend to be where much of our funding comes from. But, you know, we have support from the Gifford Foundation, Central New York Community foundation, the Allen Foundation. For a long time we've gotten support from the Inasmuch Foundation, which is, they had a national investigative reporting grant and they're based out of Oklahoma. And then we've received some national dollars, I think we're, report for America, the Miami Foundation, which is a big journalism funder. So our foundation contributions come from all over the country, mostly in Central New York though.
GR: Yeah, interesting. And so let's think about the last year and the outlet, Central Current. What do you think you would view as some of your greatest hits in the last year, or maybe specific areas? You mentioned topics before where you've concentrated a lot of coverage that is relatively missing elsewhere.
CL: I think that the place I want to start here, with Patrick McCarthy's reporting on whether it's transparency or the budget or surveillance at the Common Council. You know, I definitely think that Common Council and city issues are the Post-Standard's bread and butter in some ways, like they do genuinely great work on city issues. But I think that where we contributed was like, you know, whether it's lead in the water or what have you, like, those issues are critical, but also process matters, like how do we arrive at the decisions by which we fund the efforts to fix these issues? And Pat did some really great work around the budget and transparency. You know, the council meeting with all nine members in a caucus meeting, which, you know, there are some case law out there that says that that is improper. And, you know, not making a budget report that you commissioned public before you vote on the budget. You know, that's a, those are very basic, good government type issues that I think we dominated. But then, you know, Pat has also lead on surveillance coverage, broadly. Whether that's the police department's use of drones, license plate readers. And it's not that, you know, one answer to those questions is right or wrong, but process matters. You know, you create these processes to evaluate these technologies. And did we go through them? Who is advocating for and against them? It sounds very basic, it's very basic. And it could, the way I'm describing it can make your eyes glaze over, but it's like some of the most critical, it's demonstrative of how business happens, you know? And so, our city business happens and, yeah, I think his coverage on those issues has been really critical, has been really important. But from very specific kind of like stories, I think our most read story and my personal favorite story that I got to write last year was called, or we titled it, “Before the Deportation” which caught Jeremy Dottin-Reina, kind of as he was preparing to self-deport after ICE had followed him from his home to work. And it was the first reporting on that issue. Rick Reina, his husband, owned Syracuse Soap Works. And what, you know, our place in that story was to capture a deportation as it's in progress, essentially, which I have not really seen anywhere else. I mean, it's a hard thing to capture, right? Like someone has to tip you off that it's happening.
GR: Right.
CL: It all has to open up, you have to be there for it. And it was the first reporting on that incident. And I thought it was like, you know, I'm speaking about my own work, so I'm trying to have some humility here, but I thought it was powerful in what it showed. And everyone followed that story, right? The Post-Standard followed that story, CNY Central, (W)SYR. But, you know, and it wasn't just because it was about a business owner, it was because of the the time and place and how it happened. I think... try to make sure I catch everyone's work here, you know, Laura Robertson, on naturalization ceremonies being canceled, I think we're the first around here to report that.
GR: Yeah, I saw that one.
CL: It was a super important story. It's not just about, you know, whether or not the net thing happens, right? Where people become citizens. It's about the chaos that kind of gets caused around that process. And then, throw one more in there, our reporting on the payroll modernization snafu with the city, which, you know, resulted in some questions around about how $10 million got spent by the city. Again, process, right? Process was a big part of that, and result too. And we'll be covering the results, you know, as more payroll software gets instituted. But that drove some conversation around the mayoral election.
GR: Yeah, I remember that conversation for sure. You're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media. I'm Grant Reeher, and I'm talking with Chris Libonati. The former Syracuse Post-Standard reporter, is the managing editor of Central Current, a Central New York media outlet. And we've been discussing that organization. So we, before the break, you were talking about some of the greatest hits, the stories that you guys brought to the foreground in the last year that were important. And I remember when I was talking to your, maybe your predecessor or I don't know what exactly her role was, but the the original founder, Julie, you mentioned her. One of the things that she said years ago was that the intention was, among other things, to make arts an area of particular concern for the organization. Just wondering if that is something that has continued, and if you're still think about that today?
CL: I think it's a long term goal. And I think that one of the things we realized over time, we do reader surveys, and people wanted more politics coverage, news coverage, hard hitting coverage. And, you know, I think that we've definitely turned more toward that for sure. We've tried to balance it a little bit with Sean Kirst, and obviously that's not the arts, I think that's more culture. And you know, the way I look at culture, right, is fabric of the community, like, are we getting to stories about that? And I point to a lot of the work Sean's done, but also Pat McCarthy on the Onondaga Nation's reintroduction of the buffalo and stuff like that. It's not true arts coverage, but it is culture coverage. And I think that, it's something that we would, I think we would like to sustain in time. But I think we realize that to make ourselves truly indispensable, we have to be able to do the hard hitting coverage well.
GR: Okay. And I'm very curious to know, what in your experience with this organization has been the biggest challenges you face? Because it's not easy, what you guys have done.
CL: No.
GR: So what have been the biggest challenges in both growing the effort and sustaining it, and how did you go about addressing them?
CL: I think first and foremost, explain to people why it's important to pay money to get this. And I know that, you know, you probably read quite frequently, but there are people who read less frequently and who see this as important, but then also are, you know, why should I give my $5, $10, $100 toward this effort? And I think explaining that importance is one of the hardest things, because there are a lot of great social service organizations around Syracuse that do important work to keep kids clothed, fed, what have you. And, you know, it's much easier to part with $5 or $10 to do something like that than to, I think, read about all the city and county problems, you know? And I think learning how to show people that, in fact, this work buttresses the work that other people do. It's not, as much of a challenge in terms of like, how do we do it? It's just that knowing that people need that explanation is the first step. The only way you can fix a problem is to know you have it, right? And to not have enough reporting kind of like feeds these other problems. So explaining that to folks, kind of getting them on that same playing field, that's probably like that first step. I know it sounds like a very broad, unspecific problem, but it is so critical to explaining what we do. And then, you know, simply like, making sure that philanthropy and, whether that's foundations or, you know, can sustain the, you know, we, Max and I talk all the time like, what is sustainable here? What is the level we can get to, what is a this year going five years down the line goal? You know, I think we've gotten into a place where we feel really comfortable, right? Not, you know, too comfortable or anything.
GR: Right, complacent, yeah.
CL: Yeah, not complacent. But at the same time, we're like, okay, today and tomorrow you know, the today's and tomorrow problems are kind of like slowly fading. It's more like, you know, how do we make it grow? Early on it was like, who are we going to be? I think that that was the real problem when I started, you know, and in some ways, we've figured out who we are. And that is only through consistently writing. We can only do that by telling stories in the similar way time and time again, you kind of, I think people generally know what they're going to get from us now. Which is not true, that was not true when I in June of 2022 when I started publishing my first stories. And in some ways we are a very different organization today than we were then. We had to let ourselves grow a little bit and figure out who we were to be able to tell people who we are. You know, you can't really tell a story about yourself unless unless you have, like, a coherent version of that. I think that was one of the other challenges that we've since tackled, but it's it's always a consistent thing because you still have to tell the stories the same way going forward.
GR: Sure. If you've just joined us, you're listening to the Campbell Conversations. I'm Grant Reeher and my guest is Chris Libonati, the managing editor of Central Current. So, this one may be a little bit of a, I don't know, nasty question, but I feel like I have to ask it.
CL: Yeah.
GR: Along the way, did you get support or resistance or neither, from the Post-Standard and syracuse.com?
CL: I think we just coexist, is my answer. You know, we have, I think if you read all of our stories, we love to give everyone credit when they report something before we do. I think that's really important. That's ethical, that's the right thing to do. You will find their links throughout our work, and we will always do that because it's important for the reader. They should know source material, right? You know, we don't operate in a vacuum and neither do they. And I think that that's a critical thing to understand if you're an editor of a publication, if you're a reporter at a publication. And so we make every effort to make clear that, you know, there's another news organization in town and they're doing critical work, too. We would never short someone on their work.
GR: You are a very diplomatic editor. I can tell that because, I will maybe say this for you, I don't know, but I will say it's been my experience, one of the things I would knock them on a little bit is acknowledging other outlets. It's almost like if it didn't happen there, it didn't exist. But you're articulating a different way to see things.
CL: (laughter)
GR: You're not making that criticism, I said it, not you. But anyway, yeah, very diplomatic. So, let me ask you this. Do you have an idea what stories you're going to be, Central Current is going to be focusing on next year? You know, I do get the Post-Standard every Sunday and they did, you know, they put out, like, here are the ten things we think people need to be following. Do you have an idea of what you guys are going to do?
CL: Yeah. So I have, so I think, I was just talking, we were talking to our reporters about this with Max about this, you know, what are we really, who are we going to be in 2026? And I think housing has always been important to us, the policy side of housing, I think that will be important again.
GR: It's going to be critical.
CL: Yes. It's always critical. And I think that it's been, housing has been an issue here since I was in college. You know, I remember when Matthew Desmond, the author of a book, “Evicted”, came to speak at SU. And that was when, you know, I was a student and we still see a lot of housing being such a critical issue. So that will be in the mix is one of our kind of, like, big issues. But I think beyond that, elections will be big. And everything, you know, that we talk about including housing and some of these other issues will affect elections, but NY22 is on the table, county leg(islators), again, is on the table, statewide offices. So, you know, I think that that's going to be a big focus for us. And beyond that, we're trying to figure out how to move our resources around to make sure that immigration is a consistent issue that we cover.
GR: Good, yeah.
CL: It's the issue kind of our time in some ways, right? The last couple of years, at least, the last year. And their, the Post-Standard has done some great reporting on immigration. And there can only be more great reporting on immigration. I think that, whether it's policy or the human side of stories, I think that's really critical. And, so, yeah, there's I'd say three of the biggest issues that we're going to hit this year.
GR: Good. Those are good choices, it strikes me. Well, we've got about two minutes left and I want to try to squeeze in two questions, if I could. They may be a little bit different from the other ones, but, and this first one may be hard for you, but I wanted to get your take on this. If you had to pick one journalist in Syracuse, now I recognize that you, as you said, you arrived here at the university, doing my math, around 2013. But if you, based on your knowledge and your historical knowledge you've developed since then, if you had to pick one journalist in Syracuse who's been most integral to the life, the understanding and even the success of the area, working in any of the mediums, who would it be?
CL: Well, that's tough, I am, so, I can I give you like a 1a, 1b? Is that okay?
GR: Yeah sure, absolutely, just do it quickly.
CL: Yeah. Sean Kirst without a doubt, but I'm going to give you my favorite, and that's John O'Brien. When I was in college, I read John O'Brien and I respect the work he's done. And he was so critical to what the Post-Standard did, and I just loved his work.
GR: Remind us what his beat was.
CL: Yeah. So, John was an investigative reporter. He did investigations on the Onondaga County District Attorney's office.
GR: I remember that one.
CL: Some of the, oh, man, the murder case up in Oswego. He did some incredible work around that, but mostly around, you know, coverage of policing and stuff like that. And he was incredible.
GR: Okay, and then the last one, I'm only literally giving you 2 or 3 sentences, but, big picture looking forward, future media landscape in Syracuse. Are we going to see more Central Currents? It's hard for me to imagine giving all the funding challenges. What do you think is going to happen in the next ten years or so?
CL: That's a great question. Honestly, my biggest hope is that what's here grows, that's all of us. I think that keeping it at the level it's at right now is probably most likely. But hopefully we grow and do more great work.
GR: Certainly we want to avoid becoming a news desert, that's for sure.
CL: Yes.
GR: That was Chris Libonati. Chris, I want to thank you again for making the time to speak with me. And I also want to wish you good luck in continuing to develop this media outlet. I think it is important. And again, it's called Central Current. I think the area needs all the help I can get, so thanks so much.
CL: Awesome. Thank you, Grant.
GR: You bet. You've been listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media, conversations in the public interest.
Ben Walsh on the Campbell Conversations
Jan 03, 2026
Syracuse Mayor Ben Walsh speaks at a news conference in Syracuse Monday, May 20, 2025.(Ellen Abbott / WRVO )
Program transcript:
Grant Reeher: Welcome to the Campbell Conversations. I'm Grant Reeher. Well, the cliché is that all good things must come to an end, and that's the occasion for my conversation today with two term city of Syracuse Mayor Ben Walsh. By the time you hear this, he will be former mayor. But today is his second to last day in office. It's fitting, perhaps, that there's a blizzard blowing outside our windows. It's Syracuse, after all. Mayor Walsh, welcome to the program, it's good to see you again and I'm glad we were able to get to speak one more time.
Ben Walsh: So am I, Grant. Thanks for having me.
GR: Well, I really appreciate it. So let me just start, I want to start by giving you a brief victory lap. Just briefly list some of the things that you're the most proud of accomplishing while you've been in office these eight years.
BW: Well, there's a lot, Grant. We've worked really hard over the past eight years. And what I think one thing that I'd like to point out is that, you know, oftentimes you look at administrations and, you know, they might focus on just the small day to day, city service issues. And then others that are focused, you know, primarily on big picture issues, I think we really did both. We spent a lot of time addressing core city services, which is our what taxpayers pay for. But we took some really big swings, too. So, on the city services side, I think about, you mentioned the snow, you know, our fleet, our snowplow fleet is in the best shape it's been in decades. And, you know, we've invested a lot into the fleet, into technology to improve our snow operations. We are paving more roads than we've paved in decades. In 2017, the year before we started, the city paved about four miles of roads. And when it's all said and done, we will have paved over 100 miles of roads over the past eight years. Our municipal sidewalk program, repairing, we've repaired or reconstructed over 40 miles of sidewalks. We plow a lot of sidewalks now in the winter, our new street light network. So a lot of things that people notice, you know, not to mention our new trash and recycling service. While at the same time, you know, advocated for the community grid for the 81 project which is well underway, built thousands of new units of housing. So, again, really, really proud that we were able to do all that.
GR: Yeah, that's a good starting list. And obviously, as you've just pointed out, you've accomplished a number of things that you can point to as, you know, real tangible achievements for the city. I was wondering, though, if you had to pick one thing either concrete or more abstract, that you would hang your hat on, let's say, you know, let's go fast forward and we're looking back now in the historical assessment of you as mayor. What would you want it to be and why?
BW: I think a couple of things come to mind. Where I always start is with with our team here in city government. We've assembled just an incredible group of dedicated public servants that are incredibly passionate about the city, are highly competent and capable, could be doing many other things, and are choosing to serve the public because they believe in what we're doing here. And so between the team, and then I think, you know, in terms of, it's hard to pick any one of those things that I mentioned, but I think what we've done with housing in the neighborhoods I think will stand the test of time. We built more homes, actual homes, single family homes, as well as apartments, than the city has in decades. And you drive down certain streets and certain neighborhoods. I think about, you know, you drive down to the south side and look, you know, at Baker and Woodland Ave, South State Street, parts of Colvin, we've transformed those neighborhoods that hadn't seen investment, again, in decades. While at the same time, certainly you look downtown and along the Near East Side, heading up to University Hill, all of the new apartment buildings. Again, we've physically transformed these neighborhoods, but I think, you know, in doing so, really built back some of the fabric of the community that, again, will last for decades.
GR: And this next question isn't so much about policy accomplishments, necessarily, but I did want to ask you, was there a time in your eight years where this job just felt the best to you?
BW: I thought you were going in a different direction than that.
GR: (laughter) We'll get there, we'll get there.
BW: Okay, so I think, you know, I will say that the recent weeks after a really challenging final year, have been really gratifying to be able to have some time to reflect on our accomplishments and to hear from a lot of constituents that are really grateful for the service. It's it's been nice to finish out that way. At the same time, again, getting back to housing, I think some of the best moments for me were the times when we were cutting a ribbon on a new home and more importantly, handing over the keys to a new homeowner. In many cases, these are, you know, first time homeowners, the first of their family to own a home. And, you know, I remember one in particular woman who had lived in public housing her whole life, who was able to buy one of the new homes that we built with Home Headquarters. Those are those moments where you just, you realize that you're having a tangible impact on someone's life that, again, will have a generational impact for their family.
GR: You know, one of the things that struck me when I was thinking about these last couple questions I've asked you, what I would think about them, and this is pretty abstract, but I just wanted to get your thoughts about it. One of the things I would put in the plus column for you is that you've had to deal with two really, really difficult, important people. You had to deal with Andrew Cuomo and you had to deal with Donald Trump, at least the administrations.
BW: Right.
GR: And that's not easy. But you seem to handle that with some grace and patience, but also not just folding over.
BW: Right.
GR: Could you talk a little bit about navigating that tightrope?
BW: Yeah. So, you know, I'll start with Governor Cuomo. Well, I'll start with the fact that, you know, when I ran in 2017, one of my major platforms was collaboration and partnership. And I would specify that when I talk about those things, it doesn't mean that you have to get along with everybody all the time. But I think you try to treat, I've tried to treat everyone with with dignity and respect. And what I've always said is, if you sit down at the table, you can disagree, and you can get up and walk away, but you always have to come back to the table, and I think we've done that. With Governor Cuomo, obviously his relationship with the previous city administration was strained. And so I went out of my way to develop a strong working relationship with him. I think that that really helped us, certainly on 81. I remember you know, going to him, and making the pitch that the time for studies and analysis were over, that we were never going to achieve full consensus, but all the signs, the data pointed to the community grid being the right option. And he challenged me to show him that in the form of support from various stakeholders, and we were able to do that. And I think that helped him get over the hump with the community grid. Also, I think about the STEAM school, you know, I spent, there was a particular event at the airport where I was with, at the time, County Executive Mahoney, who obviously had a great relationship with the governor. And she kind of set me up, teed it up for me and said, hey, governor, you know, mayor's got this really exciting idea for this STEAM school and I pitched it to him and he was excited about it. And ultimately that led to an $85 million investment from the state. So, again, I invested in that relationship. I think it paid dividends. And as it relates to President Trump, never had the chance to meet him. You know, I've not been shy about articulating some of the challenges that the city has faced as a result of policies that have come out of his administration. But I've also gone, you know, tried not to, you know, to put a stick in his eye. You know, in some cases, just, you know, staying off the radar is all you can do, and I've tried to do that.
GR: Yeah. No, I think you've got that exactly right. You're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media. I'm Grant Reeher and I'm speaking with two term Syracuse Mayor Ben Walsh and he is in his final week as mayor. So here's a couple of questions that I think you did anticipate. First one, what's the biggest thing you feel like you've left on the table, that with the benefit of a do over, you might have gotten over the finish line that you didn't get over the finish line?
BW: Well, I think I appreciate the way you asked it, because I really do feel that everything that I set out to accomplish, we at least if we didn't finish, we got started and will be completed. I really can't think of any one thing where we just completely whiffed. But, you know, I think, I talk a lot about housing in this interview, it's been a priority. The challenge with housing is the city doesn't build housing. We need partners. And we can, you know, identify resources and we've done that. But we're we're relying on our partners for that. And those partners are reliant, oftentimes on complicated financing that is really hard to pull together. So a number of our big housing projects have just been slower than I would have liked. Starting with the East Adams project, in partnership with the Housing Authority. You know, I've made my frustrations with the Housing Authority known. We've been able to make some changes at the board, and I hope they continue to make internal changes to prepare themselves for what they've undertaken. But, you know, we got phases one and two closed and underway before we were done, and I'm happy about that. You know, the Maria Regina project up on the north side, again, just has not moved as quickly as I would like. I think it is going to happen. They'll probably close down their financing in the first quarter of 2026. So, you know, those things, just that the urgency in the timing of some of those projects I would have liked to see move faster. But, you know, to your point about some difficult things we faced, you know, sandwiched in those eight years is two years of a global pandemic and that undoubtedly slowed some things down. But again, I think everything we set out to get going, we at least got off the ground.
GR: Well, in a related vein, and this question isn't really about policy miscues necessarily, but was there a time when the job did not feel good, when the job felt the hardest?
BW: Couple of things come to mind. First, any time there was a tragedy in the community, violence, in particular, loss of life, those were brutal situations, every one of them. And, you know, I've said that those are the moments where I feel the most powerless as mayor because there isn't a whole lot that I can do that to take the pain away from the family members and friends of those that we've lost. But, you know, for me, that's why I tried at a minimum to be present whenever I could, whether it was at a crime scene or at the hospital, because sometimes just my presence was the only thing that I could offer, but it was, I think, better than the nothing. You know, the other specific time that I remember, I mentioned the pandemic, when we, before the ARPA legislation was passed, and we were, we had lost our, a significant portion of our largest source of revenue, sales tax, which is what happens when you shut the economy down. And we had to put together a contingency budget. And I just, I knew how painful that was going to be and how all the things that, you know, ultimately, we were able to accomplish in terms of city services and staffing, for a while, it didn't look like we were going to be able to do that, and that was that was pretty bleak. But the ARPA funding was a was a lifeline and I think we took full advantage of it.
GR: How easy or hard was it for you to decide to run for a second term?
BW: It was easy. The first decision was the was a hard one, because as we've talked about before, I really, even coming from the family that I did, I didn't envision myself being in elected office. I did envision myself being in public service. And so, that was a, I had to push myself way out of my comfort zone for that one and had to make sure that my family was along for the ride, starting with my wife, Lindsay. And so that was a leap of faith and I still look back on it and shake my head and think, what the heck were you thinking? But, I'm glad I did. And once I did, I knew that I was in the right place at the right time and so I never hesitated from running for reelection. But, you know, people ask me about a third term and, you know, I got into this knowing that the best I was going to be able to do was eight years, and so I haven't really thought about, you know, what-ifs as it relates to term limits or a third term. I'm really happy with what I've done, and I'm ready for a change.
GR: You're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media. I'm Grant Reeher, and I'm talking with Syracuse Mayor Ben Walsh, and this is his exit interview with me as he finishes up his second term. So I've cleaned out offices a few times, always seems like there's a moment when you pick something up that sparks a memory or a thought that speaks to something broader. A quick example for my own experience is to give you time to think about this. But when I was moving out of my office as Campbell director at the Maxwell School a couple of years ago, I found in my drawer a five year service pen that a friend gave me, and when he did not get tenure and he left it sitting on my desk when he left the university. And that reminded me of the need to appreciate contingency. You know, that nothing's for certain. And I'm just wondering if you had any of those moments recently when you're cleaning out your office.
BW: Yeah. Well, I'll note that I'm not in my office right now. I'm in a small little office in the mayor's suite because I wanted to make sure the office was cleaned out and maintenance is in there now, painting and getting it ready for for mayor elect Owens.
GR: That's conscientious of you.
BW: I try.
GR: (laughter)
BW: So I went through that process, it was brutal. I spent a couple of weekends in there. But I think kind of similar to your story. So, the center drawer in my desk, it was kind of like the, you know, a little bit of the junk drawer that everybody has in their kitchen. But it's where I put all my notes that I thought were worth keeping. And, you know, I was feeling a lot of urgency to get things cleaned out quickly. But once I had that drawer and I saved it to the end because I knew it was going to happen, I just spent a lot of time going back through the notes, and, you know, they were snapshots in time, some really difficult times, some really great times. And just reading, reading those notes from some very close friends and family, but also some, you know, prominent public figures like Governor Cuomo and like Governor Hochul, was really special and bittersweet.
GR: Did your predecessor leave you, like, a note in your drawer the way presidents sometimes do?
BW: She, Mayor Miner did. And I'm glad you reminded me, because I have to do that before tomorrow.
GR: Yeah!
BW: And I do plan on doing that for mayor elect Owens. Yeah, Mayor Miner wrote me a nice note and, you know, included, combined a little bit of humor with with some heartfelt thoughts and that's, I plan to do the same for Sharon.
GR: Well, I'll leave the contents of those things personal, because that's the way they're intended to be. What is the best piece of advice that your father, who was both a city councilor and a long time congressman for this area, I think he served 20 years, as I recall, what was the best piece of advice he gave you about being an elected office or about maybe campaigning for elected office?
BW: Well, my coworkers will tell you, I quote my dad a lot. And so, he's pretty prolific with his quotables. Some that immediately come to mind, I'm not sure what the best was, they, kind of depends on the circumstance, but, you know, he's a big, he would always say, go with your gut, he's a big gut guy. And so, I think about that a lot. The advice that I give to young people, something that he gave to me, you don't have to know what you want to do for the rest of your life, you just have to know what you want to do next. And for me, that was really helpful to kind of compartmentalize, you know, what is otherwise, overwhelming life of decisions to have to make. Trying to think of some others, one thing I'll say, and he took this from his his grandfather, he only offers advice when I ask, as it relates to politics. And he said, you know, he would do that, his dad did that, too. And so he kept doing it the same way. And I really appreciated that because a lot of people give you unsolicited advice, but I did seek his advice often, and it was always good.
GR: If you've just joined us, you're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media. I'm Grant Reeher, and my guest is the soon to be former Syracuse mayor, Ben Walsh. Speaking of your father, I took the liberty of reaching out to him yesterday, and I asked him to give me a question to ask you, and I think he hit it out of the park, and you anticipated it in a way. Before I ask this, I'm going to remind our listeners that your grandfather, whom you mentioned before the break, was also a mayor of Syracuse. And here's your dad's question. Of all the projects that you either worked on or completed during your eight years as mayor, which one do you think your grandfather would have been the most excited about?
BW: Oh, man. He's going to catch some grief next time I see him because I did not see that coming.
GR: Well, you have to give the grief to your mother, too, Dede, she was part of coming up with this question.
BW: Well, my mother is the Walsh family's secret weapon, so, I'll give her some grace, but my dad, I'm going to give grief to. So, the project that my grandfather would be most proud of, boy.
GR: Well, excited about is what he said.
BW: Yeah. You know, I think it would be the the community grant and 81. You know, we did have a chance to talk before he passed, about, you know, urban renewal and some of the decisions that were made and the impacts and, you know, 81 was well under way by the time he took office. But, you know, what he said was that, you know, at the time, obviously, there's a lot of federal funds coming into cities to do that type of work. And, you know, they were basing their projects off of best practices and, you know, what was eligible for funding. But he acknowledged that, you know, they didn't get it all right. And that, you know, you have to try to make the best decisions based on the best information you have. But I think he, knowing what I know, I think he would look at the way in which I viewed Interstate 81 and some of the negative impacts of urban renewal and being willing to kind of own it and try to, you know, make right some of those wrongs. I think he would have thought that was pretty cool.
GR: Good, interesting. Well, let's look ahead. You recently came out that you've been named to this new position, I believe it starts about a month from now. Just tell us about it. I mean, first of all, what is the New York State Canal Corporation, for starters, most people probably would not know what that is?
BW: Yeah, so it's a really neat position and I'm excited about it. I have a ton to learn, but, you know, of course, growing up in Syracuse, you're familiar with the history of, most people are familiar with the history of the Erie Canal. The New York Canal Corporation oversees the New York State Canal system, which of course, includes the Erie Canal, but also includes the Cayuga-Seneca Canal, the Oswego Canal, the Champlain Canal, I'm not sure if I'm missing one, but it's over 500 miles of canal ways and nearly 500 employees that maintain the system. It's a 200 year old system that has a lot of old infrastructure, locks and bridges and other things that are in need of constant repair and like a lot of infrastructure have not seen the level of funding that they require. And so, but it's also just this amazing recreational asset that I think communities are still learning how to embrace. I've already heard from a lot of mayors and town supervisors along the canal that are passionate about it and are anxious to build a working relationship. And so, you know, I think it's a combination of being, you know, an ambassador and a cheerleader for the canal, but also, you know, being a manager and managing the, you know, this massive system of infrastructure, that, again, needs a lot of work.
GR: We've got about, maybe, I don't know, four minutes left or so, five minutes. I wanted to try to turn the questions a little bit differently and a little more personal, if we could. One of them, and I'll try to say this as succinctly as I can, but in my experiences of you in the last eight years and even before when you were working in the Miner administration, you have a particular quality that I find rare in politicians, particularly these days, where it just seems like there is so much anger in this system. And I know you get frustrated with things, I know I've asked you questions that have frustrated you and I can tell, but still, it seems like there is an even-keeledness, sort of at the core that keeps you from getting sucked into kinds of exchanges that we associate with politics today. And I just wanted to know, what is the secret sauce for you? What is the, where does this come from?
BW: Well, I often joke about one of my favorite Seinfeld episodes where they keep saying 'serenity now' and then eventually they say serenity now, insanity later.
GR: (laughter)
BW: So I'm hoping that that doesn't come to fruition. But, you know, I think part of it is just going back to my role models, my father and my grandfather, they were very much the same way. You know, I think also I've learned from the way in which I've reacted to things. I can, when I look back on the past eight years, there are certainly times when I've lost my temper and I've said things that I regretted. And, you know, and sometimes it feels good in the moment, but in almost every case, I did regret it and it didn't ultimately help me achieve my outcome. You know, when I certainly lost my cool with, you know, with the Common Council on a number of occasions, both individually and collectively. And that never served us well, it just, you know, further entrenched them, I think about the most recent budget process is an example of that. And, it just, you know, I'm ultimately all about what works. And in my experience, what works is maintaining, you know, staying calm, cool and collected, maintaining relationships and partnerships and a spirit of collaboration. You know, look, if I thought losing my marbles every day was going to get the job done, then I'd probably do that, but in my experience it doesn't.
GR: Very calculated. Well, so, this last question, and I hope you'll take some time with it, although you may want to dismiss it quickly. Just for old times sake, I want to play the game that you and I have played in the past. And so if you're ready, I will try to ask the question this way.
BW: Sure.
GR: Ben Walsh is still young, 46, I think I saw in the paper. So.
BW: Yep.
GR: So, that's young in political years. If he does run for another elected office and the path as an independent was not viable to you, what parties' banner would you run under? You're on your way out now.
BW: Yeah. So look, I think that, I've said to you before, I had to convince everyone I wasn't a Republican when I first ran, and then I was convincing everyone I wasn't a Democrat when I ran again. I think, you know, when you plot me on the political spectrum, which, you know, evolves and changes, I think it's worth noting that. You know, I think people would probably, most people would put me left of center. But, you know, I do reject the, you know, the party labels because in my experience, I just, I don't think we all fit neatly into those boxes. And frankly, I don't think the party establishments themselves, necessarily are always consistent with the policies and ideologies that they claim to espouse. So, but I mean, again, in 2025 looking at the political spectrum and where the parties are, you know, again, I think most people would agree I'm, you know, to the left, but not extreme by any stretch.
GR: Yeah, that sounds fair to me, too. Well, we'll have to leave it there. That was Mayor Ben Walsh. Mayor Walsh, I want to take a little bit of time here at the end, and just I want to say, first of all, I think you more than met the Athenian and standard of leaving the city better off than you found it, which is the standard, I think, inspired in part by the Maxwell School that you've articulated all along. So I want to just take a second and thank you for your service.
BW: Thank you, Grant.
GR: I want to thank you for making yourself available, not only to me, which you've done on many occasions, but also to the Maxwell School students, which you've done as much as I think as anyone could expect. And I want to put some thanks to your family as well. All of you have been integral to this city and to this region, so we appreciate it.
BW: And I wouldn't be where I am today without the Maxwell School. So, much love to you and your colleagues and your students. It's a special place and we're lucky to have it here in Syracuse.
GR: Well, we are proud to have you as one of our graduates. You've been listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media, conversations in the public interest.
John Mannion on the Campbell Conversations
Dec 20, 2025
(Ciara Feltham / Mannion for NY)
Program transcript:
Grant Reeher: Welcome to the Campbell Conversations, I'm Grant Reeher. The last time I spoke with John Mannion, it was about six months into his first term in Congress. He's now finished close to a year, so it's a good time to check back in and get his reflections. As always, it seems a lot has been happening in Washington in the last six months. John Mannion represents New York's 22nd congressional district, which contains all of Onondaga and Madison counties and portions of Oneida, Cortland and Cayuga counties, including the cities of Syracuse, Utica, and Auburn. Congressman Mannion, welcome back to the program and it's good to see you again.
John Mannion: Great to see you. Thank you for having me on again, Grant.
GR: Well, I have to say our listeners can only hear this and I can see you, I'm going to jump right to a question I was going to ask you later, but, you look pretty relaxed. You don't look like a beaten down member of Congress. (laughter)
JM: Well, it's still early in the day. (laughter) Listen, there will be times where, you know, I'll be in a grocery store back home or somewhere, and people go, you know, hey, I support you, you know, thank you for everything you're doing, I hope you're doing okay. Every now and then, I'll get a, you look tired, you know, you look tired.
GR: (laughter)
JM: But I understand the gravity of the position that I hold. And, of course, I love the place where I'm from. I consider it an honor to be able to represent it and we're going to do everything to make sure we do a good job. And we uphold, you know, the history of this country and the norms of this country, the values of it. And, you know, some days are longer than others, but, I appreciate the compliment, and I'll take it wherever it comes.
GR: Okay, great. Well, a little more serious version of that, though, if I could. You know, when I think about, and we'll come back to getting your sense of, you know, the things that you've accomplished and all that, but when I think about the weekly life of a member of Congress, knowing a bit about it, it really does seem to me to be kind of a grind in a lot of ways. I mean, you're going back and forth to D.C. constantly. You're always having to raise money. So, I imagine it has been an adjustment from the state Senate, even though that was a challenging position as well. I mean, how, do you have strategies for coping with it?
JM: So, I do think my four years in Albany was a great preparation for this. And it was in many ways, no offense to the state Senate and state Assembly, because there's important, very important, if not just as important legislation there, but just the calendar itself. It was a six month in-session session, so January to June, and then you had six months to get back in the district and really get a chance to talk to folks. The D.C. schedule is three out of every four weeks a month on average. August is not a month we’re working and we won't get into the government shutdown or even the cancellation of votes around that time. But it's about four days a week, typically. And when you're here, you're going, you know, from first thing in the morning, all the way through the evening, you get up and you do it again. And there's a lot of committee work, as I think we talked about a few months ago. The committee work here is really intensive, and there's amendments to legislation and multiple hearings, so you can count on those every week. But the travel is something for sure. We're fortunate that, you know, I mean, I have driven, but as far as flights go from Syracuse to D.C., there's a lot of them and they're direct flights, so we could do a lot worse than that. And I feel fortunate that I live where I do. And both airports are great and easy to get in and out of. So, you know, that's the least of it. It's really the importance of the work. And then what's tough is, because it's usually the full week or close to a full week, I miss a lot of stuff at home that I really want to be at, and certainly want to get to new areas of the district that may not know me as well, and let them know that I want to hear from them and that I'm fighting for them.
GR: I just can't imagine, for example, how a member of Congress representing a rural district in California manages that with the flights and the travel involved. But, well, let's get to the meat of some of this. You've been in a year, it’s a two-year term. So, what do you regard as your most important accomplishment so far in this first year?
JM: You know, some of those things, Grant, have really come up recently legislatively, and I'll get to that. But when I was elected, you know, this past fall and so was the president, I said, I wish for the country's success and therefore I wish for his success. But what we've seen immediately with the executive orders that came out on Inauguration Day was that the backstops of many things to keep executive powers reined in were removed. And that includes the removal of the inspector generals and, you know, clearing out of the DOJ and the FBI. So, you know, a lot of my time has been devoted to, and I say this, I'm just telling the truth, I'm letting people know that regardless of where you land on the political spectrum, that we should always maintain the co-equal branches of government and a system of checks and balances. And when we hear either secretaries or the president himself talk about defying court orders, that's, of course, incredibly concerning. And congressional oversight is not happening to the extent that it has in the past, historically, regardless of which party is in power. So that's a lot of what we work on. But, when we've gone through, I will call it the Big Beautiful Bill, the reconciliation process, there was a lot of work there, a lot of amendments were attempted that were voted down basically by party lines, and some of them were very logical moves, including extending the Affordable Care Act subsidies, also returning what legally has been found to be illegal firings of the federal workforce and returning veterans to that workforce. But most recently, what you've seen are a couple pieces of legislation is that despite, you know, the president really having a tight grasp over the speaker is that we have found, and I do think this is inspiring, bipartisanship within the discharge petition process. So, you know that I come from a union family and I was a union president while I was still teaching in my last eight years. So, there was a discharge petition, passed the House, bipartisan support to restore the collective bargaining rights of some of these, you know, government entities. And I was grateful to see that happen. You know, additionally, a lot of media attention, and justifiably, is around the release of the Epstein files that, two, we should have accountability and justice for victims. And that was something that has happened recently as well. So, you can imagine my frustration in having really logical amendments stall, even though sometimes I'm advocating even more for, proportionally other congressional districts that might benefit from an extension of the Affordable Care Act's tax credits. But, you know, that's what's frustrating, but we have seen some movement. I've got my own legislation that we're going to continue to build support around and consensus around and gain co-sponsorship and try to move that legislation forward while finding our spots to insert our voice and insert our amendments and trying to make some of the legislation that's moving by the majority better.
GR: I want to come back to a couple of things you mentioned. You're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media. I'm Grant Reeher and I'm speaking with Congressman John Mannion. The freshman representative is in New York's 22nd congressional district. So, one of the things, you mentioned this, was, you referenced our earlier conversation where you observed that one of the biggest differences and surprises in some ways for you was the intensity and the importance of the committee work relative to what you had experienced in New York State. Are there any other big surprises now that you've had a year that you just didn't see coming as far as the nature of the job down there?
JM: Sure. I, you know, I'm going to shift again to executive powers here, I think I have to. So, you know, I have to remind people that in a previous Congress, appropriated dollars were obligated to different organizations, you know, including like, NEH and NIH grants, Department of Ed grants, Department of Defense and Energy grants. And that was a Republican majority in Congress that passed that, even though it may have been signed by a Democratic president. But the appropriations process is one of those, what I like to call forced bipartisanship. So, we all want bipartisanship, but the Appropriations Committee and other aligned committees make sure that we're not playing hunger games, we're not playing winners and losers. And I hate the term blue districts and red districts because my district is a purple district. They happen to have a blue representative right now, but I consider myself here for everybody and every district across this country has Republicans and Democrats. So, I wish we weren't playing this game and I know the people I represent, by and large, feel the same way. So, the fact that those appropriated dollars were frozen and sometimes grants ended when universities or not for profits or municipalities had to plan a budget, that, again, was, I think, surprising to everyone. We know that there can be rescissions, but there's a process. But these were done, the damage was done. You go to the court to try to restore, but honestly, a lot of that had already occurred. And then the other one, and we did see this in the first Trump administration, would be the tariffs. You know, we're watching again, with precision, tariffs make sense. With it being so dynamic and so unpredictable, the people that I talked to, this is not good. Particularly being on the AG committee with our farmers. I've heard statements from some of my colleagues about we have a bumper crop across this country and soybeans and corn, but demand is down. Well, demand is down because we have ceded our tariff power, execises and imposts in the Congress to the president and we should rein that in. And there are, you know, discharge petitions and legislation to do so, although it's already written into law. So it’s that overextension of the powers that is surprising. And I'll say one more, you know, the president promised that he would go after the worst of the worst when it comes to immigration and that's not what we're seeing. We're seeing racial profiling, we're seeing cruelty. We're seeing people who are trying to abide by the law and follow the process and going to their immigration hearings. And they're being, you know, taken away, separated from their families. I know from speaking to people that's incredibly unpopular here. Yes, we need to enforce our immigration laws, there's a way to do it. And we also should not ignore how we got here, which is exactly that, that we have ignored many of our immigration laws over a long period of time. And we have members of our community that are doing what a lot of ancestors did, which is trying to put in a hard day's work and provide for their family. Let's work with the people who have been here a while, have comprehensive immigration reform and be true to our values as the country that we are.
GR: Let me ask you a question about your party here for a minute, actually, a couple of them. The first one is, how would you assess Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries’ leadership of your caucus?
JM: Well, Hakeem Jeffries I am supporter of. We actually went to college at SUNY Binghamton, we called it back then, Binghamton University, at the same time. And we did not know each other there, or if we did, we’d forgotten, I guess.
GR: (laughter)
JM: But he's proud to be a graduate of that university as am I, and also Eugene Vindman. Hakeem Jeffries is a principled man. I know that there's times where people want him to, you know, metaphorically, you know, throw bombs, right? But he, I do believe that his steady hand in getting through this chaotic time is important to maintain, you know, our character and our principles. We only have so many tools to use in the minority. And we certainly can use our voice, we can assist in amicus briefs in the litigation space, we can amend legislation. But what you saw in fighting for the ACA subsidy extensions was great leadership, very unlike what our party can be criticized for, disciplined message. We prioritized what we were going to do to try to lower health care costs for everybody in this country, not just people on an Affordable Care Act plan. And Hakeem Jeffries was the leader of that message, and I think did a fantastic job as it relates to it. In this moment in time, I know myself, I will question, should I have spoke up louder on this issue? Should I have not elevated that issue? Is that just a distraction? And we're always going to question that. But I know his heart's in the right place, mine is too and, you know, we were definitely laser focused on that issue in unison. And then also, we made it the priority that I think it needed to be.
GR: You're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media. I'm Grant Reeher and I'm talking with Congressman John Mannion, who represents New York's 22nd Congressional district. So, you mentioned the effort to extend the subsidies for the premiums in the Affordable Care Act and I did have a couple of questions I wanted to ask about that. One was related to the shutdown, you've already brought the shutdown up. And that's, do you think in retrospect, the Democratic Party's approach toward funding the government, which was, as you point out, you know, took a pretty hard line for holding out for an extension of those premium subsidies, was that a wise move relative to the shutdown negotiations?
JM: Just stepping back quickly, is that, I mentioned forced bipartisanship, the appropriations process. One of those other forced bipartisanships is the 60 votes in the Senate, right? So that means we've got to negotiate. And that could be leadership. Hakeem Jeffries, Mike Johnson, Senator Thune, Senator Schumer, that didn't happen, you know? There was not consensus, not negotiation, none of that. And as a result, if you need the votes, I mean, I hate to be a partisan or political hack here, but if you need the votes, you have to negotiate. And it's just not our rule, that's always the rule. So that was worth standing up for. Again, we weren't going to get everything. But I do think that extending those tax credits should have been a priority because of the cost that it's going to, that people are seeing already in their premiums increase.
GR: Yeah, I wanted to follow up with that with a question. It's going to take me just a couple minutes to develop, so if you’ll bear with me. But I really do want to get your reaction to this. I've been thinking a lot about these subsidies and reading about them. And the holdout did, you know, it accomplished a serious and separate look at that question. The Senate, though, has recently rejected both Republican and a Democratic version of health bills that would have addressed those things in different ways. As you mentioned, the subsidies expire on January 1st. There's about 24 million people that get health insurance through these market exchanges with these premiums and that's about 7% of the American population. People earning less than four times the federal poverty level qualify for subsidies, but the additional subsidies that are going to expire on January 1st, they applied to people regardless of income. They were instituted during the height of COVID, I think the thinking at the time was it would be a temporary source of help. The Kaiser Family Foundation, which is a nonprofit and nonpartisan research group, reported recently that the people that are going to be hardest hit by the expiration of these subsidies are basically two groups, high earners who are going to pay a lot more and then lower earners that will pay a little more, but it will feel like a lot to them, I'm sure. So, I wanted to put an argument to you though and get your reaction to it. Explain to me and to our listeners why all of us, as taxpayers, should support people who are this less than 10% of the population, and the rest of us, who are either outside these exchanges or in government funded programs like Medicare or Medicaid, why should the rest of us subsidize less than 10% of the population who are getting their insurance through these exchanges, particularly if they're high earners and they're getting these very, very large subsidies, which were never intended to be permanent?That answer doesn't seem obvious to me. So, explain this to me.
JM: It's a great question. It's a complicated question, and it requires a complicated answer and I will do my best. But I think we can all agree that we do need comprehensive health care reform. If we go back to the Affordable Care Act being passed, the attempt was made there to make sure that people in this country all had coverage and it was all affordable. What we've seen since then is sometimes a partisan attack to try to dismantle it, and some of that has contributed to it not being, you know, perfect, let's say. When it was passed, not all about polling, but it was underwater, negative 10. Now the Affordable Care Act is plus 30 because of a lot of the positives there, like your kids being able to stay on your insurance up to age 26. There's things that are really beneficial out there. In a state like New York, we do have a lot of people with really good private insurance through their employer and also the state has tried to create their own programs to make it affordable care and affordable coverage. So, your question is, you're a taxpayer, I'm a taxpayer, why do I have to help someone else other than that? And this is where when we don't have a national health care system like we do in other countries, I think we're trying to make sure that there is accessibility and affordability for everyone, and that is where that comes from. Now, do we need to continue to work on it? We absolutely do. When you talk to the hospitals and the doctors, they will tell you that the fewer people that they have covered with health insurance, their revenue goes down. So, we want to make sure that people are covered, and that is quality coverage and affordable coverage. I'm all for committing to a bipartisan work group on comprehensive health care reform. You know, Medicare is a program that is widely popular, and yes, there's advantage programs beyond that. But, myself as Disabilities Chair of the New York State Senate, there's a lot of people that rely on Medicaid. And we have, these are big programs, but by and large, they're successful programs. And when you talk to people, if it weren't for Medicare and Medicaid, honestly, people would have worse coverage and may not be able to get the health care they need and therefore not be with us. So, you know, the mission of this country, like in public education, is to make sure that we are taking care of each other. We have to make sure that there's accountability, accountability for private insurance, accountability for waste, fraud and abuse, which is a term that's widely used by the other side. But there are auditors and investigators to make sure that we catch that, and we need greater accountability around that. Could we wipe out every public health care plan in this country, social safety net plans? I think by and large, people would say, no, let's not do that. But we do need reform and we can't get reform if we're not talking. And as you've seen, we don't have anything on the floor because we're not talking enough.
GR: When I was mulling through this, and maybe this is just a two sentence way of saying what you said with a lot more detail, but, my answer to my own question was, yes, we have a patchwork system, which you just described, this is one piece of that patchwork, and we all have a collective interest in making sure that it doesn't unravel. And so that's, you know, another possible system where we would all be in the same boat, is not what we have. And so, until we do something like that, we have to prop these things up.
JM: And I think more people are paying attention to where their tax dollars are going as it relates to health care. And honestly, you know, when they hear about Medicare or Medicaid, I think there's more robust conversations around that. I was on a different radio program where I talked about how hospitals, because the Medicaid, Medicare cuts and people falling off their insurance, was going to cause hospitals to lose revenue and make difficult decisions about what services they provide. And the person who's probably an avowed anti-Medicare for all person said, well, they're the hospital, like, they've got to provide that service and that's not how it works.
GR: If you've just joined us, you're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media. I'm Grant Reeher and my guest is Congressman John Mannion. Well, we could keep talking about health care, but we got about four minutes left. I want to try to get some other topics in. So, there's one, and I'm just dying to ask you this, it may push out the other ones, but I'm going to do it anyway. It's another thing I've been thinking a lot about. I'm wondering, in your caucus, there's got to be some conversation about looking toward the future and saying, at some point we're going to have to shift from the critical argument, the negative argument about Trump and the administration to putting forward a positive vision. And that's certainly going to have to happen in 2028. And I'm just wondering, I guess if you could be brief on this. Are you folks talking about that, are you wrestling with that? Is that something that, you know, behind closed doors you're hashing out?
JM: We absolutely are. And we want to bring forward a positive message. And I do think we have it, and it's about affordability. You know, we've got these tariffs. The tariffs have only made inflation worse. They are a tax on the people, we have to rein in those. I think part of the health care conversation is also an important one in an opportunity economy. So, we as freshman members actually in our caucus said we need to work together to develop an agenda. We have, you know, for what it's worth, listening sessions. But for me, it really is living in this area of the country my whole life. It's about affordability and opportunity and making sure that people have the opportunities here and they can afford to live here as it relates to homeownership, you know, groceries, insurance, etc..
GR: Two quick questions at the end. First one, you have been and have been in this conversation, a very strong critic of President Trump. Anything that the administration has done so far that you like, that you approve of?
JM: Well, listen, absolutely. You have to give credit where credit is due. Our air traffic control system with the FAA is long overdue and there's a commitment and investment to supporting that, I support that. You know, advancing legislation which is referred to as, you know, take it down legislation to make sure that people's privacy is protected. So, there are positives in there. And just like we talked about, with the discharge petitions, a restoration of collective bargaining rights, that is not, you know, signed into law by the president, but it is a show of bipartisanship and where we're working together. But I will always reject, including, you know, whenever this is broadcast, today there was the death of Rob Reiner, right? A tragedy, an American icon. And to take that opportunity and further divide us is not going to get us in a better place. And I'm always going to reject that as should all Americans.
GR: Yes. Well, last question, and just a few seconds here. Have you been trying to work across the aisle? You've talked a little bit about it, but can you just give me maybe two really quick examples of where you've worked across the aisle, who you've worked with?
JM: Absolutely. So, you know, I have legislation around supporting local journalism where we have co-sponsors that are out there. These are ways to make sure that we maintain and restore local journalism tax credits for the entities themselves who hire local reporters, tax credits for advertisers, tax credits for subscribers to get around the paywall and EMS Counts Act. Which means that we count our first responders appropriately so that they receive the appropriate amount of funding. We continue to build bipartisan support around those pieces of legislation and others. And this week, going to the floor of the House, whole milk back in schools.
GR: All right, we'll have to leave it there. You've been very busy, that's obvious. That was Congressman John Mannion. Congressman Mannion, thanks again for making the time to talk, really appreciate it.
JM: Thank you so much, Grant. Always a pleasure to be on.
GR: You've been listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media, conversations in the public interest.
Craig Shirley on the Campbell Conversations
Dec 13, 2025
Craig Shirley
Program transcript:
Grant Reeher: Welcome to the Campbell Conversations. Last Sunday was December 7th. I wonder how many of you gave that day serious thought. My guest today will help us do that. Craig Shirley is a political consultant and a noted biographer of Ronald Reagan, and he’s also the author of, "December 1941: 31 Days that Changed America and Saved the World." Mr. Shirley, welcome to the program.
Craig Shirley: Thank you, Grant, thank you very much.
GR: We appreciate you making the time to be with us. So let me just start with a kind of a basic question about this historical event. What do you think is the most important thing about either the Pearl Harbor attack or its immediate aftermath that most Americans don’t know today?
CS: Well, I think the most obvious is that it completely changed America's outlook from being an isolationist country to becoming an internationalist country, that changed overnight. Isolationism had been prevalent in the United States from the end of World War One right up until December 7th, 1941. You know, there was a saying going around America after World War One that all we got was death, debt and George M. Cohan, and we became an increasingly internationalist country as we limited immigration from Japan as we passed various neutrality acts in the 1930s, passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by a Democratic president. And by 1941, everybody was isolationist. FDR, the White House, everybody knew war was coming, but everybody also had their head in the sand and wanted to avoid war at all costs with either Germany, Italy or Japan.
GR: Yeah. You know, your answer is interesting because it, that's exactly the question I was going to ask you a little bit later, but I'll follow up on it now. I was going to point to that isolation, but you already described it very well. And the fact that this was a very quick pivot point, I mean, it just, like you say, this changed overnight. And I was trying to think of, have there been any other similar moments in our history like that? The only thing that I could come up with was maybe the firing on Fort Sumter, but even then there was a lot of lead up to that and so I couldn't, you know, yeah.
CS: Yes. There was, I'm trying to think also, I suppose after, during the War of 1812, we barred immigration, obviously, from Great Britain and also, not from France, but from Great Britain and we became, we were somewhat of an isolationist country more because of the distance than anything else until Matthew Perry sailed into Tokyo Bay. And then we, obviously the Spanish-American War was an internationalist war. But we've gone through periods, you know, where we've been isolationist and internationalist and isolationist and internationalists again, but we've been pretty much internationalists since 1941, sometimes more expansively, other times less expansively. But even Trump, you know, people say he's an isolationist, but he did, he solved eight wars around the world. He’s solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and he's trying to stop the war in Ukraine. So even, you know, so he's accused of that, but it's really not true. It's just that I don't think he's as activist as other presidents have been in the past.
GR: Certainly seems more reluctant than previous presidents to commit ground troops and that seems to be a line that he has drawn on that. Well let me, let me go back to the, yeah go ahead.
CS: Let me just say one thing, Grant, is just that anti-communism animated a lot of that response on our part from 1946 up until the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1991.
GR: Right, right, yes, that was a that was a major part of our internationalism. Well, let me go back to this attack of the Japanese. And I think looking back on it now, it's hard, I think, to believe that an attack of that magnitude could have surprised the Americans so much. So how did the Japanese pull that off?
CS: You know, military planners still study it today because of the precision it was carried off with, because of the professionalism, obviously, the stealth that it was carried off with. Because don't forget, is that on December 7th and 8th, the Japanese just didn't hit Honolulu, they just didn't hit Pearl Harbor, they hit Wake Island, they hit the Philippines, they hit Indochina. They hit, you know, a half dozen different locations simultaneously orchestrated and organized, all at the same time, which was really, you know, just from the standpoint of accomplishment, it was a masterstroke in a way, because, you know, I mean, you just didn't think that they could get away with that. Of course they'd already been in China and they'd already gotten into bad relations with the United States because of their rape of Nan King and they probably murdered 250,000 civilians when they invaded China in 1939. So there was already bad blood there between the United States. I always believed China was an ally of the United States in 1939. But, I’m losing train of my thought, I guess, but is that we did everything we could to avoid war with Japan. The secretary of state, you know, set out a four point plan. He offered the Japanese something like $25 million, we would lift the oil embargo, we would lift the junk metal embargo and Japan, in turn, had to sign a proclamation of peace and that they would invade no more countries and they rejected this. So we really tried to avoid war with Japan before December 7th.
GR: Was it maybe the surprise then came from a little bit of wishful thinking that we would avoid that war?
CS: It was absolutely it was wishful thinking. But you know, it was also, you know, they moved a carrier fleet, four of their first line carriers and escort ships 4000 miles across the Pacific without being detected, then launched this completely surprise attack using 300 planes on Pearl Harbor. And when they did so, it reminded me what Frank Borman said. Frank Borman was an astronaut who was charged with the investigation of the fire of Apollo 1, and when he was testifying before Congress a senator asked him, he says, how did this happen? And he says, Senator, it was a failure of imagination. And that's what happened here, we just didn't believe, we didn't imagine that the Japanese would be so audacious or they would be so intent on war, Tojo was intent on a war. That they could transport these four carriers plus escort ships, refueling ships, and I think they made two stops in the Atlantic or the Pacific to refuel, then carried on, and then withdrew their forces without ever getting harmed whatsoever, not even a shot fired at them. And it was just, we never imagined that they would take that monumental step and initiate World War Two.
GR: I’m Grant Reeher, you're listening to the Campbell Conversations, and my guest is Craig Shirley. He’s the author of, "December 1941: 31 Days that Changed America and Saved the World." So, we got a bit lucky, though, as bad as the attack was that day, regarding our navy. Briefly remind us of how that happened.
CS: Well, you're absolutely right, we were lucky in a number of ways. The Japanese main target was the, was our four aircraft carriers that were there, stationed at Pearl Harbor. But they had only recently left, two went back to San Diego to be repaired. One was down in the Coral Sea, that was Bill Halsey's carrier. He was out at sea, and so none of the carriers were actually there in Pearl Harbor, so they escaped the carnage. We were also lucky in another regard. And people have thought about this, is that everybody in America was mad that we didn't go out and attack the Japanese after they attacked us. But if we sent our ships out, they would have been slaughtered, we would've been wiped out. The Japanese ships had much better firepower, much thicker plating, and could survive an attack, whereas their shells would have gone right through the hulls of most of our ships. The ships were built much more for speed than for protection. And they would have been, the whole, you know, instead of losing 3,000 men as we did on December 7th, we would have lost maybe 30,000 men if we got into an open fight with the Japanese.
GR: And had much less of a navy.
CS: Yes.
GR: So, you obviously get into a lot of the stories about heroism and sacrifice on that day. Is there one story that sticks with you the most, after you wrote the book?
CS: Well, I got to think about that one, Grant, because there's so many stories.
GR: Yeah, it’s a tough question.
CS: There's so many stories. There's, is that the heroism of the nurses treating the injured, the badly injured sailors at the hospital, that in itself is worth a book right there. The nurses who have been killed, nurses who have been injured, who still managed to get back to the hospital and managed to treat many of the wounded, you know, in surgeries and drawing blood and, you know, applying anesthesia and doing whatever they could, so that in itself is one. I think also, you know, you have to say, Dory Miller's actions when she received the Navy Cross for need to be cited. Dory Miller was an African-American, was a ship's steward, was not trained for combat. And it's interesting, too, he was named Dory because his real name was Doris. And the story is, his father, his mother and father had five sons, and the father wanted a daughter, and he ended up with, Dory was the sixth and the father named Doris, even though he was a boy, because he wanted a daughter so badly. So he named him Doris, so he got the nickname Dory. But Dory went to the stern of a ship, manned a machine gun and managed to blast away at several Japanese zeros. And I think, in fact, he shot down several, but he was brave in the face of terrible tragedy and carnage all around him. And he later received the Navy Cross and, of course, the sad part of the end of the story of Dory Miller is that, he was we went back into combat, okay, I got one other good story too, I'll tell you, is that he went right back into combat and was lost in a battle, was killed in a battle (in) 1943 and was lost at sea, remains were never found. There's something like 80,000 Americans who were lost at sea in World War Two, lost in the Pacific, whose remains were never found. One other story I can tell you is that, you know, whenever I go out and give talks about my books, I always ask people, I said, you know, your history, your memories are so important to historians, and there are lots of repositories now on the internet. You know, there's the World War Two museum down in New Orleans and other places. Please record your stories, your big stories, your little stories, your stories about sacrifice or victory gardens or whatever else, is that because to the historians, they’re invaluable. And this one woman raised her hand and said, Mr. Shirley, I have a story.I said, what's that? She said, my father was on the USS Oklahoma on December 7th, 1941, which as you know, the only two battleships who were sunk and destroyed, were sunk, was USS Arizona, which was of course obliterated, and the USS Oklahoma, which took four Japanese torpedoes, capsized and sunk. It was later refloated, but it had to be fixed, be repaired substantially. But her father was a mechanic below decks and he was there when the ship capsized. And for a week he was in, he was hanging by a pipe in greasy, dirty, cold water. The sounds of men screaming all around him, screaming and dying. And he was there for a week until he finally heard the sound, you know, of course, sailors were tapping on the hulls. A week later, he heard the sound of acetylene torches, and the whole time he didn't know whether it was the Americans coming to save him or Japanese coming to kill him.
GR: Wow.
CS: But what is interesting, he wasn’t sent stateside, you know, said, well, you've got traumatic stress disorder, you have to go to recover at home. He was sent right back into the fleet and served all four years of the war.
GR: Wow. You're listening to the Campbell conversations on WRVO Public Media. I'm Grant Reeher and I'm talking with Craig Shirley. He's a noted biographer of Ronald Reagan and he's also the author of, "December 1941: 31 Days that Changed America and Saved the World" and we've been discussing that historical event. So, you mentioned a little bit earlier in our conversation that the focus of the United States post-World War Two being that of fighting communism, you know, opposing the Soviet Union. And I wanted to ask you a question that might be related to that in a way, and that has to do with the American views toward Japan and the Japanese. Obviously, they became very negative during the war. Today, they are our very good friends, and we see them as some kind of partial counterbalance in a way to China in that area of the world. When did our views toward them start to soften post-World War Two? Was there a particular event or development that was instrumental in that, or was it the Cold War that really shifted our thinking?
CS: I think it was a number of things, Grant. I think that Douglas MacArthur was, of course, the Supreme commander of the Pacific Forces and then became the steward of Japan after World War Two. And what he did to rebuild the Japanese society and economy and culture is absolutely amazing. He really should have gotten the Nobel Peace Prize for what he did to rebuild Japan and bring Western values that, you know, women would get the vote and they would no longer be, you know, is that it was not state policy to discriminate against them anymore or, you know, or promote some kind of macho, which is what it was before the Shogun culture before and during World War Two, it no longer prevailed after World War Two. What he did with their industrial plant, with so many things, is that so they became, I think they really appreciated, the Japanese people really appreciate what Douglas MacArthur did for them. And that helped warm relations greatly between Japan, the United States, and, of course, the Communist philosophy was not something it was interesting to the Japanese people. They didn't they didn't want collectivism, they'd been introduced to the profit motive and they'd been introduced to consumerism. And that's what they wanted, a Western style economy and Western style government and a Western style society. And so that also repelled them from the Soviets and moved them toward the United States during the Cold War.
GR: And I wanted to ask this other question too. You have obviously spoken to a lot of people about this event. You've done a lot of talks about the book, and I was thinking about this, that among the Americans who weren't alive in 1941, which is the vast majority of us at this point.
CS: Yes.
GR: I imagine there is some kind of, still, some kind of generational divide in the immediacy of this event for people in their memories. I'll give you an example, take myself. My father fought in World War Two, Pearl Harbor is part of my working memory. Is there a generation where, in your experience, where this becomes ancient history for people like, that happened just a really long time ago, and it's not foremost in their mind?
CS: I think that's true, but what made World War Two different from, say, the Vietnam War or even World War One is that FDR, you'll never find me criticizing FDR. I think he was, together he and Churchill saved the world from fascism and from Nazism. You know, I mean, the New Deal didn't work, but FDR was trying to get the economy going. You'll never find me criticizing either Eleanor Roosevelt or Franklin Roosevelt, despite, you know, their being Democrats and my background is Republican, is that he got all the American people, all the American people had a stake in the war, it wasn't just the young men who were enlisting and who were then later drafted. My father was, as an example, my father was a Boy Scout during World War two. And his job, this is the government using the Boy Scouts, to hang up promotional posters at supermarkets and bars and restaurants and churches like, ‘Loose Lips Sink ships’, and, ‘Johnny Got His Zero’ he got another zero, you know, and stuff like that. And then my mother had her own victory garden, and I thought victory gardens before I started this book, I thought it was kind of a PR stunt by the FDR administration. My mother got indignant when I asked her about it because she's still alive, she's 94, she's still alive. And she got indignant, she said, I had a victory garden and everybody knew had a victory garden. And I did a little research, and I found by 1943, something like 40% of all vegetables eaten, consumed in the States were grown in victory gardens because we were sending everything overseas to not just the American fighting men, to the Russian fighting men, to the to the British fighting man, to the Australian fighting man, to the Chinese, to the free Chinese, to the French underground. You know, that's why I say FDR was literally president of the world during World War Two because he was arming and supplying all these other countries and not just the United States. So, I don't know where I'm ending up with this, but what he did, it really unified Americans to fight against the war. So as a result, everybody had a stake in the war. Everybody, you know, engaged in scrap drives and rubber drives and paper drives and everybody, you know, it's interesting, Grant, because in, I wrote about that four years, five years after December 7th, never once did I find a letter to an editor or editorial board, anybody complaining about the sacrifice or the rationing or anything. Nobody ever, nobody complained about going without gasoline or going with little gasoline. The national speed limit was set in during World War Two, the national speed limit was 35 miles an hour. Can you imagine driving from New York to California at 35 miles an hour?
GR: (laughter)
CS: You know, it would take you months. But nobody complained, nobody complained. Everybody was part of the effort.
GR: It was a different, yeah. I see what you're saying about the uniqueness of this particular time. If you've just joined us, you're listening to the Campbell Conversations. I'm Grant Reeher and my guest is Craig Shirley. He's the author of, "December 1941: 31 Days that Changed America and Saved the World". I want to get you to engage, we've got about, oh, I don't know, 4 or 5 minutes left. I want to try to squeeze in maybe three questions if I can. First one is I want to get you to engage in a little alternative history if you don't mind. What do you think would have been America's path had the Japanese not attacked us that December?
CS: We would have continued to be an isolationist country. The United Nations would have never been created, we may not have gone into Korea, we may not have gone to Vietnam. We would continue being an isolationist country, you know, one of Newton’s three laws was that, you know, an object in motion has a tendency to stay in motion. Well, we were in motion toward isolationism. You know, very well that Charles Lindbergh might have been elected President of the United States in 1944 / 1948. It was interesting too is that everybody was isolationist. Republicans and Democrats were equally, they were all, Democrats and Republicans were all part of the America First movement. They were going to run candidates in every congressional district in 1942. We would have continued that way because the bad taste of World War One would have continued unabated throughout the next few succeeding generations. I mean, we may have become a little bit more internationalist in the face of communism, but I think we still would have remained more of an isolationist country than international country had Japan not attacked.
GR: And I guess I have to wonder what would have happened in Europe had that not happened. Let me ask you a related question to that, it's more depressing, actually. Let's imagine something like this were to happen today, god forbid, in our current political climate, do you think that this country would be able to unite the way it did in World War Two?
CS: No.
GR: Or do you think we would just immediately descend into mutual recriminations? It was your fault, no, it was your fault. Would the country be even further divided?
CS: You know, many republics fail in their third century. You know, Greece, Rome, France is on the fifth republic. Is that, I'm not sure that America is special enough to survive its third century. Because, now, let me just say, is that we've always been this nonsense about unity, we've only been united twice in our lives. That was for several years after December 7th, 1941, and for several months after September 11th. But even September 11th fell into sharp partisan disagreement over everything, our union deals and over the war and over men and material, over the economy, everything. And I think that it would just be the same way, only worse, is that we've been, historians will tell you that maybe 30% of the American people were against the war with, the Revolutionary War, the war with King George III in England. And as a matter of fact, is that after the Revolutionary War, 100,000 Americans got on sailing ships and left the United States because they did not want to live under Republican rule, small, our Republican rule, they did not want to live, they wanted to live under the British crown. And so they left and they went to Jamaica, they went back to Europe, they went a lot of places. And it's been that way every time, whether, the Civil War was about our very divisions and World War One, it took three weeks to agree on a war declaration, and three dozen congressmen voted against it. So those are the only two times, December 7th and September 11th.
GR: Okay, I’m going to put you on the spot this last question, you literally have five – ten seconds to answer it, but it's about movies about Pearl Harbor. They've made a bunch of them. My favorite still is, “From Here to Eternity”, but that's more of an interpersonal drama. Which one do you think does the best job of capturing what it was like?
CS: “Tora! Tora! Tora!”
GR: Okay, great. We'll have to leave it there, it was a fascinating conversation. That was Craig Shirley. And again, his book is titled, "December 1941: 31 Days that Changed America and Saved the World". It's a great read and you'll learn a lot about America when you check it out. Thanks so much for making the time to talk with me.
CS: Thank you very much. Merry Christmas.
GR: You too. You've been listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media, conversations in the public interest.
Judith Enck on the Campbell Conversations
Dec 06, 2025
Judith Enck
Program transcript:
Grant Reeher: Welcome to the Campbell Conversations, I'm Grant Reeher. You've probably heard something about the danger of plastics, but has it changed any of your behavior? Today, we take a deep dive into the problem with plastics with my guest, Judith Enck. Professor Enck teaches at Bennington College and is the founder and president of Beyond Plastics. She served in the Environmental Protection Agency during the Obama administration and also served in New York State government as a deputy secretary for the environment. Professor Enck is with me today because she's written a new book with Adam Mahoney titled, appropriately, “The Problem with Plastic: How We Can Save Ourselves and Our Planet Before It's Too Late.” Professor Enck, welcome to the program.
Judith Enck: Thanks, Grant. It's a real pleasure to be with you, thanks for having me.
GR: Well, we really appreciate you making the time. So, before we get into some of the arguments that you make in your book, I wanted to start with just a very basic question for our listeners and just to remind us all, what is plastic made from and how is it made?
JE: Well, plastic is a very durable material that never biodegrades. It's made from fossil fuels and 16,000 different chemicals. And it really was brought into commerce right after World War two. It was created by a guy from upstate New York named Leo Bakelite (Baekeland), and it has dramatically increased in the last decade or two. And that's because plastics used to be made from chemicals and crude oil. Now it's made from chemicals and ethane, which is a byproduct of fracking. Because there's a glut of fracked gas on the market is why we are seeing the proliferation of plastics.
GR: Okay. So what are the qualities about plastic that have made it so ubiquitous over time? It's obviously light and somewhat strong, what else do we need to know about it?
JE: Well, it's durable, it's heat-resistant. You can make many, many different colors. I mean, the way I want to answer this is explaining why it's mostly not recyclable. So, take an aluminum can. You can recycle that aluminum can into a new aluminum can. Take a newspaper, you can recycle that into new paper products, cardboard paper. Plastics are made from many different types of plastic polymers. There are 16,000 chemicals used to make plastic in many, many different colors. So that's what makes up plastic. So that also makes it really hard to recycle. Think of your own home or apartment, you might have a bright orange hard plastic detergent bottle near your washing machine.
GR: I do, I do.
JE: In your refrigerator, you may have a black plastic takeout container. Those two things cannot get recycled together because they're different types of plastics, they're different colors. So the people who knew for decades that plastics are really hard to recycle and why we have in this country an abysmal plastic recycling rate of only 5 to 6%. The people who know this are the companies that make plastics. And yet they have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising telling us, don't worry about all your single use plastic, just toss it in your recycling bin, knowing full well that most plastic never gets recycled. And the deception is so serious that California Attorney General Rob Bonta sued ExxonMobil in September of 2024 for deception around plastics recycling. So, keep recycling your paper, cardboard, metal, glass. Please, please, please compost your yard waste and your food waste. But recognize that plastic recycling has been an abysmal failure.
GR: Interesting. I knew that a lot of plastic wasn't recycled, but I didn't know exactly why. So that's very, yeah, I appreciate that. Well, briefly as an overview, and then we'll get into some of the specifics as we go, but briefly as an overview, what's the problem with plastic overall? You mentioned that it doesn't biodegrade, what are the other problems?
JE: Well, it's entering our ocean in a rapid fashion. 71% of the Earth's surface is ocean and every single minute two giant garbage trucks, the equivalent of two giant garbage trucks, dump plastic into the ocean. So we are turning our ocean into a watery landfill. Second big problem is climate change. I mentioned that today, plastics are made from a byproduct of fracking. That is making the climate crisis worse. Third, we have the really significant concern of environmental justice. Most plastic is manufactured in Texas, Louisiana and Appalachia, doing enormous health damage to people living near these plastic production facilities. There's a stretch of the Mississippi River, which we talk about in the book, between New Orleans and Baton Rouge called ‘Cancer Alley,’ and that's because of the concentration of petrochemical facilities making people sick. Johns Hopkins recently did a study where they documented the cancer rates in Cancer Alley are seven times higher than the national average. So, I have visited communities in Port Arthur, Texas, the Houston Ship Channel, up and down Cancer Alley. These have become sacrifice zones, government regulations have failed these people living in these communities. And because most plastics never get recycled, if you go to the other end of the spectrum, what happens to them after they're manufactured and used? They mostly get released into the environment inadvertently and into water bodies, or they go to landfills or garbage incinerators. Those disposal facilities are typically sited in low-income communities and / or communities of color. So environmental justice is a big part of this book and part of the dedication in the book. The fourth major issue is just taxpayer savings. You and I, as taxpayers spend a lot of money getting rid of non-recyclable plastics when we think we could do a lot better on reducing the amount of plastics and also shifting to reusable, refillable products. And then finally, we have the health issue with plastics. So it's people being poisoned near plastic manufacturing facilities. But you and I have little shards of plastic known as microplastics in our bodies. We breathe them in through our nose or we swallow them. So just in the last few years, there have been peer-reviewed scientific studies documenting the presence of microplastics in our blood, our kidneys, our lungs, in the human placenta, both the fetal side and the maternal side, in testicles, in breast milk, also in our heart arteries, the microplastics attached to plaque. And a study found increased risk of stroke, heart attack and premature death if you've got microplastics on plaque. And then finally, there's a study documenting that microplastics pass through the blood-brain barrier. And that has been linked to Alzheimer's disease and other neurological disorders. Now, I want to emphasize that we need more of these studies. You don't make a solid conclusion based on one study. But we now have multiple studies looking at different parts of the human body and I'm willing to go out on a limb and say, no amount of microplastics in our brains or our heart arteries are acceptable.
GR: Kind of like smoking. Well, you've anticipated so many of my questions. We're going to dive into some of these things as we go forward. I'm Grant Reeher, you're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media and my guest is Judith Enck. She's a professor at Bennington College and the author of “The Problem with Plastic: How We Can Save Ourselves and Our Planet Before It's Too Late.” I did have one question before I pursue some of the things that you've just brought up there in your answer. And that is, are certain kinds of plastics or plastics in certain forms more dangerous than other kinds of plastics?
JE: Yes. So we're very focused on PVC plastic, polyvinyl chloride. 99% of the highly toxic chemical vinyl chloride is used to make PVC plastic. Vinyl chloride is a carcinogen. We've urged the federal Environmental Protection Agency to ban vinyl chloride. Some of your listeners might know the community East Palestine, Ohio, where just over two years ago, a train derailed.
GR: Yes.
JE: And very unwisely, the governor and the rail company decided, rather than carefully removing the vinyl chloride from the train cars and what was released into the environment, they decided to do an open burn and just set it on fire so that the rail corridor can open more quickly. I think East Palestine is just an incredible visual of the problem of moving vinyl chloride all over the country, and it's mostly used to make polyvinyl chloride plastic. So we've got a real focus on vinyl chloride. I'm also concerned with plastics that are used in food and beverage packaging. When that plastic gets warm or hot, you may have leaching into your food or your beverage. People who, for instance, put frozen food in a plastic container into the microwave, they may notice it tastes a little plasticky when it's fully cooked.
GR: Because it is. (laughter)
JE: Yes, it leaches into the food. And so if people have learned nothing else from this radio show, please do not put plastic into the microwave because you're going to get some chemical leaching. And unfortunately, the FDA is very quick to approve the use of plastic in packaging, including recycled plastic, which is incredibly problematic.
GR: Well, you mentioned the microplastics that we breathe in and, you know, are in our organs. I'm wondering, is that what when I hear conversations about forever chemicals forever plastics, that's what you're getting at?
JE: Not exactly.
GR: Not exactly, okay. So what's the difference?
JE: So, the microplastics are like physically little shards of plastic five millimeters or less. The chemicals hitchhike on the little pieces of plastic. So forever chemicals, which is PFOA and PFAS, they are used in plastics. So, it's a double threat. It's the physicality of the little pieces of plastic and then the chemicals hitchhiking on the little pieces of plastic that we're concerned about.
GR: And those little pieces of plastic, that's when I read about the ocean teeming with these things. That's what they're talking about, that's what you’re talking about.
JE: Yeah, the plastics. Well, there are these big islands on the surface of the ocean, they're called gyres. And they're a little bit of a misleading image because when plastic makes it into the ocean, and the way it gets there is, let's say you're walking down the street in Syracuse, and somehow a plastic wrapper gets away from you, something light, you didn't litter it on purpose, but it happens. And it rains, it gets into the storm drain and then goes into a stream, a river, and then eventually the ocean. It gets out into the ocean, it's exposed to sunlight, it gets brittle. And then the wave action acts almost like a paper cutter. So one hamburger wrapper becomes hundreds of little pieces of plastic. Most of the plastic in the ocean falls to the sea floor, it's not on the surface of the water, and it is eaten by fish and sea turtles and seabirds. There are these terrible, iconic photos of seabirds, albatross in particular. They consume plastic, they feel like they're full, so they stop eating calories and they die. And then scientists do autopsies, and there are these photos of their guts filled with plastic. If it's a red bottle cap, for instance, they think it's shrimp and they eat it. So, plastics are devastating the ocean. And remember, the ocean covers nearly 71% of the Earth's surface, it's a major source of protein for many people around the world. And we know that the microplastics are building up in the marine food chain.
GR: You're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media. I'm Grant Reeher and I'm talking with Judith Enck. She's a professor at Bennington College, has served in the Obama administration and in New York State government, and is the author of a new book titled “The Problem with Plastic: How We Can Save Ourselves and Our Planet Before It's Too Late.” So, I wanted to come back to something you mentioned in the first part of our conversation about the fact that the dangers in making plastic and in dealing with it are not equally distributed across different groups of society in this country, and I imagine also probably in terms of countries in the world, I imagine the southern hemisphere probably gets more of the byproduct of all this than we have to deal with. So, curious to hear a little bit more about that, the injustices that you see.
JE: Yeah. Thank you for raising this. So, you're right, the plastics are being manufactured in low-income communities and communities of color in the Gulf South and Appalachia. And then there's a huge amount of waste plastic exported to the global South and other countries. So just really harrowing depictions of waste plastic going to Indonesia, to the Philippines, to Vietnam. And I highly recommend that people watch the movie called, “The Story of Plastic,” which is available on the website of the NGO called, “The Story of Stuff.” I teach a class on plastic pollution through Bennington College, and it's available on Zoom and people can audit it. Most of the students are actually auditors, and every semester we show that movie, “The Story of Plastic,” and talk about it and it really puts the spotlight on the export of plastic to other nations that are not equipped to handle it, just like we are not here. In terms of the United States, I think I can best summarize the situation by reading the dedication to the book, which I'll do quickly.
GR: Okay.
JE: “By design, low-income people and communities of color bear the burden of plastics. The destructive web of plastics gathers in their neighborhoods, rivers, air, and bodies. We dedicate this book to those living in the shadow of plastics facilities in Louisiana, Texas, Appalachia, and elsewhere, in the sincere belief that they should live in a world beyond plastics, and that such a world is within our reach.”
GR: Well, that's a perfect segue to what I wanted to ask you about now, which is what is within our reach? And so how should we be thinking about what we need to be doing differently? You do write in your book about what you call false solutions. What are these and why are these dangerous?
JE: Well, there's a bunch of false solutions that are promoted by the plastics industry because they don't want to reduce the production of plastics. There's something called chemical recycling, which is heating plastic to a very high temperature and then turning it into low grade fossil fuel, the last thing we need. There are some companies that want to turn waste plastic into plastic bricks. Well, what happens if those bricks catch fire? And also, what happens with plastic bricks and plastic lumber is there's abrasion. And then when it's exposed to sunlight and then you've got little bits of microplastics falling into the soil and into the air. So what we see is whenever we advocate for policies that reduce plastic, whether it's a plastic bag ban to promote reusable bags or utensils only upon request when you get takeout food, like, we all have these kitchen drawers that are just overflowing with plastic utensils and straws and condiments that we're never going to use. There's a bill pending in the legislature that said, you only get that stuff if you ask for it, and it'll save restaurants money, by the way. Whenever ideas like that surface, the army of lobbyists show up in the city council, the state legislature, and say, no, no, no, we don't need to reduce plastics, we can use chemical recycling, or we can turn it into to decking in your back deck. And none of them are sustainable or healthy options.
GR: If you’ve just joined us, you're listening to the Campbell Conversations. I'm Grant Reeher and my guest is Judith Enck. She's the author of “The Problem with Plastic: How We Can Save Ourselves and Our Planet Before It's Too Late.” So, you also put forward what you argue are better solutions. I think we've got an inkling of some of them, you've mentioned them along the way, ways to use less plastic. But tell us what those solutions are and why they're better.
JE: Well, we cannot shop our way out of the problem. No matter how careful you are, you cannot avoid plastic in your typical supermarket. So, we really need to see policy reform or systemic change. For instance, there's a bill pending in the New York State Legislature called the Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act. It requires a 30% reduction in single-use packaging stretched out over 12 years. Not 30% in two years, it's 10%, then 20% then 30% over 12 years. The bill also bans 17 of the most toxic chemicals used to make packaging. Chemicals like the PFAS forever chemicals, lead, mercury, cadmium. We really prefer that not be in packaging. And again, it's reasonable. There are 17,000, I'm sorry, there are 16,000 chemicals used to make plastic, we're looking at prohibiting just over a dozen. Third, it prohibits what we just talked about, chemical recycling is counting as real recycling. And then finally, it authorizes modest fees on packaging with this new money going to local governments and the private sector to support better recycling and waste reduction. So better recycling doesn't help us on plastic, but it does help us on paper, cardboard, metal, glass. But also having money for waste reduction, reuse, refill is so important. What does that mean? It means your local school could install dishwashing equipment so children are served food on real dishes rather than single-use plastic. Some of us go to the airport and we refill our water bottle with, hopefully not a plastic water bottle at a water refill station. Why don't we have water refill stations where lower-income folks travel like bus stations and train stations and every public park? There was a time when you had water fountains in public parks and Main Street. So that re-use, refill infrastructure takes money. Why don't we have refillable wine bottles in the Finger Lakes? Wineries are very interested in that because they're spending a lot of money buying new bottles every time. But we need a commercial bottle washing operation in the Finger Lakes so those bottles can be returned and sanitized. So, we're going to solve the problem in 120 different ways. But we need a new law like the Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act to be adopted to incentivize all of this. So this bill has passed in the New York State Senate, two years in a row, thank you Senator Rachel May of Syracuse for voting yes.
GR: She's a frequent guest on the program, I should say. Go ahead.
JE: Love, love, love Senator May. And we now have to get it through the Assembly, where we're asking Speaker Carl Heastie to bring the bill up for a vote. It's on the floor now, it doesn't even have to go through committee. So, 2026 is an election year, there's an army of lobbyists opposing the bill. But local governments, taxpayers, medical experts, environmentalists, civic leaders need to come together. And in fact, there will be a big lobby day in Albany to bring average citizens to the state capitol, to advocate in support of the bill and that will be on Monday, February 2nd. And listeners can go to beyondplastics.org to get information on how to register for the lobby day or just information on this bill if they want to drop a note or make a phone call to their state Assemblymember and state senator.
GR: Okay, who's leading the way right now on these kinds of things? And I mean that in terms of countries and states within the United States and then any localities that you think? You know, you teach in Vermont, I often associate Vermont with great environmental efforts, but who are the folks that are out in front on this?
JE: Trance, to a degree, they're promoting reusables, but unfortunately, a lot of it is plastic. But they're doing some other good work. There are countries in Africa that have adopted single use plastic bans. In the United States, it's spotty, but the leadership's actually coming from local governments. Vermont passed something called the Plastics Trifecta all in one bill. It banned polystyrene foam food packaging, banned plastic bags, and also takeout plastic, you know, the utensils if you ask for it. Vermont's pretty good. New York City adopted some pretty good laws that the state then followed. California is screwing things up across the board on waste issues, which was a little surprising to me. For instance, they passed a plastic bag ban ten years ago, but they allowed for thicker, single-use plastic bags, and it took them ten years to fix that. The leadership is coming from local governments and then occasional states, but we've got a long way to go. This is the long game and unfortunately, Washington, DC is not doing anything helpful. In fact, they are hurting on the plastics and toxics issue, whether it's Congress or the EPA.
GR: I'm going to be very unfair to you here at the end, we only have just a few seconds. But the one last thing I wanted to ask you is, in a lot of ways, this is all been very depressing, enlightening, but depressing. Can you just leave us in 10, 15 seconds with a thought that's going to lift us back up again?
JE: Yeah. You know, the book includes profiles of amazing people who are working in difficult communities. People like Sharon Levine in Cancer Alley, Diane Wilson in San Antonio Bay, Texas, who are really taking on special interests and winning. So, plastic can be a little discouraging, but we're also seeing progress, and ordinary people can make a difference when they come together.
GR: Perfect, thank you. We'll have to leave it there. That was Judith Enck, and again, her new book, written with Adam Mahoney, is titled “The Problem with Plastic: How We Can Save Ourselves and Our Planet Before It's Too Late.” It's an important book, and it's an important call to action. Professor, thanks so much for making time to talk with me, I really appreciated it.
JE: My pleasure. Thanks, Grant.
GR: You've been listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media, conversations in the public interest.
Erik Chaput on the Campbell Conversations
Nov 22, 2025
David Knapp and Maurice Brown on the Campbell Conversations
Nov 15, 2025
Program transcript:
Grant Reeher: Welcome to the Campbell Conversations, I'm Grant Reeher. One of the biggest surprises in the recent elections was the change in party control of the Onondaga County Legislature, which Democrats won all six seats that they contested, shifting the balance of power from 12 to 5 in favor of Republicans, to 10 to 7 in favor of Democrats. Joining me today to parse out why that happened and what it might mean are two members of the legislature who won their elections. Maurice, or Mo Brown, a Democrat, represents the 15th district, which is made up of a ring within the city of Syracuse on the east, south and west sides, kind of like a horseshoe around the inner part of the city there. David Knapp, a Republican, represents the 12th district, which includes the towns of Pompey, Fabius, Tully, Lafayette, and parts of DeWitt and Manlius. And as full disclosure, I should also mention that Legislator Brown was a student way back when, in one of my classes at Syracuse University, and I've also worked with Legislator Knapp in a veterans-oriented program at the university. Legislator Brown, let me start with you. Did you expect your party to pick up this many seats in the legislature? Were you surprised?
Maurice Brown: A little surprised, but there were, you know, telling signs that this could happen. And we kind of prepared for the possibility that it might happen. I put it at 10% to someone before. When you looked around the country, there were similar swings. The most notable example locally, when, Congresswoman Stefanik was thinking about running or she was going to get an appointment with the Trump administration, she turned it down. And the rumor was because they were expecting that seat to be vulnerable. If the North Country seat is vulnerable, then everything else, you know, logically is in play. And that kind of held true, you know, we saw swings as big as I think 14 points in district four, but, and I think the average was like a nine point swing. So yeah, the community wanted something different.
GR: And Legislator Knapp, same question to you. Did you see this coming?
David Knapp: Well, you know, like Mo, you know, there were some concerning things for me. You know, I think there might have been a little complacency out there, number one, and number two, you know, certainly when early voting kicked off and we saw the enthusiasm of the Democrats coming out to vote and, you know, the makeup of the early vote, I was, you know, I was definitely concerned a little bit. You know, there was a few seats that I knew were going to be really, really difficult. But there was a few that I thought we were okay in, that it'd be closer than usual, but they probably pull it through, that didn't. And so from that standpoint, yeah, I was surprised that, in a couple of seats, I'm not surprised in a few others.
GR: I want to come back to something you mentioned and ask Legislator Brown about it in a second. But let me ask you this question first, Legislator Knapp.
DK: Yeah.
GR: You had the luxury of not having an opponent, as I recall.
DK: Yup.
GR: But you also still went door to door and talked to people, too, as I believe. So, did you get any kind of inkling from the ground that something was different this year from doorstep conversations?
DK: Yeah, yeah. You know, I think people were, you know, not as much looking at local issues as national issues, you know, in talking to them. And, you know, so there definitely was a concern, you know, with the government shut down, you know, being the way it was and, you know, and just, you know, the polarization of things at the national level that, you know, inevitably are going to, you know, siphon down to the local level. That was a concern. You know, I talked to, just yesterday, I talked to a friend of mine who's a Democrat. And, you know, good guy, known him forever. So I was talking to him about it, and he just said, you know, overall, I've been pretty satisfied with the governance of Onondaga County. And, you know, in years past, I would, you know, maybe, crossover and vote for a Republican and stuff. But he said this year, with everything going on, I just found myself, you know, staying on the Democrat line and not even thinking about, you know, something else. And so, you know, I think that was absolutely a big piece of it.
GR: Well, Legislator Brown, Legislator Knapp mentioned the enthusiasm from the early voting on the part of the Democrats. And I'm going to put my political scientist hat on here for a second. Usually when you see something like this, particularly something that is up and down the ballot, it's often turnout, it's more about turnout than persuasion. Was your sense that it was, part of the phenomenon was just more Democrats making the point of going out and voting in a local election, and then maybe capitalizing on that ambivalence that on the Republican side, that legislator Knapp mentioned?
MB: I think it was a combination of all the things. I want to say turnout was 29% last week, which I'm told isn't particularly high, but they are correct. Like Dem turnout was slightly higher, but there was also Republican turnout being slightly lower. Like it was a combination of things. I think we as the Democratic caucus that we're running, we did a good job of highlighting the similarities between the national and the local. And I think the, you know, the Republican Party didn't do a good enough job of standing up to Trump. We acknowledge that, you know, Trump is a problem. Trump is making it hard for Republicans to run, and he's making it hard for Americans to live. I have a bias, and I won't run from that. But at the same time, the community wants people who are going to stand up to him. And when the Republicans didn't do it, and we did, I think it just created such a playing field that favored us heavily and we kind of never yielded it.
GR: Well, let me build on something that you've said there, and I'll ask this question to Legislator Knapp, but it has to do with why now in the sense of Onondaga County. Because we do know that President Trump has not been especially popular here for a while. And, Legislator Knapp, do you think if we're trying to answer the question, why did this happen in this election, as opposed to say, you know, two years ago or two years before that, is it, do you think it's the phenomenon that Legislator Brown's pointing out that there was a sense that Republicans aren't doing enough to provide some kind of boundary or guardrail on this president?
DK: Yeah, you know, potentially. But, you know, there's a few local, you know, hot button issues too that probably didn't help us as far as, you know, there's been a lot of talk about the inquiry and for example, whether that's, you know, a good investment or not, you know, so that certainly, you know, didn't necessarily help our cause. But, you know, we still got to do a little bit of a postmortem on why Republicans didn't get out. You know, just as an example, town of Manlius had 600 Republicans less than 2023 come out and vote. And why, you know? It's not like they came out and voted against us, they just stayed home. And so, you know, and in a town like Manlius, that's, you know, very close. You can't, yeah, you're not going to win with 600 people staying home. And so, you know, that's something we need to work on. It's going to be really interesting this next year with at least Stefanik running for governor. I'm really curious to see how she runs as far as, you know, she's been pretty close with the Trump administration in the past. Curious to see how she does this.
GR: Yeah, it's hard for me to imagine in a blue state, she's going to have to separate a little bit, but we'll have to see. You're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO public Media. I'm Grant Reeher and I'm speaking with Onondaga County legislators David Knapp and Maurice Brown. So, Legislator Brown, I'm curious, what difference is this going to make in the county's affairs and policies going forward? Legislator Knapp just mentioned the aquarium, for example. But what kinds of things do you see might be different than they would have been had the Republicans kept the majority?
MB: So, a lot of our candidates, myself included, we ran on transparency. One of the biggest things that we heard from voters at the doors was it just felt like decisions were happening around them. It feels like Micron is happening around them, it feels like the aquarium is happening around them, and they didn't really feel a part of that conversation. You know, this community, I think 81 is the biggest example, but we will discuss a topic. We will talk about the pros and cons of a big proposal for a long time. And it didn't happen with those projects, and it stood out to people. People want to be a part of government, people want a government that includes them. So it's something we plan on prioritizing as far as, you know, town halls, public forums, just ways for people to get more engaged with the government. I think that's a good start, and it's something we're, you know, looking forward to delivering on.
GR: Yeah. You mentioned several things I wanted to ask the two of you about. And so, Legislator Knapp, I’ll come back. You mentioned the aquarium, it has become something of a lightning rod of criticism for the McMahon administration and more generally, the legislature. Do you think there might be some blockage to it now, at this point?
DK: Well, you know, a lot of it has to do with what the legislature could do or can't do and where we are in the project. You know, I haven't talked to the county executive about it since the election. So, you know, I don't know what more contracts are in place, you know, a lot of the money's already been spent. I mean, the opening is, you know, nine months away. So, you know, it might be something where, you know, in that particular instance, you know, where the ship has sailed, so to speak. But, yeah, that's, you know, that's part of the discussion.
GR: And Legislator Brown, I definitely want to get your perspective on this. A big issue, at least it's been going on as long as I've been in Syracuse, which is now going on 35 years, is the relationship between the city and the surrounding towns and villages. And now we'll have a Democratic mayor and a Democratic majority in the legislature. Do you think that the city will have kind of a relatively stronger hand, or there'll be more active support for it at the county level than there was before?
MB: So I have a bias, I do represent a district located entirely within the city of Syracuse. So I would say, yeah, I would like for the city to be a bigger part of that conversation. Not necessarily that the city will have a disproportionate one. I just feel it's been balanced historically. So it's more balancing of that about, you know, 48% of the city residents pay 100% of the tax base. You know, we know these numbers. But a lot of the things that are located within the city, like the hospital, like the universities, these are the biggest, you know, job providers in the area. So like, the city is paying for those, but a lot of those, you know, employees, a lot of those jobs are going to Dewitt, are going to Salina or going to Cicero. So yeah, figuring out how to balance that, I think is going to be a lot easier said than done. But I do hope it's something we can, you know, prioritize. But because like I said, I do think historically it's been imbalanced, in favor of the suburbs at the expense of the city.
GR: And Legislator Knapp, so, you represent a mostly rural area geographically, and then you've got some suburbs then, too. And even those suburbs are kind of, some of them are a bit outer suburbs. Does this possibility of what I've suggested, does it concern you at all as a representative?
DK: No, actually no, not at all. Because I, you know, I always believe that the county can succeed if the city isn't succeeding. And, so over the years, you know, I actually in my original district had a one election district in outer Comstock, which was, that was an interesting district. But you know, so with like, with the Agriculture Council which I lead, for example, we've done a lot of work with urban agriculture to encourage, you know, we helped get the Brady Farm started which is a six acre farm on the south side of Syracuse, largest urban farm in the country. And, you know, working with the Martin Luther King School, you know, doing raised beds and things like that to, you know, talk about where your food comes from, growing your own food. And you know I voted years ago to help the city pave some streets when they were in tough shape, some of the streets around the county complex downtown and things like that, Adams Street and a few others. So, you know, I don't mind that at all. And obviously the lead issue is, you know, has no boundaries. It's in the city, in the towns, you know, a lot of old houses. My house was built in 1835, you know, there's lead paint all over the place. And so, I don't, you know, I don't see a problem. And I, you know, obviously a balance is what's needed. And, yeah, I've always said the city pays taxes too. So, yeah, no, I'm not afraid of that of that at all.
GR: You're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media. I'm Grant Reeher, and I'm talking with Onondaga County legislators Maurice Brown and David Knapp, and we've been discussing the recent county election results and what they might suggest going forward. Well, we've mentioned this a couple times, and my view, it's the elephant in the room for the county and the city… Micron. It's the biggest issue and opportunity for this region and at least a generation, perhaps more than that. But there have been concerns that have been raised about this project's impact, about how inclusively distributed the benefits from it will be, whether the city will start to become gentrified, who's going to take on the responsibility for the necessary growth and housing? As well as environmental and infrastructure concerns. This place is going to use a lot of energy, a lot of water. So, it's been my impression, and either one of you can correct me on this, but it's been my impression that most of those concerns have been the loudest on the Democratic side when they've been raised. And so, Legislator Knapp, I wanted to ask you this question first. Do you have concerns now that the county legislature has flipped and there is a Democrat in, going to be leading the city as mayor, do you have concerns that the progress on Micron might be impacted by this change in any way?
DK: No, I don't think so. I mean, you know, the Micron project gives us the, you know, the opportunity to, you know, not only grow the community but enrich the community. And, you know, I'm a believer in the old, you know, rising tide lifts all ships. You know, we have the opportunity to do that, but we have to be, you know, mindful that, you know, there's not one community that's bearing the brunt of it or one that's getting, you know, more of the benefit than others. You know, it's not just, you know, the city of Syracuse to be concerned about. I'm concerned about, you know, farmland protection and are we going to be, you know, paving over a lot of really, really rich farmland up there for housing developments or other things that, you know, might not be long term in our best interest. And so there's a lot of things to look at here, you know, I think the opportunity, you know, goes above local politics, obviously. You know, Senator Schumer has been very involved, you know, Governor Hochul as well. And so, you know, they're going to, you know, have a, you know, they're going to be talking to us about it too, if the pendulum swings, you know, too far one way or the other.
GR: And Legislator Brown, curious to get your take on this. So do you anticipate that some of these voices of concern, and maybe voices of dissent, may get more of a hearing now than they've had before?
MB: Yeah, I am. I do think more voices will be heard and there will be more outreach than in the past, but I more think it's just the misinformation. So, I'm very informed on the project because I sit in this position, but like the average citizen isn't. So, the average citizen has questions that I just don't have because I'm able to do that much homework. I want to bring the average citizen into it, because I think once they learn, you know, about the project, they'll be into it too, I call it the, you know, the Micron promise. It’s something that's not been offered to our children before, but we're going to be able to say, if you graduate from Corcoran High School, if you graduate from Henninger in three years, you can be making 80 grand plus in your community, like to give back to your own community. We've never been able to offer that to our young people, and I think that's wholly worth pursuing because that's life changing, it's generational changing. But at the same time, if that promise costs us, you know, a great lake, if it cost us a Finger Lake because of the environmental damage, then we have to, you know, pump the brakes and evaluate how we're doing this. But having done my homework, there are, you know, reasons for pause, but no reason for stop. I think we just need to do a better job of explaining to people what's going on, how the process is happening. And because we haven't done that, there's so much skepticism, there's so much criticism of it. But I think once we do that and more people learn about it, I think more people will get on board and get excited about it like I am.
DK: I think this delay that was just announced the last week, you know, I know a lot of people were disappointed by that. Quite frankly, I'm not. It gives us a little more time to catch our breath and, you know, we were going at a really serious clip there for a while, and so it's good to, yeah, maybe slow down a little bit and give us an opportunity to, yeah, make sure everybody's getting all the information they need. Yeah, I don't mind that a bit.
GR: And let me just be clear on that, ask either of you. Do either of you have any concerns about Micron's commitment to this changing at all because of that, no?
MB: No sir, no sir.
DK: No, I don't think so. I think long term we're good.
GR: Okay. If you've just joined us, you're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media. I'm Grant Reeher, and my guests are Onondaga County legislators David Knapp and Maurice Brown. Legislator Brown, I wanted to ask you this question, and it's a bit more sensitive. But it's a question about politics and race. And so just thinking about this election, we're going to have the first African-American mayor in Syracuse that we've ever had. Syracuse was one of two of the big five cities that didn't have an African-American mayor. The Democratic leader of the legislature, the minority leader is a woman of color. You have announced, it's part of the official record, that you're interested in becoming the chair of the legislature.
MB: Yes sir.
GR: You would be the first African-American chair of the legislature, I believe, correct me if I'm wrong on that.
MB: You are correct.
GR: Is this kind of, do you think we're at sort of an inflection moment, a threshold moment for where Syracuse is with race and politics? I don't know how you want to think about that question, but I'm curious just to see, you know, whatever your thoughts are.
MB: I mean, I think to ignore it would be irresponsible, like, full stop. It is historic. The election of Sharon Owens is literally once in a lifetime. That representation matters. To be able to see yourself in your mayor is huge, and there are people who are going to be able to see themselves in the mayor that never could before, full stop. But I don't want it to take away from that, you know, Sharon Owens has been doing great work in this community for decades. Like, she is duly qualified of her own accord. And, you know, I'd say the same about myself. I'd say the same about Lita Hernandez. Should one of us become chair, you know, we, I am a man of color, I am a black man, I will always be, there's no way around that. Lita Hernandez is, you know, Afro-Latina, she can't run from that. But I like to think that I'm qualified outside of that. You know, I served in the military, I, you know, degrees from OCC and SU. I'm connected to this community. I am qualified of my own accord. But to ignore, you know, that historic moment would be irresponsible. But I don't think it'll be as historic when we look back 10, 15 years from now, because I think it'll be a lot more common than it is at this very moment.
GR: Well, you were in my class. That should just end any discussion about that. (laughter)
MB: Exactly. I'm perfectly qualified, training of Grant Reeher.
GR: That's what we like to hear.
DK: Top of the resume right there, absolutely.
GR: So, we’ve got about 3 or 4 minutes left, and I kind of want to take some time with this last topic here. And Legislator Knapp, I'll come to you with this first. Now that the legislature is in Democratic hands, or will be in January, does it have any effect on the races for county executive or the races for Congress or, you know, or maybe just think about the transition that we just went through. The fact that there was this pretty big swing, we've only ever had Republican county executives. How do you think this is going to matter down the road?
DK: You know, it certainly makes, you know, gives people on the Democrat side an opportunity to, you know, be out there more, be in the media more, you know, and, and be heard. So, you know, as far as building a bench, so to speak, as we, you know, as we say, you know, on the political side, you know, it absolutely gives them the ability to, you know, to get more people in the mix and get their voice out that much more. So it could absolutely have an impact on the next county executive race in a couple of years or other races for higher office, absolutely.
GR: Do you think that this thing has put a chill down the spine of Ryan McMahon?
DK: You know, again, I haven't really had a long conversation with him. But, you know, I think, you know, if I was him, I'd certainly be, you know, reassessing some things about, you know, how we're doing things in communication and things like that. I still think he has an absolutely tremendous resume to run on and, you know, a lot of accomplishments. So, you know, from that standpoint, you know, he's in a nice spot. But no, you've got to keep evolving in this business or, you know, you can very, very, very quickly all of a sudden find yourself, you know, a dinosaur, so to speak.
GR: And Legislator Brown, I was curious to get your perspective on this, too. Does this change the way that you see these big elections coming up?
MB: I think that, you know, I come from sports. It's like a track game. I think that we can't fall into that trap. Folks didn't elect us because they want us to, you know, run for higher office. You know, some of my colleagues are thinking about the executive's race or what seats can we pick up next year? But we have a chance to help people. We've not been able to do that, especially as Democrats. But we have a chance to, you know, have our voice be the loudest in county government it's ever been and we can influence policy. We can use the levers of government to help people. And I think that should be our first priority. Do we forget about the upcoming elections? Of course not. But I think that they go hand in hand. And if you're worried about winning the election and not worried about actually helping people, you can't catch both. Whereas if you try and help people, it will spill over into elections.
GR: That makes sense. Well, we're just about at the end of our time. But, you know, I was thinking about this. We're talking two days after Veterans Day, and I'm talking to two veterans. Remind me, Legislator Brown of your service branch.
MB: Yep. So I was a military police officer in the United States Army.
GR: Okay, you have that in common with Legislator Knapp, then?
DK: Absolutely.
GR: Because I know that he is an Army veteran and actually a West Point graduate. So, on behalf of the program and myself and anybody listening, let me just as a close wish both of you a happy Veterans Day, two days late. But thank you both for your service. Both as in the military, but also in the county legislature, it's a very important public service that doesn't always get the attention it deserves. So, thanks to both of you, really appreciate you taking the time for being on the program.
DK: Thank you.
MB: Thanks for your support, it’s appreciated.
GR: You've been listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media Conversations and the Public Interest.
Nick Paro and Pam Hunter on the Campbell Conversations
Nov 08, 2025
Program transcript:
Grant Reeher: Welcome to the Campbell Conversations, I'm Grant Reeher. Well, we had another election, and the results have set the political classes completely chattering. Here with me to parse out some of the real meanings from the results are New York State Assemblymember Pam Hunter, a Democrat, and Town of Salina Supervisor Nick Paro, a Republican. Democrats seem to have had a good night across the country, up and down the ballot. And I want to note that one of the Republican casualties of that night was Supervisor Paro, whom I had invited on the program prior to Election Day, but nonetheless graciously and gamely agreed to still come on and help us to understand what happened. So, Supervisor Paro, thanks so much for that, and Assemblymember Hunter, thanks as always. Welcome back on the program to both of you.
Pam Hunter: Thank you.
Nick Paro: Thank you so much.
GR: All right, well, Supervisor Paro, aside from your own race, obviously, what was the most important takeaway, do you think, from the elections on Tuesday?
NP: Yeah, you know, you saw a revolt, I'd call it a revolt, against the Republican Party. I think unfortunately, politics nowadays have become more about a label and less about the individuals. We've seen this shift occur probably over the last ten, fifteen years. It may have started even earlier than that, but it's definitely been energized. What your party affiliation I think is matters most to voters, and right now voters are very upset with the Republican Party, and they're upset with the person who leads the Republican Party, and that's Donald Trump. A lot of Republicans voted for him because they liked what he was saying on the campaign trail, and now we're seeing things that he's doing that are beyond what he had promised. They're more extreme than what we had signed up for, and we're seeing the results of that. I do like the caution, though. I don't think the results for the Republicans are as devastating as some people would take it. I think in Onondaga County, where I'm from and the results of my election, I do think we're seeing something that's much more of a shift than we are seeing elsewhere. But if you look, my example would be Nassau County. Nassau County voted Republican, right? You still were able to keep the countywide seats there, they were Republican. In Auburn, right around the corner from us, they just elected a Republican city councilor. And down in Binghamton, Binghamton kept their Republican mayor. So, you see these in other areas, but in Onondaga County, Central New York, you saw a large shift. Democrats won around the entire ballot. And then if you look at Virginia, New Jersey, those results were similar to 2017. So they were expected, they weren't as extreme as we imagined. But in Central New York, we're looking at a major shift.
GR: Well, what would you attribute that to? Because your original diagnosis was kind of a, you know, a rejection of or a reaction against Donald Trump. But what was different about the reaction here? Why?
NP: So, one of the cool things about our country, about our state is you have different people that live in different areas, they have different motivations. Central New York has this very specific characteristic. The people that live here have a different personality. They have different things that are important to them. And I think some of the things that are important to them are the complete opposite of what's important to Donald Trump and the Republican Party at the national level. You talk about that raid, the ICE raid that took place in Cato, that's not something that people signed up for. Just two days before the election, you talk about those two folks that were that are being held in an ICE facility in Batavia, they were employees at a local hospital. It's not something people in central New York signed up for. Those are things that mattered. And I also, I think the government shutdown, in Central New York we have people that that's affected deeply and those are things that they're rejecting.
GR: Okay, fair enough. Assemblymember Hunter, what do you think your most important takeaway from the elections?
PH: I do agree very much that, voters across the country send a clear message that they're just tired of broken Republican promises. And similar to what Supervisor Paro had said, it's not what people signed up for. I think that closing a border is different than scooping up people in your neighborhood who are hard working, who were, had legal papers to be working. That is something very different than the notion that criminals were going to be the ones scooped up. But also, you know, I think here locally too, especially as you look at the county legislature, there's been a lot going on in the county that people, I think, just are just tired. You know, when you're hearing SNAP benefits are going to be taken away, and yes, this is a federal issue, you need to make sure that those people who are providing social net services, which is the county, you want them to make sure that they're standing up and saying, hey, hey, hey, not on our watch, we're going to make sure we take care of our citizenry. That was not, you know, what was communicated. When you're hearing money for an aquarium, you're hearing, you know, money, huge tax breaks for Micron that could take away from school districts and the monies that they need, all of a sudden it's like, wait a minute, these are some of the things that we aren't getting to vote on that that's impacting our lives? But also tariffs, you know, people can't afford anything. Right now, people are going to be going through their health insurance premium increases, all of this is happening right now. A shutdown, tariffs, premium increases, SNAP benefits decrease. And we saw across the country, but more specifically in Onondaga County that this is not what voters want. This is not what people sign up for and they want something different. And it's up to the people who are elected, to make sure that they can keep promises and keep what they said, that they are going to do, that they do those things, they take care of affordability, that they're being transparent as they said that they wanted to be. And I think that will be something that we have to look for in the days coming up.
GR: Well, you mentioned the Onondaga County Legislature, and I did want to ask both of you about that, because I guess my big takeaway was, me and a lot of other people that do commentary on this kind of thing, we're looking in the wrong place in a lot of ways. I mean, we kept talking about Virginia, New Jersey, New York City, Prop 50, and of course those are all important things. And Supervisor Paro, you made some really good points about those other races, the New Jersey and the Virginia one, I think is important to remember, placing them in a historical context. But, I think it was down ballot where the real, to me, the real surprising stuff was. I mean, did anybody see the flipping of the legislature coming, at the county level? And beyond that, all of the races that were contested by Democrats were won by Democrats. I mean, the new ones, those six seats. So, I mean, Supervisor Paro, I mean, do you agree with Assemblymember Hunter's diagnosis? It had a lot to do with SNAP benefits and other things, or was it's more of a, just a deep reaction to the president again?
NP: Yeah. All due respect, Assemblywoman Hunter, I’m going to disagree with you. And I understand a lot of the talking points that you touched on, I think are important, especially from your side of the aisle, to try to take credit for some of the victory. But unfortunately, if that's the case, then you wouldn't have seen a sweep in the New York State Supreme Court seventh district over in Cayuga County, Monroe County. You wouldn't have seen three of the four Supreme Court justices here in the fifth district, all Democrats, they win. Those races have nothing to do with SNAP benefits, those races have nothing to do with an aquarium. Those are five other counties, in fact, that were involved in the fifth Supreme Court district. They won strictly because their label was Democrat and the other people's labels were Republican. Mind you, one Republican won, Judge McCluskey, he was an incumbent. He was obviously one of the lowest vote getters to win in the fifth Supreme Court district. But when you are able to see, when you see losses like this that are from different political offices and from different sections of our community, and like you said, Grant, all the contested races went Democrat, there's something much larger than, I think, specific issues. We're talking now, like I said, just a revolt. This was a sending a message that we don't like a monolith of a party, which is the Republican Party in this case. We have an emotional response to them and what's occurring. Now, the factors that you put in, those all may accumulate to it, but they don't transcend Supreme Court justice races. Those become more, well, you're just a Republican, we don't like what the Republican Party's doing, so we're voting against all Republicans. You know, and what happened in Onondaga County legislature, again, it was a revolt against the Republican Party. They were making a statement to Republicans. We don't like what you're doing. I think you're going to see a little bit of a correction to that. Some people did a vote, but also in Onondaga County, there's been a shift for a while. This has been building up. I think your side of the aisle has known that this is building and you guys have been taking advantage of that for the last few years. This was the watershed moment where you guys have finally broke through. Onondaga County has been shifted this way for some time, and we were expecting this to come. I think everybody expected it next year, but this was coming, we knew it was coming. It just happened a little bit earlier, and it's the way it is. I think the Republican Party has a lot of work to do to rebrand themselves, and I don't think they're going to be able to do it in the short term. I think this is going to be a long-term project by the Republican Party.
PH: I think that's true, that the shift has changed for sure. And while we are celebrating this overabundance of Dems winning on Tuesday night, this has been a long, concerted effort. This is not just something that just started this year. You know, we've been picking up races here and there. You know, obviously we have three of the four countywide races that are Dems right now. But looking at towns like a Salina, looking at Marcellus, looking at picking up seats in Onondaga, whether it's a specific to SNAP, ICE, aquarium, etc., I think that the, it is loud and clear that folks are just not buying in to the message that is the broken Republican Party that they are not wanting to support. And if they can pick an issue, whether it's SNAP or ICE or whatnot, I think clearly people were just going right down row A regardless of what race it was for and more Dems vote than Republicans and this is what happens. But if you look in towns like Clay, huge overwhelming upset, you're expecting Dems to win in the city, you're expecting Dems to win a majority dem districts. You're not expecting Dems to sweep in a Salina or in the Clay, where the enrollment doesn't necessarily reflect that. Even though there is a Democratic majority in Salina, what happened in Salina didn't reflect the demographics. So, the same thing in Cicero with the Supervisor, and we're going to wait to see what happens. And I think that is just either, a couple of things, Republicans stayed home, and also the sentiment of what is happening is just not where we need to be. But again, people vote and then it is the responsibility of those elected to deliver on what they say they're going to. And it can't be over-promising under-delivering because people are struggling right now. And that is real. And that affordability, you know, mantra where you just keep saying it's in your pocketbook, in your pocketbook that really resonates with people as they can't afford food. I was just, anecdotally, was in Utica yesterday and they do a Feed Our Vet every single Wednesday for veterans. I go and, you know, partake and see my fellow veterans. They had more people in line yesterday that I have ever seen. And I asked the gentleman in charge like, what's going on? It's never usually like this. And he said, it's all new people because their benefits were taken away. So this is what's going on, and I think the federal shutdown hasn't helped.
GR: Well, it sounds like in the main, the two of you are in agreement. You're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media. I'm Grant Reeher, and I'm talking with State Assembly member Pam Hunter and Town of Salina Supervisor Nick Paro, and we've been discussing the recent election results and what they might suggest going forward. So, Assemblymember Hunter, you served was Zohran Mamdani in the Assembly, he's a party colleague of yours. What was he like to work with? Is he a workhorse, or is he a show horse?
PH: I did, and I do. He's obviously still in the assembly until the end of this year. I think it’s very interesting because he obviously is a self-proclaimed democratic socialist. He, and there are few others in our conference who, their mantra has been they sing from the same songbook. They say every single talking point exactly the same, and so they move as they bloc, they move as the democratic socialists in our party. And so, if you're talking about an activist, I think that in many ways, the DSA members, they have their talking points that they get from their leadership from the DSA, and they don't vary, you know, deviate from that at all. And so, in some ways, I don't know if I was able to see the individual Zohran that is apart from the DSA because they were all always together in their thought process and their communication. And that's how it works, right? It's not really very dissimilar than Tea Party. You're all saying the same thing, you keep saying the same things over and over.
GR: Is what you're saying then that in the Assembly, Mamdani was sort of an ideologue.
PH: Very much an ideologue. I think, you know, very much the DSA platform. They were very committed to that and that is not something that they detracted from. That's not something they shied away from, they weren't embarrassed to say that. I mean, literally, that was their identification. There is something different between being an advocate legislator and there is something different than somebody who is an executive, you have to deliver now. It is not pointing the finger at someone else that they're to blame. You are responsible for successes and failures, and I think this is going to be the tipping point to see how that works, because, you know, some of the ideology that the DSA espouses is not necessarily moderately accepted. And I think this is going to be a huge, I'm not taking away that the grassroots, the amount of people who helped and volunteered, and they pivoted from public safety that was the very first, you know, thing that they were going to work on as his platform, polling said affordability, and they ran with that. And it worked because people, their pocketbook, it matters. How do you deliver that? Zohran the mayor is going to have to figure that out.
GR: Supervisor Paro, sticking with this for a moment, Assemblymember Hunter made it very clear just how far to the left this guy is and has been. But one of the things that struck me was he seemed to even go beyond that in his victory speech relative to his campaign speeches, and just a couple things. I mean, he starts right out of the gate quoting Eugene Debs, you know, this pretty hard driving socialist from about 100 years ago and then tells Donald Trump, ‘turn the volume up’, which I was literally scratching my head when he said that. So, what's your sense from your perspective of this guy?
NP: Yeah. I mean, look, I'm a little, shocked is probably not the word. But he's taking 50.4% of the vote and calling it a mandate. I've never seen somebody who got such a thin margin for over 50% of the vote and run so far towards his corner of the political field, it's a little astonishing. I think he should have a little bit of a reality check that, you know, we're looking at, what is it, 49.6 (percent) of the people in New York City did not vote for him. They were very skeptical of what he's offering in his positions, and he needs to figure out how to govern, to represent 100% of New York City. But this is what we all knew was going to happen. The guy is a democratic socialist. I think that the democratic socialist brand is truly a red herring. I don't I don't really find that to be, that's a modern ideology, but it's really a socialist ideology from the early 1900’s. You even said it, Eugene Debs, he quoted Eugene Debs. Eugene Debs ran as a socialist, there was no democratic in front of it. I think this is a wing of the party that Assemblywoman Hunter and them are going to have to deal with. This is going to be a struggle. We have it on our side. Both parties have these wings of the, that we have to work with or work through somehow. This is something the Democrats are going to have to deal with. He didn't vote for himself on the Democrat line, he voted for himself on the working families line, he in fact voted straight working families line. That's just another example of the fact that he doesn't truly identify as a Democrat. He identifies himself as a socialist and he thinks the Working Families Party is a socialist party, even though they have a name that seems to be a lot more moderate than it is. So, I'm not surprised. I'm truly, I'm actually interested to see, I don't live in New York City, so it gives me a little bit more of a, I can relax my shoulders a little bit and observe to see what happens. I am nervous, though. The policies he's talking about we've seen elsewhere in the world. I mean, the city run grocery stores, we know what happened in Venezuela with that. We've seen this stuff before, it never seems to work. I'm shocked that people might, he's the same age as me, he's 34 years old. I'm just shocked at the lack of understanding of what some of his policies have done elsewhere in the world. Why would they be successful today? And what makes him so special that he can make some of these policies work? I'm unsure.
PH: I don’t think it's just that, though. I think it's the talking to people like where they are. If you see, like, the young people in New York City and you know, you're talking about what resonates with you, they're like, they literally were saying they didn't care about other people. They cared about their pocketbook, and he said that he was going to help us freeze the rent and have affordable. And that's in the pocketbook of people.
NP: That's a scary sentiment that these people, that these folks, you know, they're missing history. They're missing an educational component of, well, how do you help people's pocketbooks? We have a great example in America, what makes life easier, what makes life better, what makes life more affordable and it's capitalist ideology, it's capitalist policies. You know, who said it…
PH: We’re not going to be able to get to that if you can't pay for bread and food. I think the foundational things that folks need, you need to start from there before you can get to that.
GR: Yeah, I can see and I think you folks are making sort of overlapping points rather than directly oppositional lines. But I, Assemblymember Hunter, I get what you're saying about that appeal and why it resonated and who it resonated with. Let me though, stick with you, and it's something that I've heard the last couple days from the Democrats who are the most celebratory of the election, but I'm suspicious about it. And it's the idea that these returns showed that this broad coalition of different kinds of Democrats can stay together. So, you know, they'll say, look, look at Abigail Spanberger in Virginia. She's a much more centrist Democrat, she won. Mamdani won in New York, much more to the left. The problem that I see with only seeing this as a good thing, for me, is that this difference within the Democratic Party, and Supervisor Paro already spoke to it, you know, it's a fundamental feature going on with both parties, but it's also been around for a long time. And so this particular rift within the Democratic Party is at least 40 years old. And when we get to 2028, the party's going to have to choose one. They can have one as a vice president, I suppose, but they're going to have to choose one at the top of the ticket. So is there some kind of coming together that you see for Democrats, Assemblymember, other than just the deep dislike and reaction against Trump that we've already been talking about?
PH: I think a lot of it has to do a couple of different things. If you're talking about Pam, you know, the legislator, you know, elected person is different than Pam the constituent Democrat who, you know, sometimes is not happy with the Democratic Party, right? I'm not happy with, you know, some of the actions that they do and some of the inaction, quite frankly. But I think a lot of it has to do with, you are really only given the option of A or B, okay, maybe A with a working family line or a B with a conservative line, but you're really, you're not given, A are you voting moderate, are you voting left? Are you voting progressive? You're either voting A or B, and then it's for us to figure out after A has been elected, how do we do this together? And I think that you will see that in some of the towns that went, you know, blue you'll see that on the county ledge, how are they able to work together? Because every one of those county legislators are not left, they're not socialists. And that's okay, that's the way this melting pot works. But it has to work in order to be able to move a community forward and not be self-serving for a political platform.
GR: So, quick follow up then I want to get Supervisor Paro to weigh in on a different topic unless he wants to comment on this one. Let's just say Tuesday is kind of our classroom, okay? Democrats now are thinking about 2028. What is the lesson that they draw from that regarding who their nominee should be? Because I don't see a clear one.
PH: I think that's something that needs to be worked out. I don't have an answer for that. I don't, you know, have an answer for that today. I mean, Gavin Newsom is like beating his chest and like, you're the guy in 2028. I'm trying to get people food for Thanksgiving. I mean, literally, I think that is a political strategy that is kind of outside of my sphere as of today. But I think those conversations, it has to happen with the Democratic Committee, it has to happen with the Assembly Conference committee, the Senate, and it needs to happen at county level. I think really, you know, the county apparatus is just a legal entity to get Dems or Republicans on the ballot. Really, I think people think it's the Democratic Party, it isn't. It's a committee whose legal responsibility is to get these folks on the ballot. It's the committee members and the universe that kind of works together to make this happen. And there’s not, if we're looking for one savior, that person is not going to come.
GR: Okay, fair enough. Supervisor Paro, I know your party's going to have to sort this out too in 2028, and it'll have similar interesting conversations. But let me ask you this if I could. The California voters voted overwhelmingly 2 to 1 to gerrymander their districts in the name of small ‘d’ democracy. (laughter) Sort that one out in our heads. But my concern about this, and I wanted to know how you see this is, what's the next shoe to fall and where is this all going to end? Do you have any sense about this? I mean, Texas is doing its thing. Some other states have said they're going to do it, now California is definitely going to do it, they've got the backing of the voters to do it. Where does, where do we end up on all this?
NP: Well, look, I'm going to fire a shot here and say this, New York State did it first, right?
GR: Oh, yeah, true, true.
NP: This actually started, you know, back in ‘24. You guys gerrymandered three, you sued the special master and gerrymandered three congressional districts. And now you had three more, Democrat congressmen. Texas decided to respond, California responds. You know, I'm nervous about the filibuster in the Senate, to tell you the truth. That could be the next shoe that drops. The stakes are only going to get higher and I think we just got to recognize that's going to happen. We're on the climb right now. And this is something, as young as I am, this is something that I know and I learned this from some mentors of mine. Politics is cyclical, and this isn't going to be the way it's going to be forever. But right now, I think we're still on the climb and I only think this is going to get worse before it gets better. But we're going to hit a point where I think we will have a reset. We're going to have things go back to a little bit of a calmer, more sensible way to handle things. And, you know, truthfully, I could imagine that'll be in 2030. I truly think that we're in the midst of this climate now and there's not going to be a short-term solution, but I think, 2030 or so, we're going to see a shift, a different type of politics, something that we can recognize a little bit. That's some hopeful thinking…
GR: Yeah.
NP: ..but I think that's where we're going. Just expect it to get worse before it gets better, I think.
GR: All right, yeah. Well, let me let me ask you.
PH: (unintelligible)
GR: Oh, I'm sorry, let me follow up with Nick and then, Assemblymember, I'll give you the last word, but these are just super quick things. Filibuster, just tell me the percentage of your estimate that it's going to end anytime soon, just a one word hit.
NP: The government shut down?
GR: No, filibuster, the filibuster.
NP: 75% it'll end, so that way they can open the government.
GR: Oh my goodness, okay. And last question for you, Assemblymember Hunter. We're out of time, but give me your percentage estimate that, either chamber is going to flip in 2026 and at the at the national level.
PH: I think it's pretty high. That's usually what happens midterms after a presidential election. So, I'm not a gambler, but I have to say it's going to be the percentage necessary to get over so that 50% plus one will be enough to be able to take back the house. I don't know if both of them, but I definitely think one of the houses will definitely, the margins are too slim right now anyway, and if the trajectory keeps happening, I don't foresee that not happening.
GR: Well, we'll have to leave it there. That was Nick Paro and Pam Hunter. Again, Supervisor Paro, Assemblymember Hunter, thanks again for taking the time to talk to me. I really appreciate it.
PH: Thank you.
NP: Absolutely.
GR: You've been listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media, conversations in the public interest.
Ken Belson on the Campbell Conversations
Nov 01, 2025
Ken Belson
Program transcript:
Grant Reeher: Welcome to the Campbell Conversations, I'm Grant Reeher. We're in the thick of football season, and we always try to have at least one program on the sport every year. My guest today is Ken Belson, the longtime New York Times reporter. He's covered both the playing and the business side of the NFL, and he has a new book out. It's titled, "Every Day Is Sunday: How Jerry Jones, Robert Kraft, and Roger Goodell Turned the NFL into a Cultural & Economic Juggernaut." Mr. Belson, welcome to the program.
Ken Belson: Thanks for having me on, appreciate it.
GR: Thanks for making the time, we appreciate it. So, we'll get into exactly who did what for the NFL. But first, I just want you to give our listeners an overall sense of this. What have been the biggest changes in the NFL since the, say, the late 1980s that have turned it into this cultural and economic juggernaut that's in the title of your book?
KB: Yeah, I think the biggest is media. The NFL, like all the leagues, had pretty cozy relationships with the networks over the years. And if you think back to the late 80s, even into the early 90s, there was basically three types of packages. There was the AFC package, NFC package, and Monday Night Football. And there were only three bidders, ABC, NBC and CBS. That was kind of it. There was a little bit of cable, ESPN had started to get in, but it was more or less a cozy relationship. And the networks did well, and the league sort of did well, but the growth wasn't really there. It took a fellow named Jerry Jones, a born and bred entrepreneur, to look at that and say, why aren't we running an auction? Which is sort of standard business practice. So he invited, or brought into the fold, a fellow named Rupert Murdoch. And Rupert was desperate to grow his network. If you remember, back in those days, it was Bart Simpson and In Living Color, that was Fox TV at that point. So, by bringing that fourth bidder to the table, the media rights exploded. Rupert outbid CBS, CBS regretted it, came back at double the price four years later. So, that was both a big moment for the NFL, it Was kind of an inflection point, but also for all sports. The NBA saw this, Major League Baseball saw this. So across the sports landscape, you had bidding wars for property rights. And that, of course, changed the economics of network television as well.
GR: And so, you know, you pull out Jerry Jones, you've just said something about why you would choose him, but you've also got Robert Kraft. Why do these two owners, why are they so much more important than all the other owners?
KB: Well, they joined the league at this critical point. Back in the 80s, fans of a certain age will remember there were work stoppages. There was a strike, a brief strike in 1987, there were scab players, it was a bad time for the league. They weren't growing well, there was fear of losing games. A fellow named Paul Tagliabue was, longtime general counsel of the league was, or outside counsel to the league, was elected commissioner. And he saw that this was not a stable business model. And so he really worked hard with Dan Rooney of the Pittsburgh Steelers, as the kind of peacemaker amongst the owners and Gene Upshaw to set a foundation for the league. And that included free agency, of course, and the salary cap to offset it, but really revenue sharing. The league and the union finally became, I guess, what we would call partners. And they weren't adversaries in the same way they had been for generations, really. So that that also put a floor under the league. And Jerry and Robert came in at this time, they both had paid record amounts for their teams, they both went heavily in debt to do that and they were hungry to pay back their loans. It's that simple. They had to fix their franchises. The Cowboys were losing $1 million a month. The Patriots were always the last in the league in revenue. So they had some homework to do there. But they also, and this is really where they stand out amongst other owners, they got very involved in league business very quickly. All owners do to some degree, but those two really embraced it. I gave the example of Jerry, you know, bringing Rupert Murdoch to the table. Robert, very quickly. now, he owned part owner of a CBS affiliate in Boston before he owned the team, so he knew the guys at CBS. And guess what? He brought them back to the table for the AFC package at twice the price. So both of them realized, we got to grow the whole pie, we'll share in that, of course, but the league itself will benefit from that.
GR: One of the things that I was surprised to recall when I was reading through your book and you just mentioned this, was the fact that the price of the Cowboys when Jones bought it was a record price.
KB: Yeah.
GR: And when I look at the figure and I think, oh man, did he get that cheap, I mean, from today's perspective, he did. But I had sort of created the memory that he bought it cheap at the time. But no, it was considered a real gamble at the time.
KB: Yeah, it was a gamble 115 for the team and then he had to buy the stadium and absorb some debt. I think it came to $140 or 50 million. But you got to remember, this was when the SNL crisis was going on in Dallas, in Texas. The oil market had fallen. So the local economy was doing terribly. The team wasn't good, and they weren't selling suites and tickets. So the team was kind of on its back, and yet he still paid a record amount for it. But yeah, nine figures, wow, now it's easily ten, and someday will be 11 figures for a team. So, yeah, it seems cheap now, but the, you know, the cost of money back then was what it was.
GR: Interesting. So I don't know Kraft and his story as well as I know Jerry Jones. But to me, they seem like just two very different kinds of owners and personalities. Aside from, again, you know, making the purchases of the teams at the times when you note. And the other thing I thought they had in common right off the bat is they both had controversial hires as head coaches, you know, Jimmy Johnson for the Cowboys, Bill Belichick for the Patriots. But, you know, you have you have Kraft, who is this Jewish kid, he went to Columbia on academic scholarship, Harvard Business School. And then, as you say, Jones, you know, the entrepreneur, the oil tycoon, he went to Arkansas on an athletic scholarship. How, as you were researching these people, you've talked to them, you know them, how do you assess kind of their core similarities and differences?
KB: Yeah, I actually found they had more in common than I thought. I very much saw what you saw. Boston, South, you know, they're roughly the same age, but very different background, I thought, very different backgrounds. It's really very different styles. They both had dads who were very influential in their lives. Both of their fathers were small businessmen, both left college and went right into business as entrepreneurs. Jerry had the audacity at 23 years old to try and buy the San Diego Chargers and went to Jimmy Hoffa’s pension fund to get a line of credit. It didn't work out, obviously. Robert bought a tennis franchise fairly early on. Both are really, true fans of those teams. I mean, people like to say the owners are just about the money, but they both really love the sport and both love their teams. Robert was a season ticket holder at the woe begotten Schaefer Stadium from the 70s with his kids. So I think that's genuine. And the other thing is they're very, they think big, and not every owner does that. There were a lot of owners, particularly back then, who were very comfortable, you know, getting their checks and their dividends and so forth. A lot of owners back then had inherited their teams. So it wasn't the same entrepreneurial spirit. And those two guys, because they had businesses outside the league when they joined, were really kind of the new breed, I guess, back then.
GR: You're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media. I'm Grant Reeher and I'm speaking with Ken Belson, the author of "Every Day Is Sunday: How Jerry Jones, Robert Kraft, and Roger Goodell Turned the NFL into a Cultural & Economic Juggernaut." So, you mentioned that both of them had gone into debt to buy these teams. I had also the sense that though Jones from like a family financial perspective, was all in, I mean, it was all or nothing for him. Whereas Kraft, I thought, had more money kind of available. I mean, he wasn't like, didn't sink everything he had into the team. I was just thinking, particularly for Jones, do you think that all-or-nothing investment influenced and fueled some of, not only his approach to the team, but also the league in the way that you've already been describing in terms of television contracts and thinking about those things?
KB: Yeah, there's a hunger to Jerry, or maybe a desperation. I mean, look, he made a lot of money in the oil and gas business, that's an all-or-nothing kind of business. You take your shots. He also understood, and I mentioned how they both love football, they both understood the power of the NFL brand in a kind of visceral way. There's a great quote in the book from Robert about Jerry. Jerry is one of these sort of irrepressible salespeople whose constantly got balls in the air, juggling, thinking of ideas out loud, pushing other people in the direction he hopes they'll go in. Robert said, Jerry could charm a dog off a meat truck. And it really kind of encapsulated the energy around him and the bone that’s always in his, whatever the bone of the moment is, he hangs on to it. Robert's a very different character. It's not that he's uninterested in making money or closing a deal; he's more a diplomat. And the ideas don't necessarily bubble from Robert, but when the ideas are out there, he finds a way to create, I guess, for lack of a better phrase, a win-win. And he's willing to leave some money on the table because he sees this as a long-term play. And that's particularly true in the TV contract world. CBS, let's be honest, even after their merger now, they can't compete with Amazon or Netflix. Those two companies could buy out all of the rights if they really wanted to or could. So, Robert understands, hey, we got to help all of our partners in this endeavor.
GR: Interesting. And so I want to join some of these financial things with the actual things that go on on the football field and the success of the teams, in terms of their playing. And I've got this pet theory, actually, about the financial success of the Cowboys over the years and then the impact it's had on the team's success or lack thereof on the field. They, both of them, have had great football successes on the field, and they've also had obviously great financial successes in terms of where they sit, Cowboys being the most valuable sports franchise in the world last time I checked. And so I'm just wondering, do you think that creates a challenge for these two teams currently under what is now the old ownership, in terms of that collective hunger and the dedication to winning on the field? I sense kind of an underlying complacency for all of Jerry Jones's hunger an underlying complacency for the team in terms of football performance. Because, you know, if you're a player on the Cowboys and you have a successful career, even moderately, you're set for life regardless of whether the team makes the playoffs or not. So, I just wonder if you, any impression you had about that.
KB: Jerry has said, and I have no reason to doubt him, that he would give up a certain body part to win another Super Bowl. Robert, you know, despite the six Super Bowl Lombardi trophies and the ten appearances in his tenure, I think it's ten, he's still, I mean, you know, all these guys are also thinking of their legacy, and I want one more before I go and all that. Of course, you can't orchestrate life like that. But no, I don't think the business gets in the way in general. However, Jerry is the only owner that's also the GM. And, although I'm sure he's not sitting around watching tape and analyzing spreadsheets and all the metrics that we have now, everything goes through him. And I think that lack of a division of labor can be a problem or has been a problem to a certain degree. Number one, it creates a dynamic where the general manager, whoever is the general manager, or the coaches are always kind of looking over their shoulder to a certain degree or even more than normal. Robert Kraft, when he got in, he really did meddle in some of the personnel decisions. It was a different time. The salary cap had just come in, it was just a different dynamic. But he said and has said many times, like, the smartest thing he ever did was hire Belichick because he felt like Belichick understood how to manage the salary cap. And, you know, Robert shouldn't be tipping the scales having Drew Bledsoe over for dinner, hearing his woes about Bill Parcells. You know, that just muddies the water. There has to be a clear division of labor. Bill Belichick actually never had the title of GM, but he certainly managed the salary cap and it's paid dividends. So, Jerry, for whatever reason, the hubris, you know, overconfidence has never let that go and I don't think that's really helped.
GR: I agree. That's another one of my pet theories is that joining is just not a good recipe. You're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media. I'm Grant Reeher and I'm talking with Ken Belson. The New York Times reporter is the author of a new book on professional football. It's titled, "Every Day Is Sunday: How Jerry Jones, Robert Kraft, and Roger Goodell Turned the NFL into a Cultural & Economic Juggernaut." Well, we haven't talked about Roger Goodell yet. How does he figure into your story of the growth of the NFL? What were his key contributions?
KB: Yeah. Well, Roger is a lifer, 40, almost 45 years at the NFL. Born in Jamestown, New York. His dad represented the Western New York and, you know, really the son of a politician, grew up half in Washington and a half in Westchester County. You know, a football jock, I guess, by most accounts. But he wrote to his dad right after graduation and said, I want to be commissioner of the NFL, that has to be one of the top ten job searches in all time.
GR: (laughter)
KB: And he did it. But one of the things I, you know, and Roger, to his credit, I guess, I don’t know if credit is the right word, but he was a go-getter. And Paul Tagliabue recognized that Pete Rozelle before him, this kid was hungry. And he kept getting more and more significant assignments, including going to cities and negotiating stadium deals on behalf of teams extricating the Browns from Cleveland to, or sort of cleaning up the mess from that, and the international efforts that the NFL had back then, so he was a fix-it guy. A lot of owners owed him favors because he was the guy who, you know, strong-armed the city or the county to get money for a stadium. The owners didn't have to get their hands dirty. And so when it came time to appoint a commissioner, he was the logical choice. He knew how the league ran; he was familiar with all the ownership groups. He had dated some of the daughters of some of the owners. You know, he was a very much a known quantity with a very unique resume. What he's done different, Paul Tagliabue put this foundation under the league, the, you know, the sponsorships, the TV money, the revenue sharing. That was all great; that is the foundation. Roger took it to a new level. He has turned the NFL really into a media company, more of a high growth stock. Just to give you one data point, under Paul's leadership of 17 years, the league's revenue basically doubled under Roger. Still going, 19 years at this point, it's tripled. That's a growth stock. And the owners want that. I mean, the owners came in, we were joking earlier about Jerry Jones paying over $100 million. The owners have big bills to pay back, and they are buying teams for multi-billions of dollars predicated on a certain growth rate. And Roger is delivering that.
GR: Well, you know, compared with Jones and Kraft, who are 83 and 84, Goodell is still a relatively young 66. I'm wondering about the future here. Who assumes the mantle of the NFL when these few owners leave the scene? Which they're going to do, you know, before too long. Is it going to be Goodell? Are there any other younger dynamic owners out there who comes to the fore?
KB: Well, let's joke about Jerry for a moment, but I write in the chapter on Jerry Jones, if you take the tour of AT&T Stadium, the $65 owner's tour, you get to see a hologram of Jerry talking about things. So, he may live on digitally.
GR: (laughter)
KB: The only owner in the league who would create a hologram of himself. But anyway, and by the way, I should joke, I mean, it's in the book, but I went on this tour, and I asked AI Jerry, you know, what do you think of Roger Goodell? And he responded that he thought Roger Staubach was a great quarterback. So, I don't know whether the AI was confused or didn't have Goodell in its brain, but anyway.
GR: (laughter)
KB: So look, both of those teams have their kids involved, Stephen Jones, Charlotte Jones, Jonathan Kraft, they're in good hands. They've been along with their fathers the whole way. Those teams will remain, you know, financially successful. I can't speak for the field. They're very different people. I would say Steven is more like his dad. Jonathan is more analytical, kind of hard driving in a way that Robert has a kind of softer edge, at least publicly. But, you know, there's a bench of very good owners. Clark Hunt in Kansas City is considered a very shrewd financial manager. Fans may not agree, but Jimmy Haslam is becoming quite influential on the financial side in league circles. David Tepper in…
GR: Name the teams that all these people are associated with, not all our listeners will know that.
KB: Forgive me, sure. Jimmy Haslam owns the Cleveland Browns, David Tepper bought the Carolina Panthers, he's a hedge fund mogul. Josh Harris led a group to buy the Washington Commanders, helped push through the entry of private equity money into the league. And then Greg Penner, who's part of the Walmart family, that bought the Denver Broncos. So there's quite a few shrewd owners. And then you have the sort of old guard, the Rooney family in Pittsburgh with the Steelers and the Maras here in New York with the Giants. So, you know, it's not a long bench, but it's a deep bench. And then there's Roger, you know, he has continued to sign contract extensions and the owners are in no rush to replace him. And everybody's guess is he'll work through the next labor agreement and television deals, which will probably end by this decade. So, if anybody wants to keep booing him at the draft, you’ve got 3 or 4 more opportunities.
GR: (laughter) That's good to know. If you've just joined us, you're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media. I'm Grant Reeher, and my guest is the New York Times reporter Ken Belson. We have a lot of Buffalo Bills fans in our listening area. Where do the Bills fit in terms of the owners and the things that the team has done?
KB: Well, look, Western New York is, and Buffalo has been one of the smallest markets. I guess Green Bay would be the only other, maybe Jacksonville. So, you know, it hasn't carried its weight financially in league circles. Everything now is big numbers. But Terry Pegula got this stadium built and that'll increase the value of the team, and, you know, all boats rise at that point. Terry hasn't been a terribly active owner, certainly nothing like Jerry Jones and Robert Kraft. You know, he's kind of a, I don’t want to call him a get-along owner, but, he, you know, he says his piece, but he's not trying to win the room, if you will. But he did keep the team in Western New York. I know there were a lot of fears about the team going to Toronto at one point. And, you know, a lot of owners, when they want public money and they got 900 million from Erie County and the state, you know, they threaten to leave. They dangle, I don't know, name the city, Portland, Oregon or something like that. They dangle that out there as, hmm I'm thinking about Portland, Oregon. You might even fly out to Portland and have a conversation with the mayor. They never did that. Terry's from western Pennsylvania. I don't think Roger Goodell himself, not that he could singlehandedly do this, I don't think he wants the Bills to leave. I think he has a soft spot for Western New York. So to his credit, he didn't play that game. Now, on the other hand, like every other owner, he's looking for money from fans in personal seat licenses and so forth. There is a section toward the end of the book where you hear from Bill's fans really struggling with what to do. You know, on sort of middle-class incomes, trying to figure out how to pay for it all. And, I would say I've been to almost every NFL market over the years to see games and meet people and so forth. The Bills have, along with probably Green Bay although Green Bay is different, the Bills have probably the most rabid fan base. I mean, you know, when you talk about the city's identity wrapped up in the team, that's Buffalo. And so, to the league’s credit, they didn't abandon the city. On the other hand, there's a price to pay for it in the modern economics of the NFL.
GR: What are the next frontiers for the NFL in terms of growing in terms of media audience, developing other synergies? You know, Jones is always big on sort of creating new entities and finding synergies. Where do you see the big ones coming in the next few years?
KB: The NFL is already a media company, but you'll just see, you probably if you've heard of or seen the Netflix documentary on Jerry Jones, and I think it's eight parts. That grew out of an alliance with Skydance, big Hollywood studio. And so, yeah, this is very much what they're doing. They're trying to fill in the calendar with NFL content. I hate that word, but that's what it is. You know, the football season itself is only, what, five months long, something like that. So they want it to remain front of mind. It used to be the Super Bowl was over and you just switched to spring training, not anymore. Football continues to be ever-present. So you're going to see more media ventures. You saw the ESPN purchase of NFL Network; that's going to lead to more media opportunities. And I think you were already seeing the Black Friday game coming up. Amazon paid 150 million for that game a couple of years ago. They're now going to show it globally. Netflix, two Christmas games. So we're going to see more and more of these sort of opportunistic expansions of the media landscape for the NFL. The other thing, I think, probably more broadly, and I know people ask a lot about international. The NFL has been very deliberate; it's been 17, 18 years since they first started playing regular-season games. We're going to see more of that. Some of this is really necessity. I mean, the NFL is kind of saturated here in America. I mean, 90 of the 100 top shows in television are typically football games. So I don't know how much more they're going to grow the pie in terms of number of fans or percentage of fans. They can certainly charge more for a product, but they're looking overseas because they need new fans. And I think that's going to be a new frontier. And then finally, I would say gambling, although, as we know with the NBA scandals, there may be some trimming of things like prop bets and whatever. But the simple fact is, the NFL doesn't actually collect from the handle, doesn't take a percentage of bets. It makes money on selling the data. The game day data that fuels all those bets. And so they, you know, FanDuel or DraftKings or any of the casino sportsbooks, they pay the NFL for that data feed. And that's really where they're making the bulk of their money, plus the signage and sponsorships.
GR: Interesting. We've only got about a minute left. So this is going to be the lightning part of the round. But I have two questions I want to put to you if I can in this time. So you have to be really quick on this. These are concerns about the future. One is concern about football and younger players. There's been a lot about this medically last 20 years; it's not good for the brain, it's not good for the body. Do you see that as a major problem for the NFL going forward?
KB: I think if a player died on the field, and we had a pretty darn close call a couple of years ago, that could influence public behavior. I think we're already seeing fewer younger people. I mean, the population is not growing as much and more parents, and I've done numerous stories on this, more parents are putting their kids in baseball and soccer, and other sports. So that is a constant worry.
GR: And then the second one is the one you just mentioned, really quick now, soccer. It does seem to me that professional soccer is getting more and more attention. I notice it with my students, they're following these teams I've never even heard of sometimes. So, does football need to be worried about soccer? Does soccer need to be worried about football? What's the future there?
KB: No. American football is truly an American sport. It's tribal, it's made for television, it is dominant. I mean, soccer is chewing away at some of the mine share, but football and the NFL particularly, will remain dominant.
GR: Well, that's good to hear. That was Ken Belson. And his new book is titled, "Every Day Is Sunday: How Jerry Jones, Robert Kraft, and Roger Goodell Turned the NFL into a Cultural & Economic Juggernaut." Ken, thanks again for taking the time to talk with me. It was really fascinating.
KB: Yeah. Thanks, Grant, I appreciate it.
GRL You've been listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media, conversations in the public interest.
Ryan Griffiths on the Campbell Conversations
Oct 25, 2025
Ryan Griffiths
Sometimes in the heat of expressing political frustrations, we'll hear people advocate for some kind of political secession. How seriously do we need to be thinking or worrying about that possible outcome? Grant Reeher speaks with Ryan Griffiths, a political scientist at Syracuse University, about his book on the subject, "The Disunited States: Threats of Secession in Red and Blue America and Why They Won't Work."
Program Transcript:
Grant Reeher: Welcome to the Campbell Conversations. I'm Grant Reeher. Sometimes in the heat of expressing political frustrations, well, here people advocate for some kind of political secession. I've heard such things from Californians, for example. How seriously do we need to be thinking or worrying about that possible outcome? My guest today has written a new book on the topic. Syracuse University political scientist Ryan Griffiths is the author of “The Disunited States: Threats of Secession and Red and Blue America and Why They Won't Work.” Professor Griffiths, welcome to the program.
Ryan Griffiths: Thanks, Grant. Good to be here.
GR: Well, it's good to have you here. We appreciate you making the time. I want to start with just basic terms, just so that we're all on the same page. Give us just a very brief definition of what you mean by secession.
RG: Sure. Secession, and the way that I use it, is where a part of a country tries to break away and become its own independent sovereign state. So the two examples in American history, of course, the Civil War, where the Confederacy attempted to do that and failed. And of course, the American Revolution, where the 13 colonies attempted to do it and were successful in becoming a new independent state.
GR: Right. Okay. Thanks. So I got to say, I found this book fascinating. And it's both fun to read, disturbing to read. Insightful. But I want to start with a basic skepticism I have about part of it of a particular kind. And I'll begin that by quoting actually, from your book, you say near the beginning: "To sum all of this up, there is no way to efficiently and peacefully disentangle and divide red America and blue America without it cascading into violence and chaos. It can't be done, and it is folly to think that it can. Much of this book is dedicated to showing why this is... This is the case." So we're going to get into that.
But my skepticism is this kind of building on that. It would seem that at first maybe I wonder how real of an issue is this? I mean, it might be kind of a parlor game that's played by disgruntled liberal academics or frustrated conservatives. But you mentioned the Civil War. Seems to me you could say the Civil War ended this discussion with 600,000 exclamation points in the form of US dead. Why is this a topic that needs your book?
RG: Right, that's a good question. It's a good place to start with. So there's a few ways I can answer this. First, let me just say that it's not a doom-and-gloom book. And as a scholar, I'm not a doom-and-gloom guy. Like, I don't think that this is the most likely outcome for America. I don't think it's right around the corner.
That said, it is an increasing sentiment. All right. I've been tracking this for over 15 years, and 15 years ago, it was a pretty minor thing. But now these movements are gaining traction. They're not as big as some movements around the world, but they are gaining. And one of the things about secessionism is that it can move rapidly.
A good example of this is Catalonia in the northeast of Spain. And, you know, they had a secessionist crisis a few years back. But as recently as 2006, only about 15% of Catalans were pro-independence. And then over a period of eight years, that tripled to 45%. So that kind of secessionist energy can move very quickly and it can respond to triggers. So the book is meant to get ahead of that type of thing and talk about the dangers and the perils of thinking that this is a solution to America's problems.
GR: Okay. Interesting. So, you write in your book about a couple of the different arguments for secession and some of the justifications for it. And one of the things that you write about is this notion of people having a right to secede, you know, if there's a sufficient level of consensus and a sufficient difference between one part of the country and the rest of the country, that there is this right. Just briefly tell us what is that right, supposedly? What's it based on? And then I have some follow-ups about complicating it.
RG: Sure. So there are three. I spent a lot of time at the start of the book walking through the arguments I hear from secessionists in America, whether it's regional groups in Texas or California or Red state America, things like that. The three arguments, in brief, are what I call irreconcilable differences, which we'll get to. And then one about a legal or normative right to secede, which is what your question is after.
And then another one about economic units and the benefits of small units. But the second one, there is an argument that it's not just in America. Right? It's sometimes called a primary right. Basically that a group of people, self-defined, have a right to choose what state they're in. So, if Syracuse, which is where you and I live, the Syracuse area, if the people by an overwhelming majority, by 85%, say, "Hey, look, we should become the independent state of Syracuse," then there's a normative argument out there made by political theorists that they should have that right to do it.
All right. And that is an argument that is picked up by any secessionist movement I've studied for good reason. Why would they, you know, ignore it? It's also one that isn't exclusively American. It's used all over the place. And then next to it, of course, is this constitutional argument that you often hear. And that's more specifically American.
GR: Interesting. And very briefly, what's the constitutional argument?
RG: All right. The constitutional argument is fascinating. I have to say, too, the book is written for a general audience. I deliberately tried to write it for a broad audience. Some of the chapters get a little more academic, and the one about a constitutional right is the most academic, but it's also maybe the most fascinating. I love that chapter.
So the consensus in American constitutional law right now is that there is no right to secede based on a 1869 Supreme Court decision, just a couple years out from the Civil War, that ruled that secession was unconstitutional unless the government agreed to it. Now that decision gets into all kinds of Supreme Court politics. Completely fascinating, which is probably too much for us to talk about here.
But that's the argument. Now, so the status quo argument is that there is no constitutional right, but plenty of people push back on that. If we brought on the leader of the Texas Nationalists or Cal-exit or whatever, they would have all kinds of reasons to say why that was incorrectly decided. Okay.
GR: Okay. Yeah. So you... one of the political thinkers that went through my mind when you were talking about this notion of a normative right would be John Locke. And, you know, the contract theory of government. But on talking about this right, I'm also thinking about Jeremy Bentham, who said, you know, "rights are nonsense and natural rights are nonsense walking on stilts." So, you know, if you... Okay, you have this right. But ultimately, that right is going to have to be enforced. Wouldn't it ultimately come down to force? And we're back to the Civil War again. I mean, this is just, you know, it's great that you might think you have a right, but.
RG: Right. So the argument about having a right of a people to secede through some sort of democratic process. And I've written about this in earlier work. You know, I am sympathetic to it. You just need to have rules in place for it. All right. I don't think that... Imagine if you and I did form this sovereign state of Syracuse, or we wanted to have a referendum.
GR: As long as long as long as we can take Micron with us. Okay.
RG: Go ahead. And Green Lakes, I really want Green Lakes. I love walking out there. You know, we shouldn't be able to call for a referendum every Tuesday. Right. And we shouldn't be able to say as long as just north of 50% are on board, we win. Right. That creates chaos. It's too much turbulence. So I think you need a very high bar for what success would be for that kind of thing.
That said, to your question, and I think this gets at, you know, the Jeremy Bentham comment, ultimately, secession... probably secession is that it's not governed by domestic law. Right. There is no... you know, if you and I rob a bank today, the law will determine our fate. There is no law that governs how this works.
All right. It's all... it's usually worked out when it is worked out by politics. Political people, you know, figures or movements or sometimes armed groups. They work it out. And so the problem with secession is it transcends law. And it becomes a very thorny, very difficult political issue.
GR: Yeah. I think in your book, you say it's the "Wild West" as one of your phrases. Yeah. You're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media. I'm Grant Reeher and I'm speaking with Ryan Griffiths. He's a Syracuse University political scientist and the author of a new book titled “The Disunited States: Threats of Secession and Red and Blue America and Why They Won't Work.”
You mentioned earlier in our conversation when you were talking about the three things and the economic benefits of smallness. I wanted to drill in on that attractiveness of smallness because it seems to me, indeed, it goes back several decades now, but there has been this kind of new discovery of kind of a romantic attachment to being small.
I mean, I'm thinking like there was a book several decades ago called “The Vermont Papers,” which was about the value of small government and community-based government. It goes back to the ancient Greeks, the idea that democracy had to be small. And then you have like, you know, these idyllic notions we have of countries like Norway or, you know, small, organic farming is another one that you hear a lot about. Why, why is smallness a problem in modern nations? I mean, what's the what is the limits of that attraction?
RG: All right. So, the argument for the benefits of smallness this is the third argument that is utilized by a lot of these groups. So it's used by many groups internationally as well. Is that smaller political units tend to be more homogenous. Their political preferences are more homogeneous. And if they're political preferences are more homogeneous, then the government can design policies that will be more accommodating.
That will be preferable to a broader set of populations. So people will point to Singapore, for instance, and say, that's pretty small, pretty successful. Not really a democracy. In any event. Yeah. People will point to states like that. All right. There's a pretty rich literature in economics that gets at this. Now there's of course benefits to having a big state, large internal economy.
Right. Regional insurance if there's catastrophe, big, you know, militaries. So, you know, in economics, this is called the "size of states" literature. There's benefits to having a big state and benefits to having a small state. So it is used in some of the people who've advocated for secession in America. We'll talk about that. They'll say if Texas was independent or if Red state America was independent, then, however that is delineated...
They could have policies that suit them best. I'm a bit skeptical of this just because, you know, we already have a federal system which is partly designed to accommodate the interest between region and center right, and there are many benefits to the United States having a large country. Right. And I should say, too, that this argument is only really relevant when you've got a lot of polarization and people pushing for secession.
Right. In a time of harmony, the argument about the benefits of smallness doesn't really become that salient an issue. So it's one that people talk about, and I spent some time working through it, but it's probably the one I'm most skeptical about.
GR: You're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media. I'm Grant Reeher and I'm talking with Ryan Griffiths. He's a political science professor at Syracuse University and the author of a new book on political secession titled “The Disunited States: Threats of Secession and Red and Blue America and Why They Won't Work.” This next question kind of taps into one of the three things you mentioned at the beginning: the irreconcilable differences.
But I'm thinking of these discussions about secession or related to it that I've personally heard, like at dinner parties, for example. And, you know, the most common one for me, given the circles I travel in, in academia, is, you know, mostly on the liberal side, these folks will start to dream out loud. And it seems to me like they're not talking so much about secession, but what I would call "ejection."
And so I hear things like, "Oh, wouldn't it be great if we could just get rid of the deep South, for example, or parts of the Midwest?" And, you know, they laugh, but they're not joking, if you know what I mean. So, how... you know, are there, first of all, are there precedents for ejection, in the world that you've ever seen or held? How does that fit into this notion of irreconcilable differences?
RG: Yeah, yeah. Great question. Ejection, as you're putting it, is quite rare. The one case I can think about is actually Singapore. It had been part of the Malaysian union shortly after independence, and then it was kicked out. You know, apparently, the leader of Singapore at the time was quite upset about it. I mean, ejection and secession are...
It's just like two sides of the same coin, right? Basically, trying to break a country up into smaller units. And, you know, because there are tensions between them. I mean, I guess that, you know, that opens a space to talk about that. The key argument that is motivating the secessionist—and this is whether they are liberal or conservative or moderate, there are plenty of libertarians. The New Hampshire secessionists are kind of libertarian.
GR: Right.
RG: A core argument they bring up, I call it the argument of irreconcilable differences. And that's partly because the groups regularly make an analogy with marital divorce. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene periodically tweets, "We need a national divorce" because the two sides can no longer get together or can no longer get along. Right.
She did this in the wake of the Charlie Kirk assassination. And so that argument, it appeals to people because most people are familiar with divorce, and they understand that sometimes a couple is just... the love is gone. They don't get along. And they would be able to lead happy, productive lives if they separate.
So why can't we do that with America? And it makes sense to people, right, reasons by analogy. And so a lot of the book is dedicated to trying to show why that analogy doesn't work in the way that people want it to work. Right. And I spent a lot of time doing interviews with folks, and they were gracious to talk to me about their feelings on this.
One of the problems is that in a marital divorce, it's, of course, governed by domestic law. Right. So if my wife and I get divorced, I cannot just run off with the, you know, the kids, the cat, and the car. She can call the cops. All right. There is no 911 number in secession. There's no law that determines how it's worked out.
That's one thing. Also, unlike most marriages, are two people. And, you know, a national divorce in America? That's 340 million people, right? And they are intermixed. So the whole idea of a red state, blue state thing imagines that they are somehow clearly grouped in, delineated like one is on one side of a river and the other side.
And that's just not the case. You and I live in the suburbs of Syracuse. They're quite purple. You know, the political lines run through the neighborhoods, even through households. All right. So, trying to disentangle that means you need to create some sort of partition system to disentangle America. And one of the chapters I work on tries to show just the... it was a great chapter to write.
I spent time trying to think about the maps that we would use. And so I imagine, let's say there was a constitutional convention that got together to try to figure out how to break America apart into what I call for fun, a "red land" and a "blue land." If they started with a map of states based on the last election, then you would have a reasonably coherent map.
Although again, Blue Land would be kind of a West Coast and a northeast thing, and Hawaii, etc. but still, within those places... in California alone, right? There are millions of Republicans, millions of people who would feel that they're in the wrong state. Sure. So you could drill down. And then I used a map of congressional districts. Right. Which is a bit more accurate.
But now you've got, you know, I forget the exact number. What's 400 something? And then you get this archipelago of red and blue, you get an impossible jigsaw of a country. But of course, people are more often sorted in the country they want. And then I drill down one level further to counties.
That's 5,000 political units. And then you get this impossible map, right? But in that map, of course, more people are sorted into the country they want to be in, although not all, because you can't possibly sort everybody, you know, everybody into the right country. And so one of the things I want to point out is I call this the scale problem.
There is no way to draw a perfect map. The more coherent the map, the larger the number of people that are sorted into the wrong country. Whereas if you get a map where a larger percentage are actually in the country they want to be, then you get an impossible map where, you know, it just doesn't make any sense.
And the problem with trying to do this in the first place is that—and I have a chapter dedicated to walking through the types of hyper-polarization and conflict and land grabs, all of the conflict that can result—that, you know, that's going to get in the way of any sort of peaceful or responsible attempt at trying to divide the country.
GR: Just two quick comments on that. One is if we work with the divorce metaphor, I think most people who have been through one will resonate with this. There's also financial Armageddon involved. And so I don't know if that's going to convince very many people if that's the analogy. The other thing is this reminds me, too, of the discussions of federalism and the value of federalism again, because, you know, all things being equal, you put more people in places where they want to be.
But you're right. You can never... you're never going to fix this unless we become almost individual countries. I wanted to kind of circle back to my skepticism a bit, and ask you this question because you did, as you just mentioned, you did a lot of interviews with people, and you've looked at these movements, you've taken them very seriously.
How serious do you think people are being about this? And let me give you an analogy. There's a lot of discussion now among our colleagues, and others, about democracy being on the ropes, you know, that it's under existential threat. But I do not see among these people any changes in their behavior. I mean, they're not rearranging their finances.
They're not making plans to move to another country. They don't seem to be like, you know, they're not creating bunkers in their houses, you know, in their basements. So they're talking about it, but they really don't seem to be doing anything differently with their lives. So that tells me that maybe, maybe this is hyperbolic to some degree. Maybe not. But I'm wondering if the same thing about this. I mean, I don't see people like getting ready for this divorce. Maybe you have.
RG: Yeah. Look, I think it varies. I think the people I interviewed were, by and large, quite serious about it. Some of them are writing books about it. They're... becoming their jobs, their careers. And some of the folks I talked to, expressed, you know, security concerns and things like that. That said, I attended a meeting in February, it was called the Summit of Independence Movements, put on by people out in Cal, the Cal-exit movement.
They had independence movements from all over the world zooming in. And also I think it was something like 12 different states in America had an independence movement represented. One of them was from my home state of Florida. I was astonished. I didn't know Florida had an independence movement. I think some of these are a bit more, you know, you can call it, a weekend kind of thing.
I think, I think that is the case. But some of them are quite serious. And, you know, I guess one of the key points in the book is that I'm trying to get ahead of the issue in trying to disabuse people of the belief that secession is a solution, and because the sentiment can increase, it's then very, you know... if you've got... there was an Axios poll a few years ago that found that 20% of Americans thought a national divorce was a good idea.
Now, you and I know that polls are sensitive to how they're framed. And things like that. Nevertheless, you know, there's a foundation of interest in it. And that is vulnerable to triggers. You had a political assassination. You had a failed election. Right. You could imagine. Or just you get a political leader who jumps on board and becomes the champion for a cause that can really galvanize support.
Right. And then you could take somebody who's maybe only interested in this on the weekends to somebody who's all in. And, you know, in my experience with interviewing or doing fieldwork with secessionists around the world is that, you know, there's like a Kool-Aid people can drink where they really get into the movement, the sense of hope.
It can be at close range. These things can be very stirring. And yeah, that could develop in the States with the right kind of momentum, the right kind of catalyst. So the whole point of the book is it's not to argue that polarization is non-existent or to be unsympathetic to these currents, but to say that secession is not the solution that people may wish it to be.
GR: If you're just joining us, you're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media. I'm Grant Reeher, and my guest is Syracuse University political science professor Ryan Griffiths. I had a few questions I wanted to make sure that I got to here before we end. But a quick one here before I get into them. You talked about polling.
It... the polling does indicate, though, that although we are quite divided in terms of "I don't like Republicans, I don't like Democrats," or, you know, once you put a line between the two parties, at the same time, if you ask me questions about what I think policy should be, we're not as divided as the party differences would indicate. And so that might be a mitigating factor in all this. I don't know if you look at that or not, but.
RG: I do in the... so at the conclusion... the conclusion is called "Why We Should Stay Together." Right. To end in a kind of hopeful way. And one of the points I make is that, you know, I think... and some of the data you're pointing to show that we're less divided than we think. There's a term out... "affective polarization."
That, you know, you get Republicans and Democrats to talk about their core values, and they end up being kind of the same. But then they say the other side doesn't have those values, even though the other side in a poll said that they have them. Right. So I think there's a lot that holds us together. And I think there's a lot of benefits to America staying together.
I think it, you know, it is a good country in the world. It's done a lot of great things. You know, it's imperfect, of course, but so I think that that gets neglected or overlooked in the argument for a national divorce, that there really is all these great things that kind of hold us together. But polarization sometimes hides it, right?
I mean, I should say, too. The book is written... it's a nonpartisan book, right? It's not. I didn't write it for Red America or Blue America. I wrote it for all America. And I'm trying to make the argument to the entire nation about why this is not a good solution, and why we actually have a lot of reasons to hold together.
GR: Yeah, no, that comes through. So we got about two minutes or so left. I want to squeeze in two questions. The first is, as you've demonstrated already, you have studied and written about secessionist movements around the world. You've looked at the history of this. Are there any cases or classes of cases where they are successful?
RG: Yes. So secession tends to work in very specific circumstances where you've got a defined nation. It's concentrated in a particular region. There's some sort of boundary or border that separates them from the rest.
GR: Makes sense. Yeah.
RG: And they've got some sort of special administrative status that kind of makes them seem different from the rest of the country, so that the country, the government feels that it can permit that secession without worrying about some sort of cascade effect. Right. And in books I've read and I've studied this, I've, you know, mapped them out.
None of those conditions hold in the idea of a red and blue America. Right. It's actually much closer to the partition that existed in India and Pakistan or in Cyprus. So it's a very dangerous set of circumstances.
GR: Right. Right. Okay. And then the last thing about a minute left, one obvious current-day potential application of this would be the Middle East. And have you given any thought or are there views about thinking of secession as a lens to see a way to create more peace? I don't know if that question makes sense, but.
RG: Oh yeah, that's tough. I mean, it kind of depends on the different countries or the different regions you're talking about. Of course I did. I did do a lot of work in Iraqi Kurdistan for a while. And that hasn't worked out for them. But if you're talking more specifically about Palestine.
GR: That's one that comes to mind. But I was thinking of other areas too. But yeah. What are your thoughts there? Quickly.
RG: Secession is difficult. It's hard to work out. I mean, I support a two-state solution in Israel-Palestine. I think that's the least bad solution. That's a kind of a form of secession, although the specifics are a bit different there. But look, secession is hard to pull off. And where it works out peacefully, it only does so in very specific circumstances.
GR: All right. We'll leave it there. We're sticking with America, we’re both in on this. All right. That was Ryan Griffiths again. His new book is titled “The Disunited States: Threats of Secession and Red and Blue America and Why They Won't Work.” It really is a fascinating read. Ryan, thanks again for taking the time to talk with me.
RG: Thank you. It's been a pleasure.
GR: You've been listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media, conversations in the public interest.
Sharon Owens on the Campbell Conversations
Oct 18, 2025
Sharon Owens(Ellen Abbott / WRVO)
Program transcript:
Grant Reeher: Welcome to the Campbell Conversations, I'm Grant Reeher. This November, Syracuse will elect a new mayor. Joining me today is the Democratic candidate for the position, Sharon Owens. In addition to serving as the city's deputy mayor in the Ben Walsh administration, Ms. Owens is also the board president of Blueprint 15, which is helping to lead the effort to develop the East Adams Street area, following the tearing down of Interstate 81 in the city. I'd like you to note that you can find interviews with two out of the other three candidates for mayor on the Campbell Conversations webpage. But, Deputy Mayor Owens, welcome back to the program, it's your turn today, thank you for joining me.
Sharon Owens: Thank you, it's always a pleasure to be on with you.
GR: Well, we appreciate you making the time. So let me just start by saying that, you know, we had a previous interview last May, it was before the Democratic primary and our listeners can find that interview on the Campbell Conversations webpage, too. But I asked you a lot of the standard candidate questions then, such as how your leadership style might differ from Ben Walsh's, your vision for the city, and so on. And in this interview, I wanted to go beyond that, since I think we covered that pretty well. So this is kind of like part two in a way. So, I do want to start though with my first question, I want to start with that primary because, we talked before it happened and the result of it was a bit of a surprise, I think, to a lot of local political observers. You were the front runner, I think, I said that publicly. You were the front runner, but it was looking to be a, you know, competitive primary. You had two other candidates who had won elective office in the city, they've run for other offices before. But in the end, it was, well, it was a blowout pretty much for you. What do you attribute that to?
SO: It was absolutely a good night. If you don't think you're going to win, then why are you running? So, I believe that I was going to win. But to win by, I think it was 40 points, was really satisfying for just not me, my team. We worked hard during that primary. While I think generally we all were respective of each other, it was a hard fought primary, you know, and I believe it was the message, Grant. My opponents really came after me, came after the Walsh administration and it's interesting, it's for, seven years it's been the Walsh administration and now it’s the Walsh-Owens administration during the political year.
GR: (laughter)
SO: But, I think that, and I know I heard from people that it was the messaging. The messaging never went at anyone else. The messaging was the messaging needed for people to hear about why I believe I’m the right candidate to be the next mayor, what my vision is for Syracuse. And all those things we talked about before, safety, housing, economic opportunity. And I kept the message, the message. I didn't spend time talking about other people and taking shots at other people. And quite frankly, in this political climate, I think people are sick of hearing that. And so, regardless of what's happening in the general and the same kind of retrenching of that model from the opponents I'm running against now, I'm going to stay focused on what was successful for me before, and that is talking about Syracuse and the vision for Syracuse and the opportunity that lays before Syracuse. And I think that was the game changer for the primary.
GR: Okay, yeah. I was going to ask you about whether maybe this said something about the public's frustration with where we are right now that you already addressed that. And I agree with you, I think that that probably was an ingredient in it. Well, I want to combine kind of two things we talked about in our previous conversation in May and reframe it in terms of one kind of question. And so I'll start by saying the city's facing, and we talked about this before, the city's facing two big important inflection points. The redevelopment of the area in the footprint of the elevated portion of the highway in the city of I-81. That's a big one, and then the arrival of Micron and that, you know, the whole playout of that over the next few years and, maybe Micron probably better described as a potential new birth rather than inflection, I mean, it's really big. But one of the big concerns and challenges for both of these projects is how inclusive will they be? How much of the city will be brought along in the successes there? For example, what will happen to those who are currently living in public housing under the highway that are going to be displaced, at least for a period of time? How many of the city's poorer residents will benefit either directly or indirectly, from the huge investments that Micron is making and going to make? And so the question I wanted to get to, that's a long introduction there, I apologize, but do you think it's important for someone with your background, and I'll just state of plainly, you know, your ethnicity to be leading the city during those big transitions? Do you think that is something that is going to be helpful, both symbolic and in other ways, to try to realize these opportunities for everybody in the city?
SO: What we're talking about, Grant, is nothing new just because I'm running for mayor. From the moment I graduated from Syracuse University and stepped foot as a resident of Syracuse, my calling, my mission has been assisting people who are less fortunate than me, who didn't have the opportunity to go to a top tier university, and get a degree and go down a career path, and who's been fortunate to be in safe, affordable, clean housing. And so this conversation is the driving force of my DNA, my just who I am, and ensuring. And it's been, unlike my opponents, it has been, I am not just speculating about this. I've been on the ground working to, particularly let's talk about the workforce opportunity, I've said before, when we talk about poverty, unless we are setting a path for getting people to work, we're just talking about changing the trajectory of poverty until we're changing the household incomes of individuals. So for the I-81 project, everything that Pathways to Apprentice for Syracuse Build started on a whiteboard with a marker in my hand that created a now nationally known workforce initiative that is getting people to work and putting money in their homes. I had a young man say, you know, for the first time in his life, and he's in his early 30’s, he was able to take his family on vacation. That's what the job is about, that's what a job is about. Not just punching in, but changing the quality of life, and that includes the housing. Adding to, not the 81 project, but one more thing to add to those folks in that footprint that is just continue to be inundated with information that affects their day to day lives, is the changes in HUD in real time that we're seeing because the, you know, the Housing Authority is a HUD funded initiative and all the changes from the Trump administration that we see coming through, really targeting so-called illegal citizens in our community. So we have layers upon layers of changes happening in that community. We’re finally at a place where we are headed towards a closing that we can start getting demolition done over there to start, you know, one of my opponents said that, you know, they didn't see the need to redevelop that property. And clearly, you must not have been in it. That property is unworthy of the folks who live there. It is old. It is the original housing that was developed in this country. And so, this is 2025, they deserve a 2025 era housing there. What is critical for us to ensure that that happens without displacing people who want to live in their neighborhood and have lived there for generations. And so, I've been on the forefront of that. I get criticized, it hasn't moved fast enough. No, it hasn't moved fast enough, as far as I'm concerned. But it is moving and it is hard, painstaking work.
GR: Yeah, I appreciate that. You're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media. I'm Grant Reeher, and I'm speaking with City of Syracuse Democratic mayoral candidate Sharon Owens. Well, I wanted to stick with that though, and just ask you this. You've kind of addressed it in a way, but if someone comes into this and looks at this from the outside and says, okay, somebody tells them, here are the two things that are about to happen to this city. They might say as first reaction, this has got gentrification written all over it.
SO: Sure.
GR: What do you say to someone that sort of looks at that?
SO:I would say the same, I would say this, I was working in the community when, if you remember Kennedy Square over there where the biotech center is, I was working in the community at the time that that happened. I remember, and Grant by no means was that quality housing. It was lousy housing for people, but it was home for people. And then the transaction happened with SUNY Upstate and those, I remember being on the ground in the community working for not for profit. It was a Thanksgiving during the holiday when those folks were given notices that they had to move. It was the most horrible thing I've ever seen and experienced. And I have to say, I have to give credit for the housing authority because they implement Section 8 vouchers in our community, one of two agencies. And they were able to get those individuals Section 8 houses to be able to relocate, but relocate during a major holiday? We cannot let that happen. So, there has to be, the difference between that and this is that this is HUD funded housing, there are HUD regulations that weren't even there when the highway was built, when all that dislocation happened. It is also critical why I was a voice that spoke, if you can remember, Grant, when the news had kind of broken that SUNY Upstate was looking at part of the Housing Authority property, right behind it. And it was duringone of my standard meetings when I noticed that was going on and I said, what is that? And when it was explained to me, I said, that cannot happen, that absolutely cannot happen. That is the fear that the people in that community have is that the university and the Hill is going to continue to encroach. It is another reason why the city must, and we're continuing to push this issue with the New York State DOT, the city must get control of the land under the viaduct now, once it comes down. It is owned by New York State. We need to be in possession of that, because then we go through a local public process of zoning it appropriately for the needs of our community to ensure that the use of that is just not for those who have the most money or the most influence. And so that is going to be another critical process for this next mayor is negotiations with DOT. Which, by the way, Grant, I have on a regular basis now, for every part of this quickly moving project that's going on. The next mayor, you know, we talked about Micron, and I'll hopefully be able to answer just a little bit about that. But for 81, this mayor has to keep this city moving and open. And if you, we always think that, oh, construction projects take years and it'll be delay upon delay. Oh, no. If you are driving in Syracuse, each phase of this contract is moving like gangbusters. And now the big part of it is everything going on behind City Hall now at that 690 intersection. And then we’ll be moving the preparation on Almond Street and then the viaduct coming down if everything's on track in 2027. That's not a long time from now. And so what's going on now is the environmental protections that need to happen before that preparation goes on. Social activists making sure those calls and those meetings are happening right now. And there's been amazing collaborative efforts between DOT, Upstate hospitals, doctors and social activists to make sure that environmental quality of life continues for people in that footprint.
GR: You're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media. I'm Grant Reeher and I'm talking with Sharon Owens, the Democratic city of Syracuse deputy mayor is running for mayor in this November's election. So I wanted to get into a couple of the things that your two, well, you have three opponents, but two of the opponents that I spoke with mentioned to me about the city. Like in the primary, the these criticisms that have been leveled are pretty serious against the Walsh administration. Tom Babilon said that there were inefficiencies throughout the city administration, and that's part of the reason why the spending and the budget have increased during the last eight years and he listed a few examples. He talked about trash pick-up, talked about the codes department, talked about the initiative to reduce gun violence. And I wanted to just put the question to you this way, are there currently significant inefficiencies in the city administration?
SO: No, there are not significant inefficiencies in the city's administration. Any operational organization has areas where it needs to improve and areas where it is doing what it needs to do to serve the people of Syracuse. I would never say that it is perfect, not even close to perfect, there's always room for improvement. But, for how they describe the city and the way the city is run, you know, we should be in bankruptcy and receivership and no functioning activity at all. I just don't know how people who want to be the mayor of the city think it's just so bad. And so, some of the things you mentioned, that trash can program was a game changer for the cleanliness of this city. The sidewalk program that was implemented was a game changer for accessibility for the city. Our ability to provide services on a day to day basis, it was during this administration that our fleet was just abysmal for DPW and we, you know, got out there and purchased what needed to happen to be able to serve our people, both for picking up for fall refuge and also for snow plowing and included the public in naming these new vehicles. Our fire department needed new equipment, we stepped up to the plate to do that. This lighting infrastructure that we have now, LED lighting that we have now, and what we're doing now with the EPA to do private side lead replacement. There has been multiple things that have happened in this administration. And again, yes, the code enforcement, oh my goodness, we are online now, getting applications and processing online. Mr. Babilon in particular, if he had his druthers, there would be no permitting process. Permits are issued for protection of people that are going into businesses and structures that are being renovated. It is a public protection and mechanism. And so, we have, the numbers are there over the last year, approaching $1 billion in economic growth because of our ability to get things through. There are other things that we're going to do, we’ve outsourced permitting to streamline it. So we have been, and I have been, because these entities have been under my watch and my background in ensuring that individuals in this community and businesses in the community can thrive, have been my responsibility. Unprecedented housing initiatives going on in the city under my watch. So I'm not speculating about what, has happened or what can happen. I live it every day. I put my shoes on and go into City Hall every day to get the job done.
GR: So let me ask you a question about Micron that builds a little bit on this, because it has to do with spending in the budget. And this is probably, you know, a problem that a lot of mayors would like to have. But if I'm looking at Micron coming in, I might be tempted to say something like the following, that there's going to be a lot more people in and around Syracuse who are making high salaries, they're going to be spending their money. The property values of the most desirable parts of the city are going to keep going up. They already are, I'm seeing it in the university neighborhood, for example. The prices are really launching up. And so if I'm a mayor looking at this, I might think I'm going to have more money in my budget even if I don't lift a finger, it's just going to come in. So, my question I guess, is don't you think that might be a temptation to start a lot of new programs, spend a lot? I mean, you're going to have a lot, you mentioned the activist groups just a second ago and talking about I-81. You're going to have a lot of pressure from those groups saying, this is the moment to do some of the things I've been wanting to do. How are you going to navigate that? I mean, it's a good problem to have, but how are you going to navigate it?
SO: I hope and pray that is a problem I inherit. Right now, I'm looking at a 25 or $30 million deficit. One of the things that I plan to do is to reach across the aisle, Rita Paniagua will be the next president of the Common Council. What I want to avoid is another council administration battle that we had with the budget this time. The oversight, fiscal oversight and execution of the city's budget is the responsibility of us jointly, the administrative wing and the legislative wing. I want to jointly put together a commission to really look at how we can look at our costs without sacrificing the services that the taxpaying people deserve in Syracuse, but also looking at how we can generate revenue. The growth of our region and the growth of our city is one way to do that. But we have to do it without pricing out our residents in this community. Affordable housing, the federal government is a big part of those subsidies that make that housing affordable. That is going to change, Grant, you know, the funding coming from the Trump administration. But how can we reduce the cost of affordable housing reconstruction? Manufactured housing, the Land Bank has a project it's working on now that reduce the costs of building houses that can be affordable to keep people in Syracuse who are going to stay in Syracuse in new homes to increase our tax base, but also addressing the rental issue, 60% of our city residents rent. So ensuring the quality of housing for rentals are there as well. And so, we have to be responsible. I mean, we were responsible with ARPA funds. We used it for a project that we normally would not have the funding to use for. It was one of the ways we started the sidewalk program. So we have to be responsible, but we have to work collaborative because, you know, my mother has always taught me, save the money, but the money is there for a rainy day. It feels like it's raining, but let's make sure that when it's different from sprinkling to a good rainstorm to a hurricane. And so, we have to adjust accordingly to our fiscal status.
GR: If you've just joined us, you're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media. I'm Grant Reeher, and my guest is Syracuse mayoral candidate Sharon Owens. So, I’ve got about five minutes left or so, I want to try to squeeze in at least, two, maybe three questions if I can. The first one is, both Tim Rudd and Tom Babilon claim that the administration hasn't been as transparent as it could have been with the city council and otherwise, and I think also the newspaper has suggested some things similar to that. So rather than ask you whether it's true or not, I just wanted to ask you this, do you have plans for making what the administration does more transparent to the public and the council? You mentioned you want to work with the council, but are you going to try to make it more transparent?
SO: Well, first of all, I must answer that, it's not true. We have $123 million of ARPA money. If we weren't going to be transparent, we wouldn't have created a public dashboard so the public can see exactly how we were planning the spending, actually did spend that money. This administration was the administration that actually put in the infrastructure to make the council meetings accessible by video in live streams, it was us that did that. So when we talk about transparency, and it all, you know, really comes down to that, modernization, payroll modernization project. We, I, have said that could things have been done differently, the management of it? Absolutely. Grant, when I came to the city in 2018 from Southwest Community Center, when I was at the Southwest Community Center, there was an automated way by which I would scan and be able to get paid. I come to the city and we're doing that on paper timesheets. We're a 300 plus million dollar organization, and so this process has been hard, but we are making progress and I don't regret doing it at all. I am a transparent individual, I have been my entire life.
GR: Okay, thank you. So, just a couple of minutes left now, and two questions here. The first one, Mr. Babilon also made on air a no new taxes pledge for his four years. I'm going to ask you, are you running on a similar pledge? How would you handle that question?
SO: That would be, we just talked about transparency. That would be disingenuous to say that over the course of four years, you can make that commitment right now, that there would be no new taxes. I do not want to tax the people of Syracuse, but I'm not going to make that pledge predicting four years from now.
GR: Okay. Fair enough.
SO: Irresponsible.
GR: It didn't help George H.W. Bush.
SO: (laughter)
GR: And so last question, and you got about a minute and a half, two minutes to answer it. I wanted to give you kind of a big picture question and a chance to sort of take everything from your campaign and your vision and put it all under one thing. Imagine that I am a 30-something person okay? (laughter) You have to have to put on your rose-colored glasses there, and I'm relocating to Syracuse because I'm going to work for Micron, okay? I want you to convince me and about a minute to live in the city, as opposed to the suburbs.
SO: I am so happy that you are coming to this community. You have picked a amazing place to live, an amazing place to grow yourself personally and to raise your family. Syracuse has a long history of individuals in this community that have helped it grow over the course of its existence, and you are about to be a part of its history and a pinnacle time, a game changing time, where we have technology that we are going to be implementing here in Syracuse that rivals any other place in the world. And here you are right now. You can take advantage of our amazing city, our amazing parks, our affordable living, and just the best people you're going to find on the face of the Earth here in Syracuse, so welcome aboard.
GR: Okay, all right, I'm in, all right. So, we'll leave it there. That was Sharon Owens, she's a candidate for Syracuse mayor. Again, I want to remind everybody that my conversations with the other candidates are available on the Campbell Conversations webpage. And my previous conversation with Deputy Mayor Owens when she was running in the primary is also available there. We covered in that conversation some general things about vision for the city and other important issues. But Deputy Mayor Owens, again, I want to thank you so much for taking the time to talk with me. Best of luck with the rest of the campaign trail, I know it's hard work.
SO: Thank you. Great to be here and I'll see you on the other side.
GR: Okay. You've been listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media, conversations in the public interest.
Our TOPPODCAST Picks 
Stay Connected
