Episode Transcript
[00:00:14] Speaker A: Hello, welcome to the Call It Like I See it podcast. I'm James Keys and in this episode of Call It Like I See it, we're going to discuss how America's two party system, which overlaps with its polarized electorate, is increasingly demanding complete conformity. And how now you're having a few notable people like Joe Rogan or Andrew Yang that are pushing back really hard against this in different ways.
And later on we're going to reflect on the life and legacy of Bill Russell, a man who quite literally was a giant in terms of both his physical appearance and. And his influence on American culture.
Joining me today is a man who, despite his substantial height, will be the first to tell you that life is too short. Tunde. Ogon Lana Tunde, are you planning to share even more wisdom about life today?
[00:01:09] Speaker B: Yeah, man, I'm not that tall.
[00:01:13] Speaker A: Well, yeah, we're comparing to Bill Russell.
[00:01:15] Speaker B: Yeah, I was going to say I'm shorter than my grandfather. He was 7 2, so.
[00:01:19] Speaker A: Oh, wow.
Now we're recording this on August 1st, 2022. And as we all know, American politics is dominated by two political parties, Democratic Party and the Republicans. And we also know that Americans are very polarized and that this modern polarization has really hardened along partisan lines, which just fun fact is not something that is a given. If you look back throughout American history now, there are a lot of people who are dissatisfied with this status quo and trend, which is it's both, it's trending in that direction more and it exists as it is right now. And today we're gonna look at a few ways where we're seeing people push back against it formally and informally, including like there's the newly announced forward part party political party, which is trying to present itself as a credible national party, but as a third party. And also we're gonna look at Joe Rogan recently admonishing people who were essentially telling him what his political affiliation must be based on his views on certain things.
So to get us started, Tunde, what did you think? Let's start on the Forward Party. What do you think about this new, newly announced Forward Party? And do you think any of this will matter at all as far as like third parties? You know, they come and go and all that.
[00:02:42] Speaker B: Right now it's so early in its infancy, I don't know if it'll matter or not. I think if they do grow and end up being like other third parties have been, it could make a difference. I mean, we see in recent, in our lifetime, you know, in the last 30 years we've had two elections that were kind of decided by the third party candidate or at least swung, basically. Yeah, that's my point is that Al Gore most likely would have won the 2000 election had it not been for Ralph Nader and the Green Party.
And then in 92, George H.W. bush may have enjoyed a second term in office and not ceded to Bill Clinton had Ross Perot not entered that presidential race. And you know, I would say maybe on a lesser scale, 2016, with Jill Stein as a candidate because of the razor thin electoral college win that Donald Trump got. So that's why I say if they can get past this infancy stage and have a seat at the table as a legitimate political party, they will have an effect.
[00:03:54] Speaker A: Let me emphasize that real quick. The effect that you're talking about there isn't necessarily them becoming a. And that would be looking too far into the future. They're just gonna become a, a permanent fixture in our politics. But an immediate effect could be that they swing an election or three or something like that. Like you're talking about presidential elections. They can also swing elections whether they win or not, pull votes away from somebody or whatever. So if they're funded and they're serious, they can matter. Just.
[00:04:19] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah. No, and I think, like, I'm curious about it because I think I would say this about me. I'm probably one of these people that they are looking for, somebody who is disgruntled with the direction of both parties. I'm actually a registered independent, so unfortunately I can't participate in this year's Florida primaries.
But, but, but, you know, I want to give them a look and see what they're about. I mean, I'm not going to just go to them just. Cause. But, but. And that's one of the disappointing things in reading about them. They don't have any policy positions yet. So. Yeah, that's my point is they got to get a little bit from this infancy stage to that. I want to see. You know, I'm not going to just follow them because I'm unhappy with the other two. I want to see what they're about. But I'm curious, let's put it that way. And I think that if there was a time for a third party, it seems like this is that time.
[00:05:13] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:05:14] Speaker B: At least.
[00:05:14] Speaker A: And that seems to be what they're saying, you know, because everybody, well, anybody who's looked at it has seen the history and third parties try and try to get in and you know, they, they may around for a little bit. And then they usually eventually fade into either obscurity or just oblivion. Yeah, but yeah, I mean, I think that I look at it as anything that endeavor endeavors to give people more options, more choices, I think is a good thing in the democracy because the idea. It definitely does seem like we've ventured into a place where the two political parties both essentially want your vote in large part for. Because they're not the other. You know, they both seem to draw a lot of support saying, I'm not those other guys. And so when they're both really doing that, then and that again, that forget about whether a party's gone crazy or anything like that, which we talk about that kind of stuff. I'm just saying both parties, when their main message or their most persuasive message is the other guy is bad, that's not good. That's not healthy for a democracy. And that means we should have more than two choices because they're basically trying to say process of elimination, vote for me. And we should demand better than that. Like, that's not what we should want from people who. From people who are going to lead us is that the other guy is so bad you got to vote for me. Because that doesn't put them in office really to serve our best interests. That puts us in. Off and them in office just to not be the other guy. And so again, I mean, that's one of those things that I think if there is a time now I'm skeptical of whether it can work and I'll get into that here in a little bit. But I do think right now is a good time for that because, yeah, the messaging, the big thing both parties are saying is just not enough, in my view. It's the kind of the signal that you guys probably need some other competition if that's the best you can do.
[00:06:59] Speaker B: Yeah. And I want to stay here so we don't offend anyone. There is a third party in the United States right now. It's the Libertarian Party.
[00:07:07] Speaker A: Well, there's several third parties, you know, like. But they're all spoken in reference to the two, which they're a third of that. But if you want to say, like this is probably the eighth party or something like that.
[00:07:18] Speaker B: No, I was going to say there's actually 10 parties in the United States right now, so this will be the 11th. So just to be. For the audience, to be clear, this wouldn't be the third party.
[00:07:27] Speaker A: You don't want to catch any strays from the Green Party or the Libertarians.
[00:07:30] Speaker B: No, here's the thing, because the Libertarian is the largest outside of the two major parties with 600,000 registered members.
But so we've got Democrats and Republicans. The other eight are Alliance, Constitution Party, Green Party, Libertarian. There's a legal marijuana now party.
I think they've been pretty effective.
[00:07:51] Speaker A: I bet you they have a platform.
[00:07:53] Speaker B: Yeah. I wonder what their platform is. Correct.
It's universal health care in a different way. Huh.
Unity Party of America, Working Class Party and the Working Families Party. So Those are the 10, I guess, official parties that are registered with our government as being official political parties. And so this would be the 11th. And yeah, it'll be interesting. I think clearly they'll probably have a little bit of buzz and notoriety because Andrew Yang, as you mentioned, and Christine Todd Whitman, the former governor of New Jersey, who's Republican, are the two chairs of this new political party. So they are generally well known in their prior political circles, Democratic and Republican. And they have some, you know, they're.
[00:08:41] Speaker A: Pulling like centrists from both parties, really, like, and, you know, some notable centrists from both parties. And they present themselves as a centrist party that, you know, whose pillars, so to speak. Like you said, they don't have a platform. It's spelled out yet, but they want to work on a fair and flourishing economy and giving Americans more choice in elections and confidence in government.
[00:09:00] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:09:00] Speaker A: And so, you know, like, they have these kind of, it's almost like bumper sticker stuff at this point, but, you know, it'll be interesting to see how they evolve.
[00:09:07] Speaker B: Yeah, well, that's what I think. You know, one of their risks will be when they start coming out with policies because they're basically just the moderate.
You know, people from the other parties is probably going to look very similar to what the other parties generally have said they've been about whether those parties are behaving that way, Democrats and Republicans. Now, you know, that's what one could argue. But the history of our political parties, you know, is coming from the founding of the country in 1789 through the 1790s. Basically, the first two parties were actually the Federalist Party was the first one, and the competing party was called the Democratic Republican Party. It's funny.
Or the other way it was called was the anti Administration party. And so the interesting thing is it's really the, I would say the cultural battle from the start of this country between the elites and the non elites. So the Federalist Party grew from the side of, you know, the Alexander Hamilton side, which was George Washington's secretary of the treasury and he favored a strong central government, close ties to Britain and a centralized banking system. He was the first one that advocated for the centralized banking system. Then the Democratic Republican Party was founded by Madison and Thomas Jefferson.
[00:10:30] Speaker A: And Jefferson was actually in Washington's cabinet as well. You know, interestingly enough, like these guys were part of the same cabinet, you know.
And I want just to mention with Madison and Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, they both decried partisanship and political parties. But it almost was like just a natural human thing, a way of organizing like tribalism kind of thing. Like at our core, once they got into power and into government, they ended up looking for allies and looking for like minded people to band with them and for protection and for. To help them go on the offensive against the other side. Hamilton wanted to do things one way, Madison and Jefferson wanted to do things another way. So they coalesced into parties, you know, and after 10 years before they were saying parties are terrible, you know, like. So it's, it's interesting how that kind of happens organically, automatically, so to speak, amongst people who literally were decrying it and in writing years before.
[00:11:23] Speaker B: Well, I think we said this before, leadership's important. So I'll get back to George Washington in a second.
No, but just to finish off on the Federal. So the Federalists were kind of the anti Hamilton types. They looked at those guys as elites, you know. Do you want.
[00:11:38] Speaker A: No, that would be the Democratic Republicans.
[00:11:40] Speaker B: Sorry, you're absolutely right. Let me.
[00:11:42] Speaker A: Well you had said it right the first time.
[00:11:44] Speaker B: Let me say that, yeah, that it was the Democratic Republicans and because they looked at it as, you know, like a lot of. That's what I mean by the culture has stayed. Right. There's a lot of people that look at our Federal Reserve bank, our central bank with suspicion. Right. Those are the descendants of the Democratic Republicans. The type of mindset of we don't trust the elites in a sense.
[00:12:03] Speaker A: Well, and they wanted the country to be more agrarian and people to be more self sufficient and stuff like that. So it was a different view, you said a different view of governance.
[00:12:13] Speaker B: And then Hamilton was the type that was like kind of the elite we know better. So that's the tension that's probably been there in other societies as well, between the haves and have not types. But no going back to George Washington, why I say leadership's important is because we've noted this prior. But in his farewell address after he stepped down from his second term, he cited that and he warned our country that political parties are, you Know, basically tribal. I mean, it's basically, I think, what he warned us of, what we see today.
And I think you're right.
[00:12:52] Speaker A: Well, address is very, very famous for that.
[00:12:54] Speaker B: Yeah. And I think you're right, though. There's something in the human experience. And I think, you know, it's like, why do kids join gangs, right, that don't come from a good family? Because they want some sort of family. They want, they need, you know, human beings need social interaction. We like to group together. That's why a lot of people, you know, go to church on Sundays is not that they're necessarily super religious. They just like, you know, the environment.
[00:13:17] Speaker A: Not all of them, you should say, like, some of them.
[00:13:18] Speaker B: Yeah, no, I said, I said, I said not everyone's super religious. Some people just like the idea of the community that's built through the church or their religion. So I think it's like you're saying it was probably inevitable for human beings to. To coalesce along these fault lines, which the thing is.
[00:13:37] Speaker A: Well, let me, Let me. Let me just jump in real quick because the thing is, everybody can't be George Washington. Like, George Washington was guided by his own political compass.
[00:13:44] Speaker B: He didn't necessarily talk about yourself, sir.
[00:13:48] Speaker A: I'm just saying, like, George Washington was a man that could stand up and say, hey, this is what I'm about. This is what I'm not about. And he was fine standing on his own, so to speak. He was also good at getting people to follow him in that sense. So he was the guy that after the political parties formed, he was still like, yo, no, no, you guys shouldn't be doing this. And his farewell address. And if you look on just throughout the history, like, it started with the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans, you know, the Whigs popped in for a while. Then you had the actual Republican Party, the one that exists now, come around in the 1850s. And that was, you know, that coincided with, like, Abraham Lincoln. The. The Democratic Republican Party kind of evolved eventually into the Democratic Party with the modern one is kind of Andrew Jackson's kind of the guy that really was the. The. The person who. That coalesced around at the time. So mid-1800s is when you started to get these existing parties now. But one thing about the system as it has existed is that at most times, not all the times, but at most times except, you know, isolated years here and there, it's always been two parties, though. It's always been two sides primarily. It never really. You will never have a sustained decade or 15 years where there's like three or four parties that all have relatively equal or all are very prominent, so to speak. Like when the Whigs popped up, you know, the Federalists kind of went away, you know. And then when the Republicans came around, the wigs kind of went away, you know. And so the thing about that, and I think this needs to be discussed specifically because it's very important to understand our system because of the nature of our elections. It almost requires us to have two parties because what ends up happening, we have winner take all elections, one vote, one man. And then whoever gets the most votes win. You don't have to have 50% if you have three or four parties. People start winning elections with 30% of the vote. And that's just not. People aren't going to be okay with the 70% will never stand for that, you know. And so what ends up happening in our system like ours is that people have to create, they have to group up before elections so that they can get as close to or get over 50%. And so all basically when you see these part, these countries with other, with multiple parties, Israel or the United Kingdom or just all over the world, whether it's parliamentary systems or other types of systems of voting systems, whether it be the ranked choice voting or anything like that, they are allowed to group up and form coalitions after elections. We can't do that here though, because it's winner take all. You either get in and you get your, your party gets in or nobody. And so when it. So basically, like I said, just to repeat it, we have to group up before. So we have all these different interest groups that decide, okay, I'm going to go with Republican or I'm going to go with Democrat. And that's why we end up having our two party system. So I think for the forward party, basically they would need to look to knock one of the existing parties out if they want to become, to have staying power. Basically they can be a spoiler now, but they're going to have to knock out one or replace basically draw the bulk of one of the existing parties into them and then that other party fade off for them if they're going to have staying power. So I just wanted to make that kind of structural point because I think a lot of people just don't think about it in that way now. Like, why can't we have four parties? Why can't we have five parties? It's like there's a good reason. Like if there's four parties and 26% win the 74 will be like, no, never again.
Never again. Like we're going to join up and never again.
[00:17:04] Speaker B: Well, it's also because we're not a parliamentary style system, so it's not like they would have a coalition to form and all that stuff where you can still say yeah after the election. Correct. And it's interesting because I was even. And it's interesting about the ideology of these parties because if you look at the party like the Whig party in the 1800s, they advocated for the supremacy of Congress over the executive branch.
[00:17:27] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:17:27] Speaker B: But in our lifetime, like since you and I were born and lived in America, since, you know, the last 40 plus years, we've lived under a system where the executive, you know, the President's office itself has, has gotten more and more powerful, you know, through the use of.
[00:17:44] Speaker A: That's ebbed and flowed throughout history. Yeah, that's what I mean, the legislature was like, if you look at like the 1860s, 1870s, you had a very strong Congress, you know, like, and then. But the executives, a lot of times the executive branch likes to push for more power. So. Yeah. But through our lifetime it's definitely, you.
[00:18:01] Speaker B: Know what, you know, what ruined the Whig Party?
[00:18:03] Speaker A: What's that?
[00:18:04] Speaker B: It's interesting. There's another thing we're not supposed to talk about.
[00:18:07] Speaker A: Oh yeah.
[00:18:08] Speaker B: In the early 1850s, it was their split over slavery as a result of the Kansas Nebraska act and all the infighting. Basically they started losing too much and then they were gone.
[00:18:19] Speaker A: But I mean, this is why it's silly to say you can discuss American history without race because the Republic Republican Party was formed about slavery. You know, we're stopped the spread of slavery. That's the Republican Party.
[00:18:31] Speaker B: I got one more fun gem of my history than this and then we can move. So I don't put the audience to sleep here. But you know, so do you know what the oldest third party in the United States is?
[00:18:42] Speaker A: What is it?
[00:18:43] Speaker B: The Anti Masonic party.
[00:18:45] Speaker A: There you go.
[00:18:45] Speaker B: I think they had an agenda too. Kind of like the marijuana. The Marijuana now party.
[00:18:50] Speaker A: I think it's pretty obvious. Yeah. Their platform is pretty obvious. Yeah.
[00:18:53] Speaker B: So. So this is, this is why I love history, because it calms me down about stuff I think is absolutely bonkers today. So, you know, the party's creators feared the Freemasons, believing they were a powerful secret society that was attempting to rule the country in defiance of Republican principles. And I started thinking, first thing I thought of is what we've been hearing this last 10 years, this deep state, you know, and Then I thought of, you know, something like a QAnon. Even though I know that's a lot, that's a messy thing for me to say because QAnon's got a lot of tentacles. But there is a part of QAnon. Right. I mean, the original thing was it's supposed to be a guy named Q who's some intelligence dude deep in the deep state, who's telling everybody about all this, you know, that he's saving us.
[00:19:37] Speaker A: All, that he has this security clearance and he knows all this.
[00:19:40] Speaker B: He knows all of the killing.
[00:19:41] Speaker A: All these beans.
[00:19:42] Speaker B: Yeah. The people that are drinking the kid's blood so they can get that little protein to make themselves look younger and all that. And the point is, is like, that's why.
And think about it. That the Freemasons were a secret society attempting to rule the country in defiance of Republican principles. Think about the language is similar to today that the deep state. And it's not Freemasons, it's liberals cabal. It's the left. It's this cabal of people in the secret places that are trying to overthrow American values. Right. And so. And so when I thought about the same thing, it's kind of not fair because both Freemasons and government intelligence agencies and all that kind of operate in the same sphere where they can't really talk about what they do because that's just what they're about. And so it's a perfect boogeyman to be able to point to a group that will never tell you what they're doing behind the closed doors, because then everyone can just come to the most draconian and worst conclusions. And so.
[00:20:44] Speaker A: Well, yeah, I mean, that's the thing. Like you. If you. Anytime you want to create a boogeyman, a secret society is kind of. Or like a secret, a group.
[00:20:51] Speaker B: Now, you.
[00:20:52] Speaker A: Secrecy is kind of the mark. It's like, oh, yeah. Because they won't. They won't rebut it. We can say whatever we want. They'll just be quiet. And so. But I mean, all of this stuff in that sense kind of rhymes. Like, even the whole drinking the blood. Like, remember drinking the blood? Like, that's something that many a group, when they've tried to demonize another group, have used throughout history. You know, like, it's these same triggers almost. But I want to talk about beyond just the political party, because I thought the Rogan thing that came up this week was very interesting in the sense where, I mean, he is literally admonishing people, telling, you guys, don't you can't. What do you mean? You can't call me a Republican. Like he calls himself a bleeding heart liberal. He's saying, oh, just because I believe this or that, you can't tell me what, you know, what political affiliation I am or something like that. And so I want to know, I want to start with you. I mean, I have some thoughts, but I want, that I want to get into. But just what was your, you know, what did you think when you heard that? And you know, as far as like, do you think that illustrates kind of the difficulty we are having in our two party system and particularly our highly polarized along political lines. Two party system?
[00:21:56] Speaker B: Yeah.
So to answer your first question, I thought it was very refreshing when I saw this from Joe Rogan.
And not because he said I'm a liberal or anything like that. It's just the fact he's pushing back on, you know, like you're saying this kind of era where everybody is just triggered by one or two statements from somebody and that they automatically put them in this camp like, oh, you said this or I'm going to follow you away, that you're forever that.
[00:22:24] Speaker A: I want to use a word here, but I'll let you continue. Conformity. That's what he's pushing. He's saying, look, if you're, people want to say, if you believe on one issue you're saying the same thing, but conformity is the word. If you believe one issue on this, this way, that means you, your whole entire everything else has to be in this line as well. And it's like what. That's crazy, you know, like that, that is like, that is antithetical to what I think what a free society should be, where we all like if there's one thing, if you look at one thing, one way you got to believe everything that some party tells you to believe because of that. That's crazy. But go ahead.
[00:22:58] Speaker B: No, I think, well, what's happening is with this whole era of like hyper celebrity, meaning we've all, we haven't always, but in our country, let's say the last hundred, 100 plus years, you know, from 1900 to now, you had radio celebrities, then you had movies. Right. Then you had the advent of television, mass media, basically. Yeah. You had music.
[00:23:19] Speaker A: It really opens the door for this.
[00:23:21] Speaker B: Yeah, but still like we've talked about for different types of discussions. Right. There's still a time when you kind of had to turn it on and off and go look for it. Just like when we had to go to the Library to find certain information. And now it's all in our palms of our hand. Not only the information we used to go to library for, but also all the celebrity. You know, you got the social media, you got this, you got that. So I think what, what, what's happening is people like Joe Rogan, like let's say Bill Maher, I thought about someone like George Carlin as a good example, the comedian that's, that's, you know, he's passed away.
But they all said very similar things because they were critics of our society in a sense. I won't say Rogan's not a comedian, but I think people like Mara, Richard Pryor and the gentleman I just mentioned, they all, through comedy, critique our society. And Rogan as a commentator, as a podcast host, kind of does a similar thing. So I think what happens is the way that we all in our society consume and react to media. These people become avatars for people. Right. So, yeah, the way if your first impression of Joe Rogan, because I've seen Joe Rogan for years. So by the time he was given his take on Covid, let's say last year or coming into this year, and then he was getting beat up because he was promoting that horse drug or whatever, I didn't look at him anyway like he's a conservative or liberal or anything. But if that was your first entry in that hyper polarized time, and the first time you heard Joe Rogan was to talk about his thoughts of how to deal with COVID and It wasn't the Dr. Fauci way. That's where probably a lot of people thought that he was some sort of kind of right wing guy and into these kind of experimental things.
[00:25:05] Speaker A: But even that says more about our political system because it was. Now that could be leadership, that could be a lot of different things. But the idea of whether you will buy what a doctor's selling, it became partisan as well.
[00:25:18] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, exactly.
[00:25:18] Speaker A: Which is like, well, hold on. Like there are people from all type of political spectrums that will either believe what doctors say or not or ignore what doctors say. Like, so the whole fact that that issue became political, I think reflects the, like the difficulty we're having with our political system. And I think I want to add something to what you were saying. Independent thinkers is the word that or, you know, the phrase that comes to mind with all the people that you raised. These people are independent thinkers. And so they come up with, they look at things and they come up with their own thoughts. And then you can agree with Them or you cannot. But actually it's actually very difficult when somebody's an independent thinker, particularly if you're an independent thinker as well, for you to agree with them on everything that they say.
[00:25:56] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:25:56] Speaker A: And so ultimately what was happening and so what happens I should say is as you pointed out, use the term avatars. What ends up happening is that people use these celebrities, so to speak, or you know, like they use, create them as avatars for what they project onto them for everything else. And so it's like, okay, yeah, you're going to be. I've said, I've heard you say this and I like that. So I'm going to project all this other stuff onto you or I say this and I don't like that. And so I'm going to project all this other stuff because you're just trying to fill in the blanks. But actually that person isn't. They're just, they're an independent thinker, so to speak. They're coming up with their own stuff. And yeah, sometimes independent thinkers are wrong, sometimes they're misguided, sometimes they have made good points. And so it's like not allowing them to be something that is three dimensional. And that's what I think if you want to make an overall point, our system, our polarized system really makes our views of politics and how we look at issues very two dimensional. And the world is really difficult to view in two dimensions, you know, and I, and pun intended, you know, it's really difficult to really get an understanding what's going on. If you look at everything in two dimensions, you need a three dimensional view. And so basically because our system is making us look at everything two dimension, I'm going to define that. What I mean by that is that we assume that people, if any given team, any given party or tribe or whatever, all are all supposed to have the same views because there's that conformity. We expect conformity in that sense and even more. I'm going to put this in the show notes. There's research out there now that beyond the expectation of others to all conform to the views of the group, where's also evidence now in our hyper polarized time that people are conforming their views over the course of time, over five years or so, they're conforming their views to what they view the expectation or the position of the tribe as well. So that's what I mean by two dimensional. It's flattening everything and you got to go one way or the other. And that's It. There's no. There's no third direction to go. It's either left or right with every issue. And you. You got to keep going in one direction until you get to whatever, you know, like wherever the party is, I guess.
[00:28:01] Speaker B: Well, the forward party might be that third angle.
Let's see. They gotta get a.
They gotta get a policy platform first.
[00:28:09] Speaker A: That's their imagery. That's what they said, what's the solution to America? And I'm not quoting it right now, but it's like, what's the solution to America's problems? Not left, not right, but forward. You know, like, that's their. That's their phrasing that they're using, so to speak. So, no, I mean, I think that they're going in that direction. They're trying to present themselves as that.
[00:28:26] Speaker B: Yeah, let's see where they go. But with. With Rogan, what's interesting, because I'll read a quote from what he said in this interview. He says, just because I believe in the Second Amendment and just because I support the military and just because I support police doesn't mean I'm a Republican. And I thought, you know, that's a great statement, right? Because it's like what we've done in our culture, in our culture wars with politics, is each side has ceded something that's important to the country, right? Like this idea that, you know, you know, Democrats wouldn't want law enforcement to show up if they were, you know, there was a crime. I know that there was some people on the far left and on the fringe of, you know, activists and all that that were talking about defund the police. Okay? That to me, is no different than the fringes on the right or talking about they want segregation. I mean, there's fringes everywhere, right? That's the whole point, is they're a fringe.
[00:29:20] Speaker A: And that's the thing. When this comes two dimensional, then everybody kind of gravitates towards those fringes. That's the danger.
[00:29:26] Speaker B: And so. And so, and so the reality is that, you know, the Democrats also may have ceded some of this, you know, you know, law enforcement, you know, military, all that. But in the same way Republicans would have ceded something like a topic like health care, like the public seems to trust Democrats on health care generally more than Republicans. Just like the public has become conditioned to trust Republicans more on things like military and law enforcement more than Democrats. So. But I'm pretty sure every Republican, if they get sick or they got a heart attack or something, want the hospitals to be open and all that, like, it's like. It's not like Republicans don't care about health care.
[00:30:01] Speaker A: But you know what's crazy about this also, though, is that it also isn't responsive to current events either. Like, we kind of just put these things in our mind and then they're fixed. Like the whole burn pit victim thing that just went through and got killed in the Senate by the Republicans. Nobody's gonna come out and say, oh, well, the Republicans don't support military anymore. Well, nobody is going to internalize that. I should say. People are going to say it and try to score points or whatever. And it's a serious issue. It shouldn't be an issue of scoring points about. But it's almost like we don't respond to what we see. We kind of just have internalized this is what all of this stuff means. And therefore, which anything that happens, we're kind of oblivious to it. And particularly if it doesn't conform to what we already believe, you know, which is confirmation bias and everything. But if I think that's notable, though, that it's not dynamic, so to speak, as far as these views on these.
[00:30:50] Speaker B: Parties, I would almost say the burn pit thing is very emblematic of the dysfunction at our national politics, because a good example is. It's really shocking to me because that's one of the few things, I think, that most Americans agree on and that we would assume that it would be totally bipartisan, which is spending money on the soldiers that already fought for us.
[00:31:13] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:31:14] Speaker B: And that are injured and hurt. I don't think. I mean, you know, and I saw this. I'm about a $400 million bill.
[00:31:18] Speaker A: They got injured fighting for us, serving the state.
[00:31:22] Speaker B: That's right. I mean, like, the price tag doesn't matter. So I was like, 400 billion or something that. And it's like, okay, so what? Like, they went on our behalf somewhere and got hurt. Whether they got shot, that's the deal.
[00:31:33] Speaker A: Like we're going to send them, then we got to take care of them when they get back.
[00:31:36] Speaker B: Breathed in some chemicals and all that, you know, it's. It's our responsibility. And this is another quote from Rogan. He says, like, I was on welfare as a kid. I think it's important. I think having a social safety net is crucial. We should help each other. We're supposed to be one big community. I'm a bleeding hard liberal when it comes to a lot of that shit. So. End quote. And I'm sure he would say, I'm a conservative when it comes to some other topic that he could bring up. But my point is, is that here's a guy who's saying this is to me like the definition of a moderate political stance in the United States. He's saying I support the military, the second amendment and police, but I also support having a social safety net. I also think that, you know, we're supposed to be a big community. Like it's, it's interesting. And that's where I do think the ecosystems are responsible for some of this. I mean we are responsible as individuals for consuming it too. But like you're saying about this assignment of the most negative things to the opposing side based on a statement or two by one person who happens to be somewhere in that party, either high or low, you know, but it's just interesting. So yeah, I thought that it was a great, it was great and refreshing to hear him just talk directly. And I say that to say I'm not happy to hear him say I'm not a Republican. I'm happy to hear him say why can't I be nuanced based like you said, why can't I, why can't I.
[00:33:03] Speaker A: Be an independent thinker?
But see, and the thing is, the other piece about this that I guess we have to say because this is how it works nowadays is we're not out here caping for Joe Rogan, like, oh, Joe Rogan. It's just like, no, it's good to see someone independent thinking like, okay, I'm free to agree with half of what Joe Rogan says or 3/4 of what he says, or one fourth of what he says. I'm free to agree or disagree with any of that stuff, but I still want people who will. I prefer people be independent thinkers and come up with what they think about these things. It's not illegal to support the military and the second amendment and also think of social safety net is important. That's not like you go to some places and you think it's, that's something that can't be done. Like you just can't take those, those positions altogether. There's, there's no dissonance there. That is a coherent worldview, you know, and that's on my has. But again, when our politics force everything, every issue into a two dimensional issue one way or the other and like it becomes a situation where basically we can't have independent thinkers basically become the enemy. And maybe that's our impassioned defense here because we consider ourselves independent thinkers and we're people aren't going to and some people aren't going to agree with everything I say about every issue, for sure. And so I think that's that ultimately you kind of touched on this at the beginning. Ultimately we do have to remember that the politics, it's a people game. And this isn't a simulation or some like, you know, this isn't a board game or something like that. Like, this is a people game. And so the people. Well, let me, let me finish. The people aspect of this we can't ignore. But at the same time, when we're talking about this stuff a lot of times what we're talking about a lot of time is the structure of it. And is the structure of it serving our interests or is the structure of it pulling us apart or making it more difficult for our government to serve us and to serve our interests and our needs? And so I think really what we're doing here is pointing out how the way things have developed and they've developed there in large part organically because of the way humans are. The structure that we're operating under is not really going to bring out the best of us. And so we need to understand that and either take a look at what we can do to tweak around the structure or what we can do basically to try to put us in a situation where our humanity won't lead us into very negative places really easily. You know. And so that's what I think you got to come away with when you're looking at and you're critiquing our existing system and you know, like the way it's operating right now.
[00:35:24] Speaker B: I'll just, I'll just finish up on the point you made actually made me realize and when you said this is politics is, you know, thing with human environment of human beings. Right. You know, it's interesting, as soon as you said that made me realize this is the first time in human history that that human to human relationship has actually just been fully manipulated by machines. I mean, think about all the stuff we've talked about with the algorithms, not just Facebook and social media, but all of the Internet.
[00:35:52] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:35:52] Speaker B: And so this might be what it looks like when we have something in between the human to human too. It's just interesting. Yeah.
[00:36:01] Speaker A: That is making decisions as well. Like it's, that's what I'm saying. You have something between it when it's a, when it's a newspaper, when it's a publisher deciding what to publish and all like they people have curated information for a long time, but now it's Like a machine, machine learning, millions of instant decisions. And it's making decisions, different decisions for each of us. You know, it's not like it's a publisher of New York Times making a decision for the whole city or for the whole, you know, so it's. That is interesting. But I do want to move on because we, you know, we kicked this around for a long time. But I mean, yesterday we were recording this on, on August 1st. So yesterday, Sunday, when we released this, it'll be a couple days ago, Bill Russell passed. And Bill Russell is someone that, you know, has had an outsized influence on our, in our sports and in our culture. And it's something that, like when he passed, like on a Sunday, you see the whitehouse.gov releasing statements. You see presidents from the past. I mean, everybody really comes in and says their words publicly and so forth. And so you really see how big of a deal it was. And so I wanted to get your thoughts. I just wanted to one kind of talk about why this matters and just also just give you some space. Just what were your thoughts on the passing of Bill Russell and the legacy that he left behind?
[00:37:20] Speaker B: Yeah, it's good questions and I learned a lot actually, preparing for today. So I appreciate your idea to have this as a second topic.
[00:37:28] Speaker A: It's not the perfect time to learn all this stuff, but it's as good a time as any.
[00:37:32] Speaker B: No, well, here's why I say that, because I, you know, you know, but for the audience, you know, I have a history in this sport. You know, basketball, I played NCAA basketball and at a pretty competitive level, but I never, I never got paid to play, so I never played pro. But, but, you know, some of two of my teammates.
[00:37:50] Speaker A: Nil. Era.
[00:37:52] Speaker B: Yeah. Well, let's see. I don't know, I might have got $5, you know, again for that. But now. But two of my teammates from college went on and had good NBA careers. And, you know, I've been in that kind of circle when I was younger playing ball, you know, in terms of playing against guys that ended up making it. So I always knew who Bill Russell was, being a basketball fan and kind of junkie and. But, you know, I'm 44. He died at 88. So he was way before my era. I was playing high school and College in the 90s, and he obviously was playing in the 50s into the 60s, so he was already an old timer by the time I kind of arrived on my journey with basketball. But so some of the thing, I mean, I knew that he had 11 championships I saw the pictures of. He had more. The only guy that got more championships than fingers. He can wear the rings on at one time. But I didn't know that he had a 13 year career. Only he won 11 championships in that time.
[00:38:50] Speaker A: 11 championships in 13 years.
[00:38:52] Speaker B: That's the stuff I was like, wow. I don't know if that ever be repeated. You know, I'll rattle off a few things here just out of you know, S's and giggles here. He's. He's tied with a gentleman named Henry Richard of the National Hockey League for the record for most championships won by an athlete in the North American Sports League. So I thought that was that.
[00:39:10] Speaker A: That's you know, pro basketball, football, baseball.
[00:39:13] Speaker B: Hockey and North American. That includes yeah, Canada and I don't know what kind of professional teams Mexico has, but I'm sure they're good.
[00:39:22] Speaker A: Well yeah, but when they throw that around, it's really about those big, those big four professional sports.
[00:39:26] Speaker B: But yeah, go. He is second all time in total rebounds and rebounds per game. He and Wilt chamberlain the only two players to ever have 50 rebounds in a game.
And you know, just the fact I didn't realize that in 09 the NBA Finals MVP award was renamed in his honor. You know, just kind of this idea that he's just such a well respected. He was such a well respected veteran and player and then post player. So well respected also by the league and by his, by his peers.
[00:39:58] Speaker A: And I'm interesting you say that because what I like I had more familiarity with him, you know, like. And really what first thing you learn about Bill Russell for me was just that he was the ultimate winner. Like that was the 11 championships in 13 years is like that's, that's inconceivable in terms of longevity of championship. Like to be able to put it together like that. And then the other thing that you know, just growing up learning was how integral and how like I wouldn't say integral but how a large part of the era that he was in terms of the push for equality and the things that he did, he was a part of that. Like a front row member, a part of that. You know, in terms of even when Ali, like everybody knows about Ali, you know, and Ali refusing to do Vietnam, you know, the into subjecting and. But not everyone knows that when they did the Cleveland Summit to support him, it's Bill Russell, Jim Brown, you know, like these guys are right there and Kareem Abdul Jabbar is the other biggest name that's there who was like A teenager at that time. But, like, these guys are out there putting their. Their names on the line, their reputations at a time when that stuff would not be celebrated. There would be no Nike coming along. Like, what? This isn't to diminish Kaepernick at all that would come along if things didn't work out for them because they took a stand like that and say, here, I'll give you a sponsorship or something like that. This is putting their careers and their reputations on the line at a time when that stuff. Those were very real threats. And you may not be able to do what you do anymore. You may not be able to earn a living anymore. I mean, your life could be threatened. I mean, the type of things, like he's gone through things where, you know, like people breaking into his house in Boston. I mean, it's like he was on the front lines dealing with this stuff, and he was doing it from a place where he didn't need to do it. You know, like, he. He. He was a star in the NBA, you know, like the best winner of all time, you know, in team sports, but yet he still put himself on the front lines because that was what was needed at the time, you know, and so he was the best. Well, let me just to wrap that. He was the. The ultimate team player in the NBA, and he was the ultimate team player, so to speak. You know, when you're looking at the advancement, you know, of the nation.
[00:42:09] Speaker B: Yeah. And that's why, I mean, to me, the history here is important. That's. That's what I actually was really kind of intrigued by in preparing and reading about his history, you know, and we'll.
[00:42:20] Speaker A: Put some of this stuff in the show notes as well. Go ahead.
[00:42:22] Speaker B: Yeah. Born in 60. Sorry, born in 1934, which I kind of realized that's 69 years after the end of the Civil War. And he was born in West Monroe, Louisiana.
And so clearly, this guy's a defendant of slaves. Right. And he was born. You know, it was very segregated where he lived. And, you know, just a couple stories about his family. You know, his father was refused service at a gas station until the staff had taken care of all the white customers first. And when he attempted to leave to find a different station, the attendant stuck a shotgun in his face and threatened to kill him if he did not stay and wait his turn. And so that's an example, again, some of the history in our country is unbelievable. If you live now and you haven't been exposed to it because it's Saying.
[00:43:09] Speaker A: It'S worse now than it ever has been.
[00:43:11] Speaker B: Yeah, well, it's an example, like to me, that was an example of a lot of people's, unfortunately, experience black people in the south. Because it wasn't just people think, okay, segregation. It was just different drinking fountains and you had to go to different schools. There was a certain level of humiliation that was set upon black people in the south in examples like this is not that you just refuse service because you're black. When you try and leave and just use your own agency to go to a different place, the guy holds you back with a shotgun and says, no, I'm going to make you wait.
[00:43:44] Speaker A: Yeah. And it's similar vigilante style with the threat of death.
[00:43:49] Speaker B: Correct. And so you're, as a man, he's probably sitting there with. Maybe Bill Russell was a little kid at home, you know, he's probably sitting there saying, what do I do? Do I fight this guy, get killed and they're going to say it was my fault anyway? Or do I take this lump and put my head down so I can go home to my wife and kids and make sure they're safe? And you think about getting those incidents on a regular basis is that it takes a lot of psychological toll on people. And a similar thing happened to his mother where she was accosted by a white police officer. She was wearing a very nice dress, and he told her to go home and take off the dress because he described it as white woman's clothing, that she basically, she had no right to be dressed like that. And so what all those kind of experiences led to was his family moving from Louisiana to Oakland, California when he was eight years old during the Second World War, which was also in American.
That period was called the second great migration. Yeah, because the first great migration was around 1919, 1920. And this was the, the, the, the both migrations were the response of the treatment blacks were receiving in the south, to your point, terrorism. And again, these are things. I'm just saying it like this for the show and the audience, because again, these are things that we don't learn regularly in school and history. So we don't understand why kind of certain things take place. Like, why are black people in Oakland and not in San Francisco historically? Well, because California was segregated too. So it was a little better than Louisiana didn't have the same terrorism, but you still had segregation. So that's where they all got moved to. So it was little things like that.
[00:45:26] Speaker A: It's also opportunities, though, to just reflect on these things. Because these are the kind of things that people are fighting very hard right now to not teach and to make it illegal to teach. Not just to say, okay, well, we just won't teach it here in this district. Let's go statewide and make it so that nobody can teach this stuff in schools. And so, you know, but this stuff happened and it actually does. When you look back at someone's life, you know, and legacy, you'll see these things, these are formative things for somebody like Bill Russell. And, you know, that would be him becoming the man that he was and so forth. And so you can't. If you, you try to erase it, then, you know, obviously the peril in that always is that history repeats itself when it's forgotten. But just you can't even do this man justice. You can't even tell his story.
It would be illegal to tell this man's story if you go down the wrong path.
[00:46:17] Speaker B: But yeah, I mean, you're right. If you went down the wrong path trying to tell this just to, you know, in a high school or something, you're right. Somebody might complain and it'll be a big, you know, oh, you're teaching CRT and all that. Cause you're trying to talk about Bill Russell's history. The thing is, is that when you fast forward this followed Russell, which leads to why I could see he became an activist for examp. And this is again, interesting history. He was invited first to join the Harlem Globetrotters and their exhibition squad. And it says, you know, obviously he was sensitive to racial prejudice. And he became enraged by the fact that the owner of the Harlem Globetrotters, a gentleman by the name of Abe Saperstein, would only discuss the matter with his agent.
[00:46:58] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:46:58] Speaker B: And wouldn't like he's in the room and the guy won't talk to him. He'll only talk to the white man who's his agent. And another guy was in the room and realized that. That Bill Russell was probably fuming and started trying to just tell jokes to Bill Russell just to try and calm him down. So.
[00:47:14] Speaker A: Which is condescending as well, if you.
[00:47:16] Speaker B: So. So Russell made himself eligible for the 1956 draft.
[00:47:20] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:47:21] Speaker B: So again. And that's when Boston picks him up. Because Red Auerbach is very forward thinking and is one of the first NBA coaches to really draft black players. And you think about it, 1956 was only six years after the first black player was ever welcomed into the NBA. So again, this was going through a time where all these tensions were very high. So it makes sense to what you're saying that 10 years later he's out there really at the forefront of a lot of the civil rights stuff.
[00:47:50] Speaker A: I mean, but the thing also is that he goes to Boston, he goes to Massachusetts and it's like, oh, okay, we made it out the South. And it's like, but his experience in Boston was fraught, you know, like, I'm not going to recount everything, but you know, like he, there was the feeling, so to speak. And this was not just, oh, you know, you're being overly sensitive, but this is, this was made apparent and very clear to him on a regular basis that for the 48 minutes of the game he was okay. And then every other all at all other times beyond that he wasn't, you know, he was, he was the second class citizen after that, but beyond that and people wanted to make sure he knew it. And so, you know, like there existed a lot of bad feelings Bill Russell had after he's the most celebrated man in the NBA, you know, moving forward decades and decades. But for a long time he didn't even want to go back to Boston. You know, when they wanted to retire his number, he didn't want to go back. And so because he was treated so poorly, you know, in that sense, like he had people that treated him well. And a lot of times we emphasize, oh, okay, well you had this guy on your side or that guy on your side and that's good, that's great. But if you put yourself in that person's shoes though, and you got like two or three people in your life that are down for you, and then every other person you run across is looking at you like they want to kill you. And sometimes saying things or doing things towards that kind of mindset, you imagine how that affects someone. So ultimately I think we need to keep aware of these types of things though, because it does illustrate where we've come from. I see these kinds of things and it gives me hope, you know, okay, well, people have persevered through a lot and we can't be pissing that away. And at the same time, we've come a long way because of their perseverance, because of the Bill Russell's of the world and the Ali's of the world, Jim Brown's, Kareem Abdul Jabbar's. And then this is always something you bring up, but I thought of it when this happened. Yesterday was just the living memory that we lose when these people pass on. Which, I mean, this is life. This is how life Goes like, you're here and then you're not here eventually. And so the living memory that we lose, the experience, there's a lot that we lose. And in some ways, that's how things move forward. And in other ways, it's like, well, you hope that things don't slide backwards. When the people that have seen this stuff and have fought against it and may be more sensitive to things because of where they came from, maybe they have a harder time looking forward because of that extra sensitivity.
[00:50:15] Speaker B: But.
[00:50:15] Speaker A: But they also may be able to tell you more about, hey, you need to watch out for this. Like, I've seen this kind of thing before. And so that heightened sensitivity may serve you in other ways, you know, so it's. It's. To me, it's just. It's something. It's important to call out, you know, and to honor the man. But it's also part of that is honoring the life, you know, and really just, you know, looking back at the life with a level of just reflection and just.
[00:50:39] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:50:40] Speaker A: I mean, honoring it.
[00:50:41] Speaker B: Yeah. And the interesting thing is, as you say that, it makes me think history repeats. Sorry, history doesn't repeat. But it rhymes, right?
[00:50:52] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:50:54] Speaker B: And so, like, you're saying that today we see this kind of activism with some athletes, and you named Kaepernick as one. I think LeBron James and some others have voiced their opinions on certain things. And then you see willingness to speak.
[00:51:08] Speaker A: Out, let's say, like, in that kind of. So. So activism in that sense. But.
[00:51:11] Speaker B: Yeah, but you also see the response. Well, but you see the response from society. You saw that the president, United States opened his mouth against it. Remember, there were, you know, Fox News hosts telling LeBron he should just shut up and dribble. Yeah, right.
[00:51:25] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:51:26] Speaker B: You know, just basically shut up and perform. Even though the guy at the time who was a president was an entertainer. Right. So he can be taken seriously for politics. But another entertainment tainer shouldn't be. So you start seeing where people. When. If it's something they don't want to have to hear, they're just going to kind of want to want to diminish and move it to the side. And one of the things I wanted to mention, because it goes back with his activism, and I'll quote from. From a piece about Russell. The 1961, 62 season, Russell's team was scheduled to play at an exhibition game in Lexington. It was when he was with the Celtics, and him and his black teammates refused service at the local restaurant. And they had what was called the 1961 Celtics boycott where he and the other black teammates refused to play in the exhibition game and just flew home. And it created a great deal of controversy. And that's what got me thinking about Russell. Kareem Abdul Jabbar generally is like, now, Muhammad Ali was celebrated when he died. You know, a lot of people from, you know, political stripes were, I think that. That weren't friendly to Kaepernick, were all over Ali when he died. Oh, what a great American. This and that. And also people that. I haven't had friendly things to say about Muslims too, you know, and it's. And it's kind of like this bandwagon thing, right? So that's what told. When I was reading all this kind of stuff, because soon after that, you know, you had all the tensions, right. You had Barry Goldwater in 64 talking about states rights as a coded way to say, if you want to keep segregating it against these black people, I'm not going to stop you. And then the next year, you had Johnson in 65 with the Civil rights legislation. So he was in the thick of all of this. And that's why, to me, it's very interesting that, like you said, he didn't have to do all this.
[00:53:14] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:53:15] Speaker B: But he did it anyway, which makes me respect him even more. And I think that I don't know what the future holds for Today's activist athletes, LeBron Kaepernick or whoever, but it seems like the public, the general negative view that many in the public have seems to fade when it comes to athletes that make stands, because progress usually follows the stand they're trying to make.
[00:53:42] Speaker A: Oftentimes, oftentimes, at minimum, the ones who are on the good side of history, so to speak, are the ones we remember. I'm sure there were activists pushing in other directions, but if their direction isn't the prevailing direction a lot of times, then they are maybe forgotten or something. But one other point I wanted to just mention, and that I think is just also interesting with this is a lot of people make. Have made a big deal about the. The modern athlete. And there's more. I mean, we mentioned Kaepernick, we mentioned LeBron James, Jaylen Brown, and, you know, like, there's. There's countless. I mean, it's something that is. And I don't want to say this in any kind of way that diminishes it, but it's kind of in now it's accepted for athletes. More accepted for athletes to. To. To engage in activism. And that's a good thing. And I think the shut up and dribble stuff was interesting in the sense that if you, if you take that and multiply that times 2 million is what you get. What Bill Russell faced when they were doing their activism at the time, like LeBron catches a couple of off comments or whatever Kaepernick catches from the president nonetheless, but, but curses them out. But it's not the same or it's not even close to the league that Russell got. But I think it's interesting to see the ebb and flow and I know we got to get out of here, but the ebb and flow of this kind of activism, because the activism that was Bill Russell kind of slowed down a bit. You know, like if you get into the late 70s and early 80s and there's a lot of reasons for this, this is. But you know, the superstars of that age weren't as in your face with activism, you know, so to speak. The OJs and the magic Johnson's and the Michael Jordans and so forth. And so it's interesting to me how it comes back where the athletes now, many of them again, it's accepted that they, okay, can be more in your face and pushing issues that aren't that make some people uncomfortable. And so it's just, it's interesting how you know, like the athlete kind of, you know, like it's certain times it's seen as more. And that's again, that's not to diminish the guys that, you know, the Magics and the Jordans and everything of the world, like what they did, they moved it forward from a financial standpoint in a way that the Russells and the Kareems couldn't do, you know, so it, everybody has a role in moving society forward, but it's just interesting to see that kind of ebb and flow, you know. So we do say, you know, just to end this that the rest in peace to Bill Russell, you know, so well. No, I think we can end this, you know, on that note and we appreciate everybody for joining us on this episode of Call It Like I See It. Subscribe to the Podcast Rate It. Review us. Tell us what you think. Share with friend until next time, I'm James Keys.
[00:56:14] Speaker B: I'm Tunde Iguana.
[00:56:16] Speaker A: All right, we'll talk to you next time.
