Nearly one month from the Iowa caucus, thirteen Democrats have dropped out of the presidential race–mayors, governors, and U.S. Senators among them. There are still fifteen (!) left, including the first prominent Democrat to announce their candidacy: former Congressman John Delaney of Maryland. As of this writing, Delaney has struggled to break ground in the polls, but he has recently redoubled his efforts in Iowa in the hopes that his brand of “pragmatic idealism” will eventually catch fire. In The Zeitgeist recently sat down with Delaney to talk national service, infrastructure, foreign policy–and that box jump video.
Interview conducted by Ryan Radulovacki and Kevin Hanley, lightly edited for clarity.
In the Zeitgeist: We wanted to start off by touching on a couple of topics that particularly affect people in our peer group. You and Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana have been outspoken proponents of a National Service program for young people. You aren’t alone, with Senators Coons, Reed, Duckworth, and others cosponsoring a similar bill in the Senate. Talk a bit, if you would, about why expanding opportunities for young people is so important.
John Delaney: Sure. Well, I think we have two big issues in this country.
One, we are very divided. And two, we’ve got an education system that’s not really delivering in lots of ways. So let’s talk about divisions. In many ways, American’s have never really felt pitted against their fellow Americans as they do today. I think national service would be very unifying because I think it will teach a whole generation of Americans that they have to have a responsibility, not only to theirselves, but to their fellow citizens and to their country. I think they’d realize, when they do service projects with other people from the country, that they have a lot in common. So a kid from Atlanta, GA rooming with a kid from rural Iowa, going to New Orleans to rebuild a levee, I think they’d say “Hey you know, I’m from a city and you’re from rural America but we actually have a lot in common,” so I think it would go a long way towards healing those divisions and I think that every American would benefit from it because we would look at these young people serving and we would be proud of ourselves that we actually did something. So I think it would be transformative as it relates to national unity.
But the second issue is education. Last year, 70% of high school graduates, according to the US Military, were not eligible for the military. Either because of educational, social, or healthcare deficiencies. And so clearly, most kids graduating from high school are not ready to either continue their education or get a job with a rising standard of living. So I think national service would provide that “gap year” that so many kids need to think about the next step in their life and get some skills. I also think, as part of national service, you can deal with the affordability of college question. Because if you did national service, in my opinion, you do one year, you get two years instate tuition. If you do two years you get three. So, I view it as having this triple bottom line: national unity, skills building, and making the next step in either education or career technical training more affordable.
So, would you see your national service program as one of the first steps–democratic reforms that would make future policies easier to implement?
Yes. I think to get anything done in this country, as anyone who studies politics knows, you need broad consensus. It’s very hard to do things on what I call a 51-49 basis. 51% of the country supports something, 49% doesn’t and it’s never going to happen. It’s never going to get through Congress. So we actually need to create a dynamic in our country where things that we agree with each other on, we get more united around and find more common purpose. And, that things like compromise and bipartisanship don’t become dirty words. I think national service would help in that way, because the reason in many ways we are so divided is because people are increasingly questioning people’s motives. If you and I disagree about something, but I think your motives are good, we can work through that fine. If not, we start at a point where it’s almost impossible to reconcile.
Your own climate plan has various similarities to the Green New Deal. What, in your eyes, is the main policy proposal or idea that sets your climate plan apart from the field.
So I think my climate plan is unique in many ways because it is built on a carbon fee dividend proposal.
Putting a price on carbon, collecting all that money, and giving it back to the American people in a dividend, which I believe I can get done my first year as president and while I was in Congress I introduced it on a bipartisan basis. You know Democrats and Republicans came together under my leadership to get this done. So, that’s a unique approach and plus I’ve shown people that I can actually get bipartisan support for it.
Second thing about my climate plan is that it’s a big bet on innovation. I believe we will not solve global warming, or not stop global warming, unless we actually come up with new technologies around energy production, storage, distribution, and conservation. Meaning we just don’t have the technologies to get all fossil fuels here, and certainly not around the world. So I called for a 5-fold increase in basic research in energy, a transformative increase in energy. I’ve called for the creation of an international research platform, where the wealthy nations of the world contribute a trillion dollars to develop the technologies and advanced energy solutions that are needed and they can be shared around the world. Kind of almost a cooperative of energy solutions, that’ll be delivered in many ways to poor countries to help them get off fossil fuels.
And then, the other thing I’ve called for is the creation of an industry around direct air capture, meaning sucking C02 out of the atmosphere because I don’t believe we are going to hit our goals unless we actually start removing some of the C02 in the atmosphere. I don’t wanna be removing C02 from the atmosphere in 100 years, because I want us to be completely transitioned to a green economy, but we have to get to net zero by 2050, not only here but around the world, and I just don’t want to take the risk that we are going to get there organically.
As you’ve said, “51-49,” that’s a very slim margin to get anything through Congress. In that vein: your campaign has been going on for two years, the longest of any candidates. As other candidates have entered the race and dropped out, where does your campaign situate itself along the spectrum of progressives like Sanders and Warren, and those who describe themselves as more pragmatist like Senator Klobuchar?
Yeah, so I just think I’m a different kind of Democrat in many ways. If you look at the boldness of ideas, I think my ideas are in many ways as bold as anyones. Maybe it’s the entrepreneur in me because I was an entrepreneur before I ran for Congress: I really focus on how you actually get things done.
On healthcare for example, only three candidates are actually calling for universal healthcare. Senator Sanders, Senator Warren, and myself. And that would surprise some people because they’re like “What do you mean, you mean Delaney is actually one of the three candidates calling for universal healthcare?” And I mean a healthcare system where everyone gets universal coverage as a right of citizenship for free. All the other candidates are calling for these public option proposals, which is a very incremental improvement, and one which I actually think will have a very inconsequential effect. A public option is a government-run insurance company. It’ll charge premiums, it’ll have deductibles, it’ll have copays. For all we know, the government will run it terribly. And I don’t see how it deals with the tragedy of uninsured Americans.
So I don’t really fit neatly into a box because I’m calling for universal healthcare, but unlike Senators Warren and Sanders, I’m not calling for the elimination of private insurance because I think that that’s both impractical, will never happen, and is actually bad for the healthcare market. I’m a pragmatic idealist.
One policy proposal where you stand alone is the gas tax.
I’m not sure if I’m alone on that–we need it. We haven’t increased the gas tax since 1992.
We were wondering if you could speak on why. You’re right, you may not be the only one–we haven’t seen anyone else come out in favor, certainly not of the 15 percent increase you propose. Why do you think it is that you’re alone on this topic?
Well, I just think I’m probably the least poll-driven politician of anyone. And listen–no one likes taxes, and the gas tax is a very, in many ways, annoying tax for people, because they see it all the time. The flipside is I think user taxes make the most sense. People use something, they should pay for it. As part of the gas tax, we also have to create a way for electric vehicles to pay, because right now they’re getting a free ride. They use the same roads and bridges everyone else does, but because they don’t use gasoline they don’t pay for it. Right?
You know, I think I’m just less poll-driven. I try to get to the right answer, sometimes that may optically not be as popular. But I actually think raising the gas tax is a conservative idea, and the reason I say that is: it is more expensive to have to maintain roads in disrepair than it is to invest in new infrastructure when we need it. And, because we underfund our infrastructure, we end up spending more money fixing broken infrastructure than we would if we actually kind of rebuilt our infrastructure as appropriate.
And you call for a massive investment in infrastructure.
Yeah, and it’s actually a conservative idea, because it’s like your house. They say every 20 years you should get a new roof. And if you say, “No, I’m not gonna get a new roof at year 20 or 25 or 30,” one day you’re gonna have a massive problem with your roof collapsing or leaking, which would cost you more money than if you would have gotten a new roof. And when you underfund the Highway Trust Fund, which is what the gas tax funds, you put the country in that position.
So one huge departure in the Trump administration from the Obama administration is taking on China–a very aggressive posture to China, as detailed in the National Security Strategy from day one. In your view, what has the Trump administration gotten right and wrong in their approach to China?
So, the Trump administration was entirely right about highlighting the huge issue that China is. And I think prior administrations and political leaderships understated the issue with China, and were overly naive in terms of how China would behave once they got welcomed back into the global community. The fundamental premise was: “Let’s let China into the global economic community even though they’re not complying with the rules, because that will create an incentive where they will ultimately comply with the rules.” They didn’t do any of that stuff. So Trump was 100% right saying this is a huge problem.
Now, I think he has misdiagnosed the problem. The problem with China in his opinion is the trade deficit, which is a problem, but it’s not the biggest problem. In my opinion, the biggest problem is their theft of intellectual property. In many ways, China acts like pirates: they steal everything: intellectual property, islands in the South China Sea, and we can’t allow that to continue. Because in the next 20 years, the dominant economies will be the ones that control artificial intelligence, automation, machine learning. The United States has a singular advantage in that regard, in that we have the greatest university system in the world. So we can’t allow that competitive advantage we have to basically be gutted by China stealing everything. If you think intellectual property is the problem, the way you deal with China is you get all our allies together, and our companies, and you gotta be a unified front. If you think the trade deficit is the problem, then you negotiate one-on-one, because effectively what we’re trying to get China to do is stop buying from other people, and buy from you.
On the topic of a “united front:” What are your thoughts on the differences, and your preferences, between the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the recent USMCA?
I’m a big supporter of TPP. I think I’m the only Democrat running for president who supports the TPP. Now in many ways the USMCA, which I also support, was effectively TPP, because the TPP included Mexico and Canada. I don’t personally think [Trump] had any opinion of it or had any understanding of it, and then he got into office, and he had to tear it up because he said he would. But when he sent his trade people to cut a deal with Mexico and China, the “New NAFTA”, they basically took the TPP part that dealt with Mexico and Canada and propped it in.
So, I’m for the USMCA but I’m also for the TPP, because I believe–and this is a statement that not a lot of Democratic candidates will make–is for about 30 straight years the world has gotten better every single year. Period, end of story. And I’d argue that until my dying days. If you look at the rate of poverty, globally, it’s gone down every single year for 30 years. 2 billion people have been lifted out of poverty. We’ve had innovations that are extraordinary. The world is much safer than anyone thought it was going to be after WWII. It’s got a lot of issues, but in general the condition of the world has gotten better every single year. And that has happened for one reason: that we’ve become interconnected globally. And if we want to make progress on climate, technology, prosperity, security, the US has to be leading through our unique portfolio of allies. Alliances that no one in the world has anything like, and the only way to really organize those kind of alliances is through economic ties. If we’re not doing business with each other, then all those issues become much harder to find common ground on.
You advocate for a 2 state solution in Israel/Palestine. Do you agree or disagree with the current administration that Israel’s West Bank settlements are appropriate in accordance with international law–and, should we condition aid to Israel in response? How do we proceed?
I would not withhold aid to Israel because of their settlements. Israel is one of our great allies, one of our great friends, and that doesn’t mean you agree with your friends and allies on every issue.
I think even the settlement issue is complicated, because in my opinion there’s two types of settlements: there’s settlements that are part and parcel Jerusalem, which I believe in any two-state solution those settlements will be part of Israel. Then there are settlements that are deeper into the West Bank, which I believe are part of a two-state solution–will probably not be part of Israel. So that’s how I think about it. I think even the issue of settlements is not as cut and dried as people think, because I’ve been to Israel a bunch of times, and there’s a bunch of settlements that are technically in the West Bank, I suppose, but they’re actually in Jerusalem suburbs. Those are gonna be part of Israel. And then there’s one that are deep into the West Bank, which I think will in many ways be treated the same way settlements in Gaza were treated.
Your Department of Cybersecurity plan points to Russian interference in the 2016 election. What have we gotten wrong on cybersecurity, and what mandates the establishment of a dedicated government agency?
The Department of Cybersecurity would deal with domestic Cybersecurity issues. In other words, call it defensive issues. There’s two ways of dealing with cyber, there’s offensive and there’s defensive, right? The U.S. military and Department of Defense will use cyberattacks as an offensive tool in the future, because if we’re attacked, like the way Russia did, we retaliate with cyberattacks trying to bring down those capabilities. That is a military operation.
The Department of Cybersecurity will be to prevent us from being hacked, both our government and the private sector. In my experience, the government is not at all coordinated on how they even deal with their own cybersecurity, and there’s very little collaboration between the government and the private sector on best practices. Unfortunately, I believe hacks and cyberattacks are now part of our life forever. We have a DHS that deals with traditional attacks on the homeland–I believe we need a Department of Cybersecurity to deal with these digital attacks on our homeland. It’ll focus on defensive capabilities, and I want a person in every important conversation about domestic policy, and the only way to ensure that that happens is if you have a cabinet-level person.
Last question: what’s the best way for a skinny Zeitgeist writer to build strength in the posterior chain?
Well, you know, I was recently filmed doing box jumps, so that’s a good way to start.
Yeah, that’s probably it–consistent box jump regimen. Alright.
The box jump thing is so weird because I posted it kind of as a joke, and it got a million views. And then my next post was about the need to expand early childhood education, which I actually think is one of the most important things we should do, and it’s like no one even noticed it.
You have to fit the message into the box jumps.
I was trying to do that!
Like a Tik Tok. You jump on the box, it’s a new policy.
That stupid box jumps video is the most-watched thing I ever did.
