[music]

Brigid Bergin: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. I'm Brigid Bergin, senior reporter in the WNYC and Gothamist newsroom, sitting in for Brian this week. If you follow politics and you've been on social media, you've likely come across a viral clip of a prominent figure in a room surrounded by people who disagree with them for the ostensible purpose of debate. These videos are produced by a media company called Jubilee, whose YouTube channel has over 10 million subscribers. Wow. The goal of this company, as stated in their biography sections across their various platforms, is to "provoke understanding and create human connection." Well, here's a preview of their most recent video titled One Progressive vs 20 Far Right Conservatives with Mehdi Hasan, editor-in-chief and CEO of Zeteo, columnist for The Guardian, and former MSNBC host.

Speaker 2: My family lineage is settlers from the 1500s.

Mehdi Hasan: You don't look very Native American to me.

Speaker 2: Native? I am Native American. Whites are Native Americans. What are you talking about?

Mehdi Hasan: You're not.

Speaker 2: What are you talking about?

Mehdi Hasan: You're a little bit more than a far-right Republican.

Speaker 4: Hey, what can I say?

Mehdi Hasan: I think you say, "I'm a fascist."

Speaker 4: Yes, I am.

[laughter]

Mehdi Hasan: Listen to me. I am an immigrant. I'm speaking from personal experience.

Speaker 5: Get the hell out.

Mehdi Hasan: I should get the hell out.

Speaker 5: Yes.

Mehdi Hasan: Why?

Speaker 5: I don't want you here.

Mehdi Hasan: My first claim is Donald Trump is pro-crime and pro-criminal. Donald Trump is defying the Constitution. Immigrants overall are good for America. Donald Trump's plan for Gaza is ethnic cleansing. I'm Mehdi Hasan. I'm a journalist and the editor of Zeteo. Today, I'm surrounded by 20 far-right conservatives.

Brigid Bergin: From that clip, you might be able to gather why critics of Jubilee believe the videos they produce don't actually further that goal of provoking understanding and creating human connection. Some go so far as to discourage thinkers like Mehdi Hasan from participating in this kind of content. Mehdi did show up with his claims, prepared to debate 30 far-right conservatives on the pressing issues of our time. He joins us now to talk about the conversations he's had with other participants in this Jubilee video, as well as his thoughts on the New York City mayoral election and more. Mehdi Hasan, welcome to WNYC.

Mehdi Hasan: Good morning. Thanks for having me.

Brigid Bergin: Mehdi, just let me know how and why did you decide to throw yourself in this ring of fire, as it were, and debate these so-called 20 far-right conservatives?

Mehdi Hasan: It's a great question. I've been asking myself that question since Sunday when the show dropped. Look, the short answer is I love a good argument. I love to debate. In fact, I wrote an entire book about debating called Win Every Argument a couple of years ago. I love to show up for arguments and debate, especially with the right. I'd seen the Jubilee format. I saw Ben Shapiro, Charlie Kirk, Jordan Peterson, and Candace Owens, all these right-wing figures, going on with 20 woke students, 20 liberals.

There haven't been that many progressives. My friend Sam Seder from The Majority Report had done it earlier this year, and I thought, "All right, why not give it a chance? Let's see." Obviously, I went in knowing that these people, being Trump supporters, would be right-wingers, self-styled far-right conservatives. That in itself is telling. Who describes themselves as far right? I didn't expect they would be this extreme. I just want to be clear about that. I had no idea, nor was I expecting people to be identifying themselves as fascists, to be talking about white genocide, to be talking about great replacement, to be telling me I need to leave the country, that I'm not a real American. That, I wasn't expecting.

That is what's so worrying about this debate and this video and why. I understand why people are upset that I did it. I understand why people think the Jubilee format is clickbait and should be ignored. To be devil's advocate, we also need to see what people in this country believe. I think people have been far too complacent about how far right some of our fellow Americans are. Not just old white folks in Alabama, but this was young white folks in LA.

Brigid Bergin: Sure. Before we get into what the larger meaning of that debate was, I'm just curious. Did you feel like the conservatives Jubilee cast for this video are representative of the American far right? I know you mentioned it's not just one type of conservative, but have we really moved that far? If you think the Overton window has shifted that drastically, do you think that there's a moment when that shift became most evident?

Mehdi Hasan: Yes, that's a great question. My answer to that is yes and no. I think, in many ways, they are representative of the base. In many ways, of course, we're not saying all Trump supporters or Trump voters or people on the right support white genocide theories or conspiracy theories about great replacement or believe in stripping American citizens of their citizenship. Let's be clear, a lot of what was said on Jubilee is coming from the top. The Trump administration is setting up a denaturalization team at the Department of Justice quite openly. They want to go after American citizen citizenship. When they tell me, "You're not a real American. We're going to get rid of your citizenship. You got to go," that is stuff that they are getting, nudge, nudge, wink, wink, actually, not so much nudge, quite openly, from the Trump administration. Let's be real.

If you went to the Republican National Convention last year, you saw people holding up mass deportation. Now, placards, there are hundreds and thousands of them. What's become very clear to me since doing this episode and since seeing this Trump administration in action over the last six months is that this was never about "illegal immigrants" or the southern border. This was about Stephen Miller wanting to make America white again. That involves getting rid of Black and brown people who are here legally. That involves detaining green card holders like Mahmoud Khalil. That means going after American citizens.

We know they've expelled multiple American citizens already and detained American citizens. That, I think, is the yes part of the answer. The no is, of course, no, not every Republican or every Trump voter believes the kind of crazy stuff that these people were saying on this show. The question is, it's not whether they're 50% or 40%. The point is they exist. They are a vocal minority. They're growing in number thanks to social media.

A lot of these people are super online influencers. That is a real problem. I think in terms of the Overton window shifting, I'm just going to be very straightforward and say it was 2015 when Donald Trump comes down the escalator and says, "We got to send these Mexican rapists back home," and he wins the primary. He defeats multiple mainstream Republican candidates.

Then he comes back for a second term, promising to go after the enemy within, promising mass deportations, having said outrageously racist things over the year and gotten away with it. All of these people were emboldened by Donald Trump. These views existed 10 years ago, 15 years ago, but people would never have dared say them out loud in the way they did to my face on Jubilee, had it not been for Donald Trump in the White House.

Brigid Bergin: Mehdi, the reason that so many people have seen this is because not only was this something that appeared on YouTube, but then we've seen all of these clips of it just ricocheting across social media. What role do you think content like this and social media, more broadly, plays in possibly normalizing mainstreaming far-right ideologies? After participating, do you still believe debates like this are important to have?

Mehdi Hasan: That is such an important question. I'm still trying to get to the answer of that. As someone who loves debate, but made it very clear in the book that I wrote about debate, that bad faith debates are pointless. There's no point in debating a Marjorie Taylor Greene about climate change or who won the election, up is down, black is white, hot is cold. The people who push that kind of nonsense, there's no point debating that. I've said that very clearly. That is why in that clip where the guy says, "Well, I'm a fascist," I did follow up by saying, "Well, I don't debate fascists." We ended that there. He wanted to stay in. The producers had to move him out. I made that very clear that I did.

Had I known that there was going to be a fascist there, I would have said very clearly, "Well, I'm not going to sit down with them. I had no idea. You see my face. I'm stunned in that moment where I say, "Well, you sound a little bit more than a far-right." He says, "Yes, I'm a fascist." He laughs. He proudly says he supports a General Franco autocratic leader for the United States. I'm sitting there thinking, "Is this guy for real?" He now claims to have lost his job since saying that, which is ironic because the guy doesn't believe in free speech or democracy. This is the kind of weird world we're in. I get it.

I totally understand the arguments, especially in places like Bluesky, from liberal friends of mine, liberal followers who say, "Look, don't be involved in this. Don't platform these people." I totally understand the critique that says, even if you humiliate, mock, defeat these people in debate in the algorithmic bubble world that we live in, in the echo chambers that we inhabit, they, in their far-right little corner of the internet, will say, "We won." They'll share the clip saying, "Just by virtue of sitting across from Mehdi, we won. We mainstreamed our arguments." I totally accept and understand that critique of this format.

Just to play devil's advocate, literally devil's advocate, the other side of the argument is this idea that we can't just close our eyes to this stuff. We can't pretend these people don't exist, nor will they disappear from the internet if we don't go debate them. I do see the arguments for debating and for exposing these people. I also see the arguments for why we shouldn't give them unnecessary attention and propaganda win. I'm on the fence, to be honest. What are we, three days since the show dropped? I'm still working out. Maybe in a week, two weeks, you invite me back, maybe I'll have a different view. Let's see.

Brigid Bergin: This is just more of a philosophical question, I guess. Do you feel debate is about winning or is it about persuasion? I guess you could argue that to win a debate, you need to be persuasive. Do you think that there is an opportunity in having conversations like this just to establish that you have the better logic, or is there an opportunity to persuade the hearts and minds of some of these people?

Mehdi Hasan: I would say three things. In terms of persuasion, one thing I made clear in my book is you're not always trying to persuade the other person. You're trying to persuade the third party, the neutral, if such a person exists in America today. The neutral, third-party observer, the audience. When I went on Jubilee, even before knowing that these people would be as extreme as they were, even just thinking they're a bunch of average Trump supporters, I had no doubt in my mind that I was not going to persuade or change any of these people's minds.

My goal was to change the audience's mind, to make clear to the audience that these people have no real arguments, no facts or figures, no real logic, no real morals. I still think I managed to do that for most mainstream normal people watching. I don't think people watched that and thought, "Wow, the fascist had a really good argument. Wow, the great replacement guy had a really good argument. Wow, the woman who said naturalized Americans can't be Americans, and then said her mother and father are naturalized Americans." I don't think people watched that day one in any meaningful sense. You're right.

Look, the persuasion piece of it is trying to get to those people in America who are, whatever you want to call them in the media and politics, low-information voters, people who don't follow the ups and downs of American politics, who don't quite realize how right-wing the Republican Party and Donald Trump have become. I think this was actually instructive. I think it's a reminder to people who are in denial about how extreme-- Remember the debates we had after Trump won the first time was "Did he win because of economic anxiety or was it because of racial resentment? Are his followers driven by economic populism and free trade, or are they driven by anti-immigrant animus and the browning of America?"

I think it's become very clear over the last decade, it's the latter. I think this debate showed that. I had multiple arguments there. You just played a clip. I went to talk about crime and the Constitution and civil liberties. They didn't care about any of it. They only wanted to talk about immigration and race. That is the driving animus of much of the MAGA base and therefore the Jubilee show. If there's one redeeming feature to it, it makes very clear that that debate is over about what is driving these people. It is race, it is immigration, it is culture wars, it is the changing of America. They do want to make America great again by making it white again. They made very plain about that.

Brigid Bergin: I want to start discussing some of those claims and some of the clips from the debate. I want to do a call out to our listeners because we want you to join this conversation. We can take your calls and texts for Mehdi Hasan, editor-in-chief and CEO of Zeteo, columnist for The Guardian, and former MSNBC host. Did you see this video with Jubilee that now has over 5 million views?

I'm sure it's even higher since the show began. Maybe you want to debate Mehdi on some of the assertions you made in the debate or weigh in on the responsibility media companies have to consumers when hosting political discussions. You can call or text us 212-433-WNYC. That's 212-433-9692. Mehdi, your first claim was that Donald Trump is pro-crime and pro-criminal. Lay out your argument for this claim.

Mehdi Hasan: I went to make a claim about crime related specifically, but not exclusively, to the January 6th pardons. If a president comes into office and pardons 1600 people, 600 of whom were either charged or found guilty of assaulting police officers, more than 100 of whom were charged with using deadly weapons. That is a fundamentally pro-criminal position. You are pardoning hardened criminals, many of whom have since been rearrested, convicted of crimes against minors, sexual crimes, rape, assault, and domestic abuse.

What was interesting, from the get-go, that was my first claim. That was the real sign that I was in a room with some seriously out there folks, was they didn't even bother to defend Donald Trump or make excuses for the pardons. They said, "Well, who cares? Everyone should be pardoned. Who cares about crime? Who cares about the rule of law? We only care about power. We only care about the fact that we're in charge." That itself was revealing that there was not even an attempt to defend the indefensible, which is the pardon of people who attacked police officers. I think that was quite revealing in and of itself.

Brigid Bergin: You also discussed that extensive historical relationship between Donald Trump, as if you knew the news cycle that we would be going through this week, Jeffrey Epstein, in your own video, and Zeteo's YouTube channel. How much weight do you put on Trump's personal ties to the Epstein case when understanding the administration's behavior over the last few weeks?

Mehdi Hasan: I'm so glad you pointed that out. This was filmed a few weeks ago. I had no idea at the time, when I ended up arguing with a couple of the Jubilee guys about Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell that when the show came out, we were in the middle of this huge controversy where Donald Trump is pretending not to have known Jeffrey Epstein and wants everyone to move on from talking about Jeffrey Epstein. What's interesting again is they tried to defend Trump, pretended that his-- One of the guys, I think he said Jeffrey Epstein, only went to Mar-a-Lago because it was the nearest golf club to his house, which is, again, as we've discovered over the last few days.

Some of us already knew this, but the American public is slowly waking up to, Donald Trump has a decades-long relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, a close friendship. As Epstein himself told Michael Wolff. Their relationship has never really been scrutinized in a way it should have been. I think the Democrats should hold their hands up in shame that they didn't do this opera research or did it, but didn't release it in 2016 and 2020, and 2024. Trump went through three presidential election cycles without his opponents bringing up his multiple Epstein connections. Part of the reason is many people believe that there are Democrats connected to Epstein, like Bill Clinton, who flew on his plane.

We're not accusing him of any wrongdoing, but there are clearly friendships and connections to Epstein that the Democrats didn't want to explore, which is why they've been so late to this particular Trump controversy. It's actually been driven by his own base. Yes, I think the Trump base is either not aware or is super, super upset and ashamed about the fact that their guy is the guy who was pallying around with Jeffrey Epstein at these parties with young women. There have been all sorts of accusations about Donald Trump's relationship with Epstein at some of these parties that they had at Mar-a-Lago.

I hope that some of our investigative journalists folks at CNN have done a great job digging deeper into all of this because it's amazing that Trump has gotten away with it. We saw him on camera in 2019, 2020. I think he was saying, "I wish her well. Good luck to Ghislaine Maxwell," Epstein's right-hand woman, who was prosecuted for child sex trafficking. Trump wished her well. How did he get away with that? How is that not pro-criminal?

Brigid Bergin: Mehdi, I think I'm talking faster just because you and I are talking together and I'm trying to keep up. Let's go to Mohammed in the Bronx. Mohamed, you're in WNYC.

Mohammed: Yes. Should I say good morning?

Brigid Bergin: Good morning.

Mohammed: I watched the Jubilee. Mehdi, I love you to the core. Not because you are Mehdi, but because the way you argue, the way you present your facts and figures. I watched the Jubilee with you with about 20 American kids, and I was shocked. My shocking experiences, the psyche they have. They don't believe if you've naturalized like the way I did with Melania in Federal Plaza, you are not an American. I couldn't believe that. I have five kids who are an American kid. They sat with me and watched it. They were asking me, "What is he talking about?" I said, "They say you and me, we are not Americans." [unintelligible 00:17:04]

Mehdi Hasan: Yes. It goes to the heart of this.

Brigid Bergin: Mohammed. Thank you so much. I want to give Mehdi a chance to respond. Any thoughts on that?

Mehdi Hasan: It saddens me to hear Mohammed talk about him and his family because that is the real upsetting part of this, is this stuff has real psychological, real cultural consequences for millions of Americans. I think there's over 20 million naturalized Americans in this country, many of them, people of color, to hear this kind of rhetoric that we're not real Americans.

To see in a city like New York, the Democratic mayoral candidate, Zohran Mamdani, having his citizenship and nationality questioned by Donald in the Republican Party and a member of Republican Party in Congress, who immediately asked the DOJ to investigate his naturalization process. How did being an American now become part of the kind of political argument and rhetoric? How have we normalized questioning people's nationality and citizenship? How has that been normalized? It's a deeply dangerous and depressing road to go down.

Brigid Bergin: I want to go to Derek in Jersey City. Derek, you're on WNYC.

Derek: Hi, I'm a big fan of you, Mehdi. I saw this Jubilee, and I can't help but think this format and hearing callers like Mohammed. I don't think this is a good thing for the country to show, attention-seeking, kind of crazy people. Yes, I know this does represent some chunk of the American public, but it seems like the old Carlin bit where all of the rich on both sides and the powerful are hell bent on making sure we're fighting amongst each other. That Americans have this skewed version about their countrymen, that is the vast majority of white people in flyover states, are just filled with hate and racism, and crazy nationalistic tendencies.

I feel like it's propaganda for that kind of ethos. To the style of it, and I watched a good chunk of the debate, and I saw lots of clips, I felt that there were so many little pedantic things where there wasn't really an attempt to come together and actually get at what these people think. Debates over, like, what the word Native American means. That isn't really affecting the material reality of my day-to-day life. I just feel like this format is kind of toxic and bad, and participating it is also not helpful for the country.

Brigid Bergin: Thanks for that call, Derek. a little pushback there, Mehdi, what do you think?

Mehdi Hasan: No, I completely hear you, Derek. I understand why a lot of people don't like the Jubilee format. I mean, I love a good, robust debate. I'm from the UK. We're a little bit more aggressive in our interview and debating style than most American formats. I totally hear you on the kind of potentially toxic nature of having these debates. One where I would slightly push back is, look, I'm against generalizing as well. 100% and I made it very clear in this call. Obviously, not all Trump voters are like the people I sat down with, but I sat down with these people in LA. These people were not just from "flyover country." I think we have to recognize now that this is much more pervasive than we thought.

A lot of it is to do with social media. We can't just wish this stuff away. I get it. You don't have to like the format, you don't have to like the debate, you don't have to like Jubilee, you don't have to like the fact that I participated. At the end of the day, we can't wish these people away. They are out there. They are growing in number. They control a lot of the conversations online.

They have what they believe is a representative in the White House of the United States. Therefore, even if it's just in terms of waking people up in the center ground of politics or even on the left, people who deny that these people even exist, who pretend that the Trump base is driven by "Oh, they're just left behind economic populace." I think it's very important to expose this stuff. In terms of exposure, I do think it has value.

I totally hear what Derek's saying about everyone fighting each other and the format not really helping people to get to the bottom of the truth. I went with all these claims as you mentioned earlier, and they didn't want to engage with them. I went with all these constitutional amendments that I believe Trump is violating. You know what they said to me? "Who cares about the Constitution?"

Brigid Bergin: Mehdi, as you mentioned before, debates over immigration were very much a part of this conversation. "One of your opponents at one point was an Iranian immigrant named Mateen. I want to play a clip from later in the debate when you're debating your final claim that Donald Trump's plan for Gaza is ethnic cleansing. This is you debating Mateen. Let's take a listen to it.

Mateen: After the Islamic Republic came, it became chaotic because the Islamic Republic has started to use the so-called innocent Palestinians for their own ends.

Mehdi Hasan: So-called innocent Palestinians. You don't think Palestinians are innocent?

Mateen: Not all of them.

Mehdi Hasan: What about the 17,000 children killed? 17,000 children were killed. Were they not innocent?

Mateen: Who's responsible for that?

Mehdi Hasan: Israel dropped the bombs on them.

Mateen: No. Hamas is responsible. Hamas is responsible for hiding in hospitals and making tunnels underneath the hospitals.

Mehdi Hasan: When children are shot in the head by Israeli snipers, Israeli snipers aren't responsible for that.

Brigid Bergin: Mehdi, can you dissect this exchange you had with Mateen and the broader debate about what's happening in Gaza and the terms we use to describe how this conflict has unfolded it over the last two and a half years? Argue your claim that Donald Trump's plan for Gaza is ethnic cleansing. Tell us why you think Mateen and others point to the harm on both sides when you're trying to explain Israel's actions.

Mehdi Hasan: A couple of things. One is in terms of Gaza's Trump's plan being ethnic cleansing; it's undeniable. Literally no one in that debate really managed to even make any Kind of counterclaim because Trump is on the record saying they all need to leave and they can't come back. That is the definition of ethnic cleansing. Telling people to leave from a geographical space, forcing them out violently and saying, "You cannot come back," is literally the UN and international definition of crimes like forced dispossession and ethnic cleansing. That is what Donald Trump is doing in Gaza. That is what he's given a green light to.

In terms of the debate itself, what was so interesting was a lot of the white supremacists there would not come and debate me on this because they're anti-Israel for their own agenda. They're anti-Semites too. That became very clear in the conversations I was having. I think that's a whole interesting debate to be had about how the far right is now turning on Israel for anti-Semitic reasons, which is not a reason I'm opposed to Israel. I'm not opposed to Israel because of anti-Semitism. I'm opposed to what Israel's doing because I support the human rights and dignity of the Palestinian people who are living under occupation.

What was interesting about Mateen's argument is it's so outdated, but we still see it across the US media and politics. If you ask US politicians or supporters of Israel, "What do you make of all these kids who are being killed on a daily basis, innocent women and children being killed at "aid sites," as we've been seeing for the last few weeks? The arguments are "Oh, well, it's Hamas's fault for hiding in hospitals and tunnels." Well, that's nonsense because we've seen at aid sites, there are no Hamas people, there are no human shields. They are opening fire willy-nilly at civilians.

This has been testified to by eyewitnesses, by doctors at Red Cross hospitals, by video that we've seen by American contractors, by Israeli troops who've spoken to Haaretz. They are massacring people on a daily basis. That talking point about Hamas, human shields, and tunnels, if it was ever true, it's certainly not true now. I don't think it was ever true. I think right now we are seeing people starving to death in Gaza on a daily basis. No one can support this stuff. Over 20 governments have now come out in the West saying this has to stop now, belatedly.

Western governments, especially our own government here in the US, is complicit in genocidal killings in Gaza and the mass starvation of people. Don't take my word for it. Go talk to Cindy McCain, the widow of the most pro-Israel senator of my lifetime, John McCain. She has gone out, the head of the World Food Program, saying they are shooting at aid workers, they are blocking aid. That we could feed these people. That they are starving to death as we speak right now. It is one of the great tragedies and crimes of our lifetime.

Brigid Bergin: Mehdi, thank you for that. I want to bring in another caller. We're going to go to Danny in Springfield, New Jersey. Danny, before I let you start, I want to preface this for both you and for Mehdi that Danny called in saying that he wanted to debate you, Mehdi, on the issues of racism and the founding of this country. We don't have a lot of time left in this segment, so, Danny, I'm going to give you about a minute, and then we're going to shut off the mic so that Mehdi has a chance to respond. Since we did ask for people who are interested in debating, we're going to welcome that to our air. Danny, you're on WNYC.

Danny: Thank you so much. I disagree with many of your points, but I'll speak to racism right now. We are not an inherently racist country. We ended slavery, and President Obama, unfortunately, in my mind, had the best opportunity ever. He missed on four separate occasions, whether it was the Boston Beer Garden or in Florida or in St. Louis, and the media was complicit. That being said, we are not a racist country. Having my father being born in Ireland and watching him work so hard for the American dream and we have achieved it as a family. We are not racist at all. Thank you so much.

Brigid Bergin: Mehdi.

Mehdi Hasan: Danny, thanks. Thanks for your point. Just to be clear, none of my claims were that the United States is an inherently racist country. If you want to address the issue of racism, and obviously, I sat and endured an hour-40 of racism to my face on YouTube, you can just watch the video of the racism that I endured as a brown American in front of millions of people on YouTube. Look, you want to talk about Barack Obama. Let's not forget that when Barack Obama was president, a man led a charge against him claiming that he was not an American, that he was a foreigner.

That man was Donald J. Trump. He was then elected president of United States, during which time he told four non-white members of Congress to go back to the countries from which they came. Three of them are born in the United States. He was then re-elected this last year despite making multiple racist comments towards Black people, Muslims, Jews, Latino people in this country.

Now, let's be very clear. Not everyone who voted for Donald Trump is a racist, but clearly, Donald Trump's racism was not a deal breaker for the millions of people who voted for him in 2016 and 2024. That is a big problem. We have to ask ourselves the question whether or not we are inherently racist society. The reality is that we elected a racist as president twice and we have to ask why that is.

Brigid Bergin: Mehdi, we have lots more callers and lots more texts, but we are running out of time. I can't resist because I cover New York City politics to ask you a question about our New York City mayor's race. I know you were here in New York City as well. Part of what we have seen in this race with Democrats electing Zohran Mamdani as their nominee, a certain reluctance among some other Democrats in the mainstream.

New York Senator Chuck Schumer, Kirsten Gillibrand, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. What is your sense of where that resistance is coming from? Since your crystal ball was so good, predicting where the news cycle was going to be this week, how do you see this new cycle playing out for this mayoral campaign as we head towards November?

Mehdi Hasan: It's a great question. I don't know what's going to happen. I think the Cuomo-Adams factor will be very interesting to see if they cancel each other out and help Mamdani. I know Cuomo is insisting that whoever's leading against Mamdani should stay in the race and everyone should pull out by September. It's probably a smart move on his part, whether Adams follows through. Look, these are egomaniacs. We saw how Donald Trump defeated the Republican Party because there were so many of them, and it was never a head-to-head race. I think that happened helps Zohran Mamdani. I hope he stays safe. We have racial incitement against him from the President of the United States.

We have Republicans saying outrageous things. We have Democrats saying outrageous things. Gillibrand made horrifically Islamophobic remarks about Mamdani. Apparently, she privately apologized to him. She's still not publicly apologized to Muslim New Yorkers for her horrifically racist remarks on the radio about Mamdani. Schumer and Jeffries not endorsing him, it's just-- Let me tell you this. Forget the New York mayoral race. Let's talk about the 2028 presidential race. If a moderate or a centrist Democrat wins, good luck getting progressives to back him, because progressives will say, "Hold on, when we won a race, where was the rest of the party? What happened to vote blue no matter who?"

That's what Hakeem Jeffries said, "Vote blue no matter who." Yet he will not support the guy who won the Democratic mayoral primary race by a landslide and no support from Schumer or Jeffries, based on some spurious nonsense, based on a quote that Mamdani's never said or endorsed, yet they will not endorse him. I think people are watching and thinking this Democratic Party leadership is not fit for purpose. Look at the polls. The Democratic base is furious at the leadership of their party. They want to replace their leaders. There's a reason for that. One of the reasons is because Schumer and Jeffries have handled this New York mayoral race so badly.

Brigid Bergin: Mehdi, before I let you go, I want to ask you one question and ask you for just the shortest answer you can give me to this very complicated question I'm going to pose to you, which is, so many of our listeners have texted and called in saying they appreciate demand debate, but they're not sure how to approach someone whose ideas are so different from their own. They're not sure how to start that conversation. If you had one piece of advice for people who are trying to engage with someone who may have just a very different viewpoint than they do, what would it be?

Mehdi Hasan: So many things. Given time is short, let me just say one thing. I think when you're debating other people, I think you have to be able to put yourself in their shoes. Even if you loathe what they stand for, where they come from, you need to know their argument better than they know it themselves. You need to understand what they're trying to say, what they've read, what their goal is. I think that will help everyone involved.

Brigid Bergin: We're going to leave it there for now. My guest has been Mehdi Hasan. Mehdi is the CEO and editor-in-chief at Zeteo, and a columnist for The Guardian. Mehdi, thanks so much for coming on the show.

Mehdi Hasan: Thank you so much for having me.

 

Copyright © 2025 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.