Download pdf - The Axe Files - Ep. 143: Rep. Ro KhannaThe Axe Files - Ep. 143: Rep. Ro Khanna Released May 1, 2017 [00:00:00] UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Support for "The Axe Files" comes from Rocket Mortgage

Ep. 143 – Ro Khanna 1

The Axe Files - Ep. 143: Rep. Ro Khanna Released May 1, 2017 [00:00:00] UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Support for "The Axe Files" comes from Rocket Mortgage by Quicken Loans. When it comes to the big decision of choosing a mortgage lender, work with one that has your best interest in mind. Use Rocket Mortgage for a transparent trustworthy home loan process that's completely online at QuickenLoans.com/AxeFiles. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And now, from the University of Chicago Institute of Politics and CNN, "The Axe Files", with your host, David Axelrod. DAVID AXELROD, "THE AXE FILES" HOST: When you talk about challenges to our democracy, you have to start by looking at the challenges to our economy of rapid changes wrought by technology. No one's thought more about this than Congressman Ro Khanna, a brand new member of Congress from Silicon Valley, who has made it his business to travel the country talking about the transformation of the economy, the changes in the nature of work. And what we need to do as a country to adapt to them so that the largest number of people get the opportunities they need. Congressman Khanna came by the Institute of Politics of the other day. And we sat down to talk about this and his own really interesting story. Congressman Ro Khanna, first of all welcome back to University of Chicago. I know you cut your teeth here, your academic teeth here some -- in the 90s. So, welcome back. It is good to see you. REP. RO KHANNA (D), CALIFORNIA: It's good to be back. I had learned lunch at Medici. I did not know was still around. AXELROD: Yes, oh yes. Oh yes. That -- now that's an institution for those of you who come to Chicago, the Medici 57th St. You've talked about your story as kind of a classic American story. Share your story with us, your family's story. KHANNA: My parents came here in the 1960s. My father came to study


chemical engineering at Michigan. Then he went back to India, got married to my mom. They came -- my mom came over in early 1970s. I was born in… AXELROD: Why'd they come over? KHANNA: They came over for opportunity, for education. I mean, my dad was -- there was much better chance back then to have a great education here. And it was in the, as you remember, was in the 60s when he came there was Sputnik in the sense that we wanted people with an engineering or science background. It was the simplest thing to come. He got a visa -- student visa early on. And then when he worked at a chemical engineering company, he got a green card. And you know, we really were opening -- open to people in science. And it was also after the civil rights moment. Before 1965 there were very few Indian Americans or Chinese Americans. And it was really the civil rights movement that led to the Immigration Reform Act of 65 that opened immigration to Asia. AXELROD: You know, the obvious question is about where we are now. I was really dismayed to read about the kind of precipitous decline in the number of international students who were applying American colleges and universities. Now I think 40 percent was the number in, you know, in the current class of students who are applying for admission. What is the impact of that? KHANNA: Well one it is not having the best and brightest come to the United States. That's one of things that make us great as opposed to the Ming Dynasty in China that didn't have sort of diversity of people from around the world. Our uniqueness was we really attracted talent from every part of the world. And now those folks are just going to be creating jobs and sorting companies in other places. And also diminishes in some sense American leadership. I mean, one of the advantages we had is people looked up to America because so many folks knew someone who studied here or had an influence on our ideas. AXELROD: You are a -- you studied economics before you went to law


school. Do -- have you -- and I am sure you have very -- a a bunch of smart folks who you tap for various data. Have you up studied what the impact of the sort of abandonment or retreat on immigration might have on our economy? KHANNA: Oh, there's studies all over the place. I don't want to quote something inaccurate, but I think it's -- I mean, we're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars that -- of value that immigrants have created either through startup companies or by helping build so many technology companies. [00:05:00] And I think that the important thing to know is many of them who come to the United States were paying for their education or subsidizing them. And then, we're -- if we're asking them to go back, we're basically paying for their education and saying "create jobs or companies overseas". And anyone, you know, from all of the president's talk about American greatness, I ask the counter factual. I mean, imagine a world where Google, Facebook, Tesla, Yahoo, were Chinese companies, or European companies. That wouldn't be an America we would want. We want these companies here. And anyone who's walked through those companies know they're people from around the world -- that's partly what makes them so successful. AXELROD: You know, when the -- when the Obama administration and the Senate passed an immigration reform bill during his administration, the Congressional Budget Office did an estimate and said that it would add, I think it was 1.4 trillion, was the number. See now I'm quoting inaccurate, but I'm pretty sure that's accurate -- 1.4 trillion over a decade. So, presumably the reverse is true as well -- if we ratchet down immigration, there's a fairly significant number in terms of loss growth that we can count on. KHANNA: Absolutely. And, as you know, David, the biggest factor for America's economic growth from 1950 to today was actually women entering the work force, because one of the biggest restrictors on economic growth was our labor supply. So, now we're not going to have the luxury of a huge increase of women in the work force. One of the things we need is immigrants at all levels. And, to restrict it is to restrict America's economic growth. Now, no one's saying there haven't been abuses. I mean, part of the abuse, I


think, of some of these companies that have over 50 percent H1B Visa holders, or people who are using foreign workers to pay below market wages. I think those few examples have been so excessive that they've gotten people questioning all immigration. In my views, we should perform some of the abuses, but not throw out all the immigration that's led to our success. AXELROD: It's interesting you've -- you've been traveling the country, I know, talking to people in -- particularly in rural communities and communities -- factory towns, where the factories have long since gone. And president Trump did very well there, in the Fall there, as you know. And, there is this sense of loss there, in a sense that it is immigration -- it is trade that has cost people their jobs or middle class wages. It's kind of -- it's translated into an ugly strain, you know, our country -- some of which aim that at Indian Americans, who we saw the incident in Kansas, that was so tragic. As an Indian American, how do you process all of that? And what are you saying to folks when you're out there and having this dialogue? KHANNA: Well, I start, as many people do, with their own upbringing. I mean, I grew up in Bucks county, Pennsylvania. It's fairly suburban, rural -- it was 99 percent Caucasian. When my family was Moving into our street, there was a little bit of chatter on the street that Khannas are moving in. And my parents finally figured out what the fuss was about. I'm of Hindu faith, and on Christmas Eve, everyone would put the candle lights on the street. So my dad said we'd be happy to put the candle lights on the street, and we put out street lights. And for 18 years growing up, we had great relationships with the neighborhood. So there was a sense of me that believes fundamentally in the decency - kindness, of most Americans. And a challenge of - how do we find this common identity and respect for some of their traditions while being proud of your own heritage? When I went to Paintsville, I don't want to go on too long, but John Yarmuth was a member of Congress in Kentucky. AXELROD: Kentucky.


KHANNA: He said to me, (inaudible), you should know 2 facts about where you're going down. One, Barrack Obama lost this area to Hilary Clinton in the primary, 9 percent to 91 percent. AXELROD: Yeah. I remember that. KHANNA: You do? Well, now -- AXELROD: I was on the 9 percent side on that one. KHANNA: You guys really fence (ph) OK, this is not a criticism, in any way, but -- AXELROD: It's just math. KHANNA: It's just math. But he said what do you think? I said, well, probably had something to do with race. He said, well, Jesse Jackson in 1988 won that county. And I said really? I said how did he do that? And he said he showed up and Obama didn’t need to show up. Those (ph) (inaudible) the primary won for other reasons. But there was something to his point of just showing up mattered and I’ve got to tell you, when I went there, there was such a warm reception from folks. Here’s this person coming to our community, talking not in a patronizing way. Not OK, here I’m from Silicon Valley, let me tell you what you need to do but in a way of listening, understanding what they want. And here’s the thing, people are far smarter, I think, than we give them credit for. This idea that coal miners and their families don’t know what’s happening with globalization and trade is patronizing. I mean they know. They love coal, they’re proud of coal. They think coal helped build our economy but they want their kids to have other opportunities as well and what they often came up with was diversification of the economy. And there’re two point that I think are really interesting. One, they view technology as possibly empowering. In the past, you had to be either a coal miner or a nurse or a doctor or you had to leave Eastern Kentucky, Appalachia. Well they don’t want to leave, just like someone in Silicon Valley doesn’t want to go to live in Eastern Kentucky, someone in Eastern Kentucky doesn’t really want


to live in Silicon Valley. So all these fancy economists… AXELROD: Or maybe even talk to people from Silicon Valley but maybe you’ve broken that down a little. KHANNA: But they were certainly very gracious but they don’t want to leave and so they say now look, technology, I can do things and work while staying in our community. And it’s an odd life that many people live, like my wife and I where I’m half the time in California and she’s in D.C. and we’re expecting a kid an my parents are in Philadelphia and her parents are in Cleveland. It’s not clear to me that that’s the best way of living. It certainly hasn’t been the case for so much of human history. People lived in their communities with their grandparents and their cousins. And people are proud of those communities. And so part of is how do we get these communities to embrace technology in a way that they may find (ph) empowering in allowing them to have jobs in those areas. The second point, which Megan Smith, who you know is CTO. Which is fascinating to me. She said… AXELROD: She’s the CTO in the White House. KHANNA: In the White House. Said John F. Kennedy went to McDowell West Virginia, 1959 and talked about 35 percent unemployment. Bernie Sanders was there in 2016 talking about 35 percent unemployment. Now if I was them, I’d vote everyone out too. I mean yes, we’ve made progress in nutrition and on people not starving but there’s been this sense of lack of jobs, lack of opportunity. She said that when Kennedy was there in 1959, the coal miners -- this famous scene -- started chanting Senator Kennedy, go to the moon. Go to the moon. People want to be part of the economic future and we have to figure out how we’re going to make that possible. AXELROD: Don’t -- but I guess you’d argue that -- or he would argue that Donald Trump spoke to that. That at least he spoke to their sense of wanting to be part of something and being left out of something. But it had an edge to it. And really where I was going was -- I mean I accept that you had a great experience in Bucks County, but right now, the tone in the country is much


different and Trump fingered immigrants as the cause of a lot of the distress of distressed communities, trade as the -- you don’t accept that, obviously. So how did that dialogue go? I mean were you able to have an honest dialogue about those issue? KHANNA: I certainly don’t accept that trade was the cause of folks being left behind. AXELROD: Although in a lot of these communities, these factories did leave. KHANNA: The factories left and China’s admission to the WTO, you can argue that there were about a million jobs lost after that. And certainly they had a disproportionate effect. So even if they helped the economy overall, they hurt particular communities. And… AXELROD: Isn’t that sort of like the core thing, is that we are experiencing enormous growth and progress but it’s disparate, it’s not -- all boats are not rising here, so in Silicon Valley, people are doing fantastically well. And that county in Kentucky, it’s a different story. KHANNA: Yes, I do think our country’s divided by place. Now even in Silicon Valley, there are people left out and even in my district but I think you’re absolutely right. But the gains of technology and globalization have gone to disproportionately geographically. And this is where I think people often misunderstand the Luddite movement, where you say oh, that person’s a Luddite. Well, the Luddites weren’t opposed to technology. They were saying these folks who had the power (ph) looms were not having (ph) a just society, that they had no real understanding of how they were going to provide for skills and education of people being left behind. And so we’ve got to say what are we doing? What’s our obligation to tap into the work ethic, the pride and not just give some handout. Because these folks, they’re… AXELROD: Right. Well some of -- you know, Bill Gates and others have talked about guaranteed income for people who have been left behind in the economy and their (ph) particular concern and that’s what I want to ask you about is automation, which Silicon Valley is driving.


KHANNA: Right. AXELROD: And so speaking of driving, like driverless cars for example. Driverless trucks. Soon to be online. Millions of jobs lost, good paying jobs in the economy. And it strikes me that -- there may be -- whether it’s through the earned income tax -- supplemental income for people so that -- who are working hard and need that to make ends meet. But the notion of handing people checks and yet not giving them the opportunity to be productive seems soul-crushing to me. I think that’s not a prescription for a healthy society. KHANNA: I agree and I don’t think it’s what people want. I meant you go to Eastern Kentucky and the first they’ll say are we’re a very hard working people. The work ethic. And they’re proud of having contributed to the country and to have contributed to the economy. They don’t want someone’s handout. They want to achieve their potential. I mean they want to have a meaningful contribution and work. I mean a lot of times they think OK, you get your hands dirty or think that’s real work but there has to be some concept of how we’re going to get them an opportunity to make a contribution. Now, I think the idea… AXELROD: You think the Democrat party provided that in the -- seems to me that wasn’t really discussed in compelling and authentic ways in the last campaign, at least… KHANNA: I agree. I may not (ph) get into trouble for saying this but I was screaming off to people -- I was still a kid at it, I wasn’t in Congress and I was saying to the Hillary Clinton campaign instead of coming 15 times to raise money in my district -- look, I recognize that all politicians, we have to fund raise. No one is holier than thou. But what about having… AXELROD: You raised a few bucks. KHANNA: I raised money and as do most politicians. But I said what about having some of these tech leaders instead of going out to Indiana, going out to Michigan to talk about what they’re doing there and what opportunities they can create there. You know Salesforce created 1,000 jobs in Indiana, 50 miles away from where Carrier created 600 jobs? Now most Democrats think oh, Carrier, that was stupid, that was dumb. I think it was a huge political success for


President Trump. I disagree with everything he’s done, more or less. But he was saying to people I’m fighting for you jobs, I get you. We have to say -- now I think he ha the wrong vision. Some of those jobs may not be coming back but we… AXELROD: Well, in fact, Carrier -- one of the interesting things that happened was they said yes, we will keep our factory here but we’re going to look at automating a lot of it. So the factory will be there but the jobs may not or many of the jobs may not, which seems to be the real challenge that we were talking about before, that as companies rationalize their operations and use technology to become more efficient, more and more jobs moving up the scale as artificial intelligence takes hold are going to disappear. KHANNA: But there’ll be new jobs as well. There may be jobs in elder care as our population ages, in child care, there’ll be jobs of manipulating the machines and understanding. And may be that the factory worker tomorrow is going to be very different in skills. Let me give you a… AXELROD: And needing more elaborate skills. KHANNA: So I’ll give you a concrete example. There’s this company, Flex, in Silicon Valley that has a cloud computing model for manufacturing. [00:19:50] So in the past, manufacturers would have all the IT and software in their factory. And this basically takes that into the cloud. And they're helping manufacturers in Michigan and they are creating more jobs, because those manufacturers are becoming more productive. And if you asked them on the ground the reality of those manufacturers, they won't tell you that their concern is; well robots are eliminating all the jobs. They'll say, we don't have enough folks who have the right skills to do these new jobs. And so part of it is figuring out what that skill set will be. Whether it's in manufacturing, whether it's in medicine, whether it's in politics or writing; technology's going to change all aspects of the skill set. And I think we haven't thought enough about what that would look like. And we didn't present a compelling enough vision to counter Donald Trump. I mean,


Donald Trump's message was simple; I'm going to create jobs. The way I'm going to do is I'm going to stop the immigrants from taking your jobs, I'm going to stop trade, I'm going to get rid of these environmental regulations. That are -- AXELROD: Easy to understand. KHANNA: -- easy to understand. And we're going to bring manufacturing back. Now, if you had asked folks before hand, could you sell that to the American people? Most people would have said, that's crazy; you're not going to convince the American people that we can bring coal (ph) and manufacturing jobs back. But Donald Trump believed this, he had a vision, he stuck with it. People are so afraid in some sense in our party. I went to one of the caucus meeting and they said; Ro, you can't talk about innovation jobs. You can't talk about the jobs of the future, that's Silicon Valley speak. But I challenged (ph) them to actually go into these communities and talk to coal miners and steelworkers and ask them what jobs they want for the future. If Trump could sell a vision of his jobs, why can't we sell an aspirational (ph) vision of the mix of jobs the mix of jobs of the 21st century and let the chips fall where they may? AXELROD: In advancing the economy, we're going to take a short break for a word from our sponsor and we'll be right back with Ro Khanna. (COMMERICAL BREAK) AXELROD: I guess I have a couple of reactions to that. One is that (ph) Bernie Sanders also, who you supported for president -- KHANNA: Yes. AXELROD: -- was talking about bringing manufacturing back and struck some of the themes that the anti-trade theme of Trump -- some of the more populous themes, obviously in a much different, you know, context. But -- so what attracted you to his vision or -- I know you -- I'll ask a -- I guess a cynical


question. (LAUGHTER) AXELROD: Which is, you ran for Congress before. KHANNA: And lost. AXELROD: And lost. And were kind of branded by your opponent as a tool of the corporate interests and -- KHANNA: Tech interests, yes. AXELROD: -- tech interests. So was the -- was supporting Bernie Sanders a way of getting the stench of the elite off of you? KHANNA: No, I mean I -- there were two things that drew me to Sanders's campaign. One was his anti-establishment message. One of the reasons -- one of the most frustrating things running against an incumbent in Congress was this whole rigged system where everyone endorses the incumbent. You have a bunch of super delegates who chose the system or -- and institutional players. And I think part of Sanders -- and his appeal was he's saying that that's not democracy. That in (ph) a (ph) democracy we ought to have competition, we ought not to anoint the candidate. We ought not to have a super delegate process, we ought not to have PAC money and lobbyist money. And that's something, of course, President Obama had done and I had done in both my campaigns; not take PAC or lobbyist money. And he was running with this message of reform and I think that really appealed to me. The second part was foreign policy. You know, my view is similar to John Quincy Adams's, that you don't go overseas for monsters to destroy but you give moral support and the voice of support -- he put it much more eloquently, to people for freedom around the world. But that doesn't mean that we go in and invade and try to get into wars. [00:24:55] And John Quincy Adams explained that because he said that


peoples motives and getting in those wars are often more complex than freedom and America won't understand what those motives are. And I think Bernie Sanders had a very consistent critique. I disagreed with the escalation in Afghanistan. I disagreed -- I mean, I have tremendous admiration for President Obama; I think he's one of the great presidents. But I disagreed with that part, I disagreed with the invasion in Libya. I certainly was opposed to the war in Iraq, and I -- and there was part of Bernie Sanders' foreign policy vision that attracted me. And the final point, was the -- the sense on what -- what do you think is the big question for the country? My view is that the big question for the country right now is: Are we going to be one America, or are we going to fragment? I think that what elected President Obama -- I still think his greatest speech was 2004, where it wasn't health care -- AXELROD: At the Democratic convention, yeah. KHANNA: At the convention. I don't think, I mean, you would know much more of what elected him. But I don't think it was any specific policy. I think it was his sense (ph), people said wow, we finally have someone who may be able to heal the divisions and bring this country together. And if you believe that -- if you believe that the single focus of ours should be how do we bring this country together? And you know that half the country is being left out. And you know that trade at best -- even if positive is going to have a disproportion impact precisely on the people being left out -- then wouldn't you want an economic policy that's going to speak to the folks who're being left out so that they don't have a backlash against immigrants -- against technology? And I think Sanders understood that. He understood that when social security and Medicare and healthcare was speaking about stabilizing middle class aspirations for those left behind. AXELROD: But even as -- but even as he did, you obviously had difference -- differences with him, on -- KHANNA: On some things.


AXELROD: Like trade. KHANNA: On some forms of trade. But I -- but I was critical of TPP. I was critical of -- because I -- partly I was critical of on (ph) the sense that it was the wrong message at that moment. I don't think that that should have been the priority. I rather the priority have been investing in apprenticeship programs or healthcare, or other -- other areas. AXELROD: Do you think the country's stronger because a TPP is -- has been withdrawn by President Trump? KHANNA: No. I don't think that the country's stronger, but do I think more jobs would have been displaced? Possibly, yes. AXELROD: What about creating? KHANNA: I think it's an open question -- it's an open question where those jobs would've been created. Its an open question whether those jobs would have been created in my district and in the coast, but whether those agreements would have helped American workers of -- precisely the folks that are feeling left out -- I think is an open question. AXELROD: So, you know, I got ahead -- way ahead of myself, because all this stuff interests me. But, what also interests me is -- is -- your biography and particularly I asked about your folks and about your upbringing, but -- but -- your grandfather was one of the leaders of the Independence movement in India with Gandhi and can you talk about him? Because he apparently was a big influence on you. KHANNA: He was. I would see him when I -- over the summers as someone young, and he also had a huge family -- impact in the family (lure) and tradition -- AXELROD: Tell me his story. KHANNA: He was -- spent 4 years in jail in the 1940's during the Quit India movement with Gandhi and others. When there was a Independence movement against the British. And he was -- spent 30-40 years of his life, basically,


fighting for India's independence. And it made me realize 2 things: one, that the life of politics mattered. You know, he was a 25 or even younger -- his parents wanted him to be a -- to go into the clothing business. And, of course, for those who are students of world history, part of the Indian Independence Movement was not using their own cloth, and not using British cloth. And so ,my grandfather said "No, I'm not going to do that." And he didn't make much money, and he went and said I'm going to be dedicated to fighting for India's independence. And he did that for -- until India became a free country. And I'm -- I'm certain, even though I can't trace a direct connection, it's not like he said, Ro, you should go into politics. Or someone ever said that. But that growing up with that, made me believe that politics mattered. And it's -- you know what's remarkable to me is I see other members of Congress, how many of them had parents, or grandparents, or uncles who were involved in some way in something -- activism, or politics -- that made them, sort of believe that politics could be a calling for them. And for me, that was my grandfather and his story. AXELROD: And how long did he live in your life? KHANNA: He passed away when I was 11 or 12, and you know, I had a number of conversations, of course, with him about the Indian Independence Movement that I remember. But, his story -- AXELROD: What about his years in prison - did he talk to you about that? KHANNA: He did but more my grandmother talked about that -- because she lived till I was well into my late -- early 30s. And she talked about the impact it had on the family -- I mean, she never wanted me to go into politics, because for her, politics was just a life of sacrifice. And, you know, she spent years not seeing my grandfather, and not even knowing at times, if he was alive. My mom grew up, more or less, a single parent, until she was in her teenage years. So, for her, politics was all sacrifice.


And I remember, still, she would have these conversations with my mother and saying, whatever he does, he shouldn't go into politics. But I definitely had her tell stories -- and, you know, all my cousins and uncles and aunts -- they tell stories about -- about my grandfather. AXELROD: You know, you hear these independence stories and the incredible sacrifices that people made for freedom to create liberal democracies, and so on. And now you see this movement around the world that, in which liberal democracies are -- are under a saw (ph) -- I know you -- you preached a kind of John Quincy Adams detachment, but you must be concerned about that -- and it seems linked to this economic issue that we were talking about before. Because America's not the only place where old jobs are disappearing, middle class wages are being threatened, and people are feeling unsettled. And exacerbated by you know, migrant communities coming in and so on. So, as someone who was sort of born listening to these independence stories, how concerned are you about the state of liberal democracies around the world? KHANNA: Well, I'm -- in part, I'm hopeful, because I think that there's so many parts of the world like India, even China -- other parts of the world where folks now have the opportunity of technology and the economy to -- to help people who were making a dollar a day start to build a middle class and to have opportunity. I mean, I think -- so there's the benefits, I think, also of technology and economic development. Now, the challenge is that -- AXELROD: China wouldn't include among liberal democracy. KHANNA: Well, no. But the hope is that it could go -- it could lead, eventually, to liberalization. AXELROD: You're like a -- you're like a half glass full. KHANNA: Well, I believe -- here's my theory: I believe that the 21st Century will be America's absolute greatest contribution to world history for a very simple reason. If you believe that America's greatness ultimately is at -- it's a nation founded on a philosophic idea- not culture. Then the first time it's actually going to be tested, really, is the 21st Century.


And this is the first time you've god Hindus and Jews and Buddhists and -- and if we get that right, if we actually become this universal nation, in a way of saying - living up these ideals, that you don't have to have a cultural blood basis for a nation. That's a great contribution. And I -- I don't see any reason why -- why we won't -- there are going to be huge challenges along the way. But the history's been pretty good. I mean, think about it, David. Why wouldn't I be optimistic? I mean, Indian American Hindus -- parents were immigrants to this country, who's representing, arguably the most economically powerful district in the world, with Google, and Apple, and Yahoo. In a district that has a less than a 2 percent Hindu population. That looks like every part of the globe, so look at the opportunities that America still provides people of different backgrounds and different races. And I -- part of my reticence to say - do I think that Trump engaged in some terrible rhetoric and speech that appealed to our worst instincts? [00:34:50] Yes. Do I think that's why 60 million people or whatever voted for him? No. AXELROD: No. And, I would certainly not connect those two things. I think one of the things that is too facile is the ease with which people who didn't support him are -- were willing to characterize those who did. And, there was a little of that the other way as well. But this uptick in hate crimes and this fundamental appeal to division has consequences for a society. So, look, I'm the son of an immigrant, too, and I've lived one of those stories, as well. And, I believe deeply in this country but it just feels like we're being challenged now that that whole vision of the pluralists society in which these many strands come together to form this very sturdy cloth. And, that that is -- that that premise is being challenged. KHANNA: I think that the change was so fast you had an African American with a Muslin name -- middle name become president twice. A woman win the popular vote. The most diverse Congress in history, gay marriage, trangender, right. I think we -- there was such rapid change that perhaps there was a sense


of slowing down in a moment of reflection. But, democracy, that voice should be heard and it will be defeated in the free marketplace ideas and we'll be -- and we're stronger. Let me tell you an antic that gave me a real amount of hope. There was a senior Republican -- this was before the President's joint address to Congress. He had grown up in the segregated south. He had said that he had served in Korea and he said that when he came back to Memphis that was a more violent zone than when he was in Korea. And he said to me, Ro, I hope the President tonight or tomorrow night, I forget when I had the conversations says something to bring this country together that we need to do that. We can't have this division. And, you know, the President didn't do enough but he did start out by condemning the Kansas incident. I think fundamentally most people in this country want us to come together. And, I think that there is an element that -- of stalking fear that can last for an election cycle. Maybe it can last for -- appeal to minority. I don't think that's where the heart and soul of this country is. AXELROD: You -- one of the other things that has created a challenge in today's political climate, in today's society is the technology of communications and how people get their information. And, your -- as you point out your district is sort of the locust of that. Locus, I should say, not locust. That was a Freudian slip. But -- and it feels as if we are not just living in geographic silos, more prosperous, Democrats in urban areas people who are more apt to be struggling, more conservative in rural areas. But, we're also -- our media habits and how we get information is begin defined by technology and we have media outlooks that we tend to chose to affirm our points of view and not just inform our point of view. How do we navigate that? Because you talk about the free market and democracy and I believe in that but the market is a little less free if there isn't -- if people aren't exposed to a wide range of view.


KHANNA: I agree with that but I'm not sure that the old model where you had Walter Cronkite and two other anchors give the news is the best in a long term for Democratic thought. AXELROD: Well, he's not around anymore so no worries about that. KHANNA: No, obviously. And, I have great respect for him. But, you know, Tom Brokaw or whoever -- or even -- a citizen has never been more able to have a voice in this country. I mean, I tell people that I go on to the House floor and give some speech. And, that often matters far less than someone in my district who has a clever tweet or a clever Facebook post and gets far more likes and shares. There has never been a time where A a citizen has had more possibility of a voice. Look at Jon Ossoff's race. I mean the guy raised $8 million, almost became a Congressman at the ago of 30. [00:40:00] And, you saw Obama's rise or Trump's rise. So … AXELROD: I think his supporters would beg me to say at this moment that he still could become a Congressman, actually. He's not just … KHANNA: And, I hope he does. AXELROD: … run off in June. Yes. KHANNA: And, I certainly will be supporting him and I think he's a very talented person. But, the point is that there is -- that we're been -- that we're enabling more democracy not the backroom dealing. Now, to your point on well are people just going to confirm the views that they have. Partly that is, I think, the case. Because, you now don't read a newspaper. You can select part of the articles you want. AXELROD: I still do, by the way, which causes my young aides here to tease me mercilessly. KHANNA: You read the paper version?


AXELROD: I do, yes. I like it. KHANNA: That's great. So … AXELROD: I've even been known to rip a clip out from time to time which is hugely amusing … KHANNA: Not your own press segment (ph) I hope. AXELROD: … to everybody under the ago of 40, so. KHANNA: But -- so the question though is but at the same time there's also a lot more of an understanding on foreign policy, right. We see the world, we see America now more as other people may see us. We understand dissident voices far more. We understand -- we have a perspective that's far more broad in outlook. And so, the question is OK is it temporary more polarized, yes. But, I fundamentally believe in the long run having people with more information and more choice will lead to a healthier debate and society than having the information concentrated in the hands of a few. And, David, the test of this is look the 20th century was one of the most bloody unjust centuries in things in world history. We had two world wars, we had a cold war, we had colonialism, we had -- it wasn't exactly like the information flow let to this world of peace and justice. It's not clear to me that the tools that Facebook and Twitter and more communication and more citizen empowerment is going to lead to a less just country or less just world. AXELROD: We're going to take another break and we'll be back with Ro Khanna. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) AXELROD: We should say that it is true that there were two world wars in the 20th Century but there also hasn't been another one since, in part because


global institutions grew, American leadership grew and what do you think the test should be for -- President Trump says the involvement -- American involvement should be about American interests? How would you define when America should project strength -- military strength in the world? KHANNA: Well, there's two points if I may. The first, one of the most disappointing points of President Trump's inaugural speech was when he said we're going to be like any other nation and we're going to look after our interests. Part of what makes us exceptional is that we're not like every other nation. We had a moral aspiration of freedom. You read that John Quincy Adams go to slay monsters. He talks about how the American impulses to see liberty around the world and to see a more just society. And, that's what makes America exceptional unlike other nations. So, it was ironic to me to hear someone who was proclaiming America's greatness was putting us in such mundane terms. That we were just like any other nation. That's not really America at its most exceptional. You know, the question is though, we can -- we should always give voice to our values. We should always fight for our values. So, in Assad's case for example, I would say let's go seek an international tribunal of war crimes. Let's support Germany with universal jurisdiction to prosecute them. Let's make the case at the U.N. that he's had a policy of, basically, aligned for 4 million Sunnis to leave his country and make the moral case. Now, I get that Russia will probably veto it, and China will be voting it. But, we should lead with moral clarity. But that doesn’t mean that -- that is always the time to intervene militarily. Partly because, when we’ve intervened, we’ve often made matters worse. I mean, when we intervened in Iraq, that’s what led to -- AXELROD: No, I mean, I agree with you. I think that this was -- I know that this was President Obama’s view but the question that we rarely ask, or ask too infrequently, is "and then what? If we do this, then what? If we invade, then


what? If we topple Saddam Hussein, then what? How does this go here? What is the American role going to be?" And obviously, Syria poses an even more complex mix right now -- although when you talk about, sort of, American as not being not like other countries, it was kind of stunning when the president was the only western leader to call President Erdogan and Turkey the day after an election that was clearly of -- of -- in dispute, and that consolidated power and kind of -- and restricted democracy in that country, and you wonder about the people who are fighting for freedom and democracy there, and how disappointing that must have been, given America’s role as John Quincy Adams described it, in the world from the beginning of our republic. KHANNA: And I don’t want to keep referring to John Quincy Adams as the one thing on this podcast -- AXELROD: John Quincy -- I’ve got to get that guy on my podcast because he obviously is filled with wisdom. KHANNA: If every Congress, Senator and cabinet member read his -- just excerpt on not slaying monsters, we’d be a much fairer democracy. Maybe Barrack Obama was as good of a writer, but we -- we -- when I read that, I think "wow, I wish there were more members of Congress or Senators or cabinet members who -- who wrote like him. " I mean, it’s so thoughtful, but the point is that there’s a way -- AXELROD: Cant your staff just print it up? You could put it on their desks, they can -- (CROSSTALK) KHANNA: I doubt that -- I’m just a freshman there, David. (LAUGHTER) (CROSSTALK) AXELROD: You’re not allowed to offer readings, huh?


KHANNA: You know, I mean, I don’t know what they’d think about -- think about that. But, I -- but I think the -- the point is, there is a way to be idealistic in our values and to be consistent in those values -- to speak out for human rights -- to speak out for democracy -- to give expression to dissonant movement, and yet be judicious with the projection of military forces -- we’re not going to -- our first policy on that is "do no harm", because when we toppled Mosaddegh, when we invaded Iraq and led to the creation of Isis, when we were in Afghanistan and we know that 60 -- only 40 percent of Afghanistan isn’t under any control that you have a total chaos situation there. We aren’t able to pick the cause of freedom, and Quincy Adams said that what -- what our quest to -- to save liberty will actually make us dictatorial. And more people will see us being there by force than by liberty because people’s motives may not be as pure as ours. They may be fighting this war -- these wars for ambition, or greed, or their own interests, where we’re projecting our values of freedom. So, I think that there is a way -- AXELROD: Do you think that -- let’s go back in history because you talked about the 2 world wars -- do you think the United States did the right thing -- KHANNA: Yes. AXELROD: --intervening there? KHANNA: Yes, because I think that we’re attacked on World War II, I also think we did the right thing in intervening when we were attacked after 9/11. I was for the initial strikes on terrorists, and we should definitely -- if we are attacked, we should definitely respond, and I have no problem going after terrorists or terrorist camps in other parts of the world if they -- especially if they attack us. But, here’s one of the things that people often, I think, get -- get mistaken. They say, "well, if we don’t act in Syria, or if we don’t act in Iraq, somehow people are going to underestimate American resolve." Anyone who has observed American history would be utterly foolish to underestimate our resolve when we are attacked directly.


I don’t think there should be any doubt that we would -- AXELROD: Do you think that’s the test that whenever we’re attacked directly -- that should be the litmus test. KHANNA: For the use of force, yes. I mean, absence (ph very compelling reason. And if we are going to do a humanitarian mission, here’s what I don’t understand. We often have a domestic face to the use of missiles and an international face to humanitarian aid. So in the Syrian missiles, the 59 missiles fall -- Syrian people aren’t going to tell the story that American’s helped save folks from chemical weapons, even though -- I think that that genuinely was probably our motive. And I think there was a wrong decision, but I don’t think people had some ulterior motives -- I don’t question their motives. But that’s not the story, the story that Syrian kids are going to grow up learning is there were 59 missiles that had an American label on them, and -- but yet, we’re not providing aid to the 2 million refugees in Turkey, or the refugees other places -- those are international institutions. Wouldn’t we want the military strikes in humanitarian situations to have a international label on them? The NATO or U.N. To have the aid be American? I’m not saying international as the forces when our interest is at stake. American national securities at stake have American forces fight -- don’t -- we’re the best in the world. But, why are we baring all the brunt of the negativity on these humanitarian missions? And so, I just think we have to re-think some of our foreign policy. One of -- some of the real critics of foreign policy say that the U.S. -- we’re so powerful, we get away with some of these mistakes. If we were actually in a -- in a neighborhood in the Middle East -- fortunately, we’re not -- we would suffer much more consequence for some of the mistakes we’ve made. But it has not made us safer, and it hasn’t made us more well-liked. It’s not in our national interest. AXELROD: There’s one other piece of your biography that I just had to ask you about. Which is, you sad that your grandfather inspired you to think about the importance of politics -- a career in politics -- you went off to law school, and 2


years later you were running for Congress in California. That seemed precipitous. What caused you to do that, and was it a good idea? Were you ready for that? KHANNA: I wasn’t ready. It was a -- it was a mistake in retrospect, but I -- I stood up against the war in Iraq. I mean, Tom Lantos had voted for the war in Iraq, and I was opposed to the war. And maybe it was this sense of foreign policy, and it was post-9/11. You had there, the South-Asian community actually some of the folks, I’m of Indian origin, but I had a friend, Pakistani-American, who was a detained post-9/11, said "go back to your country". There was a large amount of actual discrimination back then, I think. Again, South-Asians much more so than even now. You have Bobby Jindal, then running for Governor on a platform of -- he had converted his faith, and I don’t judge that, but he was running against gay rights, against women rights - I didn’t think that represented the values of the (INAUDIBLE). Now, I was naïve. I’m glad I didn’t win; I certainly wouldn’t have been ready to be in Congress, but it was probably the most idealistic thing I’ve done. And since then, I’ve become, as anyone in politics is, a little bit more tactical, and strategic. That was out of pure -- okay, let’s run and see what happens. AXELROD: You --you come to Congress at a pretty tumultuous time. And -- and -- and I’d be remiss having you here if I didn’t ask you what you think the next months are going to be like, because there are a series of potentially difficult challenges ahead, relative to the budget -- whether there’s a budget resolution, whether the government operates or shuts down. You’ve got a dead ceiling vote coming down the road here, and potential battles over a number of other issues. Where do you think this is all headed and where do you think there’s any opportunity for Democrats to work with the administration -- work with the Republicans on any issue, and what’s the likely -- what are we looking at in terms of potential showdowns here? KHANNA: I think the first part for the Democrats is to make sure that we don’t


have harm, and we’ve actually done a fairly good job of -- and not those of us in Congress, but Democrats across the country are making sure the Affordable Care Act wasn’t repealed, and people didn’t lose insurance. We need to stand up to make sure they don’t cut meals on wheels, they don’t make cuts on the national endowment for the humanities, they don’t cut weatherization programs that basically allow seniors to get heat, I mean there’s some cuts here that -- AXELROD: All of these are sort of assumed in the President’s preliminary budget. KHANNA: It’s in the budget. I mean, the most -- it’s a - it’s a wonky issue, but one of the most appalling cuts is the manufacturing extension partnership. If you talk to Republicans or Democrats who are at the Department of Commerce -- AXELROD: It is well -- explain what that is. KHANNA: It’s a -- it’s a program that costs $140 million, which in the context -- just to put in context -- we spend 600 billion on our Defense Department, so this is a less than half a percent. And it helps small and medium sized manufacturers learn the latest techniques in technology so they can compete in the world, and have manufacturing at home. [00:50:00] We just had a president who ran on bringing manufacturing jobs back. You would think he would say you know what let’s put much more funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership so we can help manufacturers across this country. Instead, that’s one of the programs on the chopping block. There are things the president could do that I think would put the democrats in a position of wanting to work with him or being forced to work with him. For example, the apprentice – if the president came out and said I want to create apprenticeship programs across this country and I’m going to fund them. You know, I did the Apprentice show, I get the apprenticeships work, democrats join me. I think you’d have a hard time voting against that. If the president came and said I get that the way I campaigned we were going to have


importation of drugs from Canada so that Americans in many of the states that voted for me don’t have to pay a lot for drugs. You’d have a hard time of democrats voting against that. If the president even said look I’m going to put money – public money in building basic infrastructure, which I think if there’s anything that motivates them – I used to think what motivated someone to run for president. I get that everyone has power and other things. But you got to – there something probably that you want to do. I used to think well at least Trump will want to build stuff. I mean, maybe, that’s what motivates him. And, if he just said look I’m going to put pure – just a straight up infrastructure bill you’d have democrats having a hard time to vote against. AXELROD: I think that’s right just on – as a side on that, it looks more like it’s going to come in as a package in which tax credits are given to private concerns to do infrastructure which seems a lot less effective in terms of basic reparations and building of the nations infrastructure. KHANNA: A lot less effective and a lot less likely to have the impact across the country and the places that need it the most. I mean, it’s going to be helpful to some of the developers and big businesses. Here’s the irony of … AXELROD: No, it’s giving tax credits to people who would probably otherwise gone forward with their projects, anyway. KHANNA: Absolutely. And, who have – who are probably located a lot of those developers and financial interests in New York. Not a criticism but those are the people who are going to be benefiting. Why not just states a block grant to develop things and make sure it’s across the country And, you know, I’m saying things that would help the states that voted for Trump. The irony of all of this is Trump ran in part saying I am against the order that has been governing things. I don’t want the Wall Street folks in charge. I’m for Main Street not Wall Street. And, he’s picked folks who literally some of them, frankly, would have been in – they would have been much more rational in a Hillary Clinton regime but some of the folks like Gary Cohn would have been – you could have argued that he


would have been in a Hillary Clinton administration. It’s just the same folks but will a little bit more of a handout to Wall Street that are running the country. And so, the biggest criticism of Trump, I think, is he’s not governing like he campaigned. People expected to get someone who was going to fight for Main Street. And, they got someone who is double down on economic policy for Wall Street. And, I think that that – when that gets through and people will realize that I think that’s his biggest vulnerability. AXELROD: What about yourself? You’re obviously not someone without ambition. What are your – how do you see your life unfolding here? I know you just came to Congress. KHANNA: I think the – I’ve always said that representing Silicon Valley is an extraordinary opportunity. And, I mean that sincerely. I mean, it’s like representing Athens or Florence. It’s a place that driving so much innovation and technology. And, if I can help … AXELROD: If everybody in Athens and Florence sat on exercise balls and stared at computers all day. KHANNA: But, you know, there’s huge sense that people aren’t participating in that future and that future may be scary for folks. And that we need to make a better – do a better job of making sure that the gains of technology aren’t just going to a few but that they’re begin felt by everyone in the county. And, if I can become a leading economic voice on how we transition from an industrial to a digital age that would be great. I mean on my most ambitious moments I say could I be a counter to Paul Ryan on economic thinking in the House in the way we need some creative bold economic thinking in the Democratic Party. I also think this. A lot of times people say well what you young people what do you need to do to go into politics and people say well you got to learn how to knock on doors and you need to learn how to fundraise and you need to learn


how to write good press releases. And, my advice to folks is often well one you should read. And, it’s not because I went to University of Chicago and my wife will tell you I was a nerd growing up and she doesn’t – she criticizes that skill is because I think politics at its best – what fueled my passion for politics more than anything, more than my grandfather, my story was interesting ideas. Our founders were thinkers, profound thinkers. People who thought about the world and what they wanted the world to be. And, I – the biggest exhilaration I get in politics is to be able to participate in these ideas and to see those ideas possible become part of policy. And so, I have huge ambition. I want to have shape big ideas, big thinking for the Democratic Party for the country. The plague for people and the title doesn’t matter as much in today’s world. What matters is how many retweets and Facebook shares you get. AXELROD: Well, I think it is fair to say that the technologists who you represent and the community you represent out there in Athens on the west are creating enormous capacities to do all kind of very, very important constructive things that can drive humanity forward. But, it is also moving forward at a warp speed race. A pace perhaps greater than our ability to get our arms around all of the implications of it. And, it will take big thinking to lead that transition from one economy to another and not leave large numbers of Americans behind. So, I wish you luck in that pursuit. We need all the big thinking that we can get. Ro Khanna, thank you for being with us and being at the Institute of Politics and welcome back to your alma mater. KHANNA: Thank you for having me on. And, thank you for your career in public service. It was an honor to do this one. AXELROD: Thank you. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you for listening to "The Axe Files", part of the CNN podcast network. For more episodes of "The Axe Files", visit


CNN.com/podcast and subscribe on iTunes, Stitcher or your favorite app. And for more programming from the University of Chicago Institute of Politics, visit politics.uchicago.edu.