Rahm Emanuel on Why Democrats Keep Losing

Rahm Emanuel on Why Democrats Keep Losing The former Chicago mayor makes his case for his party’s future. Jonathan Martin is POLITICO’s senior political columnist and politics bureau chief. He’s covered elections in every corner of America and co-authored a best-selling book about Donald Trump and Joe Biden. His reported column chronicles the inside conversations and major trends shaping U.S. politics. CHICAGO — There are a few people in American politics who, as with Cher and Madonna, only require one name. Rahm is one of them. Rahm I. Emanuel tiptoed into Illinois politics after a youthful flirtation with ballet and a less-dainty encounter with an Arby’s meat-cutter that took off half his right middle finger. That accident, as the subsequent joke went, left the pugnacious Rahm half mute. But the Myth of Rahm — the ballet, the half-finger, cursing nearly as often as he breathes — is as well-established as you’d expect from a first-name-only public figure. Which is why, when we sat down over tavern-style pizza (the Wednesday special: sausage, mushrooms, onions, hold the green pepps) in his native North Side, I wanted to steer him toward other terrain. Think of it this way: The Rahmbo you know (he once sent a dead fish to a rival consultant!) is Chicago’s deep-dish pizza. Fine for the tourists, but not something you’d seek out on your 11th visit here. And you, On The Road viewer, I think want something… tastier. So my goal was to go deeper with Rahm, to pull off the interview version of thin-crust pizza. We discussed the number of phone calls he makes in a given day, how both parties have failed the country and, get this, his insistence that he’s never cursed on camera. Yes, Rahm claims he’s never dropped an F-bomb in an interview. Rahm got feisty when I pressed him on whether the self-declared “raging moderate” was playing catch-up with the left on Israel and other issues. And he was equally short when I asked if I was wasting my time with somebody with universal (first) name ID with the political class but little relevance in early presidential polling. Isn’t this a glittering resume and cover letter posing as a presidential candidacy? And isn’t he doing all this to land one final major job in government? By the end, in classic Impatient Rahm mode, he was standing up and eager to wrap as I kept asking him questions. But he didn’t immediately bolt. He went behind the counter to ask each of the workers at Michael’s Original Pizzeria and Tavern which neighborhood they lived in this city of neighborhoods. The former mayor is still a pol, and he wants you to know that he still knows from retail. As he would demand, jabbing that half-finger out: Ok?! Watch the full video on YouTube or listen to it as a podcast for the whole story. The following conversation has been edited for length and clarity. So, this is classic neighborhood Chicago. We’re on the North Side, uptown — a city of neighborhoods — and we’re in your old House seat here, right? Correct. Yeah, you were in the House for three terms? Well, elected four, served three, because right after I got elected to the fourth, I became Obama’s chief of staff. And he grew up on the North Side too, right? How far? Well, we’re at Winona and Broadway and Buena, not far from here. The Emanuel ancestral home. Well, that would be a stretch of ancestral on the term. I don’t think it was the same 36 CTA bus, but that’s what we would take from Winona and Broadway down to our Anshe Emet Day School, where Ezekiel and I went to school. You mentioned going to Jewish day school; we’re sitting here. You’ve recently come back from Israel, gave a speech that got a lot of attention, especially on this side of the world. It was over there. A lot. Over there, too? Oh, a lot. Very much so. Why’d you want to give the speech and why’d you want it there? One is: I was invited, just to put that aside. Tel Aviv University called me, or communicated, three months earlier and said, ‘We’d like to do a speech on U.S.-Israel relationships, etc.’ That’s one. Two: The United States has fought in Iraq, and now has a war in Iran. We have lost 50,000 fellow citizens, either dead or permanently maimed for life. Spent well over a trillion and a half to $2 trillion. I’m not interested in a third war. Donald Trump, whereas you and I are sitting here, can’t figure out his way out of what he started back in February. Second, I happen to think the alliance is important. But it’s, as I said in the speech, not sustainable. It cannot exist with the present status quo. It’s at a tipping point. Third: This is consistent with me — as you know, when I was Obama’s chief of staff in the White House, I told the prime minister that if you do what you’re doing on housing in the West Bank, it will lead to perpetual conflict and perpetual isolation. If there was a prediction I wanted to be wrong on, that was it. He calls you a “self-hating Jew.” He did. Publicly. That piss you off? I don’t think you need to ask that question, but since you know me pretty well, yeah. Did you ever confront him about that? No, no. So, put aside that. I said what I believed about housing in the West Bank, and I also was in the room and, I think, was a persuasive voice convincing President Obama to fund the Iron Dome, which saved thousands of Israeli lives from missiles from both the north and the south. I think both opposing housing in the West Bank that was provocative and would undermine the two-state solution, and funding the Iron Dome for Israel’s domestic security, I think those are consistent heads and tails of the same coin. So I’ve not changed. Well, what is the change in saying that ‘We’re going to start selling you weapons like every other country instead of giving you weapons.’ As I say in the speech, there’s two things: I want to treat you like an ally, not a dependent. You can pay full price like any other ally for any weapon. However, the rules, requirements and restrictions that apply to every ally would apply to you. Tell me about who you heard from after the speech, here in the States. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who also put out a statement. Yep, saw that. President Clinton. How about folks currently in office? Nancy Pelosi, Hakeem Jeffries, Senator Coons. Second-hand: Kamala Harris, Governor Shapiro and Governor Cox. And what was the reaction from them? I want to try to be careful. I don’t want to violate privacy. All very affirmative and all appreciative of laying out not just a criticism of the Arab League, of the Palestinian leadership, of the current Israeli government and past administrations in the United States for being permissive, but also of having an affirmative agenda as it relates to a 23-state solution, as relates to economic trade and as it relates to weapons. Now I want to say, besides the elected, there’s a series of what you would call “bipartisan national security experts” or people who work in prior administrations both on the Middle East and others who were very complimentary as well. “The blob” they’d be called derisively, right? Well, let me say this: They wouldn’t be invited for pizza. Let’s just be clear about that. Aren’t you trying to catch up to where the center of gravity is shifting, and it’s shifting to the left? You just talked to me about what I said in 2009. That’s a fair statement for everybody else. I was 18 years ahead of everybody. I don’t mean to say it that way. I’ve been consistent for 18 years. People that all of a sudden have found their footing in criticizing Netanyahu — try facing him in the Oval Office and saying it directly to his face when you’re sitting on the couch, and he’s sitting next to the president of the United States. And I said, ‘If you do this, this is gonna lead to exactly Israel’s isolation, Israel’s perpetual conflict. And your housing is provocative.’ So I’m pushing back because you’re wrong. This is an important point. I said this in 2009, 18 years ago. I did not need a war in the south of Israel, in Gaza, to tell me what was happening on the West Bank would lead to Israel’s isolation. But if Rahm Emanuel is saying, ‘We’re not going to give you weapons anymore. You’ve got to buy them now,’ that does reflect the change in American politics when it comes to Israel. I have two things, if I could. One is: They never got them before. They had funding. We’re gonna eliminate the funding. You’re gonna pay for them. Now, I want to state one thing. Michael Oren, Israel’s former ambassador to the United States, in 2021 said this: The prime minister has now come forward. That’s number one. Number two: I didn’t just talk about weapons. I gave a very specific idea on a 23-state solution, a very specific idea of the India-Middle East-European economic trade. Which is basically that other states in the Gulf region are normalizing relations with Israel. Other people may just talk about the weapons piece. Well, where’s your peace proposal? Where’s your economic proposal? And I thought I owed the country in Israel and the American public … if I decide to run for higher office, which is why we’re having pizza in Chicago. I’d come here anyways, but it’s okay. No, you wouldn’t. You wouldn’t even know this place. So, B, therefore, you have to lay out a plan. One of the things the president has to do is sit in the Situation Room. I also went on to Berlin and said, ‘Here’s the new NATO.’ So bottom line, for the U.S. to have a healthy relationship with Israel, do they have to have a change in leadership this fall? It’s a democratic process. They’re going to make a decision. Talk about us, though. For our relationship. If you want to hit the reset button and reboot it, you’re going to have to have a government that, one, is not just another face. As I say to the American Jewish community or people that care about Israel, this is not just a PR problem. This is a content problem as much as a PR problem. There is a PR program, a lot of those things that I think are unfair: double standards. But when you have settlers burning Palestinian homes, as I say in the speech, and your government is both complicit and complacent in that — that is unacceptable. You think it’s fair to say that both major parties in this country have failed America in this century? Yes, that’s for sure. I’ll give you my take. There are four big moments that have unsettled our politics and where not just government, also business, lost the American people. The Iraq war — there was no yellowcake in Niger. It was built on a lie, and we lost 50,000 Americans who are wounded and dead. Spent well over a trillion dollars, and everybody responsible for that decision is at universities teaching on boards as if they never made a mistake. They’ve never been held accountable for the yellowcake. That’s one, what’s two? Four years later, seven million of our fellow citizens lose their homes built on a thing called the “liar loan.” Bankers not only get bailed out, they’re arguing for their bonuses. Four years later, Xi comes to power in China, and we let Battle Creek fight Beijing all by themselves. Five years. Battle Creek is a town in Michigan, right? Battle Creek is a town in Michigan. Five years later, COVID-19 hits, and essential workers have to work, and everybody else gets to do remote work. These are the most disruptive periods. But you were a part of one of those. You said to me Washington. I know. Question, John- Did you indict yourself there? On number two? Slightly, but I will give you what I did right, and I’ll give you what I did wrong. You know, that’s your problem, John, you’re a little on the watch of ‘Let me see who we can blame first.’ So here’s the point: Any one of those in a 25-year period would be massively disruptive. We had four of them in 25 years. Now, I’m in the House. [Former President George W.] Bush sends up the secretary of Treasury, the head of the Federal Reserve, SEC, and says to the entire House and Senate leadership, D and R, ‘We have 48 hours before the economy hits a great depression. This is what we’ve got to do.’ So we work in figuring it out and basically ensuring that the economy doesn’t go over into a tailspin. Barney Frank and I were designated by Nancy Pelosi to work with the administration of Republicans in doing that. Well, not only were we responsible. The items we kept going back to was restricting bonuses, which Hank Paulson, then-secretary of the Treasury for Bush, didn’t want to do. And he said, ‘Look, we’re not writing any checks.’ Two: My responsibility is, as you know this, when I’m President Obama’s Chief of Staff, we have a big argument or discussion (the president encouraged it) in picking between his three children: healthcare, cap-and-trade or financial reform. And as you all know, the person you’re enjoying pizza with, advocated doing financial reform first, because the bankers needed to get some Old Testament justice. And the country needed to see the president bring in that Old Testament. Is that your biggest regret from being Obama’s Chief of Staff, that you guys didn’t more aggressively pursue bankers and an axiom of accountability for the economic collapse? We remember the sequence because it’s important. We do pass Dodd-Frank, but it’s in the shadows of a 15-month battle on health care. But looking back- In those days, nobody called the Justice Department. The Justice Department should have pursued criminal cases against financial houses and individual bankers for what was termed, “liar loans.” Did that hurt you politically in the next decade, do you think? When you say “you,” you mean the party? Yeah. Well, one, it hurt the political system. There’s no doubt it affected the 2010 midterm election. There’s also an analogy. The depression in 1929 and market collapse starts under Hoover and goes for two and a half to three years. The collapse that we all know from Bear Stearns, etc, really are in the final 12 months of Bush. And President Obama inherits it without it being penetrated in a way that, I don’t want to say George Bush, but ... Obama was there. We were quick on the crime scene. Talk about the rise of the left for a minute. We saw this play out in New York City last year, obviously, and some of the primaries this year. I think you met with Mayor Mamdani earlier this year, late last year. What does he get right? And what do you make of him? One of the things we talked about, he asked for the meeting or his people did — you’re gonna go from a legislator to the mayor of New York City. This is late last year? Yeah, it was between the two elections. He gets the nomination then has the election with Andrew Cuomo, not as a Democrat. In the general, right. What was your impression of him? I’m going to answer all seven of the questions in the order in which they came. One of the things about being mayor or being president or being governor — I’ve said this to Clinton Obama, but I’ve said it to myself as mayor, which I said to him — you can either look like the office runs you, or you run the office. And one of the pieces of doing the job is you’ve got to look like you’re big enough for the office. And I think, successfully, because of his personality, his persona, the job does not look bigger than Mamdani. Mamdani looks like he manages the office. That’s very important. Two, I say this with the utmost compliment. This is not anything but a compliment. He’s ambitious. And that means he’s going to try to do a really good job. Because he knows for him to be a political success, he has to be a governing success. And that’s a good thing. Should he have waded into this question of arresting Netanyahu in New York, do you think? Is that a mistake? He shouldn’t have waded into it, but I don’t think it was a mistake. What do you mean? To me, he was throwing candy to his base. That’s what he was doing. He doesn’t have the power to do it. And it’s not really going to matter. If you ask me a mistake, he lost billions of dollars in investment by trying to play politics with Ken Griffin. That, to me, was, if you’re looking at a mistake — you could have made the same argument you wanted to make, a political argument, and not cost your city. There’s construction workers that won’t get hired. There’s jobs that won’t get done. Look, everybody makes a mistake. The question isn’t whether you make a mistake, the question is, do you learn from it? Targeting Griffith wasn’t worth it? I understand what he was trying to do on the taxes. I eliminated taxes here, so I’ll give you an example. Prior to the, we made a change in city council, all these guys were writing off their skyboxes as supporting events. I eliminated that. You’ve got universal name ID among Democratic primary voters — highly engaged Democrats, certainly. But the critics say, ‘This guy is not moving in the polls even though everybody knows who he is, he wants to run for president. This is a media deal more than anything else, and you guys give way too much attention.’ Why the hell am I here talking to you? So here’s the thing. One is, both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were exactly where I am. I wouldn’t want to be the frontrunner right now for ’28. Not a chance. Why? Because it’s a kiss of death. Ask every frontrunner. George W. Bush, he did okay. He was not the frontrunner. He was tied at that point, him and McCain. That’s not true. And my father wasn’t president. My father was a pediatrician; my mother was a nurse. Second: This is not a criticism of others. But you have told me this, and you’ve written it. Whether it was going to Israel and Berlin, whether it was going to Mississippi and its reading program... I’m soon going to Louisiana, because it’s the only state that’s gone up in both math and reading. I continue to talk about what Texas has done right on energy. I’ve laid out ideas on social media. So you’re here because I have at least started to put out, actually, I would say, more ideas about the future and how to solve real problems than others. Are you surprised others are not? Look, I grew up under the auspices, or rather the idea, that Bill Clinton always used to say: Ideas are the most undervalued, underappreciated thing in politics. When I ran for Congress, I did it. When I ran for mayor of Chicago, I did it. I have won every election I’ve ever run. I believe in ideas. I think we have a series of problems. You better offer people things that actually apply to their lives. But you’re nothing if not blunt. Real talk, isn’t this just a long project to ensure that you don’t get sent 12 time zones away and that you get one last important job for the next Democratic president? No. You don’t go through this brain damage and all the things that you’re going to ask of your family if you’re not running for president of the United States. So you are? I haven’t decided yet. But you wouldn’t do all this if you didn’t want to? Amy and I will make a decision. I’m thinking really hard about it. About a year ago, I wasn’t thinking about it when I got off the plane from Japan. People talked to me. And as I go around the country, the real question is: Do you have what ails America? When will you decide? I’ll make a decision basically right after the midterms, one way or another. It’s not that hard from there, but that’s the time frame. You don’t take these decisions lightly. When I ran for Congress, I didn’t take it. When I ran for mayor, when I took the job as President Obama’s chief of staff. The one thing you also know, John, is every time my name has been on the ballot, I have won. And every time I’ve worked on a national race, whether it’s helping make Nancy Pelosi speaker, or Bill Clinton and Barack Obama president, I have won. And it’s time the Democrats win. So I told you this before, but barely a week goes by that I don’t hear from somebody who says to me, ‘JMart, you know who I’m really curious about? Actually, I’m hoping he runs.’ ‘Oh, who’s that?’ ‘You’re never gonna believe this.’ ‘I think I can. You’re gonna say Rahm Emanuel.’ ‘How did you know?’ So that’s the good news. The bad news is they all have something in common. You know what it is? I know. They’re Republicans. Why are all of these fallen Republicans smoothing for you? We did a bike ride across New Hampshire. We do seven backyards, living rooms, etc, and 700 people show up. In every one of them, there is two or three couples that are independents, fallen-away Republicans. And the other thing that’s most common: teacher, principal, school board member. It’s consistent in all seven of them. There was somebody from Illinois named Adlai Stevenson who ran for president twice with limited success. And there’s a great line that a voter came up to Gov. Stevenson and said, " You’re going to have the vote of every thinking man” and he said, “That’s a problem. I need a majority.” Isn’t that your challenge, that you’ve got a lot of support from fallen Republicans; super intense, sort of centrists — the lanyard set, like I call them; some Democrats who are panicked about the left? Is that going to get you the nomination, though? Well, here’s the thing. We’re a minority party. We’re at 32 percent. You want to get a majority? Democrats are, yeah. So are Republicans, in the low 30s. You need independents. Now, the other thing you need is to know how to win. And I’ve never lost. And the other thing is you put everything, your criticism, on ideological perspective — you are missing the qualities that matter most in the presidential contest. They’re not ideological. Candor. You have that. Authenticity. Yup. Strength. Yeah, you got all three. But here’s the other thing. You’re an insider at an outsider moment. And as Bill Clinton would say, you’ve got more yesterdays than tomorrows, given your long breadth of experience in democratic politics. How do you appeal to a party that wants tomorrow and that wants an outsider? Well, first of all, you have to offer them a vision of tomorrow and then the strength to get it done. It’s not an intellectual exercise. And the other thing: I never lose, and this party is desperate to win again. This is more 2019-2020, when the party just wants to win. But every time our backs are against the wall, we find some way to win. There could be somebody else from the city running for president in 2028: Gov. JB Pritzker. My sense of Gov. Pritzker is that the folks in politics who came a generation earlier, or who were at least involved in politics before he was in office, still view him as kind of a donor, right? And that there’s a perception in Chicago, at least, that he was a donor more than a principal. And that because of that, he’s taken seriously by some of the old crowd here at home. Is that unfair? Every one of us has strengths and weaknesses. He has his, I have mine. Shapiro, Gavin… Would he be formidable, though, you think, Pritzker? I think everybody’s going to bring their A game. And unlike 2024, you’re going to have your choice. Look, he has resources. He has a record. He can run on what he wants to run. I’m going to do what I did as mayor. Seven consecutive years. Number one city for corporate relocations. Best advancement in education. Other people will say Rahm did XYZ. That’s an election. And guess what? That’s good for the voters. When I talked to him at Manny’s Deli, which you may have heard of, he said that Rahm is sort of fixated on the factional fights within the party, suggesting that he is more of a big tent type Democrat. Is that unfair, do you think? You do get fired up about the left. Well, look, I’ll give you an example. I just came from Omaha for Denise Powell. The House candidate there for the open House seat, right? There’s only a few seats in the entire United States of America that Kamala Harris won that had a Republican congressman. It’s an open seat. You know what the Republicans are saying about her now? DSA Denise. So I’m not very excited by people that took an election that was focused on Donald Trump’s corruption and now focused on a party that has candidates that want to defund the police, decriminalize the criminal justice system, and want to run an open border policy. Number one. Number two, I have said it: I’m tired of discussions about bathroom access, and I want to start having discussions about classroom excellence. I want to say one other thing. I believe the Democratic Party believes in equity. I believe in equity! You tell me how you get to equity when 50 percent of your kids can’t read at grade level. Will you cop to the M word? Are you a moderate? I’m a raging moderate. You know what the problem is with the whole moderate label? You all assume it’s like a toned-down, et cetera. Nothing about me is toned down. And it’s not. Finding agreement across party lines does not make you a weak person. It actually makes you try to get something done. Well, you’re one of the few Democrats looking at ’28 who will actually call themselves a moderate. So that’s notable. Speaking of, do you think Kamala Harris should run again in ’28? In all due respect, I created free community college — first city. Is that a moderate or progressive position? But now you’re backing off, man. You were so brave saying you’re a moderate. Now you’re trying to get off the hook. No, I’m not. I’m trying to actually help you be a better journalist, because you really… You’re revising and extending, like you’re a senator. Number two. I created a universal kindergarten, universal pre-k. Was that moderate or progressive? I think it’s actually a stupid question. You know why I think a stupid question? Because I don’t think the labels apply. And I think it’s old thinking. Okay, straight talk. Should Kamala Harris run again for president? She’ll make that decision. Yeah, dodge. Does the party want to move on, though? 100 percent. So does the country. So she shouldn’t run then. She’ll make a decision, as I will make a decision. I said that was the last question, but there’s something I’m obsessed with, and I think you are as well. I want to ask you about: This country is the dominant force in the world in so many ways — innovation, science, medicine, technology, military. We attract the best of the best. People are dying to get here. We did until Donald Trump. How is it that our politics is not on the same level, on par with our talent in every other facet of society? Why are people okay with the politics that oftentimes reflects like a clown show when everything else in American life is the best of the best? Actually, they’re not okay. The assumption of the question was that they’re okay with it. They’re NOT okay with. They’re disgusted by it. They want a government that’s better. One of the things that’s, I think, choking up and spiking the already existing anxiety is that Washington has become Disneyland on the Potomac. They’re not good with it. Change is coming. This is going to be the progressive era after the Industrial Revolution, you think? There’s no doubt. I’ve been upgrading my reading. I’ve read a lot on Theodore Roosevelt before. He called for a new nationalism. Teddy, Franklin, and Kennedy, and I would say Clinton as well, and Obama, saved capitalism from its worst habits, instincts, and results, and found a patriotism that reignited our identity as Americans. There it is, folks. Emanuel ’28. You just heard it. That’s the preview.