And now from the Institute of Politics at the University of Chicago and CNN Audio, The Axe Files, with your host, David Axelrod.

Before we start, I have some news I need to share with you. Today's podcast will be the 605th episode of The Axe Files. And, at least for now, the last. Even saying those words out loud is hard for me because these conversations I've had, and many of you have shared, just about every week these past nine years have been such a wonderful journey. Yes, we've talked about issues and politics and even broke a little news now and then, but that was never what this podcast was all about. It was about people and their stories, about where they came from, how they grew up, about the life experiences, some joyful, some challenging, and some tragic, that shaped their lives. It was moving to hear John McCain describe his love and respect for Mo Udall, a liberal Democratic congressman from Arizona, and how he would visit and read news clips from back home to his friend during the final months of Udall's life. It spoke to something we've lost in our politics. Justice Sonia Sotomayor told us about her hardscrabble beginnings in the South Bronx, a lifelong battle with juvenile diabetes and the heavy responsibilities she feels to be a role model for other strivers fighting to make their way against the odds. Cyrus Habib was a brilliant political prodigy. Blind from childhood, he quickly climbed the ladder in Washington state government and was elected lieutenant governor. At 36, he seemed destined for even bigger things. Then he abruptly dropped out of politics and joined a Jesuit novitiate because, he told us, he realized it was becoming more about him than the people he ran to serve. My goal was always that you and I would leave each conversation knowing my guest in deeper and more meaningful ways. I wanted this podcast to be one small antidote to the course nature of today's politics and social media culture that so often reduces people to negative caricatures and robs us of our common humanity. It hasn't always worked that way. Occasionally, a guest was so encased in talking points that they just couldn't or wouldn't open up. Sometimes folks were less than I had hoped they would be. But most often, even people with whom I strongly disagree have surprised me in ways I didn't expect. I'm grateful that so many prominent people were willing to share their stories honestly and openly. And many of you have told me that their stories, particularly ones of struggle and perseverance, have inspired and comforted you, as well. I step away for now because I need to make more time for the next chapter of my own story. For my great and blessedly growing family, for friends and new adventures. But trust me, I'll miss these conversations, and I'll miss you. And I'm sure we'll meet again. But even without The Axe Files, let us continue to be seekers of each other's stories and penetrate the godawful silos that drive us apart. And now, Episode 605. If I had planned properly, it would have been episode 606, the prefix for zip codes in my beloved hometown of Chicago. And that would have been particularly appropriate, because my final guest is U.S. Ambassador to Japan, Rahm Emanuel, former Chicago mayor, White House chief of staff, congressman and more. We've known each other for 40 years. He always has something interesting to say. Here's that conversation. Ambassador Rahm Emanuel, my lifelong friend.

Mr. Axelrod.

Good to be with you here on the very last episode of The Axe Files.

This is the curtain call.

This is the curtain call. Yeah. So appropriate to to spend this time with you and, like, folks can, you, everybody knows everything about you. Folks can go back and listen to our previous podcasts. We did one early on. We did one when you were mayor. Maybe the first one was when you were mayor. But in any case, we've done several. We did one on TV, so I'm not going to go over a lot of history. I just want to pick up where we left off because you left the mayoralty and you went and made some money for a while and then Joe Biden was elected president and you decided to accept this appointment to ambassador to Japan. You did a lot of talk about you wanted to be in the cabinet and so on. That didn't happen. Tell me about the decision for you to do this, because diplomat and Rahm Emanuel were not words that easily went together in a lot of people's minds.

Including my own family's.

I'm sure of that. I'm sure of that. So what what, what, what, what? Tell me about, about the process of getting of embracing that idea.

No, I mean, no, you would not Google Rahm Emanuel, diplomat. It would come up, "search unfound." That said, one of the things I think I discovered and kind of instinctually knew. You have this kind of mind's eye image that the diplomat is a guy in a gray flannel, double breasted suit, pipe smoke, thinking and drafting his first cut of the long memo like George Kennan. And that does exist. The truth is, which is, you know, like James Baker's book and the title, The Politics of Diplomacy, diplomacy is an extension of politics. And if you actually appreciate politics and have a tactical sense of it, you can do diplomacy. But this was a part of the world. I had some familiarity, but I got, would say, it's like very low. And it would be a platform where I could be part of not only learning, which I think is valuable, but also impacting. And I think I've done it. And so that was kind of the.

I think I told you this. A friend of ours, I don't know whether I should mention his name or not, but it was Larry Summers.

'Was that, was that like Jeopardy? Two-hundred, Larry Summers for 200?

Says, says to me when you were considering this, Rahm's going to hate this, because all you do when you're an ambassador is you take like, you know, assistant deputy secretaries to go and meet their counterparts and you sit there and take notes and write memos. And I said to him, Larry, are you nuts? Do you know the guy we're talking about? I said, he'll be captain of the Asian team within, like a month. But and I'm happy to say that I was right. You, tell me, you did not play this role in quite the way others have.

'You know, this goes back to the. A lot of people, they were saying, you're going to have to pace yourself. You're going to learn how to slow down, etc., etc.. You can't do this. You can't do that. You know. I thought about it. You know what? I'm not, I'm going to be myself. I mean, I know the limits. I worked as the chief of staff for president. I was mayor. I know the boundaries. You may step over a few times to get offsides. And I decided I'm not going to kind of try to be something I'm not. And I, you know, I said at my Senate confirmation that the next three years in will determine the next 30 years for America in the Indo-Pacific. I joke that the last three years for Japan has felt like 30 years with my presence. I think. They look at it and say, we never knew somebody could have this kinetic energy. On the other hand, the truth of the matter is, under Prime Minister Kishida and President Biden, both were poised and both had a relationship to take this to the next level. I had the trust of the president. I built the trust with the Japanese. I played my role as a U.S. ambassador to push it further and faster. And I think the truth is both countries and our alliance are better prepared for what I think will be a very challenging but very opportunistic 30 years if we play it right.

I want to get into that because you have been very active and you've done a lot of things that are, I think, significant for for the future. But I'm sort of interested in the internal dynamic as well, because you say, you know, sometimes you may be off sides and so on, so forth. Tell me about the relationship with the State Department when you stray off sides, because they're not used to people straying off sides.

I can understand when you have hundreds of thousand people across the globe, you have to have a tight rein. I get it. You can't have a hundred thousand entrepreneurs, but you can't have zero. So that's one. I have strained under the state. And I'll give you one anecdote, which is a classic example. I get here January 19th, the war, Russia's war against Ukraine starts one month later, February 2022, a week after that. So basically five weeks here and I'm still trying to figure out where the bathroom is, etc.. On a Friday afternoon at about 10:00, the Ukrainian ambassador to Japan is going to give a speech at the National International Press Club. And on the following Monday, was going to be the Russian ambassador. He schedules his for 12:30 that same day, moves it from Monday to Friday. And so I said to the senior staff, I said, what do you guys think about this? Hs, we saye can send a note taker. I said, a note taker? I said, Well, is that really all we can do? They go, Well, we can maybe get a couple of questions asked. I said, No. I said, We're going to do you call them up, tell the International Press Club I'm coming at 2:00. I'm not letting the Russian get the last word. I'm going to speak after him. He'll have Ukraine, Russia and then the United States. And everybody at the table. And remember, I'm here five weeks. They said we can't get it, we can't get approval. I said, get approval. I said, hey, we all went to college. We're not taking Putin's side. We got to know where we are. We know the United States' position. We're going to write a speech, and we're going to go. And it was liberating for a lot of people. A lot of other people, like woah. But I don't I'm not saying anything critical of other ambassadors, but I was not going to sit there and wait, in a digital age, wait for a department that's barely in the analog age, get ready. Like, well, I'm not clearing this stuff.

Well, what what what did the State Department say?

Well, at first they were very upset. They said, we'd like to see the draft of the speech. And you know me, David. I kind of have more kind of outline and just kind of. But then. I had given an answer to a question on freedom and the lure of freedom and why people want it still. It's that freedom is a pull on people's hearts, etc. They ended up putting a one minute video from that speech on the State Department official website, and it got a lot of takers. So I think they had a learning process and a feeling process. And a lot of times I bumped the grind. At one time. I, I wrote a piece on something about energy, praised the president, praised the president. I kind of got barked at and I said, hey, you know what? I've been a White House chief of staff. I've been a mayor. I said, Here's what we're gonna do. You have my resignation. You call it anytime you want. I said, I'm not living like this where I can't do stuff and I can't wait six weeks to get a response, and then you guys write a talking point that says nothing in and it's not memorable. So at anytime you want, you can fire me. You have that liberty. Are you going to ask me to resign?

Did you actually send the letter?

I read it to the person and I said, That's how I'm going to live. You have the latitude. You call it when you want, But that's. And then they said, That's not what. I said. Well, I'm not living like this. I am not living with fear all the time. I have other fear, but I'm not living on a career fear. And if I get oversized, you're going to call me. I said, You can always at anytime you want, tell me to step down. But I am going to. I'm going to try to make the most as you know me, David, at this point, I'm going to try to these three years, I'm going to live every day as if we got to push, push, push. Was it annoying? Yes. It was effective? I think the product speaks for itself.

So, Well, let me just stop for a second and ask you, because you did, in fact, forge this trilateral meeting with the South Koreans and the Japanese, and you closed this chasm that the.

The president did. The president, everybody was involved, David. Yes.

No, I understand. Were you, I mean, you meaning the United States, but you were actively involved in that process. You've got two countries now with a considerable amount of political turmoil. Both those countries, you.

Could argue three.

Yeah, exactly. Well, I mean, that is another point, because we have a new president coming to office and his relationship with the South Koreans at least, has never been particularly good, as I remember it.

Yeah.

So what happens to that? What happens to that progress that you've made here? And why do you think why is it important to try and maintain it?

'It's important because China has and again, this is about politics. And China has a simple message and a simple strategy. The message is we're, we are the rising power, America's declining power. It's going to be out. Either get in line, or you're going to get the Philippine treatment and we're going to just use all our power to crush your sovereignty and independence. We have another counter veiling message. We are a permanent Pacific power and presence and you can bet long on us, which is where Japan, Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Philippines, that's where they are. China is tries to isolate countries by multilateral. We isolate the isolator. China. That's the strategy. Now, look, that's not Foreign Affairs magazine write up, but that's it in a nutshell. Okay. Number two. Number two. The worst thing China hates about the trilateral, whether it's the or the quad, the trilateral being the United States, Japan, Korea or the United States, Japan and the Philippines, which is very valuable and never gets the full kind of conversation. Is it roots America in the Indo-Pacific. It makes China's goal of getting us out harder. It levels the playing field. This is an away game for America. It's a home game for China. And when we're rooted with our allies, it's a home game for us or closer to a home game, which is what China can't stand. And so now one of the things that I think an incoming administration will have to appreciate, you cannot confront, deter China and make your allies insecure. It doesn't mean they win every point. But if your allies are, and this is an example. Japan was confident in the relationship that they had with not only President Biden, with the United States. They doubled their budget in the defense, the first to go from 1% to 2% of GDP. They acquired counterstrike capabilities. They've lifted the export ban. They did a series of things. And Korea, the trilateral. Did they do the bare minimum and clear the line? No, they stretched. And when they have comfort with America, confidence in America, they'll go farther. And when they go further, America's deterrence against China is all that more credible. And so to me, the ally, the trilateral, is in the security interests of the three countries. We got to keep it in the political interest of all three countries. And I think it will survive the political changes that are in the three countries. Will it thrive? That's on the White House. That's on the Kante here in Japan, and that's on the Blue House in Korea.

I heard the president elect yesterday at his press conference.

Yeah.

And he, you know, lavished praise on Xi, who he invited to the region and talked about what an amazing person he is and everything. I mean, tell me what that means. How is that how do the Japanese read a comment like that? How do those two, the Koreans read a comment like that? How to how do the Australians, how do players in the region read a comment like that?

'I mean, first of all, they're all trying to figure out their own relationship. And I don't think it reads it one way, David. One level that there's an interest in not a creating a conflict unnecessarily. But there's also an interest in not letting China get away with what they're doing. Remember, they got a ban on all agricultural products coming out of Japan. They have an ongoing conflict in the South China Sea with the Philippines. They're caught spying constantly and doing things right. So at one level, it's reassure, they appreciate it. At another level, it's unsettling. So I think they're trying to make heads and tails of it. Now, look, I this gets to another point I would try to say, which is I don't think the Cold War metaphor used is the right one vis-a-vis China and what we did with the Soviet Union. I don't think it's right. I mean, Soviet Union was 7% of the world's GDP. China's 25%. Second largest economy. We have hundreds of billion dollars worth of trade with China. We had zero with the Soviet Union. The one thing is on NATO versus the Warsaw Pact was land. This is a naval, aerial. It's just a different scenario. But I do think the deterrence is important. I don't know how to make heads or tails of. I think president elect Trump is probably trying to say, I'm ready to have a personal relationship with you. But there's beyond the personal. There are there are interests of the country. And the question is, where does that pick up and the personal drops off?

I'm not going to pursue that because you're under restraint and you're being.

I am under restrain as ambassador, but I do think. Look, here's the. I had my own kind of evolution on this, David. I do think that the United States as a whole, Democrats and we are all at fault. Xi comes, President Xi and his leadership comes to power in 2012. It's on the back end of the financial meltdown in the United States. He makes a decision that we are no longer strategic competitors. We are strategic adversaries. We as the United States, both parties, both branches of government are slow to appreciate that change. We have come to that change and realized, and I think President Xi and his leadership made a lot of mistakes that woke us up about ten years ahead of schedule. Now, are we making the most of that time now that we're awake? Some yes, some no. And certain things like what we've done in the alliance with Japan. Yes. And the trilateral. Yes. On our military industrial base and the big five companies? Zero progress and being able to really have the resources necessary to be credible in our deterrence. So I don't I think the having a personal dialog as President Biden like to know is value. It doesn't replace being blind to what are your interests and where do they come into conflict. You have a country like China that didn't take 700 million people out of poverty by themselves. They were part of a system. Yet intellectual property theft, economic espionage is a core part of their economic strategy, and they are trying to, through mercantilism, crush other countries' economies. In Chile, that's one only steel plant there closed. 20,000 people lost jobs. Because China was dumping steel. That's a huge opportunity for the United States to counter that. But we have a system. And I use this example. Tokyo Electron makes semiconductor machines. ASML in the in the Netherlands makes semiconductor machines. They innovate and compete against each other. Only one party was stealing ideas, and that was China. Intellectual property. You can't have an economic system where we play by rules and they cheat. It just can't work.

For sure.

And I'm not sure. And the question for the incoming administration is, do you appreciate a rules bound system versus a system based on theft? And I don't know how and I don't have an answer to this, but I know it is incompatible to have an integrated world system where one country not only crushes your industries high and low, steals. I mean, Google. China was caught stealing AI technology. How do you have an economic system in a world where one intellectual property theft and espionage are core and replication, where another one is rules bound, where it applies to everybody, big and small?

We're going to take a short break and we'll be right back with more of The Axe Files. And now back to the show. You were gone from the White House in 2000. The last year of the Clinton administration when.

Yeah.

Admitted China's admission into the World Trade Organization became a big controversial issue and the administration pushed for it. Was it a mistake?

You know.

To let them in?

'Was it a mistake at the end of the Soviet Union and China emerging to try to get them vested into the system? I think that's a 55-45, 60-40 decision. I don't think it was a mistake. I think what was a mistake is when it was clear that they were not living by the rules of being part of the WTO, which they're not today, and they weren't in the past, and they were considered a developing economy, which is a different set of rules. They are developed, fully developed economy. That allowing them to A, not implement WTO rules B, violate them with disregard and cheat, that was the mistake. Getting them in, making them vested interested, not that they were going to become a democracy, but vested in a system that we had had structured. That wasn't a mistake. It was staying with it when they when all bets were off by them and they weren't abiding by it and turning a blind eye when it was clear they were not playing by the rules that were required to be a member of the WTO. And they still don't.

I should point out that when we talked before about ways in which you gave Kurt Campbell and others dyspepsia include some of your social media posts about China. You've been pretty barbed.

Yeah. Let me let me go back to the example like this. On the Soviet Union, on the Russian part. They were brought in to the G8. They had a desk at NATO. Putin made a decision. You could argue it was a decision to extend NATO to Georgia, membership to NATO to Ukraine, whatever. In 2007, he tells you in Munich, the defense strategy meeting, why he is, this is all bets are off etc. We hold on past that to the premise that he was part of something when it was very clear he said uh uh. That's the mistake.

Wait a second. What does this have to do with your social media posts about China?

Nothing. I just want to get this thing off my chest and this is therapy, okay? What do you want to say about social media, about China?

Well, you were I know you've had I don't have them in front of me, but you had you wrote some really barbed social media posts about China. I'm sure they weren't, you didn't clear those with the State Department? That was kind of unconventional.

Well, it wasn't. But I will say this is that one of my colleagues from the U.K. not here, but a diplomat for the U.K. said, you say that's what we would like to say, but don't say it's like the above bubble above your head. And I wanted and I did it in many times in defense of Japan, where I thought China was violating clearly, like when they banned fish from the Japanese waters because of Fukushima, with the nuclear site here that they were testing the waters and were starting to disperse the water. But they, China has closed to 300 boats in the same waters fishing the fish, but banned Japanese fishermen from exporting the fish. And I said, okay, I'm going to call I'm going to call this out. The hypocrisy. They attacked the United States for starting Covid. They attacked the United States Armed Forces for starting the fire in Hawaii. And I said, you know, when the the second the minister of defense went missing, it was like Agatha Christie's novel. Then there will be none. Theirs were lies. Mine happened to be truth. But I was going to call out the hypocrisy because China walks around saying, we're going to be good neighbors. It's a win win situation. And everybody's jobs, industries are getting destroyed by subsidized companies. And there's nothing good neighbor about having a conflict on the land with India, with islands, with the Philippines and Japan, with economic coercion of Australia. There's no good neighbor policy here. And hypocrisy should be called out.

I want to ask you about you mentioned that you have a long history with the Middle East. Your father was an immigrant from Israel and you have a long history with Israel. But you also you and I were in the White House together, had some spirited back and forth with particularly Netanyahu. Tell me where you think the Middle East is now after all these, you know, more than a year of conflict in Gaza, after what we've seen in Lebanon, after what we've seen in.

Yeah.

I mean, you know, this is a a whole new kind of. A whole new scene here.

I would say it is rich with promise and is always rich with peril. And when I say promise, there's no doubt. So I want to be. Given where we're.

Don't don't get diplomatic now.

'Okay. Well, let me say I want to clear my throat. So you and I were accused by Netanyahu back in 2009 of being self-loathing, self-hating Jews. I did not need a war to have my view of what. And and I have a distinction in Netanyahu's book, the only person he, he doesn't remember his comment about you, but he does take after me. So I have two distinctions.

Sure. I'm sure you get, you're higher on the pecking order there.

'Israel. There's a story there, I think, in the Post today about Hamas, basically, a lot of members of the Palestinian people in Gaza said you started a war that you did not have. And the head of the mosque said this is a horrendous mistake. Hezbollah basically also sued for peace. Hamas, God willing, the hostages will be home and from Gaza. And the start of rebuilding people's lives in Gaza can start. Iran is clearly vulnerable. Look, there is a opportunity both with Iran, with Israel and the Gulf countries, not just Bahrain, not just UAE, but also possibly one day Saudi Arabia to do something significant. Will. And this is where I'm going to get in trouble. Will the hubris of Israel in this moment overshoot the opportunities of this moment? What I mean by that, if you look at history, 1967 was an incredible war where Israel really succeeded. They drank the Kool-Aid to the point that they got arrogant and they in 1973, they had a war where they nearly lost. This is an opportunity. And the question for the Trump administration, because they're going to pick up the baton here, is how do you make sure that your ally-

How do you contain that hubris?

Yes. And makes the most of this and is gracious in victory, because if it's not, it will become more perilous and the Mideast can do great things and it can actually really disappoint you. And so I look at it and I say, I mean, I know what I would do. That said, it's going to require American leadership. And as I like to remind. China can't do it. Russia clearly can't do it. Europe can't do it. That's why the United States is so important, not just because of its relationship with Israel. It is the only trusted party that can actually do this. And there's a real opportunity, not by just land, but from a security standpoint and from an integration standpoint. Change the Middle East to the better. If you look at the history of Israel's peace process, they have tried three things over the last 40 years. One, negotiated peace agreements with Egypt, Jordan and in the Gulf countries. Each one of those Gulf countries, each one of, Egypt and Jordan are helping Israel try to figure out how to be integrated into the region. Second process was the self deciding to abandon both Lebanon and Gaza. And you got Hezbollah, Hamas, failure on that front. The other was a unilateral divorce from the West Bank and you have conflict there. Only one of Israel's three strategies has ever worked, which is negotiating with partners. A peace where they can become partners. Egypt is playing a central role in getting Israeli hostages out. Jordan has played a central role in a key role in Israel's security, both in the West Bank and other areas in the missiles dealing with Iran, the Gulf countries, Qatar, others have played a key role for Israel. The actual negotiating has worked in Israel's favor. The unilateral approach to both Gaza and Lebanon, the unilateral approach to the West Bank has ended up with terrorism. It is very painful.

Let me ask you about that.

I I want to finish just because I don't want to get yelled at afterwards is. I understand that Israel can say, we tried peace, and what we got was bombs on Dizengoff in Tel Aviv. I can understand the frustration, the cynicism. We offered them something at Camp David with President Clinton, they walked away, that give them a homeland. I can understand. Like we tried this. That said, you've also tried something else which is unilateral and you end up with terrorism. Only partners can give you what Ben Gurion ever wanted. And the founding generations like my father, which was peace, integration and opportunity. And it is a tough road, but it is a better road.

'So I want to ask you about the ancillary impact of the Israeli strategy over the last 14 months. And I want to ask it in the context of something that happened to you. You have a home in Michigan, right? Someone spray painted Nazi on that. And it's a reflection of a growing wave of anti-Semitism. First of all, what was your reaction when you heard that? And secondly, what do you make of this rising tide of anti Semitism and how much has has been fueled by this?

'Well. You're asking me while I'm in Tokyo, the one country that, as you know, for the last three years is anti-Semitic free. I don't feel any of that. But let me say so. I'm of two minds, David. Not one. I don't know who. I have a guess. You know, some neighbor went over in Michigan and painted over it so nobody would see that Nazism and the and the hate. So I can I kind of look at that and say that is the people I know. The second thing, and you know this from my congressional race, when I ran for Congress, there was anti-Semitism said then about money, change, etc.. And I said then I believe then, having campaigned around the district and its Jewish community was less than 1%. Heavily Catholic district, Eastern European, Catholic one. And I said, I've met the people of Chicago. I've met them on the front stoop, I've met them at their El stops. Good people that know right from wrong, good from bad. And they're going to make the right judgment. I have confidence. I think it's one of the things I would say to you is anti-Semitism always existed. Is it rising? Yes. But it always existed. The question is, does it have a permission slip? To be public versus kind of implicit rather than explicit. And there has been, without a doubt, a permission slip given for anti-Semitism to no longer be shunned upon, but to be have an expression. And I go back.

Who's getting permission slip, from who is it? Because there is some would say from from the left, some would say from the right.

Yeah, I think there's a I think it's not limited to a person or one ideology.

You see a lot of young people whose views have been influenced by this war. And who have merged the idea of Judaism and Zionism, of Netanyahu's policies with Israel writ large and who have been very vocal and sometimes on these campuses.

You know, David, here's the thing. You know, I understand that, or don't, and do and don't, but nobody seems to call about war crimes and genocide. I mean, just as now I'm saying as Rahm Israel Emanuel. President Assad killed half a million of his own citizens, gassed them, used chemicals. Nobody's talked about genocide for Assad. So so okay. So that so either it's genocide applied equally or is only genocide, why, because some people are from European descent. I don't get it. The second thing is there was cases of rape on October 7th, cases of not just cases, massive amount of rape, women's genitalia mutilation. Fetuses cut out of woman. Now, people were cheered. Israel, there was a discovery of possible rape at a prison, and the legal system, of the IDF went after those people and they're under arrest. So my point is, look, the war has brought up a lot of stuff. A lot of it is also uninformed and a lot of it is based on certain views of power distribution and just sometimes right, but massively wrong. And I don't think and I and the idea that somehow a country that's been invaded, as I like to say, I was for, I'm for a ceasefire, the one on October 6th was going great. There's been five ceasefires since 2007. Every one of them violated by Hamas. I'm sorry. And I find it a little weird that now they want a permanent ceasefire. Well, what's permanent? Does that mean no raping? Does permanent mean that you don't get to kill a child in front of a parent? Is that permanent ceasefire? There have been five ceasefires, all violated one party. And 1200 people are killed. I know. So I'm kind of, like conflicted.

I mean, here's what I would say to you.

You have the same conflict, David. David, you have the same conflict.

Listen, let me answer let me speak for myself here. As long as I'm here, let me speak for myself. I am I was devastated by what happened on October 7th. It was it was everything that you describe. And the Israelis have every right to to react and protect their to protect their citizens. But I also when you say people have watched their children killed in front of them, that is a daily occurrence in Gaza.

Without a doubt.

And I am. And I am. And I am. And I ask it's very possible. Let me just make my final point. I think it's very, very it is appropriate to grieve for.

100%.

The victims of October 7th and still be able to cry for the children of Gaza.

David, what happened on October 7th doesn't give Israel a permission slip to act reckless. And in contrary to the ethics in the code of ethics of the Israeli IDF, I will say to you, and what has happened to the Palestinian people, the Palestinian people on the Gaza and the West Bank deserve a better future than what their leadership has given them. And Hamas started a process, as the Palestinians today say, the religious leaders of both of Gaza Strip, West Bank by saying they started something, not only they couldn't finish, that they brought a war on the people, that they.

Without a doubt.

But Israel does not get a permission slip to violate their codes. There's a reason they said they have a higher moral code in the IDF. There is no thing that ever happened and it's not acceptable what happened on October 7th that gives them a permission slip to break that code.

We're going to take a short break and we'll be right back with more of The Axe Files. And now back to the show. Let me take a hard shift here and ask you. You are. I mean, we met when I was a reporter, young reporter at the Chicago Tribune.

We were both young once, David.

And you were you were younger than me. And you you were involved in a political campaign at that time that you wanted me to write about. You have fundamentally been immersed in American politics for 40 years. And how hard was it to sit out over there in Japan and watch this race? Or what, were you grateful to be able to sit in Japan and watch this race?

'It was a. It was maddening. No. Look, there was a part of me. I will say that I'm glad. Like. Thank God. On the other hand, it was, you know. It was 98% maddening, 2% thank God I'm over here. Look, I'm coming home. It's maddening because there are certain things, having been involved in President Clinton's elections, President Obama's, been my own, but also as chair, former chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. You look at things and you're like, this is self-evident. Like what? And you make six, seven, eight calls just to try to get one point. And, you know, and sometimes you succeed. A lot of times you didn't. And so it was very frustrating. It was immensely because the stakes are high.

Could that race have been won?

Well, the answer I would say is yes, because of how close it was. There's no doubt it could have been won. I say that. No doubt. It's definitely clear a different race. Kamala Harris, rather than running behind the congressional, would have run ahead of the Democratic congressional candidates. And you'd probably have a senator in Pennsylvania today and a senator in Ohio at a minimum, given how close it was, I would say, I don't want to say no doubt, but it's more yes, it could have been won, and definitely you could have improved the chances that Democrats would have the House and be and the Senate would be tighter.

You've been prolific in your end of year essays on all manner of subject, but particularly on this subject of the Democratic Party. And, you know, we have a lot of conversations offline, so and, you know, we're sort of aligned on this.

Oh, don't worry, the Chinese are listening to our conversations.

Well, maybe they'll learn something. So, so summarize the arguments that you can make. You have a piece in The Washington Post this morning. I wake up every morning scouring the major publications of America to see where you have landed another piece.

Well, I have a lot to say. Yeah. So, David, here's. So as you've you and I have talked about this one, when 70% of the country says headed in the wrong direction, that the bones of the election are there. On the other hand, Donald Trump ran a race against the Kamala Harris of 2020, not the Kamala Harris of 2024. They had its obligation to change that, become the change agent. She could have by the nature of her biography been the change agent. And she didn't. The campaign did not posture that. They did it in the beginning, they walked away from that.

Hard to be, isn't it hard to be a change agent when you're vice president of the organization people want to fire?

Yeah, well, yeah, but, you know, Donald Trump was the guy that played a role on January 6th and he became something else. People had a dark view of his tenure. And then all of a sudden, they had a positive view. I mean, that's the card you have. And you got to make that card work. No, it's not a fait accompli. And clearly, when she pulled ahead of him that in the campaign that was that was clearly could have been continuity or could have been change. That was a choice the campaign had to navigate to become the change agent. I mean, as you and I have talked about, you know, the future begins today. She could have been owning that tomorrow. Then, I think this election is about its place in history. And you've the three seminal moments, the Iraq War built on a lie, a financial meltdown built on liar loans. And then our decision when the establishment was hated years later in Covid to become the voice of the establishment and embrace the establishment. And that has destroyed the party, I think. And because in the last 20 years, the elite in the establishment have lost any credibility with the American public because not only have they deceived them into some of the two worst things were livelihoods and lives were lost. They have not owned it and they have not once said they're sorry and have not anybody in that of those classes gone to jail for their failures. And they have been massive. And I think the public and Donald Trump in his rhetoric. I am your vengeance. I am your anger. And I'm your instrument. He understands this moment of legitimate rage. And people are not only angry at the system today, they're angry that it's stacked against their kids. And we as a party who fight for people have lost that voice. And not only that voice, that interest. And then. Now, the good news is in this period of time, both the '06, '08, 2018, some lessons out of 2022, but definitely out of this we, can both through message and messanger or get out of this. And I think I think the land is to, and I believe this, rather than, as I say in this piece today in the Post, rather than drain the swamp, he's going to be swimming in it. And that swamp filled with corruption, filled with hate, big interest, powerful interests taking their spoils off the table. That is where our gold is. That is where we find our voice again, our footing again. And there will be ample examples, as there was in the campaign, to make the most of being the voice for those who are getting the hosed here. And trust me, I mean, I don't think it's that hard when you. David, You have multiple places. I have multiple places. Okay. We have we have families that can't buy a single home. We have a system where people are buying six, five. This is crazy. Young families want to start something. They can't get a home. You can't save for kids education. You can't save for your retirement. You're one health care illness away. We can't be that voice for those who are just trying to get a scrap of the American Dream? That is who we are. And I think. Let me say one of the thing. Let me get this off. If you have a Yeti cup and it says an NPR logo, sit in the corner, be quiet, listen. You have something to learn. Stop telling people how to live their lives.

Yeah, no, I. I feel very strongly about that. I'll get back to that in a second. But it to my mind, I think your analysis is is good but incomplete because this trend has gone back farther than the war. The wars, 20 years of war fought by 1% of the people, you know, sold on something that wasn't true at a cost of, you know, over $1 trillion is certainly one thing. The financial crisis without without doubt. And you and I were there and we were engaged in the debates about that at the time. And I think we both felt strongly that some form of accountability was necessary.

The American Dream dissipating and the unaccountability. Yes, it goes farther than those, but there's no doubt then where people felt.

Those who are major catastrophic events, right? I think the whole century has been one dislocating event for. But what I'm saying is, and I want to to say this, because I don't know that you and I agree on thi,. You know, globalization has had a great and positive effect for some. And it has been it has gutted some communities over, you know, certainly in the 80s and 90s that was the case. Automation, which is, you know, has been has had a dramatic impact. And we're going to see a turbocharge now with AI. It's going to move right up the chain from the blue collar workers to white collar workers. That's been very dislocating. The churning of technology generally has been including social media, very dislocating. But the biggest thing so so some of that and you were there in the White House for some of of of that. You know no doubt that that the 90s were a decade of of prosperity but the prosperity but there also were uneven impacts of some of the liberalization of trade and so on.

David, here's what I would say, 100% agree with that actually. It's not that we disagree. And I highlight two or three, Covid, the war and the financial meltdown, there is no doubt the continuity and globalization, the risk was not equally shared and the opportunity was not equally shared. And telling people, Well, here's your trade certificate and go figure out how to get yourself trained. It was absolutely wrong. There's opportunity, but it's not equal or level. And there was risk also not leveled. And we didn't do the type of, we gave a permission slip and we were passive when it came to investing in America and Americans. And that means more people able to compete and win in that globalization.

The common element among all of the things that you're describing and what I.

Is a raw deal.

Yeah, there were winners and losers and they tend to be the same people.

Yeah, there's no doubt. No doubt about it.

The other thing is, and I want just want to say this because I want to return to you for a second, you know, your own path here. My my, I my critique of the Democratic Party is that it's become a college educated, cosmopolitan party, still identifies as the party of working people, still trying to do stuff to help working people. But the message we come as we come as missionaries and anthropologists and we say, we are here to help you become more like us. And the message the message is one of unintended but very clear disdain. What you do is less important than what we do. Now, these are people who work their asses off throwing things, making things, shipping things, caring for people. They're the people we call essential workers in time, in a pandemic. And then we forget about them afterwards. They make the country go. They deserve respect. And I think one of the mistakes Joe Biden made is he was elected as Joe from Scranton because and people thought he he he he did respect them and treated them with respect. And he did a lot of things as president to help labor, to help working people. But he sort of spoke like. And you're limited because you're still an ambassador there. He spoke more like Joe from Washington than Joe from Scranton as president.

Let me say. And as it is, it's always about me. So let me say one thing.

Like I said, I got 40 years of experience.

Yeah. But you make this point about we have a a schism between what we think we are and how we talk and what we advocate and the party. And unfortunately, highly educated or as I like to say, highly educated, highly caffeinated and under sexed college educated people have shut out everybody else's voices. They need to sit and listen a little. And the fact is, when it comes to people, middle class, working class that are trying to get their children a better tomorrow, we talk about, you get for college. Well, that's not the only ticket to the tomorrow. And we make it about reflecting ourselves more than reflecting them. Or as President Clinton used to say when he said, in the snows of New Hampshire, the hits on me are nothing like the hits your kids are going to take if we don't turn this country around. Now, I would say one of the things I was proud to do when I was mayor. Two things. One, first city to make free community college accessible to kids from the city of Chicago. Free. You got a B average? You get books, tuition and transportation. The second thing, which is we started I wrote, as you talked about my writing, back in June, which was Learn Plan Succeed. We hired hundreds and hundreds of college counselors and careers started freshman year. To get your high school diploma, you had to show a letter of acceptance from a college community college, a branch of the armed forces or vocational education. We didn't took a priority of which what path, but everybody had something next after graduation. Change the high school into college and career preparation rather than just a diploma. And I think we the way to make sure people have a chance, whether that's a carpenter, a plumber, electrician, a Navy graduate, an marine graduate, a community college I.T. worker or college graduate. Everybody's got to have an education that trains them and prepare them for tomorrow. And the party put an emphasis only on one of those four roads. And that's a mistake.

I agree with that. I agree with that. And Josh Shapiro in Pennsylvania, among others, has been quite good on on that. So your name came up as a potential leader for the Democratic National Committee. I think I may have been one of those who dropped it.

Yeah. You act like you act like this is immaculate conception, Axelrod.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. But, you know, I mean, I don't think I'm just guessing. But you're not going to run for Democratic National Committee Chair. But I know you. I know that you are not going to go fish for the rest of your life and you're not going to sit still and you're not going to not want to be in the action. And frankly, you're not going to want to be not relevant to the action. So a number of things have have been brought up. One of them is the possibility of running for the United States Senate in Illinois. One of them is if the governor doesn't run, running for governor. One of them has been come back and run for mayor. Mayor right now is not doing, is not very popular in the city. Like, what are you thinking?

All the above and none of the above. And, you know, look, I think the first thing I know is I've been away for three years doing my job here. I've learned a part of the world that I didn't know, have something to contribute to that. I'm going to come back and come home to Chicago and spend time talking to people, connecting. I've stayed in touch with people over the three years. It's not like I went radio silent. And see what I think is a possibility. I you know this, David. I love public service. And I'm hoping that there's another role and it doesn't have to. I have had both appointive positions and electoral positions and I've done and there's more than one way or one path in public service. I'm not sure. That's the honest answer. And I'm going to take an assessment of where I can make the biggest difference and whether it's electoral office. That may be a path and it may not. Don't know. I that's the honest answer.

But one one way, one way or another, you're not done in public service.

No. I think the other thing is and it's not just. I do know, having gone home for Thanksgiving, being with family, being back in Chicago. The Democrats are beaten up. We as a party, we're beaten up. And we have. We were here when, I'm not saying it's a perfect analogy, when Speaker Pelosi, then Nancy, Leader Pelosi called me to take over the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, we had lost 2000, 2002 and 2004. We're in that place today. There is a path. You got to have the discipline to see that path and understand that what contribute to building not only the party, but to doing what I think is important in politics to to then do what we think needs to be done from a public policy position to build a country with more opportunity for others.

I just want to just to put a coda on what you just said. I think I agree with you that, you know, Trump has surrounded himself with plutocrats. Listen, if he if he brings peace and prosperity and lifts people's incomes and their prospects and so on. More power to him. Good for him. I am not rooting for catastrophe here. But I you know, I look at some of the appointments that he's made and and some of the things that he said. And I do worry about about the direction things and yeah, there may be a high likelihood that opportunity will arise from that. He is surrounded sort of by plutocrats, you know, which doesn't suggest that the people who elected him are going to come out on top in this deal. But my advice to Democrats, and I think it's not apart from yours, a departure from yours is the most important question is why have so many people in this country become so jaundiced about institutions, so jaundiced about elites, so jaundiced about government? What has driven people away and made them believe that they are that that the system is fundamentally corrupt and rigged against them.

Because guess what it is.

Well, that's but I think that there's there needs to be some humility in introspection here. Yeah. And I hope that that I hope that is part of the process that follows.

Since humility is one of my strong suits.

Yes, exactly. You're going to be the, how can we go wrong with Rahm Emanuel as humility coach?

And I'm a more, you know, three years here in Japan, I'm mellow, brother. Look, the thing is, we have as a party and I think the country is better served when you have two parties in an ideological, I would say battle, but offer different visions or capacities. We owe it to ourselves to understand how we lost. We have a vision of ours. Let me say it this way. We have a vision of ourselves that the American people do not have. And we are having problems.

Yes, it's a related point.

Right. We have a problems internalizing. We see ourselves as advocates for the good, for, you know, helping people, etc., and fighting for those who have no voice and they see us. And it's the data is pretty clear, captured by a far left that is actually socially, economically and culturally distant and distinct and arrogant to them about how to live their lives. And I think there's a dissonance between how we see ourselves and how the American public sees us.

I had a young congresswoman on this podcast a few weeks ago, Maria Gluesenkamp Perez from Washington, probably the most endangered Democrat in the country. She ended up out running the ticket by seven points and winning a district as Trump won it for the third straight time. And she said, Don't come and tell us what we need. Don't come and tell us what we need. Come and, you know, come with so, you know, give us the respect of of of dialog and listening and don't come. So this is akin to what you're saying anyway. Got to go. But I'm you know, one thing that I look forward to in 2025 is having you back stateside, if only so that I don't have to constantly look up what time it is in Tokyo before I call.

You, as somebody who has received many a call at 2 a.m. and then I get a text that was a butt call, I look forward to, actually. I'm tired of having your butt call me at 2 a.m.. Okay. So I'm looking forward to this, Axe.

Yes. Yeah. I'll put my phone in another pocket. And anyway, so it's good to be with you. Good to have you on the last episode.

Of Axe Files.

Of The Axe Files. And we'll see you when you get home.

Happy and healthy New Year.

Thank you. Same to you. As I say goodbye for now, I want to thank the stalwart team responsible for so many of these episodes. My executive producer and indispensable chief researcher Miriam Annenberg, engineer Jeff Fox and producers Saralena Berry and Hannah McDonald. I also want to acknowledge Lauren Mensch, who is the superb executive producer of The Axe Files on CNN during our television years. Profound thanks to the University of Chicago Institute of Politics, where this podcast was born, and to CNN Audio for partnering with us all these years. Finally, and most important, I want to thank you, the listeners, for joining me on this journey. And I'm dedicating this episode to one of the most faithful. Bob Erlenbaugh is a dear friend from Chicago who's never missed an episode. Now he's dealing with some serious health challenges. And I wanted to take this opportunity to wish him the very best. Happy holidays to all, and I hope to see you down the road.

Thank you for listening to The Axe Files, brought to you by the Institute of Politics at the University of Chicago and CNN Audio. The executive producer of the show is Miriam Finder Annenberg. The show is also produced by Saralena Barry, Jeff Fox and Hannah Grace McDonald. And special thanks to our partners at CNN, including Steve Lickteig and Haley Thomas. For more programing from IOP, visit politics dot uchicago dot edu.