MSNBC "The Rachel Maddow Show" - Transcript: Interview with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): Thanks for having me.

HAYES: I wanted to start maybe with -- thank you so much. I want to start with this sort of division here and just ask you to react to it if it seems to you accurate. I mean, I spend a lot of my time talking to members of Congress and staffers. And it does seem like most of the Democratic majority is pretty freaked out about this stuff, and really thinks that there`s a very important urgency here to defend American democracy. And then some folks think, in the end, it`s going to work out. Is that track with your experience of the conversations that are happening on the Hill?

CORTEZ: I think so. I think that those of us and those Democrats who really acknowledge the existential threat and the assault on the right to vote -- and really, when I say recognize it, I mean, they`re putting the pieces together between what the Republican Party is doing on the state level, and the assaults on the right to vote in Georgia, Texas, Arizona, really across the state around -- and across the country, and how that is being pieced together federally with this idea that we cannot pass legislation to protect the right to vote because those who are attacking it, won`t vote to protect it.

And I think that there`s -- so, there`s an enormous amount of alarm for those of us here who believe that our country is still in a very vulnerable place post-Donald Trump, that we are just hanging on a thread of democracy. And it`s our responsibility right now with utmost urgency to really strengthen a lot of our democratic institutions that were taken very much to the brink during the Trump administration which culminated in January 6.

And those who -- you know, I think there`s just some folks that have unwavering faith in American institutions that really don`t have a lot of evidence for why our institutions would not be vulnerable. We saw what happened on January 6. And I think it`s really important for folks to connect this to January 6. Because the reason those people storm that capital was because of the lawsuits was because of all of this doubt that was sown. It was because of the election challenges. It was because voter suppression made a lot of races closer than they should have been.

And I think that, you know, your assessment is correct, that there`s a majority, I think, are quite concerned, but I think that there are some members that, you know, represent communities that have never really had their right to vote attacked in a way. They don`t represent communities for which this is a very real threat. And so, I think they don`t think it is as real as it very much is.

HAYES: Who -- are you talking about Joe -- is that a Joe Manchin-like reference there? Are we talking about anything in particular?

CORTEZ: I think Joe Manchin is absolutely one of them. I mean, Joe Manchin represents a state that is not very diverse. Joe Manchin does not represent a very large population of Black voters whose right to vote is constantly under attack. And so, I can`t help but wonder aloud. You know, I see this as well in the House of Representatives how there usually is hesitancy or it`s a little bit more of a debate when a member has to take out a risky vote on a community that they don`t represent.

And so, that representation and that point isn`t as internalized. I think that people think that, you know, for whom their right to vote hasn`t been under attack, that this is something that is overblown, when it very much is not.

HAYES: I mean, just to play devil`s advocate here for a moment, because I think it`s sort of worth talking about. I mean, you know, one of the things that`s interesting and strange here, right, is the incentives would seem to be aligned for all Democratic politicians, right?

So, if you`re Joe Manchin and you`re defying gravity, and he sure as heck is, right? That`s a state that went for Donald Trump by 40 points. You know, you`ve got to get a lot of black folks in West Virginia, and there are some, to come out and vote for you. You want to make sure that your voters can get to the polls. You want to make -- like, that`s in your interest. He`s not -- you know, he`s winning by five points.

So, it`s -- it seems to me there should be this sort of just political self-preservation interest here above and beyond even the principle of it, you know, operating at this almost Machiavellian level of like, you guys are politicians, you need your voters to be able to vote.

CORTEZ: Well, you know, I think when you look at West Virginia, West Virginia is not a prime target for Republicans to look at and dismantle and attack the right to vote because it is such a reliably red state. So, attacking the franchise in West Virginia is not as high as a -- as a priority as we see in the state-level laws as it is in Georgia, you know, in Pennsylvania with election challenges, Arizona in the attempt to overturn election results. And so, you know, again, I think that this is still a very critical issue.

But you know, I do think on that note of political preservation, one thing that is not being discussed about, and I do think it should be talked about more, is the fact that H.R.1 is one of the most assertive bills that we have to tackle dark money in politics. And so, there are two very key components in H.R.1 in the for the people act. One is a forceful and very strong provisions and laws to combat outright voter suppression. And these are -- these are proposals and if passed, it would essentially preempt changes to state law. So, it would protect people`s actual right to vote.

But the other aspect of this is that H.R.1 stands up against lobbyists and dark money. And I would reckon to think that this is probably just as much a part of Joe Manchin calculus as anything else. Because when it comes to these bipartisan arguments, I got to tell you, I don`t buy it, because Joe Manchin has voted for bills that have not been bipartisan before. Look at the American rescue plan.

So, this is not just about bipartisanship. This is -- I think, because you look at the Koch Brothers, and you look at, you know, organizations like the Heritage Foundation and conservative lobby groups that are doing a victory lap, claiming victory over the fact that Manchin refuses to change on the filibuster. And I think that these two things are very closely intertwined. And I think that there`s a desire to make this just about protecting the franchise. But protecting our democracy is also about making sure that we give lobbyists and dark money groups which are funding these attacks on the right to vote.

But, you know, corporate money has a very, very tight grip on both parties. And I think that has part -- I think that has to do with the calculus in the situation that people aren`t really discussing enough.

HAYES: Yes, that`s -- it`s a very good point. I mean, bracket for a second my own feeling about like what the Roberts Court would do with the dark money provisions of H.R.1 which that`s a sort of road -- bridge to cross in the future. But it`s striking today -- I want to get your reaction this -- because in some ways, right, McConnell hates that part. Republicans hate, hate, hate the dark money part, hate, hate, hate, right? McConnell is, you know, dark money`s number one champion. His name is on one of the big SCOTUS cases on this.

So, you say OK, well, we call the bluff. Take that outside. Let`s just talk about restoring preclearance in the Voting Rights Act or the John Lewis Voting Rights Act which Manchin has come out in favor of. He and Lisa Murkowski wrote a Dear Colleague letter about. No -- none of the money, none of the corporate money stuff, right? Here`s McConnell today about whether that`s a starter for him or not. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): There`s no threat to the Voting Rights Law. It`s against the law to discriminate and voting on the basis of race already. And so, I think it`s unnecessary.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: So, it`s like, you know, there`s the whack a mole, right? I mean, if the dark money provision is the problem, you want to narrow down to just these provisions like you get McConnell saying, no, he`s not down for voting rights act reinstatement either.

CORTEZ: Yes, absolutely. And the thing is, too, is that not it`s not just about H.R.4 because even if Mitch McConnell said, you know what, I believe in restoration of the Voting Rights Act, let`s pass H.R.4. The problem is that those changes in H.R.4 do not have the preemptive power that the -- that the -- and they do not have the protections that H.R.1 have.

So, you pass H.R.4, sure, you may get those preclearance provisions, but you don`t get the protections and you don`t get the reforms on gerrymandering. You don`t get the changes on automatic voter registration. You don`t get the actual protections of what Republican states are actually attacking Black and Brown and low-income voters with right now from poll stations, etcetera.

And so, even if you do pass just H.R.4 and you don`t do anything on H.R.1, you`re still up a creek without a paddle. And we are in very, very, very deep trouble if we do not reform and take swift action to protect our democracy right now.

HAYES: You`ve been very generous of your time. And I`ll let you go in one second. I got one more question just on -- comments for the Vice President who has been down in Central America. She met with some leaders I think in Guatemala and Mexico. And she had this message for folks that were considering making the journey for asylum that I want to play and get your reaction to. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAMALA HARRIS, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I want to be clear to folks in this region who are thinking about making that dangerous trek to the United States-Mexico border. Do not come. Do not come.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: You tweeted some criticism of that. And I just -- I guess, just to give the sort of defense of it and get your reaction to it, right? I mean, I think the thing that people in the administration would say or others is that look, it really is a very dangerous journey. It can be awful for the people that undertake it. And you want to kind of not create an incentive structure that creates more of traffic in these corridors that can be so dangerous. What`s your -- what`s your problem with her phrasing it that way?

CORTEZ: Well, I think the issue here -- and first of all, you know, I think this is not just about the Vice President, this is about the Biden administration`s immigration policy writ large is not working. It`s wrong and it`s inhumane. It`s rooted -- and he inherited it, but frankly, you know, this was -- this was also a problem not just inherited by Donald Trump, but inherited by Barack Obama, all the way back to the creation of DHS and ICE under George Bush.

But, you know, I think one of the issues here and saying that is that Guatemalans and Central American and South American immigrants know that this journey is dangerous. This is not something that is lost on them. And this is not something that I think we need to inform them of. They take that journey knowing that they may die.

And the reason they or anybody would take a journey, knowing that they may die, is the same reason why a person who is stuck in a burning building may elect to jump out a window, because they know that their conditions back home -- and Guatemala people -- there are femicides that are happening throughout Central America and South America. And there are -- there`s a great deal of political violence, etcetera.

And people leave because they believe that they have a greater chance of being targeted, killed, murdered if they stay than the odds of them being killed if they go on that journey. And so, they know that this journey is dangerous. What we as a country -- what the United States has not done is actually own up to the fact that we have contributed to regime change, destabilization, and interventionist foreign policy that has contributed to these awful conditions throughout Latin America.

And the reason that it`s a problem -- and this is not just U.S. supporting regime change, this is also climate policy that is impacting the global south disproportionately, even though these farmers and these folks in Central and South America contributed to climate change the least in terms of their carbon emissions, they are experiencing the ravages the most right now and first.

And so, U.S. climate policy has contributed to this, U.S. foreign policy, U.S. economic and trade policy has helped contribute to conditions that people are fleeing. And we cannot, as a country, no matter who it is, continue to show up in Latin America and say that this is their fault or that they are to blame, right, because this seems like almost a precursor to say -- in saying that we are going to allege that you are coming to this country illegally when seeking asylum on our border is in fact legal, and use that to predate any violence that we are willing to inflict on immigrants as a deterrent.

And this is policy that happened during the Trump administration. But I want to be clear that this is policy that happened during the Obama administration as well. And the caging of immigrants was very much documented and it was asserted in many ways along with many of the other inhumane policies as a deterrent to say, you know, if we are cruel enough, maybe people will think twice before coming. And this at its core is completely inhumane. I don`t think that it`s something that any -- that United States should ever use as an immigration policy period.

But it`s never something, I believe, I think it`s shameful, that any democratic administration, whether it`s the Obama administration, the Biden administration, any administration, one that we would choose to adopt. You know, I think we have very severe challenges at our border. And one of the reasons that I think people justify this is that they say, well look at how many -- look at the facilities on our border and how they have been crowded. There are projections that these -- that this crowding may be getting worse. But I think that`s because we have chosen a carceral immigration policy.

And when we choose to gratuitously cage people seeking a better life, those cages will always be overrun. Imagine if -- you know, imagine if right here in New York City, in Ellis Island, if people`s grandparents and great grandparents were met with cages, how different would the DNA and our family histories and our trauma be? This is not who we should be as a country.

And while there are challenges, I think that the message that we should be sending to Latin America is that, first of all, we want to -- we should be acknowledging our role because we have been hiding and running away from actually acknowledging the role of U.S. history. So, it`s actually a major step for us to even say what we`ve done.

And then the second thing we can do is say we can come together as partners to try to figure out how we clean up this mess that the United States helped contribute to, because no one wants to leave their home. None of these people want to leave the communities and ancestral lands that they and generations of their families have stayed in.

They`re fleeing because we have contributed to situations that have made them flee. And so, our response should not just be our border policy, it`s how are we going to change our foreign policy so that we`re no longer supporting, frankly, neoliberal economic foreign policy that creates and makes developing countries forever in debt. And how do we make sure that we actually change our foreign climate and economic policies so that we prevent these mass migrations to begin with.

HAYES: Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, thanks so much for making time tonight. I appreciate it.

CORTEZ: Of course. Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source