Stacey Abrams: One Person's Quest to Preserve Democracy

Foreign.

Kawasaki and this is remarkable, people. We're on a mission to make you remarkable. Helping me in this episode is Stacy Abrams. I have been trying to interview her for two years. We met in my house in Santa Cruz, so it was an extra special event. It's safe to say that my life is now complete and yours is about to get better after listening to this interview. Stacey has dedicated her life to fighting for equality, justice, and the empowerment of all voices in our democracy. With a distinguished career that spans politics, advocacy and literature, she has become a powerful force in shaping the future of our nation. As a former member of the Georgia House of Representatives, the and a Democratic leader, Abrams made history as the first black woman to become the gubernatorial nominee for a major party in the United States. Her tireless efforts to protect voting rights led her to establish Fair Fight, an organization that advocates for fair and inclusive elections across America. Stacy sits on both nonprofit and corporate boards and she is a lifetime member of the Council on Foreign Relations. She has achieved degrees from Spelman College, the LBJ School of Public affairs at the University of Texas, and Yale Law School. Beyond her political endeavors, she is also a prolific author. She has several New York Times best selling books to her name, such as Lead from the Outside, Our Time is Now, and While Justice Sleeps. She has a new book out called Rogue A Thriller. Join us as we delve into Stacey Abrams remarkable journey exploring her unwavering commitment to social justice and democracy, her transformative work in the realm of voting rights, and her vision for a more inclusive and equitable society. I'm Guy Kawasaki. This is remarkable people. And now here is the remarkable Stacey Abrams.

First, I want to know, is that story about the Guard not letting you into the governor's mansion when you're in.

High school, is that a true story?

Oh, absolutely. My mom and dad actually reminded me of it when I first started running for governor. I'd forgotten the way you do when something is embarrassing and hurtful, you sort of put it aside. And when I was talking to my parents about running, my parents reminded me of that day because they were standing right there with me. Do you want me to walk through the story?

Why not? Yeah.

So I was the high school valedictorian for my class and we all get invited to the governor's mansion. We get there on a Sunday and because my parents were working poor, they didn't have a car. We took the bus. We get off the bus, we cross the street, we walk up the driveway to the governor's mansion. We get to the guard gate and the guard won't let us in because he doesn't believe we belong there. In fact, he says, you don't belong here. My parents argue with him effectively, and eventually he lets us in. But I remember very starkly being told, no, I can't come in, because whether it was race or economics and class, something he saw in me and in my parents made him believe that I didn't have the right to be there. And it became one of my missions to make sure I made it inside.

So, with hindsight, do you think he may have done you a favor?

I don't think he did me a favor. I grew up in the Deep South. I had confronted bigotry and discrimination before. I think what he did was crystallize for me one more moment of understanding how people see class and race and make judgments about it. And he reinforced what my parents raised me to understand, which is that I define who I am, and my responsibility is to never let someone else tell me what I can or cannot do.

Has your attitude towards him changed as the years have gone by?

He's not someone who has lingered in my mind over and over again, but again, he's emblematic of a certain type of person. And my job is to both always carry myself in a way that denounces that type of behavior, but also to demonstrate to others that these are moments. These are not defining pieces of our lives. They are moments that can crystallize, but they can never change who you are, what you're entitled to.

You mentioned Dan Simons and the invisible gorilla, and he's actually been a guest, and I consider him a friend, actually. And I was doing this research, and I found a study, believe it or not, that they asked 24 radiologists to look at CT scans, and they placed a gorilla on the CT scan. 20 out of the 24 didn't see the gorilla. I mean, I'm not telling you anything new, but do you think that Shelby.

Vs. Holder was the gorilla?

Absolutely. We get so used to things being true, we not only blind ourselves to shifting realities, we adjust our sense of possibility around that fallacy. And when we saw the direct attack on voting rights for so many people because they had gotten used to what had come of the 1960s voting rights movement, they believed it was always going to be so. And unfortunately, since then, we've seen the 2021 Branovich decision, we are likely going to see a decision this coming June from the Supreme Court, and the erosion of the Voting Rights act is nearly complete. And we should have seen it coming in 2013.

Do you know that there's a follow on video to that one? And it's called Monkey Business. Okay, so now everybody who's seen Invisible Gorilla, you know you're supposed to notice what happens, right? The follow on. So you watching that? And like, I just did it.

And I was like, I know something's going to happen.

I'm watching, I'm watching. And two things happen. One is the color of the curtain changes. And how's this for a metaphor? One of the people in a black T shirt leaves and nobody notices it, even though we know we're supposed to look for that.

But part of the challenge is when you are so focused on figuring out how you're being tricked, your mind again processes what reality it's created for itself. So you're thinking, well, is it going to be an elephant this time or is it a kangaroo? And you're not looking for simplistic changes. And I think that's part of the dynamic, whether you're talking about democracies, challenges, or even in business. We know, both of us, as an entrepreneur, you get so focused and fixated on your sense of what reality should be. When the world around you changes, when the market changes, you are so focused that you miss the guy leaving the room, you miss the customer walking away, you miss the market changing on you. And whether it's democracy or entrepreneurship, for me, it's always about not just anticipating that I'm going to get tricked. It is keeping my mind open enough that I can see the thing that I'm not supposed to see.

Okay, so how does voter suppression work now? What's the latest, greatest method that's being foisted upon us?

We are used to voter suppression being the intention to deny entire classes of people the right to vote. But because the last two presidential elections were decided on the margins, meaning the Clinton Trump election was decided by 78,000 votes, roughly across about eight states because of the Electoral College. Even though she won the popular vote by millions, it was 78,000 votes across the state. For Biden Trump, it was 42,000 votes. Voter suppression now is targeted almost surgically to diminish those margins, to eliminate those voters who make up the margins. And those are voters who had not participated before. Voters of color, it's disabled voters, it's college students, it's the newly re enfranchised people who are returning from prison who should have the ability to, to reclaim their franchise. And it's the poor. And the problem is because it's no longer wholesale attacks on communities. And instead, it is those who have been marginalized in some other fashion. They are once again being victimized by laws that look like logic but have the very clear intention of pushing them out of the process.

But specifically, is it the. The registration? Is it the id? Is the use it or lose it? It's all polling place.

So voter suppression is three things. Can you register and stay on the rolls? Can you cast a ballot, and does your ballot get counted? And what they're doing is they're attacking all three of those. So they're attacking the ability to register. Down in Florida, they are now charging $250,000 for each mistake made by a third party registration group, which means groups like the League of Women Voters or the NAACP cannot afford to register because they can't afford to make a mistake. It's voter ID for college students. It's where in the state of Texas, whether or not you can vote mobile and who has access to absentee ballots, all of those things are a part of it. But what's being done with such precision these days is because we've called attention to voter suppression as a big specter. They're narrowing their target, but the pain is still quite real and the effectiveness is still quite pernicious.

And is there a mastermind sending out the manual to all these? Oh, yes, there's a mastermind.

Well, there are masterminds. Brian Kemp, who is the governor of Georgia, was one of the most effective leaders of voter suppression. And indeed, every year that he's been governor, we have seen changes made to the laws almost every. I think, without exception, I might be wrong. It may have been a couple of years he didn't do something, but each year they have tightened and made it more restrictive. We have seen it happen through alec, which is an overarching group that provides conservative legislation. We've seen the Heritage foundation, which has acknowledged essentially that voting fraud, it's nearly impossible in the United States or certainly doesn't exist. And yet they keep flagging that as a possibility. And so I think we have to stop thinking about it as one person and think about as sort of a council of masterminds that are trying to deny access to the right to vote because you can either amend your policies to attract more voters or amend the voting process to push those that you find inconvenient out of the process. And they've chosen the latter.

And if we could get into their minds and see their motivation, is it to preserve power? Is it because they're threatened? Is it because they think they're right or are they simply evil?

I mean, what I think the effect of denying access to the right to vote is inexcusable. We live in a democracy and our goal should be to expand the franchise. We should be constantly seeking to bring more people into the conversation, regardless of what they're going to say when they get there. And so I find it deeply, deeply problematic that any party in any community would seek to deny the right to vote. But to your question, yes, it's about power. As we watch a dramatic demographic change happen in this country, holding onto power means denying that shift and changing the rules of the game. It is about feeling threatened. Losing power is something that's very difficult. And I've never really had any, but I've heard tell. And then it's the fear that whatever has been visited upon those who are not involved before, that they may retaliate. And then to your point, it's also, they like to win and they think they're right. And we're talking about people who have convinced themselves of their own perfection of idea, saying that any other idea is just not only a non starter, it is a threat to everything else. And we should be deeply afraid of any group that believes that the only way to win a debate is by removing people from the conversation.

And do you think that this is all gonna blow up in their faces one day? Is this the last desperate gasp to preserve this, or is this a harbinger of what's going to be?

It's a both. And again, we have to remember, voter suppression has been a part of the American democratic experiment from its inception. When we started as a country, only white men who owned property were allowed to vote. Not even all of those folks could do so. And over time, we have added people to the process. But every time we've added a group, we have seen additional restrictions be put in place to limit the utility of their franchise. And so the people who feel threatened, they may evolve in their rationale for why they feel threatened. But as long as democracy relies on convincing the majority of people to agree, they're always going to be those who would prefer for the minority opinion to hold sway. And they will do what they can if they hold that minority opinion and they hold power to keep both things in play.

I want to talk a little bit about the Supreme Court. So Shelby versus Holder. Justice Roberts claims that sufficient progress has been made. I don't know if I can swear on a podcast with Stacey, but what the fuck is he talking about? Sufficient progress. So then Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, Scalia. Maybe you don't want to answer this question, but, I mean, do they understand the ramifications, what they're doing?

Is it on purpose? Is this a plan? Yes, it is, absolutely. Again, the United States is undergoing a nearly unprecedented demographic shift. We focus on the racial demography. That's changing, but it's also a generational shift. The single largest group of people are millennials. The single largest generational group, and close behind are Gen Z and Gen Alpha. If you are a baby boomer, if you are an older Gen X, Gen X is the smallest generation. Boomers are larger than we are. And so what we're seeing is a compression of opportunity to control power. That is coupled with a philosophical belief that what was was always better than what is. There's this halcyon recasting of our past that is absolutely absurd. Yes, it was great for those who had power then. And so when you look at the Shelby decision, and I want us to remember, Shelby was the harbinger, to use your phrase. It was a harbinger, But Shelby was then followed by the Branovitch decision. It was followed by the common Cause decision that said that partisan gerrymandering was okay. So we've seen the stacking of court decisions that have essentially unraveled almost everything that was achieved during the civil rights and voting rights movements. And it's done because those laws worked, those challenges worked. We elected people who looked more like the communities that need to be represented. We changed the laws to provide greater access. And for those who think that access is wrong and that the leadership doesn't look like what they're used to, they are more willing than not to. To dismantle those points of entry, to preserve what they think was the right idea in the first place.

This is kind of a. A weird question, but what I cannot grasp is how can Yale Law School produce you and then produce some of those other Supreme Court? Like what happens at Yale Law School to people? Although Ted Cruz went to Harvard Law School, so. But what happens there? I mean, is this so long ago it doesn't matter?

No. I think it's dangero to conflate what you bring to a place with what you get in that place.

Okay.

I am grateful for the education I received at Yale, and I have vehement disagreement with other people who got the same education, because education is one facet of knowledge. It is not the whole of it. It is education. It is experience. It is application. It is the willingness to accept new ideas. And not everyone who learns, learns well. Or carries that learning with them. And sometimes what they learn is counter to what was intended to be taught. And so I don't blame the institutions. I simply recognize that we can all go into the same shop. We may just order really different things.

I thought maybe there were two tracks for constitutional law at Yale Law School.

No, no. I make this joke about my friends who are Christian, but who have different belief systems than I do. We all have the same Bible. We just read different versions, and some of us possibly are skipping some pages.

I struggled with how to ask this question.

Okay, bring it on.

So I wish we could be sitting here saying, you know what, Stacy? You saved democracy, and. And then you lost by 30,000 votes. And then the next time you ran, you won. Happy ending, Life goes on, right? So now you did all this great work. You got all these people to register and vote on it. Like, why aren't we sitting here talking about the happy ending? And now you're Governor Abrams.

I will say this. There are jobs, and then there's the work. The work that I've been doing through the last decade plus has been focused around making democracy more resilient, making certain that people can participate, ensuring access, and trying as much as I can to give people a reason to participate. That's the work. Now, there are certain jobs that make it easier or harder to do that work. The job of governor was a job that could help make lives better. The person who holds the job, I vehemently disagree with him on a range of issues and disagreed with him before, disagree with him now. The issue is the job itself does not diminish the necessity of the work. And so, yes, I would like to hold the job of governor. That's why I ran. But not getting that job does not diminish my commitment to the work of democracy, the work of good social policy, the work of making sure that small businesses have access to what they need. And so if you look at all of the work I do, whether it's as an entrepreneur or as a writer or as a politician or as an activist, the work has a through line that does not change just because the job I apply for is denied. My responsibility is to never conflate the two and think that not getting one exempts me from doing the other.

Arguably, you could say that the work is more important than the job title, right?

I would say that the jobs can make it more efficient, can make it easier, the scale and scope. I mean, that's why you ask for. You seek the jobs that can make doing the work Easier, faster, better. But you don't get to stop just because you don't get the job.

And do you still think that our time is now?

I do. Absolutely.

Even though this happened?

Yes. Because one election, and I think that's why people got confused after the 2018 election. There was a line that I used that caused great consternation and gnashing of teeth where I said, we won. And people like, oh, my God, she's. She doesn't understand. No, I'm talking to those for whom progress seemed impossible. When you don't believe anything can happen. When something happens, you celebrate it. And I am very comfortable telling folks we made progress. I know where we started. I know where we've gotten. I know how much further we have to go. And I'm not going to wait until we get there to say, good job. I'm going to say, let's celebrate now, let's celebrate next, and let's celebrate the time after that. That said, it feels better when you get all the stuff at once. But we also have to remember that rarely do you get everything and get to keep it, because the minute you get it, the folks who had it are coming to get it back.

Okay, so this is the most important question I want to ask and the wisdom I want to gain from you, which is, in the face of all this, how do you, Stacey Abrams, keep going. How do you wake up every morning and still charge out the door?

I believe in three things. One, be curious. Ask questions. Try to think about things, especially different ideas. That's one of the reasons I write. It's why I start businesses. It's why I start organizations. It's why I'm engaged in politics. I am curious. We need to be curious about our world. Number two, solve problems. I am deeply discomfited by just knowing something's wrong and not doing something about it. So I believe in trying to solve problems. I try to fix things. I know I may not get it done, but I'm going to try. And then three. And most importantly to me, my mission is to do good. If you know that there's something out there, try to do good. So it's three things I think every morning. Be curious. Solve problems. Do good.

And what do you say to people who say, stacey, I'm bashing my head against this. It's not happening. What do you say to those people? How do you motivate them?

You want to find out why? Sometimes I describe it this way. The question is, what's the problem? Why is it a problem? And then how do you solve it? Sometimes we jump from the what to the how and we never understand the why. I see you sitting on the side of the road. I see that your car isn't moving. I decide I'm going to solve that problem by going and getting you a can of gas. And I get back and find out that your engine's gone. The gas might be a solution, but not to your problem. And sometimes we're bashing our head against the wall because we're not asking, why is it a problem? What's the underlying? That's why curiosity matters. If you want to solve the problem, be curious about why the problem exists.

As I read your book Our Time, I kept thinking, so much happens at the state level. Is the battle to preserve democracy really going to be won in the state legislatures and governors, or is it going to be at the President Congress level?

I think we need a federal government that is responsive and intentional and it does have an extraordinary amount of power, but it is also structurally ill suited to this moment in some ways. We have watched the courts devolve what used to be federal decisions to the states. That's what happened with the Dobbs decision and abortion. They didn't say abortion is illegal. They said states get to decide. It's what we've seen happen with gun laws. States get to decide. We are watching all of these macro challenges that once would have been solved through federal action being devolved to the states. And so we've got to pay attention at the state level. And the only way to address some of the structural infirmities at the federal level is to win state legislatures and to have governors, because the states basically govern our voting laws. We don't have one universal set of voting standards in this country. We've got 50 different democracies operating at various levels of utility.

So if God said to you, Stacey, you can either be US Senator from Georgia or Governor of Georgia, which one do you pick?

Well, having faced that question before, at the time I chose absolutely the route of governor to Senate, I'm proud of the work I did to make sure we elected not one, but two US Senators. But that's not the mission that I have for the work that I wanted to see done when I was thinking about running for office, the role of governor had greater impact on the long term goals that I see needing to be addressed.

So are you going to run again?

I'm not sure. I will say that politics will always be a part of who I am and I will always make it a facet of the work I do, but I don't know for what I will run or when I will run. But that's not my focus at this moment.

Okay. How familiar are you with AI and ChatGPT and all that?

I'm very familiar.

Do you use it?

I do not. I am familiar. I recently wrote a book, Rogue justice, and AI plays a very prominent role in the storyline. And more importantly, as an aunt to six kids, one of whom lives with me, I am very, very familiar with how AI is changing. Artificial intelligence is changing how we engage and interact. And what I remind folks of is that when the creators of a technology beg you to regulate them, we should listen.

Yes. I think that it is a revolution that is probably greater in impact than personal computing or the Internet. It's going to change everything.

It's already changing things. I mean, there was a story recently about writers who are losing their jobs. As someone who includes among my jobs writing, it is a terrifying thing to me. Not that we are creating a new technology, but that we are sacrificing in some instances the importance of human engagement and human interaction. Because when you think about the capacity and you understand this, the capacity of machine learning is extraordinary. But machine learning doesn't teach empathy. It doesn't teach some of the underlying architecture that makes literature and engagement and policymaking so effective. And so I think we have to just be very conscious of what we are calling upon with AI. But we also have to be very diligent to not get so distracted by the shiny new that we forget the familiar and very steady old.

Okay, I'll tell you my answer so that please. Okay, my answer is ChatGPT. The question for you is somewhat semi facetiously, although if you had a choice between Ron DeSantis being President or ChatGPT, who would you pick?

I would refuse this question because I believe in building a better reality.

Okay. Okay.

And it's not done until it's done well.

So I kind of anticipated that answer. So I went to ChatGPT and I asked it a very simple question. Should we teach the history of slavery in America to kids in America? ChatGPT's answer? Yes. Teaching the history of slavery in America is critically important in history, including the painful part should not be glossed over as understanding is a key part of learning from past mistakes and ensuring they are not repeated.

I will say you don't require ChatGPT. You could also ask a six year old the same question.

Well, you can't ask a lot of people in state legislatures and Governors, mansions. But I digress. I think the Democrats need the Brad Pascal of ChatGPT. I hope they're finding. Because what Brad Pascal did for Trump, we need someone to do for America. Well, America really, but someone to do for Democrats. I hope somebody's looking for that guy or gal.

I think we attribute sometimes too much power to singularities and we ignore the long term impact. Yes, he was there, but we also know Trump was on American television for decades, that he did not win the popular vote. He won the Electoral College vote. We have to be really careful about wanting single people to solve problems because that's part of how we get where we are. We all have a responsibility to not replicate mistakes of the past and to insist on better outcomes for the next time.

See, that was Stacy telling me. I don't know what I'm talking about.

Not at all. Just reframing your.

Let me translate for you, Madison. Your pen name, how come you didn't make it? Selma Montgomery.

All right. My pen name came from Elizabeth Montgomery who starred in the show Bewitched. I was watching an Amy biography of her. Love Bewitched. I love Bewitched, Darren. Yes. So Elizabeth Montgomery was the actress and I loved her. And they were doing an Amy biography of Elizabeth Montgomery. And her evil cousin on Bewitched was Serena. I didn't like my Rs, but I liked my Ls, so I became Selena Montgomery. Had nothing to do with the place.

And I was gonna have this whole, like, explanation of how people were going.

From Selma to Mont to I'm from Mississippi. I would have gone from Jackson to Gulfport or something like that.

No. What do you say to a young.

Black trans.

Person living in Florida?

The same thing I would say to anyone anywhere. You are who God intended you to be, but your responsibility is to be the best version of yourself you can. To not allow anyone to tell you who you are, but to reach out and seek the support that you need to become everything you're entitled to be and capable of becoming.

How can people help Stacy?

Well, they can follow what I'm working on now so they can go to staceyabrams.com and learn all about what I'm working on. And even if you want to learn more about my books, go over to staceyabramscreates.com.

And that concludes our conversation with Stacey Abrams. She is truly a trailblazer and advocate for change. Again, her website is staceyabrams.com S T A C E Y A B R A M S My humongous humongous thanks to Heidi Messer. She is the CEO of Collective I. She made this interview happen without her. No Stacey Abrams. Unremarkable people. I'd also like to thank two people on the Stacey Abrams team, Jalen Black and Samantha Slosberg. They worked with us to make it all come together. My thanks to Madison Nismer, who went above and beyond the call of duty to make this interview happen. My thanks to the rest of the remarkable team, Peg Fitzpatrick, Jeff C, Shannon Hernandez, Alexis Nishimura, and Luis Magana. We are all on a mission to make you remarkable. Until next time, Mahalo and aloha. If you find our show valuable, please do us a favor and subscribe, rate and review it. Even better, forward it to a friend. A big mahalo to you for doing this.

This is remarkable people.