>> A blue coup, this week on Firing Line.

>> The American people have rebuked the depravity, corruption, and incompetence of the failed lame duck President Donald J. Trump.

>> The blue wave was even bigger than predicted, and extended to parts of the country that haven't elected Democrats for decades.

But are Americans really in love with Democrats or just angry at Republicans?

>> They didn't vote for Democrats.

They voted against the Republicans.

This is a second look.

This is a second chance.

So how do you turn an electoral coalition into a governing coalition?

You got to deliver change, palpable change.

>> Chicago's former mayor, Rahm Emmanuel, has served in Congress and worked for the last three Democratic presidents.

Is he considering a run for the top job himself?

What does Rahm Emmanuel say now?

>> "Firing Line with Margaret Hoover" is made possible in part by... Robert Granieri, Vanessa and Henry Cornell, The Margaret and Daniel Loeb Foundation, The Beth and Ravenel Curry Foundation, Cliff and Laurel Asness, and by the following.

>> Ambassador Rahm Emanuel, welcome to "Firing Line."

>> Thank you.

>> Since election night, President Trump and Vice President Vance have cast blame for Republican losses primarily on the war in Iran.

You've been very clear, though, that this was a referendum on Trump, a repudiation of the GOP, and that Democrats now have to rise to the opportunity they've been given.

So my question for you is, what is the single most important lesson Democrats should take from this election?

>> One, this was a repudiation, not a vindication.

Republicans lost this week.

The Democrats, what we do in 2027, will determine whether we have won.

Task A, turning our electoral coalition into a governing coalition.

And I—first of all, let me just—I've got to rebute this.

I can't just leave it on the floor.

The idea that they would say it was all Iran war totally misses what I think really happened here, which was the president played people for being chumps.

He told them that he would never start endless wars, and he started one.

He said, "I'm going to put money in your pocket," and they watched him put money in his pocket, in his family's pocket.

He said, "I'm going to bring prices down," and because of both tariffs and the war, they spiked.

Nobody likes to be played for a fool.

This, unlike in '06, when I ran the effort to take the House, there was exhaustion.

There was disappointment.

This is about anger.

You don't get this type of 1974 Watergate response, depth and breadth of an election.

There is every office—best way to illustrate it, Senator Cruz is the only Republican statewide.

In Texas.

In Texas.

OK, just the Texas House flipped, the North Carolina House flipped, the Georgia House flipped.

I mean, the depth and breadth of this thing is extensive.

Another way to look at it, 76 percent of the country today lives with a Democratic governor, population-wise.

So now, then to what I would say, people—how do you turn an electoral coalition into a governing coalition?

You've got to deliver change, palpable change.

Pass a comprehensive ethics bill.

Deals with components I've laid out, which is for all three branches.

Ban stock trading, ban participation in the prediction markets, mandatory blind trust if your net worth is over a million, mandatory either term limits or retirement age, and fifth, the Kushner rule, Jared Kushner.

You can't take foreign money while you're in government and two years after.

Second, raise the minimum wage.

Third, restrict and repeal tariffs that have hurt the consumers.

Fourth, restore the premium support for ACA health care.

The number one driver for people, if you go out around the country, yes is gas, yes is groceries.

It's health care costs that are spiking for the last three years in a row at double-digit inflation.

And nobody's incomes have gone up a double digit.

So to me, that would say to the Democrats, independents, and Mitt Romney Republicans, this was a good—this was a good bet that you took on us.

This is a second look.

This is a second chance.

Now, I also, just to give you something I've said around the country that always gets people nodding, applauding, but that's my focus groups.

The kids on the Abraham Lincoln, they spent 322 days at sea.

And towards the last part, rancid food, no bathrooms.

The U.S.

Congress, they were in for 100 days.

>> 100 days.

>> Okay?

They got -- worked halftime and got full-time benefits.

They need to break a sweat, like the kids on the USS Abraham Lincoln.

I have two kids that are Navy reserves.

You have to work in Congress, so speed as well as substance counts.

Don't -- as I always like to say, the first eight letters of progressive spell "progress," not "perfection."

Just get it done.

>> Recent polls, though, Rahm, and I know you know this -- recent polls, Mr.

Mayor, and I know you know this, have found that the Democratic Party -- -We're in our second question.

It's "Rahm is fine."

-Yeah.

But you know that the Democratic Party is still viewed less favorably than the Republicans overall across the country.

So what would be the most dangerous misreading of the results?

-Overreading the results.

That's why I started with you very early on.

This was a repudiation, not a vindication.

They didn't vote for Democrats.

They voted against the Republicans.

There are cases.

But second, as also my North Star, I'm not interested in the issues that played out in blue district primaries.

I couldn't care.

What worked in Omaha when we flipped a seat?

What worked in Reno when we flipped a seat?

What worked in Rochester, Minnesota, when we flipped a seat?

What worked in Kansas?

What worked in South Carolina?

The issues I just outlined for you, you can—A, all the Democrats can agree on and rally; and B, you're going to get 30 to 40 Republicans for every one of those.

And the whole goal legislatively and politically, what unites our team and divides the other team.

Now, my worry is—and I'll give you an example.

My worry is, I'm for investigations based on follow-the-money.

You should, though, understand that the oversight is only half the story.

Produce a legislative accomplishment.

Impeachment would go out of the off-sites.

An ethics package would actually fulfill change.

>> And you've been very clear that you are not in support of impeachment of President Trump or any of his Cabinet members.

The way to prove to the American people that you're doing something is by passing legislation affirmatively.

Let me ask you this.

President Trump is now a lame duck, but in an interview with Politico the night of the election, he said, "I don't want to just be sitting there for two years vetoing everything."

Since election night, President Trump, Hakeem Jeffries, Chuck Schumer have made gestures towards possibly negotiating and compromising on legislation to get things done.

So what advice do you have for leadership in the House of Senate for dealing with this White House?

I mean, could actually stuff get done for the American people?

My rule when I was both President Obama's Chief of Staff and when I was mayor, my goal is to seek common ground, but I know how to hold my ground.

So I would just say, Mr.

President, here's our priorities.

We want to work with you.

If you look at the back end of the last two years of Ronald Reagan's administration, post-Iran-Contra, you look at the back two years of President Clinton's administration, a lot can get done.

So if the White House wants to work together, that—a White House is always relevant.

It's a set of degrees.

But if all they want to do as the president of the United States is basically go out on the same sheet of music of greed, grandeur, and grievances, that ain't going to cut it.

>> One could imagine a President Trump wanting to be able to take credit for legislative accomplishments that he, of course, achieved in tandem with the Democratic Congress.

I can imagine Democrats might be concerned about giving the president credit.

So, how do you recommend navigating those waters?

>> Here's what I would say to you.

If he signs it, you win.

He vetoes it, you win.

Minimum wage—signs it, you win.

Vetoes—his heart—and look, in that ethics bill, there'll be prediction markets.

His two sons are involved.

That's a poison pill for him.

Put it in.

Sign it, Mr.

President.

Veto it, Mr.

President.

Same thing on tariffs.

You have to acknowledge your tariffs raise prices.

Sign it, we win.

And in every one of those, you're going to get bipartisan agreement.

So the ideas I gave you, one, solidify the electoral coalition as a governing coalition, bring change, set up, unite the Democrats, divide the Republicans, and put the president in that Yogi Berra position.

When you get to a fork in the road, take it, Mr.

President.

>> Centrist Democrats have spent a lot of this election, all the candidates and electeds, railing against Hasan Piker, including you, who said that he should not be taken seriously.

The numbers suggest that 48 progressives that Hasan campaigned with, of those 48, 21 won their primaries, seven unseated incumbents, and eight won open seats.

He didn't change the game for Abdul el-Sayed.

And on election night, Piker had the second most watched live stream.

So should establishment Democrats rethink their position on Piker?

And you've argued that Democratic Socialists who reject the Democratic Party's identity shouldn't be part of it.

And yet, the Democratic Socialist movement has this growing reputation in Congress and representation in Congress and undeniable energy among young voters.

So what's to be done?

>> Well, one, I actually think the biggest piece of this election wasn't what you just said.

I totally disagree with it.

It was that non-MAGA Republicans have abandoned the Republican Party, and they no longer consider themselves Republicans.

We built a big electoral base.

You have to confirm that.

And so the biggest story in Kansas wasn't Democratic Socialists.

The biggest story with Ossoff's one wasn't Democratic Socialists.

Now, I'm a Democratic Socialist.

You are a separate party.

Two and a half months ago, you had a convention in Chicago, just like the Greens, just like the Democrats.

You're a separate party.

Now, if you think people are for defunding the police, for open borders and open prisons, I'll see you in November.

But the party, until you change your positions, you're a separate party.

The Greens are a separate party.

The Libertarians are a separate party.

You had a party convention.

You didn't have a meeting.

So that's my position.

Others think we're big enough to tempt the Democratic Socialists.

Now, I don't think the non-MAGA Republicans who voted for us are all going to say the way to win their hearts and minds is to say, "Welcome to the world of the Democratic Socialists."

And the reason our brand is bad is because people think we're too extreme.

And being more associated with the extremity doesn't help you rebrand the party.

And so—and I also—look, Hasan Piker said America deserved 9/11.

I don't think America deserved 9/11.

And I think to all the families that lost loved ones, that is not on us.

That was on terrorists.

America did not deserve 9/11.

So I disagree, and I'm ready to say that.

And others want to invite him in?

You better understand you're associating yourself and legitimizing yourself with that rhetoric.

- Let me ask you this.

Data centers, a major issue in this election.

Now, you've been very clear that the United States must compete with China.

We must win the AI race.

The truth that responsible electeds on both sides of the aisle know is that we cannot beat China and AI without computing power that is generated by data centers.

So how do Democrats, how would you advise Democrats to square that circle and handle the tension between the NIMBY concerns, right, the not-in-my-backyard concerns, and frankly, the imperative of national security for this country?

Well, so, one, let's take a step back.

The United States has technological advantages over China, but energy and power disadvantage.

China has all the energy and power, none of the technology.

So, they're mirror images of each other.

Number two, and there is a competition with China, number two, the data centers are a proxy for a lot of other challenges.

Now, having been in the, associated with AI, with a bunch of guys sitting around telling you that there's a 10% chance that the world's gonna come to an end, and then they are surprised the American people say, "Well, forget about it, okay?

Forget about it."

So, like, you guys got to think about this, not just from a marketing standpoint.

If that is even close to true, we got to proceed with caution.

Now, my third point is that, look, AI is going to be a double-edged sword.

There's going to be benefits, and there's going to be a lot of downside as well.

Now, we need to protect against the downside and maximize the upside.

Having been both a mayor and a chief of staff in the White House, you need to convene all the parties in place.

This is not going to just be in Congress.

That lays out the guardrails you want to see, the protections and rules of the competition, so that this is not just the marketplace.

Now, I come from the view there should be a kill switch.

Two, there should be a national emergency board.

Three, there should be a governing board that any new products is pretested.

And four, the ability on the tokens, a fee is established that goes back into helping people pay for their continual lifetime education.

Now, this is not a Democratic problem.

And a lot of Republican communities and a lot of Republicans, quote-unquote, "states" voted for restrictions.

So, therefore, there's actually a place for bipartisan consensus.

It is unfortunate, in my view.

The White House has been AWOL on the ability of leading on not just data centers, which is really a proxy for the whole AI debate.

So that's what I would do.

>> Yeah.

You are a Jewish American, a supporter of Israel.

You delivered a speech in Tel Aviv University earlier this year.

>> And you laid out a bold vision for the future of Israel's relationship with the United States and its allies.

The proposal included replacing... >> And the region.

>> And the region.

Replacing the two-state solution with a 23-state regional peace framework that holds Arab nations accountable for Palestinian governments, requires Israel to reject annexation of the West Bank, and integrates Israel economically and diplomatically into the Middle East, and ultimately ends U.S.

military aid to Israel.

My question for you, Mr.

Mayor, is how do you differentiate your position on Israel in contrast to others in your party who think Israel is an ethno-state guilty of genocide in Gaza and that advocate for a Palestinian right of return and a complete self-determination in a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital?

One, thank you for reading the speech, because a lot of your colleagues in your profession didn't.

So thank you for reading it thoroughly and actually understanding that the military aid, which the president just agreed to—I said it back in June, etc.—the president just adopted it, was only one pillar of a four-pillar strategy.

Now, my—I'm not trying to differentiate.

I actually think the alliance is worth saving.

It's a democracy in the region.

It's a true democracy.

And the alliance is worth saving.

And I was up front, saying that it cannot stand on the status quo.

It's failed.

Others may not think Israel should exist as a state.

That's not what my position is.

My position is we're going to change this alliance.

In 2013, Saudi Arabia put together an Arab League proposal that all the Arab nations would recognize Israel if they came to an agreement with the Palestinians.

Game on.

The Middle East countries want stability.

Israel wants security.

The Palestinians want sovereignty.

Coalesce that into a single strategy.

So to all the Arab countries that have said you recognize Israel, this is your proposal.

America's going to put its muscle behind it, but you're going to put your muscles behind it.

You're not just sending something in, and we do this.

You guys have to stand up a Palestinian partner who has three times rejected 98% of what they could get, and answered it not with, "Here's our counterproposal," but with violence on the streets of Tel Aviv.

Terrorism.

That's not how you negotiate peace.

Terrorism.

So I accept the Arab League's proposal.

America will adopt it, put its muscle behind it, but so will you.

You're gonna change from sitting on the sidelines to rolling up your sleeve and standing up a partner.

Israel, America has been by your side.

Every risk you take for peace will stand by your side.

But you cannot have a future, and we will not stand for a future where you are making the impossibility, not only for a two-state solution, but for a 23-state solution.

The entire wish of the original generation, of which my father was part of, was to be a nation among nations.

Now, you know this since you've done your homework.

In 2009, when I was the President's Chief of Staff, President Obama's Chief of Staff, I said to the Prime Minister, "What you're doing on the West Bank "will lead to perpetual conflict in the isolation of the State of Israel."

Two months after we had this kind of direct conversation, we'll say, he publicly accused me of being a self-loathing Jew.

Now, personally, I happen to think debating and questioning is the most Jewish thing you could do.

But that put that aside.

Eighteen years ago, OK, when other people never raised it, went along, I raised it directly to the prime minister.

And that was his response by calling me a self-loathing Jew.

Now, when I mentioned in that speech that you are now a territorial pariah, that was unheard of.

It was a debating point in Israel that they have basically become politically, economically, diplomatically, and strategically isolated.

The third point, which the president just adopted, which is no more U.S.

taxpayer aid, as I said, for military purchases, I said then.

You can buy it like any other U.K., Japan, South Korea, Dutch, Germans.

You can buy military weapons from the United States, no taxpayer money, but you live with the rules, requirements, and restrictions with every weapon, and we're going to enforce it.

And to all the banks, all the construction companies, all the individuals who are involved in illegal settlements in the West Bank, as it's established by international law and U.S.

law, you will be sanctioned.

And so to me, that is a comprehensive approach and a new set of rules.

It legitimizes the alliance, but sets it on a term that's sustainable both for the United States and Israel.

You don't want it.

That's your choice.

You live with that consequence.

This is us.

And now, a lot of people in the party don't believe in the state of Israel.

I disagree with them.

OK?

- Is there room in the Democratic Party for individuals who believe Israel's an ethnostate guilty of genocide and that the Palestinians should have complete self-determination and a state with Jerusalem as its capital?

- First of all, the parties, the United States' position, or at least—look, if you're thinking about what you know I'm thinking about running for the presidency, you've got to know something about the situation in the room.

>> Wait, I'm sorry.

Did you just say?

>> I said I'm thinking about it.

>> I think you're very tired.

I said you're thinking about running for the presidency.

>> But I've said it before, so don't act like-- >> You mostly run from that question.

>> No, no, okay.

No, wait a second.

You owe the country an explanation and a place.

And I said it then, and I'm going to repeat it to you.

We have fought two wars and lost thousands of Americans.

I'm not interested in a third war in the Middle East.

So you better have a plan, not just some cheap little line, etc.

And I went to Israel, out of respect, but to tell the Israeli public directly what I think.

I think if you're thinking about being in the Oval Office, it's only 200 feet from the Situation Room.

You better have an idea of what you're going to do around the world.

So I laid it out.

- How much are you thinking about the Oval Office?

- Well, right now, I'm not thinking about it at all in front of you.

But when I get off this, I'll tell you.

Look, I think about it.

It's not breaking news that I'm thinking about it, but I think more importantly than thinking about it, the last year was going around the country talking to people, understanding what is ailing America.

You don't normally, if you're thinking about running as a president, go to Hattiesburg, Mississippi, Vermillion Parish in Louisiana on education, because 50 percent of our kids cannot read at grade level, yet we have two states telling you how to get out of this morass.

Go to Tel Aviv or go to Berlin, or for that matter, do a bike trip across New Hampshire.

So I'm going to do it my way.

I want to think about what it takes, and I just say this to you.

November 16, I'm going to be at Carnegie Mellon University.

The president of the university asked me to come, and I'm going to give a major speech, how to grow the economy.

I reject the crony capitalism of Donald Trump and the corruption that has bastardized our economic system, and I reject redistribution.

I'm going to give a third way, which is a different way of approaching the problem of how to grow the pie and give the middle class a bigger slice that it's earned.

Carnegie University is, of course, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, the part of the state that, of course, turned Reagan Democrats towards the party and Trump as well.

- Well, that was Macomb County, Michigan, but yes, correct.

Yes.

>>> Well, and so I think that will be a very timely and symbolic place for you to start handing out your bumper stickers.

>> Listen, I do have one more question for you.

You know, in 1994, there was another very important midterm election when Newt Gingrich led the GOP to huge wins with his contract with America.

Three years later, Newt and the Republican caucus were in deep trouble.

Take a look at this clip from a Firing Line program with William F. Buckley Jr.

in 1997 called "Is Newt Permanently Damaged?"

When they came in '94, the Republicans basically went on an economic ticket.

And yet those are not the issues which are principally worrying people at the moment.

What worries people about this country is, I think, what one might call the fraying of America.

And it's to do with questions like affirmative action and quotas and like the English language issue and multiculturalism in general.

And they are issues which are lying out there for some entrepreneur to pick up, put together in an attractive political package and exploit.

And the problem is the Republicans are terrified of them.

He is the editor of National Review.

He's recommending that Republicans forget the economy, get back to social issues like affirmative action and multiculturalism.

The point is, Republicans went in this completely different direction than the one they ran on, and it came back on them.

How do Democrats, how do you recommend Democrats in this new opportunity not squander their chances?

- Look, there's a question that could dominate a whole show.

One, understand what happened here.

It's an opportunity you're getting a second look.

Don't overshoot the runway.

Know where the majority was made.

It was made in Kansas.

It was made in South Carolina.

It was made in Alaska.

It was made places we had not won before.

Second, know who participated in creating that majority.

In the House, it was in Reno.

It was in Omaha, Rochester, Minnesota, Kalamazoo, Michigan.

That's how you got to the majority.

Go prove people's bet on you right.

Don't overshoot the runway.

They took a bet on you.

They wanted to send a message to Donald Trump, who played him for fools, reaffirmed to them that this was the right bet, and I always say this, this election can be a transactional election or a transformational election.

We're gonna decide, and so be strategic and smart about it.

>> Rahm Emanuel, thank you for joining me on "Firing Line."

>> Thank you.

>> "Firing Line with Margaret Hoover" is made possible in part by... Robert Granieri, Vanessa and Henry Cornell, The Margaret and Daniel Loeb Foundation, The Beth and Ravenel Curry Foundation, Cliff and Laurel Asness, And by the following.

(upbeat music) You're watching PBS.

(guitar strum)