Braddock: Progress Without Gentrification

Today's guest is Sen. John Fetterman (D–Pa.), who just a decade ago looked like the future of Bernie Sanders–style populism, a tattooed Colossus clad in downscale hoodies and gym shorts who championed higher minimum wages, pot legalization, criminal justice reform, and more spending on social welfare programs. After 13 years as mayor of Braddock, Pennsylvania, one of the poorest towns in the state during his tenure, and a term as lieutenant governor of Pennsylvania, he beat physician Mehmet Oz for an open Senate seat in 2022.

But since coming to Washington, Fetterman has blazed a path in the Senate as unique and oversized as his frame, routinely criticizing members of his own party for "catering to the fringe and agitated parts of our base" and accusing them of antisemitism and suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome. He tells Nick Gillespie that the avowedly socialist politics of progressive Democrats like Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner (an actual "communist," declares Fetterman), Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson, and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani are alienating men and moderates and spell long-term doom for his party and the country.

Fetterman denounces both former President Joe Biden's failure to control the Southern border and President Donald Trump's antipathy toward legal immigration, says that entitlement reform is overdue and the national debt "is a ticking time bomb," and praises capitalism as the one system that has consistently improved living standards. He defends expansive military action against Iran and in defense of Ukraine, praises Israel for being the one functioning democracy in the Middle East, and calls for legalizing marijuana and psychedelics.

0:00—Are Democrats catering to the fringe?

4:32—Why did Fetterman support Sanders in 2016?

7:53—Immigration policy

16:15—Would Fetterman support a path to citizenship?

17:22—Drug legalization

20:12—Where has Trump failed?

21:57—Israel and Iran

26:04—Does Fetterman trust the Trump administration on Iran?

30:10—Democratic support for Israel

32:19—The limits of military intervention

38:36—The national debt

41:20—Entitlement reform

43:25—Braddock, Pennsylvania

45:50—Fetterman is a proud capitalist

Producer: Paul Alexander

Audio Mixer: Ian Keyser

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript. Check all quotes against the audio for accuracy.

Nick Gillespie: All right. OK. This is The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie. And my guest today is John Fetterman, the outspoken Democratic senator from Pennsylvania. 

Senator, good to talk with you.

John Fetterman: Yeah, well, thank you for the invitation to have a conversation. Yeah, absolutely. Oh, I love to have conversations with people all across the whole thing. And so, yes, it's a real pleasure.

OK. Well, we met 15 years ago on the set of Bill Maher's Real Time when you were merely the mayor of Braddock, Pennsylvania. Let me play a quick clip from that episode.

Bill Maher Clip [00:00:48 - 00:01:03]

Well, we continue to be style icons in our respective worlds. Beyond that, let's talk a little bit about what has changed in your politics. You recently wrote in The Washington Post that you're not going to be changing parties. People have said that, "Oh, you know, is he going to become a Republican or an independent?" But in the Washington Post piece, you did have critical words for your own party. You recently told Fox News, of all places, that the Democrats, "are an orgy of socialism." In your own piece, you wrote that, "the Democrats seem to be catering to the fringe and agitated parts of our base." What's going on with the Democratic Party that's upsetting you so much?

Well, let me just step back. I mean, I assume that you had the clip that, you know, all those years ago back on Real Time. Yeah. Yeah. I know that we had that, but I mean, is it fair to say that we reconnected online and then—like friends, and just, you know, it just moved on. So, I mean, most people weren't aware of that, the dust-up way back then. And ironically, just a couple of days ago, I was on the Real Time show. So a lot has changed since when you and I first encountered each other, and I was very eager, happy to have this conversation. So, you know, where we are right now, so if you could just, what's that question again? I really want to make sure.

You've told Fox News recently that the Democrats "are in an orgy of socialism." You wrote in The Washington Post that your party is "catering to its fringe and agitated parts of its base." What, you know, can you explain that a little bit more, and what do you think is driving that?

I mean, I think the extremism is driving it, without a doubt. I mean, look at the primaries all across in the Senate and in the House and look at the kinds of people that have already been elected. Like, for example, the mayor in Seattle, she's an absolute socialist, if not more. And now people, "Hey, I'm leaving," and she's like, "Bye." And just describe that kind of a thing. And then, of course, New York, that's its own situation too. And I thought DeSantis had a great line saying, you know, "Mamdani is my favorite real estate agent now." And it's driving people away. People can move and they can just vote, you know, with their feet. And that explains why Florida continues to flourish. But a lot of these states like New York and other blue states. We've read that $2 trillion have migrated out of these states too. So I don't think those are the kind of people that are the problem now. And if you make billionaires…you know, the Democratic Party is the problem, except they love the billionaires that fund those kinds of causes and those kind of organizations that are actually driving apart a lot of the protesting. And that's where that energy is as well. So look at some of the views now that people are espousing. So it's moving more and more in socialism and communism. I mean, in Maine, for example, Graham Platner, avowed communist. He described himself as a communist. Antifa, that's not a slur for me. That's not GOP kinds of hit. That's his own words, how he described that.

Can I ask you, what about your own personal evolution then? Because in 2016, you endorsed Bernie Sanders in the primaries for the Democratic Party. He's an avowed democratic socialist or a socialist at various points, he's called himself. You know, what is it that rubbed you the wrong way about socialists or communists?

Well, I mean, in 2016, it was much more about the minimum wage and some other very basic kinds of things. And now that's just turned into much more standing with Cuba, standing with Venezuela, standing with the Iranian regime, and turn that into much more— becoming more increasingly anti-American, for me. So my views really haven't changed that much. Things that I supported, I was very supportive about gay rights, you know, thing. Back in 2013, even before you and I, well, it would have been a couple years later. Yeah, you know, I was officializing a gay marriage when that was illegal. And I was happy to get arrested on that. So my views really haven't changed. What's really changed is the party. And in 2024, I was campaigning for Kamala Harris there as a Democrat, very clear we were going to lose and a lot of the excesses that we've had in 2020 came back to revisit, and that really, I think, cost us that election in 2024.

I'm sorry, Nick, let me say. The excess of the party back then summoned the second term of the Trump administration.

Yeah. You've said that the Democratic Party has become anti-man or anti-men. 

Yeah. 

What forms does that take? And again, I mean, you can say, "OK, well, extremists in the party are driving it," but what is the motivating factor? Like, you know, what is going on that people are lurching, Democrats are lurching very far to the left in terms of economic policy, but also identity politics?

Well, if you make someone feel uncomfortable or unwelcome, they will leave. And they've done that. Back in 2016, I've witnessed that. I lived directly across the street from a steel mill in the union hall. And I was doing an event for Secretary Clinton at that time. And I was asking the union president, "Well, where's your people on that?"  And he's like, "At least half, half if not more, are in Trump." And there was just coincidentally a guy in a big truck drove by and he honked, "Ha ha ha, go Trump, go Trump." And he had truck nuts on the trailer and had a Trump sticker. And I'm like, you know, clearly that's what's already well underway. And now I think we effectively can count that a lot of those traditional union members have already left the Democratic Party. And that's where we are. And it's been a serious realignment of parts of our base. And I think that's driving some of the more extreme things of our party now too.

On a rhetorical basis, you said that Trump is plain-spoken. And that's a charitable way of saying it. When he announced to run for president, he said, "I'm not politically correct." And then he launched into a diatribe against Mexicans being rapists and drug dealers and things like that. But is part of it that Trump doesn't? I mean, it's hard to say. I was going to say that he doesn't bullshit because half of the things he says are just completely made up, but that he is blunt and says what he means.

Yeah, well, uses and engage in things that I would never engage on that. Just a couple of hours before we are now have this conversation, he put an image of Democrats in sewage, you know, in the reflecting pool there, here in Washington, D.C. I don't do those kinds of things. I don't support those things. But I also think it's kind of ridiculous to heckle him over $13 million to rehab that. I mean, that's just kind of small ball, for me. But let's talk about immigration, you know, we absolutely, the Democratic Party became an open-border party. That used to be like a GOP slur. But then you realize those numbers. It really was. I mean, you had 300,000 people showing up at our border every month. That's the size of Pittsburgh, where I live in that area. So, you know, I try to describe that to my party. This is a serious problem. And people are angry and all of our blue cities have become overwhelmed. New York, Chicago, Denver, Boston, all those were overwhelmed with migrants. I was a Democrat being very, very pro-immigration, as I remain that. But we have to secure our border and now deport all the criminals. I don't—

Yeah, let me ask about this because this draws a distinction not just between Trump and the Democrats but you and many Democrats. So the border is secure and actually Biden in his last year basically secured the southern border. What is the best policy toward making legal immigration easier and having a higher volume? Because Trump has cut legal immigration. He's, you know, they're the INS or, you know, the CBP and ICE are going after people that are here legally. You know, they're violent at times, but just overall in terms of numbers, in terms of H-1Bs, in terms of regular visas and green cards, in terms of students coming here to study from abroad, you know, Trump is exceptionally anti-immigrant. 

What is a better policy once we presume that the border is secure?

Well, I mean, real chaos for me and immigration, we became that as in our party, without a doubt. Not a single Democrat could identify what's the solution. You know, well, what do you do with 300,000 people showing up at the border every month? People were living at the airport in Boston. You know, New York City spent $8, $9 billion to house and take care of those people and secure the border. And yeah, the Biden administration finally made some changes. They should have already had them in place already. Why not secure the border? Because I think they were afraid of the party and that would be anti-immigration or racist for those other kinds of things. So now we think what's appropriate, now secure the border, deport all the criminals. And I was the Democratic lead for the Laken Riley Bill. Now I agree, I agree for Renée Good or Alex Pretti, but I also agree for Laken Riley or Miles Young and other people that were victimized by people that should have never been here or already should have been deported because after they broke the law.

Yeah, but that's easy, right? I mean, in a way, it's easy to say, "OK, yeah, and somebody who's here illegally and causes a violent crime, they should be deported, they should be imprisoned and or deported immediately." But what do we do about, you know, I mean you would know this in western Pennsylvania, I lived in southwestern Ohio, when people stop moving to a place or people start moving out, you need to have new people moving into places. What is a good, viable, legal immigration system that will help American communities thrive, businesses thrive, the economy thrive, as well as the culture?

Well, we have the most generous and the largest immigration program of any country in the world already. And people and immigrants are coming to Pennsylvania. Look in parts of Pennsylvania, like in Redding, and the Lehigh Valley, across our state now. The immigrant community is actually driving a lot of those economies all across Pennsylvania. And also agriculture is our top industry in Pennsylvania. Targeting and going after these workers is absolutely wrong. I've spoke out against that too. You know, I don't know why, you know, why would you, you know, don't, don't, don't harass and target otherwise lawful people that are just working hard. No, I agree with that. I think we should protect our Dreamers too. My wife was a Dreamer. And again, that's the thing, you reference what's easy. It's like, no, that's common sense. It's not easy. That's common sense. We betrayed those basic kinds of standards as a party. And now the Republicans, Trump has betrayed those in the same common-sense standard, you know, and have the kind of calamity in Minneapolis, things that I'd never support those kinds of things. I became the only Democrat that I voted for Markwayne Mullin for the next secretary. You know, Noem was a disaster. I called for her to go. Absolute disaster that she is for…So I'm working with Markwayne. Markwayne promised, "I'm not gonna be the guy in the headlines." And there aren't any headlines not to. You don't have the kinds of tragedies of Minneapolis right now. Finding the right way forward, for me, that's where I think me and the vast majority of Americans will be too. Calling balls and strikes, saying, the Democrats, we absolutely became the open-border. And the Republicans, you can't turn into like a twisted theater like what happened in Minneapolis now too. And targeting, you know, migrants that are a vital part of our economy as well too. And that's finding a way forward, now that's driven by the extremes, you know, in my party and on the other side as well too.

Yeah, what do you have to say to Republicans who are, including senators, people like Eric Schmitt from Missouri, who go on and on about being heritage Americans or talking about how, you know, the real Americans are the people who trace their heritage back here to, you know, sometime before the Civil War. Is that any way to build a viable nation going forward?

Yeah, I mean, we all have our own different views for that. But for me, my family is a product of immigration, illegal immigration. My views on that haven't changed ever. And now that's why we have to find a way forward. You know, please, let me say 27 years ago, I had Alan Simpson, you know, as a professor at KSG, and he said, "You are never going have any meaningful immigration, legal, legalization on, for just some kinds of thing, because both sides use it and they weaponize it, you know, against things." And that was absolutely true thing. So finding a way forward, it's too valuable for the extremists to blame the immigrants or to say that immigration is all without, we could just open up our border to, you know? It's about necessary to find a common-sense approach and rejecting the extreme things.

Do you support a path to citizenship for people who are here illegally, who enter the country illegally, but have been living here and have not been arrested for any kind of serious crime? Would that be one thing that you would support?

Yeah, I mean, I think that was part of a deal years ago, and that was derailed too, became too. Right now, the base in our respective parties punish people that wanna have a serious conversation about that. That's where we're constantly, we are now. I absolutely knew we were gonna get rolled for the bipartisan border deal back in '23 and '24. Because there's no way you're going to provide those two valuables on both sides. That's what happened about immigration. And here we are, that's where we are right now. And thankfully, they are coming back and they're taking more reasonable advice. And I don't see my friend Markwayne in the headlines and you don't have the kinds of spectacles that we witnessed earlier in the year.

You in your recent Washington Post piece, you also said that you remain strongly pro-choice, and pro-weed. Are you going to introduce or is there any federal movement to actually legalize marijuana or change the drug laws so that, you know, states can experiment with saying this is legal or this, you know, opening things up more?

I mean, I really am very, very libertarian in a lot of ways and for those circumstances. If you check my record, I've been for legal weed for forever in that. Politically, that was toxic or certainly not popular. And also psychedelics too. Back then too, when I was LG…Pennsylvania, that's the mushroom king in the world. That is the fact. And I said, "My goodness, why? Couldn't this be like a really like a great opportunity for agriculture and helping people feeling better about that?" Thankfully, you know, I think we could all agree everything that President Trump has done about liberalizing marijuana and psychedelics and now too. As a libertarian I don't judge or knock anyone for whatever that they knock their edge off to just make it through in this world. I absolutely support Zyn and those things as long as it's legal, safe too. I think that's important. That's a choice that every American of legal age deserves to have, that and to participate in a way that doesn't turn them into a criminal or a judge or for those things make it as safe as possible. I think that's sacred too. Whatever that is. A glass of wine or scotch or sip a little weed, whatever, sitting in front of the fire pit in your backyard. Whatever that is. I think your path for wellness, psychedelics, whatever. I think it all should be legal without judgment and without punishment or a criminal record. I've been very consisting about that and sharing those things. So I do hope it continues to liberalize for that, overall. 

You have said a lot of good things about Trump so far because he's, you know, he's talked about rescheduling marijuana and he and Bobby Kennedy, health and human services secretary, talking a lot about legalizing—

You made a great point, MAHA, MAHA, absolutely. Don't fuck with vaccinations overall. I think overall, I do believe in the science of that, but I think it's a great thing too. Like I saw that new pyramid, that inverted thing. I think, eat more real food. OK, I support that.

I like the bioslop. You said you're, you know, you are pro–rib eye over bioslop. I kind of like both. But I can go with you. Tell me what you dislike about Trump. What is the worst thing? Because, you know, one of the weird things going into these midterms is that at the start of the year Gallup asked Americans, "How do you identify?" 27 percent said, "I consider myself a Republican," but only 27 percent said, "I'm a Democrat." But Trump, like, what is it about Trump that most gets you, you know, mad and angry? Like, what are the Republicans doing most wrong, as far as you're concerned?

If I'm disappointed in the president, he invited me to have dinner and sat down with him in January of 2025. He just came back from the most remarkable political comeback in American history, as far as I'm aware of. And he was sitting, his power was peak, and he could have done a lot of big, big important things. And I don't know why. I mean, he got a second chance in every kind of way. My God, he was shot in the head. Half an inch over, that could have turned that into a Zapruder tape, you know, thank God, thank God how divisive we've become. So I don't know why he chose some of these choices when he could have done so much more, rather than making it more…I mean, technically he did make about revenge and those things. You know, the strongest of these small petty kinds of cases, the strongest one I can cite is the guy that threw the sandwich at the dude. You know, I mean, I don't know why you engage in that. There's no upside for those things. Those cases never go anywhere. But I absolutely support, I was proud. I stand with Israel and that's why I follow him now too.

Yeah, talk about Israel. Why you—you've talked about how getting rid of the Iranian regime or it's not getting rid of them, you know, minimizing their power because they're a state sponsor of terrorism not just in the Middle East but throughout the world, that makes, you know, that's one thing. But do you support a war for regime change or boots on the ground in Iran?

Well, what I really think is whether that terrible regime remains. And now I think what's important is if they are nuclear power or not. And taking that from them. That's the defining thing for me. It would be wonderful if that regime changed. Absolutely. But regardless, as long as they're not a nuclear power, it's severely limited to their ability to do those destructive things. I mean, they were Hezbollah, Hamas, and Houthis as well too. Without a doubt, they are one of the world's leading terrorism underwriter. It's entirely appropriate to address that. Every single president. Do you—

Do you think we should be continue bombing them, or do you think the war in Iran is, you know, what is the American endpoint? When do we declare victory? Is it clear to you what the objective is, and how will we know when we reached it? How do you factor in the cost of a war like that?

A nuclear Iran is much more expensive than any of the costs that we've incurred thus far in the Iranian war, without a doubt. So I think it's entirely appropriate to continue to strangle the Iranian regime now. And also, I think China should feel that pain as well too. China has the ability to just immediately demand that they turn it over, and then now we can all move on back to the peace. What's strange to me is if people in the world are more angry at Trump or Americans versus Iran. Where is not a global outcry and demand? Iran must not ever become a nuclear facility. I stand with America here and now too. The world is more safe, more stable, especially in the region without an Iranian, a nuclear Iranian. Every single American president wanted to prevent North Korea to turning it into nuclear power, and they failed. But thankfully, they don't have the same kind of leverage over the world as the Iranians do have with oil and in that region too. But—

But do you think Trump, I mean, you know, however this ends, is it gonna be a better deal than what Obama brokered, you know, more than a decade ago?

Well, what was brokered back there is they have a strong military and they continue to build their capabilities to strike Europe and well also Israel and also American assets too. So it's much different now, destroying the nuclear facilities as they did. I was the only Democrat that supported Midnight Hammer. Why not? Why is that controversial? You know, Kamala Harris. When she was running for president in the fall of '24, "Iran, Iran is my top concern here, internationally." And now you have an opportunity to strike it with our capabilities. I supported that, why not? Because my party and I do believe the contempt and hate for Trump exceeds the concerns and anger that they have against the Iranians right now. It's dangerous for me as a nation that we have our militaries become— there's no bipartisan anymore, and now we're engaged…We don't have to agree with every facet of Midnight Hammer or what's happening now in Iran, but we should all be behind, standing behind our military. And I think we can't forget why we were there in the first place. Iran are the bad guys. We are the force of good. And I fundamentally, I do believe that.

Let me just a real quick question. You know, Trump bombed Iranian nuclear facilities a year ago and said absolutely definitively, he said publicly that we destroyed their nuclear program. You know now he's saying, "OK, well, we did it again." How are we to trust what's coming out of the Trump White House? If, you know, they do the same operation twice, etc., like. There are serious questions, aren't there? About the legitimacy or the accuracy of the statements that he's saying, "We don't know really anything that's going on in Iran right now." And I assume you obviously have better information than a typical American, but I mean, do you trust people like Pete Hegseth? Do you trust Donald Trump? Do you trust who are known either to be liars or to just kind of make a lot of stuff up?

Well, I mean, that's what Reagan said, "Trust, but verify." I want to see that. But a hundred percent I trust, you know, the Trump administration, the administration and Trump a hell of a lot more than I would ever trust the Iranians or the Chinese or the Russians or for any of that thing, to be honest. We are all Americans too. That's what we're, that's what we are forgetting. You know, the Democratic Party can't become the TDS party. We cannot be defined by the exact opposite, and we have to oppose every single kind of a thing. And clearly that's where we are right now. So in terms, do I trust us? Yes, I do trust that. I do, trust those people. And I have similar views on focusing in to prevent Iran becoming a nuclear power. Every single Democrat also agreed with it now too. That does not mean you agree on every tactic that's happened. I don't appreciate the gamification of the Iranian war. I don't agree with some of these bizarre things that he'll say on social media now too. I don't engage that too. But I do trust them because we are the Americans and I'm never gonna trust the Iranians. That's why— produce their nuclear material. And I think that's, what's a win? I think Europe and the world says, "That's not our war." Well, does your country consume oil? Yeah, well then that makes it your war. And if you've, you know, so many countries have cared so much about the war in Gaza, well, then why not, why can't you just say Iran? All of this was at the cause of the Iranians right now. So let's talk about the cost. Yeah, it's real expensive for America right now, but that's a noble cause to just hold Iran regime accountable for the mass chaos, murder, and destruction that they've underwritten for decades.

Your pro-Israel position, you know, it's, you know, certainly the Republican Party is very pro-Israel, most of the Democrats are as well, but the share of the American population that supports Israel seems to be declining, you know, with every passing year. What is the national security interest in a strong or unwavering defense of Israel?

Well, and I'm not sure if I agree with everything you said, the Democratic Party is becoming increasingly anti-Israel.

Oh no, they are, but still a majority of Democrats vote for continued aid, military and otherwise.

Nick, respectfully, that's just not true. Polling, as about 8 percent of Democrats have Israel and as a negative or very negative views on Israel too. So what's our interest? Well, I mean, that's history and that's our responsibility. That's our special ally. History has demonstrated that if you don't stand and defend the Jewish community and the world, terrible, terrible things can happen. And they do have that things. Not that long ago, 80 years is not that long ago. Israel is essentially a brand new nation as we are too. We're 250 years this year. So that's the kinds of entirely appropriate things to stand on that side. Same with Ukraine as well. Same as Taiwan, the Chinese clearly are eyeing up Taiwan. You know, these are democracies I mean, this is a global fight for democracy versus autocracy and darkness too. So that's part of the big struggle and that's why it's entirely appropriate to support these things. Israel is remarkable. What they've created in the middle of that region, all of you and I and everyone here in this country want democracy and those very personal freedoms that does not exist in any of these other countries except Israel. So I do think there's a security issue for now as an American. And that's why it counts a lot more than just because it's more expensive for gas right now.

What is your, when it comes to foreign policy, I mean, we're talking 20, 25 years after just very long expanse of wars for regime change and nation building and everything in America that did not work. You just reeled off a bunch of countries that we should defend to the bitter end. What is your stopping point for American involvement in terms of military intervention? Because, you know, and this is not a Republican or a Democratic issue, you know, the American people are tired of the United States playing the world's policeman. You know what, is there a stopping point for you on that?

Yeah, I mean, you know, the public conversations become flooded with like slop of phrases like, "Endless wars, endless wars." I mean this is not an endless war and neither….So it's not comparable to Iraq or these other things. Well, what I'm saying right now, we have a nuclear power at the cusp and it's entirely appropriate to hold them accountable for what they've done. And clearly a lot of people in the world cares and had strong opinions on Gaza. Well, then why don't you have the same strong, the same kinds of views and condemn Iran too? So in terms of Taiwan or in terms of Ukraine, I think it's very un-American to just roll over and don't care what happens to our allies. I'm not an isolationist, but I absolutely think it's important to stand on the side of democracy and basic human rights. The same people that were outraged, outraged about the war in Gaza, they gave no fucks about Iran executing 30,000, 40,000 of its young people. There are zero, zero college campuses…

Why do you think that is? Like what I mean, is it antisemitism? Is it brainwashing? Is it just is it, you know, domestic partisan advantage? What would drive people to care that much about Gaza and then not care about Iranian protesters being killed?

Oh, it's because the rifles weren't in the hands of, they weren't in Jewish hands. You know, it's like I don't, I really, I don't care. But that's— the antisemitism. And yeah, part of that too. And what's happened? Perhaps we have similar views. The indoctrination that's what's occurred, you know, in our American universities, too, overall. So without a doubt, my party's become intensely anti-Israel. And it's strange, strange to me, the most progressive part of the American conversation, we won't stand and we will betray the one single nation in the region that has the kinds of values and lives the way it has.

Do you think any, is any activity by Israel, you know, responsible for shifts in American attitudes toward Israel or is it all just antisemitism and, you know, kind of collegiate brainwashing?

Oh, I think they hide behind, they hide behind language. Well, you know, Zionism, you know, and I do think without a doubt it's been a place where why? If you're, you know, if you're picking a side, pick a side. Democrats increasingly are going to criticize Israel, not Iran, and demand holding Iran accountable or Hezbollah. No, no, no, Hezbollah. You know, "Hey, we'll give up," you and I, no one would, you know, I recently met with a bunch of Israeli politicians and other people and I said, "Hey how many of you in the room have had to go to your personal bombing shelters?" Every hand went up. Yeah. No, I didn't have to. I've heard those alarms when I was in Israel, but we in our country would never ever tolerate this kind of a thing. Take them out. Isn't the way war, the way it works? Is that two people engage and one side submits now that's, that's not vicious. That's just the way war works. Hamas, as Hamas. "OK, we're going to disarm, you know, we're gonna decide to live in peace." Hezbollah, let's do the same thing. Iranian too. Who is the bad actor in this? Definitely not Israel. Definitely isn't American. Definitely Russia is and providing so is that kind of intelligence. Of it and absolutely Iran is too. Where is the bad guy in this?

Is the main reason not to directly attack Russia because that would be logistically difficult? Or I'm trying to get a better read on the principles behind your foreign policy.

I mean, yeah, I mean we're not going to engage in a nuclear war for that. Thankfully, Russia understands that too. But that's why they are unable to gain in the Ukrainians. And war, war has been redefined the way the Iranians had to do. I absolutely support, I support supporting the Iranians through this. And that's to me about the big, big, big important kinds of wars. You know, it does matter. Look at that iconic satellite photo of the Korean Peninsula. Dark, dark at night, an absolute dystopia nightmare. And southern is a thriving, thriving, vital democracy…on the South too. You know significant sacrifices were made, including my grandfather as well too. So that's what's really important and that's history right now. Thankfully, Japan is a remarkable nation now, Germany as well too. All of these civilians realized and they turned their back to their warlike behavior and say, "Let's build more democracy and let's built more fair, equitable and stop attacking and trying to destroy core universal human rights."

In the last year, spending, federal spending was the equivalent of 23 percent of GDP. Tax revenue, overall revenue was 17 percent. It's been that kind of gap for a long time. We had like a $1.7 trillion deficit last year. The national debt is bigger than the annual economy. You are a proponent of spending lots of money or having the government be very robust and muscular and helping people. How do you, is national debt or federal annual deficits, are those a problem? And if so, how do we bring that number together?

Yeah, without a doubt, the national debt is a ticking bomb. Well, without a doubt, we are going to have to address that. We are going have to deal with entitlements. We have to do all these kinds of and honest conversations, without a doubt. That's going to require bipartisanship. That's gonna demand that we remember we're all Americans. We have defined solutions here. That's what we're here now, but unfortunately here in this town right now, we are doing just dumb, pointless things. Shutting down our government. You know, like I was the only Democrat that said, "That's dumb and terrible. Why would you shut down our entire government because we aren't able to win enough elections to make the kind of changes that we all want to?"

Do you support ending the Senate filibuster? This has come up a lot. Donald Trump wants to get rid of the filibuster. You, I believe, have spoken positively about getting rid of the filibuster.

No, yeah, we Democrats, we were so wrong about eliminating the filibuster. I was wrong too. I'll be the first person to say we were so wrong. Thank God people prevailed. And I think history vindicated someone like Sinema and Manchin to stand for that. If the Senate becomes a smaller version of the House, that would have profound, profound changes that are going to damage our nation, without a doubt.

So we need the filibuster, the filibuster should stay in place?

Oh, yeah, absolutely 100 percent. Same Democrats— we seem to forget we all wanted to get rid of it. But now we love that shit. Now we love the filibuster, you know, thank God. Thank God the filibuster. So I'm not surprised that the president is going to come for the filibuster because that's the one thing that stands in a way before they lose the majority. Without a doubt, without a doubt the House is going to change. The Senate's possible perhaps. I don't know. But I mean, the backlash, the chaos, and the other thing, without a doubt, there is going to be a lot of, there's a lot churn and we'll have the majority.

What is your preferred way of reforming entitlements? Things like Social Security and especially Medicare are what are driving, you know, the national debt and annual budget deficits. Should these programs be cut to, so that they're more of a safety net, or should the taxes be raised higher than they are currently or what, what is your preferred solution to entitlement reform?

Well, when I was at grad school, they had a comprehensive, two-week node to study Social Security. And now it was solvent through to 2037. And way, way back in 1998, that felt like we'd be living on the moon and other things. Now here, that's starting to approach. It just required very small, small actuarial kinds of changes for that thing. Now, insolvent does not mean broke, broke, it just means at that point, you could pay 75% of current benefit levels right now. Just agreeing as a Democrat, Republican, I'm not gonna weaponize this conversation against one another, and we're not gonna scare the elderly Americans and say, "You're trying to destroy, you're tryin' to do that thing." You know, we have to be the, we, Congress, has to be adult in the room. We refuse to do that. People are running right now, "Fuck Trump, fuck Trump," that is their campaign. They are producing these kinds of videos to do that thing. It's both sides. Congress, we have to be the adult in the room and solve these serious problems. I'm here to be in that conversation as a Democrat that's been isolated in my party for some of these views and the same guy that doesn't engage in some of the extreme AI slop in the kind of social media kinds of thing from the other side too. That's where I'm at. And having conversations with the left, the right, and here with you too, I'm all thrilled to just have this, a real conversation about where we are.

Let me close with a question about Braddock, Pennsylvania, where you were the mayor. It's a town of about 1,500 or 1,700 people. When you were the mayor, it was the poorest town in America. And I remember, you know, after we had our little contretemps on the show, we talked after the show and, you know, via Twitter and whatnot. And you said something that has stayed with me, that mostly what you were doing there was administering palliative care. That the town was probably not gonna come back, there was not gonna be a big renaissance. Can you bring us up to date, what is Braddock like now? And what are the policies that would be most beneficial to the people in Braddock so that they can live their lives out with some dignity, but especially that their children or their grandchildren actually have thriving lives. Has that nut been cracked, do you think?

Yeah, I mean, you know, when you and I met all those years ago, I still live there. I have three children and they live there and now effectively, they were actually all born there. They were all born in Braddock. And, you know, we working—both the Biden administration and the Trump administration to save the steel, the American steel way of life here, right there across the mill that I live now too. We were able to save a lot of the buildings in town too. We had created some more affordable housing. It's not a renaissance. I mean, when I arrived, 90% of all that stuff was gone already. And during my time as mayor, I was very proud to address gun violence and we were successful in achieving those things too. Giving a shit about these kinds of abandoned places. You know, that was really became my argument. It was never about money, power. No one ever showed up in a place like Braddock trying to help kids get GEDs for those things. I never thought I would be ending up here in the United States Senate for now, but that's where I am. That's still my home. I could have moved. I could've at any point, but I live there and things are better than they was when I arrived significantly, but certainly it's not, you know, it's never going to be a gentrification. You know, it's abandonment and that remains a significant problem. Of course.

Is there a tension between, you know you would, I think you would consider yourself a big government liberal. You think, you know, government should be heavily involved in people's lives and, you know, providing money and opportunities, right?

No, I would never, I would never describe myself in that way. You know, there are, there are importance. They're important problems that a government is necessary to address those things. Government is not the solution for all things. I absolutely, I'm a capitalist. I absolutely revere, I revere the market and how it's able to correct and redirect these kinds of resources, to me. I think things continue to get better and better, you know, despite the churn and a lot of the chaos. And before, before….Trying to find a way forward. It's easy to just square up, you know, Democrats skins, skins, shirts, whatever that you wanna describe that, you know trying to live in the middle of that, trying to find a better way forward and calling balls and strikes. That's how I live, that's how I behave and that's why it's gonna remain.

So is, I mean, I guess what I was getting at, is there a tension between having a lot of things like protectionism, a high tariff so that native industries, domestic industries, can stick around longer maybe, but then that raises prices? Like, how do you have a true kind of capitalist germ? Because things are always, it's always creative destruction. The industries that you were born into are not going to exist forever. How do you do that in a way that minimizes the disruption but doesn't end the change that is necessary to kind of renew not just regions or towns but whole countries?

Well, I mean, that's a complicated answer that it's not really going to just be able to just rip one off. But for me, I'm a very pro-capitalist Democrat that I refuse to engage in the extreme rhetoric and the kinds of behavior and support the kinds of extremism and throw around those stupid terms like, "end stage capitalism." Without a doubt in human history, capitalism has been the only system that has proven to raise the life….the quality of life across the globe. That's a fact. And now thankfully we were able to prevail here in our nation.

Senator John Fetterman, thanks for talking to Reason. It's good to see you.

Yeah, Nick, thanks for having me back here.

The post John Fetterman: 'I'm a Very Pro-Capitalist Democrat' appeared first on Reason.com.