Say More podcast: Is woke dead? Is Maura Healey in trouble?

Here are three takeaways from the show.

For many conservatives, the story was catnip because it highlighted what they consider the worst excesses of progressive cancel culture, Joan noted.

“It showcased everything they hate about what they think the left stands for,” Joan noted. “This sort of extreme view that if you aren’t mandated to wear a mask one night a week, that this is some huge transgression stomping on people’s rights. And it became, in a way, a parody of that kind of situation.”

For progressives, the piece resonated because it described people and situations familiar to them, said Abdallah, who likened its plot to an episode of the satirical TV series “Portlandia.” But Abdallah also argued that cancel culture is probably not dead, and indeed might be thriving on the right.

“When you look at the MAGA movement, they are just as extreme in what they tolerate as dissent,” he said.

We’re used to hearing about crucial swing states in the Midwest and elsewhere that hold the key to control of Congress or the White House. But this year, New Hampshire and Maine have two of the nation’s most closely contested US Senate races where the outcomes could decide whether Republicans hold onto the upper chamber. (It seems more than likely Democrats will win back the House.)

In New Hampshire, Abdallah noted that the Republican candidate, John Sununu, has great name recognition because he once held the seat and is also scion of the Sununu political dynasty. Whether that is enough to overcome anti-Trump sentiment is perhaps the central issue.

“This is a seat that Democrats really need to hold onto if they have any hope of flipping the Senate,” Abdallah said.

In Maine, hopes of defeating the Republican incumbent, Susan Collins, are in jeopardy, with recent polls showing her slightly ahead. Collins, seeking her sixth term, has always been a tough campaigner. Can she overcome anger that she voted to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who then voted to overturn Roe v. Wade?

Joan said the fact that Maine continues to protect abortion rates might dilute the issue for many voters. “If people just think of their own self-interest, they’ll say, ‘Sure, she made a bad decision, but it really doesn’t affect me now,’” Joan said.

The congressman, who was trounced by Markey in the Democratic primary, declined to say he had any regrets about his campaign. Should he have tried harder to separate himself from Markey’s steadfastly progressive line? Was he wrong to note that Markey is mentioned in the Jeffrey Epstein files? Could he have done more to explain his comments about transgender athletes playing girls’ sports?

The answer to each was effectively: I ran the best campaign I could.

“I think voters deserve a choice in elections, and I’ve always said it’s time for a new generation of leaders in the Democratic Party,” he said. “But obviously, I failed to make that case effectively to Democratic primary voters in Massachusetts.”

Moulton says he is mulling opportunities in both public service and the private sector when he leaves Congress at the end of the year. “I love Massachusetts and would be honored to find different ways to serve again in the future,” he said.

He also seems intent on remaining active in national Democratic affairs, and will be campaigning for congressional candidates around the country.

And he has some advice for Democrats if they win back the House: End the war in Iran; bring down the cost of things; hold the Trump administration accountable for corruption; and articulate a compelling agenda on the economy, immigration, health care, and other pressing issues.

Subscribe to “Say More” on YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts.

The following is a lightly edited transcript of the October 1 episode of “Say More.”

Jim Dao: Welcome to “Say More” from Boston Globe Opinion. I’m Jim Dao, the Opinion editor. Primary season is finally over, and now we’re racing toward the general election on Nov. 3. Massachusetts has a lively race for governor, and New England has some close races that could determine which party controls the US Senate.

With me to discuss both those contests are Globe opinion columnists Joan Vennochi and Abdallah Fayad.

Before we get to those races, let’s discuss the biggest story of the past week, which caused a buzz not just in Massachusetts, but across the country.

I’m talking, of course, about The Last Ditch Bar, a little lesbian bar in Greenfield, Massachusetts that had all kinds of controversy.

Abdallah, could you tell us a little bit about that?

Abdallah Fayyad: The story by our colleague at Globe Magazine, Annalisa Quinn, I think was a great magazine story, a perfect kind of slice of life story.

It tells the story of a COVID-conscious lesbian bar in Greenfield, Massachusetts, that chose to lift its mask mandate once a week, and as Annalisa put it, after that announcement, all hell broke loose.

Dao: This story was so fascinating, in part because it was the most viral story the Globe has had in years.

I think nearly a million people read it. It brought in something like 10,000 subscribers. It broke all kinds of records for the Globe, and everybody thought it was a really interesting story when they read it at first, but I don’t think anybody expected it to go this viral.

One of the interesting phenomena people have noticed about it is that it seemed to really draw engagement from both conservatives and liberals and all kinds of people in the middle, and I was wondering if the two of you might talk a little bit about why you think that might be.

What is it that got conservatives really fascinated in this? What is it that got liberals and progressives really fascinated, and sometimes outraged, about it?

Joan Vennochi: I’ll also say that I think it cuts across generational lines. I’ll be honest, I didn’t pay attention to the story initially, and my daughter brought my attention to it. When something in the Boston Globe catches her eye, I’m like “What is this story?” So that made me go back and read it.

As far as the political breakdown, for conservatives, it showcased everything they hate about what they think the left stands for, right? This sort of extreme view that if you aren’t mandated to wear a mask one night a week, that this is some huge transgression stomping on people’s rights.

And it became, in a way, a parody of that kind of situation, so I think that was the attraction for conservatives. For progressives or liberals, I think it showcased this idea that AOC said, “Woke 1 is over.”

So it stimulated a debate along those lines.

Fayyad: Yeah, I completely agree. When I read that story, it sounded to me like if a conservative writer was trying to write a parody of liberal America, that’s what it would look like.

It was like an episode from “Portlandia” almost [or] a sketch from “Portlandia.” On the other hand, I think the reason it struck such a chord with progressives and people on the left as well and why it was entertaining, was that a lot of the characters in the story are somewhat familiar.

I think people know characters like this in their lives, in their social circles, [and] especially in activist circles. I think that this character kind of exists in progressive movements. I think the reason it was maybe entertaining was because it was a little bit more extreme than people are used to.

I think people can identify that type of character, maybe not to that extent. Obviously I know a lot of people who have purity tests for all these different political ideas. But they’re not that extreme. So I think it was just putting it under the microscope, and this is what it looks like on the extreme.

And I think that brought people a lot of joy, picking it apart that way.

Vennochi: I don’t think you can underestimate the fact that it came from The Boston Globe. Just that old journalistic line, “Man bites dog, dog bites man.” It was a man bites dog story coming from the Globe, which is pretty much viewed as a left [leaning] publication from other parts of the world.

So I don’t know it would’ve been quite as viral or as interesting coming from another publication.

Dao: One of the ideas that’s out there in the ether regarding this story is the idea that this shows that woke is dead. What do we think of that idea? Do we think that’s true or is its death being proclaimed too early?

Fayyad: What do you think, Joan?

Vennochi: You’re woke-er than I am.

Dao: I should just say maybe woke is the wrong word, but cancel culture is dead.

Vennochi: There’s a lot of discussion right now about the whole thing of how much woke is too much woke, and I think what Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez did in that interview, [where] she seemed like she was trying to separate herself from some of the more extreme wokeism of the post-COVID era.

I think people are testing the limits and a lot of it is cast around the Democratic Party and how it defines itself. I don’t know that it’s dead, but I think there’s a lot of debate right now about whether it’s on life support.

Fayyad: It doesn’t necessarily say anything about where wokeism is or whether cancel culture still exists, or anything particularly new about the left because I think this kind of politics that we see at the Last Ditch Bar exists on all sides of the political spectrum.

When you look at the MAGA movement, they are just as extreme in what they tolerate as dissent. [It] looks different and their rules are different, but they really don’t leave any room for dissent within their movement or within their communities and people are ostracized.

We’re talking about a political reality where a lot of families are broken up over political disagreements. And people are shunned from their communities because of their political disagreements. People are shunned from their communities because they’re gay still in this country.

I think that exists in all kinds of politics being practiced around the country. And I think maybe part of the reason this story resonated so much was maybe it was like holding up the mirror and saying, “This is what you look like when you are so intolerant of any different views of your own.”

And I think that struck a chord maybe with both the left and the right.

Vennochi: I think the right is better at putting the left on the spot. And making the left squirm, and the left hasn’t quite figured out how to do that.

Fayyad: Well, I think that’s in part because the right is more shameless.

So I think that when you try to put the right on the spot and show them Trump’s hypocrisy they just don’t care. They don’t try to square the circle. They don’t try to explain themselves, in a way that I think the left does to show that they’re maybe not hypocrites.

But I think the right is just shameless about it. They don’t really squirm …

Vennochi: I’ll just say despite the 10,000 subscriptions, which are wonderful, I hope that we don’t now spend the next six months trying to replicate the lesbian bar story.

Dao: I suspect other newspapers will, however.

Let’s move on to the election. The headline race in Massachusetts is for governor, where the incumbent, Democrat Maura Healey, is running against a wealthy Republican named Mike Minogue. Minogue made his money with a medical technology firm, and he’s now using a lot of it to [pummel] Healey as leading a wasteful and corrupt government.

Joan, you recently wrote a column arguing that Healey is running as if this race is close, even though a lot of polls show that she’s ahead comfortably. But explain why you wrote that piece.

Vennochi: The polls do show that she’s comfortably ahead. On the positive side, I would say, she’s not taking the race for granted.

She’s not doing a Rose Garden strategy. She’s out on the campaign trail. She did look like she was running a little bit scared when she embraced a gas tax holiday after Mike Minogue made an issue of it. So the question is, why is she doing it?

She’s not as popular I think as Charlie Baker, her predecessor, was. She’s had some sort of headwinds from some contentious issues like immigration and how she handled the so-called migrant crisis and the cost of sheltering people who came to the state because of the services that we do provide.

And Mike Minogue, as you said, is spending millions of his own money on these relentless attacks on her. And, if you are watching old-school television, they’re constant. So maybe she’s just fearful — Not fearful, but aware of the challenge of this ongoing attack and feels that she needs to counter it.

So, I would say she’s smart to pay attention to it.

Dao: He has spent a lot of money on ads focusing on the Springfield courthouse, which they’re building a new courthouse in Springfield for $2 billion. I think to a lot of people it would seem an obscure local issue. Do you think she should be worried about this as a potential sign of corruption?

Vennochi: Again, it’s something that people probably wouldn’t pay much attention to, except for the fact that he keeps on — or I think it’s actually a PAC that’s running the ads — just keeps on focusing on the $2 billion, which sounds like a big amount.

[Then] there are the bidders who didn’t get the bid [that] are suggesting that there’s favoritism since the team that did get it includes the husband of Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley and John Barros, who is the head of the Mass. Convention Center Authority, who has since withdrawn.

So it looks like a little bit of an insider deal, and if you just keep on spinning it and playing it and forcing her to be on the defense, this is Massachusetts, people are skeptical about things to begin with. So, yeah, I think she’s wise not to ignore it.

Fayyad: It also makes sense for him to keep bringing it up because his selling point is that he’s a businessman who knows how to manage finances and that he’ll be responsible with taxpayer money. So I think this just falls into that argument and he’s really leaning into it.

Dao: Clearly, he has a lot of headwinds in his face, right? He’s a republican at a time when the republican president of the United States is unbelievably unpopular in Massachusetts, and the republican electorate in Massachusetts is tiny to begin with. He’s got a lot of stuff that’s really going to make his road an uphill one.

However, as Joan suggested, she’s got some headwinds, too. How vulnerable do we think she is? Or, is this a foregone conclusion that he can’t win?

Vennochi: I can’t see him winning. Famous last words. Her own ads point out the fact that he gave a million dollars to Donald Trump. She’s [has] pointed out that he held a fundraiser for JD Vance.

She’s doing everything she can to connect him to Trump, and just emphasizing the Trump policies that hurt Massachusetts and saying, “Why would you want a governor who would be aligned with him?” And I think that makes sense, even to people who might say, “Eh, I’m not thrilled with her. I don’t like everything that she’s doing.”

[But] if the choice is between Healey and Trump, which she seems to be making [as] the choice, I think the choice is Healey.

Fayyad: I do think for the most part, it’s a foregone conclusion. You never know until election day, of course. But [also] I think the odds of a republican winning in Massachusetts in this national environment, especially, not a Charlie Baker-type republican. In the primaries, Mike Minogue was more leaning into the culture war stuff.

I just don’t think that’s a winning message in Massachusetts.

Dao: In an ideal world, which we don’t have, but where we had a campaign for governor that really brought up issues and stimulated debate on important things, what would you like to see talked about in that ideal campaign?

Fayyad: I think that’s a great question. I guess some of these questions are already asked, we just don’t really get good answers which is why is it so expensive to live in Boston? And what can we actually do about it, tangibly?

And then also expecting them to be less wishy-washy about things. When there was a proposed ballot question on rent control, for example, before it was struck down, the governor just didn’t really take a public position on it for the longest time, and ultimately didn’t. Even though, when she first ran for governor for her first term, she supported the idea of decriminalizing rent stabilization and allowing communities to experiment with it.

Dao: Or legalizing rent stabilization.

Fayyad: Or, legalizing it, rather. But then she was wishy-washy on it when there seemed to be a tangible policy on the table. That’s what I would wish, just bolder ideas and owning them, and not trying to just please everybody.

Vennochi: As much as Massachusetts is a blue state, we keep on saying that over and over again, those party registration figures tell the real story of where people are. I think it’s 8 percent Republican, something like 24 percent Democrat, and the rest are independent.

Without Donald Trump in the White House, there’s certainly a path for a republican, who’s Charlie Baker-ish, to succeed and win. But Trump is in the White House. That changes the dynamic.

But she doesn’t have to be so wishy-washy, but she’s still probably looking at that middle point and not wanting to lose it.

Fayyad: Yeah, the other thing is that the independents in Massachusetts do obviously lean more democrat. But I do think what you’re saying is totally true, where there’s this perception that Massachusetts is overwhelmingly Democrat, overwhelmingly progressive, and that could be true in some certain circumstances.

When you look at the state legislature, a lot of the state legislature is moderate democrats. A lot of the policies coming out of the legislature are more conservative, in how we think about them. It’s not this ultra progressive bastion. It’s not all like the Last Ditch Bar, for example. But it is more conservative.

Vennochi: It’s more centrist, I think conservative’s a bit much.

Fayyad: That’s why a republican has won in the past, and that’s why a republican, I think, can win in the future. But with Trump changing the way that republicans are perceived, I just don’t see a path for that to work in Massachusetts.

Vennochi: Minogue did some [a] social media post where he said something nice about Charlie Baker, and all the comments that I saw were really negative. They called him “Charlie Faker” and Charlie Baker is not popular within the party that elected him.

Dao: Let’s move on to the midterm congressional fight. It seems really likely that the Democrats will retake the House in November, but the fight for the Senate is too close to call, and suddenly New England is playing a surprisingly pivotal role in that battle.

In Maine, the Republican incumbent, Susan Collins, seems to be holding her own against the Democratic insurgent, Troy Jackson. And in New Hampshire, former Senator John Sununu is looking strong against the Democrat congressman Chris Pappas. So Democrats really have to win both those races for the party to have a good chance of retaking the Senate.

Abdallah, I’m gonna start with you. You’re gonna visit New Hampshire this week, I think. Tell us about the race there and what you think you’ll see.

Fayyad: The race in New Hampshire has gotten a little bit more attention recently because of some polls showing Sununu closing in. There was one poll, I believe, where they were tied.

There was another poll where Sununu was ahead by a couple of points. And so what was once considered a seat that leaned democrat, all of a sudden became a toss-up. The Cook Political [Report] changed that race officially to a toss-up. And this is a seat that Democrats really need to hold onto if they have any hope of flipping the Senate.

This wasn’t on the agenda of seats they really needed to defend that much or gain. So this would be a huge setback for Democrats if Chris Pappas manages to lose this seat. That said New Hampshire’s incumbent senators, both Democrat.

Four years ago, the polls in New Hampshire made it look like it was a little bit closer, and the Republican at the time, Don Bolduc, was starting to get a lot of traction in the state. He was holding town halls almost every day and it seemed like he had something going. But in the end, Maggie Hassan trounced him. I don’t remember the final result, but she won handily despite what the polls said. She very much outperformed expectations.

And given the national environment, I’m expecting something similar this time. The only difference is that Sununu used to be the US senator from New Hampshire, so he has won statewide before. He also comes from a very well-known family. His father was governor, his brother was governor.

People in New Hampshire know him. They know the family. Name recognition’s not a problem. He’s won statewide before, so he obviously has things going for him that Don Bolduc in 2022 did not.

Vennochi: Again, from my perch watching television and political ads, Sununu is making this a race about affordability and taxes and a little bit of corruption.

There are all these allegations and insinuations that Pappas has done things with lobbyists that he shouldn’t have done. That’s the theme that I pick up from the ads. It’s nothing about Trump. I think Trump did endorse him in the primary against Scott Brown, but he’s pretty much stayed out of it.

It’s a version of what Minogue is trying to do, but really can’t do in Massachusetts. Keep it on the economy and hints about corruption and hope that it brings people to you as the candidate. And I think it could work there in New Hampshire.

Dao: Joan, I want to get you to talk about Maine. I think just a few months ago, people thought that Susan Collins, the longtime incumbent there, was really in trouble. Recent polls now show her maybe inching ahead of Troy Jackson, who was a state legislator.

Why is it hard to defeat Susan Collins?

I think it was her last election, it looked like she was down and she not only won, but [she] won by eight or nine points. It was almost a landslide.

Vennochi: For when Graham Platner was the candidate that she was running against, this was a huge national campaign. You used the word “insurgent” to describe Troy Jackson. Graham Platner really was an insurgent who came out of nowhere and just captured the hearts and minds of Democrats.

I don’t claim to be [an] expert on Troy Jackson, but from what I have read about him or know about him, he comes from the state legislature. He was president of the Senate for a while. And again, the ads that they’re running against him are along the lines of, “How do we know Troy Jackson will raise your taxes? Because he raised them before.”

So again, it’s about the economy. I don’t know if there’s the same corruption theme. I haven’t seen that. And the Democrats are banking that with Susan Collins, the fact that she supported or was the [critical] vote for Brett Kavanaugh will bring her down since the overturning of Roe [v. Wade].

But Maine has an abortion law that protects a woman’s right to have an abortion. So I’m not sure how cutting edge an issue that really is. If people just think of their own self-interest, they’ll say, “Sure, she made a bad decision, but it really doesn’t affect me now.”

Dao: Do you think there’s something about Susan Collins that makes her particularly hard to beat, something in the way she runs or her toughness or what she does for constituents in Maine?

Vennochi: They say she brings home the bacon, that she’s brought home money for Maine. Mm. And that matters. She’s also been [a] senator for a long time and is a woman in her 70s who has some sort of physical issues. And while age was not a determining factor here in Massachusetts with Ed Markey versus Seth Moulton, it might weigh more heavily in that race.

Dao: It’s interesting that we have two good Senate races in our region for a change. So we’ll be watching those right through the election. Thanks to both of you for being on our panel, Abdallah Fayyad, Joan Vennochi.

---

Next we have a short chat with Seth Moulton about his failed bid for Senate and the future of the Democratic Party.

Dao: I’ll just start by noting that we did endorse you in your race against Senator Markey, and clearly you stood for a lot of things we supported. But I want to start kind of with the obvious question, which is, what do you think went wrong in your campaign against the senator?

Moulton: First of all, I think it was important to run and I was proud to get your endorsement. So, thank you very much for that. I was really honored, and the whole team was honored. We raised questions that I think were really important, including just simply giving voters a choice, right?

I think voters deserve a choice in elections, and I’ve always said it’s time for a new generation of leaders in the Democratic Party. But obviously, I failed to make that case effectively to Democratic primary voters in Massachusetts. [I] didn’t quite connect well enough with that premise, and although we saw a lot of challengers win primaries across the country [and in] Massachusetts, most all the incumbents were reelected

Vennochi: Congressman, a lot of the post-election analyses or autopsies circled back to those comments you made about transgender athletes and transgender athletes competing against girls. How much do you think those comments ended up hurting you in this primary?

Moulton: I think Senator Markey did effectively make that argument with those with those comments. But I stand by the premise, which was that we have to be able to take on these tough conversations. And ultimately, we do a disservice to the very people we’re trying to protect if we can’t do that.

I was really struck by Colette Phillips. She’s a great convener and leader, convener and leader in the Boston community.

She had an op-ed recently in the Globe where she said that if we, as Democrats, are going to ostracize people for asking questions and wanting to have tough conversations, we’re gonna fail to build the broad coalition that’s needed to win back the White House in 2028.

She also said that we can’t treat an imperfect question as evidence of poor character. That approach does not build a larger community. It makes people afraid to join one. And I think that’s true.

So again, I take responsibility for not effectively making that case to primary voters, but I absolutely stand by the premise of my comments, which is that we, as Democrats, can’t be afraid to have these conversations.

If we are, we just cede the conversation to Trump and the Republicans, who are weaponizing these issues and really trying to hurt people.

Vennochi: Another thing that people kind of point to is during the second debate, you made an effort to tie Senator Markey to Jeffrey Epstein. Do you regret —

Moulton: I don’t know if I made an effort, Joan. He’s in the files, right? I mean, I just cited what the facts are.

Joan: Do you regret that at all? Do you think it was a fair line of inquiry?

Moulton: It’s a fair line of inquiry because he’s in the files. Why shouldn’t we just ask the question, right? And people can debate what exactly his role was or whatever else, but again, I don’t think it’s wrong to just raise questions.

We can’t be so afraid in our politics, have no courage whatsoever to raise questions, to ask challenging questions, [or] to have tough debates. I mean, that’s really what our politics should be all about.

Vennochi: The differences between you and Senator Markey, during this campaign, you went out of your way to say there were no differences, that your records were pretty much the same.

Looking back at it, the progressives didn’t really buy that. They didn’t accept you as the standard-bearer for the causes that they believe in.

Would it have been better or smarter, from an electoral perspective, to just say, “Yeah, there are differences, and here’s what they are”?

Moulton: I said there were a lot of differences. I mean I’m 47, he’s [80].

But Joan, you got to fairly characterize what I said. What I said is that there are no major differences on policy, right? There are a lot of differences in approach.

The difference in voting for Schumer, right? The difference in campaigning for other Democrats all across the country and helping elect so many fellow veterans to office who flipped seats with Serve America, right? I mean, there’s definitely a very different approach that we’ve taken to politics.

But on major issues, people should expect us to vote the same, and I think that’s an honest assessment. I don’t think that we’re going to differ major[ly] on major votes of policy. It’s not like one of us supports expanding healthcare and the other does not, or that one of us is opposed to ICE and the other is not.

We’ve really aligned on those issues. Look, you can be a Monday morning quarterback all day long and try to say, “Okay, maybe we should’ve phrased things a little differently or tried a different approach,” but I’ve always just tried to be authentic to who I am.

And just be honest with voters and present a case that is often challenging to the establishment or challenging to the sort of existing order. I’ve done that throughout my political career, and it’s just what I believe. And I think, my case is that people ought to be able to just have an honest discussion about these policies and the fight is worth having.

Dao: Well, It’s probably a pretty safe bet that Democrats will take at least the House. Let’s assume or stipulate that [it’s] going to happen. What do you think their priorities in 2027 should be?

Moulton: First of all, people are really hurting with the economy. And as I said in my campaign, the number one priority should be stopping this illegal criminal war in Iran that’s truly backfired.

We’re not only losing the war, [but] it’s actually empowering Iran. And, of course, I’ve been very outspoken on this.

I mean, just a week after losing the election, I passed a war powers resolution in the House with the largest margin of any war powers resolution to date, saying that this war needs to come to an end. We got seven Republicans to join us in voting for it.

We need to continue to send that message, not only because it’s the right thing to do in terms of our foreign policy and national security, but also because it will bring down prices. Gas prices are skyrocketing. It’s affecting fertilizer prices, which means that grocery prices are going up.

Just basically shipping goods anywhere that requires diesel fuel has gotten more expensive.

So bringing down costs and starting by ending the Iran war should be the number one priority.

The second thing is we have got to hold this Trump administration accountable, and I think it’s an honest assessment to say that we didn’t do that effectively enough in President Trump’s first term. After all, he’s back, right? So, we’ve got to have more accountability for this administration. And, as I said with ICE, it’s not enough just to stop their illegality. They’ve got to be prosecuted for breaking the law.

I think there are members of this administration who absolutely need to be prosecuted, and obviously our ability to do so will depend on how many seats we win and whether we get the Senate as well.

But we should not be afraid to take on those challenges. The third thing I’d say is we also have to show that we have a positive agenda, right? The first two things were stopping the Trump administration; Stop them from raising prices, and stop them from their corrupt [and] illegal acts all across the country and the world.

The third thing is let’s show that Democrats can lead. Let’s show that we have a plan to expand housing, for example, to improve our infrastructure and our transportation, two issues that I’ve talked a lot about in the Senate race. What is our plan to show that we can rein in prescription drug prices, [or] that we can help people who are struggling to afford childcare?

For decades the average American voter has trusted Republicans more on the economy and national security. There are plenty of issues where they’ve trusted Democrats. If you want healthcare, you vote for Democrats. You can imagine a lot of voters, especially independents across the country saying, “Yeah, but [on] national defense, Republicans are really good at that, and if you want a really robust stock market you wanna have a Republican in the Oval Office.”

Well, Trump has disproven both of those things, right? So I think we have this generational opportunity for Democrats to take back leadership on the economy and on national security. All these Serve America candidates with national security backgrounds are going to be great advocates for the second piece, but we also need to show leadership on the economy as well.

If we can do that, again, I think we can not just take back the House and maybe even the Senate for a term here. We can really start a generational change in our politics that will put Democrats back in power for a long time, and that’s why I’ll continue to work across the country to make that a reality.

Joan: Speaking of leadership, would you ever run again?

Moulton: I mean, TBD. I’ll tell you what one of the hardest parts of election night was when the girls found out that I lost, because they saw how dedicated [and] how invested in this I was over the course of the last year. How hard I worked on the campaign and how hard my team worked.

So, right now I’m really going to enjoy more time at home with the kids. I’m excited about other opportunities in the nonprofit sector, in the private sector. There are a lot of places that I think require service-oriented leadership right now. I’ve always tried to take a courageous approach to servant leadership in Congress.

For all our faults, I love America. For all our challenges, I love Massachusetts and would be honored to find different ways to serve again in the future.

Dao: I did want to close with one other question, which is relevant to the upcoming midterms and the 2027 season. You recently said to The New York Times that you thought that the quality of members of Congress had declined in the Trump era.

I think what you said was that Trump has normalized disreputable behavior, and it’s kind of given license, is what you were saying, to that sort of behavior in Congress. [Can you] flesh out what you meant by that and give us an example of what you were talking about?

Moulton: Look, it’s not a good story. But, one thing that Trump has totally normalized, I think that we all understand, is simply lying. I mean, the guy lies every single day.

And the frequency with which I’ve seen fellow members of Congress realize, “Wow, lying kind of works in politics, and I can kind of get away with that, and I can just totally distort the truth about a political opponent or about the other party and use that as an effective political argument,” I think that there’s a lot more of that now than I’ve seen in the past.

I think there’s probably more just transactional behavior when it comes to voting and whatnot because Trump has normalized that as well. I think there’s just a degree to which people see this as all about winning the game, all about winning, right? You hear that phrase from Trump a lot, not about serving, and I think we need to get back more to serving in our politics.

Dao: Is there a case of someone acting disreputably or just lying to you or to other congressmen that really sticks out to you?

Moulton: I can think of few. I don’t know that I’m ready to just sort of spill all the beans right now. But, yes, sadly this just happens. I mean, even just simple things like, “Hey, are you gonna work with me on this piece of legislation? Are you willing to make some compromises to get things done across the aisle?”

And then they just turn their back on you. But I also see it just happening even within the party.

A lot more backstabbing, a lot more willingness to go after one another. And that ultimately does a disservice.

Dao: Well, Congressman Seth Moulton, thanks for being with us. It’s been a pleasure and we’ll stay in touch.

Moulton: Thanks so much for having me, and thanks again for your endorsement. It meant a lot.

Victoria White of the Globe staff contributed to this report.

Listen to more Say More episodes here and wherever you get your podcasts. If you like the show, please follow us and leave us a review. You can email us at saymore@globe.com.

---

James Dao is the editor of the editorial page. He can be reached at jim.dao@globe.com.