Richard Helppie's Common Bridge
The problems we have in the country are solvable, but not solvable the way we’re approaching them today, because of partisan politics. Richard Helppie, a successful entrepreneur and philanthropist seeks to find a place in the middle where common sense discussions can bridge the current great divide.
Richard Helppie's Common Bridge
Episode 14- Welcome to a new Decade
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
Rich sets the stage of a new year and new decade and launches right into polarization, the IG Report, and hits on voter identification.
Engage the conversation on Substack at The Common Bridge!
Welcome to the podcast, the common bridge with Richard helpy . Rich is a successful entrepreneur in the technology, health and finance space. He and his wife Leslie, are also philanthropists with interest in civic and artistic endeavors, but with a primary focus on medically and educationally underserved children. My name is Brian Kruger , and from time to time I'll be the moderator and host of this podcast. Okay, great. Hey, welcome back. And we have a new year. We have a new decade. We have new everything. We have rich, healthy back in the, in the studio. I'm really happy to have you understand he had a great holiday season. Um, and a lot of fun. Right?
Speaker 2It was a great time for family and reflection and uh , good to see you Brian. I hope you had a great holiday as well.
Speaker 1Couldn't have been better. So since we last recorded the podcast, lots happen . So we need to recover some things here. Uh, the impeachment , um, uh, the impeachment vote took place in the house and uh , the inspector General's report came out and we signed a trade deals with Mexico and Canada. So , um, I'm just going to turn it over to you and let's try to get our arms around what's going on and where we're headed, but maybe a little recap. That'd be great.
Speaker 2All right . Well, great. Thanks Brian . Uh, our country has solvable problems , um, and also has tremendous opportunities that we can seize. And if you look at the history of the country, we've always risen to the occasion and we've done it in different ways. And my sense right now is that we've reached the end of partisan party politics as a means to get anything. None. There's way too much energy, way too much attention spent away from our common interests, and it's instead being spent on division. Um, and I'm a believer that in the long run, the entire matter, everything that every opportunity we have can be seized and every problem solved , uh , simply numb with two things. Number one , uh , insist that the people we elect actually work on policy matters. Let's not spend it attacking each other. And also importantly, tell , uh, the quote news sources to quit offering up fear-mongering and sensational attacks . Stories. They're just getting people annoyed and whipped into a lather. And , uh, and we've covered on this podcast, ideas on health care, insurance, on guns, immigration tax policy , student debt and other issues. And these are not meant necessarily to be absolute solutions. Um, I don't claim to have all the answers, but at least a starting point for real concrete discussions on the issues and the policy responses themselves. Um, and in coming weeks we're going to take on trade , uh, privacy, big tech, antitrust, physical infrastructure, voting. Good answer . I was hoping to get around to that and others , uh , Brian , uh , I , I've heard from lots of people, some folks I hadn't heard from in a long time and um , invariably they'll say, you know, it's really interesting to listen to you, but I gotta tell you about this part. I don't, like I said, well, great, it's working as designed. Exactly hear from both sides and we're doing all right. I said there's something for everyone to dislike about every policy idea. Um, because if I'm convinced of anything, it's this, that no manner of logic and no magnitude of insult is going to bring someone from one pole to the other. They're going to be there. If they're going to be there, they're going to be there. Exactly. Um, look , does anybody really think that the outcome of the 2020 election in our current condition is going to make a difference? You know , we're going to see another close election, no matter which way it goes. And we really want to come out on the other side in this bitter divide, whether your side one or the other guy's side
Speaker 1hearing conversation out there. And , um , it , uh , I'm hearing a little bit of conversation that says people are getting really tired of that polar extreme. So , um, you know, if our podcasts and the popularity of what you've been saying , um, is any indication that's really true cause some of the comments that I'm getting a very positive and there's a lot of people out there in the middle that say, man, I like listening to this. That this makes sense to me.
Speaker 2Yes. Well there's, there's many voices I think that are coming there. We're going to get , uh , the type of government and the type of media that we accept and that if we insist on better behavior from our elected representatives and media coverage with integrity , uh , I, I think that's the way out of this morass. Uh, so we need to insist on that better behavior. Um, the way that we allow partisans to behave by cheering for one side or the other by attacking our neighbors and even our family for their political views. And by sucking up the muck from the media led to the election and possibly the reelection of Donald Trump as president Trump just didn't arrive on a scene where it , gosh, everything was going great and we were a United country. He stepped into this partisan divide. And,
Speaker 1and don't you think he was a result of that? I think you and I talked about this last year where you thought, and it was a great quote, you said Trump was common , whether it was Trump or not, somebody like that was coming and maybe a populous guy or something like that because people were so divided. It was so polarly divided.
Speaker 2It is . Yes. The neither political party was stepping up to get the job done. And so people looked at it and said, you know, I'm going to give a big middle finger and that middle finger is going to be in the form of Donald Trump. I don't think anybody said, you know, this is the kind of behavior we want to see from a us president. Um , I'm interested if you can look back when, when he was elected first. Um, do you remember when rich helpy when, when rich helped , he went, you know , this guy could win because at some point it was funny. And then it was, when did you say I could win this? I never thought he was going to win all the way all the way through election night. I, I just didn't see it. Yeah . Um, and , uh, it was, I was surprised and I had one narrow , uh , path where you get 271 electoral votes , uh, that he would have had to win New Hampshire and it would have come down to Nevada late at night if he lost both. Those States never, ever imagined that Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania , uh, would go for Trump the way they did. But in retrospect, you knew why . I mean, I don't think Hillary stopped through until the last day. There's a lot of that. And , uh, I remember seeing when Trump got the Republican nomination, I , the good result for that was, well , that'll , you know, shatter the establishment of the Republican party. And it has , uh , as I've said before, the Republicans are just bewildered. Uh, they're winning, but maybe don't like the way that they're winning or who they're winning behind and can't really trust what he might do when you walk out in the meeting. And , and then in the general election, the only thing that , uh , good came out of it was that it, it really stuck a spirit in the side of the , uh, Democrat party establishment. Uh , I still think they don't know that yet . Um, and, and frankly, you know, Washington where the parties reside in the media complex, it was very, very isolated. Um, you know, the , the people that are in Washington call it quote our town, and I'm thinking, I thought it was the people's town. You have media reporting from their enclaves and they're , uh, they're on that New York to Washington line. And there's somewhat , uh , uh , you know, centered around Los Angeles and San Francisco. But when you go into Iowa and they've been doing it recently , um , looking into that first primary, all the coverage seems like, look, we're going into Iowa. It's a small restaurant and it's cute here. Everything's cute. And in this quaint that's so out of touch of what's going on in the middle of the country. Absolutely. In. And so when we talk about polarization, and so we've just had a, an absolute watershed event occur in the country, something that you think would unite us. And of course I'm talking about the inspector general report lays out in very stark detail, severe and systemic issues within the foreign intelligence surveillance court. Uh , this is the Fisk as it's referred to under the Pfizer legislation, the foreign intelligence surveillance act. I always chuckle the next morning when I get a text from you that have you read the report and I have , well, no, and you have, well, you seem to get to that stuff. Well , it's because that's , you can't rely on the media filters. Um , in fact, when the inspector General's report came out , uh , James Comey was out giving interviews saying he was vindicated. Um, and I went over to CNN and I don't know if he pronounced his name lemon or Limone and he said, complete vindication. And then inspector general Horowitz testifies and he said , I asked that question. He said, quote, no one who touched this is vindicated. Yeah. But look at the reporting and think about people that don't have the time to read these reports. 99% of the population, maybe. So they're listening to their favorite newsfeed . Tell them what it said, right. And whatever that it looked, the FBI lied to the court to get surveillance. All right . And remember that the surveillance picked up others. All right . Which is now known as unmasking the, we haven't heard the rest of that story yet. So, so you have the private conversation of a presidential campaign that are spied on or surveilled or listened in, not once approved, but four times, including after the FBI knew the information that supported the warrants was bogus. It's right there on the IGS report and that the FBI falsified documents to get further warrants. And then you have former director Comey says he didn't know about it. This is the highest profile, highest priority investigation. Remember he said the integrity of our elections were at stake. Remember he went into brief, the new president that what's in this dossier that he now that we now know that he knew was fake. Yeah . Okay. So come on in and one would think there would be absolute outrage no matter where one stood on the political spectrum, but there doesn't seem to be, yeah , look, I don't claim to be a historian, right, but I am not, I know I'm not going to pronounce his name correctly, but there's a story, a Lutheran pastor by the name of Martin Mim Menin Mahler, who all the German German audience members are turning around. Yes, indeed. Just go with us on this [inaudible] he enthusiastically welcomed Hitler's third Reich. Um, and according to the Holocaust encyclopedia turning point in Niemoller, his political sympathies came in January 19 four had a meeting with Adolf Hitler, with himself and two prominent Protestant bishops to discuss the state pressures on the churches at the meeting. New molar realizes that his phone has been tapped by the Gestapo. The German secret state police has their app to do it. It was also clear that the pastor's emergency league, which he had helped found was under close state surveillance. Following the meeting, Niemoller will come to see the Nazi state as a dictatorship and one that he would oppose. Okay. Yeah . So when people are looking at, Oh, it was okay that the FBI and our intelligence agencies broke the law to look in on a presidential campaign. Hey, I'm not a Republican. I don't like Trump. I want to remind them of what a pastor Niemoller said at that time. He said, first they came for the socialists and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me. So the takeaway is that nimbler thought that the Gestapo was doing a great job until the surveillance was turned on he and his organization. Yeah . Yeah. And by then it was too late. So this should not be a partisan issue. This should be universal outrage in a free society that the very powerful investigative arms of the FBI and the intelligence agencies were turned against private citizens now. And we have all the protections to make sure this is isn't abused. They knew what the protections were and they lied and went around it and did it repeatedly.
Speaker 1And that does seem to get breezed over in the , um , and the mainstream media on both sides. Uh, what the FBI had done wrong in that, you know, the eight points that, you know , well , you know, we were wrong.
Speaker 217, seven , 17 points that are laid out. And I encourage anybody to just read the executive summary and try to hold your outrage and imagine instead of Carter page's name, it was your own name. See if you'd like it.
Speaker 1Well, I think what we'll do, and we'll tell the audiences too , um , in this new year , uh , in January this month , um, there's going to be the first , uh, common bridge , uh , newsletter that'll be on the website too. And I will, we'll put a link to that IgE report. So , uh , we talk about this here and we'll put a link out there and we encourage you to read it. If you can't find it, you can find it . It , uh, it Richard, help me.com .
Speaker 2And so there's, there's a couple of things I'd like to touch on , um , lightly today. We'll come back to these. But , um, the cornerstone of our democracy is the ability to cast a vote and even with all the bad behavior that we see from all sides , uh, that they continue to , uh , be sensitive to how the voters will react. Um, and , uh , I do believe that by and large, our voter integrity is good. But what would you, you hear people saying that , um, that if we increase the requirements for identification , um, that that is going to prevent , uh , in person voter impersonation ended up with an increase public confidence in the election process that we really need to get to better identification than the things that we had in 1930.
Speaker 1Okay . That sets off alarm sometimes with some folks about identifying a voter.
Speaker 2Right, exactly. Because opponents will say that there's little fraud and that the burden on voters unduly restricts their right to vote and it imposes unnecessary costs and administrative burdens on the elections administrators, both, both valid points.
Speaker 1I agree. And , and on the surface , uh, everybody voting is a good thing. Um, and on a partisan side though , um , it truly , um, the left will understand that they need to get a lot more people to come out. So they're going to be a lot more vocal about how we measure up those people and how, how, how qualified or that we're even qualifying them to vote. If it was up to them, they would have everybody,
Speaker 2but it should look, it shouldn't be a left-right issue. Okay. Everybody, everybody gets to vote once and once only. Okay . Um, you know, until they're dead, then they have to stop voting. All right . So I , I think that a photo ID is the way to go. Um, because there's only three things really required to vote. Okay. Who are you, where do you live and are you of the age? Now, there were a few things that will exclude you from voting. Like, you know, you're not a citizen. Um , and until recently , uh, perhaps you were a felon. But now most States have some means of allowing felons to vote, including some that are still in incarceration. Really. Yeah. It's okay. And so , um , we do have a broad based right to vote. Um, photo IDs can be issued in a matter of minutes. I know when I go to most major cities , uh, and I'm going into a building, the building security makes a photo ID for me and they store that image. And when I go back to that building again, they, they know it's me. It's not someone else coming in, you know, picking up my ID. Um, and then because of the data systems we have, and this is dangerous, but background, facial facial recognition comparisons would find duplicates. So if I voted in my hometown in Michigan and then attempted to go across the border into Ohio and vote as another name, the facial recognition would catch that. But facial recognition troubles a lot of people, it does. But look, airlines right now are allowing you to board a plane using your face as your past . Um , and as I've said in an earlier podcast that , uh, at border control, it's facial recognition, right? They compare your face with the picture on your passport. So I think voter integrity is a thing that everyone should want and we don't want to exclude the , um, you know, 95 year old person who's been voting since they were 21 and doesn't have a driver's license anymore. But you know, they're identified today by, they have a utility bill. They have , uh, some of that says this is who they are. Great. Through that same process. Now issue a on the spot, a photo ID, right? And now they only when they vote one time, one place, and if that photo shows up someplace else, now we know we've got to duplicate problem . There you go. And so we would have a, at least at that point, we would have integrity of the vote and it would provide a front end count for the number of votes that are tallied in that place. Right. So there , this to me is a logical solution. It should satisfy everybody. Everybody gets to vote and they'll get to vote one time. And to your earlier view, if the Republicans believe that a high turnout is going to harm them, they need to get onto policies that will attract those votes and say, we have we , this is the reason you should vote for us. All right , if you are a traditional Democrat voter, all right . And so, and, and, and vice versa as well. But I was just kind of responding to your point. Um, instead of saying you can't vote and we'll slip by everybody gets to vote and got to make policies that appeal to the majority and that hopefully the person that wins the electoral college becomes president. Nobody questions it. Okay, well thanks a lot for the, for the comments and we'll wrap that up for , for this week. And , um, folks just, you know , again, happy new year, happy, happy new decade and we look forward to some really exciting things with common bridge this year, including , um, first newsletter that comes out this month. Uh, some now guests on the podcast, which be great. Um,
Speaker 1and we'll see you next week. Thanks rich. Alright , thanks Brian . Always good to see you. Have been listening to Richard healthy's common bridge podcast recording and post-production provided by stunt three multimedia. All rights are reserved by Richard helpy . For more information, visit Richard helpy.com .