Can Maine Senate hopeful Platner survive another controversy?

Pete Hegzeth is literally using the U.S. military to make up for the fact that he's insecure about his own military service. And so now he gets to posture, and he gets to literally start wars so he can pretend that he's this big, tough guy. I mean, I don't think there are a lot of Americans that want the world to think that everything they ever said when they were 25 is who they are forever. Of course Jeff Bezos is going to tell us, if we raise his taxes, things won't get better. He doesn't want us to raise his taxes. He's a greedy person. This is Newsmakers, NPR's biggest interviews. I'm Steve Inskeep. We question some of the most influential people of our time. New episodes drop whenever they're available, and the best way to stay caught up is to follow or subscribe to this show on Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you watch or listen. You can also find us in the NPR app. Today, NPR's Layla Fadl is your host. The path to turning the Senate blue runs in part through the state of Maine, and that hinges on the presumptive Democratic nominee, Graham Plattner. But Plattner's controversial past keeps catching up with him. On May 30th, reports emerged that Plattner exchanged sexually explicit messages with multiple women early in his marriage. His wife, Amy Gertner, defended him. In a video posted on X. I think it's shameful behavior to spend time and energy and resources on negative ads and negative stories on Graham when all he's trying to do is improve the lives of people who work for a living. The controversies around Plattner don't end there. And they raise a big question. Does he have too much baggage to carry on? Or can his anti-establishment political message that has generated so. so much enthusiasm among the Democratic base carry him through? I spoke to Graham Plattner in Maine before news broke of these explicit messages. We offered him a follow-up interview to discuss the latest scandal. His campaign said he was too busy. But Plattner provided a statement that read in part, I've learned throughout this campaign that people don't care about gossip or headlines. They care that you're fighting for their hospitals, their paycheck, their kids. Thank you so much for sitting down with me. Of course. Thanks for having me. So we're sitting here. We're. This is Maine Carpenters Union? Yep. I want to talk about why we're having the conversation we are here at this place, what it means to you. I firmly believe that re-empowering organized labor is going to be one of the keys to building the power necessary to really take back our democracy. From corporate interests, honestly. From the interest of money. From the interest of billionaires. Historically, organized labor is always. I don't know, I don't know how to put it, but it has really been the kind of foundation of any kind of real movement politics that is able to advocate for working people. And so being able to build a close relationship with labor, being able to go be an advocate for labor in the United States Senate, this is a pretty, I don't know, core part of my politics. And so the relationships I've been able to build with the unions here in Maine, I mean, it's been an absolute honor. And it also is, I think, kind of core to the project we're undertaking, which is. Turn the Democratic Party back into the party of working people. Back into the party that represents the interests of those who work and, frankly, those who are often exploited. And you can't represent the interests of those who are exploited and represent the interests of those who are exploiting them at the same time. But for quite some time now, there's an element of the party that has tried to do that. So you're saying the Democratic Party right now is not a party for the working class? Yes. You ask working people in this country, which they would say no, which is reflected in the polling at the moment and has been for quite some time. The disapproval ratings for the president are bad, but for the party, they're worse. That's right. So why did you choose to run as a Democrat? Oh, because I am one. I mean, I've been a registered Democrat my entire life. And I firmly believe that the Democratic Party should be the party of labor unions, should be the party of community organizations, the party of civil rights organizations, should be the party that advocates continuously for systemic and structural change that is going to make this society uplift all of us instead of creating structures that allow for the consolidation of wealth and power and keep that wealth and power in the hands of very few. There are many people who talk about the Democratic Party as it once was, a party that used to represent labor unions, used to represent working people, and that one of the reasons why it has lost that support is because it ceased being that. And I believe it still can be. What makes you qualified to be the senator for Maine? I mean, especially given the questions around your lack of political background, lack of running a huge business, and so on. Well, it is very funny to me that we've created this idea that you can only represent, like, the average American. Right. Right. If you're rich. Or if you've spent a bunch of time around wealth and power, which is funny because the average American has not spent a bunch of time around wealth and power. The average American is not rich, does not come from some kind of specialized background that we have elevated. I actually think there is a story that's really coalesced in the last 50 years, which is this kind of, there's a gatekeeping about power. It's this idea that power. Power is only for people who have a specific last name, or who come from wealth, or who are already connected to it. People who have a specific kind of business background, or have some kind of educational background. They're the ones who are competent. They're the ones who are worthy of wielding power. And that's not true. It's simply not true. One, they've been the ones wielding power for the past 50 years. Look where it got us. I don't think anybody's looking around right now and being like, yeah. This is all working really great for most Americans. We're all very happy with the outcomes that we have. Of course not. And so, I honestly think that the question itself is sort of a, it's a defense of the system as it has stood. And I just don't buy it. I think the fact that I have served my country, multiple combat tours, the fact that I've seen up close the actual realities of war, and then struggled afterwards with not just. Not just the trauma and the sort of, the challenges that come with that. But also coming back to a society itself that had sent a lot of us off to fight in those wars. And when we came home, it almost didn't even acknowledge that those wars had happened in the first place. That's how it felt. Yeah, very much so. And going through that, and then going through, frankly, like the darkness and the alienation, the isolation that comes from it. And then, getting help. Getting therapy. Going to the VA. Moving back to my hometown. Building a life in the community that I was born and raised in. Reconnecting with people. And rebuilding hope in that. And then, at the exact same time, building a small business. Growing food in the ocean for my community. I mean, we don't sell an oyster outside of a 25-mile radius. And that whole experience, I think to me, that makes me quite qualified to understand that policy, decisions made in D.C., they have real material outcomes for people. It's not theory. It's not vague. It's not just words on a page. It's not just numbers. All of this stuff has a material reality for regular people in this country. One that I have seen up close and personal and seen the outcomes of. And I think that makes me very qualified to go up into that place of power and make sure that when policy is crafted, we are always keeping in the forefront of our minds, what is this going to do to, to regular, everyday Americans? What is the material outcome of this? Because I think that the people who are, quote-unquote, qualified, for quite some time, they've completely forgotten that that's what they should actually be thinking about. And that's why we are in the straits we are today. Your detractors would say, oh, he's not a real working man. You know, he came from money. You know, these are the things that are being said about him. He's just cosplaying working man. What are you saying to them? Well, I mean, I started raking. I started raking blueberries when I was nine. I had my first W2 job before I even went to high school. I bagged groceries and pushed carts, did landscaping, and then worked on the Appalachian Trail for the AMC on the professional trail crew. Those were all jobs that require you to work and use your hands. After that, I joined the infantry, where I spent my 20s engaged in combat operations for this country, struggled afterwards, and then eventually came back. I came back to Maine, where I have become a diver and an oyster farmer. My wife and I combined make about $60,000 a year. You do get help from your family here and there. I mean, this is where your detractors say, oh, your father's a lawyer, your grandfather's a story architect. For the record, my father is a small-town lawyer in Ellsworth, Maine, who did bankruptcy and real estate law for his career in Ellsworth. Yeah. Yeah. Not a billionaire. Most certainly not. My mother, by the way, still works. She still runs her restaurant. because in her 70s, she has no retirement. retirement. So she's going to work for the foreseeable future because she's got no way to retire. I mean, to me, if that's your definition of being like a wealthy rich person, then I think those people's definitions need some attending. And you have talked about your wider definition of what the working class of the United States is. Yeah, it's very simple. If the bulk of the money that you get to live comes from wages, comes from working, and you are not just sitting on an immense amount of hoarded wealth, which generates income for you, then you work for a living. And if you sit on a bunch of hoarded wealth that generates revenue for you, you don't because you literally don't. So for me, it's fairly simple. And in an age of immense wealth inequality, that's the definition. that we need because they're going to try to pit us all against each other. They're going to try to pit poor people against the people who are sitting on immense amounts of hoarded wealth that generates revenue for them. Billionaires, CEOs of corporations, hedge fund managers, private equity. That's who. Because they don't want us recognizing that if we band together and build political power, we have it within our power to pull all that stolen money back. We have it in our power to have a tax code that doesn't. for right now, as we have right now, we tax wages at a higher rate than we tax wealth. That's a math equation you can run to the end and see who wins out. None of this is actually all that complicated. Those people and the establishment politicians that they have paid off for decades to represent their interests, they don't want us recognizing that down here in the real world, we all have everything in common. When hospitals close, that impacts Republican or Democrat alike. If young people are fleeing your community because there is no housing to buy and there's no future and no work, it doesn't matter if you identify as a progressive or a conservative. Your community is dying. And it's dying because people have made policy decisions to create this outcome. It's important for people to know the world that we live in right now, it isn't natural. None of this is organic. We live in the. outcome of policy. Policies that have been implemented really for the last 40 years by establishment politicians at the behest of those who donated the most money to them. And the fascinating thing is everybody knows. Everybody knows that. Say that to the average American and they're going to nod at you because they know that their political system is bought off by people with money. And those of us who are not benefiting from that system, those of us who are not seeing our lives get easier, who are not. seeing our wealth increasing, who are seeing our communities suffer, that's the working class. Those are all the people who are being taken advantage of in a system that is not representing their interests. And for the people who are benefiting immensely, they're the ones who we are arrayed against. They're the ones who are going to use politics to protect their interests. They're the ones that need us being all mad at each other down here, yelling at each other about being a Republican or a Democrat or left or right, because they don't want us recognizing that there's. There's only one direction we need to be pointing fingers, and that is up. It's not left and right. So you've been clear you want to raise taxes on the uber-wealthy in this country. Jeff Bezos, fourth wealthiest man in the world, says that's not going to work. It's not going to close the income inequality gap. What you should do is zero out taxes for the bottom half of American earners. What's your reaction to that suggestion? I love the idea that he's like, yeah, we should zero out taxes for the bottom and not. Not raise my taxes. It's like, Jeff, if we're going to zero it out. By the way, I like that idea. I love the idea of raising taxes immensely on billionaires and their wealth. And it's also important to remember. But do you like the idea of the zero. Sorry, I'm confused about which part you like. I like the idea of if we can make a society in which people don't have to pay in taxes that it's going to make them poorer at a level in which that kind of. For instance, there's a proposal, which I think is a really good one, which is that we should never tax someone into poverty. That if you're hovering right at the poverty line, that if you have to pay taxes and that now puts you below the poverty line, we shouldn't do that. I agree. I think that's a very, very good and fair idea. We should also still raise taxes on billionaires and corporations. That's how we're going to pull the money back. But it's important to remember, Bezos wants us to think that. He's like, look, if you just raise my individual taxes, that money right there isn't going to pay for all the things that you want. Sure, Jeff, that's right. That's why we're not raising it just on you. We're raising it on all 930 billionaires in the United States. It's why we're also not just going after your income, but I think we have to go after the wealth as well. The wealth that they sit on, the wealth that they never actually bring into the real world, so they never pay capital gains on it, but they borrow against it happily, so they never actually pay capital gains on it, but they borrow against it happily, can have liquidity to go through their lives. Of course, Jeff Bezos is going to tell us that if we raise his taxes, things won't get better. I mean, that makes perfect sense to me that he would say that. He's just entirely wrong and self-serving. I've met voters who are really excited about you, and I met voters who are cautious because they've been burnt before, right? They say, he says this thing, it sounds good, but how can I trust that he'll get to D.C. because outsiders have gone before and actually do something different rather than let D.C. change him? Partially, that's why we are so focused on movement building. It's why I am so focused on building these coalitions with labor and with community groups because as we build power that way from the ground up, as we build a powerful broad-based coalition, that is going to be able to keep pressure on people. It's going to keep pressure on people. It's going to keep pressure not just on other representatives, but also on myself. I mean, in some way, we are building in the fail-safe here. I don't even frankly believe in the concept of elected leaders. I believe in elected representatives. That is your job is to represent people. It's not to lead them. It's to represent their interests and to listen to them and to be accessible to them. I think the best way that we do that is right now, between now and November, is to build a broad-based coalition in the state of Maine where after I win, it cannot go away. It needs to remain because winning the Senate seat back from Susan Collins is just the beginning. I mean, the fights we have to come, getting money out of politics, term limits, making sure that we don't have politicians who enrich themselves while in office, pulling back war powers from the state, changing our tax code, things like a universal health care system, universal child care, using the resources of our society to uplift all of us instead of just enriching a few. That is going to be a long slog. And the power we're going to need to do it, it's not going to come from one politician. It's not going to come from one senator or one congressperson. It's going to come from millions of Mainers, millions of Americans. That's what we're building. And we're not trying to control it. We're trying to build it because that's what we're going to need down the road. Before you can do any of that, as you mentioned, you'll have to beat Senator Susan Collins. Yes. Incumbent. Voters have chosen her five times. She served for nearly 30 years. That's right. She's been there for 30 years. But she keeps getting chosen. So what makes this moment different? What makes you think you're going to win? I think it's going to be a lot of you can beat her. Well, because we're just not playing their game. It's important to remember that up until now, the campaigns that have generally been run against Susan Collins have been directed from Washington, D.C. They've involved the National Party in many ways. That's where they've been directed. That's where they choose the candidates. I mean, as everybody probably has noticed, I was not the chosen candidate of the party in Washington, D.C. And still many skeptics within the party about you right now. They don't like me at all. Well, of course they don't like me because I'm trying to build a completely different kind of party than the one that they than they want. I mean, they want to continue being powerful personally. They want to continue to keep this political industrial complex going where everybody gets to make all of this money. It's utterly, utterly disgusting and insane. So, of course, they don't want to see this kind of politics. But we don't care. We just beat them, by the way. And we're going to beat them again. And we're going to keep beating them until we take this country back for working folks. The way that but that kind of politics, that's what's been waged against Susan Collins. And I just don't think you can play the same playbook that she's going to use. I don't think you can use the same political kind of structures that they're going to use. This whole idea that all you do is you raise tons and tons of money generally from corporations, super PACs, from lots and lots of wealthy people. You raise all that money and then you blow it all on a bunch of TV ads in which you don't talk about policy. You don't talk about the future. All you do is attack each other. You just use negative things. You go after people's character. You go after people's personal lives, which, by the way, is exactly what we're seeing right now. Because they don't They don't want to talk about policy. They don't want to talk about the fact that Susan Collins has been there for 30 years. And in those 30 years, everything got harder down here. 30 years. She's chair of appropriations. She likes to tell us all that she has this immense amount of power. She brings all this money into the state of Maine. Why, then, is housing becoming entirely unaffordable for younger folks in the state? Why are we seeing the actual collapse of our rural health care system right now? She has been in charge for 30 years, and she has overseen a system that has brought us to the brink of collapse. You talk about the culture of attacking right now. I mean, those who are criticizing you are going after your history. Right? Online. Reddit posts that have been deleted but did say racist things, did sort of blame the victim for sexual assault, and then you yourself revealed a tattoo on – oh, go ahead. We have talked about the Reddit post since October. Everybody in Maine knows about it. And they've also come up at pretty much all your town halls, right? Oh, yeah. I talk about it, and I talk about it very publicly. I'm curious why – you know, frankly, when those posts first came. A lot of people were like, his political aspirations are dead. This campaign is over. Well, what they didn't understand is I don't really have political aspirations. I mean, I didn't get into this because I want to be a politician. I got into this because I believe in building a different kind of politics for working folks. So I guess what my question is, is why you think voters chose to either forgive you for those posts or look the other way? Well, I think it's mostly forgiveness. I mean, because when I explained it, I just pointed out that, look, I've not always been who I am today. I mean, I was a young man who spent the bulk of my 20s in intense combat zones. I grew up in the infantry, and that was my lived experience. I left that world with many of the kind of cultural, I would say, elements that come out of it. I mean, the infantry is a place of hyper-masculinity. It's a place of intense violence. Things that are seen as virtues there are generally not seen as virtues in the normal world. And then I had to struggle with how do I come out of that and integrate back into society? And I talked about that journey. I talked about it very, very honestly. And I think a lot of people recognize that the ability to transform, the ability to change, is kind of just a normal human trait. And I don't think anybody believes that's how people work. So that's why. I mean, I think as I went around the state of Maine and I talked about it publicly, I talked about it with everybody who would listen. And I would answer every question that came up with it. And ironically, you know, we don't really talk about it much here in Maine anymore. The only time it ever comes up is when journalists come in from the outside or when I leave Maine. Then people want to talk about it. But it also still comes up with your own party. I mean, just a few days ago, Congressman Jake Oshenklaus said the tattoo that was once on your chest that you've now covered up that resembles a Nazi. Yes. The SS symbol should be disqualifying. And he wants Maine voters to agree with him, meaning not choose you. Right. So I guess he wants to choose Susan Collins. Interesting choice for a Democrat. One, Jake Oshenklaus lives in Massachusetts, so I'm not actually all that worried about what he thinks. Also, what's disqualifying for the record is the fact that Susan Collins has not represented the people of Maine. The fact that we are seeing our health care system collapse in the state. That's disqualifying. I, you know, look, what other people think about me, not in the state of Maine, what establishment Democrats think about me, that's their business. It's very clear that here in the state of Maine, the voters really do understand that I am who I claim to be. I'm a very real person and warts and all. And I've talked about it and I will continue to talk about it. And they seem to. Yeah. If. If people. If people in the Democratic Party in other states don't like me, that's not really my problem. The one thing that I heard from regular people who were trying to figure out whether they believed you specifically about this tattoo. Because you said, I didn't know what it was. Like, I put a skull and bones on my chest in 2007. But you've also described yourself as a military history buff. And their question is, how did he not know if he is a military history buff? Well, because that motif I have seen on French Foreign Legion units. I have seen it on U.S. Special Forces ODAs. I've seen it on other Marines. It's a, that skulls and crossbones of a myriad of kind of versions are, for fairly obvious reasons, incredibly popular in combat units throughout history. So it's a, that's why. And for the record, I re-enlisted in the United States Army. Mm-hmm. I got screened for gang and hate tattoos. Mm-hmm. I worked for the State Department. I had a top-secret clearance. I was on the Ambassador to Afghanistan Security Team, where I was screened for gang and hate tattoos. I do get a chuckle out of the fact that suddenly everyone is an expert on this version of skull and crossbones. Mm-hmm. But for 17 years of my life, including getting screened for tattoos, never once came up. There's a certain public persona you have, right? Like, you're an oyster farmer. You've got sleeve tattoos. You're not the prototype. The D.C. prototype, right? And you just, you represent masculinity in certain ways. The Democrats have trouble connecting with male voters. Describe the masculinity that you represent. I think it's just a healthy form of it, which is, yeah, look, I mean, I lift weights. I shoot guns. My background is obviously in the military. I work outside. Most of my hobbies are things that people tend to associate with. Manly stuff, I guess. At the exact same time, I go to therapy. I have a very open sort of dialogue and emotional relationship with my wife. I am, I work incredibly hard to put myself in places where I share space with folks who have very different outlooks or backgrounds as me. Mm-hmm. And then open up to the idea that their lived experience is exactly as valid as mine. And that. That kind of thing throughout my life has really been the most educational thing that's ever happened to me. Even on this campaign, I mean, the, I have interacted with more people in the past nine months than I think I might have interacted with my entire life beforehand. Mm-hmm. That is educational. When you are willing to be open and accepting. When you're willing to not just immediately get defensive about things and understand that, like, you may have preconceived notions. Mm-hmm. You may have. You may have ways of speaking. You may have ideas that when you interact with other folks, they inform you that either you're wrong or maybe what you're saying is hurtful and harmful. And then instead of getting angry about it, you understand it and you engage. That, I think, is incredibly manly. The idea to be open. The idea to be vulnerable. We have this concept of masculinity in which, like, especially right now with all this kind of manosphere nonsense. This idea that, like, you're supposed to use your strengths to kind of, to, like, use power over other people. Mm-hmm. Or to offend people. Be mean to people. That somehow that's manly. That's not. That's the act of a coward. And I think it's important. It's important. I mean, it's. I don't know how to talk about this because it's going to sound like I'm saying I do this on purpose, but I don't. But, like, it is important to, like, have people who. And show that, look, you can be a tattooed, deep voice combat veteran who makes a living on the sea and also go to therapy and think that it is a virtue to show up for your neighbors and care about other people. In fact, I think those two things go completely hand in hand. They aren't separate. But we do have this vision of masculinity in our society right now, which kind of makes one seem like if you're this way, you're supposed to be, like, hardened and shut off from the world and angry. Did you used to think that? Oh, God, yeah. I mean, I spent years. I mean, that was. When I was. When I kind of used my darkest moments after my military service, I mean, I was extremely isolated. I was very alone. I did not feel connected to people. I was emotionally just fully unavailable. I mean, I didn't even. And I felt that, like, if I opened up to people, if people saw my weaknesses, they would, like, judge me for it. And so the best thing to do was kind of put on this sort of tough guy persona. And that was the unhappiest I've ever been. I've never been more lonely. I've never been more unfulfilled. And it was only after moving back to my hometown, quite honestly, getting very engaged in my community, and then being willing to start, like, opening up to people and making myself vulnerable, that resulted in a level of fulfillment and happiness that I never could have imagined. And that really got me to where I've been for the past few years, which has been living a very, very pleasant life. You have a generation of men like you. You have a generation of men like you whose formative experiences were at war in U.S. wars. Among them also, Pete Hegseth, Secretary of Defense. Um, you were both shaped by these wars, but you've sort of channeled that in very different. Secretary Hegzeth and I also have very different backgrounds in combat. So I'll just leave it at that. Why do you think that you're so different in your approach to politics? I think because in many ways, it's just because I believe. Like, I believe in the necessity of building movement politics again in this country. I believe that the legacies of things like the women's suffrage movement, the labor movement, of the civil rights movement, that is, to me, the blueprint for what we need to be doing now. Really kind of reengaging people in a small-D democratic fashion. Not something that's controlled from above, but something that really pushes power down. And allows people to organize and build that power together. That's the core of my politics. That's what this campaign is. It's not a tactic for me. This isn't like, I'm not like, oh, we'll do this, and this is the best way to win electorally. This is my politics. Like, what we are doing embodies what I believe and what I think we have to be. The policies I put out, I'm not putting them out because we focus group tested them. People aren't idiots. People know what's going on. Right? Right. People just look around and see everything getting harder, and then they also see Elon Musk on his way to being the first trillionaire. When people see collapsing housing markets, but also recognize that private equity is allowed to buy up single-family homes in this country, people see it. They understand it. They grasp that their health care is a mess because it is structured right now to prioritize profit over providing health care. And we've just come along. We've come along with a campaign that essentially just says that, just says it all right out loud, and is also based on the fact that this is, these are my politics. I'm running on my politics. I'm not looking for a politics to get me elected. Has your party, now that you're the presumptive nominee, changed towards you? No. No, because. The control of Congress, in part, runs through this state, through your race. Any road to a blue Senate pretty much goes through the state of Maine. There are very few paths available if we don't beat Susan Collins. I would say that there is a slight shifting at the moment. It hasn't been substantial. After the governor dropped out, I received phone calls from Chuck Schumer. Who pushed her to run against you. Pushed her to run. And he congratulated me on a well-run race. We talked about how beating Susan Collins is the priority and agreed that that's what we have to be focused on. Certainly, I've gotten more reach out from individual senators, Democratic senators who I'd not heard from before. Here in the state of Maine, the state party, I mean, which we have a good relationship with, we're all excited to go, you know, do this together. But at the national level, I mean, there's still. And one, like, my criticisms of the party don't change just because we won. In fact, in many ways, it just shows that our criticisms were correct. As in new leadership. New leadership. But also, like, a new way of doing politics. I mean, in many ways, we did just beat the Democratic establishment. And we did it with a candidate that nobody had ever heard of before August of last year. And that, I think, is a. Data point that their version of politics really doesn't meet the moment at all. And that what we're doing, which is totally different and focused far more on people and engaging people, not trying to dictate to them. This is the politics of the future. I want to talk about the war in Iran. I mean, you talk a lot about the way that serving broke you. You've been in Thai war even before you signed up. Which is curious. Why did you sign up? Oh, because I wanted to serve my country. Yeah. Which is different than. I don't. I've always found it strange that people can't comprehend that you can criticize the behavior of your government while also still loving your country. But isn't there a difference to. Like, you're going into politics, right? But going into the military means that in moments politicians make decisions, whether you agree with them or not, you will have to pick up a gun. You will have to maybe die. Right. Maybe kill. Yeah. So I guess that's for people who don't necessarily channel it that way. That's why they might not understand. Well, I mean, there are very few people that join the Marine Corps infantry. But there is a subset of young Americans who do see their best path to service as through something like the Marine Corps infantry. And I was one of those young Americans. You've been very opposed to the Iran war. Yes. What would you be doing right now if you were in Senate, in the Senate? Because a lot of your party has expressed. At least concern. Or opposition. Everybody's always concerned these days. But if you were in Senate, in the Senate right now, what would you be doing as an opponent to this war? I'm blocking every bit of funding possible. We shouldn't send a single dollar for any of this nonsense. I would absolutely be at. And it's hard to say this. And some of your party's trying to do that. Because people often, they're like, if you were in the Senate. Well, I mean, if I was in the Senate, then we might have a Democratic majority, which means it totally. I mean, it's. You could actually do things. I'll be honest. It's a hypothetical that is kind of hard to. Mm-hmm. Actually play out. But I would be a very vocal voice, like Chris Van Hollen has been against the war. I would absolutely be working with all the other Democratic senators who are trying to stop this thing. And working with some of, hopefully, the Republican senators, like Rand Paul, who are also opposed to this kind of, this military adventurism. You know, as somebody who sees serving the country as joining the U.S. military, what do you think the U.S. military's role in the world should be? I mean. I mean, we hear from Secretary Hegseth a particular view, right, of warriors who pursue, quote, maximum lethality. What do you see the U.S. military's role in the future to be? What should it be? Defending the United States in the interests of the American people. And right now, I do not see how the war in Iran is doing either of those things at all. Now, it's making some people very rich, which tends to be what war does. In our society. It's one of the reasons why, while I'm not a pacifist, I've absolutely become essentially anti-war. Because far before Donald Trump, I mean, I fought in two wars that, when I look back on them, didn't really seem to have much point. They came. They went. There was an immense amount of suffering. There was an immense amount of violence. There was an immense amount of sacrifice. And we contributed to the destruction. Of nations. And the immiseration of whole populations. Some people got very rich off of that. And some people were able to use it as a political tool to protect their political interests. But the people who got rich weren't in the infantry. And the people who benefited from it politically were not the average American. We spent, it looks like, in the end, it's going to be somewhere around $8 trillion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. For nothing. $8 trillion. Added to the national debt, which is already gigantic. $8 trillion for nothing. Just a bucket of blood that we just dumped cash into for 20 straight years. That is not making America safer. That is not protecting the interests of the average American. That is using militarism and war as an excuse for people to make profit and for people in power to try to protect themselves electorally. To try to use things like nationalism and patriotism. To wrap themselves in the flag so they don't have to talk about the fact that their domestic policies are garbage and are not helping the average person. I just don't have any patience for it. The United States military, the willingness of young Americans to sign the dotted line and in many ways sacrifice their lives for this country to defend their fellow Americans. to protect the Constitution. For someone who had to see all of that close up and up close and personal, for someone who frankly still has to deal with the fact that I know what it looks like when American-made high explosives interact with children, it's an awful thing. It's not a thing that you just leave behind. It stays with you the rest of your life. Knowing that I went through those experiences because people in political power simply see war as a game or a tool, Pete Hegzeth is literally. using the US military to make up for the fact that he's insecure about his own military service. That's insane. But he has power and that's what he's doing right now. That's what you think he's doing? Absolutely. Of course, that's what he's doing. Yeah. I mean, he was a National Guard major. I mean, no shade to the National Guard at all. I was in the National Guard. But his combat record doesn't look like the combat record of a lot of other people. And I think that bothers him. Deep down inside, it makes him insecure. And so now he gets to posture and he gets to literally start wars so he can pretend that he's this big, tough guy. Never went to ranger school. So, you know, not sure how tough he actually is. We were in Iraq, I think around the same time. And I've also seen, obviously, war up close. When you think about your opposition right now, do you see Iran, the war on Iran, in the same way? Is this the same kind of war? Same kind of war. Same kind of war. And it's a war. And the reason I say it's the same kind of war is that it is the outcome of politicians who think war is flippant, who think that war is just a little toy they get to play around with in order to kind of help themselves in whatever way possible. Iraq was that. It was that in a way that, like, the Bush administration got to enrich a lot of other people, got to kind of use that. And I think that's the outcome of war. Iraq was that. It was that in a way that, like, the Bush administration got to enrich a lot of other people, got to enrich a lot of other people, got to enrich a lot of other people. The sort of the post 9-11 feel of patriotism to go start that war based on lies that people in the Bush White House have been trying to start for years. They used it. They used it because they can. And I see that exactly. That's exactly what we have here. And that's, by the way, that's what it was when we were dropping bombs on fishing boats in the Caribbean last fall. That's what going into Venezuela and kidnapping a foreign head of state was. This is people who have access to immense amounts of power who think that all of this is a game. It's a game that they can use to help themselves politically or enrich themselves and their friends. That's how they see it. And the burden of it is going to fall on the young American men and women who are sent over to fight it and the civilian populations and the nations that we start these wars in. That's who bears it. And I think that this war in Iran is exactly the same. Everyone's like, oh, we're almost to a peace deal in which we reopen the Straits of Hormuz. It's like, oh, you mean what we had before the war started? You're going to tell me that we just spent $50 billion, 13 dead Americans, thousands of dead people, gas prices soaring, a possible collapse of fertilizer industries just to get back to where we were? That seems like a pretty stupid use of military force to me. Another thing critics have brought up is your VA benefits. In the sense that they say, how does he qualify 100% when he's oyster farming and he's running a strenuous campaign? If you could just walk me through the benefits that you receive and- You should talk to the VA. They'll tell you how the process works. What do you say to veterans who've had trouble accessing the benefits you've been able to use? What I say is that one of the things I really want to work on in the Senate is building an army of veterans who have had trouble accessing the benefits you've been able to use. An army of social workers for the VA to go out into this country and find every single veteran who is not getting the benefits that they earned. Because one of the biggest problems is, and I have friends like this. I just was hanging out with one last week. Friends who, because of struggles in life, have not been able to access benefits, which is ironic because the whole point of benefits is to help with the struggles. When people are in the hole, when they are really having a hard time making it work, when you go turn in a piece of paperwork and they say, oh, you filled out the wrong form 47-alpha. You're supposed to fill out 47-bravo. You don't go back and do that. You think this system doesn't care about me because I'm already depressed and angry. And then you continue suffering. That needs to end. I have found that VA healthcare for me has been incredibly life-changing. The process to get it was still a total pain in the ass. I mean, I think I filed my first claim in 2013. And it wasn't until the early 2020s that the VA finally gave me my final rating. I mean, that's a long, long time. For many of those years, I didn't even have anything. And those were the years in which I struggled the most because I didn't have access to that support. I mean, that was when I was struggling. So what I would say to those vets is helps on the way. I mean, I very much want to go up in the U.S. Senate and be a strong voice for making sure that not only do we expand VA benefits, not only do we protect it from the likes of Donald Trump and Doge, who are just trying to cut money left and right and just strip these systems for parts. I want to expand the VA's ability to find veterans who are suffering and get them the benefits that they earned. I read that your high school superlative was most likely to start a revolution? Yes. Is this run for Senate? Is this your revolution? Yeah, I believe in the need for political revolution in this country. And I think a lot of people do. The problem that we have right now is that the political system as it stands is what got us here. It's what has built this reality. We need a more democratic society. We need to end partisan gerrymandering. We need to get money out of politics. If I have my way, elections will be publicly funded, and they will last two months. And there will be no consultant class. There will be no ad firms. Everybody gets the same pot of money. Get your signatures. Other countries do this, by the way. None of this is crazy. But it's revolutionary in America right now because that is so far away from what our politics has become. We advocated at the beginning of this nation for something different, for something more democratic, a government that was actually going to revolutionize. We advocated at the beginning of this nation for something democratic, a government that was actually going to revolutionize. We advocated at the beginning of this nation for something more democratic, a government that was actually going to revolutionize. That was the revolutionary promise that started America. We've never fulfilled it. We have moved slightly towards it at times. Sometimes we take steps back. Sometimes we take great leaps forward. But we are still on the path of fulfilling that revolutionary promise in which my favorite founding father, Thomas Paine, said in Common Sense in 1776, we have it in our minds that we have it in our power to make the world over again. We still have it in our power. That is a revolutionary concept and a future in which politics is not for the rich, not for the powerful, but politics is truly democratic. It is accessible to the average American. It is something that someone like me down the road, I want people to say, you know what? I want to represent my community. I care about people around me. I want to go serve my time as a representative, that they can go do it because right now, if the average person has that thought, if they don't have access to money or, in my case, the luck of support from labor unions, then that's it. It's never going to happen. Building that future, that is revolutionary. And I think that's exactly the kind of future that people want in this country. Presumptive Democratic nominee, Graham Platner, thank you so much for your time. Thank you. I really appreciate it. Thank you. Go to plus.npr.org. I'm Steve Inskeep. Thanks for listening to NPR's Newsmakers.