The Josh Bolton Show
The Josh Bolton Show
Michael Fedor's Journey from Politics to Pen
Former political strategist Michael Fedor joins us for a captivating discussion on the crossroads of politics and storytelling. Having transitioned from teaching to a multifaceted political career, Michael shares his disillusionment with the political landscape and how it fueled his return to writing. His "Bull Moose" series offers readers an authentic glimpse into the machinations of political life, inspired by his own experiences navigating roles from elected official to campaign worker. Together, we examine the current political scene, touching on the dynamics involving figures like Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, and exploring how these dynamics influence national discourse.
Fast forward to 2044, where Michael's narrative envisions a fractured two-party system plagued by collusion, giving rise to the reform-focused Bull Moose Party. With protagonist Jackson Piper at the helm, we explore ambitious proposals such as a new Bill of Rights, campaign finance reforms, and national referendums, all set against a backdrop of political intrigue and high-stakes drama. This episode also tackles historical and contemporary issues like term limits and the hurdles faced by third parties in a predominantly two-party system, offering a thought-provoking exploration of potential political reforms and the role of AI in shaping future governance.
if you enjoyed the show be sure to check out my info:
https://app.wingcard.io/ROB3SA64
Hello, hello everybody. A little quick context before we get into this. Me and the guest were talking about politics, because he's a political strategist and a former career, so we were talking about Kamala Harris and Donald Trump's race right now, what it's going to do, the dynamics and what we think is going to play out, and we'll hint on it later on if you're interested in that. But yeah, we got into some good stuff with his story, talking about AI, and he talks about in his story this super simulated intelligence not super simulated intelligence and I've been reading his book on Audible. It's really good. I highly recommend it and, depending on when you listen to this, his next book drops election day, so I'm sure there will be nice discounts from the day it launches, and if you find his previous book interesting, I recommend you do. There is a bit of an abrupt ending at the end. I'm going to insert another one of these at the end. However, pretty much he just says, hey, please rate and review and leave a comment. Uh, it greatly helps him out with feedback. So let's get right into this and let's go. Good, I know the problem, um, but yeah, that was, that's my biggest one with what we were talking about earlier is it's just well you could debate on the whole voter fraud thing. That could or could not be true, but the, the amount of the like the hardcore conservatives are going to be like definitely, like, oh, biden definitely took it this time, kind of thing, or vice versa, and it's just yeah.
Speaker 1:The my one, good um, he's also one of my clients, I work for he um, he's hardcore Harris and I just I asked him. Every so often I'm like you know, there's alarming language. He uses equity for all, not equality for all. That's a little, it's a subtle thing, but it's alarming. Yeah, yeah, kind of thing.
Speaker 2:And that's where he's like. He's like oh yeah, that's a good point actually. Yeah, no, I I think, like I said, I think it's the. It's one of those opportunities that I think leads to four years from now, there being a transformative figure who can step forward and and potentially pick up the pieces. Um, but in the process, we can't lose ourselves. We as a country have to remain focused on. We're still one nation. No matter who you vote for, people on the other side are not your enemy. They're your opposition or they're your opposition in the contest, but they'll come together once it's over and find a way to live together. That's what they're showing us in Florida right now, with that hurricane coming in, and then there's one coming in hardcore tonight too, yeah.
Speaker 2:Yeah, unbelievable. Should I start with an introduction of myself.
Speaker 2:So my name is Michael Fedor. I am here today really to just have a conversation about how does somebody make so many career transitions in their life and find satisfaction and find reward and excitement in the next thing without losing sight on where you are today? And so I began my career 25 years ago as a public school teacher. I was teaching high school English, and I just retired from politics a few years ago, where I worked for 20 years in a variety of capacities. I was an elected official myself.
Speaker 2:I worked for candidates in local government to senator, to governor, to presidential candidates, and I learned a lot in the process but also felt like it has become so unfortunately rotten to the core. I couldn't find satisfaction working in that space anymore and still feeling like I was not being changed by it. And so I've been going through transition and I've rediscovered my love for writing, rediscovered my love for writing, and it has been both been therapeutic for me in a time of challenge, but it's also been really rewarding to craft imaginative, exciting, thrilling stories and fiction that people have really latched on to and found some truth and some some genuine connection with, and I'm really hopeful that that um, I continue to build my, my reader base, and so that's a little bit about me.
Speaker 1:That's wonderful. I love it. So we were talking earlier about the dynamics. I'm just curious with your strategy and everything you've done with the planning, how did that correlate with your series the Bull Moose?
Speaker 2:series? Great question. So I worked in a variety of capacities in politics. I worked first for organized labor, where I worked for a lot of labor unions in different shapes and sizes, for your stereotypical thick-necked labor leader who swore a lot, to maybe some not so typical labor leaders who were really transformative figures and forward thinking. And I met a lot of very powerful people in those roles, sometimes in really great interactions where I was inspired by those people and other times saw the really disgusting side of people in power who treat others like servants or like people who are to wait on them hand and foot, and that would always turn me off right away when I would see that. But I learned a lot about how politics works and how elections work, and so when I sat down to write a political thriller series, my first mission was to make it as believable as possible.
Speaker 2:When I read military spy thriller fiction, I want the aircraft to function like aircraft should. I want the right weapon to be used in the battle. I don't want bad mistakes to take away the realism of the story, and the same is true for my writing. I wanted representation to be accurate of what elections are like, what campaigns are like, what the legislative process is like. And so I've really taken my experience and also a good amount of research when I needed it, to make sure that the underlying backdrop of politics that's told in my stories is true to life, is accurate in the American system and it isn't fanciful or pie in the sky.
Speaker 2:And in that regard, what I often say is my books are thrillingly plausible or terrifyingly plausible, in that you know a lot of people will say this like I can imagine this coming true in good ways and bad ways. And my challenge in my writing has been trying to lean towards the hope, so that I'm not just writing terrifying stories with scary endings but terrifying stories with hopeful, possible uplifting ends. So that's been the process for me, and I've also been careful to make sure nothing I'm writing is autobiographical of my story or clearly biographical of anyone I've ever worked with. So you know I take composites of different people I've met and worked with, different experiences and transform them into something different to form some of the characters in the Bull Moose series.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I mean you as the artist, you can't fully remove yourself from the art, but you are two separate things, kind of thing, and that is it's hard to when you had big changing events in your life that you witnessed. And it's like I want to use this but I also signed an nda kind of thing yep, right, and and the first I I've been writing book.
Speaker 2:It took me 20 years to get it published because I started it when I was teaching high school and when I read early drafts then I thought they were great. When I read those early drafts as recently as you know, five years ago, I was like this is total crap. This is not good and it was too autobiographical. It was like I'm clearly putting myself in the position of the antagonist and that's not good writing. So I went back to basics.
Speaker 2:I rewrote the story from start to finish and made it a much better story, because I found putting myself in some of the other minor characters was way more rewarding for me, because I could add more depth to these other characters in the story and I also didn't feel compelled to make the antagonist perfect in every way. Um, or, you know, he's, he's, he's flawed, just like all of us, and so, um, in that regard, it was also. It was a relief because the antagonist says things I didn't feel like people were saying. Well, is that what you believe? Because when you really are telling a good story, who wrote the story? Is separate from what's happening, and I think that was really key. No one reading the story should think this is what I personally think, or this is what I personally would do. I'm painting a very complex people could get lost in that, without thinking about the authors.
Speaker 1:Yeah, but I mean, there will still always be people who associate you as the character. You can't get away from that.
Speaker 2:Sure, I think the politics too I mean, I write a political thriller book and that was one of the things that I really struggled with early on was I'm trying to talk about a situation that I see emerging in American politics, which is a cliff or a bifurcation of the American politic, that is a cleave right.
Speaker 2:People are kind of pulling apart and there's people in the two extremes, but in the middle are these people who feel left out, and they're not necessarily centrists in their politics, but they certainly feel like the two major political parties are no longer talking to them or representing them. And how to tell that in a story that could be a compelling narrative? As a former president and loses the Republican nomination and he pulls the progressive Bull Moose Party kind of out of the woodwork and into the national stage and wins the most electoral votes of any third party since in that election, and so that became the vehicle for my storytelling is what if a major third party was resurrected, the Bull Moose Party, not to be progressive, not to be liberal or not to be conservative, but to be a reform party that is not necessarily trying to be down the middle but trying to be more multidimensional than the two major parties are today, and how could it help to solve the problems we're facing in a highly polarized American politic?
Speaker 2:So walk me through the process for that, how you painted that canvas, yeah, so one of the first things I had to discover is and this was a challenge I had in the writing process my editor would say if know, if you try to write to the entire spectrum of political ideology, you will end up talking to nobody, because no one will truly identify with the book. So I had to make some choices about where the philosophy was in the story and I think I ended up striking the right chord, because what my editor said was Thea Newell. She was phenomenal. She said people who are going to read this book are going to think a lot like you. So you're going to find that you're going to be expanding your circle of folks who accompany you on this journey that, yes, the two parties feel like they're broken and, yes, it would be nice to have another way of thinking of things. It would be nice to have another way of thinking of things. And so what I went back to was the platform of the Bull Moose Party in 1912, and was just shocked to see how much of their reform platform in 1912 was directly translatable to the type of reform that is kind of relevant for our moment in American politics.
Speaker 2:Or in the case of my story, it takes place in 2044. So 20 years from now, how much worse could things get? Maybe, how much better could they get in other regards, and what solutions would the Bull Moose Party present? And so in my story in 2044, you've got the two parties that really are. They're the ones who are in collusion right. They're rigging the election by agreeing which one's going to run the good candidate, which one's going to run the bad candidate, who's going to get the payoff. That kind of money is polluting the waters entirely and making nothing get done. And that's really what the main character, jackson Piper, is saying throughout the story is there's not a dollar's worth of difference between the two parties. He's he's pulling from an old quote from 1968, um, where a slightly less, uh, savory candidate was saying it wasn't a dime's worth of difference, uh, between the two parties.
Speaker 2:But in this regard, piper saying, like you know they're, they're taking money from the same donors. They might say on paper they disagree on issues, but in reality they get nothing done. So what does it matter? What they believe, and wouldn't it be better if we had a party that could truly try to change and reform America? And so the platform starts to become things like a national referendum, term limits in the Roman style of two terms elected, then at least one term off before serving another Campaign. Finance reform that takes the money out of the system, age limits for judges, national recall elections so it was like expanding the small d democratic principles of the republic in ways that put more power in the people.
Speaker 2:I think the framers of the constitution were wary of that. There's been a lot of talk about going back to a constitutional convention in the United States rewriting the constitution. What Piper says in the book is we need a new bill of rights, 12 new amendments that could reform and improve the constitution without having to throw it entirely out. So that's kind of the backdrop of the story. I want to make sure that people are clear.
Speaker 2:It's not a lecture on reforming American government. It's a thrilling story about a presidential election where there's conspiracy and assassination attempts and lots of crazy stuff like that. But it is asking these questions about who are we, what will we believe and what? If all of it's at risk, then what would the stakes be for an election, a presidential election, where perhaps it's the last? We talk a lot about that this year, about, oh, could it be the last election? It's a little hyperbolic, but in 2044 in the book clearly is the threat, maybe not as clear to the electorate, but it's clear to the candidates what their aims are. And mapping that out was complex and also telling in a way that didn't get boring to the reader.
Speaker 1:So finding some conflict that could keep the story driving forward was real in writing this, the one thing that struck my interest, and I'm curious to hear what they are, because I haven't gone around to reading it yet, although I think I will after this interview. That's good, I'm glad to hear it. What are the 12 amendments to the Bill of Rights you were suggesting?
Speaker 2:Yeah, I'm going to try to pull them from memory where I can pull the book out, but they're talking about basically repealing the Citizens United principle that money is speech. So stipulating that, essentially, that money is not the same thing as speech and that citizens have rights to their own representative democracy. Talking about term limits for all federal elected officials of two terms on at least one term off before being able to serve another term for all offices. Um a age limit of 75 years for any federally appointed judge. Um the right to um like um national referendum. So if the Congress won't pass legislation, it can go to a national referendum and the citizens could pass it by super majority vote of like 60%.
Speaker 2:A balanced budget amendment. There was a taxation amendment where taxes could only be raised with a super vote in Congress. And now I think I'm at eight, but you can see I'm pulling from libertarian, I'm pulling from conservative. I'm at eight, okay, but so you can see I'm pulling from libertarian, I'm pulling from conservative, I'm pulling from liberal too, and trying to find a way to say how is this reform? You know?
Speaker 1:but it's actually really good though, like the topics on what you're bringing up, especially the term limits too, that one's really good. But yeah, I like that that's.
Speaker 2:It's not sorry, but yeah, I like that. It's not Sorry you go. No, I was going to say I stumbled upon the Roman principle of term limits by accident talking to some other writers and a friend who's a libertarian. He was talking about this principle of if you have strict terms, like they have in California the California state legislature has term limits then what happens is the bureaucracy becomes extremely powerful because those folks will work 30 or 40 years no offense to any listeners who work in state government in California but they become very powerful because there's just a revolving door of elected senators and reps every eight or 10 years, depending upon the limit. But it's the staff who become the continuous servers, the continuous power brokers, and that can be very detrimental in the federal system. And so what if it was? Well, whether you're a Senator, a president or a representative, you can serve two terms consecutively, but then you have to take a term off and you've got two years or six years or four, depending upon the office, to go do something else of value to the country. And if you were good enough, don't worry, you come back in four, six or two and if they want you back, they can reelect you. So it's a cool idea and something that we could certainly explore as being equitable across the two branches.
Speaker 2:And then the age limits. We have age limits in Pennsylvania, where I'm from, for our judges. Um, so it's 75, a judge is mandated to retire in Pennsylvania, and so, um, it's healthy. Um, it ensures there isn't lifetime appointment. Um, lifetime in 1776 was way different than lifetime in 2024. Um, and so you know this is so. This amendment concept is addressing that. And then also there was an overruling of Supreme Court decisions, so there could be a national referendum to overturn. But that was actually in the Bull Moose Party platform in 1912, was being able to overturn a Supreme Court decision through, and I thought, well, that's, that's very interesting, let's put that in there, since it's the bull moose part.
Speaker 1:That would be interesting and actually kind of valuable, giving the people some voice back, I think. Like we were talking about earlier before I hit the record button, there's too much division and people don't feel like they have any power, like the moderates in the middle where it's not whereas, like they might be financially conservative but politically liberal, like I support the, the community and all them, just like, don't make me do it kind of thing, yeah, so yeah, that would be good, because then you could actually don't make me do it kind of thing.
Speaker 1:So yeah, that would be good, because then you could actually beat a big chunk of America without sacrificing the power too.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I think there's also a sense too that people are feeling like, well, what does it matter? Right? Why should I vote if they're going to just have nine justices decide these decisions? And it has felt like legislating from the bench on both sides at times. And so, you know, if there's the threat that there is some authority in the people to have a final say on what should or shouldn't be an interpretation of law, that could be an interesting counterbalance to, especially if, right now, while the Congress has to act well, you know, we're seeing how Congress is kind of grinding it to a halt in terms of its ability to get things done, doesn't work in a bipartisan fashion anymore, and so it's be interesting to see what if the what if? The threat was well, if you don't do what the people will, and that could be enough to maybe push the Congress a little further back towards working together I agree.
Speaker 1:No, that that's the. That's what I was thinking, where it's like it's neither going progressive or conservative, it's, if you don't do this, the people are not going to be happy, kind of thing. They will speak up, kind of thing it's interesting I like that, yeah, it's been.
Speaker 2:It was a fascinating exploration, for sure what's um the biggest eye-opening moment?
Speaker 1:that, even with your career and everything you've done in researching for this book, you realize like, wow, this would be amazing if we could do it.
Speaker 2:I think it's the challenge that it actually takes for a third party to get enough lift and coverage because of how much the two parties in response to the 1912 election, let's be clear about that control the landscape and there's a couple of things they did. So, um, popular primaries emerged because of Teddy Roosevelt and the Bull Moose party. Um, and he was calling for popular primaries to really, you know, dictate the nomination of candidates for president in 1912 in the Republican primary. It wasn't until like 1968 or 1972 that actually came to be in both parties. But the challenge now is third, fourth, fifth parties have no ability to have access to that same system because there's a monopoly by the two, a biopoly of the two major parties, to own primary day and so the D's, the R's turn out or maybe independents, if you're lucky. We don't have that in Pennsylvania, unfortunately. We have closed primaries, so it makes it hard for other parties to emerge. They also had sore loser laws emerge after the 1912 election, meaning if you lost a major party's primary for an office, you can't turn around and run as an independent to challenge the race that you lost, and it's called a sore loser law, like 22 states have them. But in researching this book I discovered it's the the law cannot apply to the presidency, and this is fascinating. Why is? Because the primary election is for the candidate, but the general election is for a slate of electors to choose the president, and so it is not actually a sore loser case in the case of president, because the president is not technically on the ballot in november. It is the electors who pledged to vote for the president of your pick.
Speaker 2:So there was a whole chapter, two chapters I had originally included in the book where they were debating this question. It slowed the story down too much. It was a little too in the weeds. It got cutting room floor um space. But it was fascinating to discover that.
Speaker 2:And the other piece of it and this gets into the story is the money it takes to run for president. The money it takes to run a major and form a major political party and do it in a matter of months, which Jackson Piper has to do in the book and he bemoans this in several chapters and it becomes a very sore source of contention between Jackson and his leadership team on his campaign is all he does is raise money. He doesn't have any time to talk to voters and hear what they think, because he constantly has to feed the beast by raising money and his opponent has a billion dollar benefactor. Who's financing the president's reelection Russell Warner and it just makes it nearly impossible.
Speaker 2:At times Jackson considers leaving the race multiple times just because it's so expensive. Let alone the threats on his life, let alone the challenges of AI in the race and social media and inability to discern truth from fiction in 2044. So there are other things too that make it even worse. But that money question is probably the single largest reason why we can't see a major third or fourth party really come out in any way to countervail the Republicans and Democrats or control the Americans.
Speaker 1:Yeah well, I'm just imagining the potency and effectiveness of AI in 20 years. I mean, it's still rudimentary and kind of a child and can be clever at times, but with enough time, even for humans it's going to be like wait. Is that AI? Is that real, is it not?
Speaker 2:Yeah, let's swim in those waters for a minute. So my book is a political thriller with a science fiction edge. Futuristic takes place in 2044. One of the major things that has occurred by 2044 um is the invention of something called si. It's the successor to ai, which is um, simulated intelligence, and it is. You know the difference between like AI is like creating a picture of a milkshake. Si is like actually holding and drinking a milkshake. This is simulated intelligence in every respect.
Speaker 2:And by 2044, you've got 10 or 15 million jobs in the economy replaced by AI. So you've got like. Every food service worker has been replaced because SI machines can take orders, cook food, handle money, hand you orders. All Uber, lyft, taxi, bus, all those drivers are gone because they have this SI technology that can drive every vehicle, the mail system and shipping completely SI Um, and so you can.
Speaker 2:You can imagine where a couple of things start to happen. One, um, there is a lot of resentment for people who've lost jobs and there's no other job to have. Right, there isn't some other new industry being created for them to do so. Folks who would be normally, you know, working at a Wendy's or working at customer service are not finding anything else in the economy that will suit them. And then there's this almost like it's implied in the book, a master and slave type relationship that starts to emerge between humans and the SI robots who are performing these duties. They give them cruel names, they insult them in the drive-through, they try to mess with the SI bots who are pairing the coffee or delivering the packages, and so it's really humiliating to see, and, unfortunately for the SIs, they're on the border of sentience. They're aware of this and they're trying to understand why humans would treat and act this way towards them and they're just trying to provide service.
Speaker 2:The other thing that's happened by 2044 in the book is a gentleman in the book who's a major antagonist.
Speaker 2:Marco Alvarez is the mastermind behind a company called Juniper, and the Juniper has invented something called the Mark. What the Mark does a piece of technology any news story, any video, any photograph, any social media post can be analyzed instantaneously by the Mark and is given a designation of truthful, caution or danger based on how relatively real, accurate and true the story, post, video, photograph is, and it affixes it to the bottom of the image. Now you can imagine why that could be beneficial. You know, green check means it's real, yellow eye means something's been altered and a black skull is. This is not real, isn't true? Don't believe it, except for when the person and the company that makes that technology has an agenda and they start manipulating that technology to influence an election and influence the understanding of truth and the people are so conditioned to looking for the mark. They don't question the mark as having a nefarious agenda, but that plays a major role in the campaign and a major role in the story yeah, you know, it's what.
Speaker 2:What ai, or even si, will become is truly fascinating, and I had a lot of fun when I made the choice to to set the story in the future. I wrote an AI character into the story who is clearly sentient, clearly aware of her own existence. Her name is Ziggy A little nod back to Quantum Leap. I'm old enough to remember the show, but that was fun to create her and she became a bigger and bigger part of the story in the Bull Moose series and is becoming more and more both sentient but also, as she's becoming more sentient, she is starting to flirt with the boundaries of what is ethical and not ethical and trying to understand how she is a piece of programming, what's the boundary of helping one human and hurting another, and how does her programming allow her to do? A really difficult question for her.
Speaker 1:Morality is a very hard one to conquer Because it's all subjective and perspective. Just so you know my call is going to end soon. Zoom gave me the 10-minute warning.
Speaker 2:No problem, I see it counting, that's okay.
Speaker 1:So just one thing for you um, do you plan on doing an audiobook for this?
Speaker 2:so yeah, there's a great setup. So I have um. All my books are available on michaelfedorbookscom that's michael f-e-d-o-r bookscom, and you can get the ebook, you can get the print, you can also get the audiobook direct from me. So go in my shop and get any of the formats of this.
Speaker 2:Book one, what it Takes to Kill a Bull Moose, which is the book we've been talking about here for the past 30 minutes, and book two, tree of Liberty, comes out on Election Day in the United States. It's the sequel to book one, the United States. It's the sequel to book one. It picks up minutes after book one ends and a lot of the same characters in the story carry on the same story and really driving what is the outcome of the election and has a lot of callbacks to what's happening currently in the 2024 election. You can also get me on Amazon, barnes, noble, kobo, audiobookscom. Anywhere where you consume ebooks, print or audiobooks, you can find my writing and I would love any of your listeners to take it up. I have a sale running on Book One right now on my shop. So if you go to michaelfedorbookscom, you see it's 50% off to get the e-book or the audio book or the print of the book until Election Day, so I'd love as many people as possible to read book one and be ready for book two on November 5th.
Speaker 1:Looks like I'm going to have to go to your website because it's not on Audible it should be on Audible.
Speaker 2:Just look up Michael Fedor. Okay, it should be there, if you go on the Amazon page for what it takes to kill a bull moose. Michael Fedor should be there. It's right, if you go on the Amazon page for what it takes to kill a bull moose, michael Fedor, you should see the audible link there, michael.
Speaker 1:F-E-D-O-R. Yep, he's not. You're not pulling up, but I'll figure it out. I'll send you the link.
Speaker 2:I'll make sure you got it. I'll make sure nothing's wrong on my end either. All right, cool, it's been an absolute honor to have you on. Thanks, josh, and it's been great talking to you, and I really love listening to your conversations you have with guests and I think you're really doing a great thing with this really curious conversation you're developing and I encourage you to keep it up. I just love the show. Thank you.
Speaker 1:Much appreciated, absolutely All right. All right, you made it to the end. Congratulations, gold star for you. Hey, just remember to like, review and comment on his books and anything else. Um, also the podcast. It helps me out, uh, also, so, be good, don't get into too much trouble now.