So the first question is why run for Congress, knowing that you're gay? Which I

certainly did.

Well, I've always been interested in politics.

I'm an early TV kid.

I'm 49 years old.

I was born in 1940.

And so when they first started televising things, the key forward hearings, and then the Republican and Democratic conventions, and then the Army McCarthy hearings when I was anywhere from 11, 12 to 14 years old, I was fascinated with them.

time to go without a personal

How many people have sat on this stage and told the story of the time of the

pope? I got elected to the legislature in this very unusual district in Back Bay, Beacon Hill.

And I was there for about eight years, but I said, you know what? I'm not going to be able to go on for it.

I'm not a great candidate.

By the way, when I first ran, it wasn't just being gay that was an issue.

It was the fact that I'm Jewish, although I can report that anti-Semitism has pretty much disappeared as a political problem for candidates.

But what happens here is this.

Oh, I'm very

Well, what do you want people to remember about Congressman Barney Frank?

Oh, that I was smart enough and learned enough about the reaction not to answer that question.

But beyond that, what do you want young people watching to know?

Well, uh, okay, that's a good question, and I'm gonna do it specifically with gay rights.

There's a lot of, uh, uh, angst among other gay and lesbian people, "Oh, we're gonna lose our rights.

They're gonna take things away." Uh, and my answer is no.

In fact, the history of gay rights shows the positive capacity of our system.

So I want younger people, all people, to understand that i- a political majority can get things done more than people think.

How do you think this legislative sausage-making is gonna play out?

I'm basically optimistic.

I spent Thursday in the cloakroom talking to people, and it is true, it's hard to see exactly how it happens.

I...

B- But basic forces are, are an issue.

W- The positive side is, first of all, is it Samuel Johnson, uh, the, the imminence of death concentrates the mind? There can't be a Democrat who does not understand how essential a successful outcome to a great degree is to the Democrats surviving.

In fact, I can't remember a case, seriously, where the, where the stakes were so great, win or lose.

How does she work her magic?

Tell us more.

Yes, I know.

I've been trying to decide, by the way, personally, whether it's better to be an icon or an emoji.

I haven't decided that yet.

But as far as this is concerned, it's precisely because I have been on the left that I've undertaken this.

I think we're in a situation where the mainstream... to my disappointment, for many years, ignored inequality.

And many of us fought to get inequality on the Democratic agenda.

What makes you confident that he's imploding? And do you think he has permanently changed politics in America?

Um, for the younger listeners, what do you think used to pass for an outrage or a scandal when you were in Washington and how has that changed in the current day?

Well, I have a long-term and a short-term argument that one long-term, and I have a book that, uh, it's gonna be out next year, well before the election.

And my argument is, frankly, I, I blame liberals, mainstream liberals, uh, including say two presidents who I greatly admired in general, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, because for too long we kind of got scared out of dealing with inequality.

The, the success of, of Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, so that scared liberals and we said, "Okay, let's just grow, but we'll not worry about inequality." Unfortunately, given changes in the economy, in the world, in technology, in trade, et cetera, beginning in the '80s or last century, inequality was growing rapidly.

Finally, as a reaction to the crash of 2008, which you mentioned in your very generous introduction of me, the public reacted and they got very angry and, uh, the mainstream still didn't see that and kept pushing for things that were exacerbating the disparity, particularly in the area of international trade, which is a good thing in that it helps overall with the economies, but has a negative aspectin that in developed economies, it causes an exacerbation of inequality.

So the right answer is to go ahead with trade, but to compensate the people who are losing.

What happened was that neither of our presidents, Obama or, or Clinton, was willing to take that chance.

(music plays)

Barney Frank, you were on the board of Signature Bank, and Signature Bank was put out of business, and there was a lot of circumstances that came along with it.

What seemed to be clear, the biggest difference on banking and finance policy between Donald Trump and his predecessors has to do with crypto.

The Trump administration and the president personally have embraced crypto.

The Biden administration was sort of anti-crypto, especially the head of the SEC.

And one of the problems, ironically, that signature had was we were being successful in dealing with crypto.

We did not invest in cryptocurrency.

We weren't lending cryptocurrency.

What did they do wrong? If

Can you explain that to our

audience? I've heard that argument, John.

I haven't really yet been persuaded, but I'll tell you what seems to be clear.

The biggest difference on banking and finance policy between Donald Trump and his predecessors has to do with crypto.

The Trump administration and the president personally have embraced crypto.

The Biden administration was sort of anti-crypto, especially the head of the SEC.

And one of the problems, ironically, that signature had was we were being successful in dealing with crypto.

I'm