Latest / The Chuck ToddCast / Full Episode - America Could Enter A “Reform Era” Post-Trump + America Is Losing The World

Transcript

Full Episode - America Could Enter A “Reform Era” Post-Trump + America Is Losing The World · The Chuck ToddCast

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: This episode of the Chuck Todcast is brought to you
• 0:02
  Speaker 1: by Wild Grain. Wild Grain is the first bake from
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: frozen subscription box for sour dough breads, arteisonal pastries, and
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: fresh pastas, plus all the items conveniently baked in twenty
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: five minutes or less. Unlike many store brought options, Wild
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: Grain uses some simple ingredients you can pronounce and a
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: slow fermentation process that can be a lot easier on
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: your belly, little gut health there right, and richer in
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: nutrients antioxidants. There's also no preservatives and no shortcuts. The
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: Wild Grain boxes are fully customizable. In addition to their
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: variety box, they have a gluten free box, a vegan box,
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: and a new protein box. I will tell you I
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: have done the gluten free box. I have done it
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: a second time. I have also used the code the
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: todcast code. You use the promo code toodcast at checkout
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: you get thirty dollars off. I've already used it as
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: a gift to somebody else who loves this bread. It
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: is hard to find good gluten free bread. It is fantastic.
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: They give you step by step instructions. I really dig this.
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: There is nothing like having an artesion bakery in your
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: freezer to chase away the winter chill. Now is the
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: best time to stay in and enjoy some comforting homemade
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: meals with Wildgrain. I obviously highly recommend it. It is
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: worth giving Wildgrain to try.
• 1:21
  Speaker 2: Right now.
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: Wildgrain is offering my listeners thirty dollars off your first
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: box plus free croissants for life. Come on when you
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: go to wildgrain dot com slash podcast to start your
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: subscription today. That's thirty dollars off your first box and
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: free croissants for life when you visit wildgrain dot com
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: slash podcast, or simply use the promo code podcast at checkout.
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: This is a sponsor I absolutely embrace, so use that code. Hello,
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: They're happy Wednesday, and welcome to another episode of the
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: Chuck Podcast. A little rundown on today. It is Wednesday,
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: which means you're gonna get at a top five list.
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: I got a fun one for you. It involves the
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: president and prestigious awards. So I gave you a big hint.
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: But maybe you still won't quite know where I'm headed
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: with that. We'll do some letters. My interview today is
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: actually perfectly timed for all the conversation that just took
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: place in Munich at the Munich Security Conference. It's Robert Blackwell.
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: He is a longtime foreign policy hand, if you will.
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: He was a deputy National Security advisor during George W.
• 2:33
  Speaker 2: Bush.
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: He has worked for Henry Kissinger in the past. He
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: is somebody who is now at the Council on Foreign
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: Relations and wrote sort of a and I'd given this
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: to you guys before sort of his walked you through
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: sort of what I've believed was his sort of memo
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: to the next president essentially, no matter what party you're from,
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: but how to repair America's standing in the world post Trump.
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: Needless to say, Blackwell is not a big fan of
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: what Trump has done to the global order. And I think,
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: you know when you hear it from somebody who's mostly
• 3:09
  Speaker 1: worked for Republicans going back to the Nixon era, and
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: he's not alone. You know, there's quite a few of
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: sort of what I call former Republican foreign policy types
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: that now I think consider themselves American foreign policy experts
• 3:24
  Speaker 1: that used to work for Republicans and be willing to
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: work for any party that believes in multilateralism and believes.
• 3:32
  Speaker 2: In those things.
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: This obviously is not that, but I do think his
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: memo is something that everybody running for president needs to read.
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: But we go through and I think it's a live
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: It's both a lively conversation and one that will I
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: think fit quite well in with what we've been hearing
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: in and out of Munich. What is the future of
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: America's relationship with Europe, what should be the future relationship,
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: how do we deal with China, et cetera. So I
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: do think you will enjoy that conversation, but I want
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: to begin today with you know, one of the things
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: that I'm mindful of is that sometimes we're so dark
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: and negative that we sometimes can miss a big deal
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: taken place in plain sight. Right, And to start with
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: a with an issue that has not really made the
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: rounds on cable television, you haven't seen much of it
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: on social media, and it certainly has yet to generate
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: a Chiron countdown clock. But it might matter a lot
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: more than most of the headlines we've been dealing with
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: over the last few weeks. And it's a constitutional amendment
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: proposal that is now circulating in Congress that would allow
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: congressional lawmakers to nullify a presidential pardon this is not
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: a bill that, while you may have it is not
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: idea that would have gotten much traction or must interest
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: even five years ago. But something like this seems very
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: plausible to me, and it's plausible enough that I wanted
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: to give it a little extra attention. And that's sometimes
• 5:12
  Speaker 1: the role I feel like I can play best here,
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: which is like, hey, you know, I used to run
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: a mainstream news supposed mainstream news organization, a couple of them.
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: Here's what I would be leaning into there, and you
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: should be too. And that's sort of a role I
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: like to play sometimes. But we may be seeing a
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: major structural shift in conversation at a time that we
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: really needed, and it may be.
• 5:42
  Speaker 2: To me.
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: I hope it gives you a little bit of hope,
• 5:43
  Speaker 1: because it gives me. I'm granted, I'm looking for it.
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: So I'm looking for this, which is that maybe we
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: have begun a new era of reform that you know,
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: like the progressive era of the early twentieth century, which
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: created some needed constitutional reform that we're finally starting. I've
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: been saying we're going to get it, We're going to
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: get it. Well, guess what we're finally starting to see
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: a concrete proposal, and the fact that it starts with
• 6:09
  Speaker 1: pardons is actually not surprising to me, because we knew
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: something was going to trigger, right. I think, you know,
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: in reform eras happen when enough people on both sides
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: of the aisle the sides it's the rules that need
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: to be tightened or changed that a singular president can't do.
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: The fixes that we now know are systemic or structural. So, look,
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: why did we start with pardons? Well, I think it's
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: pretty obvious what triggered this right pardon power, and it's
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: how it's been abused, particularly with this president. Under Donald Trump,
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: the pardon power has become so politically charged in ways
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: we haven't seen ever on the presidential level. We've seen
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: governors sell pardons for profit, we have not seen presidents
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: do it. It is aggressively Trump has. We've seen what
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: appear to be potential pay to play pardons in some
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: form or another, but it would be one controversial pardon
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: by a president, you know, not essentially the entire process
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: being monetized, which is what's happened here today. And so
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: under Trump, you know, some of the most controversial ones, right,
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: there's the broad January sixth partons for anybody, and that
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: is that has allowed a lot of bad people who
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: deserve to be behind bars not to be behind bars.
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: Some of them have committed crimes as their pardon was
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: made official. That's been a total a disaster by doing that.
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: But we know why he did it. It's his own
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: personal motivation believing that somehow January sixth was not what
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: it was, that it was somehow a lawful protest. We
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: know he pardons people that are represented by his longtime
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: political allies, or people like Roger Stone who get paid
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: as sort of an intermediary for the pardons. We know
• 7:58
  Speaker 1: that's taking place. I mean, you know, you don't think
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: the former president of Hondura's got pardoned for free, do you.
• 8:07
  Speaker 2: So you know that sits out there.
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: And then there's this pattern of Trump where he pardons
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: people that are accused of doing things that he's been
• 8:16
  Speaker 1: accused of, always in the white collar space, in particular
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: financial crimes and things like that. So we now know
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: it's fair to say that the perception is that pardon
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: power is now drifted towards the personal and political. It's
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: no longer what its original construct was about, which was
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: constitutional mercy if you will. Now it's about political protection.
• 8:44
  Speaker 1: And look, it's like everything Trump does, he's not the
• 8:48
  Speaker 1: first to do it, and he's not the you know,
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: it's not as if it's not been done by members
• 8:53
  Speaker 1: of both parties. He's just done it more aggressively and
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: more you know, sort of like rubbing our nose and
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: dog manure faith, right, Like he's grotesque about it. But
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: what Joe Biden did at the end of his term,
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: I've always thought was just as bad as what Trump's
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: doing because he almost gave Trump a license to do
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: it when he did his preemptive pardons that involved family
• 9:16
  Speaker 1: members that had no business getting a pardon at all
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: or certainly seemed to get pardoned for, you know, not
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: for the thing he claimed they were getting pardoned for,
• 9:25
  Speaker 1: but you know, and even used clemency at times that
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: did generate some partisan backlash, and it seemed like some
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: of his sweeping commutations were tied to some political issues
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: that he wanted to bring to the forefront. So again,
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: Will Biden didn't do it as ham handedly as Trump is.
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: What he did with his family at the end was grotesque,
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: the preemptive pardons and using Trump as the as the
• 9:51
  Speaker 1: rationale to do it was all the more awful, I'll
• 9:54
  Speaker 1: be honest, because it just assumed corruption in the process itself.
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: And and so I understand you assume Trump is corrupt,
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: but then to essentially do it before Trump actually does
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: what you fear, you know, you've suddenly committed your own
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: slate of corruption there.
• 10:14
  Speaker 2: So it is.
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: And frankly, in order to get institutional change, you need
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: bad actors on both sides. So, you know, if we
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: want to make the Biden pardons sort of the you
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: know the oh, by the way, I think it's worthy,
• 10:27
  Speaker 1: those preemptive pardons.
• 10:29
  Speaker 2: Let's not.
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: I'm not sure this is not equal both siderisms here. Okay,
• 10:34
  Speaker 1: what Trump has done is on an unprecedented level, But
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: to get this structural reform, you're going to need bipartisan
• 10:41
  Speaker 1: buy in. And what Biden did was awful. What Trump
• 10:45
  Speaker 1: does has been worse. So no matter what, whether you
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: support the individual actions or oppose them, the structural concern
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: has become the same that the the power of pardon pardoning.
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: Presidential pardons has become a high stake's political instrument now
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: in the last decade, and it's got to change. And
• 11:04
  Speaker 1: now that both parties are fearing how the other might
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: wield this power. That's when you actually start getting reform conversations,
• 11:14
  Speaker 1: and it is incredibly important. So late last year, a
• 11:17
  Speaker 1: Maryland Congressman by the name of Johnny Olzuski introduced a
• 11:23
  Speaker 1: constitutional amendment to give Congress the opportunity to nullify a pardon,
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: and it would under certain conditions, and it would essentially
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: it's similar to what the power Congress has now to
• 11:39
  Speaker 1: override vetos. Now, what made me interested in this story
• 11:43
  Speaker 1: this last week is that this was a Democrat introducing it.
• 11:47
  Speaker 1: So and you sometimes can get these partisan ideas introduced
• 11:51
  Speaker 1: and there's nobody on the other side that's interested. Well,
• 11:53
  Speaker 1: Don Bacon, a Republican from Omaha, Nebraska who's not running
• 11:57
  Speaker 1: for reelection, decided to sign on as an early host sponsor,
• 12:00
  Speaker 1: and it made him the first Republican to support this
• 12:03
  Speaker 1: constitutional amendment. And it's always important the minute you can
• 12:06
  Speaker 1: get something by partisan, it suddenly has traction and has
• 12:10
  Speaker 1: an opportunity. Now, let me read you the proposal word
• 12:13
  Speaker 1: for word here of this pardon amendment that Congress may,
• 12:17
  Speaker 1: by a vote of two thirds of each House, nullify
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: any pardon granted by the President of the United States
• 12:22
  Speaker 1: upon petition of twenty members of the House of Representatives
• 12:25
  Speaker 1: and five members of the Senate. A vote shall be
• 12:28
  Speaker 1: held within a specified period to determine whether such pardon
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: shall stand. So again it's modeling. So this amendment specific
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: amendment would model the process after what is the veto
• 12:40
  Speaker 1: override structure, So they wouldn't abolish the presidential pardon. Something
• 12:45
  Speaker 1: I might consider there's not partisan punishment, but it's a
• 12:49
  Speaker 1: good old fashioned constitutional check. It'd be something the founders
• 12:51
  Speaker 1: would be impressed with because it's a high threshold to
• 12:56
  Speaker 1: nullify a presidential pardon. That's not easy. Two thirds of
• 12:59
  Speaker 1: each out of Congress and to get your sort of
• 13:01
  Speaker 1: twenty members of the House, five members of the Senate.
• 13:03
  Speaker 1: That's probably the easy part. The hard part is getting
• 13:05
  Speaker 1: that two thirds. I might argue that, you know, the
• 13:10
  Speaker 1: I think the having leaving one person with any of
• 13:12
  Speaker 1: that power is the mistake itself. And then maybe you
• 13:15
  Speaker 1: create a pardon board that includes, you know, the two
• 13:19
  Speaker 1: longest serving members of the Supreme Court, the you know, say,
• 13:23
  Speaker 1: you know, the two longest serving members of the House
• 13:25
  Speaker 1: and the Senate, the Attorney General, the President, and the
• 13:28
  Speaker 1: Vice president something like that that would become a pardon
• 13:31
  Speaker 1: board where no one individual could decide, but you would
• 13:34
  Speaker 1: bring bring individual cases there. But either way, the fact
• 13:40
  Speaker 1: that Congress has a bipartisan amendment to potentially at least
• 13:44
  Speaker 1: put a check on the pardon power of the president
• 13:47
  Speaker 1: is big, a big deal, not a small deal, And
• 13:51
  Speaker 1: I think it signifies the start of something. So let's
• 13:53
  Speaker 1: zoom out here. The last time Americans felt that the
• 13:56
  Speaker 1: structure itself was compromised, we Americans of men did the
• 14:00
  Speaker 1: constitution and it wasn't an abstract it was all scandal driven.
• 14:04
  Speaker 1: Let me tell you the story of the seventeenth Amendment.
• 14:06
  Speaker 1: All right before nineteen thirteen, state legislatures chose US senators.
• 14:10
  Speaker 1: The system had been rotting for years. Deadlocks had left
• 14:14
  Speaker 1: too many Senate seats vacant. Party bosses essentially controlled the
• 14:18
  Speaker 1: appointment process. Wasn't the voters hadn't much say at all.
• 14:21
  Speaker 1: Wealthy interests wo lobby state House votes. I mean, look,
• 14:26
  Speaker 1: I'll be honest. I think you know, the lower down
• 14:29
  Speaker 1: the ladder, you go the most corruptible institutions or state legislatures,
• 14:33
  Speaker 1: then city councils. Right, you keep going down, Right, the
• 14:36
  Speaker 1: least corruptible these days has been Congress. So imagine all
• 14:39
  Speaker 1: that power deciding a US Senate in the state level.
• 14:43
  Speaker 2: It was a.
• 14:44
  Speaker 1: Mess, but it took a big scandal to sober the
• 14:47
  Speaker 1: public up and say, hey, enough of this shit. Let
• 14:51
  Speaker 1: me tell you the story of a gentleman named William
• 14:53
  Speaker 1: Lowermer in the state of Illinois. He was elected by
• 14:58
  Speaker 1: the state legislature to the US Senate, I believe in
• 15:00
  Speaker 1: nineteen oh nine. Well, soon after, a state legislator confessed
• 15:05
  Speaker 1: that he was paid one thousand dollars to vote for
• 15:07
  Speaker 1: the guy. That's roughly thirty five thousand dollars today. Investigators
• 15:11
  Speaker 1: then uncovered and what was called a jackpot slush fund
• 15:15
  Speaker 1: that allegedly used was used to secure enough votes in
• 15:18
  Speaker 1: a Chicago hotel bathroom. So the Senate investigated. They cleared
• 15:23
  Speaker 1: him once, but the public outrage exploded. New evidence emerged
• 15:28
  Speaker 1: of just how this process worked, and so by nineteen twelve,
• 15:31
  Speaker 1: the Senate declared his election corrupt and vacated the seat.
• 15:34
  Speaker 1: But what America saw was a Senate seat that was
• 15:37
  Speaker 1: effectively purchased. So guess what happened? We finally changed the
• 15:41
  Speaker 1: constitution It had been building for a while, but it
• 15:44
  Speaker 1: took a scandal like that one to sober ebody up
• 15:46
  Speaker 1: and say yeah, seventeenth Amendment suddenly moved Senate elections directly
• 15:50
  Speaker 1: to voters, so corruption became visible and the reform followed.
• 15:56
  Speaker 1: That's what we have here with pardons. This episode of
• 16:03
  Speaker 1: the Chuck Podcast is being brought to you by Quints.
• 16:05
  Speaker 1: As you know, a well built wardrobe is about the
• 16:08
  Speaker 1: pieces that work together, hold up over time, and frankly
• 16:10
  Speaker 1: allow you to be flexible and sort of business casual,
• 16:14
  Speaker 1: to say social casual. Quins does this really well. They
• 16:18
  Speaker 1: have premium material, thoughtful design, and some everyday staples that
• 16:21
  Speaker 1: feel easy to wear, easy to rely on even as
• 16:24
  Speaker 1: the weather shifts. I've got some sweaters from Quints. I
• 16:27
  Speaker 1: love them. I can use them for here on the podcast.
• 16:30
  Speaker 1: I can do a business meeting with them. They have
• 16:32
  Speaker 1: every day essentials. I love the quality so far. It's
• 16:35
  Speaker 1: lasting really well. I've had it for a while. They
• 16:37
  Speaker 1: have organic cotton sweaters, polos for every occasion. They have
• 16:40
  Speaker 1: some nice jackets, including you know, lighter jackets as things
• 16:43
  Speaker 1: I hope warm up at some point down here in
• 16:45
  Speaker 1: the mid Atlantic. The list goes on. All of it
• 16:47
  Speaker 1: is built to hold up for you to wear this
• 16:49
  Speaker 1: stuff all the time, right, Not just something you pull
• 16:52
  Speaker 1: out once a quarter to look nice at work. No
• 16:55
  Speaker 1: stuff that you might wear every week. They only partner
• 16:57
  Speaker 1: with factories that meet some rigorous standards for crashmanship and
• 17:01
  Speaker 1: ethical product. Bottom line, I wear it, I'm happy. It's
• 17:05
  Speaker 1: been really good. It isn't going to break the bank,
• 17:08
  Speaker 1: So refresh your wardrobe with Quints. Go to quins dot
• 17:11
  Speaker 1: com slash chuck for free shipping on your order and
• 17:14
  Speaker 1: a three hundred and sixty five day opportunity to return it.
• 17:18
  Speaker 1: Now available in Canada too. That's qui NC dot com
• 17:23
  Speaker 1: slash chuck, free shipping, three hundred and sixty five day
• 17:26
  Speaker 1: returns quints dot com slash chuck. Do you hate hangovers,
• 17:31
  Speaker 1: We'll say goodbye to hangovers. Out of Office gives you
• 17:33
  Speaker 1: the social buzz without the next day regret. Their best
• 17:36
  Speaker 1: selling out of Office gummies were designed to provide a mild,
• 17:39
  Speaker 1: relaxing buzz, boost your mood and enhance creativity and relaxation.
• 17:43
  Speaker 1: With five different strengths, you can tailor the dose to
• 17:45
  Speaker 1: fit your vibe, from a gentle one point five milligram
• 17:48
  Speaker 1: microdose to their newest fifteen milligram gummy for a more
• 17:53
  Speaker 1: elevated experience. Their THHC beverages and gummies are a modern,
• 17:56
  Speaker 1: mindful alternative to a glass of wine or a cutt
• 18:00
  Speaker 1: and I'll tell you this, I've given up booze. I
• 18:02
  Speaker 1: don't like the hangovers. I prefer the gummy experience. Soul
• 18:06
  Speaker 1: is a wellness brand that believes feeling good should be
• 18:09
  Speaker 1: fun and easy. Soul specializes in delicious hemp derived THHC
• 18:13
  Speaker 1: and CBD products, all designed to boost your mood and
• 18:16
  Speaker 1: simply help you unwind. So if you struggle to switch
• 18:19
  Speaker 1: off at night, Sol also has a variety of products
• 18:21
  Speaker 1: specifically designed to just simply help you get a better
• 18:24
  Speaker 1: night's sleep, including their top selling Sleepy gummies. It's a
• 18:27
  Speaker 1: fan favorite for deep restorative sleep. So bring on the
• 18:31
  Speaker 1: good vibes and treat yourself to Soul today. Right now,
• 18:34
  Speaker 1: Soul is offering my audience thirty percent off your entire order,
• 18:38
  Speaker 1: So go to get sold dot Com use the promo
• 18:41
  Speaker 1: code todcast. Don't forget that code. That's getsold dot Com
• 18:45
  Speaker 1: promo code todcast for thirty percent off. Let me tell
• 18:52
  Speaker 1: you the story of the sixteenth in then right, they've
• 18:54
  Speaker 1: debilitated at tax income. Right. That has its roots in
• 18:58
  Speaker 1: income inequality of the early parts of the Industrial Revolution.
• 19:02
  Speaker 1: Right right around that same period, industrial wealth was exploding.
• 19:06
  Speaker 1: Sound familiar. Tariffs taxes on consumption were the federal government's
• 19:11
  Speaker 1: primary revenue source. Working families paid disproportionately a larger share
• 19:16
  Speaker 1: of tariff revenue to the government treasury than the wealthy
• 19:20
  Speaker 1: people did. The wealthiest industrialists paid relatively little in any
• 19:23
  Speaker 1: kind of taxation. Supreme Court even struck down an earlier
• 19:27
  Speaker 1: attempt to create an income tax. He said it was unconstitutional. Well,
• 19:30
  Speaker 1: so reformers amended the Constitution to make a federal income
• 19:33
  Speaker 1: tax unquestionably legal. And the six thing amendment wasn't sub subtle.
• 19:38
  Speaker 1: It was all about shifting the burden upward. And why
• 19:41
  Speaker 1: was there traction for that at that time? Because you
• 19:43
  Speaker 1: had these wealthy industrialists. Income inequality was massive, you know,
• 19:48
  Speaker 1: you had an explosion in sort of abused labor, child labor.
• 19:51
  Speaker 1: It was terrible. So this is why the public appetite
• 19:55
  Speaker 1: for this was huge. The public believed these elites, these
• 19:58
  Speaker 1: robber barons. That's why they got the name we're gaming
• 20:02
  Speaker 1: the system, We're robbing the system. So the system was changed.
• 20:07
  Speaker 1: And let's not forget the nineteen Amendment, which also came
• 20:09
  Speaker 1: in this same period. Half the population wasn't allowed to
• 20:12
  Speaker 1: vote simply because of their gender. Nineteen the amendment corrected
• 20:15
  Speaker 1: that it was an incremental reform. It was structural expansion
• 20:18
  Speaker 1: of small d democratic power at a time when the
• 20:21
  Speaker 1: public felt that the democracy was slipping away. So it
• 20:26
  Speaker 1: looked like the elites were gaming the system. The wealthy
• 20:29
  Speaker 1: were getting wealthier while the rest of us were being
• 20:32
  Speaker 1: left behind. And oh, by the way, the democracy wasn't
• 20:36
  Speaker 1: really even representing most of the country because half the
• 20:39
  Speaker 1: country couldn't couldn't vote. That structural reform. That's a reform era.
• 20:44
  Speaker 1: Question is are we about to do the same thing now? Look,
• 20:46
  Speaker 1: not every reform from that era was a good idea.
• 20:50
  Speaker 1: The eighteenth Amendment prohibition was born of moral urgency. Right
• 20:54
  Speaker 1: temperance movements believed alcohol was destroying families, corrupting politics, and
• 20:58
  Speaker 1: undermining public virtues. So basically at the same time of
• 21:02
  Speaker 1: distrust of politicians, distrust of elites, this is why one
• 21:05
  Speaker 1: of these this moral amendment got through, right to ban
• 21:10
  Speaker 1: the manufacturing and sale of alcohol. Well, that ended up
• 21:13
  Speaker 1: actually jumpstarting crime arguably created the modern mob system that
• 21:18
  Speaker 1: we still deal with today. Black markets, organized crime, all
• 21:22
  Speaker 1: that mess. And so within fourteen years we're like, ooh,
• 21:25
  Speaker 1: that was a bad idea. And so the twenty first
• 21:27
  Speaker 1: Amendment repealed prohibition. So it's an important lesson because reform
• 21:32
  Speaker 1: eras are powerful and they're also potentially risky. When we
• 21:35
  Speaker 1: amend the constitution, we are playing with the architecture of
• 21:39
  Speaker 1: the country itself. Some reforms will stabilize the democracy direct
• 21:43
  Speaker 1: election of senators, did the income tax, did women the
• 21:46
  Speaker 1: right to vote? Did others overcorrect like prohibition. It's something
• 21:50
  Speaker 1: I think about about the Balanced Budget Amendment. I'm sort
• 21:53
  Speaker 1: of intrigued by it. I kind of in theory agree
• 21:56
  Speaker 1: to it, and then you're like, what would this mean?
• 21:58
  Speaker 1: Could this create an economic im a catastrophe for us
• 22:01
  Speaker 1: in ways that we have not, you know, because of
• 22:04
  Speaker 1: the unintended consequence. So and I'm mindful I think we're
• 22:07
  Speaker 1: going to have an era of reform. So the question
• 22:09
  Speaker 1: is what does what does that look like? I do
• 22:13
  Speaker 1: think this that historians may one day say see the
• 22:15
  Speaker 1: Obama and Trump presidencies as bookends of the same structural
• 22:20
  Speaker 1: frustration they had different ideologies, but it was the same demand.
• 22:24
  Speaker 1: They were elected to shake things up, to change the system,
• 22:27
  Speaker 1: fix what feels broken. At the time, the public thought, well,
• 22:31
  Speaker 1: maybe a president could restore some balance. Turns out structural
• 22:35
  Speaker 1: corrosion requires structural repair, and structural repair requires constitutional thinking.
• 22:44
  Speaker 1: They alone cannot fix it, meaning a singular president Obama
• 22:48
  Speaker 1: couldn't do it. Trump clearly cannot do it. So if
• 22:53
  Speaker 1: this pardon conversation gains traction, expect more to follow. And
• 22:57
  Speaker 1: this one should. This one, to me is an easy
• 23:00
  Speaker 1: one to get traction for. And I think, you know,
• 23:03
  Speaker 1: it's one of those things that could be an interesting
• 23:07
  Speaker 1: way for Republicans to show some independence from Trump, but
• 23:11
  Speaker 1: grounding it in the Constitution and for protection of future
• 23:15
  Speaker 1: presidents abusing the power of the pardon. So it's also
• 23:20
  Speaker 1: a pretty good way to sort of keep track of huh.
• 23:24
  Speaker 1: You know, it's almost like, you know, if I were
• 23:27
  Speaker 1: a Republican strategist trying to mitigate the damage that's coming
• 23:31
  Speaker 1: in this midterm year, I might want a vehicle like
• 23:34
  Speaker 1: this pardon constitutional amendment where I can sign on as
• 23:37
  Speaker 1: a co sponsor to show my independence, to show that
• 23:40
  Speaker 1: I still care about some sort of I have some
• 23:45
  Speaker 1: ethical lines that I'd like to draw here. So if
• 23:49
  Speaker 1: this pardon thing gains traction, where else could we see
• 23:52
  Speaker 1: some reform attempts of the constitutional sort. Well, I think
• 23:56
  Speaker 1: we could have limits on executive emergency authority.
• 24:00
  Speaker 2: Won't do it.
• 24:00
  Speaker 1: Maybe we'll put a constitutional amendment into force Congress to
• 24:04
  Speaker 1: realize it's authority there. Maybe there's there's clearly if we
• 24:08
  Speaker 1: want to do anything in the in campaign finance, whether
• 24:12
  Speaker 1: it's limits or transparency, basically outlawing anonymous contributions, you're going
• 24:18
  Speaker 1: to need Since the courts have used the First Amendment
• 24:22
  Speaker 1: as a shield on anything to reform and to reform
• 24:26
  Speaker 1: in the campaign money era area, then you need a
• 24:30
  Speaker 1: constitutional amendment. I think that will get traction in some form.
• 24:33
  Speaker 1: I think transparency is the way to go, because again,
• 24:36
  Speaker 1: when you're trying to pass the constitutional amendment to third
• 24:38
  Speaker 1: support in the House, you know it's got to pass
• 24:40
  Speaker 1: the House, in the Senate plus thirty eight states, you've
• 24:42
  Speaker 1: got to have something.
• 24:43
  Speaker 2: That you can talk everybody into. You know.
• 24:46
  Speaker 1: My pet issue on this run indicates the expansion of
• 24:50
  Speaker 1: the House Representative. It's been capted at feign in thirty
• 24:53
  Speaker 1: five since their early twentieth century. It is, you know,
• 24:57
  Speaker 1: we should not have congressional districts that are sized of
• 24:59
  Speaker 1: major city eight hundred thousand people. We should have congressional
• 25:02
  Speaker 1: districts that are somewhere between three hundred and fifty and
• 25:04
  Speaker 1: four hundred thousand. And you could put a constitutional amendment
• 25:07
  Speaker 1: and say no congressional district can have a population more
• 25:10
  Speaker 1: than you know, point oh three percent of the population.
• 25:12
  Speaker 2: Basically you can.
• 25:13
  Speaker 1: You can have it as right now, right if you
• 25:16
  Speaker 1: base it on three hundred fifty million people you're looking
• 25:19
  Speaker 1: at you know, I think it is. I think it's
• 25:22
  Speaker 1: point oh one. Point oh three would get you about
• 25:25
  Speaker 1: three fifty four hundred. So that's the hope is that
• 25:30
  Speaker 1: reform eras cascade. It doesn't stop at one idea, that
• 25:33
  Speaker 1: you actually have a series of amendments. And that's that's
• 25:36
  Speaker 1: the moment I think we're headed to the And this
• 25:39
  Speaker 1: this is why this symbolic decision by Bacon to become
• 25:42
  Speaker 1: the first Republican on this particular constitutional amendment, one that
• 25:45
  Speaker 1: I think would have broad support. If you pulled it
• 25:48
  Speaker 1: and my polling friends put it out there show that
• 25:51
  Speaker 1: it does, you could you could see the beginning of
• 25:55
  Speaker 1: something here, and I think it's important because individual an
• 25:58
  Speaker 1: individual can at least can re establish norms, but they
• 26:02
  Speaker 1: can't protect us from future demagogues. Constitutional amendments, though, are
• 26:07
  Speaker 1: not easy. Right they require two thirds of Congress, a
• 26:09
  Speaker 1: ratification of thirty eight states. But guess what, it was
• 26:14
  Speaker 1: a daunting challenge to do that when we were stripping
• 26:17
  Speaker 1: state legislatures of Senate selection power, when we imposed an
• 26:21
  Speaker 1: income tax on the richest people in America and the
• 26:25
  Speaker 1: public won that argument, right, seems daunting these days to
• 26:30
  Speaker 1: go after the tech titans, doubling the electorate through women's suffrage,
• 26:35
  Speaker 1: that was a big deal. So the point is, and
• 26:37
  Speaker 1: that wasn't easy, and it was never going to be easy.
• 26:41
  Speaker 1: But here's how you kind of know when reform begins.
• 26:43
  Speaker 1: Reform begins when exhaustion becomes bipartisan and exasperation becomes bipartisan.
• 26:50
  Speaker 1: And we're starting to get there. We're approaching bipartisan exhaustion
• 26:53
  Speaker 1: with all of this executive overreach, and there are more
• 26:57
  Speaker 1: sort of Republicans understanding that, you know, the next time
• 27:02
  Speaker 1: it could be a Gavin Newsom that's making their lives miserable.
• 27:08
  Speaker 1: It's a lot easier to get bipartisan support for structural
• 27:11
  Speaker 1: changes than it is frankly for policy changes. And I
• 27:15
  Speaker 1: think we can get bipartisan support to check unchecked.
• 27:19
  Speaker 2: Power, and the pardon power is one of those.
• 27:23
  Speaker 1: So look, as we approach America's two hundred and fiftieth anniversary,
• 27:27
  Speaker 1: the question isn't whether the Constitution is sacred. It's whether
• 27:30
  Speaker 1: we are willing to maintain it and use the tools
• 27:34
  Speaker 1: that we have at our disposal right now to demand
• 27:37
  Speaker 1: a better structure for our democracy. The pardon debate may
• 27:41
  Speaker 1: be the first crack, and I want to jump on
• 27:44
  Speaker 1: this with enthusiasm. This is great news. You feel down
• 27:48
  Speaker 1: about the direction of this country. The fact is you're
• 27:51
  Speaker 1: not alone. People are very frustrated with it, and we
• 27:54
  Speaker 1: know we've got to make some structural repairs. This is
• 27:57
  Speaker 1: an important symbolic moment. What don and did O Losewinsky?
• 28:02
  Speaker 1: My apologies for mangling your name there, Congressman Johnny, but.
• 28:06
  Speaker 2: This is a big deal.
• 28:08
  Speaker 1: I think we are at the early stages of what's
• 28:10
  Speaker 1: going to be a ten to fifteen year run of
• 28:13
  Speaker 1: important reforms that we will Some of them will be incorrect.
• 28:16
  Speaker 1: What we reforms with unintended consequences, perhaps just like with prohibition.
• 28:20
  Speaker 1: You know, I'm not guaranteeing every reform we make will work,
• 28:24
  Speaker 1: but once we start, this one is a common sense one.
• 28:27
  Speaker 1: I think everybody can agree to it. Nobody should, no
• 28:29
  Speaker 1: president should basically sell pardons, and we need to have
• 28:33
  Speaker 1: some mechanism to prevent when we know it's happened or
• 28:36
  Speaker 1: it looks really awful. And I can tell you those
• 28:39
  Speaker 1: January sixth pardons probably would not have would have been nullified.
• 28:45
  Speaker 1: So you know, the presidential pardon power might not be,
• 28:49
  Speaker 1: to you, the worst thing Trump does, but it's it's
• 28:54
  Speaker 1: it is a structural change that I think can lead
• 28:58
  Speaker 1: to other change. So when Congress finally starts debating constitutional guardrails,
• 29:05
  Speaker 1: if we can get them there instead of partisan revenge,
• 29:08
  Speaker 1: then we're getting somewhere that becomes durable. So look, reform
• 29:11
  Speaker 1: eras don't start with certainty. They start with the feeling
• 29:14
  Speaker 1: we have right now, discomfort. We know it's not working,
• 29:18
  Speaker 1: we know something's wrong. This system doesn't work. And if
• 29:22
  Speaker 1: you're truly honest with yourself, if you're an Obama Trump voter,
• 29:25
  Speaker 1: you thought an individual could fix this, I hope you're
• 29:28
  Speaker 1: now convinced no individual can fix this. We need structural change,
• 29:33
  Speaker 1: and if this week is any indication, it's possible a
• 29:37
  Speaker 1: reform era has finally begun. Yes, I'm looking for it,
• 29:43
  Speaker 1: but goddamn it, we need it, and there's no better place,
• 29:47
  Speaker 1: I think to start than what is staring us in
• 29:49
  Speaker 1: the face the misuse and abuse of the presidential park pattern.
• 29:58
  Speaker 1: This episode of the Chuck Podcast brought to you by
• 30:00
  Speaker 1: American Financing. Let's be honest, the math just isn't adding
• 30:03
  Speaker 1: up lately. Between the grocery store and those skyrocketing insurance premiums,
• 30:07
  Speaker 1: even with a steady job, more families are being forced
• 30:09
  Speaker 1: to rely on high interest credit cards to cover expenses.
• 30:12
  Speaker 1: So if you're a homeowner caught in this cycle carrying
• 30:15
  Speaker 1: balances with interest rates in the twenties, frankly even the thirties,
• 30:18
  Speaker 1: it's time to get some relief. Right now, mortgage rates
• 30:20
  Speaker 1: are at a three year low, and my friends at
• 30:22
  Speaker 1: American Financing are helping homeowners pay off that high interest
• 30:26
  Speaker 1: debt at rates in the low fives. Their salary based
• 30:30
  Speaker 1: mortgage consultants don't just push loans on you, they build
• 30:33
  Speaker 1: exit strategies from debts. On average, they're saving their customers
• 30:38
  Speaker 1: eight hundred dollars a month, so if you start today,
• 30:40
  Speaker 1: you may even delay the next two mortgage payments. There
• 30:43
  Speaker 1: are no upfront fees or obligations. To find out how
• 30:46
  Speaker 1: much you can save. America's Home for home loans is
• 30:50
  Speaker 1: American Financing eight six six eight eight five ten eighty one.
• 30:55
  Speaker 1: That's eight six six eight eight five ten eighty one
• 30:59
  Speaker 1: or America and Financing dot net slash the Chuck Toodcast.
• 31:04
  Speaker 1: Important disclaimer NMLS one A two three three four NMLS
• 31:10
  Speaker 1: Consumer Access dot Org APR for rates in the five
• 31:14
  Speaker 1: start at six point one ninety six percent for well
• 31:17
  Speaker 1: qualified buyers. Call eight six six eight eight five one
• 31:20
  Speaker 1: zero eight one for details about credit costs and terms,
• 31:24
  Speaker 1: or Americanfinancing dot net slash the Chucktodcast. Having good life
• 31:29
  Speaker 1: insurance is incredibly important. I know from personal experience. I
• 31:33
  Speaker 1: was sixteen when my father passed away. We didn't have
• 31:36
  Speaker 1: any money. He didn't leave us in the best shape.
• 31:39
  Speaker 1: My mother, single mother, now widow, myself sixteen trying to
• 31:43
  Speaker 1: figure out how am I going to pay for college
• 31:45
  Speaker 1: and lo and behold. My dad had one life insurance
• 31:48
  Speaker 1: policy that we found wasn't a lot, but it was
• 31:51
  Speaker 1: important at the time, and it's why I was able
• 31:54
  Speaker 1: to go to college. Little did he know how important
• 31:58
  Speaker 1: that would be in that moment.
• 32:00
  Speaker 2: Well guess what.
• 32:01
  Speaker 1: That's why I am here to tell you about Ethos Life.
• 32:04
  Speaker 1: They can provide you with peace of mind knowing your
• 32:07
  Speaker 1: family is protected even if the worst comes to pass.
• 32:10
  Speaker 1: Ethos is an online platform that makes getting life insurance
• 32:14
  Speaker 1: fast and easy, all designed to protect your family's future
• 32:17
  Speaker 1: in minutes, not months. There's no complicated process and it's
• 32:20
  Speaker 1: one hundred percent online. There's no medical exam require you
• 32:25
  Speaker 1: just answer a few health questions online. You can get
• 32:27
  Speaker 1: a quote in as little as ten minutes, and you
• 32:29
  Speaker 1: can get same day coverage without ever leaving your home.
• 32:33
  Speaker 1: You can get up to three million dollars in coverage,
• 32:35
  Speaker 1: and some policies start as low as two dollars a
• 32:37
  Speaker 1: day that would be billed monthly. As of March twenty
• 32:41
  Speaker 1: twenty five, Business Insider named Ethos the number one no
• 32:44
  Speaker 1: medical exam instant life insurance provider. So protect your family
• 32:49
  Speaker 1: with life insurance from Ethos. Get your free quote at
• 32:52
  Speaker 1: ethos dot com slash chuck. So again, that's Ethos dot
• 32:56
  Speaker 1: com slash chuck. Application times may and the rates themselves
• 33:01
  Speaker 1: may vary as well, but trust me, life insurance is
• 33:04
  Speaker 1: something you should really think about it, especially if you've
• 33:07
  Speaker 1: got a growing family. So if you spend any time
• 33:12
  Speaker 1: thinking about American form moment, you can feel the drift.
• 33:15
  Speaker 1: Alliances are under strain, trade is being redefined in some
• 33:19
  Speaker 1: blunts transactional terms. The word multilateral has become suspect in
• 33:25
  Speaker 1: certain corners of Washington, and hovering over all of it
• 33:28
  Speaker 1: is the central strategic fact of our time. China is
• 33:32
  Speaker 1: not just rising, it is competing. So here's the question,
• 33:35
  Speaker 1: what is America's grand strategy?
• 33:38
  Speaker 2: Now?
• 33:39
  Speaker 1: It's not a slogan, not a reaction out a tweet,
• 33:41
  Speaker 1: a strategy. My guess today has spent decades inside the
• 33:45
  Speaker 1: machinery of American foreign policy trying to answer that question.
• 33:48
  Speaker 1: Ambassador Robert Blackwell is a former Ambassador to India, former
• 33:52
  Speaker 1: Deputy National Security Advisor under President George W. Bush, and
• 33:57
  Speaker 1: really one of the most seasoned strategic things in Washington.
• 34:00
  Speaker 1: He's now the Henry Kissinger Senior Fellow at the Council
• 34:04
  Speaker 1: on Foreign Relations, and he's out with a special Council
• 34:07
  Speaker 1: special report. I had previewed it for the audience a
• 34:11
  Speaker 1: few weeks ago, actually when it first came out, it's
• 34:13
  Speaker 1: called America Revived, a Grand Strategy of Resolute Global Leadership. Basically,
• 34:17
  Speaker 1: he's laying out an argument that is both a warning
• 34:19
  Speaker 1: and a blueprint, and I sort of viewed it as
• 34:22
  Speaker 1: must if you're running for president, whichever side of the
• 34:26
  Speaker 1: isle you're on. I felt this was something that I
• 34:29
  Speaker 1: think the Ambassador is hoping will be something these candidates
• 34:33
  Speaker 1: read and be thinking about, as in case one of
• 34:36
  Speaker 1: them actually wins the next presidency and can implement what
• 34:40
  Speaker 1: is a twenty first century national security strategy.
• 34:44
  Speaker 2: So Ambassador Blackwell joins me. Now, Bob, good to see.
• 34:47
  Speaker 3: You, Good to see you, Thanks for having me.
• 34:50
  Speaker 2: So look you have.
• 34:53
  Speaker 1: You know, you're part of this world that you know
• 34:56
  Speaker 1: that some people will criticize as the uniparty, right, that
• 34:59
  Speaker 1: there's always and in the Cold War there really was
• 35:02
  Speaker 1: the quote bipartisan consensus, and you talk about this in
• 35:07
  Speaker 1: your Peace and there is no consensus anymore on how
• 35:10
  Speaker 1: what America's role in the world should be at the moment.
• 35:14
  Speaker 1: And it struck me that what you were trying to
• 35:15
  Speaker 1: do is make an argument for a new consensus.
• 35:18
  Speaker 2: Is that fair?
• 35:19
  Speaker 3: That is fair? The consensus of which you speak, Chuck
• 35:25
  Speaker 3: governed America's approach to the world from the end of
• 35:28
  Speaker 3: World War Two to mister Trump, and it was pursued
• 35:34
  Speaker 3: by presidents in both parties. They did it in certain
• 35:37
  Speaker 3: different ways, but the instance was a foreign policy based
• 35:42
  Speaker 3: on alliances which they every president thought contributed to American strength,
• 35:48
  Speaker 3: to American values, which every president thought was the foundation
• 35:53
  Speaker 3: of America's power projection into the world, and finally avoiding
• 36:00
  Speaker 3: the emergence of a peer competitor which would dominate a
• 36:05
  Speaker 3: crucial region. And uh, I believe President Trump has rejected
• 36:12
  Speaker 3: all three of those. Uh, and so that has produced
• 36:16
  Speaker 3: the debate that we're now acutely in.
• 36:21
  Speaker 1: So let's start with before we get into what you're
• 36:24
  Speaker 1: what you're laying out, Let's start with what everybody got
• 36:28
  Speaker 1: wrong on China. And it just feels like what you know,
• 36:33
  Speaker 1: I think, you know, whether it was Nixon and Carter
• 36:35
  Speaker 1: believing you could bring them along right frankly Dido with
• 36:39
  Speaker 1: Clinton and Bush in many ways, I would argue those
• 36:42
  Speaker 1: four in different ways, had had big impacts. And you know,
• 36:48
  Speaker 1: I think the assumption was that somehow, the more we
• 36:52
  Speaker 1: brought China into the Free market economy, the more the
• 36:56
  Speaker 1: people of China would see how great a free market
• 36:59
  Speaker 1: economy is and would reject communism, and it would over
• 37:02
  Speaker 1: time essentially help help us win the argument, if you will,
• 37:08
  Speaker 1: that didn't happen.
• 37:09
  Speaker 3: Why, Well, first, I would distinguish Nixon Kissinger from the rest.
• 37:17
  Speaker 3: They opened up China for geopolitical reasons to balance the
• 37:22
  Speaker 3: Soviet Union, and although out of office later Richard Nixon
• 37:30
  Speaker 3: hoped that perhaps China would move in a more liberal direction.
• 37:35
  Speaker 3: Henry Kissinger never made that argument, and I think never
• 37:39
  Speaker 3: believed it, but you're right there. American leaders' presidents after
• 37:46
  Speaker 3: them held the hope that over the decades, China would
• 37:52
  Speaker 3: be integrated into this liberal international approach to world order,
• 37:59
  Speaker 3: and they went on, I'm hoping for that up through
• 38:04
  Speaker 3: the mid twenty tens and far past, when it should
• 38:10
  Speaker 3: have been obvious that China had a different set of
• 38:13
  Speaker 3: objectives in mind, which was essentially to replace the United
• 38:17
  Speaker 3: States as the primary power in the Indo Pacific. And
• 38:24
  Speaker 3: it wasn't until the late twenty tens, after the Pivot
• 38:30
  Speaker 3: Asia had failed, that finally, finally a consensus emerged that
• 38:38
  Speaker 3: China no longer could be considered a candidate for liberal evolution,
• 38:47
  Speaker 3: and indeed, Bob Gates makes an argument former Distinguished Secretary
• 38:53
  Speaker 3: of Defense and a wise man makes the argument that
• 38:57
  Speaker 3: China is the most dangerous rival in American history and
• 39:04
  Speaker 3: is likely to remain so for years ahead. So it
• 39:08
  Speaker 3: was a combination of wishful thinking but also not wanting
• 39:13
  Speaker 3: to spend the money in on the defense side, which
• 39:18
  Speaker 3: would be consistent with regarding them as this dangerous rival.
• 39:23
  Speaker 3: And we still haven't spent that money up until this day.
• 39:28
  Speaker 1: You know, there's sort of two things that I think
• 39:30
  Speaker 1: we in hindsight, I'm curious where would we be if
• 39:34
  Speaker 1: we had pushed for this. One, of course, is the
• 39:38
  Speaker 1: Transpacific Partnership, which seemed to be a great potential economic
• 39:43
  Speaker 1: sort of bulwark against of getting other Asian allies into
• 39:49
  Speaker 1: a trade pack to be a check on China. Then,
• 39:52
  Speaker 1: of course, you know, essentially Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump
• 39:56
  Speaker 1: came roaring in and essentially cowed the establishment wings of
• 40:01
  Speaker 1: both party to back off on that. And the second
• 40:04
  Speaker 1: is if we should have aggressively developed basically Asian what
• 40:09
  Speaker 1: I use in shorthand is Asia, NATO, the quad is
• 40:14
  Speaker 1: sort of we're at the very beginning here, But should
• 40:17
  Speaker 1: we have created both an economic and security packed a
• 40:22
  Speaker 1: lot sooner. It should have been something we thought about
• 40:24
  Speaker 1: in the early odds, you know, either your time in
• 40:29
  Speaker 1: Bush or the first term of Obama.
• 40:33
  Speaker 3: I think that the situation in Asia was not right
• 40:39
  Speaker 3: for any interest in a NATO like arrangement for two reasons.
• 40:46
  Speaker 3: Money is, at that time they didn't regard the China
• 40:50
  Speaker 3: threat as so serious that it was required. But the
• 40:56
  Speaker 3: second was that from two thousand and one, of course,
• 41:02
  Speaker 3: the United States was preoccupied with the War on Terror
• 41:07
  Speaker 3: and almost to the exclusion of other issues, including the
• 41:16
  Speaker 3: rise of China. Our good friend Steve Hadley, who's one
• 41:19
  Speaker 3: of the most distinguished practitioner practitioners in decades, said in public,
• 41:27
  Speaker 3: we just got China wrong, and we got Shei Jinping wrong.
• 41:33
  Speaker 3: And I think the primary reason that we got him
• 41:37
  Speaker 3: wrong is that to this day we have trouble understanding
• 41:43
  Speaker 3: how Marxist Hi Jinping really is. It's so foreign to
• 41:48
  Speaker 3: the way we think of the world, and there's hardly
• 41:52
  Speaker 3: anybody still alive who remembers that very Marxist Soviet Union.
• 41:58
  Speaker 3: It's last three and a half decades was a gradual
• 42:03
  Speaker 3: slump from that acute Marxism, and what does Marxism tell
• 42:13
  Speaker 3: Shi Jinping that China is not safe in the world
• 42:18
  Speaker 3: without leading it because the other forces will try to
• 42:22
  Speaker 3: do China in And so that's I think his policy,
• 42:27
  Speaker 3: and we still have not developed the will to combat
• 42:33
  Speaker 3: it with increases in the defense budget and so forth.
• 42:38
  Speaker 3: I'll just give you one example, but it is an
• 42:42
  Speaker 3: example of the limp policies of liberal internationalism. The militarization
• 42:50
  Speaker 3: of the artificial islands in the South China Sea. We
• 42:56
  Speaker 3: could see that coming, We watched it. Indeed, perhaps spectators, Yeah,
• 43:03
  Speaker 3: we were spectators.
• 43:05
  Speaker 2: Wow.
• 43:05
  Speaker 3: And I think we backed away from the danger of
• 43:09
  Speaker 3: a collision with China. And in that period we were
• 43:13
  Speaker 3: much stronger in naval forces in the South China Sea
• 43:20
  Speaker 3: and so forth, but we just let it happen. We
• 43:26
  Speaker 3: are our limp reaction to the twenty fourteen Russian acquisition
• 43:33
  Speaker 3: of Ukraine. I have a great long list, but liberal
• 43:37
  Speaker 3: internationalism became weaker and weaker in its expression, and China
• 43:45
  Speaker 3: I think was in bolden by that and has taken
• 43:48
  Speaker 3: advantage of it. The last few liberal internationalist presidencies I
• 43:56
  Speaker 3: think would be unrecognizable to Harry Truman or to Jack Kennedy,
• 44:02
  Speaker 3: or to Scoop Jackson, or to Dan moynihan and so forth.
• 44:05
  Speaker 3: They have been weak in their reaction to the challenges
• 44:12
  Speaker 3: that we face around the globe.
• 44:15
  Speaker 1: So you have to live in the I always joke,
• 44:18
  Speaker 1: he used to say this all the time. It meet
• 44:20
  Speaker 1: the press, I cover politics as it is, not as
• 44:21
  Speaker 1: I wish it were, so we can we know, we
• 44:25
  Speaker 1: could talk about what we could have done, should have done,
• 44:27
  Speaker 1: et cetera. Now the question is now what do we do?
• 44:30
  Speaker 1: And I want to start with there hasn't There's been
• 44:35
  Speaker 1: a lot of in the foreign policy news world, a
• 44:39
  Speaker 1: lot of intrigue, concern uh and focus a little bit
• 44:44
  Speaker 1: on on the purge She's been doing of his military.
• 44:47
  Speaker 1: What do you make of that? And how should we
• 44:51
  Speaker 1: what do you how do you view that? What's what
• 44:53
  Speaker 1: do you think is going on internally in China's political
• 44:56
  Speaker 1: leadership at the moment.
• 44:57
  Speaker 3: First, the first thing that one should say, since there's
• 45:01
  Speaker 3: so much commentary, is that not one of the people
• 45:06
  Speaker 3: who are writing foreign affairs articles and op eds know
• 45:10
  Speaker 3: what it means, So it's all speculation.
• 45:14
  Speaker 1: Is intelligence that week in China?
• 45:16
  Speaker 3: Well, in order to know since there's such a small circle,
• 45:21
  Speaker 3: and it's smaller now than it was a month ago.
• 45:25
  Speaker 3: It's such a small circle. It would be wonderful if
• 45:29
  Speaker 3: we had penetrated the very inner workings of the five
• 45:33
  Speaker 3: men who made decisions led by Shi Jinping.
• 45:37
  Speaker 1: Sounds like we might have gotten close, which got him paranoid.
• 45:40
  Speaker 3: Well, let me just say it is when a general
• 45:45
  Speaker 3: is charged with leaking nuclear secrets to the Americans. Well,
• 45:51
  Speaker 3: hooray if it's actually true. But there are a variety
• 45:55
  Speaker 3: of other interpretations one could make in the Chinese government
• 45:59
  Speaker 3: saying that, So we are, hopefully the president is receiving
• 46:06
  Speaker 3: from the intelligence community their best judgment of what's going on,
• 46:10
  Speaker 3: and they're speculating less how much they know. Undoubtful they
• 46:16
  Speaker 3: have penetrated the inner workings. So there are two biometrically
• 46:24
  Speaker 3: opposed explanations. One is that he's getting the military ready
• 46:32
  Speaker 3: for action, as he said as soon as two thousand
• 46:37
  Speaker 3: and seven against Taiwan.
• 46:39
  Speaker 2: Twenty twenty seven.
• 46:44
  Speaker 3: That's theory one, and he's the older generations are corrupt
• 46:52
  Speaker 3: and not warriors, to use a word that's now prevalent
• 46:56
  Speaker 3: in Washington. The second is that this elderly leadership of
• 47:04
  Speaker 3: the PLA began perhaps in the faintest possible way, to
• 47:12
  Speaker 3: dissent from the path that Chi Jinping is on, which
• 47:16
  Speaker 3: is more and more dominated by this single personality. And
• 47:20
  Speaker 3: I don't nobody knows which of those it is are
• 47:24
  Speaker 3: a combination of the two, But I think we do
• 47:27
  Speaker 3: have to take seriously the military threat that China represents
• 47:35
  Speaker 3: with respect to Taiwan, which they're working very hard on
• 47:39
  Speaker 3: every single day. And one of the things that's happened
• 47:43
  Speaker 3: during this period that we've been discussing, let's say, the
• 47:46
  Speaker 3: last fifteen to twenty years, is they dramatically narrowed the
• 47:52
  Speaker 3: gap between our two militaries, especially concerning Taiwan contingencies, and
• 47:59
  Speaker 3: we have to do something about that. Deterrence today is
• 48:03
  Speaker 3: the weakest it's ever been with respect to deterring China
• 48:08
  Speaker 3: from acting on Taiwan.
• 48:11
  Speaker 1: Well, I'm going to positive theory to you tell me
• 48:15
  Speaker 1: if I'm either too cynical, and I fully, I fully
• 48:20
  Speaker 1: respect that. But my concern is that she is on
• 48:26
  Speaker 1: the clock because he knows that that Trump might let
• 48:30
  Speaker 1: him have Taiwan. It seems to be it's on the
• 48:34
  Speaker 1: negotiating table. Trump has seemed to have allowed that to
• 48:37
  Speaker 1: be that we could quote change our posture starting, you know,
• 48:42
  Speaker 1: no longer support independence things like that. What's what's a
• 48:48
  Speaker 1: worse outcome that we just sort of let it happen
• 48:52
  Speaker 1: and they and they get Taiwan without really firing a
• 48:55
  Speaker 1: shot if there is a fight, but they get it
• 48:59
  Speaker 1: with out us, you know, and we sort of help
• 49:03
  Speaker 1: but not enough and they get it anyway. Or is
• 49:09
  Speaker 1: it something we should be fighting all the way to stop?
• 49:13
  Speaker 3: Well, you've at the end highlighted the major issue which
• 49:18
  Speaker 3: is not really discussed in public, even in the elite,
• 49:23
  Speaker 3: which is the question that Britain asked itself in nineteen
• 49:32
  Speaker 3: thirty nine, are we willing to go to war with
• 49:36
  Speaker 3: Germany over Poland? And the question not asked around Washington
• 49:42
  Speaker 3: in all of the palaver is are we willing to
• 49:46
  Speaker 3: go to war with China over Taiwan? Yes? Or no?
• 49:52
  Speaker 3: And an American president should know that he doesn't have
• 49:58
  Speaker 3: to announce it, although Biden did.
• 50:01
  Speaker 2: For did was that work?
• 50:04
  Speaker 1: That was the first time an American president ever done
• 50:06
  Speaker 1: that right?
• 50:07
  Speaker 3: Right? And and at each time, as we know, the
• 50:10
  Speaker 3: State Department walked it back the next morning. But I
• 50:16
  Speaker 3: think we do have some evidence that Biden would go
• 50:20
  Speaker 3: to war with China over Taiwan. I think you're right
• 50:25
  Speaker 3: that there is no such evidence with respect to President Trump,
• 50:30
  Speaker 3: and he has said things like Taiwan has a little
• 50:34
  Speaker 3: dot on the coast of China which stole all of
• 50:40
  Speaker 3: our chip technology and so forth. So would he go
• 50:46
  Speaker 3: to war with China over Taiwan? I think that at
• 50:51
  Speaker 3: least there's a doubt in his case and it and
• 50:58
  Speaker 3: President she Jen p may want to test the hypothesis,
• 51:03
  Speaker 3: maybe not with a.
• 51:04
  Speaker 1: I mean if I were sitting in his shoes. And again,
• 51:06
  Speaker 1: I don't want this to happen. I wouldn't wait for
• 51:09
  Speaker 1: another American president to do this. I'd do it under
• 51:12
  Speaker 1: this one.
• 51:13
  Speaker 3: But it's still nobody knows what an American president is
• 51:17
  Speaker 3: going to do before he does it. And this is
• 51:22
  Speaker 3: particularly I might say erratic American president. He can't, even
• 51:27
  Speaker 3: with the perhaps footprints in the sand, heading toward a
• 51:34
  Speaker 3: quiet reaction to such Chinese aggression. He can't be sure.
• 51:40
  Speaker 3: And using his military force is a great gamble. It
• 51:45
  Speaker 3: hasn't been in combat since the late nineteen seventies, it's
• 51:49
  Speaker 3: corrupt and all the rest. So what if he tries
• 51:54
  Speaker 3: and fails? So making that decision to say, Okay, there's
• 52:00
  Speaker 3: not going to be a better moment than now go.
• 52:05
  Speaker 3: I wouldn't want to predict what he'll say, but it's
• 52:08
  Speaker 3: certainly true de terrence is weaker under President Trump, There's
• 52:14
  Speaker 3: no doubt about that. Any If you.
• 52:16
  Speaker 1: Were in Taiwan, would you be more concerned now under
• 52:19
  Speaker 1: the current situation than you've ever been?
• 52:21
  Speaker 3: Yes? Yeah, absolutely.
• 52:27
  Speaker 1: I've always thought the biggest problem American political leaders have
• 52:32
  Speaker 1: on the Taiwan issue is, particularly with the memory of
• 52:36
  Speaker 1: Iraq and Afghanistan still still recent enough for enough people
• 52:42
  Speaker 1: that you'd have a hard time convincing the country that
• 52:45
  Speaker 1: it's worth going to war over.
• 52:48
  Speaker 2: Taiwan.
• 52:49
  Speaker 1: I mean, you see, we're look, Americans are always instinctively isolationists,
• 52:55
  Speaker 1: and then you know, we can be talked into it.
• 52:57
  Speaker 1: But I think that's a top political order, Bob, it is.
• 53:04
  Speaker 3: I agree. But if the president is suddenly informed that
• 53:13
  Speaker 3: China has started military action against Taiwan, then what does
• 53:20
  Speaker 3: he do. Well, he can try to avoid responsibility, as
• 53:24
  Speaker 3: presidents have done and said, well, the Congress has to
• 53:27
  Speaker 3: decide this, not me, but there'll be pressure. There'll be
• 53:32
  Speaker 3: pressure on him to make a decision and The longer
• 53:36
  Speaker 3: he waits, the more likely we won't intervene. So he
• 53:42
  Speaker 3: has that time to try to persuade the American people.
• 53:46
  Speaker 3: I believe, though, with you, that if it were to
• 53:51
  Speaker 3: happen and he were to ask the American people, should
• 53:56
  Speaker 3: I go to war with China, a majority is likely
• 54:00
  Speaker 3: to say no, it's too far away. Uh, it's it's
• 54:06
  Speaker 3: uh not important enough. We seem to have a recent
• 54:11
  Speaker 3: inclination to lose wars. No. But that's where American leadership
• 54:16
  Speaker 3: comes in and and explains to the American people, here's
• 54:21
  Speaker 3: why we're going to war. Uh. But it's a it
• 54:25
  Speaker 3: will be a tough sell. Just again, to use a
• 54:28
  Speaker 3: historical analogy, we will never know whether FDR and the
• 54:36
  Speaker 3: American Congress would have declared war on Germany. On Germany
• 54:42
  Speaker 3: once Pearl Harbor had occurred, if Hitler hadn't declared war
• 54:45
  Speaker 3: on US first, because the the the body of of
• 54:52
  Speaker 3: of opinion was, let's concentrate on Japan. They're the ones
• 54:57
  Speaker 3: who attacked us. Germany hasn't attacked US. And that decision
• 55:01
  Speaker 3: by Hitler to declare war four days later after Pearl Harbor,
• 55:07
  Speaker 3: that's what Mary LaGuardia called a doozy. That's a historic doozy.
• 55:21
  Speaker 1: Yeah, well, and obviously a giant misstep by the Germans
• 55:27
  Speaker 1: in that time. So let's talk about let's assume we
• 55:32
  Speaker 1: get through this term without without being fake, without anybody
• 55:38
  Speaker 1: being faced with the Taiwan decision. What are you advising
• 55:42
  Speaker 1: the next president to do in twenty twenty nine or
• 55:44
  Speaker 1: what do you hope the next president is thinking about
• 55:47
  Speaker 1: come twenty twenty nine?
• 55:49
  Speaker 3: Well, I myself am an optimist in several respects with
• 55:57
  Speaker 3: respect to your question. First of all, I think President
• 56:04
  Speaker 3: Trump is a unique singular figure in American history, and
• 56:11
  Speaker 3: that he will take much of trump Ism with him
• 56:17
  Speaker 3: as he goes out the door, in particular, in particular
• 56:23
  Speaker 3: the erratic behavior that he prefers, the contempt for America's alliances,
• 56:32
  Speaker 3: the statement that American values have no place in American
• 56:36
  Speaker 3: foreign policy, and so forth. Those are so un American,
• 56:41
  Speaker 3: those views that I think he takes them out the
• 56:43
  Speaker 3: door with him.
• 56:44
  Speaker 1: You're that confident a president jd.
• 56:46
  Speaker 2: Vance would throw all that away?
• 56:48
  Speaker 3: Yes, well, I'm speculating. But let me say what I
• 56:52
  Speaker 3: think he won't throw away, which is American nationalism, which
• 56:59
  Speaker 3: has dominated American grand strategy since the founding.
• 57:06
  Speaker 1: I'm glad you point this out. I try to tell
• 57:08
  Speaker 1: people the Cold War was an outlier in American history
• 57:11
  Speaker 1: in a variety of ways, political parties, political extremism, isolationism,
• 57:19
  Speaker 1: and nationalism versus multilateralism. I mean, and unfortunately or fortunately
• 57:25
  Speaker 1: we get to live in that era and we saw, hey,
• 57:27
  Speaker 1: that's pretty good. Erica really benefited from this era of multilateralism,
• 57:32
  Speaker 1: which makes it a head scratcher.
• 57:33
  Speaker 2: Why we would want to give it up?
• 57:35
  Speaker 3: Well, it became weaker, as I tried to say earlier,
• 57:39
  Speaker 3: but the and I can't be sure obviously who the
• 57:45
  Speaker 3: Republican nominee would be and what you would say. But
• 57:49
  Speaker 3: I think the challenge, the debate after Trump will be
• 57:53
  Speaker 3: between American nationalism, which, as I say, for more than
• 57:58
  Speaker 3: one hundred and fifty years was amer and grand strategy,
• 58:01
  Speaker 3: and I hope a much stronger liberal internationalism with a
• 58:07
  Speaker 3: much greater capacity in the military, most more defense of
• 58:15
  Speaker 3: international institutions and so forth. And I think that'll be
• 58:19
  Speaker 3: the debate. It'll be the Western hemisphere versus the globe.
• 58:23
  Speaker 3: And I don't the American people instinctively, as you say, Chuck,
• 58:29
  Speaker 3: all the way back to the beginning, are anxious about alliances,
• 58:34
  Speaker 3: about entangling alliances, to use the founder's words, and so
• 58:41
  Speaker 3: if it is, if it is vice president advanced, then
• 58:48
  Speaker 3: he will campaign as a Trumpist. But I don't think
• 58:51
  Speaker 3: he will be a Trumpist. I think most likely he'll
• 58:54
  Speaker 3: be an American nationalist. And then that is raising the question, well,
• 59:00
  Speaker 3: who is the Democrat candidate and what is the Democrat
• 59:06
  Speaker 3: approach to world order and US grand strategy today or
• 59:13
  Speaker 3: more pertinently during the campaign. And I don't have a clue.
• 59:17
  Speaker 3: I don't have you do, but I know I couldn't.
• 59:20
  Speaker 3: I could sit Yeah, I mean you might do.
• 59:22
  Speaker 1: I think that your your peak bootage is your Josha Piers,
• 59:25
  Speaker 1: your Wes Moores would be would look very familiar to
• 59:29
  Speaker 1: you as far as foreign policy over the last thirty
• 59:32
  Speaker 1: or forty years, I think so. But who's to say
• 59:35
  Speaker 1: they're going to be you know, I think this, You know, you.
• 59:39
  Speaker 2: Don't know for sure.
• 59:40
  Speaker 1: Let me look at it through Europe's perspective here, you know,
• 59:44
  Speaker 1: Europe is you know, I've often joked that Trump's going
• 59:49
  Speaker 1: to make Europe great again because they've got to sort
• 59:52
  Speaker 1: of like, well, can't rely on America anymore. So let's
• 59:56
  Speaker 1: start making our own economic deals and let's start thinking
• 59:59
  Speaker 1: about our own defense packs and things like that. It's
• 1:00:03
  Speaker 1: going to take a while for our European allies to
• 1:00:06
  Speaker 1: trust us again. So how do you build really, if
• 1:00:10
  Speaker 1: we're gonna if you get a president that wants to
• 1:00:12
  Speaker 1: rebuild these alliances, how do you do it in such
• 1:00:16
  Speaker 1: a way where it becomes more durable and essentially Trump
• 1:00:19
  Speaker 1: proof it for the next time.
• 1:00:21
  Speaker 3: Well, that is related to what I said earlier at Davos.
• 1:00:26
  Speaker 3: Friend of mine asked foreign minister, well, what about after Trump?
• 1:00:32
  Speaker 3: And he said, well, if the next president looks more
• 1:00:36
  Speaker 3: like ones we've seen before, okay, but then we can
• 1:00:39
  Speaker 3: get another Trump. And my argument, which my friend didn't use,
• 1:00:43
  Speaker 3: but my argument is no, you're not going to get
• 1:00:44
  Speaker 3: another Trump. He is such a singular figure in American
• 1:00:48
  Speaker 3: history that, as I said, I think his many of
• 1:00:52
  Speaker 3: his policies will go with him, but it will so let.
• 1:00:56
  Speaker 2: Me pause you there.
• 1:00:57
  Speaker 1: I mostly agree with you, but but we have I
• 1:01:02
  Speaker 1: have a friend of mine wh always says, you know,
• 1:01:04
  Speaker 1: with Trump, we sometimes forget the phrase failure of imagination.
• 1:01:10
  Speaker 1: And you know, there have been multiple times we thought
• 1:01:12
  Speaker 1: this would do in Trump, We're not going to return
• 1:01:15
  Speaker 1: to Trump, and yet we've done it, so I would
• 1:01:19
  Speaker 1: you know, I've wondered if the second election of Trump
• 1:01:25
  Speaker 1: really sort of cemented skepticism about America at least for
• 1:01:30
  Speaker 1: another decade.
• 1:01:31
  Speaker 3: I think you're the expert on domestic politics. It's not
• 1:01:35
  Speaker 3: my line of work, but I think it mostly shows
• 1:01:39
  Speaker 3: the weakness of the Democrat candidate, or at least.
• 1:01:42
  Speaker 2: That I don't disagree. I mean the last three part
• 1:01:45
  Speaker 2: of it.
• 1:01:45
  Speaker 3: But back back to the fundamental point, which is the
• 1:01:52
  Speaker 3: Trump approach, which is as I say, I think at
• 1:01:57
  Speaker 3: the at the base an American because it has no
• 1:02:00
  Speaker 3: values in it, and every president back to Washington had
• 1:02:07
  Speaker 3: values in their approach to international affairs. I don't think jd.
• 1:02:13
  Speaker 3: Vance will say the same thing, for example, that President
• 1:02:18
  Speaker 3: Trump says and mister Miller says about that power and
• 1:02:26
  Speaker 3: strength is everything in the world. I would be very surprised.
• 1:02:32
  Speaker 3: When I was in the Serengetti recently, I had a
• 1:02:36
  Speaker 3: guide say in the Serengetti every night animals eat and
• 1:02:44
  Speaker 3: animals are eaten. Well, I think that's mister Miller's view
• 1:02:48
  Speaker 3: of current civilization and it's not shared by the American people.
• 1:02:54
  Speaker 3: And I think if mister Vance were to campaign on
• 1:03:01
  Speaker 3: that gangsterism, which incidentally has some loyalties at least, that
• 1:03:08
  Speaker 3: would be a mistake. So anyway, whoever's the next president
• 1:03:13
  Speaker 3: will have the opportunity to build that trust. If it's
• 1:03:17
  Speaker 3: mister Vance and he keeps denigrating our democratically elected allies,
• 1:03:24
  Speaker 3: then trust will not be re established. And in life,
• 1:03:30
  Speaker 3: we know it can be re established unless the perforation
• 1:03:35
  Speaker 3: of the trust goes on. And so if the next
• 1:03:39
  Speaker 3: president says, I know trust in America has weakened to
• 1:03:44
  Speaker 3: the Europeans, but just watch me, and you're going to
• 1:03:48
  Speaker 3: see a consistency of our policies, and I hope we'll
• 1:03:54
  Speaker 3: build trust over time. It won't happen automatically. But question
• 1:03:59
  Speaker 3: which you imply is, and I don't know the answer, is, well,
• 1:04:02
  Speaker 3: what about if the next president treats the European allies
• 1:04:08
  Speaker 3: the way this one has? Well, when is it that
• 1:04:12
  Speaker 3: they finally give up on America And they're not going
• 1:04:17
  Speaker 3: to do it to amplify their risk. But a Europe,
• 1:04:24
  Speaker 3: and this is something that the administration seems not to accept.
• 1:04:30
  Speaker 3: A Europe which really is separated from the United States,
• 1:04:34
  Speaker 3: is a Europe which will go on its own, not
• 1:04:37
  Speaker 3: just in dealing with European security issues, but with trade
• 1:04:42
  Speaker 3: with China or treating Israel in the Middle East or whatever.
• 1:04:46
  Speaker 3: It will have no incentives to care much about what
• 1:04:51
  Speaker 3: the United States thinks or advises if we separate from
• 1:04:56
  Speaker 3: them in the way that the President vice president seem
• 1:05:01
  Speaker 3: to want. This curiosity in which the President can say
• 1:05:07
  Speaker 3: nothing positive about Europe while he emphasizes his close friendships
• 1:05:15
  Speaker 3: with Shijinping, who's trying to displace the United States as
• 1:05:20
  Speaker 3: the principal power in Asia and beyond, and Vladimir Putin,
• 1:05:25
  Speaker 3: who is seeking to murder as many innocent Ukrainians as
• 1:05:29
  Speaker 3: he can, are close friends. It is unfathomable. For it
• 1:05:37
  Speaker 3: is me at least.
• 1:05:40
  Speaker 1: One of the my reading of history is nationalism is
• 1:05:45
  Speaker 1: usually comes before wars, and that nationalism is also contagious.
• 1:05:52
  Speaker 1: And when we get more nationalistic, so does the world.
• 1:05:55
  Speaker 1: When we get more protectionists, so do other.
• 1:05:58
  Speaker 2: Countries become protection.
• 1:06:01
  Speaker 1: And this is something that I think you write soberly,
• 1:06:05
  Speaker 1: but to me this I read it with a bit
• 1:06:07
  Speaker 1: of alarm. I think we've never it feels like we
• 1:06:13
  Speaker 1: are at There are a lot of we are at
• 1:06:16
  Speaker 1: a moment where there's quite a few places where a
• 1:06:19
  Speaker 1: spark could cause something that we can't control.
• 1:06:24
  Speaker 3: Well, in some places it's gotten better, but in some
• 1:06:29
  Speaker 3: places it's gotten worse. I do want to point out,
• 1:06:33
  Speaker 3: and it's not because of American policies. It's because of
• 1:06:37
  Speaker 3: the IDF and Israel. But that spark is much less
• 1:06:42
  Speaker 3: likely in the Middle East now than it was before
• 1:06:48
  Speaker 3: the Hamas attack on Israel.
• 1:06:52
  Speaker 1: That is true. The stability in the Middle East there
• 1:06:54
  Speaker 1: may be political. It may have caused more political instability
• 1:06:57
  Speaker 1: in the Democratic Party here, but there is security stability
• 1:07:02
  Speaker 1: in the Middle East in a way that we've not
• 1:07:04
  Speaker 1: seen in a long time. Right.
• 1:07:06
  Speaker 3: But in Europe the danger is and it's an analog
• 1:07:10
  Speaker 3: to what UH you raised with respect to Taiwan. Who
• 1:07:15
  Speaker 3: believes that Donald Trump will abide by Article five, that
• 1:07:20
  Speaker 3: is to say, an attack on one as an attack
• 1:07:23
  Speaker 3: on all. Essentially, if little green men go into a
• 1:07:29
  Speaker 3: Baltic state.
• 1:07:30
  Speaker 1: Oh, we've heard Tucker Carlson say this about Estonia. Is
• 1:07:35
  Speaker 1: American America going to spill blood for Estonian right?
• 1:07:39
  Speaker 3: And so UH can putin especially if he can't conquer Ukraine.
• 1:07:46
  Speaker 3: UH will he test the proposition too? About Trump souh
• 1:07:53
  Speaker 3: a spark there could lead to the collapse of NATO,
• 1:07:57
  Speaker 3: for example, UH if the United States were not willing
• 1:08:02
  Speaker 3: to UH to abide by Article five, or even worse,
• 1:08:09
  Speaker 3: somehow endorsed the Little Green Men from Russia the paramilitaries
• 1:08:17
  Speaker 3: into the Baltic States. And President Trump, after his interactions
• 1:08:24
  Speaker 3: with President Putin, often seems to accept President Putin's explanation
• 1:08:31
  Speaker 3: of what is happening in the world. So there there's
• 1:08:34
  Speaker 3: a point. And but the most dangerous I'll just say
• 1:08:38
  Speaker 3: this to make it clear, the most dangerous place on earth,
• 1:08:44
  Speaker 3: as that spark you mentioned for the rest of the
• 1:08:49
  Speaker 3: of the Trump term, is Taiwan. That that's because of
• 1:08:55
  Speaker 3: the reasons we said. I think uh Is is the
• 1:09:00
  Speaker 3: most dangerous. And that spark quote could happen anytime.
• 1:09:14
  Speaker 1: If the US helps create a peace steal between Russia
• 1:09:19
  Speaker 1: and Ukraine that essentially rewards Russia.
• 1:09:24
  Speaker 2: What's the fallout from that.
• 1:09:26
  Speaker 3: Well, the peace steel, the one I would support, will
• 1:09:34
  Speaker 3: reward Russia because there is no stomach in the West
• 1:09:40
  Speaker 3: and no capability in Ukraine to drive Russia out of
• 1:09:44
  Speaker 3: the Donboss and out of Crimea. So they are going
• 1:09:48
  Speaker 3: to profit at the expense of more than a million
• 1:09:52
  Speaker 3: deaths and so forth from their invasion. The question is
• 1:09:57
  Speaker 3: rather is rather can we stop them where they are
• 1:10:02
  Speaker 3: and retain Ukrainian sovereignty? And some of the things that
• 1:10:07
  Speaker 3: mister Wikoff has proposed in the past would jeopardize or
• 1:10:14
  Speaker 3: even end Ukrainian sovereignty. So that's the question. And I think,
• 1:10:23
  Speaker 3: sadly the war is likely to go on because I
• 1:10:26
  Speaker 3: think that there is a determination in Ukraine not to
• 1:10:33
  Speaker 3: lose their statehood, and that's what Putin, of course wants
• 1:10:37
  Speaker 3: to accomplish. And I just hope the Americans, the American administration,
• 1:10:43
  Speaker 3: are not going to assist President Putin In that by
• 1:10:49
  Speaker 3: putting pressure on Ukraine to give up its sovereignty.
• 1:10:55
  Speaker 1: Look, I sort of positive this idea that I think
• 1:10:59
  Speaker 1: she knows that if he wants to that it might
• 1:11:03
  Speaker 1: benefit him to test the premise while Trump's still here,
• 1:11:07
  Speaker 1: then waiting until after Trump leaves. I assume that times
• 1:11:13
  Speaker 1: ten with Putin, that Putin knows he's got he'll never
• 1:11:18
  Speaker 1: have a friendlier American president.
• 1:11:21
  Speaker 2: Than the one he has now.
• 1:11:23
  Speaker 1: So what does that mean when it comes to his
• 1:11:26
  Speaker 1: actions in the next two and a half.
• 1:11:28
  Speaker 3: Years, Well, what can he do that's exactly the right question.
• 1:11:33
  Speaker 3: His progress on the battlefield is painfully slow and doesn't
• 1:11:45
  Speaker 3: seem to accelerate now. So I think there's no breakout
• 1:11:53
  Speaker 3: for Putin in the military campaign. So the strategy would
• 1:11:58
  Speaker 3: be to persuade President Trump to put so much pressure
• 1:12:06
  Speaker 3: on Ukraine that it will abandon its determination to retain
• 1:12:12
  Speaker 3: its sovereignty and succumb. Well, how could President Trump do that?
• 1:12:19
  Speaker 3: He could say, we will no longer support you with
• 1:12:24
  Speaker 3: intelligence information, right, which which would be a catastrophic Uh,
• 1:12:33
  Speaker 3: it's the.
• 1:12:34
  Speaker 1: Single most valuable thing we still do for them wedirectly
• 1:12:39
  Speaker 1: give them military, but it's now indirect the way it
• 1:12:42
  Speaker 1: was direct.
• 1:12:43
  Speaker 3: Exactly, and it helps them with their targeting, with moving
• 1:12:46
  Speaker 3: their force of all the rest. Well, he can, as
• 1:12:50
  Speaker 3: a presidential act actor with unlimited power in that regard,
• 1:12:56
  Speaker 3: he can end it tomorrow, and he could say, if
• 1:12:59
  Speaker 3: you do not accept X y Z, I'm going to
• 1:13:03
  Speaker 3: end it. Second, I'm going to stop selling weapons to Europe,
• 1:13:10
  Speaker 3: which they then pass on to you, and Europe cannot
• 1:13:14
  Speaker 3: keep you sufficiently supplied with specially artillery shells, but other
• 1:13:19
  Speaker 3: things as well and so forth. So Putin could hope
• 1:13:23
  Speaker 3: that with that ultimatum from the United States and from
• 1:13:29
  Speaker 3: President Trump. Perhaps the view in the Ukrainian leadership would
• 1:13:37
  Speaker 3: succumb to this American pressure, and I think Putin will
• 1:13:43
  Speaker 3: keep working on that and be patient. We talk, and
• 1:13:46
  Speaker 3: this is I'm guilty of this more than you. But
• 1:13:52
  Speaker 3: when I'm hopeful, Chuck about what America's future might be
• 1:13:58
  Speaker 3: with respect to it's foreign policies. When I'm hopeful, I
• 1:14:03
  Speaker 3: have to say that I have to compartmentalize that hope
• 1:14:09
  Speaker 3: and ignore that the president is in office for three
• 1:14:14
  Speaker 3: more years. So what will he do to further rupture,
• 1:14:23
  Speaker 3: to use the Canadian Prime Minister's words, to rupture the
• 1:14:29
  Speaker 3: alliances for now? For now? And Greenland is a good example.
• 1:14:37
  Speaker 3: Europe is traumatized by what President Trump says, not what
• 1:14:44
  Speaker 3: he does. So Davos was a flitter not because President
• 1:14:53
  Speaker 3: Trump did anything about Greenland. It was he said he
• 1:14:57
  Speaker 3: would consider the use of force. What we need, I
• 1:15:02
  Speaker 3: think to be acutely aware of as in the next
• 1:15:06
  Speaker 3: three years, is what does he start, not just saying,
• 1:15:11
  Speaker 3: but doing. For example, does he make the decision to
• 1:15:15
  Speaker 3: withdraw US forces from South Korea or substantial numbers from
• 1:15:22
  Speaker 3: Japan from from Europe? Does he succumb to the one
• 1:15:31
  Speaker 3: China interpretation of the Chinese interpretation of one China, which
• 1:15:39
  Speaker 3: says Taiwan is part of China and so forth. So
• 1:15:43
  Speaker 3: I think we need to adopt what you and I
• 1:15:46
  Speaker 3: will remember. And others ed Meese's line about watch what
• 1:15:51
  Speaker 3: we do, not what we say. It's especially true that
• 1:15:58
  Speaker 3: to become traumatized every night at two am when he
• 1:16:02
  Speaker 3: tweets out is not a productive way to spend your
• 1:16:08
  Speaker 3: time at two am.
• 1:16:11
  Speaker 1: I still have some you know it. What do you
• 1:16:15
  Speaker 1: make of Marco Rubio's role here? I view him as
• 1:16:20
  Speaker 1: a little bit of a firewall in that administration. He
• 1:16:23
  Speaker 1: certainly has the ear of the president. He has his
• 1:16:26
  Speaker 1: own agendas that he is trying to you know, as
• 1:16:29
  Speaker 1: I joke, he's going to there'll be more streets named
• 1:16:31
  Speaker 1: after him in my hometown of Miami than anybody else
• 1:16:36
  Speaker 1: in the next twenty years if he gets what he
• 1:16:38
  Speaker 1: wants in both Cuban Venezuela. But he is a I
• 1:16:42
  Speaker 1: think he's an internationalist. I think he believes in multilateralism.
• 1:16:46
  Speaker 1: He certainly has changed his rhetoric to Appeace Trump. But
• 1:16:51
  Speaker 1: would you be a lot more concerned if he wasn't there?
• 1:16:54
  Speaker 3: Yes, and yes, and although if more were more important,
• 1:17:01
  Speaker 3: what I'm about to say would damage his standing.
• 1:17:05
  Speaker 2: But I admired.
• 1:17:06
  Speaker 1: Everybody's afraid of saying that. Don't don't praise him too much, right.
• 1:17:10
  Speaker 3: But I admire what he's trying to do. And I
• 1:17:12
  Speaker 3: think he's essentially a classic as I am, a classic
• 1:17:20
  Speaker 3: Republican in the view in how he views the world,
• 1:17:23
  Speaker 3: the strength of alliance.
• 1:17:25
  Speaker 1: Of the Republican of the as I say, from Eisenhower
• 1:17:28
  Speaker 1: to Romney, there was sort of a Republican foreign policy
• 1:17:31
  Speaker 1: consensus generally, right, Well, I think.
• 1:17:34
  Speaker 3: It went beyond that in any but in any case,
• 1:17:37
  Speaker 3: I think he has it. In just one topical example,
• 1:17:42
  Speaker 3: I think that he and perhaps Secretary hexas Uh put
• 1:17:48
  Speaker 3: the language in the National Security Strategy, tough language on
• 1:17:54
  Speaker 3: the balance of power in the First Island chain and
• 1:17:59
  Speaker 3: the threats to that. But and so I'm glighted they
• 1:18:03
  Speaker 3: put it in. But because of the President, they couldn't
• 1:18:07
  Speaker 3: mention the country that raises these anxieties, that is to say, China.
• 1:18:14
  Speaker 3: So it's as if, well, let's see who might that be? Yeah, right,
• 1:18:21
  Speaker 3: So I admire what Secretary Rubio is trying to do,
• 1:18:27
  Speaker 3: and it's the most delicate balancing act to go just
• 1:18:32
  Speaker 3: far enough but not too far. I don't believe he himself,
• 1:18:37
  Speaker 3: for example, ever said we must take sovereign possession of Greenland.
• 1:18:46
  Speaker 3: I think he tries to make his point, perhaps often
• 1:18:50
  Speaker 3: through silence, and so good good for him for trying
• 1:18:55
  Speaker 3: and retaining if he has a here of the president.
• 1:19:02
  Speaker 2: Yeah, he is.
• 1:19:03
  Speaker 1: At some point, I expect the President to turn on him,
• 1:19:06
  Speaker 1: but so far he is. That hasn't happened. To get
• 1:19:09
  Speaker 1: your opinion on something, Jake Sullivan, when he was Biden's
• 1:19:12
  Speaker 1: National security advisor, gave a speech. It may have been
• 1:19:16
  Speaker 1: in front of CFR counts some formulations where he viewed
• 1:19:20
  Speaker 1: He said, look, we're in a competition with China, and
• 1:19:22
  Speaker 1: there's some he said, if if you want to look
• 1:19:25
  Speaker 1: at it and use American language, you know of swing states.
• 1:19:29
  Speaker 1: But he viewed him as swing nations, and it was
• 1:19:32
  Speaker 1: sort of at the time he was basically trying to
• 1:19:35
  Speaker 1: convince Biden that he had to work with Saudi Arabia.
• 1:19:38
  Speaker 2: We know you don't.
• 1:19:38
  Speaker 1: You're personally angry, and Biden was was was not wanting to,
• 1:19:43
  Speaker 1: you know, he'd made this pledge about Saudi Arabia, and
• 1:19:46
  Speaker 1: then you know, you make all the pledges in the
• 1:19:48
  Speaker 1: world and campaign and all that right, and the reality hits.
• 1:19:53
  Speaker 1: But he identified four countries and it was Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, India,
• 1:19:59
  Speaker 1: and I.
• 1:20:01
  Speaker 2: Think it was Brazil.
• 1:20:04
  Speaker 1: As sort of these swing countries that we had to
• 1:20:07
  Speaker 1: you know, these are that it was necessary to have
• 1:20:12
  Speaker 1: close alliances with to prevent them from going into China's arms.
• 1:20:17
  Speaker 1: Do you generally agree with that take and do you
• 1:20:21
  Speaker 1: still see that as an issue? And I do feel
• 1:20:24
  Speaker 1: like we've had in the twenty first century consecutive but
• 1:20:29
  Speaker 1: one consistency is you've had all the presidents trying to
• 1:20:33
  Speaker 1: make nice with India.
• 1:20:35
  Speaker 3: Yeah, yes, I do agree with that. And in that context,
• 1:20:42
  Speaker 3: I think we are headed for not a multipolar world
• 1:20:48
  Speaker 3: in which the superpowers are first among equals and so forth.
• 1:20:54
  Speaker 3: Although there's a lot of talk about the Middle Powers
• 1:20:56
  Speaker 3: now and so forth, I think we're headed for a
• 1:20:59
  Speaker 3: bipolar world that will be very familiar to us, and
• 1:21:03
  Speaker 3: it will be the war to basically, yeah, well in
• 1:21:07
  Speaker 3: that sense. There'll be many differences, but in that sense,
• 1:21:10
  Speaker 3: and it will be the United States and China trying
• 1:21:13
  Speaker 3: to attract these major other countries in the in the
• 1:21:19
  Speaker 3: international system beginning with and including the four you mentioned,
• 1:21:25
  Speaker 3: and that it will take ignoring in some cases there
• 1:21:31
  Speaker 3: are human rights, domestic practices and others. India comes to
• 1:21:37
  Speaker 3: mind a determined avoidance of anything that smells like an
• 1:21:43
  Speaker 3: alliance while they get closer to the United States, which
• 1:21:47
  Speaker 3: has been happening and so forth. And what they want,
• 1:21:54
  Speaker 3: I think out of the United States is a consistency
• 1:22:00
  Speaker 3: based on American strength, based on American strength, not a
• 1:22:06
  Speaker 3: consistency based on ideology from their point of view, And
• 1:22:12
  Speaker 3: I tried to make an argument. It's argued at length
• 1:22:17
  Speaker 3: in the report that American strength has not been impressive.
• 1:22:22
  Speaker 3: The application of American strength you mentioned, and I neglected
• 1:22:26
  Speaker 3: to follow up. The Obama administration's decision to abandon the
• 1:22:35
  Speaker 3: Transpecific Partnership was catastrophic. It was a chance to have
• 1:22:40
  Speaker 3: a framework for international trade in Asia led by the
• 1:22:44
  Speaker 3: United States, and now we have no multilateral framework. Meanwhile,
• 1:22:52
  Speaker 3: Asia itself is organizing and has organized itself with such
• 1:22:59
  Speaker 3: a framework, and we have the Irony.
• 1:23:01
  Speaker 2: Now in charge of it.
• 1:23:03
  Speaker 3: That China has applied to be a member. What is
• 1:23:08
  Speaker 3: the essence of the Transit Pacific Partnership. So what I'm
• 1:23:15
  Speaker 3: advising is a much more robust engagement with the international
• 1:23:21
  Speaker 3: system than recent administrations. That's liberal internationalism strengthened in every dimension,
• 1:23:31
  Speaker 3: and an increased defense budget which stops China from narrowing
• 1:23:38
  Speaker 3: the gap and therefore produces to terrence for the across
• 1:23:42
  Speaker 3: the Taiwan Strait. And I know that'll be a hard
• 1:23:45
  Speaker 3: sell and the American people, the Americans will have to
• 1:23:50
  Speaker 3: be persuaded. But that's what we used to believe presidents do,
• 1:23:55
  Speaker 3: which is persuade the American people that what they want
• 1:24:01
  Speaker 3: to do, what America's role in the world should be,
• 1:24:06
  Speaker 3: is part of their job. And I think President Trump
• 1:24:10
  Speaker 3: has articulated a vision very powerfully. I think it's counter
• 1:24:15
  Speaker 3: productive in almost every way, but he's worked hard at it.
• 1:24:20
  Speaker 3: The next president, if it proceeds anywhere near along the lines,
• 1:24:25
  Speaker 3: I would like he or she will in an equally
• 1:24:32
  Speaker 3: resolute way, give the American people, beginning in the campaign,
• 1:24:37
  Speaker 3: a different view of America's role in the world and
• 1:24:41
  Speaker 3: the role in which they and their children are going
• 1:24:45
  Speaker 3: to live. And to go back to the most primary point,
• 1:24:50
  Speaker 3: do the American people really want to live in mister
• 1:24:55
  Speaker 3: Miller's world? Do they really want to live in a
• 1:24:58
  Speaker 3: world without rule, in which the strong dictate to the week,
• 1:25:06
  Speaker 3: without any without any framework of right and wrong. Do
• 1:25:11
  Speaker 3: they want to live in the world in which the
• 1:25:13
  Speaker 3: American president says, I operate in no moral context, what
• 1:25:19
  Speaker 3: I decide is right or wrong? Is that the world
• 1:25:23
  Speaker 3: they want their kids to live in. It's not the
• 1:25:26
  Speaker 3: world I want my kids and grandkids to live in.
• 1:25:31
  Speaker 1: Let me get you out of here on this, which
• 1:25:33
  Speaker 1: is you talk about that we're headed to this bipolar world?
• 1:25:37
  Speaker 1: And you know, I think in maps, and I think
• 1:25:40
  Speaker 1: in numbers, and I think in states, and I look
• 1:25:43
  Speaker 1: at the world, and I look at continents, and China's
• 1:25:46
  Speaker 1: ahead of America in Africa. China might be head of
• 1:25:50
  Speaker 1: America in South America. China might be ahead of America
• 1:25:54
  Speaker 1: in Asia, not in Europe.
• 1:25:58
  Speaker 2: And you know, with.
• 1:26:00
  Speaker 1: Maybe we have a slight advantage in the Middle East,
• 1:26:03
  Speaker 1: But are we behind when it comes to this great competition?
• 1:26:08
  Speaker 2: If this is indeed where we're headed.
• 1:26:11
  Speaker 3: Not yet. But the trends are bad. The military trends
• 1:26:16
  Speaker 3: are bad. And that's the reason I believe we need
• 1:26:21
  Speaker 3: to increase our defense budget and reform our defense processes
• 1:26:25
  Speaker 3: and acquisition and all the rest so militarily the gap
• 1:26:29
  Speaker 3: is dramatically closed. China's diplomacy is still outmatched by American diplomacy.
• 1:26:37
  Speaker 3: Look who's negotiating the Gazza. The Gaza sees fire and
• 1:26:42
  Speaker 3: Ukraine and so forth.
• 1:26:44
  Speaker 2: But we got rid of a ID that wasn't a
• 1:26:45
  Speaker 2: good idea.
• 1:26:46
  Speaker 3: Yeah, but they are gaining ground. And then of course economically,
• 1:26:51
  Speaker 3: they are forging business deals and trade agreements with India,
• 1:26:59
  Speaker 3: with Europe, with so forth. While we have a basically
• 1:27:04
  Speaker 3: a we will coerce you into an agreement in principle
• 1:27:13
  Speaker 3: which is condemned by your domestic audiences, and we'll see
• 1:27:19
  Speaker 3: if they really come to pass. And just a word,
• 1:27:24
  Speaker 3: the President said in the last week that we produced
• 1:27:31
  Speaker 3: a miraculous new trade agreement with India where I spent
• 1:27:37
  Speaker 3: some your ambassador and mody now is in across the
• 1:27:42
  Speaker 3: board attacks that that agreement in general does not protect
• 1:27:50
  Speaker 3: end in vital national interests. So we are losing ground
• 1:27:56
  Speaker 3: and contempt for the Third World, apart from the moral
• 1:28:01
  Speaker 3: vacuum that is is over the long run detrimental to
• 1:28:08
  Speaker 3: American national interests. If you look at the population trends,
• 1:28:14
  Speaker 3: if you look at where the minerals are and so forth,
• 1:28:18
  Speaker 3: And to just talk about the Third World as if
• 1:28:22
  Speaker 3: it was a only a a swamp that can never
• 1:28:31
  Speaker 3: be rescued the way the president does is just bad strategy.
• 1:28:37
  Speaker 1: You are proving, you are proving your experience as a diplomat.
• 1:28:42
  Speaker 1: I think what you're referring to is when he would
• 1:28:44
  Speaker 1: call them s whole countries. But I can say it,
• 1:28:46
  Speaker 1: and I know you will never say it that way,
• 1:28:48
  Speaker 1: but that is what he did.
• 1:28:50
  Speaker 3: Well, that is what he did, you know, and I
• 1:28:54
  Speaker 3: want to say that, I don't want to end We're
• 1:28:56
  Speaker 3: getting her then on a negative note. But the one
• 1:28:58
  Speaker 3: thing I would say to I think America remains the
• 1:29:02
  Speaker 3: most powerful country on Earth, militarily, economically, and diplomatically. So
• 1:29:08
  Speaker 3: we have vast instruments to help shape world order to
• 1:29:14
  Speaker 3: our benefit and to the benefit of our values. That's
• 1:29:18
  Speaker 3: number one, and that will be true at the end
• 1:29:22
  Speaker 3: of the Trump administration. But number two is that the
• 1:29:29
  Speaker 3: trends are against us, and President Trump with three more
• 1:29:35
  Speaker 3: years in office, I do not believe is going to
• 1:29:39
  Speaker 3: change his view of the world or how he operates.
• 1:29:44
  Speaker 3: I believe this is what you see is what you get.
• 1:29:47
  Speaker 3: He's believed many of these things he's detested the Europeans
• 1:29:52
  Speaker 3: and the and their democracies for half a century or more.
• 1:29:56
  Speaker 3: He's not going to change. He's not going to change
• 1:29:59
  Speaker 3: his attraction to autocratic government and so forth. So we're powerful,
• 1:30:08
  Speaker 3: but we are in this very dangerous next three years
• 1:30:15
  Speaker 3: of the combination of the growth of Chinese power and
• 1:30:19
  Speaker 3: a president who does not defend either traditional American national security,
• 1:30:26
  Speaker 3: vital national interests, or American values.
• 1:30:30
  Speaker 1: Well, hopefully this is a document that many a presidential
• 1:30:37
  Speaker 1: candidate reads and absorbs on both sides of the aisle.
• 1:30:41
  Speaker 1: And here's hoping we can actually have a debate, though
• 1:30:44
  Speaker 1: I fear our twenty twenty presidential primary debates. We'll have
• 1:30:49
  Speaker 1: a couple of questions on Taiwan and Ukraine, and then
• 1:30:51
  Speaker 1: everything else will be back to domestic.
• 1:30:53
  Speaker 2: But you of.
• 1:30:55
  Speaker 1: Outlined why we need a better debate about America's role
• 1:30:58
  Speaker 1: in the world, and hopefully we'll get one. I was
• 1:31:00
  Speaker 1: so terrific. It's great to catch up with you. I
• 1:31:02
  Speaker 1: always learn a ton from you.
• 1:31:04
  Speaker 3: Thank you very much for having me.
• 1:31:13
  Speaker 1: Well, I hope you enjoyed that conversation about what I
• 1:31:16
  Speaker 1: think the next president ought to be thinking about. You know, look,
• 1:31:19
  Speaker 1: we've got. We've got to hope we get a consensus
• 1:31:24
  Speaker 1: at some point when it comes to America's role in
• 1:31:27
  Speaker 1: the world. As much as you know we can have
• 1:31:29
  Speaker 1: healthy disagreements on a lot of domestic issues, America's role
• 1:31:33
  Speaker 1: in the world is one We're going to have to
• 1:31:35
  Speaker 1: accept the premise that one's sixty percent of us agree
• 1:31:38
  Speaker 1: in a direction that we ought to take it. Just
• 1:31:41
  Speaker 1: a few quick observations. I've got a fun little top
• 1:31:44
  Speaker 1: five list for you here, but I wanted to do
• 1:31:45
  Speaker 1: a few quick observations, and I wanted to do it
• 1:31:47
  Speaker 1: following Bob the Bob Blackwell interview about what we saw
• 1:31:50
  Speaker 1: in Munich and the different roles. It was interesting to
• 1:31:53
  Speaker 1: see Rubio and the reception he got. You know, Marco
• 1:31:58
  Speaker 1: Rubio's reception the Europeans at the Munich Security Conference reminded
• 1:32:02
  Speaker 1: me of bringing thirsty people water. He didn't bring them
• 1:32:07
  Speaker 1: cold water. He just brought them some hydration. It wasn't
• 1:32:12
  Speaker 1: as antagonistic as Jade Vance a year earlier. It wasn't
• 1:32:16
  Speaker 1: as pointed as it was a year earlier. It wasn't
• 1:32:22
  Speaker 1: as personal, it wasn't as as doom and gloom, and
• 1:32:28
  Speaker 1: it's sort of the role Rubio has been playing right,
• 1:32:30
  Speaker 1: And you heard the conversation that Bob and I had
• 1:32:33
  Speaker 1: about sort of this interesting role Rubio is, in some ways,
• 1:32:37
  Speaker 1: I think, seize himself as a potential bridge between sort
• 1:32:41
  Speaker 1: of Trump's destruction of the world order and those that
• 1:32:44
  Speaker 1: would like to preserve some form of the old world order.
• 1:32:47
  Speaker 2: And what does this look like?
• 1:32:48
  Speaker 1: Obviously Ruby hopes to be the guy that builds it, right,
• 1:32:51
  Speaker 1: he would like to be the president or maybe this
• 1:32:54
  Speaker 1: is his portfolio if he is, if there's some sort
• 1:32:57
  Speaker 1: of vance Rubio ticket that succeeds to Trump on this front.
• 1:33:04
  Speaker 1: But you know, make no mistake, I mean, you know,
• 1:33:07
  Speaker 1: Rubio still gave it tough love, but he at least
• 1:33:10
  Speaker 1: showed that he knows how to use diplomatic language. And
• 1:33:13
  Speaker 1: when you're the secretary of State, you better be pretty
• 1:33:15
  Speaker 1: good at using diplomatic language. But I think what you
• 1:33:18
  Speaker 1: heard there, and that's you know, the whole the open
• 1:33:21
  Speaker 1: question I have about Rubio and his and his decision
• 1:33:24
  Speaker 1: to to try to work with trump Ism rather than
• 1:33:28
  Speaker 1: fight against it like he did for a few years
• 1:33:31
  Speaker 1: when it first came aboard, was is you know, at
• 1:33:35
  Speaker 1: some point if he if Trump thinks Rubio is causing problems.
• 1:33:40
  Speaker 2: He will throw Ruby onto the bus.
• 1:33:41
  Speaker 1: If what Rubio has suggested becomes unpopular, he will throw
• 1:33:44
  Speaker 1: Ruby onto the bus. Then again, the same is true
• 1:33:46
  Speaker 1: with Jadie Vance as well. And that's why it's very
• 1:33:50
  Speaker 1: precarious when you build a political identity based on the
• 1:33:54
  Speaker 1: whims of a single individual. You know, I think the
• 1:33:58
  Speaker 1: thing that you know, Rubio may not ever be able
• 1:34:03
  Speaker 1: to win over a MAGA voter on his own. He
• 1:34:05
  Speaker 1: may need the endorsement and the stamp of approval by
• 1:34:09
  Speaker 1: Donald Trump. The question is, one, is that still a
• 1:34:13
  Speaker 1: big enough constituency by twenty twenty eight. That's an open
• 1:34:16
  Speaker 1: question I have in my head. And two, can Rubio
• 1:34:23
  Speaker 1: be both a MAGA person and at the same time
• 1:34:28
  Speaker 1: be trusted by either side to help build a new
• 1:34:31
  Speaker 1: world order to engage in multilateralism, which Rubio himself, I
• 1:34:36
  Speaker 1: think does believe in multilateralism, even if Donald Trump does not.
• 1:34:40
  Speaker 1: And so that's an open question. The other story coming
• 1:34:45
  Speaker 1: out of Munich is the reception that alexandri O Cassio
• 1:34:47
  Speaker 1: Cortez got. And you know, it's a classic case of
• 1:34:52
  Speaker 1: if you want her succeed, you said, oh, look, she's
• 1:34:54
  Speaker 1: made her debut on the foreign policy stage. If you
• 1:34:56
  Speaker 1: want her to fail, you're like, oh, look at how
• 1:34:58
  Speaker 1: much she flubbed on her debut on the policy stage.
• 1:35:02
  Speaker 1: I will just say this, look, I think that that
• 1:35:06
  Speaker 1: she could have. It did look like she didn't study
• 1:35:10
  Speaker 1: for the test enough, and I'm surprised she, you know,
• 1:35:15
  Speaker 1: didn't have a more you know, prepared answer. At the
• 1:35:19
  Speaker 1: same time, I think it's healthy to if you're thinking
• 1:35:22
  Speaker 1: about running for national office too. I'm glad she went
• 1:35:25
  Speaker 1: to this event. Get to know some of the players
• 1:35:29
  Speaker 1: make some early mistakes. If you're going to make mistakes,
• 1:35:31
  Speaker 1: make them now, not in the actual campaign. Here, learn
• 1:35:34
  Speaker 1: what you don't know. Learn those and you know when
• 1:35:38
  Speaker 1: it comes to foreign policy and political campaigns, you know,
• 1:35:41
  Speaker 1: the key is not to block put yourself in a
• 1:35:45
  Speaker 1: rhetorical corner that will become problematic down the road.
• 1:35:49
  Speaker 3: Right.
• 1:35:49
  Speaker 1: The best example of this is when Barack Obama drew
• 1:35:52
  Speaker 1: a red line on chemical weapons being used by Bashar
• 1:35:55
  Speaker 1: al Asad in Syria. Once he did it, he said,
• 1:35:58
  Speaker 1: it was a red line. How are you going to
• 1:36:00
  Speaker 1: enforce that red line if he crosses it? Sure enough,
• 1:36:02
  Speaker 1: Aside crossed it, and we didn't enforce the red line.
• 1:36:07
  Speaker 1: I don't think Obama regrets not enforcing the red line.
• 1:36:09
  Speaker 1: I think he regrets ever drawing that sort of hard
• 1:36:12
  Speaker 1: and fast.
• 1:36:13
  Speaker 2: Rule on that.
• 1:36:14
  Speaker 1: So I think that that's a lesson that all newcomers
• 1:36:17
  Speaker 1: to presidential politics, as they dabble, as they dip their
• 1:36:21
  Speaker 1: toe in the foreign policy water's got to learn that.
• 1:36:24
  Speaker 1: But the second observation I have about the AOC issue
• 1:36:27
  Speaker 1: is it's just amusing to me how many people on
• 1:36:30
  Speaker 1: the right one and dunk on her for a small
• 1:36:32
  Speaker 1: mistake here, a flubb there, but the equator in Venezuela,
• 1:36:35
  Speaker 1: And you're sitting there going, really, we're going to hold
• 1:36:39
  Speaker 1: her to account on a geographic mistake when we've got
• 1:36:45
  Speaker 1: Donald Trump and all of the crazy and geographic nonsense
• 1:36:49
  Speaker 1: that he talks about where he doesn't I mean, he
• 1:36:52
  Speaker 1: literally is the John Belushi character in Animal House. You know,
• 1:36:55
  Speaker 1: he might as well be saying things like when the
• 1:36:58
  Speaker 1: Germans bomb Pearl Harbor. Know type of mindset, And I
• 1:37:03
  Speaker 1: don't you know whether this is about her and there's
• 1:37:07
  Speaker 1: an obsession on the right to just dunk on her
• 1:37:10
  Speaker 1: whenever you get a chance, which there's something to that,
• 1:37:13
  Speaker 1: or if it's a sign that maybe maybe folks are
• 1:37:17
  Speaker 1: embarrassed by how ignorant Trump comes across about so many
• 1:37:21
  Speaker 1: things in foreign affairs and about geography.
• 1:37:24
  Speaker 2: I mean, you know, do you.
• 1:37:28
  Speaker 1: Think he could name fifteen countries in Africa? Let alone
• 1:37:31
  Speaker 1: all the countries in Africa? But do you think he
• 1:37:32
  Speaker 1: can name fifteen?
• 1:37:33
  Speaker 2: Ten?
• 1:37:34
  Speaker 1: What number would I have to lower myself to before
• 1:37:37
  Speaker 1: you think he could name? You know, I think he'd
• 1:37:39
  Speaker 1: struggle at ten. You know, I think many Americans would
• 1:37:42
  Speaker 1: struggle at ten. But many Americans are not president of
• 1:37:44
  Speaker 1: the United States. So the point is is that it
• 1:37:47
  Speaker 1: is amusing to me when we want to hold our
• 1:37:50
  Speaker 1: political opponents to higher standards than we will hold people
• 1:37:55
  Speaker 1: that are quote unquote on our side or that we're
• 1:37:57
  Speaker 1: sympathetic too. And let's just say I saw out of
• 1:38:00
  Speaker 1: that on.
• 1:38:00
  Speaker 2: The right this week when it came to AOC.
• 1:38:02
  Speaker 1: All right, now, I want to have a little fun
• 1:38:04
  Speaker 1: with my top five lists this week. As you know,
• 1:38:06
  Speaker 1: sometimes it's serious and sometimes it's whacky. And I thought
• 1:38:10
  Speaker 1: there was a We've had some ridiculous attempts at currying
• 1:38:15
  Speaker 1: favor with Donald Trump take place over the last couple
• 1:38:17
  Speaker 1: of years, and I thought it would be worth doing
• 1:38:23
  Speaker 1: a top five list on the most ridiculous awards Donald
• 1:38:26
  Speaker 1: Trump is received in order for in order for entities
• 1:38:31
  Speaker 1: to try to curry favor, and it's usually corporations or
• 1:38:36
  Speaker 1: in one case an international entity and in another case.
• 1:38:39
  Speaker 1: So I'm giving you my top five most absurd awards
• 1:38:44
  Speaker 1: manufactured and created to soothe Donald Trump's ego. Top So
• 1:38:59
  Speaker 1: number five list is one that he got in twenty
• 1:39:01
  Speaker 1: twenty four. It's the McDonald's French Fry Certification pin. It is,
• 1:39:08
  Speaker 1: you know, after his stint working the friar at a
• 1:39:10
  Speaker 1: Pennsylvania McDonald's during the campaign. So as pre president, he
• 1:39:14
  Speaker 1: was given a commemorative pin and a certificate for his service,
• 1:39:18
  Speaker 1: and of course Donald Trump treated it with the gravity
• 1:39:20
  Speaker 1: as if it was a state dinner, the ultimate everyman award,
• 1:39:23
  Speaker 1: who famously loves a quarter pounder. So his French Fry
• 1:39:27
  Speaker 1: Certificate pin is number five on my list of most
• 1:39:30
  Speaker 1: ridiculous awards that he's been given by companies and corporations
• 1:39:33
  Speaker 1: in order to curry favor. It's this most recent award
• 1:39:38
  Speaker 1: that triggered the idea for this list. This one he
• 1:39:41
  Speaker 1: just received. Number four on my list is the undisputed
• 1:39:45
  Speaker 1: Champion of Beautiful Clean Coal Award. I bet you didn't
• 1:39:48
  Speaker 1: know that that existed. Well, it is. The Washington Coal
• 1:39:51
  Speaker 1: Club recently bestowed that actual title upon Donald Trump. So
• 1:39:56
  Speaker 1: it's not just a coal award, you know, looking out
• 1:39:58
  Speaker 1: for the coal company. It's not the first time, but
• 1:39:59
  Speaker 1: it this one is specific and it uses some of
• 1:40:02
  Speaker 1: Trump's favorite phrases. Right, undisputed champion, beautiful clean coal. Right,
• 1:40:08
  Speaker 1: so this is the award, the undisputed Champion, a beautiful
• 1:40:10
  Speaker 1: clean coal. I mean, it is right out of like
• 1:40:14
  Speaker 1: the old WWF and all the crazy names they used
• 1:40:16
  Speaker 1: to give to their various championship belts. Right, you had
• 1:40:19
  Speaker 1: the you'd have the the the world champion, then you'd
• 1:40:23
  Speaker 1: have the inter continental champion. Nobody ever explained what the
• 1:40:25
  Speaker 1: hell the inter continental champion was. I think my man
• 1:40:28
  Speaker 1: Paul Orndorff was that. I think uh uh was the
• 1:40:32
  Speaker 1: was the inter continental champion? I don't think, but that
• 1:40:35
  Speaker 1: was never You know, hul Cogan was bigger than just
• 1:40:37
  Speaker 1: being the intercontinental champ, if you.
• 1:40:39
  Speaker 2: Will, so he is.
• 1:40:40
  Speaker 1: Now this this feels like that that you gotta I
• 1:40:43
  Speaker 1: got to hand it to the Washington Coal Club.
• 1:40:45
  Speaker 2: That's that's impressive. That was impressive.
• 1:40:48
  Speaker 1: Number three on the list is the FIFA and the
• 1:40:50
  Speaker 1: Peace Prize right in the middle, right deep of the arden.
• 1:40:55
  Speaker 1: Last year, when Trump was campaigning and begging for the
• 1:40:58
  Speaker 1: Nobel Peace Prize. Our friends at FIFA who loved to
• 1:41:02
  Speaker 1: curry favor with those in power, no matter how corrupting
• 1:41:06
  Speaker 1: it looks to them, FIFA doesn't care. They manufactured a
• 1:41:10
  Speaker 1: Peace Prize because why not. He knew that Donald Trump
• 1:41:17
  Speaker 1: wanted a peace prize, so.
• 1:41:18
  Speaker 2: FIFA gave him the Peace Prize.
• 1:41:20
  Speaker 1: So they did it during at the Trump Kennedy center right,
• 1:41:23
  Speaker 1: and the final draw for the twenty twenty six World Cup.
• 1:41:27
  Speaker 1: And they decided to create this brand new accolade just
• 1:41:31
  Speaker 1: in time for Trump's return to office.
• 1:41:33
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 1:41:35
  Speaker 1: You know, it's you know, it's like getting an award
• 1:41:38
  Speaker 1: from your barber that says you're you're the best haircut
• 1:41:40
  Speaker 1: customer this week, you know.
• 1:41:44
  Speaker 2: But good old FIFA, you can count on that.
• 1:41:46
  Speaker 1: Number two on the list, this one is the Tim
• 1:41:49
  Speaker 1: Cook Special.
• 1:41:50
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 1:41:50
  Speaker 1: I'm sure some of you were thinking, well, you got
• 1:41:52
  Speaker 1: to include the Tim Cook thing. So and this is
• 1:41:54
  Speaker 1: not the first time Tim Cook has actually given him
• 1:41:56
  Speaker 1: a couple of awards over the years, and the first term,
• 1:42:00
  Speaker 1: Cook gave him a commemorative plaque, right, it was a
• 1:42:04
  Speaker 1: circular piece of mac pro glass. But you know, for
• 1:42:09
  Speaker 1: the second one, he had to really up the stakes,
• 1:42:12
  Speaker 1: so he gave the twenty four carrot golden glass statue
• 1:42:17
  Speaker 1: featuring a circular piece of gorilla glass on a gold base.
• 1:42:23
  Speaker 1: What it really was was a physical manifestation of the
• 1:42:26
  Speaker 1: trade deal Apple needed. It was less an award and
• 1:42:32
  Speaker 1: more of a please don't tax our iPhones trophy at
• 1:42:36
  Speaker 1: the time that it was given, but it was, you know,
• 1:42:39
  Speaker 1: the gold played gold carrot. All that business was just
• 1:42:43
  Speaker 1: it was just awful. But number one on the list
• 1:42:47
  Speaker 1: matters because of how much it mainstream Donald Trump back
• 1:42:54
  Speaker 1: into the Republican Party post January sixth, And it was
• 1:43:01
  Speaker 1: when the NRSC when it was chaired by Rick Scott.
• 1:43:04
  Speaker 1: He created the Champion for Freedom Bowl as an award
• 1:43:09
  Speaker 1: in twenty twenty one for Donald Trump. And this is
• 1:43:14
  Speaker 1: April of twenty twenty one he gets this award. This
• 1:43:17
  Speaker 1: is three months after January sixth. He's supposed to be
• 1:43:20
  Speaker 1: persona non grata, but neither Kevin McCarthy, who stood next
• 1:43:24
  Speaker 1: to him, and then Rick Scott. They were the two
• 1:43:26
  Speaker 1: people who greased the skids the most for bringing Trump
• 1:43:30
  Speaker 1: back into the mainstream and this award. So Scott presents
• 1:43:34
  Speaker 1: Trump with the inaugural NRSC Champion for Freedom Award. And
• 1:43:40
  Speaker 1: it was a bowl. It was a large, engraved silver
• 1:43:44
  Speaker 1: serving bowl. There were some people that joked that Scott
• 1:43:49
  Speaker 1: didn't know what to give him, so he grabbed the
• 1:43:51
  Speaker 1: first punch bowl he could find from the office kitchen
• 1:43:53
  Speaker 1: at the NRSC had it engraved, and it was all
• 1:43:56
  Speaker 1: about making sure Trump knew, or that Trump's orders knew.
• 1:44:01
  Speaker 2: Rick Scott was on his side.
• 1:44:02
  Speaker 1: But it was that award that moment. It was not
• 1:44:06
  Speaker 1: just the award itself. And so while I'm having a
• 1:44:08
  Speaker 1: little bit of fun here and how all of these
• 1:44:10
  Speaker 1: people right, you know, we think Trump looks ridiculous for
• 1:44:13
  Speaker 1: taking these awards seriously, but the people giving these awards
• 1:44:17
  Speaker 1: really it's not a good look. Rick Scott doing what
• 1:44:20
  Speaker 1: he did post January sixth just a bad look.
• 1:44:22
  Speaker 2: You know.
• 1:44:23
  Speaker 1: Maybe it held party unity, but really we're gonna pick
• 1:44:27
  Speaker 1: party unity over the disaster of January sixth, or Tim
• 1:44:31
  Speaker 1: Cook and his gold statue, or FIFA and the absurdity
• 1:44:34
  Speaker 1: of their Peace Prize. You know, in some ways, The
• 1:44:36
  Speaker 1: most honest is the cole folks man. You know what,
• 1:44:40
  Speaker 1: they know what they want, they know what they're focused on,
• 1:44:43
  Speaker 1: and they know they have a guy, and so in
• 1:44:45
  Speaker 1: that sense, it's an honest one. And you know the
• 1:44:48
  Speaker 1: French Fried French fry pen is just sort of amusing.
• 1:44:52
  Speaker 1: Notice what I didn't put on here was the actual
• 1:44:54
  Speaker 1: Peace Nobel Peace Prize that Machado that the winner of
• 1:44:58
  Speaker 1: last year's Peace Prize gave to Trump, and she like
• 1:45:01
  Speaker 1: took it to a frame store and had it like
• 1:45:03
  Speaker 1: put together, Like it was like a like you were
• 1:45:06
  Speaker 1: featured in a newspaper article for the first time, and
• 1:45:08
  Speaker 1: you get these companies that want to sell you a
• 1:45:11
  Speaker 1: framed version of it so you can display it in
• 1:45:13
  Speaker 1: your office with a plaque. She basically did that, took
• 1:45:17
  Speaker 1: it and then gave him her Peace prize. So but
• 1:45:20
  Speaker 1: I didn't think it belonged in the top five because
• 1:45:22
  Speaker 1: it was the prize itself is not it was not
• 1:45:25
  Speaker 1: awarded to him, And I don't know what to call it.
• 1:45:28
  Speaker 1: I guess you would call it the Machado Peace Prize,
• 1:45:30
  Speaker 1: but it's its own category and it's the But I'll
• 1:45:35
  Speaker 1: tell you we're you know, we complained. My generation links
• 1:45:40
  Speaker 1: to complain that we gave away too many trophies to millennials,
• 1:45:43
  Speaker 1: right they where everybody gets a trophy. Generation. Please let's
• 1:45:48
  Speaker 1: not keep doing this to our presidents. I mean, I
• 1:45:51
  Speaker 1: know that Trump is arrested development and he's desperate for accolades,
• 1:45:55
  Speaker 1: and if he can't get accolades that have historic meaning,
• 1:45:58
  Speaker 1: then make them up and it makes him happy. Apparently,
• 1:46:03
  Speaker 1: I get it. A lot of these people have business
• 1:46:05
  Speaker 1: in front of the government, and if this is what
• 1:46:06
  Speaker 1: it takes, and sadly we know how easy you know this,
• 1:46:10
  Speaker 1: you know, and a few bucks it goes a long
• 1:46:13
  Speaker 1: way to persuading this president. This is why we got
• 1:46:17
  Speaker 1: to do something about this unilateral This is why you
• 1:46:22
  Speaker 1: always need to check on the executive All right, now
• 1:46:33
  Speaker 1: it's time for a little ass Chuck, ask chuck. Matt
• 1:46:39
  Speaker 1: H from Manchester, Tennessee.
• 1:46:42
  Speaker 2: All right, Manchester, Tennessee.
• 1:46:44
  Speaker 1: I wonder how many Manchesters there are around the country, right,
• 1:46:47
  Speaker 1: Manchester and your Hamshire. Of course, it's the Manchester I
• 1:46:49
  Speaker 1: spent the most time in. But Manchester, Tennessee. All right,
• 1:46:52
  Speaker 1: didn't know that one.
• 1:46:54
  Speaker 2: Matt H.
• 1:46:54
  Speaker 1: And hey, I've been a fan since your rest days,
• 1:46:56
  Speaker 1: and your show is now my go to for political
• 1:46:58
  Speaker 1: insight and enjoyed your inner with Doctor and Andrews, which
• 1:47:01
  Speaker 1: got me thinking, as a center left voter in deep
• 1:47:02
  Speaker 1: red Tennessee, do you think I'll live to see a
• 1:47:04
  Speaker 1: Democrat win state wide here again? I missed the days
• 1:47:06
  Speaker 1: of Phil Bredison and Al Gore, but they feel along,
• 1:47:08
  Speaker 1: they feel long gone. You know, it's interesting, Matt. You know,
• 1:47:11
  Speaker 1: when I was in the eighties, the South was splitting
• 1:47:15
  Speaker 1: up between sort of new South, Old South, right, and
• 1:47:18
  Speaker 1: there was in the New South states were Florida, Georgia,
• 1:47:22
  Speaker 1: North Carolina.
• 1:47:23
  Speaker 2: Virginia and Tennessee.
• 1:47:26
  Speaker 1: And then supposedly the old South states you're you're Alabama's
• 1:47:29
  Speaker 1: or Mississippi or South Carolina your Arkansas.
• 1:47:31
  Speaker 2: You get where I'm going.
• 1:47:33
  Speaker 1: And you've seen, right, the New South states have swung
• 1:47:38
  Speaker 1: either or swing swinging, have been or competitive or you know,
• 1:47:44
  Speaker 1: in the case of Virginia a little more blue, case
• 1:47:46
  Speaker 1: of Florida a little more red. But you've seen that.
• 1:47:50
  Speaker 1: The head scratcher to me has been Tennessee. That the
• 1:47:53
  Speaker 1: fact that Tennessee hasn't moved in the directionally the same
• 1:47:58
  Speaker 1: way that both Virginia in North Carolina have moved. Has
• 1:48:02
  Speaker 1: always been mildly surprising to me because it particularly with
• 1:48:05
  Speaker 1: the growth of Nashville. Right, Nashville is now like this
• 1:48:07
  Speaker 1: artist hub, particularly for on the on the music side
• 1:48:10
  Speaker 1: of things. And you know, look what Austin did to
• 1:48:15
  Speaker 1: to you know, became bluer. And obviously, you know, Hollywood
• 1:48:19
  Speaker 1: itself and being a has certainly given a very you know,
• 1:48:23
  Speaker 1: darker blue tint to southern California than it used to
• 1:48:26
  Speaker 1: have in itself. So I think there was I think
• 1:48:31
  Speaker 1: I certainly I thought nash the growth of Nashville would
• 1:48:35
  Speaker 1: naturally create more competition in the state, that all of that,
• 1:48:39
  Speaker 1: and we haven't seen that. Now. There's a few things.
• 1:48:41
  Speaker 1: My friend Brad Todd, a Republican consultant from Tennessee, he says,
• 1:48:46
  Speaker 1: you know, the growth of Nashville has been different than
• 1:48:48
  Speaker 1: say the Research Triangle or Atlanta, Atlanta or northern Virginia.
• 1:48:52
  Speaker 1: And I thought Nashville would sort of behave the same
• 1:48:54
  Speaker 1: way has And he said, part of it is you've
• 1:48:57
  Speaker 1: had a lot of Midwesterners moved to particularly the sort
• 1:49:02
  Speaker 1: of the larger Nashville ex serbs right, Franklin County in particular.
• 1:49:06
  Speaker 1: But the excerbs of Nashville. And he says, like on
• 1:49:08
  Speaker 1: a Saturday, you can go to some of these subdivisions
• 1:49:11
  Speaker 1: and you don't see it falls. You don't see any
• 1:49:13
  Speaker 1: Tennessee Vall's flag in the fall, but you do see Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, State, Wisconsin.
• 1:49:21
  Speaker 1: And he said there's been a lot of sort of
• 1:49:23
  Speaker 1: Republicans have left those states and moved to a lower
• 1:49:27
  Speaker 1: tax state like Tennessee and the expanding excerps of Nashville,
• 1:49:32
  Speaker 1: and that that is that the migration has not been
• 1:49:36
  Speaker 1: as as swing voter or as liberal as the migration
• 1:49:40
  Speaker 1: you saw in Northern Virginia Research Triangle or Austin and
• 1:49:45
  Speaker 1: or the Atlanta suburbs. But look, we've seen some signs
• 1:49:50
  Speaker 1: at Nashville itself gets competitive. So look, I think the
• 1:49:55
  Speaker 1: biggest problem that Tennessee Democrats have in general's Memphis. Memphis
• 1:50:01
  Speaker 1: is just it's a city that has fallen behind. Right,
• 1:50:05
  Speaker 1: there was a time that Memphis was a growing city
• 1:50:08
  Speaker 1: FedEx being headquarters. There was I'll be honest with you,
• 1:50:12
  Speaker 1: I've traveling and out of Memphis a lot always have
• 1:50:15
  Speaker 1: gone back thirty years now, and you know, just just
• 1:50:21
  Speaker 1: in the in the areas in and you know, I
• 1:50:23
  Speaker 1: think about the area in and around of Graceland now
• 1:50:26
  Speaker 1: the airport hotels, you know, the crime issues pretty pretty
• 1:50:31
  Speaker 1: bad these days. All the airport hotels are like behind
• 1:50:35
  Speaker 1: these like huge, you know, ten foot iron fences, black
• 1:50:41
  Speaker 1: you know, sort of those black iron you.
• 1:50:42
  Speaker 2: Know fences, and.
• 1:50:46
  Speaker 1: It screams like not welcoming all around that part of Memphis.
• 1:50:51
  Speaker 1: And so you know, it is it is sort of stagnated.
• 1:50:54
  Speaker 1: You know, whether this look Tennessee Republicans have made a
• 1:50:57
  Speaker 1: living running against Memphis forever. Memphis was racial code words.
• 1:51:03
  Speaker 1: You know, it was the largest African American population in
• 1:51:06
  Speaker 1: Tennessee concentrated wise, was in Memphis. But it is stalled
• 1:51:11
  Speaker 1: growth wise. I wish I had a better explanation. I
• 1:51:14
  Speaker 1: haven't studied it enough, but you know, Memphis feels like
• 1:51:17
  Speaker 1: it's headed in the wrong direction. In you know, there
• 1:51:21
  Speaker 1: was a time both in Memphis and Nashville felt like
• 1:51:24
  Speaker 1: where they were both growing. And I think, you know,
• 1:51:29
  Speaker 1: better democratic governance of Memphis and more success in Memphis
• 1:51:34
  Speaker 1: might I think raise the prospects of of more credibility
• 1:51:40
  Speaker 1: for democratic Canadate statewide. Look, I think that there is
• 1:51:43
  Speaker 1: just and there's no pipeline anymore, right when they carved
• 1:51:46
  Speaker 1: up the Nashville seat so that they did it as
• 1:51:48
  Speaker 1: a hub and spoke where they just took pieces of
• 1:51:50
  Speaker 1: Nashville to try to make it so that essentially, I
• 1:51:53
  Speaker 1: think the only Democrat you really are going to end
• 1:51:55
  Speaker 1: up with is the is the congressman from Memphis. You
• 1:52:01
  Speaker 1: don't have somebody that wins in swing districts that then
• 1:52:04
  Speaker 1: become that become like a Phil Bretison that knows how
• 1:52:08
  Speaker 1: to run stay wide. And you've also had that scandal
• 1:52:11
  Speaker 1: with the Nashville mayor. So when you think about the
• 1:52:13
  Speaker 1: places where the benches would develop, where there could be
• 1:52:16
  Speaker 1: benches for candidates to develop, mayor of Nashville is a
• 1:52:19
  Speaker 1: big one. The congressional you haven't had that. So let's
• 1:52:24
  Speaker 1: just say it's a lot of work to do. If
• 1:52:25
  Speaker 1: I were advising Tennessee Democrats, I'd be like, go get
• 1:52:28
  Speaker 1: your Memphis house in order and then then get started
• 1:52:32
  Speaker 1: at sort of change, you know, improving your brand in
• 1:52:38
  Speaker 1: the Nashville area. Next question comes from ant and should
• 1:52:44
  Speaker 1: I say you love listen to your time machine message today.
• 1:52:46
  Speaker 1: I'm a high school US history and US government teacher.
• 1:52:48
  Speaker 1: I've always argued that some years in history require a
• 1:52:50
  Speaker 1: book addressing events in just that year. You hit one
• 1:52:53
  Speaker 1: of those years today, eighteen forty eight.
• 1:52:55
  Speaker 2: You are so right.
• 1:52:56
  Speaker 1: I'm not bright enough to write it and to just
• 1:52:59
  Speaker 1: deal a time to focus my attention. I'm passing the
• 1:53:02
  Speaker 1: baton to you get writing. If eighteen forty eight is
• 1:53:04
  Speaker 1: it your cup of tea, maybe nineteen sixty eight would
• 1:53:07
  Speaker 1: be more to your taste. And no, you're right, I
• 1:53:09
  Speaker 1: mean it was a time of disruption. There was it
• 1:53:12
  Speaker 1: was sort of peak fear of the industrial age, and
• 1:53:15
  Speaker 1: it was more in Europe. It was you know, brewing
• 1:53:19
  Speaker 1: in this country, but it was definitely something hit in
• 1:53:21
  Speaker 1: London more, which is hence why that came. You're absolute right,
• 1:53:24
  Speaker 1: there is more to eighteen forty eight as a touchdone
• 1:53:28
  Speaker 1: in history. Just to put some meat on the eighteen
• 1:53:32
  Speaker 1: forty eight bones there, And I do expect you to
• 1:53:36
  Speaker 1: grade me and to tell me. I just want to
• 1:53:41
  Speaker 1: give folks a quick run through. Why do you put
• 1:53:44
  Speaker 1: that way? So what makes eighteen forty eight unique is
• 1:53:47
  Speaker 1: that it wasn't one single war. There were spontaneous, contagious
• 1:53:51
  Speaker 1: irruption of over fifty different revolts across Europe. And all
• 1:53:55
  Speaker 1: of it was without our modern communications of the moment. Right,
• 1:53:59
  Speaker 1: this wasn't the Internet didn't get contagious that way. You know,
• 1:54:02
  Speaker 1: you had the fire started arguably in Sicily in January.
• 1:54:07
  Speaker 1: Then there was Paris in February, where the monarchy went away,
• 1:54:11
  Speaker 1: the revolutionary spirit kept going.
• 1:54:13
  Speaker 2: You had.
• 1:54:15
  Speaker 1: You had the Austrian Empire, the prince fleeing to London.
• 1:54:21
  Speaker 2: You had.
• 1:54:23
  Speaker 1: The Prussians agreeing to a promise of a constitution and
• 1:54:27
  Speaker 1: a parliament. You had Italian reunification. One could argue there
• 1:54:34
  Speaker 1: was a collision of isms liberalism, the middle class wanting constitutions,
• 1:54:38
  Speaker 1: free speech, the right to vote, that was happening over Europe.
• 1:54:41
  Speaker 1: You had nationalism. You had ethnic groups Hungarians, Germans, Italians,
• 1:54:44
  Speaker 1: checks they wanted their own independent countries. Right, we still
• 1:54:47
  Speaker 1: had a Prussia at that time, no Germany. Socialism was
• 1:54:50
  Speaker 1: on the rise with obviously with what I pointed out
• 1:54:53
  Speaker 1: with Marx and all of that. So she was saying, yes,
• 1:54:58
  Speaker 1: there needs to be a book. Well, the historian and
• 1:55:00
  Speaker 1: GM Trevellion called eighteen forty eight the turning point at
• 1:55:03
  Speaker 1: rich modern history failed to turn as a great turn
• 1:55:06
  Speaker 1: of phrase that he had everything seemed to collapse that year,
• 1:55:11
  Speaker 1: and then by eighteen forty nine there was a conservative snapback.
• 1:55:14
  Speaker 1: Monarchs regained their nerve, the Russian czars three hundred thousand
• 1:55:17
  Speaker 1: troops to help Austria across the Hungarian revolt. The French
• 1:55:20
  Speaker 1: Republic ended when Napoleon's nephew declared himself the emperor. So
• 1:55:25
  Speaker 1: it was sort of but eighteen forty eight served as
• 1:55:27
  Speaker 1: a bit of a precursor to what was to come, right,
• 1:55:30
  Speaker 1: and we ended up with the Russian Revolution about fifty
• 1:55:32
  Speaker 1: years later, and you know, the fall of the Ottoman
• 1:55:36
  Speaker 1: Empire and all of that, So sort of it was
• 1:55:39
  Speaker 1: it was sort of like the first tremors of the
• 1:55:41
  Speaker 1: big breakup that would eventually take place in the late
• 1:55:45
  Speaker 1: nineteenth thirty twentieth century. But you're right, eighteen forty eight
• 1:55:49
  Speaker 1: worthy of its own book. It's a really good podcast
• 1:55:53
  Speaker 1: serial idea too, sort of you know some years, you
• 1:55:57
  Speaker 1: know years where you know where, years where decades happened,
• 1:56:02
  Speaker 1: and decades where years happened. Right, So thank you for
• 1:56:07
  Speaker 1: that suggestion, Anne, And I don't know if I did
• 1:56:09
  Speaker 1: did the answer to your question a service.
• 1:56:13
  Speaker 2: Hopefully I got more people interested in eighteen forty eight,
• 1:56:15
  Speaker 2: which is the real goal.
• 1:56:17
  Speaker 1: All right, I'm just gonna sneak in two more questions
• 1:56:19
  Speaker 1: here because I am. As soon as I'm done with
• 1:56:22
  Speaker 1: this taping, I'm going to go celebrate my grandmother's ninety
• 1:56:25
  Speaker 1: ninth birthday. She turns ninety nine this week.
• 1:56:29
  Speaker 2: How about that? Ninety nine?
• 1:56:33
  Speaker 1: And she is well aware of everything that's going around
• 1:56:37
  Speaker 1: around the world. She can't read the way she used
• 1:56:39
  Speaker 1: to do anymore because of her eyesight, but she listens
• 1:56:41
  Speaker 1: probably to like two books a day. I mean, she's
• 1:56:43
  Speaker 1: a book on tape connoisseur. All right, This one comes
• 1:56:49
  Speaker 1: from Max w Out of Alexandria. Here use of historical
• 1:56:52
  Speaker 1: precedent to help analyze current political actions leads me to
• 1:56:55
  Speaker 1: ask about the Bill of Rights. Trump administration is assaulted
• 1:56:57
  Speaker 1: the first, the fourth, the fifth, and the sixth amendments
• 1:56:59
  Speaker 1: numer times, and it has recently gone after the second
• 1:57:02
  Speaker 1: Amendment when it justified the alex Pretty shooting because he
• 1:57:04
  Speaker 1: brought a gun to the protest. So what's left is
• 1:57:06
  Speaker 1: the third Amendment quartering soldiers the only one in the
• 1:57:09
  Speaker 1: Bill of Rights left unmolested by this administration. Maybe the eighth,
• 1:57:12
  Speaker 1: maybe the ninth. And where's the libertarian outrage at the
• 1:57:15
  Speaker 1: demolition of their personal rights. I'll hang up and listen.
• 1:57:17
  Speaker 1: Let's seez A re Max w Actually, I think this
• 1:57:21
  Speaker 1: is where you're starting to see some libertarians get cranky
• 1:57:25
  Speaker 1: about it. I follow a whole bunch of libertarians. I'm
• 1:57:27
  Speaker 1: going to have the editor in chief of Reason magazine
• 1:57:29
  Speaker 1: onsoon to actually talk about this very issue.
• 1:57:33
  Speaker 2: I know.
• 1:57:34
  Speaker 1: This is Here's how I view these tests of liberties
• 1:57:39
  Speaker 1: that are challenged by Trump. You know, the Republicans that
• 1:57:43
  Speaker 1: are exhausted from defending Trump when they're willing to speak
• 1:57:46
  Speaker 1: out on these things, and so they're they're kind of
• 1:57:49
  Speaker 1: MRIs for who's got any principles left? So I find
• 1:57:54
  Speaker 1: these moments useful in figuring out which one of these
• 1:57:58
  Speaker 1: guys in Congress will put the country before the party
• 1:58:01
  Speaker 1: if the chips are truly down, and which ones won't.
• 1:58:04
  Speaker 2: It's moments like.
• 1:58:05
  Speaker 1: This that give us this Here, you're right about this,
• 1:58:08
  Speaker 1: I mean, I would argue that you know, in any
• 1:58:14
  Speaker 1: given day, I mean it is it does feel like
• 1:58:17
  Speaker 1: half the Bill of Rights get violated on any given
• 1:58:20
  Speaker 1: day by this administration. But you know, does anybody believe
• 1:58:27
  Speaker 1: do you think Donald Trump's read one federalist paper in
• 1:58:29
  Speaker 1: the last twenty years. Maybe he read one in high school.
• 1:58:32
  Speaker 2: Maybe all right.
• 1:58:33
  Speaker 1: Last question for this episode comes from Dennis Dennis Rights,
• 1:58:38
  Speaker 1: Why isn't anybody talking about the real possibility that potentially
• 1:58:40
  Speaker 1: two conservative Supreme Court justices could resign Clarence Thomas and
• 1:58:43
  Speaker 1: Samuel Alito, especially if the Democrats are likely to win
• 1:58:46
  Speaker 1: the Senate to allow Trump to nominate one, possibly two, young,
• 1:58:48
  Speaker 1: mega friendly justices to the Supreme Court, extending his legacy
• 1:58:52
  Speaker 1: forward for decades. Even if the Republicans maintain their majority
• 1:58:55
  Speaker 1: of the Senate following the twenty twenty sixth election, the
• 1:58:57
  Speaker 1: real possibility still remains that either one or two the
• 1:59:00
  Speaker 1: justices would resign prior to Trump leaving office in twenty
• 1:59:02
  Speaker 1: twenty nine, allowing him to have nominated five Supreme Court
• 1:59:06
  Speaker 1: justices during his time as president. Thank you, Dennis. Look,
• 1:59:10
  Speaker 1: you know, I think you will know when the White
• 1:59:13
  Speaker 1: House finally fears losing the Senate in twenty twenty six,
• 1:59:16
  Speaker 1: when you start to hear those whispers grow louder about
• 1:59:19
  Speaker 1: Alito and or Thomas. My friend Bruce Melman, you should
• 1:59:24
  Speaker 1: check out his sub stack. Every Sunday he puts out
• 1:59:26
  Speaker 1: these terrific PowerPoint slides, and he didn't want to basically
• 1:59:31
  Speaker 1: anticipating the potential for a Supreme Court opening, and he said, look,
• 1:59:36
  Speaker 1: Trump loves to try to try to set records or
• 1:59:39
  Speaker 1: to surpass or be and he would love to nominate,
• 1:59:43
  Speaker 1: you know, to get up to five. I think in
• 1:59:46
  Speaker 1: Bruce's telling, let me get the Bruce charts out here
• 1:59:48
  Speaker 1: a minute, because they were terrific on this topic. He
• 1:59:52
  Speaker 1: pointed out that right now Trump has, as you point out,
• 1:59:55
  Speaker 1: has had three. He's right now he's in a seven
• 2:00:00
  Speaker 1: a way tie for the thirteenth most Supreme Court justices appointed.
• 2:00:04
  Speaker 1: But if he gets two more, he's then tied with
• 2:00:06
  Speaker 1: Lincoln for the fourth most all time. In case you
• 2:00:09
  Speaker 1: keep a score, George Washington is appointed the most members
• 2:00:12
  Speaker 1: of the Supreme Court eleven, followed by FDR. Took him
• 2:00:16
  Speaker 1: three terms plus a month to do nine. Andrew Jackson
• 2:00:21
  Speaker 1: did six. And then you have three guys at five. Taft, Eisenhower, Lincoln, Grant, Nixon, Cleveland, Harding, Truman,
• 2:00:29
  Speaker 1: Harrison all had four. And then Reagan got three and
• 2:00:34
  Speaker 1: he's the most and Trump has three. No, there's no
• 2:00:37
  Speaker 1: other modern era with three. You have to go back
• 2:00:41
  Speaker 1: to before then you have to go back to it
• 2:00:44
  Speaker 1: appears Hoover got three and then before that Woodrow Wilson,
• 2:00:49
  Speaker 1: before that Teddy Roosevelt. So look, I think Alitos seemed
• 2:00:54
  Speaker 1: to give hints that he sort of exhausted from doing this.
• 2:00:58
  Speaker 1: There's a lot of assumption, and said Thomas is ready
• 2:01:01
  Speaker 1: to take the RV on the road and just do
• 2:01:02
  Speaker 1: more trips on his RV. He loves to do that.
• 2:01:08
  Speaker 1: And I think they're both true believers right there. You know,
• 2:01:10
  Speaker 1: it's a it's a tough decision for Trump because the
• 2:01:13
  Speaker 1: two oldest are also the two most supportive, right they
• 2:01:16
  Speaker 1: vote with Trump more than any other two members of
• 2:01:19
  Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, So you know, and you look at
• 2:01:22
  Speaker 1: his appointments. Do you know that Amy Coney Barrett voted
• 2:01:27
  Speaker 1: gave him fifty three percent of the time, voted in
• 2:01:31
  Speaker 1: favor of the Biden administration when she was you know,
• 2:01:36
  Speaker 1: so did Roberts, but she voted more with Roberts than
• 2:01:39
  Speaker 1: she did. You know, Alito and Gorsage ninety five percent
• 2:01:42
  Speaker 1: of the time do they vote with Trump, and only
• 2:01:44
  Speaker 1: gorse it's twenty nine percent of the time voted with
• 2:01:48
  Speaker 1: with with Biden. But both Thomas and Alito voted only
• 2:01:52
  Speaker 1: eighteen percent of the tide with the Biden administration whenever
• 2:01:54
  Speaker 1: they were in front of the Supreme Court. So they're
• 2:01:57
  Speaker 1: Trump's most supportive, you know, two of their most supportive justices,
• 2:02:02
  Speaker 1: so you push them out. You know, Kavanaugh Barrett have
• 2:02:06
  Speaker 1: both been you know, a little, you know, more center
• 2:02:09
  Speaker 1: right than right wing. Gorses has been more right wing,
• 2:02:14
  Speaker 1: but he's been unpredictable in a couple of different issues.
• 2:02:17
  Speaker 1: So you know, nothing always goes to plan. And the
• 2:02:23
  Speaker 1: irony is that he would be getting rid of his
• 2:02:24
  Speaker 1: two most supportive justices if he pushed them out. But
• 2:02:29
  Speaker 1: I think this is coming. I think there are going
• 2:02:31
  Speaker 1: to be Republicans whispering in Trump's ear that hey, nothing
• 2:02:34
  Speaker 1: will help rally the base more than a Supreme Court opening.
• 2:02:38
  Speaker 1: This is what worked in twenty eighteen. It kept you know,
• 2:02:41
  Speaker 1: it helped Republicans win a couple of senten seats even
• 2:02:44
  Speaker 1: in a bad midterm year. Maybe this does the same.
• 2:02:47
  Speaker 1: Now here's a question that I have that was in
• 2:02:49
  Speaker 1: a pre Dobs environment. Who gets more fired up now
• 2:02:54
  Speaker 1: for open Supreme Court justices? But when it was Roe v.
• 2:02:57
  Speaker 1: Wade that the right was fired up about, it was
• 2:03:00
  Speaker 1: clear that anytime the Supreme Court was an issue, it
• 2:03:03
  Speaker 1: motivated the.
• 2:03:04
  Speaker 2: Right more than the left.
• 2:03:05
  Speaker 1: Does that change in the.
• 2:03:06
  Speaker 2: Era of Dobbs.
• 2:03:10
  Speaker 1: That you know, will will a Supreme Court opening motivate
• 2:03:14
  Speaker 1: the left more than the right?
• 2:03:15
  Speaker 2: This time? We haven't had that in a while.
• 2:03:17
  Speaker 1: But usually, when you know, it's whoever feels the side
• 2:03:20
  Speaker 1: that feels as if the courts are the most against them,
• 2:03:23
  Speaker 1: And right now, I think the left feels like the
• 2:03:25
  Speaker 1: courts are more rigged against them than the right feels
• 2:03:27
  Speaker 1: like the courts are rigged against them. Right there's not
• 2:03:30
  Speaker 1: as many liberal judges are doing this to us type
• 2:03:33
  Speaker 1: of victimhood these days on the right because Trump's had
• 2:03:37
  Speaker 1: quite a few you know, they've they've gotten quite a
• 2:03:39
  Speaker 1: few wins. So that's you know, do I think that
• 2:03:42
  Speaker 1: Republican strategists will believe this will help them?
• 2:03:45
  Speaker 2: I do?
• 2:03:46
  Speaker 1: Are they right? I'm not one hundred percent convinced. And
• 2:03:51
  Speaker 1: with that, I'm going to go figure out what. Let
• 2:03:55
  Speaker 1: me tell you one thing about my I got a
• 2:03:57
  Speaker 1: great anecdote about my grandmother. She's made a ninety nine years.
• 2:04:00
  Speaker 1: You know, the single thing she hates eating the most
• 2:04:04
  Speaker 1: fresh vegetables.
• 2:04:05
  Speaker 2: So there you go all right, but.
• 2:04:08
  Speaker 1: She eats the most of anything chocolate or sweet, and
• 2:04:13
  Speaker 1: she's still going strong. I'm not saying so. Hey, mister Pross,
• 2:04:18
  Speaker 1: you know the healthy food guy done always worked that way.
• 2:04:22
  Speaker 1: All right, with that, I'll see you in twenty four hours.