Speaker 1: When you're ready to ride Metro, we want you to
Speaker 1: know we're ready for you. Here are just a few
Speaker 1: of the people at Metro to tell you how we're
Speaker 1: doing our part to keep riders safe. We're cleaning like
Speaker 1: never before, half build greatly. You've found hal sanitizing, no mask,
Speaker 1: no Metro need one. We have a few extras at Metro.
Speaker 1: We're doing our part to keep the DC area moving.
Speaker 1: Find out more at well mata dot com slash doing
Speaker 1: our part. You know, I suppose it's just human nature
Speaker 1: that we tend to elevate the issues that matter the
Speaker 1: most to us. Uh, you're calling for abandoning the designated
Speaker 1: hitter weed. We certainly elevate them in our own mind,
Speaker 1: and then we kind of see the world of politics
Speaker 1: through those issues. And you know, some people, you're your
Speaker 1: your main issue is abortion or gun rights, or how
Speaker 1: about something from the other side of free college For
Speaker 1: issues have two sides, so free healthcare for everybody, So
Speaker 1: you're constantly thinking about that. Maybe I've been elevating this
Speaker 1: one a lot longer and a lot more than I
Speaker 1: should have, because it's so important to me. If I
Speaker 1: was going to define my political needs and philosophy at
Speaker 1: the in the very first sentence would be fiscal conservative.
Speaker 1: But I'm not thinking many other people care about it.
Speaker 1: This is getting a lot of attention. Yesterday a caller
Speaker 1: to the Rush Limbaugh Show said there's gonna be a
Speaker 1: one trillion dollar deficit next year. Rush Trump doesn't really
Speaker 1: care about that. He's not really a fiscal conservative, to
Speaker 1: which Rush Limbaugh replied, nobody is a fiscal conservative anymore.
Speaker 1: All this talk about concern for the deficit and the
Speaker 1: budget has been bogus for as long as it's been around. Well, well, exactly,
Speaker 1: well that okay, Well then I guess um, please welcome
Speaker 1: Alan each and David and Diane Staff, your research fellow
Speaker 1: with whoever institution director Domestic Policy Studies lecturer at Stanford
Speaker 1: and the director in high placed aid of Presidential Canada.
Speaker 1: It's in the past, long he How are you, sir,
Speaker 1: great to be with you to take that one step
Speaker 1: further before you comment on that. So Trump didn't mention
Speaker 1: the deficit at all in this State of the Union address,
Speaker 1: which we mentioned. I think we mentioned it with you
Speaker 1: the day afterwards. And uh, A report came out that
Speaker 1: Mick Mulvaney is acting Chief of Staff was was was
Speaker 1: asked no mention of the deficit in the state of Union.
Speaker 1: He said, nobody cares. Was his response to it. Russia's response.
Speaker 1: Mulveney's response, Trump's attitude is that where we are with
Speaker 1: politics in America, do you think nobody cares. I don't
Speaker 1: think it's true that nobody cares. I think it's true
Speaker 1: that here people care than was the case two years ago,
Speaker 1: and few people care them probably should. Uh. This is
Speaker 1: a serious challenge. I mean, arguably it's our biggest challenge.
Speaker 1: I think back to when during the Obama administration, I
Speaker 1: forgot exactly which national security official was, but a very
Speaker 1: high ranking national security official, I think it was the
Speaker 1: Chamber of the Joint Chief of Staffs at the time.
Speaker 1: The biggest threat we face to our national secure is
Speaker 1: actually our deck clearly because because because it because it
Speaker 1: imperils our ability to fund our military in the future.
Speaker 1: Right if you think about the increasing burden that we're
Speaker 1: placing on coming generations, and somebody's got to pay that
Speaker 1: bill at some point. I'm not just talking about military
Speaker 1: spending here. We're thinking about the big programs that are
Speaker 1: driving all of this spending increase. Make sure I couldn't
Speaker 1: agree with you more. And Joe agrees, and you agree,
Speaker 1: and it matters to us. But you've run political campaigns,
Speaker 1: if you're out there trying to win an election. I'm
Speaker 1: getting a sense, based on what Rush Limbaugh said, that
Speaker 1: that's not the issue you highlight. No, it's not. And
Speaker 1: I think you saw that in the Steen cycle. I
Speaker 1: think you saw it even in twelve, which is the
Speaker 1: cycle I worked closely and with with Mitt Romney. You know,
Speaker 1: it was an issue that we wanted to highlight, and
Speaker 1: it just was not picking up the level of traction.
Speaker 1: I give up them. So you and Joe talk. I'm
Speaker 1: no longer talking about politics. It's pointless. I'm gonna sit
Speaker 1: down there. Well, yeah, I was gonna waste any everybody's
Speaker 1: time by putting out that all of this fiscal impending
Speaker 1: disaster exists at a time of historically low interest rates,
Speaker 1: and if the rate goes up one percent, that difference
Speaker 1: in the budget will be more than we spend on
Speaker 1: all of our men and women in uniform. We've got
Speaker 1: the best economy we've ever had, almost everybody's employed, and
Speaker 1: we're going to run a trillion dollar dead anyway, nobody
Speaker 1: in deficit, nobody cares, nobody cares who. So you got
Speaker 1: the squad long here as I refer to him, the
Speaker 1: freshman cheerleader squad, because that's what they remind me of,
Speaker 1: UM exerting outsized influence and and got the giant social
Speaker 1: media accounts, and Nancy Pelosi is having a react to
Speaker 1: them and the rest of it. And it's been going
Speaker 1: on for a little while. Can that outsized influence last?
Speaker 1: Or are these four gals going to be a flash
Speaker 1: in the pan? Well? I don't think they're flash in
Speaker 1: the pan, only because they are the ones driving the conversation.
Speaker 1: And it's not just the conversation right now. I mean
Speaker 1: you think about AOC as an example, who I guess
Speaker 1: is a member of this so called squad. She has
Speaker 1: been at the forefront of driving the message on Democratic
Speaker 1: Party politics, certainly for the entirety of this year. And
Speaker 1: the reality is that where they are on policy, which
Speaker 1: is on the far end of the progressive spectrum, that
Speaker 1: encapsulates a decent number of voters who are going to
Speaker 1: vote in the Democratic Party presidential primaries when we get
Speaker 1: to early next year. So I tend to think that
Speaker 1: they are in a better position, and frankly, with their
Speaker 1: use of social media in the way that they're able
Speaker 1: to manipulate the media generally, I think they're in a
Speaker 1: great position to influence the conversation well beyond just this
Speaker 1: period of time we're in. So that brings me to
Speaker 1: my next question. Is there any limit to the extent
Speaker 1: to which a candidate can go way left or right
Speaker 1: for that matter, in the primary and then say, wait, an,
Speaker 1: I didn't mean that stuff and come back to the
Speaker 1: middle in the in the general election, or can you
Speaker 1: just say anything? Can you raise your hand and say, yeah,
Speaker 1: I think illegal should have free healthcare in the walk
Speaker 1: that back if you want the nomination. Is that possible? Well,
Speaker 1: you know, it's tough in this era of of you know,
Speaker 1: politics that we're in. It is a very different era
Speaker 1: than even just a few years ago. So I'm tempted
Speaker 1: to say that there are fewer repercussions for making crazy
Speaker 1: promises like the one that we're hearing. I mean, my
Speaker 1: think is, my instinct is, look, no one should be
Speaker 1: able to get away with saying that. You know, as
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris said in an interview, I think it was
Speaker 1: yesterday on CNN She basically said, well, I'm for medicare
Speaker 1: for all, but I don't want tax increases on anyone
Speaker 1: in the middle class. If she thinks that's ever gonna happen,
Speaker 1: I got a unicorn to offer her. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: it's it's not. It is simply unrealistic to make those
Speaker 1: kinds of promises. But they're making them under the assumption.
Speaker 1: To the point you guys are making you can just
Speaker 1: turned around in the general and say I didn't really
Speaker 1: mean that. Actually, here's what I meant. So we'll see
Speaker 1: if people are willing to hold them accountable. But I'm
Speaker 1: not convinced in this era that it matters as much
Speaker 1: what people say. Wow, I don't know what are politics now?
Speaker 1: Then what what? What is the conversation? It's a Twitter poll?
Speaker 1: And and and if what you said is true, well
Speaker 1: then yeah, you should raise your hand for free healthcare
Speaker 1: for illegal Yes, why not? Yeah? Yeah, lan he Chan
Speaker 1: is on theline, Hey, lan he I've noticed lately the
Speaker 1: popularity of certain weasel phrases in politics. One of my
Speaker 1: favorites is they're talking about speaking of absurdities, the idea
Speaker 1: of slave reparations, and the thing that like Corey Booker,
Speaker 1: and all the reasonable people say is, yes, I'm I'm
Speaker 1: in favor of of starting a commission to study this.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna study this, and I'd imagine when we get
Speaker 1: to the general they say, well, we really should study
Speaker 1: medicare for illegals because they're humans too. We're going to
Speaker 1: study it. What are some of your favorite weasel words
Speaker 1: and phrases in politics? Yeah, we'll study it. Boy, that's
Speaker 1: something i'd like to consider. I hear that one. A lie,
Speaker 1: let's consider that. And it's like, well, yes, let's actually
Speaker 1: let's do it right now. And then tell me what
Speaker 1: do you think. Why don't we Why don't we do
Speaker 1: out now? Why do we do that today? Yeah, I'll
Speaker 1: consider it. We'll think about it. You know, this is
Speaker 1: an idea that's worth worth discussing. And and they do
Speaker 1: that because they want to signal hey, you know, actually
Speaker 1: I'm with you. But the reality is they're never going
Speaker 1: to do anything about the particular thing they're talking about.
Speaker 1: And to get back to our competition earlier about the
Speaker 1: general election versus the primary. This is exactly how some
Speaker 1: of these politicians get away with it. In the primary.
Speaker 1: They make it sound like they're for something, and then
Speaker 1: when they get to the general they said, we don't know.
Speaker 1: I never said it before it I just said I
Speaker 1: was going to consider it and study it carefully, and
Speaker 1: and we can still study it. So yeah, this is
Speaker 1: a big problem. You know. If I'm a single guy
Speaker 1: asked the really cute girl at work out and she
Speaker 1: says that is something we should really consider, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: walk away with a different feeling than if she said
Speaker 1: hell no, never ting to happen. Hey, I was watching
Speaker 1: the Trump probably last night and thinking he would be unbeatable.
Speaker 1: This would be fantastic for him if we're July next
Speaker 1: year or October next year? Is he peeking too soon?
Speaker 1: And is there anything you can do about that? The
Speaker 1: wind is just at his back right now? Yeah, No,
Speaker 1: I think it's I think it's interesting because the confluence
Speaker 1: of different factors is really setting up well for him.
Speaker 1: But you're right, it's setting up well about a year
Speaker 1: too early. Um. I don't think there's a whole lot
Speaker 1: he can do about it. On the economy. The economy
Speaker 1: is what it is. For example, there are some things
Speaker 1: on the margins that will affect it. I think the
Speaker 1: FED will play a role here, which is why you
Speaker 1: continue to hear him trying to influence what the FED does,
Speaker 1: but ultimately that a lot of that policy lags a
Speaker 1: few months anyway, and then you've got other factors like
Speaker 1: the Democrats basically blowing themselves up. There's no indication by
Speaker 1: the way that the Democrats are gonna stop blowing themselves up.
Speaker 1: So maybe it's the case that it's not going to
Speaker 1: matter whether it happens now or next year, but it
Speaker 1: is certainly the case that he's experiencing I think, a
Speaker 1: very very good trend a little bit early in the cycle.
Speaker 1: So we'll see what happens. To keep an eye on
Speaker 1: it as we get to the fall. If I'm Trump's advisors,
Speaker 1: I suggest he declares war on Canada next July and
Speaker 1: brings the word to a quick and victorious conclusion before
Speaker 1: the election and just rides that way. That's my idea.
Speaker 1: Lana Chen, I'm afraid we're out of time, But Lania Chan,
Speaker 1: director of Domestic Policy Studies at Stanford University, also a
Speaker 1: research fellow with the Hoover Institution, host of the podcast
Speaker 1: Crossing Lines with Lana Chen. Lani, it's always enlightening. Thanks
Speaker 1: a Milian. Looking forward to the next time. Great to
Speaker 1: be with you guys, Thank you, thanks, fiscal conservative and
Speaker 1: doesn't matter and you can say anything you want that
Speaker 1: doesn't matter. That's the takeaway from that conversation. Well then yeah,
Speaker 1: no kidding, huh. When you're ready to ride Metro, we
Speaker 1: want you to know we're ready for you. Here are
Speaker 1: just a few of the people at Metro to tell
Speaker 1: you how we're doing our part to keep riders safe.
Speaker 1: We're cleaning like nevill before. You've found halfs out of
Speaker 1: no mask, No Metro need one. We have a few
Speaker 1: extras at Metro. We're doing our part to keep the
Speaker 1: DC area moving. Find out more at well Matta dot
Speaker 1: com slash doing our apart