Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. You're listening to the
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch Just Live weekdays at
Speaker 1: noon Eastern on Apple car Play and then Proud Auto
Speaker 1: with the Bloomberg Business App. Listen on demand wherever you
Speaker 1: get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 2: Congress is getting ready to shift into full campaign mode
Speaker 2: after voting today on a Continuing Resolution that is expected
Speaker 2: to pass both the House and Senate that will keep
Speaker 2: the government funded through December twentieth. They're all going to
Speaker 2: get out of town and focus on winning their re
Speaker 2: election races. But before that happens, we do still have
Speaker 2: some time to spend with lawmakers on Capitol Hill, and
Speaker 2: one of them is joining us live from there.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 2: I'm pleased to say Democratic Congressman Brad Schneider at Illinois
Speaker 2: is with us here on Bloomberg. Sir, welcome back to
Speaker 2: the program. It's great to have you. Obviously, unless something
Speaker 2: goes unforeseen varriably wrong today with the Continuing Resolution, it
Speaker 2: will pass, a shutdown will be avoided, as we've all
Speaker 2: expected here in Washington, it will be, and the can
Speaker 2: will get kicked down the road again. My question to
Speaker 2: you is did it really need to be this way?
Speaker 2: Do we really have to do this whole song and
Speaker 2: dance over again in December?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 4: No, of course not, and that's what's so frustrating. So yes,
Speaker 4: hopefully we will pass the bill. It's notable that it's
Speaker 4: not going to be passed under a rule, but under
Speaker 4: suspension because Speaker Johnson doesn't have the support of his
Speaker 4: party to move this through. But it's expected to pass
Speaker 4: the bipartisan But it's not we're not passing a budget.
Speaker 4: We're just kicking the can to December twentieth, because for
Speaker 4: the last six months we haven't been having the substance
Speaker 4: of conversations, discussions across the aisle with Democrats and Republicans
Speaker 4: about how do we want to fund our government, what
Speaker 4: should be our priorities, how to make the hard decisions
Speaker 4: that ultimately will have to be made before we pass
Speaker 4: the fisk Her twenty five budget.
Speaker 2: Well, and sir, when we contin when we consider those
Speaker 2: across the aisle conversations. When everybody comes back to Washington
Speaker 2: after the election, it'll be with the knowledge of whether
Speaker 2: you're staying in the minority or will have moved to
Speaker 2: the majority, whether or not the speaker will be looking
Speaker 2: at the prospects of still being speaker again, depending on
Speaker 2: what the new Congress looks like. Is he the most
Speaker 2: honest broker Democrats could hope to work with, or are
Speaker 2: you hoping there will be a change in Republican leadership.
Speaker 3: Well, I'm not going to talk about Republican leadership.
Speaker 4: I hope there's going to be a change in House leadership,
Speaker 4: that the Democrats will retake the majority. I'll remind everybody
Speaker 4: that in the last Congress, Democrats had a five CEA majority,
Speaker 4: the same margin that the Republicans started.
Speaker 3: In this Congress. And in the last Congress, we were
Speaker 3: able to pass.
Speaker 4: Significant major legislation, much of it, most of it in
Speaker 4: a bipartisan way. This Congress, what we've seen is a
Speaker 4: Congress that hasn't been able to do anything or almost anything,
Speaker 4: and it's.
Speaker 3: Been exceedingly frustrating.
Speaker 4: So I hope when we come back that the Demokrats
Speaker 4: love the majority, will be on a course to elect
Speaker 4: King Jeffries as a Speaker, and that in the next Congress,
Speaker 4: beginning in January, we'll get back to the table, roll
Speaker 4: up our sleeves and get the work of the American
Speaker 4: people done.
Speaker 2: Well, of course, some of that work you do from
Speaker 2: your role as a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Speaker 2: So with that seat in mind, Sir, i'd like to
Speaker 2: ask you about what we're seeing in the Middle East.
Speaker 2: The Associated Press is now reporting today that the Israeli
Speaker 2: military is preparing for a possible ground operation in Lebanon.
Speaker 2: This is according to the Israeli Army chief. It of
Speaker 2: course comes as we're seeing escalation in the exchange of
Speaker 2: fire on Israel's northern border. Missile was sent toward Masad
Speaker 2: near Tel Aviv that Israel intercepted today. Where do you
Speaker 2: see all of this going, Sir? Is Israel wise to
Speaker 2: be looking at a potential ground operation or should they
Speaker 2: be doing everything they can to de escalate?
Speaker 4: Well, I think both can be true at the same time,
Speaker 4: and you have to start where did this begin? On
Speaker 4: October seventh, as everyone knows, Hamas invaded Israel from Gaza,
Speaker 4: brutally murdered twelve hundred people to two hundred fifty people hostage,
Speaker 4: and started the war that has been raging for almost
Speaker 4: a year in Gaza. What's also notable is on the
Speaker 4: next day, the very next day, October eighth, his Ballas
Speaker 4: started firing rockets into Israel in support of Amas, and
Speaker 4: that has been going on now for again almost a year.
Speaker 4: More than eighty five hundred rockets, missiles, drones, anti tank
Speaker 4: weapons have been fired by his Balla into Israel. Israel
Speaker 4: has been responding and it has continued to escalate. Eighty
Speaker 4: thousand people have been evacuated from the border communities in Israel.
Speaker 4: Probably an equal number of Lebanese civilians have been evacuated,
Speaker 4: civilians who are not a part of Hisbola but are
Speaker 4: suffering the consequences of his Balla's actions. So what Israel
Speaker 4: is doing is taking action against is Bola to try
Speaker 4: to secure its communities.
Speaker 3: On the border with Lebanon.
Speaker 4: But this has also miss sorry to give security to
Speaker 4: the people in Lebanon, who unfortunately are under the.
Speaker 3: Thumb of his ball.
Speaker 2: Well, and what role do you see the US playing here?
Speaker 2: If this continues to ramp up and we see more
Speaker 2: outward conflict between Israel and Hezballah, is there going to
Speaker 2: be an added need for the US military presence in
Speaker 2: the region or just more arms support. What exactly should
Speaker 2: the expectation be on what this administration and this Congress,
Speaker 2: frankly is willing to provide.
Speaker 4: I think the first thing you see is that the
Speaker 4: administration is continuing to try to create the off ramps
Speaker 4: Almos Hochstein is in the region. President Biden has been
Speaker 4: committed to trying to de escalate and create the space
Speaker 4: to move his Balla back from the Israeli border and
Speaker 4: try to resolve the disputes peacefully.
Speaker 3: I think the United States will continue to do that.
Speaker 4: At the same time, going back to October eighth, when
Speaker 4: as Balla started striking, President Biden is very clear when
Speaker 4: he's said don't, but he also backed up his words
Speaker 4: by sending aircraft characters into the region.
Speaker 3: We continue to support.
Speaker 4: Israel and Israel's right to defend itself, but we also
Speaker 4: should be supporting the Lebanese people.
Speaker 3: They've suffered. Lebanon.
Speaker 4: The economy is literally on its back, not even on
Speaker 4: its kneeze. The government is dysfunctional, all because his Bola
Speaker 4: and his Bola is backed by Iran. Ultimately, it is
Speaker 4: Iran who is responsible is holding back Lebanon from the
Speaker 4: possibility of moving forward. So I think the United States
Speaker 4: has a role to play there, and ultimately, as President
Speaker 4: Biden said, Israel has a right to defend itself.
Speaker 3: The United States will stand with Israel as she does.
Speaker 2: So I'd like to ask you about another conflict as well,
Speaker 2: the ongoing war in Ukraine. As the Ukrainian President, vladimir's Lynsky,
Speaker 2: spoke at the United Nations General Assembly in New York today.
Speaker 2: Here is a tasterer of what he said, and I
Speaker 2: have a question for you after greenails.
Speaker 5: Will never accept, will never accept why anyone need to do?
Speaker 5: World believes that such a brutal colonial past, which suits
Speaker 5: no one today, can be imposed on Ukraine now instead
Speaker 5: of a normal peaceful life. Do not divide the world,
Speaker 5: be United Nations and that will bring us peace.
Speaker 2: Congressman, of course, Zelensky will be traveling from New York
Speaker 2: down here to Washington. He will in fact be on
Speaker 2: Capitol Hill tomorrow meeting with some of your colleagues before
Speaker 2: everyone leaves town. Should he, in his visit to Washington
Speaker 2: feel confident that he's going to be able to count
Speaker 2: on the same support from a Congress or any future
Speaker 2: administration as Ukraine has had to this point.
Speaker 4: I think I'll take us back to a question we
Speaker 4: asked earlier about who is in the majority next year
Speaker 4: in Congress. Democrats have state committed to Ukraine throughout this war.
Speaker 4: Will spend more than thirty months since Russia initiated it's
Speaker 4: invasion in February of twenty twenty two. As Lensky said,
Speaker 4: and the piece I heard, and I have not heard
Speaker 4: his whole speech yet, but he talked about the will
Speaker 4: of the desire of the Ukrainian.
Speaker 3: People to remain independent.
Speaker 4: Just after the start of the war, I heard the
Speaker 4: Ukrainian ambassador speak here in Washington saying that the previous
Speaker 4: thirty years since the fall of the Soviet Union was
Speaker 4: the longest period of independence for Ukraine in hundreds of years,
Speaker 4: and that the people who had come to appreciate their independence,
Speaker 4: appreciate their freedom. We're going to fight for that freedom
Speaker 4: with every ounce of energy that they have. And the
Speaker 4: Ukrainians have continued that fight. They have fought nobly and
Speaker 4: bravely against the Russians and the West under the leadership
Speaker 4: of President Biden. But working with our allies in Europe
Speaker 4: and other allies around the world, have helped ensure that
Speaker 4: Ukraine can sustain its fight, and we need to make
Speaker 4: sure that it sustains it fight and that Russia cannot
Speaker 4: get either a strategic victory or ultimately take over Ukraine completely.
Speaker 2: Will you, sir, be meeting with Zelensky tomorrow or do
Speaker 2: you know of your colleagues who will be.
Speaker 3: I will not be about who's meeting.
Speaker 4: I'm not aware of any Foreign Affairs Committee meeting with
Speaker 4: President Zelensky. If something changes, I would love that opportunity.
Speaker 2: Well, finally, before we let you go, sir, we have
Speaker 2: about a minute left. It's not just Foreign Affairs on
Speaker 2: which you sit, but you're also on the Ways and
Speaker 2: Means Committee. Knowing Kamala Harris is about to just about
Speaker 2: two hours from now give a speech on the manufacturing economy,
Speaker 2: in which she may mention tax policy and raising the
Speaker 2: rates on, say corporations or those with more than a
Speaker 2: million dollars in income their capital gains tax rate. To
Speaker 2: what extent can she reliably say those are policies that
Speaker 2: stand a chance of passing Congress, Knowing we very may
Speaker 2: well end up with divided government even if she does
Speaker 2: win the election in November.
Speaker 4: Well, irrespective of who wins November, we know that provisions
Speaker 4: of the twenty seventeen tax code.
Speaker 3: Are going to expire and at the end of next.
Speaker 4: Year, So Ways and means in particular, but the House
Speaker 4: and the Senate as a whole, we'll be digging deeply
Speaker 4: into the tax code and trying to develop new policy,
Speaker 4: hopefully new policy that will stand the test of time.
Speaker 4: And whatever tax policy we have has to be one
Speaker 4: that makes sure American companies, American workers compete on a
Speaker 4: global stage, that we're investing in new innovations, new products,
Speaker 4: that we're training our workers, that we're developing the workforce
Speaker 4: for the future by investing in our kids. And so
Speaker 4: what I'm hopeful for next years we open up the
Speaker 4: tax code and take what I believe and hope will
Speaker 4: be a deliberative and engage and hopefully bipartisan approach to
Speaker 4: tax policy. We'll have policy that ensures in American companies
Speaker 4: lead the way.
Speaker 2: All right, Congressman, thank you so much for joining us
Speaker 2: that Democratic Congressman Bratschneider of Illinois live on Capitol Hill.
Speaker 6: Right here on Bloomberg TV and Radio.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast kens
Speaker 1: just live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and then
Speaker 1: roud Oro with the Bloomberg Business app. You can also
Speaker 1: listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station,
Speaker 1: Just say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven.
Speaker 2: Thirty the many stories our wonderful news team is producing,
Speaker 2: and one of the most red stories on the Bloomberg
Speaker 2: terminal today has a headline that reads as follows x
Speaker 2: NFL linebacker duel Senator Cruise in surprise Texas Nailbier. As
Speaker 2: you might be able to guess, this is about the
Speaker 2: Texas Senate race in which the incumbent Republican Ted Cruz
Speaker 2: is facing a challenger from Democratic Congressman Colin Alred, who yes,
Speaker 2: used to play football. Of course, Texas is the state
Speaker 2: Democrats have long dream of being able to claim could
Speaker 2: go blue.
Speaker 6: It is for now firmly read.
Speaker 2: Of course, we saw in twenty eighteen Beto O'Rourke try
Speaker 2: to unseat Ted Cruz. He lost that race by relatively
Speaker 2: narrow margin. It does seem, though, looking at poles, that
Speaker 2: all much chances might be a little bit better depending
Speaker 2: on which poll, of course, you're looking at. We got
Speaker 2: one from Morning Consult just last week that found Allread
Speaker 2: was actually leading Cruise by a single percentage point, which
Speaker 2: does leave us in.
Speaker 6: The margin of error.
Speaker 2: So as we consider this race and the other down
Speaker 2: ballot races to watch. Let's assemble now our political panel.
Speaker 2: Janie Shanzeno, Senior Democracy Fellow at the Center for the
Speaker 2: Study of the Presidency and Congress, Today with Lester Munson,
Speaker 2: of course, principle of the International Practice at BGR Group
Speaker 2: and Republican strategist. Lester is the Republican I'll come to
Speaker 2: you first. Obviously, Ted Cruz has faced challenges in the past,
Speaker 2: as I've mentioned, But does he have more reason to
Speaker 2: worry this cycle? Do you actually think he has a
Speaker 2: risk of being unseated.
Speaker 7: Well, I think it's going to be a close race.
Speaker 7: How I think it's less risky than it looks, but
Speaker 7: it will be close. Cruz lost or beat Beto o'rouric
Speaker 7: six years ago by two and a half points. That's
Speaker 7: not much Texas went two years later, Texas went for
Speaker 7: Trump by five and a half points. So Cruise trails
Speaker 7: Trump and polling he's less popular than Trump is in Texas.
Speaker 7: I think he's still going to win. Colin Allred is
Speaker 7: a serious guy. He's a charismatic guy. He's a good
Speaker 7: candidate as far as I can tell. He's making this
Speaker 7: thing close. But I think at the end of the day,
Speaker 7: Texas is probably going to stay Red on this race.
Speaker 2: Well, so, Genie, I do wonder what outcome it could
Speaker 2: actually define victory here for the Democrats, if not a
Speaker 2: victory for Colin all Red outright? Would it be enough
Speaker 2: to just force money to be spent in Texas where
Speaker 2: it could have been spent other places and what was
Speaker 2: more understood to be the competitive races?
Speaker 8: Absolutely, and the spending in this race is enormous. I
Speaker 8: have to take exception to my friend Lester. I have
Speaker 8: a few friendly bets on this Texas race and I
Speaker 8: am gonna I know you do, Jerry, Yeah, that's right,
Speaker 8: Kayley right, And I'm going to bet Lester. I think
Speaker 8: Alred can pull this off. Not only did o'roork come close,
Speaker 8: but Allred, to Lester's point, is an exceptional candidate. He's
Speaker 8: got an incredible life story. He is more moderate than
Speaker 8: Beto O'Rourke was. He has an enormous amount of funding
Speaker 8: and support on his side. And you can see Ted
Speaker 8: Cruz struggling to talk about his bipartisanship and the work
Speaker 8: he's done across the aisle, all of the things that
Speaker 8: we never expect to hear from Ted Cruz, who used
Speaker 8: to be the firebrand, you know candidate. So I think
Speaker 8: Allred does have a real shot here. But even if
Speaker 8: he doesn't come through and win, which you will, I
Speaker 8: think it is important because it really does show how
Speaker 8: this state has shifted. It is turning increasingly purplish. I
Speaker 8: know a young man who just moved to Dallas and
Speaker 8: to work. You see a lot of people going down
Speaker 8: there working. And Julie's great piece in the on Bloomberg
Speaker 8: today she talks about the democraphic changes. We don't know
Speaker 8: the impact because they don't have to register as a
Speaker 8: party or for a party when they when they go
Speaker 8: to a register to vote, So we don't know what
Speaker 8: the impact of these Democrat demographic shifts are, but they
Speaker 8: may be potentially big.
Speaker 9: Yeah.
Speaker 2: An excellent point and a well deserved shout out to
Speaker 2: our colleague Julie Fine, our Texaspirit chief, who is the
Speaker 2: byeline on this story, on this race. Of course, she
Speaker 2: has long been warning us here at Bloomberg to keep
Speaker 2: an eye on this one because she does think it
Speaker 2: can be competitive. Of course, there's other races we're keeping
Speaker 2: more of an eye on now than we may have otherwise.
Speaker 2: Earlier in the cycle, including in Florida Lester, where this
Speaker 2: is another instance in which you have in in a
Speaker 2: Republican incumbent who is facing a Democratic challenger. The incumbent
Speaker 2: in this case, of course, Senator Rick Scott. The polls
Speaker 2: are close in this race as well, perhaps not as
Speaker 2: close as in the crew's already race. But what do
Speaker 2: you think is more likely that Rick Scott could get
Speaker 2: unseated or that Ted Cruz could.
Speaker 7: Oh, I think it's more likely Cruz is going to
Speaker 7: lose than Scott. Scott's a popular figure in Florida. He's
Speaker 7: a two term governor, He's done pretty well in his career.
Speaker 7: He's not as quite as iconoclastic as Ted Cruz is.
Speaker 7: And to Genie's earlier point, you know, Ted Cruz is
Speaker 7: by partisan. He often teams up with the Democrats to
Speaker 7: oppose what Mitch McConnell is doing. So he does have
Speaker 7: some things he could brag about in that respect. But
Speaker 7: I think I think Rick Scott and Ted Cruz, both
Speaker 7: at the end of the day, might be a little
Speaker 7: more marginal in Texas, are going to prevail.
Speaker 9: Well.
Speaker 2: And of course a lot of this may come down
Speaker 2: to money as well as we were noting with Genie,
Speaker 2: there's a lot of money being spent in some of
Speaker 2: these races where Republicans especially are having to allocate resources
Speaker 2: when they might prefer to instead just focus on say
Speaker 2: Montana in Ohio, where the incumbent Democrats are exceptionally vulnerable
Speaker 2: as we consider the money lester. Obviously, there's been reporting
Speaker 2: this about the Trump campaign not giving to the same
Speaker 2: extent the Harris campaign has to the congressional and senatorial
Speaker 2: campaign committees on the Republican side. To what extent is
Speaker 2: that concerning knowing that the Republicans, the Republican congressional and
Speaker 2: senatorial committees have been being outraised by their Democratic counterparts.
Speaker 7: Well, Democrats are outraising Republicans across the board. Harris has
Speaker 7: a huge fundraising advantage over Trump in Texas, as we're
Speaker 7: just discussing, already has more money in the bank than
Speaker 7: Cruz does. So, by the way, one of the things
Speaker 7: Democrats do when the Republicans outraise them start talking about
Speaker 7: campaign finance reform as if it's a national emergency. It's
Speaker 7: weird that they're not doing that now, probably because they're
Speaker 7: doing they're doing so on this regard, maybe Republicans should
Speaker 7: be talking about campaign finance reform. I think at the
Speaker 7: end of the day, the money advantage for Democrats and
Speaker 7: all seriousness is a little bit baked in. Republicans have
Speaker 7: a better effort on the earned media side. In other words,
Speaker 7: they can go out and grab headlines by saying provocative
Speaker 7: things and kind of challenging the system. So it kind
Speaker 7: of balances, in my mind at least to kind of
Speaker 7: these campaign advantages kind of balance out at the end,
Speaker 7: and neither one of them is really going to be determinative.
Speaker 7: Is all of these races are going to be close
Speaker 7: house Senate President? They're really coin flips at this point.
Speaker 2: Well, and your earned media point is certainly a good one.
Speaker 2: That genie, as we know, has been a specialty of
Speaker 2: Donald Trump. He may not have the actual war chest
Speaker 2: advantage against Kamala Harris, but he is an expert at
Speaker 2: getting that media attention. Do you think it's working as
Speaker 2: well this time? Or has Kamala Harris been able to
Speaker 2: compete with him on that front, giving just the very
Speaker 2: unique nature of her candidacy and how short it has
Speaker 2: been to this point.
Speaker 8: Any the young people, yes, can you hear me?
Speaker 6: Yep? Now? We can, and here we go.
Speaker 8: Thanks my fault, she has been able to compete. I
Speaker 8: was just talking to young people who spend a lot
Speaker 8: of time in the digital world, and they were talking
Speaker 8: about the fact that she's been able to compete, not
Speaker 8: necessarily because the campaign itself is doing that, but because
Speaker 8: people who are listening to the campaign and taking things
Speaker 8: like Donald Trump talking about Haitians eating cats and dogs
Speaker 8: and creating meme after meme after meme about that, and
Speaker 8: those have gotten millions and millions of views. So Donald
Speaker 8: Trump's rather undisciplined campaign, it does get him that earned media.
Speaker 8: He's the kidnap earned media, as Lester was talking about.
Speaker 8: But it also has resulted in Kamala Harris having sort
Speaker 8: of advocates on her side who take some of the
Speaker 8: off the wall things he is saying and make them
Speaker 8: into memes that really do go viral. So she's able
Speaker 8: to compete in that realm. She also is able to
Speaker 8: compete from the money. And just to go back to
Speaker 8: the Senate, I think it a year ago we were
Speaker 8: here talking about Democrats having a shot of holding the Senate.
Speaker 8: None of us would have believed it because the math
Speaker 8: is so much in the favor of Republicans, and that
Speaker 8: really does speak to how much this campaign really has
Speaker 8: depended on good candidates on both sides. And I would
Speaker 8: say Shi and Montana and all writ in Texas on
Speaker 8: both sides are example of keeping this really really tight.
Speaker 2: And of course there's Larry Hogan to consider in Maryland
Speaker 2: as well, who was a four very popular governor of
Speaker 2: the state now running against Angela. Also Brooks, the Democrat.
Speaker 2: That's all on the Senate side, Leicester. We have to
Speaker 2: consider the House here as well in our final couple
Speaker 2: of minutes, because of course Mike Johnson is going to,
Speaker 2: under suspension of the rules, be able to pass a
Speaker 2: continuing resolution out of his chamber today after failing on
Speaker 2: Plan A, which was a six month continuing resolution with
Speaker 2: the Save Act attached. Going out for the election season,
Speaker 2: on that kind of performance, when you know, coming back
Speaker 2: in November, you're going to know if you're still the
Speaker 2: majority or put down to the minority.
Speaker 6: What does his future look like realistically.
Speaker 7: Well, first of all, to kind of echo what Genie said,
Speaker 7: you know, a year ago, if we thought Mike Johnson
Speaker 7: would still be I'm not even sure he was speaker
Speaker 7: a year ago. If we thought Mike Mike Johnson would
Speaker 7: would still be in this position as Speaker through these
Speaker 7: last few months. I think we'd all be amazed. And
Speaker 7: so he's done quite well just to stay where he is.
Speaker 7: He's survived these votes before where he needs Democrats to
Speaker 7: come over and support him on the budget to get
Speaker 7: things done and avoid a government shutdown. I think he's
Speaker 7: going to survive this one, I think, and I realized
Speaker 7: I may sound a little glasses half full Republican here.
Speaker 7: I've seen him grow in office. He has demonstrated leadership.
Speaker 7: He got the Ukraine aid package across the finish line,
Speaker 7: maybe a little later than we all wanted, but he
Speaker 7: got it done. It was very significant. I've seen him
Speaker 7: take take these responsibilities on his shoulders and do it
Speaker 7: in a dignified and responsible way while trying to keep
Speaker 7: his caucus as organized as he can. So I think
Speaker 7: I would give I would put my money if I
Speaker 7: were a betting person, I would put my money on
Speaker 7: him being able to stay as the top dog in
Speaker 7: with the Republicans regardless of what happens on election Day.
Speaker 2: All Right, Lester Munson is betting on Johnson. Jeanie Shanzino
Speaker 2: is betting on Colin Alred in Texas our political panel today.
Speaker 2: Thank you both so much for joining me, and we'll
Speaker 2: have more straight ahead here on Balance of Power on
Speaker 2: Bloomberg TV and radio.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch
Speaker 1: Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Emo car Play
Speaker 1: and then Rounto with the Bloomberg Business App. Listen on
Speaker 1: demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live
Speaker 1: on YouTube.
Speaker 6: Right here on Bloomberg.
Speaker 2: We are preparing about an hour and a half from
Speaker 2: now to bring you some remarks live from Vice President
Speaker 2: and na Kamala Harris as she speaks at the Economic
Speaker 2: Club of Pittsburgh yes in the critical battleground state of Pennsylvania,
Speaker 2: with remarks that will be targeted specifically on the economy
Speaker 2: and the manufacturing economy. At that they, of course, will
Speaker 2: follow Donald Trump giving remarks of his own in Savannah,
Speaker 2: Georgia yesterday talking about manufacturing, primarily focusing on tariffs and
Speaker 2: taxes as ways to incentify, incentivize making more in America.
Speaker 2: So the question today is what messaging, what policy could
Speaker 2: Harris put forward and to what extent will it resonate
Speaker 2: with these key groups of voters that she is trying
Speaker 2: to target in states like Pennsylvania. So to help us
Speaker 2: answer these messaging questions, I'm pleased to say joining us
Speaker 2: now here on balance of power is Aisha Mills, a
Speaker 2: Democratic political strategist and social impact advisor.
Speaker 6: Welcome to Bloomberry. Ayisha, great to have you.
Speaker 2: So as Harris specifically, it seems, is looking at blue
Speaker 2: collar workers here with this notion of trying to create
Speaker 2: a vision of the manufacturing economy. What is it that
Speaker 2: they need to here? And therefore, what is it that
Speaker 2: she needs to say?
Speaker 10: M hm, So, KAYLEI, thank you so much for having me.
Speaker 10: It's great to be here. I want to just kind
Speaker 10: of step back for a second because I know that
Speaker 10: what happens in all of the political conversations is that
Speaker 10: we tend to like to marginalize ourselves into factions. Right, So,
Speaker 10: you've got the working class over here and the blue
Speaker 10: collar workers over here, as if they are divorced from
Speaker 10: the manufacturing companies themselves and the corporations who are manufacturing
Speaker 10: goods but then also purchasing those goods and needing to
Speaker 10: use those goods in their own business lines. And so
Speaker 10: I think that what it is really important for us
Speaker 10: to do is to remember that the economy is powered
Speaker 10: by workers, and that we also need to understand that
Speaker 10: there is such a deep connective tissue there that it's
Speaker 10: not just them versus us, And that is the thing
Speaker 10: that the other side tries to do a lot, is
Speaker 10: to pit business owners and corporations against the actual people
Speaker 10: who power them. I think that Kamala Harris is going
Speaker 10: to go in and she's going to have a really
Speaker 10: great conversation just to that effect that I just mentioned.
Speaker 10: It is the people who power our economy, and we
Speaker 10: need to have manufacturing here in the United States to
Speaker 10: make sure that we're growing jobs. That's important. Obviously imports
Speaker 10: are important too, But we can't just continue to say
Speaker 10: we're gonna throw blanket taxes out there that end up
Speaker 10: being taxes on the American public and our pocketbooks, because
Speaker 10: it doesn't necessarily, you know, affect the overall economic bottom
Speaker 10: line in a real improvement way. So I think that
Speaker 10: what she's going to do is she's going to actually
Speaker 10: speak to the people. She's going to speak to the
Speaker 10: workers and remind us all how valuable labor is to
Speaker 10: the fundamental fabric of our economy. And our society. She's
Speaker 10: been doing that all along, and I think she's going
Speaker 10: to do that again today.
Speaker 2: And as Pennsylvania the state that most needs to hear
Speaker 2: that message from her, is it the most appropriate forum
Speaker 2: to be delivering it, knowing how critical, of course that
Speaker 2: state and its electoral votes are to the outcome of
Speaker 2: this election.
Speaker 10: Surely, And you know, remember Pennsylvania is a home of
Speaker 10: American manufacturing, steel industry. President Biden talks about, you know,
Speaker 10: his roots there in scran where he's from working class community.
Speaker 10: His father was a laborer. So absolutely this is the
Speaker 10: perfect place for her to be bringing home this message
Speaker 10: where there are generations of families who remember a time
Speaker 10: when you are a proud union member, a proud working person,
Speaker 10: a proud manufacturing employee who cared about your job, was
Speaker 10: able to put food on the table for families, had
Speaker 10: a good income, was able to own a home. The
Speaker 10: price of inflation wasn't so crazy that you couldn't buy
Speaker 10: goods and put food on the table. And so there
Speaker 10: are people there who remember how fundamental the manufacturing industry
Speaker 10: has been two our American economy, and also are experiencing
Speaker 10: some of the pain of having lost a lot of that,
Speaker 10: So I think this is absolutely the right audience for
Speaker 10: her to have this conversation.
Speaker 2: Well, and of course I used so she approaches me
Speaker 2: many of her conversations around the economy with her background
Speaker 2: as someone who was brought up in a middle class family.
Speaker 2: She has emphasized that part of who she is quite
Speaker 2: a lot in much of her messaging. She's emphasized other
Speaker 2: parts of her identity, though a bit less, including the
Speaker 2: historic nature of her candidacy as being a woman of color,
Speaker 2: the first ever leading a major party's ticket in a
Speaker 2: presidential election. Of course, she was asked about that kind
Speaker 2: of demographic question and black voters black men in particular
Speaker 2: in an interview with the National Association of Black Journalists
Speaker 2: earlier this month. Will remind our audience here of her response.
Speaker 11: I think it's very important to not operate from the
Speaker 11: assumption that black men are in anybody's pocket. Black men
Speaker 11: are like any other voting group. You got to earn
Speaker 11: their vote. So I'm working to earn the vote, not
Speaker 11: assuming I'm going to have it because I am black.
Speaker 2: But when we consider the earning of the voter, the
Speaker 2: explanations as to why that vote should be cast for her.
Speaker 2: Does her identity not play a role. If her identity
Speaker 2: is someone who out of middle class upbringing is supposed
Speaker 2: to play a role in how voters view her the
Speaker 2: way she approaches the economy, why can't it go for
Speaker 2: other things about her as well.
Speaker 10: I don't think that that's what she said at all.
Speaker 10: Kamala is black. Kamala is also Indian. She's a biracial American.
Speaker 10: Like so many people in this country. We are a
Speaker 10: multi racial society. And here's the other thing about our
Speaker 10: demographics is that we are also shifting in our demographics
Speaker 10: here in the United States, where we are seeing a
Speaker 10: new American majority of people of color and multi race
Speaker 10: people who are absolutely on track to be the majority
Speaker 10: of the population of this nation. So what does that mean?
Speaker 10: Certainly from an electoral power standpoint, people of color will
Speaker 10: ultimately be the outnumber white voters in terms of their
Speaker 10: electoral power. That is the trend that we are seeing.
Speaker 10: That's what the demographics say. This directly relates to who
Speaker 10: she needs to appeal to in order to get out
Speaker 10: the vote to win. And that's for you know, candidates
Speaker 10: of any party on all the sides. But also when
Speaker 10: you think about it, as a more macro conversation beyond
Speaker 10: just this political cycle, our economy, our consumers, largest consumer group,
Speaker 10: one of the largest consumer groups in this country are
Speaker 10: African Americans. The number one business owners, folks who are
Speaker 10: starting businesses that are more rapid clip than anybody else
Speaker 10: in this country are black people, black women in particular.
Speaker 10: Ninety percent of the businesses in this country are small businesses,
Speaker 10: many of which are powered by people of color. Demographically
Speaker 10: and from a market spend capacity, we certainly are powering
Speaker 10: the market as consumers, as people of color. So this
Speaker 10: is a macro trajectory that we are seeing in our
Speaker 10: demographics right now shifting. And here's where I think the
Speaker 10: the fine point on this I'll make around this conversation
Speaker 10: is as it relates to politics and demography, is that
Speaker 10: what corporations have always known, what businesses have always known,
Speaker 10: is that it's good business to do right by people,
Speaker 10: no matter who they are. And what you're seeing from
Speaker 10: Kamala Harris is embodying those values of inclusivity, of diversity
Speaker 10: being an asset right to the bottom line. What you're
Speaker 10: seeing on the other side with the Republicans is a
Speaker 10: real assault and an attack on diversity, an attack on
Speaker 10: diversity and an attack on inclusion, and an attack on
Speaker 10: anybody who recognizes the power and not just the power
Speaker 10: from a social context, but the power in our society
Speaker 10: of really embracing the majority of the people certainly and
Speaker 10: reflecting and representing their values. And so I think that
Speaker 10: you know, Kamala Harris's conversation across the board, being on culture,
Speaker 10: be it on her own identity, being on her economic policies,
Speaker 10: is absolutely reflective of where we're going and reflective of
Speaker 10: the demographic makeup of our society.
Speaker 2: Well, I'd like to focus on another demographic as well,
Speaker 2: specifically women, in the way that both of these candidates
Speaker 2: are approaching the vote of women in this election cycle.
Speaker 2: We heard just this week from Donald Trump about this
Speaker 2: notion that he will be a protector of women. This
Speaker 2: is what he said, Ayesha.
Speaker 12: As president, I have to be your protector. I will
Speaker 12: make you safe at the border, on the sidewalks of
Speaker 12: your now violent cities, in the suburbs where you are
Speaker 12: under migrant criminal siege, and with our military protecting you
Speaker 12: from foreign enemies, of which we have many today. Because
Speaker 12: of the incompetent leadership that we have you will no
Speaker 12: longer be abandoned, lonely, or scared. You will no longer
Speaker 12: be in danger. You're not going to be in danger
Speaker 12: any longer. You will no longer have anxiety from all
Speaker 12: of the problems our country has today. You will be protected,
Speaker 12: and I will be your protector.
Speaker 2: So it strikes me, Aisha, that he's really focusing on
Speaker 2: kind of ideas of physical protection. Here are physical threats
Speaker 2: that people could face. Kamala Harris has been talking a
Speaker 2: lot about the protection instead of rights and freedoms. That's
Speaker 2: a lot of where her messaging has centered on what
Speaker 2: wins out.
Speaker 10: Well, let me just first tell you how offended I am,
Speaker 10: and I speak on behalf of more than half of
Speaker 10: the population, women who make up more than half the population,
Speaker 10: how completely insulting and offensive it is for Donald Trump
Speaker 10: to throw around a very old age patriarchal trope to
Speaker 10: suggest that all us little women need is some big
Speaker 10: mouth guy to run around and protect us, when in
Speaker 10: fact it's him who's causing the things that make us
Speaker 10: most and most fearful. I think that you know, fifty
Speaker 10: seven percent of women fired Donald Trump and rejected him
Speaker 10: in the twenty twenty election. Fifty seven percent of women.
Speaker 10: We certainly would never feel safe in a room alone
Speaker 10: with him, because he has said that he grabs them
Speaker 10: by the you know what, and he has been found
Speaker 10: liable for sexual assault. This is not someone who is
Speaker 10: any one's protector, and certainly no woman's protector. And the
Speaker 10: fact that he would even you know, declare that really
Speaker 10: reflects to a very antiquated sense of patriarchy and this
Speaker 10: kind of way that he is moving through his campaign,
Speaker 10: trying to galvanize a very bygone golden era of men
Speaker 10: thinking that they are dominant to submissive women, that they
Speaker 10: are just there to take control of and to protect,
Speaker 10: and whatever other language it is it's being used. I
Speaker 10: do believe that it's going to turn off. It has
Speaker 10: already turned off so many if you just look at
Speaker 10: the conversations that are happening out in the public discourse,
Speaker 10: and when fifty seven percent of the women reject you,
Speaker 10: and that's how you show up, let alone assault on
Speaker 10: our healthcare, I don't think that it's a winning strategy
Speaker 10: for anyone other than men who have that same attitude.
Speaker 2: Finally, Aisha, in our final minute with you, whether it's women,
Speaker 2: black voters, any of the demographics we are talking about
Speaker 2: just the American electorate as a whole.
Speaker 6: I think we know that a lot.
Speaker 2: Of this outcome could be dependent on just whether or
Speaker 2: not people turn out. What is the winning strategy for
Speaker 2: the Harris campaign to actually drive voters to go cast
Speaker 2: a vote?
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, I.
Speaker 10: Mean that's really important. You know, you've seen so many
Speaker 10: different constituent groups based on ethnicity, be it black or Latino,
Speaker 10: or you know, demographics, if it's women, if it's LGBTQ,
Speaker 10: folks all come together saying we support Harris, including by
Speaker 10: the way, white dudes for Harris, right. And why that
Speaker 10: matters is because the Harris campaign, aside from just having
Speaker 10: a aultifaceted, diverse coalition that literally reflects the entirety of America,
Speaker 10: also has a very strong boots on the ground ground game.
Speaker 10: So across this country. She has thousands of field offices
Speaker 10: where there are volunteers and operatives who are going out
Speaker 10: to be deployed into the community all day, every day,
Speaker 10: meeting with voters, talking with voters, sharing information, hearing people's concerns,
Speaker 10: listening to their ideas, being able to take those back
Speaker 10: to the campaign and help shape the way that she's
Speaker 10: thinking about the way that she would lead and serve
Speaker 10: the American public. The thing that is really most promising
Speaker 10: right now from a campaign apparatus, if you compare where
Speaker 10: the Republicans and the Democrats are, is that the Democrats
Speaker 10: have a very wide, far reaching, boots on the ground
Speaker 10: strategy in almost every state. And that includes, of course
Speaker 10: the big swing states that they have to win, but
Speaker 10: other states as well that we didn't even think we're
Speaker 10: going to be in play, like North Carolina for example.
Speaker 10: And so at the end of the day, all politics
Speaker 10: is low, and that's what she's doing. She's getting out
Speaker 10: there and talking to people locally.
Speaker 2: All right, Aisha, Great to have you. Aisha Mills is
Speaker 2: a democratic political strategist and social impact advisor. Joining us
Speaker 2: here on Balance of Power.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast kens
Speaker 1: just live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and enroud
Speaker 1: Oto with the Bloomberg Business app. You can also listen
Speaker 1: live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station,
Speaker 1: Just Say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 2: As members return to their districts.
Speaker 6: Or wherever they will be campaigning.
Speaker 2: As we get closer and closer to the election. It is,
Speaker 2: of course, not just them, not just Washington that is
Speaker 2: on edge with the uncertainty of it all.
Speaker 6: This applies to business as well.
Speaker 2: That's something, of course we spend a lot of time
Speaker 2: talking about here on Bloomberg Radio, this notion that the
Speaker 2: policies these candidates are proposing could have an impact on
Speaker 2: the business and financial world to which we speak, and
Speaker 2: of course the business and financial world in return is
Speaker 2: bracing for the potential outcome here. And that's why I
Speaker 2: was especially struck by the survey that just posted from
Speaker 2: the Atlanta Fed. It's it's latest CFO survey in which
Speaker 2: it finds thirty percent of respondents at firms reported having
Speaker 2: either postponed, scaled down, delayed indefinitely, or even permanently canceled
Speaker 2: their investment plans because of election related uncertainty. So we
Speaker 2: want to dig more into the survey data. Now in
Speaker 2: turn to Daniel Whites of the Atlanta Fed. He's their
Speaker 2: survey director and is joining me now here on Bloomberg. Daniel,
Speaker 2: great to have you. This is obviously, this thirty percent
Speaker 2: figure higher than last quarter's figure of twenty eight percent,
Speaker 2: So perhaps uncertainty being felt more and more as we
Speaker 2: get closer to the election. But I also wonder how
Speaker 2: this compares to history. Are firms less likely to be
Speaker 2: making investment plans in this election cycle than in cycles past?
Speaker 13: Well, thank you so much for having me first the
Speaker 13: usual Federal Reserve disclaimer that any views are my own
Speaker 13: and don't necessarily reflect those of the Atlanta Fed or
Speaker 13: the Federal Reserve system. With respect to your question, that's
Speaker 13: a great question. We've only asked this in this particular cycle,
Speaker 13: this quarter and last quarter. What we see in the literature, though,
Speaker 13: is it's not uncommon for investment to sort of dip
Speaker 13: ahead of some big risk events like presidential elections. But
Speaker 13: the question is is it going to bounce back afterwards?
Speaker 13: Historically we have seen bounce backs. I think you know.
Speaker 13: The question is how big is the holdback this time
Speaker 13: relative to history? And will that kind of what we
Speaker 13: see a bounce back afterwards or will investment sort of
Speaker 13: stay low and will those firms who are on the
Speaker 13: sidelines not jump back into the fray.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, and of course, I guess only time will
Speaker 2: tell on that one. I'm sure it also depends that
Speaker 2: what that bounce back look like looks like dependent on
Speaker 2: the kind of policies that are actually put into place
Speaker 2: with whatever administration we ultimately get, what is your sense
Speaker 2: of what the greatest concern of these firms are now
Speaker 2: around what that kind of policy could look like, what
Speaker 2: policy questions it is that are currently keeping them holding back.
Speaker 13: So we asked firms about what topics were most important
Speaker 13: going into this year's elections. They listed a litany of
Speaker 13: topics that the top four in terms of the most
Speaker 13: cited were regulatory policy, monetary policy, corporate tax policy, and
Speaker 13: fiscal policy. They all got I think between fifty and
Speaker 13: sixty percent of firms indicating that they were thinking about that.
Speaker 13: So you know, those are all very high on the
Speaker 13: minds of cfo CFOs and business decision makers. So a
Speaker 13: lot to think about going into the election.
Speaker 2: Well, don't we know it, Daniel, as we consider one
Speaker 2: of those areas and I understand you are speaking to
Speaker 2: me from the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. You mentioned
Speaker 2: their monetary policy. Did you ask any questions around FED
Speaker 2: independence and whether companies are actually concerned about the notion
Speaker 2: that that could erode depending on what administration we end
Speaker 2: up with.
Speaker 13: No, we didn't specifically ask about that. We do ask
Speaker 13: firms what their top concerns are every quarter, and monetary
Speaker 13: pol had figured reasonably highly in recent quarters, but nothing
Speaker 13: regarding fed independence that we asked about specifically.
Speaker 2: All right, fair enough, I guess it would kind of
Speaker 2: be asking a question about yourselves in some way. It's
Speaker 2: like a journalist asking questions about media and journalists. It
Speaker 2: feels weird sometimes, But as we consider what this actually
Speaker 2: means for companies, you mentioned that there's a question around
Speaker 2: the bounce back, right, whether or not all of a
Speaker 2: sudden this investment comes through as soon as the results
Speaker 2: are known and there's less uncertainty. But I wonder what
Speaker 2: happens to them in the meantime. You note here that
Speaker 2: firms whose investment plans are negatively impacted by election related
Speaker 2: uncertainty also expected lower revenue and employment growth this year
Speaker 2: than their peers, So this does have an immediate financial impact.
Speaker 13: Yeah, no, that's absolutely right. We also note that they're
Speaker 13: optimism both about their own firms, but the economy in
Speaker 13: general is about ten percentage points lower for impacted firms
Speaker 13: than those that are not impacted. I mean those that
Speaker 13: pulled back investment versus those that don't. So both optimism
Speaker 13: lower revenue expected revenue growth this year and lower expected
Speaker 13: employment growth this year. What was particularly striking is those
Speaker 13: firms also you know in the media, and on average
Speaker 13: expect lower I expect the same employment and revenue growth
Speaker 13: next year. So that's to say, if you expected amounts back,
Speaker 13: you might expect them to actually overshoot their peers so
Speaker 13: that they can catch up. We didn't see that firms
Speaker 13: were expecting that they expected to lose some growth this
Speaker 13: year and then catch up with their firms next year,
Speaker 13: but potentially not regain that lost growth.
Speaker 2: Fascinating And when we consider the kinds of firms we're
Speaker 2: talking about here, is this more true for certain sectors
Speaker 2: or areas of the economy than others. Does it depend
Speaker 2: on what kind of space they're in.
Speaker 13: From what we've seen, it seems to be fairly broad.
Speaker 13: But there's not one sector in particular that's that's particularly vulnerable.
Speaker 13: It seems to be to be fairly widespread across firms.
Speaker 2: I'm just looking here at some of those issues that
Speaker 2: you were talking about. Inclusive of non labor costs is
Speaker 2: something that does appear here on the list of pressing concerns,
Speaker 2: But I also am wondering because you have labor quality
Speaker 2: and availability ranked even higher than that. There is obviously
Speaker 2: a live conversation in this election cycle happening about immigration
Speaker 2: and migration, a potential crackdown that could be happening. Frankly,
Speaker 2: no matter the outcome is, everybody seems to need to
Speaker 2: be more hawkish on that issue. How would that translate
Speaker 2: into companies' ability to fill positions they need to fill
Speaker 2: to operate to the economy overall? Knowing we have seen
Speaker 2: a big labor market impact of immigration, depending on what
Speaker 2: these policies really look like.
Speaker 13: Yeah, that's a great question. To the extent we asked
Speaker 13: about immigration policy as one of the policy topics that
Speaker 13: was important to the firms, it actually ranked I think
Speaker 13: in the lower half of the policy topics that were raised.
Speaker 13: But you're right, labor market concerns are still top of
Speaker 13: mind overall. I think there's a tremendous amount of uncertainty.
Speaker 13: Is kind of put is one potential take away from
Speaker 13: this as to how the policies will evolve and how
Speaker 13: those potential policies will impact the labor market. There's just
Speaker 13: a lot of questions out there and not a ton
Speaker 13: of answers right now.
Speaker 6: Well, yeah, I wish.
Speaker 2: I think a lot of us wish we had answers
Speaker 2: more immediately on a variety of different issues. Finally, Daniel,
Speaker 2: before we let you go, we heard Donald Trump yesterday
Speaker 2: outlining some ideas about manufacturing, in particular essentially giving lower
Speaker 2: taxes and lower regulatory burden to US companies manufacturing products
Speaker 2: here in the US. Tariff's being put into place for
Speaker 2: companies that don't. What kind of tariff concerns are companies,
Speaker 2: especially those that are importers and may need components that
Speaker 2: come from other places even if they're assembling in the US,
Speaker 2: for example, How are you seeing that show up?
Speaker 3: Sure?
Speaker 13: I mean to the extent that those would show up
Speaker 13: in our question about concerns that firms have, it hasn't
Speaker 13: really risen to the top tier level, at least as
Speaker 13: it compares to monetary policy, labor market, those types of issues.
Speaker 13: In terms of the policy topics of firms are thinking
Speaker 13: about going into the election. Trade agreements are on the list.
Speaker 13: I think just over somewhere between twenty and thirty percent
Speaker 13: of firms have indicated that's something that they're thinking about.
Speaker 13: International tax policy is also something they're thinking about, but
Speaker 13: again it doesn't rise to the top of the list
Speaker 13: at least for the policy topics regulatory policy, monetary policy,
Speaker 13: or corporate tax policy. So it's definitely on their mind,
Speaker 13: but it doesn't seem to be the top of mind.
Speaker 2: All right, Daniel, it's a fascinating survey. Thank you so
Speaker 2: much for joining us to break some of the figures down.
Speaker 2: That's Daniel White's Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta survey director
Speaker 2: with a look at how the CFOs are viewing this
Speaker 2: election uncertainty and their investment decisions around it. We'll have
Speaker 2: more straight ahead here on Balance of Power. I'm Kaylee
Speaker 2: Lines in Washington.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast kens
Speaker 1: just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Emocarplay and then
Speaker 1: roun Oto with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand
Speaker 1: wherever you get your podcasts a watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 2: Today we are watching escalating tension in the Middle East
Speaker 2: between Israel and Hesbela. Israel today shooting down the first
Speaker 2: missile ever fired by the Iranian proxy group at Tel Aviv, Hesbela,
Speaker 2: saying that that missile was aimed at the headquarters of
Speaker 2: Israel's external intelligence agency Masad, just outside of the city,
Speaker 2: and in return, Israel is stepping up its heaviest air
Speaker 2: attacks on Hesbela targets in Lebanon since two thousand and six.
Speaker 2: We've already seen hundreds of people die as these strikes
Speaker 2: go back and forth, at least fifty of them children.
Speaker 2: Of course, this is all happening as the US and
Speaker 2: other allies are urging de escalation. In fact, Axios is
Speaker 2: reporting today that the US is actively working on a
Speaker 2: proposal for a temporary ceasefire between Israel and Hezbela. But
Speaker 2: of course the US has also been pushing for a
Speaker 2: seasfire between Israel and Hamas for months now, and we
Speaker 2: know that has yielded so far, not the outcome they've
Speaker 2: been looking for. So let's get into more of this
Speaker 2: now with an expert on the region. Mara Rudmond is
Speaker 2: joining me where she is, of course, a professor at
Speaker 2: the Miller Center at the University of Virginia, also director
Speaker 2: of the Ripples of Hope project focused on democratic solutions.
Speaker 2: Welcome back to Balance of Power, Maara, Always great to
Speaker 2: have you as we consider this notion of a ceasefire
Speaker 2: on Israel's northern border between Israel and Hezbala. Do we
Speaker 2: have reason to believe this is easier to accomplish than
Speaker 2: a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas.
Speaker 9: Thanks Kyley, and good to be with you even in
Speaker 9: these difficult times. To answer your question, no, nothing in
Speaker 9: this region is easy. Nothing in general, in these types
Speaker 9: of conflicts and situations not limited to this region, is easy.
Speaker 9: But there is reason to believe it may be possible,
Speaker 9: if difficult, to get to a temporary ceasefire, primarily because
Speaker 9: it's not in the interests of any of the parties
Speaker 9: involved to lead to something that would be an all
Speaker 9: out war in the region and inevitably pull in Iran
Speaker 9: as well well.
Speaker 2: I wonder how close we are that to that line.
Speaker 2: We keep talking about this notion of potentially it becoming
Speaker 2: a war between Israel and Hesbelah, But when people are
Speaker 2: already dying by the hundreds, when we're already seeing these
Speaker 2: kinds of exchanges, the explosions of hesbola technology, pagers in
Speaker 2: walkie talkies, of course, are we not already there? How
Speaker 2: should we be defining the activity that's happening.
Speaker 9: It's clearly been an escalation and horrific as it may
Speaker 9: be that contemplate, it unfortunately can get much much worse.
Speaker 9: And one of the key lines would be if Israel
Speaker 9: launches a ground offensive as well, which there are reports of.
Speaker 9: The Israeli IDF chief of staff has told reservists that
Speaker 9: have been called up for duty in the north that
Speaker 9: they need to plan for. So bad as things are,
Speaker 9: it can absolutely get worse. The one thing I do
Speaker 9: want to point out to Achille is hump targeted. These
Speaker 9: strikes have been to date in terms of southern Lebanon,
Speaker 9: even though as always unfortunately there are innocent civilians in
Speaker 9: the region in the area who are directly affected. But
Speaker 9: the strikes have been targeted strikes, and starting from the
Speaker 9: most targeted possible, which was has go out pages and
Speaker 9: walk talkies.
Speaker 2: No, that's a very important point, Mara. I appreciate you
Speaker 2: you emphasizing that. We also have to consider that the body,
Speaker 2: the individuals or the technology being targeted here does belong
Speaker 2: to an Iranian proxy, so aroand theoretically is playing a
Speaker 2: role in this as well. To what extent should we
Speaker 2: believe if Iran is directing or advising Hesbela on its
Speaker 2: conduct escalatory or not moving forward from here, and if
Speaker 2: it is Iran that potentially has the greatest incentive of
Speaker 2: all to encourage restraint.
Speaker 9: So Iron absolutely has an incentive to encourage restraint. I'm
Speaker 9: not sure that Hezbelah itself.
Speaker 14: Is in a position either where they would they would
Speaker 14: their leadership would say this is the opportune time for
Speaker 14: an all out assault.
Speaker 9: And frankly, Israel doesn't have an interest in going to
Speaker 9: the next level, which is a ground invasion, given that
Speaker 9: that did not work out well for them in the past,
Speaker 9: even at the same time that it decimated southern Lebanon,
Speaker 9: but it ultimately in the nineteen eighties for Israel led
Speaker 9: to the growth of the hes Blah that they confront today.
Speaker 9: So it's a complicated situation. No entity, as I said,
Speaker 9: has an interest and has a real interest in escalation.
Speaker 9: But because of the relationships back and forth, and because
Speaker 9: of the interest in all of to turn the other's actions,
Speaker 9: we could end up there. And this is why the
Speaker 9: United States and other leaders in the region and throughout
Speaker 9: the world are working hard to de escalate.
Speaker 2: Well and working hard still at a ceasefire between Israel
Speaker 2: and another proxy hamas we have heard Israel say its
Speaker 2: end goal with this action in the North is to
Speaker 2: be able to return the Israelis from the North who
Speaker 2: have been displaced back to their homes. Hesbula says, if
Speaker 2: you want to do that, if you want the strikes
Speaker 2: on the North to stop, you need to end the
Speaker 2: war in Gaza. Is that really the lynchpin to all
Speaker 2: of this? If a ceasefire agreement could be reached to
Speaker 2: end the fighting in Gaza, is that a credible solution
Speaker 2: to these other problems?
Speaker 9: So I am a strong believer that these are all interlinked.
Speaker 9: Whether one solves a reason helps another harder to say.
Speaker 9: But to me, it's very clear that reaching a ceasefire
Speaker 9: in Gaza between Hermas and Israel, getting the hostages out,
Speaker 9: getting more humanitarian aid, in starting to plan for a
Speaker 9: day after which frankly should have been going on already
Speaker 9: in terms of innocent civilians in Gaza, and frankly pass
Speaker 9: needs in the West Bank as well that are being
Speaker 9: increasingly affected by this. Having a way forward, all those
Speaker 9: things will help make more credible, give more tools to
Speaker 9: get to a ceasefire as well. With hesblog, that's not
Speaker 9: to say they shouldn't the same time be trying for
Speaker 9: a temporary cease fire with has Blah given the increase
Speaker 9: in actions there, but in general, reducing tensions throughout the
Speaker 9: region is critical, and the steps forward that the United
Speaker 9: States laid out frankly back in June for a three
Speaker 9: stage cease fire with Hamas would be appolutely be a
Speaker 9: huge help.
Speaker 6: Well and Mara.
Speaker 2: It's incredible to consider that this conflict, this war with Hamas,
Speaker 2: has now been ongoing for almost a full year. We
Speaker 2: are approaching less than two weeks from now one year
Speaker 2: since the October seventh attack on Israel. Are you concerned,
Speaker 2: given what we're seeing of what that day that market
Speaker 2: could bring. Should we expect to see even greater activity
Speaker 2: around October seventh.
Speaker 9: It's hard to know on what the anniversary date itself
Speaker 9: will bring, other than it is a point of recognition,
Speaker 9: or it should be. We're all involved about how long
Speaker 9: this has gone on, certainly about what triggered the actions
Speaker 9: in Gaza, the horrific attack on Israel on October seventh.
Speaker 9: It is a reminder of just how long the hostages
Speaker 9: have been enduring. Hostages who are still alive have been
Speaker 9: enduring what they are enduring under a monster's control of
Speaker 9: them in the tunnels and other places in Gaza. So
Speaker 9: all of that is very difficult, for sure, and further
Speaker 9: increases should increase the interest of all involved in getting
Speaker 9: to the cease fire agreements before we reach that anniversary.
Speaker 2: Well certainly, and of course, just less than a month
Speaker 2: after that anniversary will bring the US election. And I wonder, Mara,
Speaker 2: the degree to which you think the uncertainty around that
Speaker 2: is to what kind of administration the United States will
Speaker 2: be offering in January, what that administration will look like,
Speaker 2: the kind of policy it's likely to pursue, is actually
Speaker 2: disincentivizing some progress in these areas, because everybody could wait
Speaker 2: and see if they end up with a friendlier outcome
Speaker 2: to their interests.
Speaker 14: Yeah, I understand why you're asking the question, and I
Speaker 14: understand why from the United States perspective that would seem
Speaker 14: to be something others are considering.
Speaker 9: I'm not sure for those in the region, as they're
Speaker 9: making day to day.
Speaker 14: Calculations, that weighs all that heavily, and so I think
Speaker 14: that we may overestimate how others throughout the world weigh
Speaker 14: their day to day actions. Not to say that who
Speaker 14: the United States elects in November would not have big
Speaker 14: consequences for the rest of the world, and most of
Speaker 14: the world recognizes that. I guess the point I'm making
Speaker 14: is just for the specific actions with respect to the
Speaker 14: conflicts we have ongoing there. I'm not sure it's that
Speaker 14: much of a factory. You can weigh it different ways
Speaker 14: for a number of the different players.
Speaker 6: Well, that's fair enough and understood. Morrow.
Speaker 2: Finally, before we let you go, if we consider what
Speaker 2: happens if this de escalation or ceasefire agreement doesn't happen
Speaker 2: in the immediate term, to what extent would you expect
Speaker 2: that the US has to get more actively involved that
Speaker 2: US involvement could actually look like. Knowing that if we
Speaker 2: look back to the attacks Iran attempt to attack Israel
Speaker 2: that was largely intercepted with the assistance of the US
Speaker 2: and other allies, would you expect that any US involvement
Speaker 2: would stay that kind of defensive in that defensive support realm,
Speaker 2: or could we actually be talking American troops on the ground,
Speaker 2: in the air, on the water.
Speaker 9: So there's already been an increase in American troops to
Speaker 9: the region, I think, probably primarily to help with evacuation
Speaker 9: and to shore up regional stability. I think that's happened
Speaker 9: just in the last week or so, and I think
Speaker 9: it's important to keep in mind that for the broader
Speaker 9: overall US national security interest, Iran is a real concern
Speaker 9: and Iran's behaviors are a real concern, and part of
Speaker 9: trying to resolve the immediate issues between Israel and Hamas
Speaker 9: and Israel has a law that the United States shared
Speaker 9: that interest with other key players in the region to
Speaker 9: be able to shore up an overall strategy and approach
Speaker 9: and respect to Iran for the region, which is part
Speaker 9: of the importance of getting as well to getting us
Speaker 9: back on a two state pathway for a path to
Speaker 9: new Israeli state. All of that is part and parcel
Speaker 9: of being able to deal with and address the Iranian concern,
Speaker 9: which remains at the forefront for the United States.
Speaker 2: All Right, we'll leave it there, Marara, thank you so
Speaker 2: much for joining us here on balance of power. Maura
Speaker 2: Rudman is a professor at the Miller Center at the
Speaker 2: University of Virginia, also director of the Ripples of Hope
Speaker 2: project focused on democratic solutions.
Speaker 6: We always appreciate her time.
Speaker 4: Thanks for listening to The Balance of Power Podcast. Make
Speaker 4: sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify,
Speaker 4: or wherever you get your podcasts, and you can find
Speaker 4: us live every weekday from Washington, DC at noontime Eastern
Speaker 4: at Bloomberg dot com