Speaker 1: This is Gavin Newsom and this is Secretary Leon Panetta.
Speaker 1: The Secretary, thanks for taking the time to be with us,
Speaker 1: and as a fellow Californian, it seems appropriate that I
Speaker 1: start here. We have so many topics to discuss. Obviously,
Speaker 1: many issues going on that are radically evolving in real
Speaker 1: time overseas. But one thing that continues to evolve in
Speaker 1: a very remarkable and meaningful way here in our own
Speaker 1: state of California, in Los Angeles is the deployment of
Speaker 1: close to five thousand military personnel that last count was
Speaker 1: four nine and forty six formerly National Guard, now federalized
Speaker 1: and active duty US Marines that have been deployed to
Speaker 1: the streets of Last Angeles. But mister Secretary, what's remarkable
Speaker 1: to me, and this is where I want to begin
Speaker 1: with you, is only a very small percentage have been
Speaker 1: mission tasked. The rest, quite literally are sitting around waiting
Speaker 1: for assignments. Thousands and thousands of former National Guard men
Speaker 1: and women that were working to do drug interdiction, working
Speaker 1: on the border on behalf of the state, including many
Speaker 1: of them working for other state agencies in law enforcement,
Speaker 1: have been federalized. And I'm curious your thoughts about what
Speaker 1: you've seen in Los Angeles, your own reflection as a
Speaker 1: former secretary of Defense, former chief of staff, did you
Speaker 1: ever imagine thousands and thousands of men and women being
Speaker 1: federalized against the wills of a governor of a home state.
Speaker 2: Well, first of all, thank you for having me as
Speaker 2: part of your podcast here. It's good to be with you, Gavin. Look,
Speaker 2: I have a very different approach here as former member
Speaker 2: of Congress, former director of the CIA, and former Secretary
Speaker 2: of Defense, I think it's very important for this country
Speaker 2: to respect the role of the military. And the role
Speaker 2: of the military is basically to defend this country from
Speaker 2: foreign adversaries. And throughout our history, we've been very clear
Speaker 2: that the role of the military ought not to be
Speaker 2: used for law enforcement purposes. And I believe in that because, frankly,
Speaker 2: we need the military to protect our national security. The
Speaker 2: President just used our military to conduct an attack in Iran.
Speaker 2: That's what the military is about, that's what they're trained
Speaker 2: to do. Uh, And we have to respect that role.
Speaker 2: And if we if we do anything to politicize the
Speaker 2: role of the military, it basically weakens our national security
Speaker 2: and weakens our national defense. So I think that there
Speaker 2: are some real concerns about the political politicalization of our
Speaker 2: of our military, and particularly the activation of our National
Speaker 2: Guard here in California. It raises real concerns about whether
Speaker 2: or not politics are being played. Uh. I really do
Speaker 2: believe that this country deeply trusts our military because they
Speaker 2: protect our national security. I hope we can stick to
Speaker 2: that role. Well.
Speaker 1: I certainly appreciate that, and and and you know, it's interesting.
Speaker 1: Just recently in Los Angeles we had some of the
Speaker 1: most destructive wildfires in US history, and we deployed roughly
Speaker 1: three thousand of our National Guard men and women. They
Speaker 1: were there on the scene quite literally. They had prepositioned
Speaker 1: these rattlesnake teams, they were doing some defensive work on
Speaker 1: vegetation management before the fires erupted, and thousands were deployed
Speaker 1: within hours and days to protect and support our law enforcement,
Speaker 1: obviously our firefighters, but also keep the peace. They're extraordinary
Speaker 1: young men and women, and to see them used in
Speaker 1: this way is remarkable as much as it is demoralizing,
Speaker 1: not just for those of us in positions that we share,
Speaker 1: but for them themselves. I mean, this is not what
Speaker 1: they signed up for to be in this position.
Speaker 2: That's exactly right. Look, our National Guard has been extremely important,
Speaker 2: very important element again to our national security. During the
Speaker 2: time we were conducting the war on Terror, the National
Speaker 2: Guard was actually being deployed and activated abroad to try
Speaker 2: to help in the war against al Qaeda and terrorism.
Speaker 2: And that's what the National Guard is all about. You know. Obviously,
Speaker 2: governors like yourself I have a responsibility to be able
Speaker 2: to activate the National Guard when they're needed, as you
Speaker 2: did certainly with regards to the fires in California, and
Speaker 2: certainly with regards to other areas where you feel it's necessary.
Speaker 2: And that is what the National Guard is for. When
Speaker 2: a president comes in and basically activates them for what
Speaker 2: I believe are more political purposes than purposes related to
Speaker 2: protecting the public's interest. As I said, it undermines trust
Speaker 2: not just in our way of government, it undermines trust
Speaker 2: in the fundamental role of the National Guard in our military.
Speaker 2: So I'm very concerned about this. I think we have
Speaker 2: to continue to hold the line, do the right thing,
Speaker 2: make sure that we're making the right decisions, and ultimately
Speaker 2: I think we will we will get back to using
Speaker 2: the National Guard the way they're supposed to be used,
Speaker 2: because that is what the men and women in the
Speaker 2: National Guard, that's why they joined, is to be able
Speaker 2: to be deployed pursuant to the law, not against the
Speaker 2: law here here.
Speaker 1: Well, I appreciate that settlement, and we're doing what we can,
Speaker 1: not only to exercise our moral authority as it relates
Speaker 1: to calling that out and trying to organize a larger consciousness.
Speaker 1: This is, by the way, not about California. The order
Speaker 1: that initiated this as a national order, the President of
Speaker 1: the United States now can move freely on the basis
Speaker 1: of this action to do the same on a whim
Speaker 1: with any modest protests that law enforcement local law enforcement
Speaker 1: can easily address, and now can look to weaponize the Guard.
Speaker 1: But I'm curious, I'm sure saw the President's speech at
Speaker 1: Fort Bragg, so much attention a few days later was
Speaker 1: placed on the military parade, and I'm curious your thoughts
Speaker 1: on that, And I think good people can view that
Speaker 1: through very different lenses. But the Fort Bragg speech, I
Speaker 1: think underscores with Secretary some of your comments. In this case,
Speaker 1: not the National Guard, but men and women in uniform,
Speaker 1: active military personnel, hooting and hollering booing, former president, the
Speaker 1: current governor California, other elected officials. At the same time,
Speaker 1: I'm the President of the United States, as he was
Speaker 1: giving a speech, was selling Trump campaign merchandise. I don't
Speaker 1: want to tee up a softball for you, but I imagine
Speaker 1: again it's a former CIA director, not just former Secretary
Speaker 1: of Defense and chief of Staff. And for a member
Speaker 1: of Congress, you ever seen anything like that?
Speaker 2: Look, I you know, I obviously we live in unique
Speaker 2: times with a president who doesn't necessarily respect all of
Speaker 2: the values that past presidents, whether they're Republican or Democrat,
Speaker 2: have always respected. And when he turns, when he past
Speaker 2: that kind of speech, which is basically a political rally
Speaker 2: with our men and women in uniform orm in many ways,
Speaker 2: he's demeaning their role. And you know what bothers me
Speaker 2: is that I believe the President of the United States,
Speaker 2: as commander in chief, is responsible for protecting our national security.
Speaker 2: And the way you protect our national security is by
Speaker 2: deploying our men and women where you need them in
Speaker 2: order to ensure that we protect our democracy. That's why
Speaker 2: they're there, that's why we train them, that's why they
Speaker 2: go into the military. This is a volunteer force. They
Speaker 2: go in because they want to basically help defend this country.
Speaker 2: I've looked into their eyes in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere,
Speaker 2: and these are young men and women who are prepared
Speaker 2: to fight and die for our country, and they will
Speaker 2: respond to the order of a commander in chief when
Speaker 2: necessary in order to help defend this country. The president
Speaker 2: needs to respect that role. The President of the United
Speaker 2: States needs to respect the role of our men and
Speaker 2: women in uniform, not use them for political purposes, not
Speaker 2: politicize their mission, not have a political rally at a
Speaker 2: military post, but give them the respect that they're due,
Speaker 2: which is that their primary role is to defend this
Speaker 2: country from foreign adversaries, and not use them as if
Speaker 2: somehow he's an autocrat who would just basically use the
Speaker 2: military to protect his power. That is a misuse of
Speaker 2: the responsibility of commander in chief.
Speaker 1: There seems to be a lack of clarity in terms
Speaker 1: of that perspective and response, particularly from Congress. You served
Speaker 1: in Congress for well sixteen plus years and you revere
Speaker 1: the institution. I've heard you, mister Jecretary, on previous interviews
Speaker 1: talking about of all the jobs you had from O
Speaker 1: and B director to working under the Nixon administration. Remarkably
Speaker 1: in that Office of Civil Rights, that your time in Congress,
Speaker 1: when it worked, it was a point of deep pride
Speaker 1: in reverence. You look at Congress today, you look at
Speaker 1: the lack of oversight, checks and balances, You look at
Speaker 1: what I would refer to as the appalling silence on
Speaker 1: issues like those we just discussed. What's your assessment where
Speaker 1: we are and how the hell do we get out
Speaker 1: of this moment?
Speaker 2: Well, I have a very deep respect for our founding
Speaker 2: fathers and what they wanted in their genius to do
Speaker 2: in creating our democracy. They made very clear at the
Speaker 2: Constitutional Convention that they did not want to centralize power
Speaker 2: in any one branch of government. They didn't want a king,
Speaker 2: they didn't want a king parliament, they didn't want a
Speaker 2: star chamber court. They had seen what that was about
Speaker 2: in those times, and so they wanted to make sure
Speaker 2: that they would limit power. And the way they did
Speaker 2: that is by creating three separate but equal branches of government,
Speaker 2: each a check in balance on the other. And for
Speaker 2: two hundred and fifty years, that system of checks and
Speaker 2: balances has worked pretty well. It's been threatened, it's been challenged,
Speaker 2: but it's worked pretty well. And we are now in
Speaker 2: one of those periods where system of checks and balances
Speaker 2: is being tested. And my concern right now is that
Speaker 2: the institutions they created to provide that check and balance,
Speaker 2: they themselves are being tested. Congress, unfortunately, is not standing
Speaker 2: up and really being a check in our system right now.
Speaker 2: They're basically standing back and giving the president a free ride,
Speaker 2: a blank check with regards to everything he's doing, rather
Speaker 2: than serving as a check, rather than having the hearings
Speaker 2: that have to be done, Whether than rather than standing
Speaker 2: up and saying no, we cannot abuse the Constitution of
Speaker 2: the United States. We swear an oath to preserve, protect,
Speaker 2: and defend the Constitution. We have to stand by that.
Speaker 2: I was a believer in that, as somebody in Congress
Speaker 2: who swore that oath, and I think that's what Congress
Speaker 2: has to do. That's not happening. We understand that. So
Speaker 2: the only check that's happening right now, we certainly aren't
Speaker 2: getting a check by the executive. The only check that's
Speaker 2: happening right now that's effective or the courts, and I
Speaker 2: give them a tremendous amount of credit for their willingness
Speaker 2: to stand up and to be able to uphold the
Speaker 2: rule of law. Unfortunately, as we all know, it takes
Speaker 2: time for the courts to act, and a lot of
Speaker 2: damage can be done in the interim. So I really
Speaker 2: think it's important that our system of checks and balances work,
Speaker 2: and probably the only way that's going to happen right
Speaker 2: now is the American people, because the American people are
Speaker 2: the ultimate check in a democracy. That's in the constitution,
Speaker 2: their ability to vote, their ability to vote for elected
Speaker 2: leaders is the fundamental check in a democracy. So I
Speaker 2: remain hopeful that ultimately we will get through this because
Speaker 2: our forefathers believed that we cannot afford to centralize power,
Speaker 2: certainly in the presidency.
Speaker 1: I appreciate it. I'm reminded as you share those words
Speaker 1: and thoughts of justice Brandeis who said, in a democracy,
Speaker 1: the most important office is office of citizen. This notion
Speaker 1: of active not inert citizenship, and it's reminded everybody listening
Speaker 1: of the imperative to reconcile the fact that you're not
Speaker 1: by standards, that we have agency, that we can shape
Speaker 1: the future. And I think in so many ways we
Speaker 1: saw that on the same day that the President was celebrating,
Speaker 1: and I certainly appreciate celebrating with the kind of reverence
Speaker 1: they deserve. The United States military in a parade same time, though,
Speaker 1: millions of people showed up in a not King's rally,
Speaker 1: sort of reinforcing the framework that our founding fathers tried
Speaker 1: to correct, our least counter and I think it shows that,
Speaker 1: you know, democracy is still alive bottom up, if not
Speaker 1: the moment topped down.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Gavin, I often say that in my over fifty
Speaker 2: years of public life, I've seen Washington at its best
Speaker 2: and I've seen Washington at its worst. The good news
Speaker 2: is I've seen Washington work. When I was first elected,
Speaker 2: Tip O'Neil was Speaker of the House, a Democrats Democrat
Speaker 2: from Boston, but he had a great relationship with Bob Michael,
Speaker 2: who was the minority leader from Illinois, and the basic message,
Speaker 2: of course, they had their politics. You know, they fought
Speaker 2: each other in election, but when it came to big issues,
Speaker 2: they worked together. The message we always got is that
Speaker 2: Republicans and Democrats have to work together in order to
Speaker 2: govern the country, and we did. We did during the
Speaker 2: Reagan administration, a Democratic Congress passed Social Security reform, it's
Speaker 2: the third rail of politics. We passed it with a
Speaker 2: bipartisan vote. We passed immigration reform, comprehensive immigration reform, bipartisan,
Speaker 2: bipartisan vote. We passed tax reform. We dealt with the budget.
Speaker 2: We were able to frankly pass agreements to help bring
Speaker 2: the deficit down and discipline the federal budget and balance
Speaker 2: the federal budget, not only balance it, but get a surplus.
Speaker 2: That was done because parties were willing to work together.
Speaker 2: Today we are at a time when there's a lot
Speaker 2: of partisanship, a lot of division, a lot of unwillingness
Speaker 2: to be able to govern together, and the result is
Speaker 2: that Washington is dysfunctional and that is hurting our democracy.
Speaker 1: On that topic, because we've explored that on the podcast,
Speaker 1: we've had a number of interesting guests and people very
Speaker 1: familiar to you. Former Speaker Nuke Gingrich was on. We
Speaker 1: had an opportunity to talk to Frank Luntz. Obviously that's
Speaker 1: very personal to you because you referenced in that list.
Speaker 1: You have a lot of receipts on that list. As
Speaker 1: personal as personal as it is to you, not only
Speaker 1: as a former member of Congress some of those line
Speaker 1: items you just listed, but also you were achieve a
Speaker 1: staff of Bill Clinton when we had that balanced budget.
Speaker 1: You worked with Nuke Gingrich across the party lines. You proved,
Speaker 1: not just asserted that we can work together across our differences.
Speaker 1: But the question that I'm continuing to sort of be
Speaker 1: vexed with is what the hell happened and when did
Speaker 1: it happen? And who's responsible? And when did things start
Speaker 1: to collapse? I mean, at the same time it seemed
Speaker 1: to be peak partisanship. You guys were working together in
Speaker 1: the Clinton administration. You took over it. I'll say with
Speaker 1: love and respect to former President Clinton, but it was
Speaker 1: rather dysfunctional office at the time he got shellacked in
Speaker 1: the mid terms. You've described the former President Clinton is
Speaker 1: being depressed in terms about his standing, and you came
Speaker 1: in and you were part of that turnaround, and you
Speaker 1: also advanced a different frame, a close fist talk about
Speaker 1: turnaround with an open hand, to partner with a Republican speaker,
Speaker 1: and produced those results. But was that the moment things
Speaker 1: were advanced or was that the moment was not a setback?
Speaker 2: Again? It was not an easy time. As yeah, as
Speaker 2: you pointed out, Imagine, I mean the president, President Clinton,
Speaker 2: you know, really was moving forward. He had passed a
Speaker 2: very tough budget. We were passing appropriations bills, He passed
Speaker 2: family leave, he passed NAFTA, he passed a number of things.
Speaker 2: And then, as you all know, in politics, it can
Speaker 2: come back to bite you, and it did in the midterms,
Speaker 2: and the President lost the Congress to the Republicans, and
Speaker 2: he was depressed about, you know, where his administration was
Speaker 2: going to go. And I having been through these changes
Speaker 2: in my own lifetime, I told the President. Look, ultimately,
Speaker 2: every crisis provides an opportunity. This is a crisis. It
Speaker 2: does provide an opportunity. You need to sit down and
Speaker 2: try to see if there are areas where we can
Speaker 2: work together. Unfortunately, at the beginning, Newt Ginrich took a
Speaker 2: position he was going to push for his own budget,
Speaker 2: cut Medicare and cut some other vital programs. The President
Speaker 2: dug in, and what the Republicans did in response was
Speaker 2: to shut the government down. The government was shut down.
Speaker 2: This is the first time the government was shut down
Speaker 2: for almost two weeks and had backfired on the Republicans
Speaker 2: and a new Gintadge then to his credit, decided maybe
Speaker 2: the better approach would be to actually try to work
Speaker 2: with the president. The President took him up on that.
Speaker 2: They were able to work together. We did some things
Speaker 2: on the budget, we did some things on healthcare. We
Speaker 2: were able to get things done. But that was because
Speaker 2: there was a willingness then to try to see if
Speaker 2: we could govern together, to get back to the basics
Speaker 2: of governing together, that's what needs to happen. I mean,
Speaker 2: I think in some ways, I'm really offended that the
Speaker 2: President of the United States did not give a heads
Speaker 2: up to Congress on this military strike that took place
Speaker 2: in Iran. That's the responsibility of the President to be
Speaker 2: able to inform the Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, the
Speaker 2: Gang of Eight, as to what's happening with regards to
Speaker 2: our National Security Command. Chief is deploying our men and
Speaker 2: women into harm's way. He's got to be willing to
Speaker 2: make sure that both Republicans and Democrats on the Hill
Speaker 2: are aware of what is happening. And unfortunately that didn't
Speaker 2: take place, and I think it's a real slap in
Speaker 2: the face to how our democracy should function. You know.
Speaker 1: Interestingly, Miss Secretary, I can attest to that just on
Speaker 1: a personal basis, because I was speaking at an event.
Speaker 1: I was with minority leader Jeffries, and as he was
Speaker 1: walking out of the event, we all started to see
Speaker 1: on our cell phones what had just occurred. We spent
Speaker 1: an hour and a half at that event talking about
Speaker 1: every conceivable issue, and here it was happening in real
Speaker 1: time and the future Speaker of the House of Representative,
Speaker 1: to your point, was not even They didn't mean the
Speaker 1: curacy of a heads up. But I'm curious on that
Speaker 1: and going back just briefly, and I want to move
Speaker 1: off it, but I am fascinated. I mean, we talk
Speaker 1: about this dysfunction, we talk about Tip O'Neill and all
Speaker 1: the wonderful stories of O'Neill and Reagan working together across
Speaker 1: their differences. You've amplified that as relates to ephen Clinton
Speaker 1: and Gingrich. But was there a moment? Was that moment,
Speaker 1: despite the fact that you were, they were able to
Speaker 1: persevere and those two personalities, remarkable personalities, historic personalities, Clinton
Speaker 1: and Gingrich were able to finally find some common ground.
Speaker 1: Was that the beginning of the end?
Speaker 2: Though?
Speaker 1: I mean, do you mark that as a moment where
Speaker 1: things did radically change the government shut down the approach
Speaker 1: Gingrich had an an initial approach in terms of his
Speaker 1: relationship with the presidency and the executive.
Speaker 2: There's no question, and I've told Nut this directly. I
Speaker 2: said that what happened was that Newt was really struggling
Speaker 2: to try to get Republicans in power, and he was
Speaker 2: willing to undermine the institution of the House of Representatives
Speaker 2: in the Congress in order to get that done. He
Speaker 2: actually basically undercut almost members in his own party in
Speaker 2: order to be able to do that. And it was
Speaker 2: kind of a real cutthroat approach to politics, and it
Speaker 2: created some bad feelings. And look, Democrats made their mistakes
Speaker 2: as well, and when both sides decided that rather than
Speaker 2: working together, they would get into their own trenches and
Speaker 2: basically throw grenades at one another, that really was the
Speaker 2: beginning of the end in terms of governing. I mean,
Speaker 2: the problem is for the last twenty years. Look, tell
Speaker 2: the students at the Paneta Institute that in a democracy,
Speaker 2: we govern either by leadership or by crisis. If leadership
Speaker 2: is there and willing to make tough decisions that basically
Speaker 2: reach across and try to develop consensus and compromise, we
Speaker 2: can avoid crisis, but if that leadership isn't there, then
Speaker 2: we'll govern by crisis. And I have to tell you,
Speaker 2: for the last twenty or twenty five years in Washington,
Speaker 2: they've largely been governing by crisis, and that undermines trust
Speaker 2: in our basic system of governing. And that's why, very frankly,
Speaker 2: Washington is so dysfunctional right now.
Speaker 1: You know, in your remarkable career and spends quite literally
Speaker 1: over half a century and continues to this day at
Speaker 1: the Paneta Institute, you served in many different roles. Of course,
Speaker 1: we reflect on the last time we had a balanced
Speaker 1: budget and even a surplus US under your tutelage and
Speaker 1: stewardship as chief of Staff and the Clint administration, but
Speaker 1: you went on to serve in other roles, and as
Speaker 1: I've referenced a moment ago from omb to obviously Secretary
Speaker 1: of Defense and CIA Director, I'm curious your reflection. You know,
Speaker 1: there's been it seems to me, an assault on knowledge,
Speaker 1: particularly at West Point. Recently there was reports not specific
Speaker 1: that books are being banned Baldwin. You know, other books,
Speaker 1: well known authors, historic facts that appear to be being
Speaker 1: censored West Point. My gosh, these are the best of
Speaker 1: the best, these remarkable young cadets, and I'm just curious.
Speaker 1: You know, you were part of they're sort of pulling
Speaker 1: back and don't ask, don't tell women in the military
Speaker 1: and being able to lead, you moved in a very
Speaker 1: different direction in your leadership roles. What's your reflection of
Speaker 1: where we are now in this sort of assault on
Speaker 1: all things quote unquote wokeness or dei or even un
Speaker 1: historic facts.
Speaker 2: Well, you know, Devin, I'm the son of immigrants, Italian
Speaker 2: immigrants who came to this country like millions of others,
Speaker 2: and I can remember asking my dad why did he
Speaker 2: come all of that distance to come to a strange land?
Speaker 2: And I never forgot his answer, which was that my
Speaker 2: mother and he believed they could give our children a
Speaker 2: better life in this country. I think that's the American dream,
Speaker 2: and that's what we want for our children. And I
Speaker 2: think to get there, we have to embrace our freedoms,
Speaker 2: not destroy our freedoms, not destroy our openness, not destroy
Speaker 2: our ability to learn from one another. We may not
Speaker 2: like what others say, but the ability to listen, the
Speaker 2: ability to have a say, the ability to enjoy different
Speaker 2: points of view is what is what our freedom, what
Speaker 2: the American dream is all about. I had, you know,
Speaker 2: young young people who were who wanted to serve in
Speaker 2: the military. That's a good thing. We ought to give
Speaker 2: them that opportunity to serve. And that's what I tried
Speaker 2: to do as secretary. You know, regardless of their race
Speaker 2: or color, or creed, or or sexual preference. The fact
Speaker 2: is they wanted to serve this country. And you know what,
Speaker 2: they did a damn good job serving this country. And
Speaker 2: that's true for our men and women in our academies,
Speaker 2: whether it's West Point or Annapolis or others. Their ability
Speaker 2: to embrace everyone who wants to serve, to embrace our freedom,
Speaker 2: to embrace openness, to embrace what our society is all about,
Speaker 2: to embrace what democracy is all about. These are young
Speaker 2: people are going to put their lives on the line
Speaker 2: to basically protect our country. They need to know the
Speaker 2: importance of why they're going to fight and die for
Speaker 2: their country, and that's why they need to be exposed
Speaker 2: to all kinds of views. And that's what the Academy
Speaker 2: has done in the past. I regret that they're getting
Speaker 2: all worked up about their approach now with regards to
Speaker 2: books and what have you. I mean, this is a
Speaker 2: throwback to the age of witches in Salem for God's sake,
Speaker 2: So it really is, it really is important, and listen,
Speaker 2: we'll get beyond this. I do not consider this any
Speaker 2: kind of permanent faith it's going to take place. I
Speaker 2: think this is just a moment in time, and we've
Speaker 2: seen many of those in two hundred and fifty years.
Speaker 2: This is a moment in time. But ultimately we we
Speaker 2: are going to get back to the values of our
Speaker 2: democracy that made us strong. There is no other way
Speaker 2: that this country can survive.
Speaker 1: And I appreciate that optimism. I imagine others listening are
Speaker 1: that warms their heart. But what I mean, and I
Speaker 1: don't mean to be modeling, I just let me stress
Speaker 1: test it a little bit, you know, a challenge you
Speaker 1: on that. I mean, it's been an extraordinary a few
Speaker 1: months this administration. And I you know, you served it
Speaker 1: as an omb director. You've got a new one in
Speaker 1: there now. That boy, these guys were they wound up.
Speaker 1: They were ready to go. This twenty twenty five project.
Speaker 1: There was a plan. They're executing a plan. I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't imagine I appreciate all the work you did
Speaker 1: as omb director, but I'm not sure you had an
Speaker 1: agenda that was this thick and this prescriptive and laid
Speaker 1: out that goes to assault these institutions. Assaults are norms
Speaker 1: and traditions. Why do you remain so confident that we
Speaker 1: can withstand we acknowledge? There's only one other branch of
Speaker 1: government left, the courts at the moment, and obviously the
Speaker 1: court of public opinion. Perhaps that may be the answer.
Speaker 2: You know, look, there's no question there's a lot of
Speaker 2: damage being done. I think we're seeing that every day.
Speaker 2: What's happening with immigrants, what's happening with the rule of law,
Speaker 2: what's happening with funding, with what's happening with the federal
Speaker 2: civil servants. There's just an awful lot of damage that
Speaker 2: is being done. But you know, I really believe I
Speaker 2: guess this goes to the heart of why I feel
Speaker 2: the way I do, because, you know, in my fifty years,
Speaker 2: I've witnessed a lot of different people come into office,
Speaker 2: a lot of different views that we brought in. But
Speaker 2: there were you know, for eighty years, going back to
Speaker 2: World War Two, whether a president was Republican or Democrat.
Speaker 2: There were some fundamental values that every one of them
Speaker 2: had and shared, and that was not only you know,
Speaker 2: American world leadership. They also respected the values of our democracy.
Speaker 2: They also made very clear that this country was going
Speaker 2: to respect the rule of law in our constitution. They
Speaker 2: also made very clear that we would work through our
Speaker 2: democracy in order to make change. Every president wants to
Speaker 2: make change, but most presidents make change by working through
Speaker 2: our constitution and through our democracy. Look. Bill Clinton, when
Speaker 2: he became president of the United States, made the decision
Speaker 2: that we were going to try to achieve almost five
Speaker 2: hundred billion in deficit reduction. But we did that through
Speaker 2: the budget. I sat down with the president, we walked
Speaker 2: through the budget. He made decisions about what programs are
Speaker 2: to be funded, what programs are to be cut, and
Speaker 2: we put that into a budget, send it to the Congress.
Speaker 2: That's the way you're supposed to do it. And we
Speaker 2: were successful. We passed that budget, and yes, you know,
Speaker 2: we were able to achieve five hundred billion in deficit reduction,
Speaker 2: but we did it pursuant to the law and pursue
Speaker 2: it to the constitution. Why this president comes in and
Speaker 2: throws all of that out The window, gets Doze, gets
Speaker 2: Elon Musk, gets whoever else to suddenly engage in this
Speaker 2: kind of vigilanty approach to democracy basically undermines our democracy.
Speaker 2: Doesn't strengthen our democracy. See, it undermines it. You undermine
Speaker 2: the power of the Congress, which it has the power
Speaker 2: of the purse under a constitution, it's the Congress that
Speaker 2: decides what is funded and what programs are protected, not
Speaker 2: a group of vigilantes. So look, the courts have been
Speaker 2: finding that that is the case time and time again.
Speaker 2: I really do believe that ultimately, the American people do
Speaker 2: not want a king as president. They want a president
Speaker 2: who understands that his oath to the Constitution has to
Speaker 2: come first. That's where the American people are at. And yeah,
Speaker 2: you know, presidents can say or do whatever the hell
Speaker 2: they want, but ultimately it's the American people who rule
Speaker 2: in this country. And I honestly believe that whether they're
Speaker 2: living in a red state or a blue state, they
Speaker 2: believe in American values, and they believe in the rule
Speaker 2: of law, and they believe in the Constitution. That's why
Speaker 2: this country is going to survive.
Speaker 1: I love it, I love it. I'm going to bookmark
Speaker 1: that that's a point of optimism,