Speaker 1: And Steve Schmidt with the warning here and please to
Speaker 1: be able to bring with you today for conversation and
Speaker 1: apple bomb from warsaw and welcome.
Speaker 2: Oh thanks for having me.
Speaker 1: So we were just talking for a moment before people
Speaker 1: started joining about how unprecedented what we are seeing form
Speaker 1: in the United States. And this has happened, this has
Speaker 1: been made law. And so when we look at Trump's
Speaker 1: perversely named Big Beautiful Bill as a propaganda package, it's
Speaker 1: so gigantic, so immense, it was unfathomable and scale and
Speaker 1: size and cost and damage. One part of it that
Speaker 1: was stopped was the public land sell off and that's
Speaker 1: an interesting go going forward detail and learning from how
Speaker 1: you stop Trump because that's the only area where they
Speaker 1: were stopped cold. But this Philly adds so much to
Speaker 1: the debt if you care about fiscal issues, it demolishes
Speaker 1: indiscriminately and without much thought, the social safety net. It
Speaker 1: is corrupt with regard to the tax code, inverting it
Speaker 1: very much into a regressive code, greatest transfer of wealth
Speaker 1: from the bottom to the top in American history. Rural
Speaker 1: healthcare will be decimated by this. There will be massive
Speaker 1: amounts of hospital closures, a lessening of access. But all
Speaker 1: of those things not very long from now and forever more.
Speaker 1: As bad as they are, this bill will be remembered,
Speaker 1: I think, for a singular thing, this bill, without much debate,
Speaker 1: without any great speeches of denunciation and dissent that will
Speaker 1: linger in the congressional record. This funded a federal police
Speaker 1: force which has never existed in the United States. It
Speaker 1: is by I think any reasonable definition, and you are
Speaker 1: a sober, serious person, and you can correct me if
Speaker 1: I'm wrong, if it doesn't meet the definition of a
Speaker 1: secret police force. Given that these people are masked, they
Speaker 1: are badgelets. The totality of this is a budget that
Speaker 1: would put it in the first rank of global militaries,
Speaker 1: comparable depending on how you count the money, to the
Speaker 1: French military and nuclear power, with aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines,
Speaker 1: expeditionary capabilities. The sector lead was being interviewed ice in uniform,
Speaker 1: full combat kit, in front of an armored vehicle, and
Speaker 1: he said, and I'm quoting very close, but not precisely.
Speaker 1: He doesn't work for Karen Bass. He doesn't care what
Speaker 1: she says or the people in California say. He's with
Speaker 1: the federal government and the federal government is there to
Speaker 1: stay and that's the new norm. And yesterday the new
Speaker 1: normal was five armored vehicles in the middle of the
Speaker 1: day tactical plan code named Operation Excliber supported by the
Speaker 1: US Army Federalized Forces, and they invaded MacArthur Park and
Speaker 1: the OPS orders talk about the threat assessment that this
Speaker 1: is the place where MS thirteen came to life, and
Speaker 1: they should expect to be in combat. And there's assessments
Speaker 1: about the civilian casualties and the elementary schools next door
Speaker 1: to it, and it is all madness, of course, But
Speaker 1: I don't think your average American has a handle yet
Speaker 1: on how transformative this legislation will be any amount of money.
Speaker 3: And when I talk about transformation, here the transformative pieces
Speaker 3: of legislation in the last eight years. You had the
Speaker 3: GI Bill, you had Medicare and Medicaid, the Civil Rights Act,
Speaker 3: the Voting Rights Actor, you had the Interstate High Commerce
Speaker 3: Interstate Highway Act. Those are your most transformative pieces of
Speaker 3: changing the landscape the complexion of the country until this.
Speaker 3: And so how do you think about the constitution of
Speaker 3: a federal police force that is now the largest law
Speaker 3: enforcement entity in the United States? Every single person who
Speaker 3: made a speech twenty four years ago warning about the
Speaker 3: Homeland Security Department has been proven to be profaned.
Speaker 2: How do you see this? So you are right to
Speaker 2: point to this as the thing in the bill that
Speaker 2: has the the greatest possibility to do the most long
Speaker 2: term damage to democracy and to freedom in the United States.
Speaker 2: What worries me about it is you've already you've named
Speaker 2: as well, is that it's the first time I've seen
Speaker 2: how the Trump administration could get around the problem of
Speaker 2: divided power in the United States. So, in the US
Speaker 2: we have checks and balances. We all know that, you know,
Speaker 2: the courts and Congress are supposed to check the president
Speaker 2: and so on. But there's always been an additional layer
Speaker 2: of check of restraint on the federal government. And that
Speaker 2: additional layer has been the power of states that actually
Speaker 2: a lot of our laws are made locally or at
Speaker 2: the state level. State governors are very powerful in our
Speaker 2: political system. That's quite different, by the way, from a
Speaker 2: lot of European countries where there aren't local entities with
Speaker 2: that kind of with that kind of power and control.
Speaker 2: And so any attempt to you know, create a national
Speaker 2: programmer do nationwide arrests on any kind of large scale
Speaker 2: was always going to be stopped at the state level,
Speaker 2: and it's I mean, one of the reasons I suspect
Speaker 2: why it's never been tried. What worries me the most
Speaker 2: about this, this ice police force, whatever it's going to
Speaker 2: be called, is that it seems to be designed to
Speaker 2: overcome that. As you say, it's a force that, at
Speaker 2: least so far as it's been used, it's people who
Speaker 2: are dressed like military combatants, carrying military grade weapons. Many
Speaker 2: of them have had their faces masked so we didn't
Speaker 2: know who they are. They are going into residential neighborhoods
Speaker 2: where they are carrying out mass arrests of some kind.
Speaker 2: For the moment, I suppose most Americans are telling themselves, well,
Speaker 2: it's only it's directed to legal immigrants, you know, so
Speaker 2: I'm safe. But once you have a force like that
Speaker 2: in place, what's to stop you from using it in
Speaker 2: other ways against other kinds of people. And we've already
Speaker 2: seen people being accidentally arrested. People who are citizens or
Speaker 2: who have a right to remain in the United States,
Speaker 2: We've seen them already be arrested. We've seen this force,
Speaker 2: you know, you use violence against ordinary people are who
Speaker 2: are simply standing in their way. And once that begins
Speaker 2: to happen, you know, you what worries me is this
Speaker 2: feeling of you know, people will get used to it.
Speaker 2: They'll become accustomed to it. They'll stop seeing it as
Speaker 2: unusual or strange. They'll begin to assume that it's normal
Speaker 2: that the federal government should have that kind of power
Speaker 2: and be able to wield that kind of violence. And
Speaker 2: then they'll begin to make excuses. You know, so, Okay,
Speaker 2: it's only illegal immigrants, all right, it's only people who
Speaker 2: violated the law in some way, or it's only people
Speaker 2: who've come up, you know, who've deserved it. They've done
Speaker 2: something bad to the president or to the federal government,
Speaker 2: or they're protesting in some illegal way. I mean, you
Speaker 2: can you know this is a this is something that
Speaker 2: we know from history. You know, there's a there's a
Speaker 2: kind of mission creep that you get when you have
Speaker 2: that kind of power, when you have that kind of
Speaker 2: government power. And that's what worries me the most about
Speaker 2: this police force, whatever we're going to, whatever it's going
Speaker 2: to be called. I suppose the other thing that worries
Speaker 2: me is the I mean, there was there were actually
Speaker 2: people making speeches about it. Hakim Jeffreys had that long
Speaker 2: soliloquy in Congress, and I've heard other Democrats, other members
Speaker 2: of Congress have spoken both about this ice and about
Speaker 2: the bill and the damage that the bill is going
Speaker 2: to do in a lot of places. What to me
Speaker 2: is disturbing is how many is Republicans, senators and congressmen
Speaker 2: who are going along with this even though they clearly
Speaker 2: know what it is, and they clearly know that it's wrong.
Speaker 2: You know, people have made fun of Lisa Murkowski because
Speaker 2: she's a Senator who has seemed to understand the dangers
Speaker 2: inherent in the bill, and she took a trade off
Speaker 2: supposedly because of some deal about Alaska, and she decided
Speaker 2: to vote for it. But actually, I mean, look at
Speaker 2: the rest of them. I mean, you know, all of
Speaker 2: everybody who voted for it is responsible for changing the
Speaker 2: nature of the relationship between the states and the federal government.
Speaker 2: You know, everybody who voted for it is responsible for
Speaker 2: the cuts to healthcare for poor and poor working people.
Speaker 2: It's not just people who a unemployed, it's people who
Speaker 2: who who work and don't make a lot of money.
Speaker 2: They're all responsible for it, and they have done and
Speaker 2: they have said remarkably little, even even people you know,
Speaker 2: you think of someone like Ted Cruz or somebody you know,
Speaker 2: you know somebody who they're there. There are people who've
Speaker 2: who've made great drama in their careers about defending states'
Speaker 2: rights and defend the rights of Americans, and you know
Speaker 2: that have seemed to be advocates of free speech or
Speaker 2: sticklers for the Constitution, and you saw them all cave.
Speaker 2: And I have to say, even though I wrote a
Speaker 2: book about this, I wrote a book called Twilight of Democracy,
Speaker 2: which was about why people are attracted to authoritarianism. I
Speaker 2: wrote a cover story in The Atlantic a few years
Speaker 2: ago that was about collaboration and collusion. So I've thought
Speaker 2: about the subject a lot, and I've written history books
Speaker 2: that touch on it, and I still don't get it, Like,
Speaker 2: I still don't see why if you're a Republican senator,
Speaker 2: you know, someone who has an enormous amount of power
Speaker 2: and one hundred people working for you and a lot
Speaker 2: of job security, you know, you get elected for six years.
Speaker 2: I still don't understand why you have to vote for
Speaker 2: something like this. And I.
Speaker 4: Look forward to hearing more people explain it to me.
Speaker 4: Tom Tellis is a perfect example of this. And there's
Speaker 4: nothing that brings me closer to public and youurysm than
Speaker 4: when I hear a version of what he said, which is, well,
Speaker 4: I just haven't had the freedom to vote.
Speaker 1: The way I wanted, and you know, I've had to
Speaker 1: do this. But now I'm going to retire. So now
Speaker 1: I'm finally free. And I sit there and I think, huh,
Speaker 1: you're You're a United States Center. You can do whatever
Speaker 1: you want? And where does that come from?
Speaker 2: I mean, I can, As I said, I've tried to
Speaker 2: explain it. Some of it is a desire to be
Speaker 2: part of the movement. You know, they feel this movement
Speaker 2: of history. They think they feel it, and they want
Speaker 2: to be part of it. They don't want to stand
Speaker 2: apart from it. Some of it may be in the
Speaker 2: case and this is very sad in our country. Some
Speaker 2: of it may be personal fear. I mean they are
Speaker 2: you know, we now know that people. You know, if
Speaker 2: if you're if you're a senator and you vote the
Speaker 2: wrong way and you go home to your state, you'll
Speaker 2: have people threatening you or your family. And we know this,
Speaker 2: among other things, from Romney's autobiography where he or his
Speaker 2: biography Sorry it was written by my colleague, where Romney
Speaker 2: describes talking to colleagues in the Senate who say, well,
Speaker 2: it's all very well for you. Mit, you're rich. You know,
Speaker 2: you can afford security and I can't. And so there's
Speaker 2: there's there's that aspect to it. A lot of them,
Speaker 2: I think, and you can, you know, Lindsey Graham is
Speaker 2: a great example, but there are others a lot of
Speaker 2: them tell themselves a story about how if I stay
Speaker 2: in this system, if I remain on the inside, I
Speaker 2: can be influential, you know, if I if I remain
Speaker 2: in the movement, I can talk to Trump, but I
Speaker 2: can get something out of him. I can get something done,
Speaker 2: you know. So there's a there's that kind of story people,
Speaker 2: which is which is not at all different from the
Speaker 2: kinds of stories people told themselves. And you know, occupied
Speaker 2: France or or you know, or indeed Communis occupied Poland
Speaker 2: you know, if I remain in the party, if you know,
Speaker 2: I can do some good. I mean, there's that version.
Speaker 2: Most people don't like to think of themselves as being
Speaker 2: bad people, so they have a they'll have an explanation
Speaker 2: for it, you know. So it's that combination of fear
Speaker 2: and and and and, as I said, this feeling that
Speaker 2: you know, the crowd is moving and I need to
Speaker 2: stay in the crowd. But but I but you know,
Speaker 2: I can, But I can, as I said, I can
Speaker 2: give you these explanations, and I can point you to
Speaker 2: earlier moments in history when when people made excuses like that,
Speaker 2: and I can quote you from them. And you know
Speaker 2: a great book by Cheslow Milos called Captive Mind, which
Speaker 2: is about exactly that it's phenomenon in communist Poland in
Speaker 2: the nineteen forties. But even then, I look at I
Speaker 2: look at people in the US Senate, as I said,
Speaker 2: these are you know, many cases. These are wealthy people.
Speaker 2: They have you know, they have enormous support, They've been
Speaker 2: elected from their states, they have huge staffs. You know,
Speaker 2: they don't have the nerve to push back against any
Speaker 2: of this, or even to go through the bill and say,
Speaker 2: do we need this measure? Do we need that measure?
Speaker 1: You know?
Speaker 2: Or or or do or do work in groups to
Speaker 2: change it. I mean, it's it's even as I said,
Speaker 2: even though I can I can give you rational explanations
Speaker 2: it's still harder to understand you.
Speaker 1: You. I'm not trying to quibble with something you said,
Speaker 1: but you use the tense that hit me, and I
Speaker 1: want to I want to talk about it. You said,
Speaker 1: the Republicans in the Senate who are going along with this?
Speaker 1: When are we across the line where they have fully
Speaker 1: gone along with.
Speaker 2: All of it?
Speaker 1: And so I and I and I asked you this
Speaker 1: question about where that boundary is because the second thing
Speaker 1: I want to talk to you about it is, and
Speaker 1: just foreshadow the question, is you and I came out
Speaker 1: of the I think fair to say the right of
Speaker 1: senator line as it existed an American politics, and every person,
Speaker 1: most every person like all of them right, not right,
Speaker 1: not ninety nine percent right. There is an infinite testinably
Speaker 1: small number of people and kid singer Liz Chain in
Speaker 1: Apple Bombs, Steve Schmidt, small small, small, small number of
Speaker 1: people who have operated at very high levels in the
Speaker 1: American government, in the republic Party, in the political establishment,
Speaker 1: who did not get in line with this. And so
Speaker 1: for us and I think you have to be careful
Speaker 1: about judging people, the voters too much judgment of the
Speaker 1: voters who got conned in had a bad choice. But
Speaker 1: I have a lot of judgment towards a lot of
Speaker 1: these people because we all were supposed to believe in
Speaker 1: the same thing, and we were all in the same places,
Speaker 1: in the same meetings, where we were in a business
Speaker 1: that required belief until it became completely hollow in an instant.
Speaker 1: And as somebody who grew up in New Jersey that
Speaker 1: the person who rose to the top of the political
Speaker 1: culture personality it threatens the Republic is Donald Trumps just
Speaker 1: another layer of icing of farcical absurdism right on top
Speaker 1: of tragedy, on top of tragedy, on top of what
Speaker 1: I don't I don't know, but I don't get a
Speaker 1: chance to talk to a lot of people right who
Speaker 1: are in that space. But literally every person right that
Speaker 1: in that political space that we've known, said Lindsay Graham.
Speaker 1: I spend an enormous amount of time with Lindsey Graham,
Speaker 1: with John McCain in a presidential campaign, lived with him
Speaker 1: for a year and a half. And how do you
Speaker 1: feel about that? Is it? Do you ever feel lonely
Speaker 1: about it? Do you do you ever? Because because you
Speaker 1: have certainly held the line about what it is that
Speaker 1: you said, it is that you believe in and so
Speaker 1: very lonely place.
Speaker 2: I suppose. I mean, I'm lucky. I'm not in the
Speaker 2: US all the time. I have a wide range of friends.
Speaker 2: I was not in politics the way you were in politics.
Speaker 2: You know, I'm a I'm a writer and a historian
Speaker 2: and a journalist rather than a you know, a person
Speaker 2: who works on campaigns. But I did have a period
Speaker 2: of realizing that I would have to make new friends.
Speaker 2: I mean, and literally, I'm I'm often asked, I you
Speaker 2: know this this phenomenon that we're describing, which it's sometimes
Speaker 2: called polarization, you know, as people split apart and a
Speaker 2: part of the political spectrum becomes radical, and you know,
Speaker 2: it includes your former friends. I have had a lot
Speaker 2: of conversations with people in other countries who have had this,
Speaker 2: and they asked me for advice what do I do?
Speaker 2: And my advice always I think it's maybe it sounds superficial,
Speaker 2: but I say, make new friends, and so I you know,
Speaker 2: in my case, it all started a little bit earlier.
Speaker 2: It's a longer story, but you know, I began looking
Speaker 2: for new friends and new contacts, and I realized that
Speaker 2: the world that I had lived in for a long
Speaker 2: time wasn't the same that had in my case, divided
Speaker 2: in multiple countries in very bitter ways. And I found
Speaker 2: people who aligned with me, you know, and I moved on.
Speaker 2: And so I can't really say I feel lonely. I mean,
Speaker 2: I actually feel surrounded by a lot of people who
Speaker 2: agree with me. And it's interesting. Some of them, you know,
Speaker 2: are people like you who come from the right, or
Speaker 2: who worked in the Republican Party, or worked on the
Speaker 2: Polish right, or worked on you know, were part of
Speaker 2: the British Tory Party. Some of them come from there,
Speaker 2: and some of them came from what used to be
Speaker 2: the left, you know, people who I would have disagreed
Speaker 2: with about all kinds of things, you know, ten years
Speaker 2: ago or twenty years ago, and I might not have
Speaker 2: spoken to or I would have thought they were wrong
Speaker 2: or they were on the wrong side of something that
Speaker 2: I thought was important. But what I what I've found
Speaker 2: over the last several years, is that there are these
Speaker 2: set of fundamental values that matter more than whether you
Speaker 2: think taxes should be high or low, you know, or
Speaker 2: whether you know, what's your opinion on how healthcare should
Speaker 2: be structured. I mean, there's something there's some things that
Speaker 2: are much more basic, and I found that that those
Speaker 2: basic beliefs I find people who have them in different
Speaker 2: parts of the political spectrum, and those are now my
Speaker 2: friends or my colleagues, you know, or my or my acquaintances.
Speaker 2: And so no, actually I didn't feel lonely. I feel
Speaker 2: like there are a lot of people, again not just Americans,
Speaker 2: but a lot of Europeans also who feel who who
Speaker 2: see the same kind of threat, this threat of extremism,
Speaker 2: the threat of autocracy taking over their political systems, and they,
Speaker 2: you know, and they and they've joined together to try
Speaker 2: and think about what to do about it. So that's
Speaker 2: that's how I feel. But again, I wasn't. I wasn't
Speaker 2: in the same world that you were in.
Speaker 1: Had Off hit in nineteen thirty hits his high water
Speaker 1: mark thirty eight percent of the vote thirty two, the
Speaker 1: Nazis are around thirty percent. They have been kept out
Speaker 1: of government, violence explodes all over the country. Hitler is
Speaker 1: made chancellor. There's one other Nazi in the in the
Speaker 1: German cabinet. And then and in that fall of thirty two,
Speaker 1: Hitler gives his speech in Dusel Dwarf to the industrialists
Speaker 1: which you know, loosely was the equivalent of the Chamber
Speaker 1: of Commerce. And he and he basically, you know, concedes,
Speaker 1: I know I'm not very popular here, but you don't
Speaker 1: have anything to worry about with me. The Communists, on
Speaker 1: the other hand, will kill all of you. And really
Speaker 1: he lays out this proposition to the broad middle of Germany,
Speaker 1: and he's institution that don't like the Nazis. You have
Speaker 1: the German aristocracy, you have the German military, which is
Speaker 1: comprised a lot of aristocrats, you have the German clergy,
Speaker 1: and you had a total collapse of the center. And
Speaker 1: I think this is where Germany and the United States.
Speaker 1: And we don't really talk about this very often, but
Speaker 1: American soldiers who fought in World War Two came to
Speaker 1: understand the country that was most like America was Germany
Speaker 1: and that to this day we ethnically we have more
Speaker 1: Germans than any other population in the United States by
Speaker 1: by ethnic heritage. And Germany was never a country that
Speaker 1: was susceptible to a dictatorship of the left, but a
Speaker 1: dictatorship and the threat of the left was enough to
Speaker 1: create a fascist government in the United States. What Trump
Speaker 1: has benefited from is the stigmatization of the Democrats, some
Speaker 1: of the extreme policies, being able to define them as extreme,
Speaker 1: being able to define them as left. Trump loves that
Speaker 1: a Democratic Socialists as.
Speaker 2: One in New York.
Speaker 1: He would love to run against a Democratic Socialist in
Speaker 1: the general election. I don't think a socialist candidate could
Speaker 1: ever be elected in the United States. I think they
Speaker 1: was ever conceivable for them to take power in Germany
Speaker 1: almost one hundred years ago. But the threat or perception,
Speaker 1: the propaganda that they could is enough to create the
Speaker 1: fear that Hey, and the fundamental message of the Nazis
Speaker 1: was we're going to kill them. We're not going to
Speaker 1: kill you, They're going to kill you. And there's a
Speaker 1: lot of that that's inherent in the Trumpian In the
Speaker 1: Trumpian message, what does a centrist democrat, the tradition of
Speaker 1: a John Kenny, what does somebody have to step up
Speaker 1: and say to really get your intention in this moment
Speaker 1: where you're like, wow, that person just hit the nail
Speaker 1: on the head. What they said was what was needed
Speaker 1: to be said in the context is because I don't
Speaker 1: hear it really anywhere.
Speaker 2: First of all, there is a there is a really
Speaker 2: important difference. So actually, at the time of the Hitler
Speaker 2: takeover of Nazi Germany, there had been a communist revolution
Speaker 2: in Munich, and there had also been a real, a
Speaker 2: genuine bullshic revolution in Russia which was throughout you know,
Speaker 2: in nineteen twenty actually launched a war and tried to
Speaker 2: invade Poland. And was I mean, it was like a
Speaker 2: real threat. There really were communists and they were and
Speaker 2: they were totalitarians, and they were you know, bloody and
Speaker 2: war mongering. And so when when Hitler said that he wasn't,
Speaker 2: I mean, you know, there was there was something real
Speaker 2: that people were genuinely afraid of her. The weird thing,
Speaker 2: weird thing about the United States right now is there
Speaker 2: is no equivalent of the Bolsheviks in the United States.
Speaker 2: There is no you know, bloody tyrants who are about
Speaker 2: to invade America. You know, when we talk about democratic
Speaker 2: socialists in the United States, we're talking about people who
Speaker 2: believe in things like universal health care, which is I'm
Speaker 2: talking to you right now in Poland, which is I
Speaker 2: mean universal health care is it would be untouchable. I
Speaker 2: mean nobody and even the Polish far right doesn't want
Speaker 2: to dismantle it, you know, you know, you're and even
Speaker 2: even when I hear this, you know, the candidate to
Speaker 2: be mayor of New York, you know, being vilified because
Speaker 2: he to rent control. I mean, I think, you know, Okay,
Speaker 2: maybe rent control is a dumb policy, and maybe it's
Speaker 2: a bad idea to have, you know, the city owned
Speaker 2: grocery stores. Okay, like those are those are silly ideas,
Speaker 2: but they're not like he's not talking about bringing in
Speaker 2: the Bolshevik hordes to wipe out the aristocracy or put
Speaker 2: people in gulags, you know. So, so what Trump has
Speaker 2: successfully done, or partially successfully, is He's created this boogeyman
Speaker 2: about the left, which I think doesn't reflect anything like reality.
Speaker 2: I mean, and you know, I've written critically about some
Speaker 2: left wing extremist language, and you know, they're they're there,
Speaker 2: there are many not smart people out there and so on.
Speaker 2: But I just don't see that there's a It's not
Speaker 2: like there's the equivalent of the Bolsheviks. You know, he
Speaker 2: uses this language and he talks about the radical Marxist left.
Speaker 2: You think Kamala Harris is a radical Marxist, you know,
Speaker 2: let me introduce you to some radical Marxists, you know,
Speaker 2: or or Joe Biden. Joe Biden's not a radical Marxist,
Speaker 2: but they've they they've created this sense of of horror
Speaker 2: and fear and anger, but you know, out of nothing.
Speaker 2: I mean that's I mean that that's one of the
Speaker 2: things that the internet can do for you. I mean,
Speaker 2: you can you can create almost entirely false narratives, and
Speaker 2: Trump has been has been a master of doing that.
Speaker 2: I mean, I do think that there are you know,
Speaker 2: they haven't all risen to the surface yet, and they
Speaker 2: haven't all uh you know, not all of them have
Speaker 2: full national attention. But it seems to me there are
Speaker 2: actually a lot of centrist Democrats out there. I mean,
Speaker 2: there's Chris Senator Murphy, there's Governor Pritzker, There's Pete Bodagitch.
Speaker 2: If you like him, you know, there's Gavin Newsom. Like
Speaker 2: him or don't like him. I mean, these are these
Speaker 2: are not people who are extreme leftists. Uh And as
Speaker 2: I said, even the people who we call extreme leftists
Speaker 2: aren't in any international standard all that left wing either.
Speaker 2: But but I mean, there there seems to me there
Speaker 2: are a lot of moderate Democrats, probably most of the
Speaker 2: Democrats in Congress, most of them in the Senate who
Speaker 2: who stand for the values that I think most Americans
Speaker 2: still stand for. And they believe in the Bill of Rights,
Speaker 2: and they believe in the separation of powers, and they
Speaker 2: believe in you know, they believe that there should be
Speaker 2: a safety net for the poor. You know, by the way,
Speaker 2: the American safety net being much smaller and narrower than
Speaker 2: what you would find here here in Europe. But but
Speaker 2: this isn't a way the oddity of Trump is I mean,
Speaker 2: Hitler also arose in this atmosphere of terrible economic crisis,
Speaker 2: in this horrific war, and there was runaway inflation, and
Speaker 2: there had been this decade of violence. And what have
Speaker 2: we had? We had, I mean, we had COVID, which
Speaker 2: may be part of the explanation. But it's not like
Speaker 2: the United States is collapsing in economic disarray or you know,
Speaker 2: or we have one hundred percent inflation or we have
Speaker 2: anything like that. You know, what Trump has done is
Speaker 2: created the sense of menace just in his language. And
Speaker 2: he's been allowed to do that by cowardly Republicans and
Speaker 2: people around him who've gone along with it.
Speaker 1: So I think if I was to observe this and
Speaker 1: try to explain it, to you under the scenario where
Speaker 1: you had just woken up from a coma after ten
Speaker 1: years and here we are and have to bring you
Speaker 1: up to speed.
Speaker 3: Is that.
Speaker 1: Trump produces a television show and he has a captive audience.
Speaker 1: He has a set is the White House, he goes
Speaker 1: other places, but mostly, you know, we see Trump in
Speaker 1: a couple familiar poses, answering questions. It's not ever really challenged,
Speaker 1: nor is he particularly effectively responded to. But this, but
Speaker 1: this show, I mean, I suppose you could measure it right.
Speaker 1: It's by the account of people who were watching cable
Speaker 1: news and all the proliferating elements. But I think there's
Speaker 1: huge parts of the population that have obviously tuned it
Speaker 1: all out aren't affected by it. I remember being at
Speaker 1: my sister's place in New Hampshire, I mean three summers ago,
Speaker 1: and the television work was on and I was trying
Speaker 1: to read something and I just looked at her, good Jennifer,
Speaker 1: like what are we watching? And it was a show
Speaker 1: about reality show and about people who have disorders, and
Speaker 1: a woman was was her compulsion. She was eating the
Speaker 1: stuffing of her couch and I was like, what are
Speaker 1: we watching? Like I turned it off right, and it's
Speaker 1: and it's a version of that.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 1: But but politics has become a forum for the mentally
Speaker 1: ill or undiagnosed psychiatric patients right, who found many of
Speaker 1: them their way into Congress or onto the staffs, or
Speaker 1: into the pundic class. And in the totality of all
Speaker 1: of this, I think you can make an argument that, well,
Speaker 1: you know, reality always finds a way of intruding, right,
Speaker 1: the suffering right comes and you can't bullshite your way
Speaker 1: through it. But what is the way to wake up
Speaker 1: of people from a stupor from a languor from a
Speaker 1: apathy as something's bearing down on them? This history offer
Speaker 1: any lessons at intercession before things get worse and go
Speaker 1: into the abyss at this stage or at this cycle
Speaker 1: of government assertion of its power and authority that's arrested
Speaker 1: them or there you know, are there examples of that?
Speaker 2: So, first of all, a lot of what Trump does,
Speaker 2: as you say, this reality show that he builds a
Speaker 2: lot of it, I think is designed to make people
Speaker 2: apathetic when you have this constant lying and he lies,
Speaker 2: you know, many times every day, and he lies about
Speaker 2: things that we all know he's lying, you know, when
Speaker 2: he you know, the famous example was at the beginning
Speaker 2: of his first term when he insisted that there have
Speaker 2: been more people on the ellipse at the mall when
Speaker 2: he was when he was inaugurated than there were, and
Speaker 2: he made his press spokesman lie about it, even though
Speaker 2: we all saw it on TV. And then, of course
Speaker 2: the grotesque example is the is the election of twenty twenty.
Speaker 2: So he lies constantly and repeatedly, and when that happens,
Speaker 2: you have the phenomenon of people saying, I don't know
Speaker 2: anymore what's true. You know, this person says that, and
Speaker 2: he's you know, this can't possibly be true. You get
Speaker 2: people checking out of politics because you know, if there's
Speaker 2: no if there's no true, and you don't know what's
Speaker 2: true and what's false, and how can you believe in
Speaker 2: anything or care about it. And that's actually, I mean,
Speaker 2: that is a Proutinus tactic. I mean that is borrowed
Speaker 2: directly from what the Russians do in order to get
Speaker 2: people to deactivate them, to demotivate them and demobilize them.
Speaker 2: You know, you tell lies all the time, you know,
Speaker 2: you change the narratives constantly, and you make people confused
Speaker 2: and then they don't want any part of politics. And
Speaker 2: a lot of actually activism in Russia, at least until
Speaker 2: the war, and until Alexi Navolney Divide, was about looking
Speaker 2: for ways to, you know, bil build a community around
Speaker 2: the things that people knew were true, and in the
Speaker 2: case of Russia, that was about corruptions. So Navalney was
Speaker 2: an anti Alexi Navalne who died in a in a
Speaker 2: prison camp, was an anti corruption campaigner, and he built
Speaker 2: a kind of movement around making very high quality, sometimes
Speaker 2: funny videos about the money that had been stolen and
Speaker 2: relating it then directly to people's lives. So, look, whot
Speaker 2: instole this money? Need built a palace, and that's why
Speaker 2: you have a crappy hospital and you have potholes in
Speaker 2: your road. So he constantly was trying to make this connection.
Speaker 2: But there are many examples of political movements, you know,
Speaker 2: from countries around the world, including some that aren't quite
Speaker 2: the same as the US and have different circumstances, but
Speaker 2: almost all of them need to begin with the understanding
Speaker 2: that the argument we're having in the United States isn't
Speaker 2: really the old kind of argument, So we're not really
Speaker 2: having an argument anymore about policy. It's not about Republican
Speaker 2: policies in American and Democratic policies. And you know, will
Speaker 2: taxes go up or down? You know, will we have
Speaker 2: this kind of infrastructure bill or that kind of infrastructure bill.
Speaker 2: You know, we're now talking about we now need to
Speaker 2: have politics be much more about defending institutions and defending
Speaker 2: very core values and explaining to people what's at stake.
Speaker 2: You know, what's the stake is not whether you know,
Speaker 2: you'll have you know, a thousand dollars one way or
Speaker 2: the other to pay in tax. What's at stake is
Speaker 2: the way your country is going to be run. And
Speaker 2: finding a way to refocus politics on on that is
Speaker 2: a is the beginning of the problem. But yeah, I
Speaker 2: mean there's a I may write something about this in
Speaker 2: due course. And I coincidentally, I taught a class at
Speaker 2: Johns Hopkins over the last semester with two colleagues, and
Speaker 2: the class was about resistance to dictatorship, and we looked
Speaker 2: at different movements in different countries. And of course when
Speaker 2: we designed the class a year earlier, we were about
Speaker 2: the United States. You know, we were looking at you know,
Speaker 2: Mexico and Russia and you know other countries. But but
Speaker 2: but but I but the beginning to think that way,
Speaker 2: beginning to think about but where is the real argument
Speaker 2: and what is it about? I think that will that's
Speaker 2: the most important thing you can do to wake people.
Speaker 2: But as I said, I do see democratic politicians talking
Speaker 2: like that, you know, I do see some of them
Speaker 2: trying to make those points. I do think it's a
Speaker 2: wasteland out there with you know, with nobody, nobody saying anything.
Speaker 2: You know, there's a we also have this tendency I
Speaker 2: don't know where it comes from, you know, whenever anything
Speaker 2: is going wrong to blame the Democrats as if it's
Speaker 2: as if it's their fault that the Republicans are are
Speaker 2: destroying the constitution. You know, you listen to some of them,
Speaker 2: Some of them are some of them are making sense.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean listen, there's no there's no question about it.
Speaker 1: But but but to me, what you point out is
Speaker 1: a political emergency and urgency. And as I listened to you,
Speaker 1: and as I hope you know that the people who
Speaker 1: are with us listen to you, that they can appreciate
Speaker 1: how devastating, devastating the Democratic position was around Biden's fitness,
Speaker 1: his age, the gaslighting, because fundamentally, what happened and there's
Speaker 1: a question the Democrats will have to answer running for president.
Speaker 1: Areingb asked the question? The question is what happened? And
Speaker 1: that's not a question about forensic investigation. It's about will
Speaker 1: you tell the truth to me right now? And what
Speaker 1: happened is the Democratic Party lost to the most prolific
Speaker 1: liar in American history two elections on fundamental questions of honesty,
Speaker 1: and this last one it was honesty about the border,
Speaker 1: honesty about the economy, and honesty about Biden's fitness. And
Speaker 1: when you have a political party that loses an election
Speaker 1: to Donald Trump on questions of honesty and this is
Speaker 1: the consequence of that loss, that loss is a very
Speaker 1: very big deal and that has to be talked about directly,
Speaker 1: honestly and ruthlessly. And the uh, the fact of the
Speaker 1: matter is is that whomever the Democratic nominee will be
Speaker 1: that can win a presidential election, there's going to be
Speaker 1: a break from the from the past and a break
Speaker 1: from having to defend some indefensible stuff. And you know,
Speaker 1: and we talked about that mythology to the left. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, look, Kamala Harris and I think everybody answered
Speaker 1: looks at this and evaluates it the wrong way. I do.
Speaker 1: I think that Kamala Harris believes that federal prisoner should
Speaker 1: receive tax payer funded sexual assignment surgery. I do not.
Speaker 1: But why did she answer the question like that? And
Speaker 1: she answered the question like that and failed the massive
Speaker 1: character test? And you have a generation of Democratic candidates
Speaker 1: that have tried to appease some social media, a morphous
Speaker 1: set of values and issues that have been exploited by
Speaker 1: a demogogue, by a fascist, by whatever it is you
Speaker 1: want to think about them, to great, great, great effect.
Speaker 1: And the Democrats are going to have to offer a
Speaker 1: reform message and agenda and vision. I think that pulls
Speaker 1: us into the future.
Speaker 2: And offers a.
Speaker 1: Pathway out of this and that, and that fundamentally, to me,
Speaker 1: starts with an ethics reform passage UH ethics reform legislation,
Speaker 1: and then legislation that talks about how you really weaken
Speaker 1: the executive But when you look at Republicans in this moment,
Speaker 1: maga politicians, it appears that they don't think they're ever
Speaker 1: not going to be in power again. And I find
Speaker 1: that to be very very curious, very curious. That they don't,
Speaker 1: that they don't seem to think that there's an election ahead,
Speaker 1: that they're underwater on the numbers.
Speaker 2: I find that equally curious. I don't have a you know,
Speaker 2: I can't tell you that they're going to steal the
Speaker 2: election or you know, I don't want to be apocalyptic,
Speaker 2: but you're right, they aren't acting like people who are
Speaker 2: planning to lose. I mean, even I've said to a
Speaker 2: couple of people, I don't even really understand this drive
Speaker 2: to build huge amount of executive power, to give more
Speaker 2: and more power to the president, to make him a king,
Speaker 2: to depride him, you know, to make sure he's not
Speaker 2: blocked or by any courts or by anything. I mean, okay,
Speaker 2: what are they then going to be happy to give
Speaker 2: up that power to I don't know, President Ocasio Cortes
Speaker 2: or I don't know, President some other person whom they
Speaker 2: don't like. Are they willing to hand that power over
Speaker 2: to someone whose views are very different or even President
Speaker 2: Gavin Newsom? I don't know. It's it's it does feel
Speaker 2: like they're doing something that they're not going to ever
Speaker 2: want to give up. And I and I don't have
Speaker 2: a I'm not going to lay out a scenario there,
Speaker 2: but it is it's an extremely odd way to behave
Speaker 2: you know, the point about our constitution, and the point
Speaker 2: about which you know has many it's it has many flaws,
Speaker 2: but the point about it was is it was a
Speaker 2: set of rules that were possible for both parties to
Speaker 2: live with more you know, up until recently, more or less,
Speaker 2: you know that you that you there was a set
Speaker 2: of rules. You've played by the rules when you when
Speaker 2: you won, you didn't change them, and that gave the
Speaker 2: other side the opportunity to compete for power once again.
Speaker 2: And when you lost, well at least you knew that
Speaker 2: the person who won had some constraints on him. You know,
Speaker 2: there was there was you know, you weren't. You were
Speaker 2: never seeding over total power to your political opponents. You know,
Speaker 2: there was always some some room for you know, room
Speaker 2: for opposition, and room for minority views and and checks
Speaker 2: and balances and so on. If they're going to take
Speaker 2: away all the checks and balances, then we're entering a
Speaker 2: very different political world. And you know, in that world,
Speaker 2: why would anybody ever want to give up power? It's
Speaker 2: too dangerous. You know, if you give up power, then
Speaker 2: you know, you can be arrested, or you can lose
Speaker 2: or you can have your money taken away or you know,
Speaker 2: I mean and and and that's what you know, that's
Speaker 2: the you know, that's the that's the danger of what
Speaker 2: they're doing, is there is there making it too tempting
Speaker 2: to to to never want to for the for this
Speaker 2: Republican Party, not to ever want to lose power.
Speaker 1: I just saw someone on the on one of the
Speaker 1: comments saying Kamala had the election stolen from her, and
Speaker 1: that person's as crazy as as any of the MAGA people.
Speaker 1: But right, I mean, what's what what's the what's the
Speaker 1: chances that you think I mean if the center and
Speaker 1: I don't I don't mean a center political position as
Speaker 1: a compromise between two points on the line. I mean
Speaker 1: the Tenison sense, the center of holding or values our institutions.
Speaker 1: But a reciprocal extremism that answers Trump I don't think
Speaker 1: will ever succeed. They will have a right wing dictation,
Speaker 1: will never have a left wing one in the United States,
Speaker 1: and so that would be that would be crushed. And
Speaker 1: there you go. And as I read the comments, anytime
Speaker 1: you talk about the Democratic Party and what happened in
Speaker 1: twenty four the fact that the national Party is at
Speaker 1: twenty seven percent approval level. People simply say no, don't
Speaker 1: want to hear it. And as one of the people
Speaker 1: that walks with no hypocrisy on the subject walking, Dean
Speaker 1: Phillips out to make a principal stand, I think it's
Speaker 1: a huge problem, you know, for for Democrats, there is
Speaker 1: a there is a deep, deep intolerance on the left
Speaker 1: of people that just don't want to hear it, that
Speaker 1: you know, are are in a bubble and there's a
Speaker 1: good party and an evil party. And the reality of
Speaker 1: it is that the American people can't stand hypocrisy, and
Speaker 1: they see a lot of it. They see it when
Speaker 1: Chuck Schumer goes out and when US Senator Menendez is
Speaker 1: arrested with the gold bars, he says, well, you know,
Speaker 1: he's a great public servant for the people in New Jersey.
Speaker 1: And so all of that has poison trust, don't I
Speaker 1: don't know how you restore trust other than to tell
Speaker 1: the truth and the idea that there is. You know,
Speaker 1: the choice is the choice, and people didn't want the choice,
Speaker 1: right in eighty percent of the country saying we don't
Speaker 1: want the choice between these two guys, and the choice
Speaker 1: is what the Democrats gave there. You know, campaign was
Speaker 1: supposedly a defense at democ Perce. There was no democratic
Speaker 1: there was there was no there was no democratic process
Speaker 1: for picking her in. You know, it ended in disaster.
Speaker 1: And I think it was all predictable. And so I
Speaker 1: when I objectively look at this, I think we have
Speaker 1: two elections, right, and we have we have two elections
Speaker 1: before the country is forever transformed. And so that that
Speaker 1: the first ones are in twenty six, we're gonna have
Speaker 1: an indication in twenty five by the size of these victories.
Speaker 1: And in New Jersey and Virginia, what portends the Republican Congress,
Speaker 1: You're gonna have stalemate for two years and.
Speaker 2: Then you're gonna have jd.
Speaker 1: Vance is likely to be the be the Republican nominee,
Speaker 1: though it could be Tucker Carlson or it could be
Speaker 1: Don Junior right where it could be Marco Rubio, but
Speaker 1: but whatever, Uh, it's a small list of no known
Speaker 1: quantities there, and the next president's going to have to
Speaker 1: act with a lot of strength and then a lot
Speaker 1: of restraint to repair all of these all of these institutions.
Speaker 1: Very very quickly. And do you see anybody on the
Speaker 1: on the horizon who was saying things that inspire you
Speaker 1: that that person gets it. I'll give you an example.
Speaker 1: One for me is Jake Aukincloss, right, Jake Jake Aukincloss,
Speaker 1: member of Congress from Massachusetts, comput the Marine Corps officer
Speaker 1: completely understands the necessities, the necessities of the moment. Is
Speaker 1: there anybody for you that's like speaking to you, that's
Speaker 1: that's resonating with you, that things are saying. JB. Pritzker
Speaker 1: says a lot of things that resonate with me. Pritz Ker,
Speaker 1: Chris Murphy. I wrote a piece last year before the
Speaker 1: election about that a group of Democrats who had entered
Speaker 1: most two of them had entered Congress in twenty eighteen.
Speaker 1: And I really like and admire a lot of this.
Speaker 1: Is Abby Spanberger, Mikey Cheryl, Jason Crowe. There's a you know,
Speaker 1: there's a It seems to me there are quite a
Speaker 1: few people like that. They're not all at the very
Speaker 1: top level, but there are plenty of people in the
Speaker 1: party who seemed to me to have you know, as
Speaker 1: you say, it's not about being centrist in the way
Speaker 1: of being halfway in between the left and the right.
Speaker 1: It's about people who very deeply believe in American values
Speaker 1: and who understand the importance of institutions, and who want
Speaker 1: to defend and protect them. And I feel like I
Speaker 1: do hear that from from from from enough people. You know.
Speaker 2: The issue is presumably whether in a culture that values
Speaker 2: outrage and celebrity, partly because that's the way our media
Speaker 2: and social media are now constructed, can those people rise
Speaker 2: to the top? Can they? You know, can a normal person,
Speaker 2: you know, a normal honest American who has had experience
Speaker 2: in the military or who has you know, who's thought
Speaker 2: deeply about policy. Can someone like that still become president?
Speaker 2: That that, to me is it is the deeper question,
Speaker 2: because I do see people like that out there. What's
Speaker 2: your dot tell you?
Speaker 1: I think it's possible, Yeah, guy, Like for me, right, like,
Speaker 1: the ideal is right, It's tough for me to like,
Speaker 1: I can't right, I just have that there's a cord
Speaker 1: of American idealism, and may that right? And one thing
Speaker 1: that it's true is that the country has produced the
Speaker 1: right people in the right moments, almost almost providentially.
Speaker 2: Out of out of nowhere.
Speaker 1: Lincoln Lincoln. Lincoln Well Grant is an example of that.
Speaker 1: Sherman is an example of that, the three of them together,
Speaker 1: the you know, uh Dwight Eisenhower is an example of that.
Speaker 1: You know, all of the World War two generals. And
Speaker 1: there are you know, people who deeply believe in in
Speaker 1: the American States that I don't think want to see it,
Speaker 1: uh slip away and go go gently into you know,
Speaker 1: into tonight. I just say, you know, we're talking about
Speaker 1: you know, we're talking about you know, these these candidates
Speaker 1: in the future. If somebody just says, you know, Obama
Speaker 1: and you know, there's it's it's the hours over right,
Speaker 1: in's fact, the World War two, post World War two
Speaker 1: hours over whatever whatever we're going into, you know, whatever
Speaker 1: we're going going into. Now, who who speaks about freedom
Speaker 1: in a in a way that reminds you at any
Speaker 1: level of how John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan talked about freedom?
Speaker 1: Is there is there anybody who does that? And if not,
Speaker 1: why why do you think that is?
Speaker 2: I mean, once again, i mean, I'm not sure what
Speaker 2: you know what you mean by speaking about freedom. And
Speaker 2: if you were to listen to Abbie Spenberger, who doesn't
Speaker 2: have a huge national profile. I saw her speak at
Speaker 2: a backyard event in northern Virginia, and she she speaks,
Speaker 2: she would she would be someone who would speak about duty,
Speaker 2: about responsibility, about the need to defend values and the
Speaker 2: need to defend freedom. I don't I don't suppose she's
Speaker 2: you know, she she's, she's. She's not making speeches in
Speaker 2: front of the Berlin Wall yet, but I would I
Speaker 2: would guess that in the Democratic Party and that you
Speaker 2: would find a couple of dozen people who would be
Speaker 2: beginning to think along those lines. I didn't know whether
Speaker 2: you've heard them all speak nationally yet, but but they're they're.
Speaker 1: No, she's, she's, she's, she's excellent. And I agree with you,
Speaker 1: right there are there are you can you can look
Speaker 1: at you know, probably I could, you know, you probably
Speaker 1: go off one hundred and fifty, one hundred and fifty people.
Speaker 1: But they just it hasn't broken through in a way
Speaker 1: connected to the moment, And maybe it's just early in
Speaker 1: in that I think early I am. I'm very frustrated
Speaker 1: by the lack of a response organized by the Senators
Speaker 1: and by the by the members of Congress that that
Speaker 1: that highlight their most effective their most funny members, right,
Speaker 1: that I think need to be engaged in the politics.
Speaker 1: In the message of this moment to moment, I wanted
Speaker 1: to ask you one one thing that is for sure,
Speaker 1: there needs to be a vast coalition of Americans that
Speaker 1: stands opposed to this. And I feel it right, you
Speaker 1: know when I write that, there's a demand and you
Speaker 1: see some of it on the comments today. There's a
Speaker 1: demand that, for example, my positions conform right to their positions, right,
Speaker 1: And that's a function of an element of the Democratic Party.
Speaker 1: All right, that's just intolerant. And you see some of
Speaker 1: the comments on here about this all starting with Ronald Reagan. Right,
Speaker 1: there's a fetish about Ronald Reagan, who was elected in
Speaker 1: nineteen eighty, right, so it's forty forty four years ago.
Speaker 1: He left office with a sixty percent approval level after
Speaker 1: winning an election with forty nine states. You're in you're
Speaker 1: in Poland. I don't think Ronald Reagan has a reputation
Speaker 1: for dictatorship in Poland. But there's a lot of Americans
Speaker 1: who admire Ronald Reagan who don't like Donald Trump, but
Speaker 1: probably don't like being screened at about Ronald Reagan by
Speaker 1: someone in the opposing political party who needs their votes
Speaker 1: uh to win an election. And so in a state
Speaker 1: like Texas where a Democratic candidate hasn't won in thirty
Speaker 1: years in a statewide election, right, the the cultural condemnation
Speaker 1: of you know, all this stuff right on a on
Speaker 1: a constant basis doesn't help. But I don't think right,
Speaker 1: build that, build that type of type of coalition. But
Speaker 1: you know, so we have an audience, you know, on
Speaker 1: this that's probably a left of center audience. What would
Speaker 1: you say about Ronald Reagan and about freedom? You know,
Speaker 1: the last speech, you know, I just saw a comment
Speaker 1: Ronald Reagan was a crappy president after eight years.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 1: The last thing that Ronald Reagan talked about in his
Speaker 1: farewell address was the importance of immigration to the United
Speaker 1: States and that the majesty of the country was that
Speaker 1: we were made up of all the peoples of the world,
Speaker 1: that it was our inherent strength. And so like his
Speaker 1: message on that subject would be something that you would
Speaker 1: think Democrats would want to embrace, but a lot of
Speaker 1: people don't want to ever write. Show any grace to
Speaker 1: anybody who's got that letter of an opposite party next
Speaker 1: to their name. Right in our tribal society, and we
Speaker 1: can't get out of that. The country's done. And so
Speaker 1: I wonder on any given day, right like if we're
Speaker 1: if we can, if we can get out of that,
Speaker 1: and I just get I get depressed when I read
Speaker 1: the comments. It just shows right to keep warrior, the
Speaker 1: absence of grace, right, really, the ignorance of history, right,
Speaker 1: any appreciation for for who these guys are, and it's
Speaker 1: just really, uh, you know, we got Blue Maga and
Speaker 1: you got Trump Maga, and you know too, two magas
Speaker 1: right in in competition like scorpions in a in a bottle.
Speaker 1: You know that that dynamic is a is a very
Speaker 1: is a very very depressing one.
Speaker 2: For me. It's a very oppressive dynamic. But I'm not
Speaker 2: sure that it reflects the entire country. I think most
Speaker 2: people are more nuanced. Social media has has. I mean,
Speaker 2: it's literally deliberately designed. It's set up to create polarization.
Speaker 2: That's what it does. You know, you get more likes,
Speaker 2: you get more clicks, you get more popularity by having
Speaker 2: more extreme views, by by by embodying not a policy
Speaker 2: debate but an identity. You know that, you know what
Speaker 2: we now have is politics. It's not real about political
Speaker 2: It's not about how our healthcare system should be structured,
Speaker 2: you know, or what should we really do about immigrants.
Speaker 2: It's about having these identity groups that people click and
Speaker 2: feel part of. So, you know, a part of the
Speaker 2: solution is finding people who can rise above that or
Speaker 2: move beyond that. And as I say, I've now said,
Speaker 2: I think four times in the last forty minutes, I
Speaker 2: think there are people who are trying. I do take
Speaker 2: your point about coalitions. I mean, one of the in
Speaker 2: the in the many conversations that I've had with people
Speaker 2: who have fought dictatorships in other countries, almost all of
Speaker 2: them talk about coalitions, and not just left right coalitions,
Speaker 2: but thinking in terms of which parts of society are
Speaker 2: the ones who need to be moved. How do you
Speaker 2: what's the best way to This doesn't apply so much
Speaker 2: to unite it. What's the best way to talk to
Speaker 2: the police or the military. How do you put together
Speaker 2: different audiences with different interest around a set of similar themes.
Speaker 2: And as I said, everybody who's ever been a successful
Speaker 2: opponent of a dictatorship has thought that way. Because what
Speaker 2: you need to do, as you rightly say, is move
Speaker 2: beyond just being really angry, even though anger is important motivation,
Speaker 2: and begin to think more broadly, how do we bring
Speaker 2: people in, how do we how do we how do
Speaker 2: we build a movement? How do we how do we
Speaker 2: work together? I mean my instinct, and this I think
Speaker 2: it's reflected by polling, is that the majority of Americans
Speaker 2: are already uncomfortable with Trump. You know, they're already uncomfortable
Speaker 2: with even you know, with with the idea of an
Speaker 2: ice police force it's larger than the Marines. They didn't
Speaker 2: like tariffs, you know, they didn't like this this foreign
Speaker 2: policy that moves back and forth and has no strategy,
Speaker 2: and you know, and so I don't think I don't
Speaker 2: think it's unthinkable that you could that people could unite
Speaker 2: around common value, use and even in a positive vision
Speaker 2: for what the country should be, without arguing about whether
Speaker 2: Ronald Reagan was good or bad forty years ago.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's great. I think it's crazy.
Speaker 2: I think it's possible. And yeah, you're right here here
Speaker 2: in Poland Ronald Reagan is a hero. And there's actually
Speaker 2: a statue of him not that far from from where
Speaker 2: I'm sitting.
Speaker 1: There's a there's a spot in poll and this is
Speaker 1: the last thing I want to I want to ask you.
Speaker 1: But there's a there's a moment coming, and I think
Speaker 1: it's going to come before this midterm election where Pope
Speaker 1: Leo makes his inaugural visit to the United States. And
Speaker 1: you know, I can't I can't help but think that
Speaker 1: the College of Cardinals in their elevation of him, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, there's some synchronicity with the elevation of kyl
Speaker 1: Willtila and to Pope John Paul the second. And when
Speaker 1: Pope John Paul comes to Warsaw, a million polls in
Speaker 1: the in the square and that sign the cross there
Speaker 1: and John Poul says to the to the assembled crowd
Speaker 1: in a in a in a quote that as much
Speaker 1: as any help bring down the Berlin Wall, which is,
Speaker 1: do not be afraid, and not be afraid. And fear
Speaker 1: is such a element in all of this purposeful right.
Speaker 1: Never an hour lifetimes have we seen a government purposefully
Speaker 1: invoke fear, spread fear, use anxiety, try to try to
Speaker 1: terrify people, to augment its power, the illusions of its
Speaker 1: of its power. I just wanted to let you close
Speaker 1: out today and thank you so much for joining me
Speaker 1: for the conversation, but just to talk about fear right
Speaker 1: as a as a tool and an element, and the
Speaker 1: recipes to fight back against fear right. How do you
Speaker 1: how do you stand up right against against fear.
Speaker 2: I've known so many people who have done really brave things,
Speaker 2: who have led movements or risked jail or gone to
Speaker 2: jail in countries like Russia or Venezuela or China, you know,
Speaker 2: and and almost all of them have the same thing
Speaker 2: in common. I mean they have they have some ability
Speaker 2: to believe that in a some value that's greater than themselves.
Speaker 2: You know, what happens to me doesn't matter what happened.
Speaker 2: What matters is what happens to the country, what happens
Speaker 2: to my society. I mean almost all of them are
Speaker 2: ultimately motivated. I mean some of them actually, as as
Speaker 2: in Poland in nineteen seventy nine. Some of them are
Speaker 2: religiously motivated, but not not necessarily. I mean, some are
Speaker 2: motivated by their their belief and faith and hope for
Speaker 2: their country and their and their society. And so you know,
Speaker 2: I would just urge people, you know, to not just
Speaker 2: don't be afraid, but remember how piddling and silly. The
Speaker 2: things that are being used to make you afraid are
Speaker 2: You're being made afraid with rhetoric and games and junk
Speaker 2: you read online. You know, it's important to rise above
Speaker 2: it and remember what what's more important, you know, an
Speaker 2: insult that someone wrote to me, or a threat that
Speaker 2: someone said to me, or something that happened to be
Speaker 2: at my office or it was more important is the
Speaker 2: way my society is functions, and the way my children
Speaker 2: are going to live, and what kind of country will be.
Speaker 2: So keep your keep your mind on on bigger things,
Speaker 2: and then you will be afraid.
Speaker 1: Just before I sign off, one of the things that
Speaker 1: Anne has talked about today is those rising voices. And
Speaker 1: just for the three thousand people that are on with us,
Speaker 1: Abigail Spamberg are running for governor of Virginia, going to
Speaker 1: be the governor of Virginia. Mikey Sheryl, Navy helicopter pilot,
Speaker 1: going to be the governor of New Jersey, Jocelyn Benson
Speaker 1: another rising star in Michigan, Elise slock In a important voice,
Speaker 1: Jason Crowe in Colorado, Jamie Raskin, of course, indefatigable, Chris Murphy,
Speaker 1: the Fighting Democrats Jake Auchincloss. There are many, many more.
Speaker 1: There are going to be a lot of candidates who
Speaker 1: are getting into these races. And then there are the
Speaker 1: celebrity candidates, and they come always from the wings of
Speaker 1: the party, very rarely from the people that could appeal
Speaker 1: to the nation right, could appeal to a majority. And
Speaker 1: so what we could do today is appeal to you
Speaker 1: to inform yourselves about who those people are. Jake Awkin
Speaker 1: class A substack is called easy. No, sorry, it's called simple,
Speaker 1: not easy. Please follow an Applebaum at The Atlantic on substack.
Speaker 1: One of the foremost academic thinkers, writers and advocates for
Speaker 1: freedom in the world, and important voice and one who
Speaker 1: will be over the decade ahead as this fight, and
Speaker 1: it is a fight rages on. And one of the
Speaker 1: things that is always true against any aggressive force, against
Speaker 1: any fascistic force, the aggressor always has that first move
Speaker 1: or advantage. And it's the side that supports freedom, because
Speaker 1: it is involved in enjoying their freedoms, is usually slow
Speaker 1: to rise in defense of it. The rise in defense
Speaker 1: of it we have to give. In this two hundred
Speaker 1: and fiftieth anniversary year the birth of the United States,
Speaker 1: pocal event in the history of the world, and so
Speaker 1: we'll leave it there today. Thank you so much. Keep
Speaker 1: the faith, believe in your country, and understand things will
Speaker 1: get worse, but then they will get better. And that's
Speaker 1: the way it has always been. We are in a test,
Speaker 1: and we have to meet the test. I'm Steve Schmidt.
Speaker 1: This is the warning. I invite you to join this community,
Speaker 1: where I promise to be honest, blunt and direct about
Speaker 1: what is happening in this country. America is in crisis.
Speaker 1: Follow and subscribe to this channel and on substack. Thank you.