0:00

Ross, congratulations, this is

0:02

going to be awesome.

0:04

This is going to

0:06

be great. Don't say

0:08

congratulations. Congratulate me in

0:10

one year's time. I'm not

0:12

even kidding. Like, let's see how

0:15

this goes. Who are we kidding? I

0:17

mean, you know, it may be less

0:19

than that. Who knows? One year

0:21

is very optimistic. Guys, it's

0:23

like a moment. Okay. From New

0:26

York Times opinion, I'm

0:28

Carlos Lozada. I'm

0:30

Michelle

0:32

Cottle, and

0:35

I'm Ross

0:38

Dauphin. And

0:41

this is

0:44

matter of

0:47

opinion, where

0:50

thoughts were

0:53

always allowed.

0:57

Since the spring of 2023, low

0:59

these nearly two years ago, we've

1:01

hosted some 90 plus episodes of

1:04

matter of opinion together, first with

1:06

Lydia, then just the three of

1:08

us, along with many generous and

1:11

interesting guests. We've been together through

1:13

a crazy election campaign that declined

1:15

of one president, the return of

1:17

another. We've debated foreign wars and

1:20

culture wars. We've sparked over the

1:22

Supreme Court in IVF treatments and

1:24

campus protests and lots of indictments.

1:26

and even our favorite horror

1:28

movies. And we've gotten to know each

1:30

other fairly well, I would say. I know

1:33

that Ross breaks into song even more

1:35

than I do at random moments. It's

1:37

true. I know that I will never

1:39

persuade Michelle to believe in extraterrestrial life.

1:42

And yet we know Michelle has been

1:44

saved more than any other one of

1:46

us. That is also true. And the

1:48

key to Carlos's heart involves Inca

1:50

Kola and Notre Dame football.

1:53

Every weekend I go to the

1:55

supermarket. and walk through the

1:58

non-American soda aisle. wishing

2:00

to see Inca Cola, and it

2:02

has still never happened. By the

2:04

way, it's crap that they segregate

2:06

the sodas like that. It's true.

2:08

Like I often, I do guerrilla

2:11

marketing and I take some bottles

2:13

of Inca Cola and put them

2:15

in with the regular sodas to

2:17

allow them to compete freely. Adam

2:19

Smith, the Wealth of Nations. So

2:21

even with all that, all we've

2:24

covered together, all we've learned about

2:26

each other, I must report that

2:28

today will be our final episode.

2:30

together. We won't quite make it

2:32

to 100 shows because we probably

2:34

should not have signed that contract

2:37

where we were promised a $1

2:39

million bonus for our 100th episode.

2:41

That was perhaps a mistake. This

2:43

is like when they cut the

2:45

player just before the big incentive,

2:47

you know, kicks in. Yeah, totally.

2:50

I got to make that trade.

2:52

Or maybe we all should have

2:54

gotten Ross's contract. But anyway, before

2:56

there is any sort of like,

2:58

you know... Wailing or gnashing of

3:01

teeth at the fact that Mu

3:03

is going to that great podcast

3:05

studio in the sky. I should

3:07

say it is not the end

3:09

of this feed. Stay with it

3:11

folks because there are exciting things

3:14

coming. Diligent dedicated Mu listeners will

3:16

probably guess what's going on because

3:18

you've gotten some previews of it

3:20

in recent episodes. But Ross, why

3:22

don't you tell us what you've

3:24

been up to and what you've

3:27

got in store for our faithful

3:29

listeners? Yes, so faithful listeners know

3:31

that... Over the last few months,

3:33

I've been doing some one-on-one interviews,

3:35

most notably with Steve Bannon and

3:37

Mark Andreessen, trying to get a

3:40

sense of what's going on with

3:42

the future of conservatism and the

3:44

Republican Party and the Trump administration.

3:46

And around the time just before

3:48

the inauguration, I... wrote a long

3:50

piece for our Sunday review section

3:53

that had the title, Trump has

3:55

put an end to an era.

3:57

The future is up for grabs.

3:59

The plan is to launch a

4:01

show about that up for grabs

4:04

future in which interviews like the

4:06

ones I've already done are expanded

4:08

to include not only representatives of

4:10

Trumpism, populism, and conservatism, but the

4:12

wider range of groups and ideologies

4:14

and factions that are competing to

4:17

shape are up for grabs moment.

4:19

There's nothing better than doing journalism

4:21

and interviews and conversations in an

4:23

era of total destabilization, uncertainty and

4:25

chaos, and that is what I

4:27

promise you here. today. Here, here.

4:30

Ross, I'm just so thrilled for

4:32

you and for listeners of Time's

4:34

audio because as much as I've

4:36

enjoyed making moo with all of

4:38

you, this just makes so much

4:40

sense. It's a necessary project. I

4:43

can't think of anyone better suited

4:45

to do it. One thing I

4:47

wanted to to ask you about

4:49

because of course the moment I

4:51

congratulate you then I start trying

4:53

to shape it. Of course, you

4:56

know... Your views will be reflected

4:58

in the questions you ask, in

5:00

the guests you book, in the

5:02

tenor of your conversations, in the

5:04

breadth of your topics. But I

5:06

think mood listeners have also gotten

5:08

used to hearing pretty clearly and

5:11

directly from you what you think

5:13

about where things are headed, the

5:15

evolution in your own thinking, in

5:17

this kind of wide open world

5:19

you're describing. So, will there be

5:21

room on the show for you

5:24

to kind of like, you know,

5:26

turn to camera three and share

5:28

with listeners what you are thinking

5:30

yourself, how you are seeing the

5:32

world? No, my opinions are going

5:34

to disappear entirely. The show is

5:37

no one will know what I

5:39

think about any issues. No, I...

5:41

I really appreciate it, Carlos. And

5:43

yes, of course, my own perspective

5:45

on the world will come through

5:47

not just in the guests who

5:49

are chosen, but in the questions

5:52

that are asked and the conversations,

5:54

because I think the goal of

5:56

any interview show is to not

5:58

just pepper the interviewee with questions,

6:00

but to end up having some

6:02

kind of back and forth. But

6:05

I would add, one reason that

6:07

I am embarking on this is

6:09

that while I do have strong

6:11

views, you know, as a reader

6:13

know, I genuinely have a lot

6:15

of uncertainty, more so I think

6:18

than at any point in my

6:20

own career, and I'm not that

6:22

old, but I've been doing this

6:24

20 years or so, writing about

6:26

politics, about where we're going, not

6:28

just in sort of the immediate,

6:30

what is Elon Musk up to

6:33

and what's going to happen with

6:35

Doge, and can the Democrats come

6:37

back, and is Trump going to

6:39

corrupt the Justice Department kind of

6:41

way, as important as those... questions

6:43

might be, but also in a

6:46

larger sense of what is happening

6:48

to the human race in a

6:50

new technological dispensation. What is the

6:52

actual future of liberalism and a

6:54

democracy in a world where the

6:56

American Empire is relative to most

6:59

of my young adulthood in retreat?

7:01

What happens to you, you know,

7:03

to popular culture? What happens to

7:05

novels and movies and a whole

7:07

host of other art forms in

7:09

the digital age that we're really

7:12

only just beginning to live inside?

7:14

So yeah, I have strong views

7:16

that will inform the discussions, but

7:18

I have a lot of questions

7:20

about where we're going and a

7:22

lot of uncertainty. Do you have

7:24

a wish list for who you'll

7:27

be talking to? Have you been

7:29

working on that? Tantalizes. Well, I

7:31

will say one thing, obviously, that

7:33

we're going to try and do,

7:35

since this is a New York

7:37

Times podcast, right, is to talk

7:40

to my colleagues and friends at

7:42

the New York Times, when they

7:44

say brilliant and interesting things, which

7:46

they do all the time, including

7:48

my fellow Moo hosts. No, I

7:50

mean, you're dead to me. You're

7:53

dead to me and Carlson. Well,

7:55

not you, Michelle. I'm just trying

7:57

to keep Carlos on board. I

7:59

wrote you off weeks ago. It

8:01

would be nice to have a

8:03

conversation with Elon Musk, future Viceroy

8:05

of Mars. Mr. Viceroy, if you're

8:08

listening, I'm ready to talk. The

8:10

show will sort of begin with

8:12

things closest to my interests and

8:14

my knowledge base, which means conservatism,

8:16

American politics, religion. culture and expand

8:18

beyond that to broader trends, technological,

8:21

digital, international, and so on. Can

8:23

I get the director of Nosferatu,

8:25

right, to come talk to me?

8:27

Robert Eggers, that would be fun.

8:29

Okay, I'll listen, I'll allow it.

8:31

I don't think, I don't think

8:34

that, that might not have been

8:36

the strongest, that might have been,

8:38

no, that was a fine pitch.

8:40

right off into the sunset. We

8:42

will mark this moment, the final

8:44

move, by diving into our listener

8:46

mailbox for some questions they've had

8:49

for us since the start of

8:51

the year. And this bodes well

8:53

for the new show Ross because

8:55

listeners have had a lot of

8:57

reactions and questions about your interviews

8:59

with Steve Bannon and Mark and

9:02

Driesen. So I'm going to start

9:04

with an email from a listener

9:06

named Mark. who says he is

9:08

both troubled and confused by what

9:10

he heard from Bannon. And hopefully

9:12

you can clarify this confusion. He

9:15

writes, Bannon is blinded by the

9:17

victory of Trump, a very imperfect

9:19

conveyance for achieving his, meaning Bannon's,

9:21

vision of what the world needs.

9:23

As John Bolton said, Trump makes

9:25

decisions based on what's good for

9:28

me, what's bad for me. Mark

9:30

then goes on to say, my

9:32

feeling is Bannon wants a revolution,

9:34

but then what? The red state's

9:36

always complain about the government. until

9:38

they need it. So Ross, I'm

9:40

going to channel Mark, who's asking

9:43

you to channel Steve Bannon, after

9:45

you get past flood the zone

9:47

and break stuff, the kind of

9:49

you know approach that Bannon promotes,

9:51

what is the then what that

9:53

he actually sees for the country?

9:56

I mean, I think that Bannon,

9:58

along with other populists on the

10:00

right, sincerely imagine a version of

10:02

the United States that has a

10:04

lot of the strengths that the

10:06

US had in a different dispensation

10:09

of globalization. So much stronger domestic

10:11

industry joined to lower immigration rates

10:13

yielding greater cultural cohesion. So some

10:15

marriage of William McKinley and Dwight

10:17

Eisenhower's America. I think that's sort

10:19

of the simplest way to look

10:21

at it. And I think Bannon

10:24

himself regards government in two different

10:26

lights. On the one hand, he's

10:28

more pro-government than libertarian Republicans have

10:30

traditionally been. But the kind of

10:32

government he's in favor of is

10:34

a kind of 19th century, early

10:37

20th century, industrial policy, we're building

10:39

the Hoover Dam, we're building the

10:41

transcontinental railroad, we're sort of working

10:43

together with domestic industry to create

10:45

a more dynamic America. It's not

10:47

the government of the administrative state.

10:50

I think you can argue reasonably

10:52

that that distinction is something of

10:54

an illusion. and you know the

10:56

administrative state emerged for a reason

10:58

and if you wanted to do

11:00

industrial policy or any other kind

11:02

of policy in 21st century America

11:05

you would inevitably need to do

11:07

it through the administrative state in

11:09

some way but I think that

11:11

is the basic perspective that there's

11:13

a form of government that's good,

11:15

that is a government of investment

11:18

in partnership, and there's a form

11:20

of government that's a form of

11:22

government that's sort of regulatory and

11:24

parasitic. And that's the distinction that

11:26

Bannon would like to draw and

11:28

see enacted in policy. Well, let's

11:31

see if that turns out to

11:33

be a fun little surprise for

11:35

everybody. A fun little surprise for

11:37

everybody is actually one of the

11:39

titles we're considering for the new

11:41

show, Michelle. I mean, I approve.

11:44

You get royalties, Michelle, if they

11:46

pick that. Oh yeah, I'll speak

11:48

to the powers that be about

11:50

my royalties. But I want to

11:52

also now move to Mark Andreessen,

11:54

who you also talked to, was

11:56

also fascinating. And here's a comment

11:59

from Alexandra about that interview. And

12:01

she sympathized a bit with his

12:03

criticism of the quote. woke agenda

12:05

and the challenges it might have

12:07

caused companies, but she found his

12:09

angst about the whole thing to

12:12

be surprising. She said, I wish

12:14

you had asked Mr. Andreessen who

12:16

lays out in detail how difficult

12:18

and disastrous these last five years

12:20

and more have been for tech

12:22

companies. how it is that amidst

12:25

the disaster, the billionaire tech company

12:27

owners and people on Trump's new

12:29

cabinet and administration have continued to

12:31

increase their wealth so dramatically. So

12:33

I think she's raising this interesting

12:35

question that I had, which is

12:37

he had the most emotion and

12:40

rage about the progressivism of his

12:42

employees, but it was kind of

12:44

hard to gauge the material impact.

12:46

of employee activism on his business's

12:48

growth or really understand how that

12:50

rage translated to government at all?

12:53

Yeah, I think, let's try this,

12:55

I'll try giving you a cynical

12:57

reading and then a more admirable

12:59

reading. Oh, please do. And then

13:01

tell us which one you actually

13:03

believe? No, I know, no, but

13:06

part of being a good interviewer,

13:08

Carlos, is never... As I said,

13:10

my own views are disappearing. No,

13:12

I mean, I think, look, the

13:14

cynical reading is one that I

13:16

think Andreessen himself at least tacitly

13:18

admitted to in the course of

13:21

the conversation, which was that he

13:23

found the ideological revolution in the

13:25

American elite, the rise of wokeness,

13:27

everything else, terrible and disastrous on

13:29

many different levels, but it did

13:31

not actually drive him and other

13:34

people on the so-called tech right

13:36

into a big political shift. until

13:38

the Biden administration began regulating cryptocurrency

13:40

and AI startups. So the cynical

13:42

reading of all of this is

13:44

that all these tech lords, you

13:47

know, hated wokeness, regarded it as

13:49

ideologically poisonous, but were fine with

13:51

living with it until a progressive

13:53

president challenged their ability to make

13:55

money, right? And that's sort of

13:57

the pivot point. So let the

14:00

communists run everything as long as

14:02

we get rich, basically. I think

14:04

the more admirable and idealistic perspective

14:06

is that there is in Silicon

14:08

Valley, there's not sort of a

14:10

unity where all the tech people

14:12

have the same interests and perspectives,

14:15

right? There really is a divide

14:17

between the world of the big

14:19

established companies. Google, meta, Amazon, and

14:21

so on, and the world that

14:23

Andreessen is in, which is the

14:25

world of entrepreneurism and startups, and

14:28

basically trying to build the next

14:30

big thing, right? So, you know,

14:32

one alternative reading of the story

14:34

Andreessen tells is that basically he

14:36

saw wokeness sort of overtaking the

14:38

big established companies. But those are

14:41

the big dinosaurs. And Andreessen and

14:43

his friends are concerned about the

14:45

new companies, the new frontiers, the

14:47

new horizons, right? And so, wokeness,

14:49

circuit 2017. seems like it's bad

14:51

for Amazon and Google, but is

14:53

sort of leaving the entrepreneurial side

14:56

of Silicon Valley alone, and then

14:58

Progressivism under Biden starts to throttle

15:00

the entrepreneurial side, and so then

15:02

it's reasonable for that to be

15:04

your breaking point, right? If you

15:06

say, look, you need these sort

15:09

of frontier companies doing new things,

15:11

and you can live with a

15:13

certain kind of ideological group, think,

15:15

in the lumbering dinosaurs. But when

15:17

it comes for the next generation

15:19

companies, that's when it's a real

15:22

disaster for growth and America's future

15:24

and so on. So those, and

15:26

honestly, I think both of those

15:28

narratives contain something of the truth.

15:30

And obviously they overlap in certain

15:32

ways. It depends on, you know,

15:34

whether you want to put a

15:37

cynical or idealistic spin. And the

15:39

reality is that most human beings

15:41

and most institutions contain cynicism and

15:43

idealism together. Ross, so there are

15:45

actually lots of questions about Bannon

15:47

and recent, but we're gonna we're

15:50

gonna dip into some emails about

15:52

other episodes this year. Ross, why

15:54

don't you grab the next one?

15:56

So this email is from Cassie

15:58

in response to our episode on

16:00

the resistance so far to President

16:03

Trump's aggressive second-term actions or to

16:05

the lack thereof. And Cassie writes,

16:07

all legitimate and legal ways of

16:09

holding this man accountable are effectively

16:11

pointless at this point. And we're

16:13

supposed to resist? Please tell me

16:16

how. Aside from voting, voting, voting,

16:18

And I am not sure even

16:20

that will make a difference at

16:22

this point. We are at a

16:24

point of feeling like there's truly

16:26

nothing we can do to rid

16:28

ourselves of this scourge. What do

16:31

you guys think of Cassie's perspective?

16:33

I'm supposed to be the leader

16:35

of the resistance now, or at

16:37

least the voice of the resistance.

16:39

It has fallen to you, Michelle.

16:41

I knew it would happen eventually.

16:44

I think, you know, we went

16:46

over some of this in the

16:48

episode about how it is going

16:50

to rely a lot on the

16:52

courts, and the courts are very

16:54

slow, but I do think we

16:57

also see... In the country at

16:59

large, some of this starting to

17:01

bubble up, there are a lot

17:03

of protests at town halls. Republican

17:05

members of Congress are facing some

17:07

backlash back home. I'm headed out

17:09

to Colorado where there is a

17:12

town hall scheduled for Congressman Jason

17:14

Crow to talk to people about

17:16

their dissatisfaction. This is in the

17:18

Denver suburbs. It's a swing district.

17:20

I think as we go along

17:22

and as people see what the

17:25

Trump administration's approach is, we will

17:27

see different options for protest popping

17:29

up. But I mean, Kasti's not

17:31

wrong in that it can feel

17:33

a little bit pointless right now

17:35

because of the lock on Congress

17:38

and unified Republican control and the

17:40

complete shamelessness of the Trump administration

17:42

and just The approach is we're

17:44

going to try everything and let's

17:46

see you stop us. I feel

17:48

like Cassie's question is a question

17:50

that Trump critics have been asking

17:53

themselves since the very beginning for

17:55

like almost a decade now. And

17:57

part of the challenge today, which

17:59

I think she articulates in the

18:01

question, is that there's such a

18:03

fire hose of new actions and

18:06

policies from the administration every day

18:08

that if they trouble you, you

18:10

know, they all feel kind of

18:12

overwhelming and make you feel helpless.

18:14

I think sometimes the way to

18:16

deal with that kind of feeling

18:19

is not to just continue doom

18:21

scrolling and worrying about the overall

18:23

scourge. to try to just take

18:25

in your own life kind of

18:27

local focused action. Timothy Snyder, who's

18:29

one of the Yale historian and

18:31

one of the kind of grand

18:34

pubas of resistance writing, has written

18:36

about this, that if you worry

18:38

about institutions writ large, pick one

18:40

that you wish to defend. We

18:42

think of institutions as these large

18:44

systems and bureaucracies that operate almost

18:47

an autopilot, but they're only as

18:49

strong as their internal norms and

18:51

as the people defendinging of USAID

18:53

because you think foreign aid is

18:55

important. Then maybe volunteer with the

18:57

church or non-profit group that distributes

19:00

its own forms of aid, even

19:02

on a small scale. If you

19:04

worry about freedom of the press,

19:06

if you see the White House

19:08

Press Secretary saying that we're going

19:10

to dictate who gets to participate

19:13

in the pool of reporters covering

19:15

the president, subscribe to your local

19:17

newspaper, find ways to support it.

19:19

If you're worried about book bands,

19:21

go to your local library, get

19:23

involved in the school system. Otherwise,

19:25

people are just sort of so

19:28

worried about the issue that they

19:30

end up not doing anything about

19:32

it. themselves. And I think that

19:34

kind of personal engagement is really

19:36

important to the way you live

19:38

just as a citizen, almost regardless

19:41

of who's in office, but certainly

19:43

today. I think we, I don't

19:45

really, I don't have a lot

19:47

to add, except that the reality

19:49

is that House Republicans have a

19:51

extremely narrow margin. And it is

19:54

quite likely that if the Trump

19:56

White House's policies. are unpopular than

19:58

just the part of Cassie's email

20:00

about voting, voting, and voting will

20:02

suffice to deliver some kind of

20:04

corrective. There are always races to

20:06

participate in. But people tend to

20:09

get really frustrated and give up

20:11

if a couple of... rounds of

20:13

elections don't go their way. And

20:15

you know, the comparison that I

20:17

always find funny is like, oh,

20:19

well, we fed the baby last

20:22

night. Why should we have to

20:24

pay attention to it now? I

20:26

tell myself that every day. Democracy

20:28

is one of those things you

20:30

have to pay attention to and

20:32

constantly tend. You don't get to

20:35

pay attention to it and then

20:37

be like, oh, well, that didn't

20:39

turn out like I liked it.

20:41

Well, and the other point to

20:43

make here is that there is

20:45

an internal conversation. happening in the

20:47

Democratic Party right now? Probably, I

20:50

think, a more substantial one than

20:52

happened the last time Trump won,

20:54

because most Democrats regarded that as

20:56

an illegitimate fluke. There's a conversation

20:58

about where the Democratic Party should

21:00

go from here. And if you

21:03

feel baffled as to why our

21:05

country cannot be rid of Donald

21:07

Trump, a really important question is,

21:09

why did the Democratic Party lose

21:11

to him? What happened to make

21:13

large numbers of Americans who had

21:16

voted for Barack Obama or who

21:18

had voted for Joe Biden, vote

21:20

for Donald Trump, and what can

21:22

the Democrats do to win those

21:24

Americans back? And that participating in

21:26

that conversation doesn't give you the

21:29

immediate thrill of standing up to

21:31

Trump in some way, shape, or

21:33

form. But for 2026 and 2028,

21:35

no conversation is more important. for

21:37

opponents of Trump than the one

21:39

happening inside liberalism, inside the Democratic

21:41

Party, about what the heck should

21:44

be done next. Well, on that

21:46

sort of actionable, forward-looking note, let's

21:48

take a brief break here. When

21:50

we come back, we'll dig into

21:52

some more emails that you recently

21:54

sent us. And

22:17

we're back. Our next question comes

22:19

from Eric, who says he's wanted

22:21

to write in a number of

22:24

times, but he finally pressed the

22:26

send button after the first few

22:28

episodes this year. Eric, you got

22:30

in just under the wire, man.

22:32

I am very happy for you.

22:34

Here's what he says. Good afternoon,

22:36

folks. As this edition of the

22:38

Trump presidency materializes in roughly the

22:41

exact manner that I in many

22:43

of you predicted, my family is

22:45

sick of me starting monologues with

22:47

I hate being right, but it

22:49

had never occurred to me. that

22:51

I need to start taking Trump

22:53

seriously as a historical figure. This

22:55

is not so much a compliment

22:57

as it is a concession to

23:00

reality and an attempt to understand

23:02

how other people, particularly younger Americans,

23:04

view 45 slash 47, meaning the

23:06

45th and 47th president. Lest you

23:08

think Eric is an old coot,

23:10

talking about the kids today, he

23:12

then explains that as a 30-year-old

23:14

millennial, he has never been able

23:17

to see Trump as anything other

23:19

than the celebrity apprentice apprentice host

23:21

Mercurial, NYC icon, and guest actor

23:23

and home alone too. But it's

23:25

been helpful for Eric to refrain

23:27

his view and consider Trump as

23:29

a historical figure. So keeping Eric

23:31

in mind, how have you guys

23:34

evolved in the ways that you

23:36

see Trump, you know, ranging from

23:38

the celebrity apprentice host to indeed

23:40

this historic figure? I mean, I

23:42

don't watch reality TV, so I

23:44

had no view of him. So

23:46

he's always been historic to you,

23:48

Michelle. Except the Golden Bachelor. I

23:50

did watch the Golden Bachelor. So

23:53

I did not actually understand the

23:55

mythology of Trump, and I'm not

23:57

from New York. So I saw

23:59

him mostly as a national joke

24:01

who would pop up in guest

24:03

spots in... TV shows and movies

24:05

and would run off at the

24:07

mouth about his wives or girlfriends

24:10

or whatever so it took me

24:12

a little while even to get

24:14

up to speed on what all

24:16

this is, but as a celebrity

24:18

figure whose brand was ostensibly as

24:20

this great businessman, on some level

24:22

it made a lot of sense

24:24

that the American electorate would go

24:27

in for this, especially people who

24:29

don't pay that much attention to

24:31

politics. You can tell what Americans

24:33

value. from what they vote for

24:35

to a certain degree. And he

24:37

is a very American figure. There's

24:39

a terrific essay that ran in

24:41

the journal The Point earlier this

24:44

year by a woman named Mana

24:46

Afsari. And it's an essay that

24:48

covers a lot of ground, but

24:50

it's called Last Boys at the

24:52

beginning of history. And it's about

24:54

young men especially, maybe slightly younger

24:56

than our correspondent here. who never

24:58

experienced Trump, the way Michelle described

25:00

as a joke, never experienced him

25:03

as a reality star, have just

25:05

experienced him as a kind of

25:07

historical figure and, you know, have

25:09

this kind of admiration for Bond

25:11

with him that I think is

25:13

really hard for older Americans who

25:15

regarded him as sort of a

25:17

comic or ridiculous figure to understand.

25:20

And the piece starts with a

25:22

quote from Henry Kissinger. where he

25:24

says, I think Trump may be

25:26

one of those figures in history

25:28

who appears from time to time

25:30

to mark the end of an

25:32

era and to force it to

25:34

give up its old pretenses. It

25:37

doesn't necessarily mean he knows this

25:39

or that he is considering any

25:41

great alternative. It could just be

25:43

an accident. And I feel like

25:45

that Kissinger quote is a good

25:47

place for someone who can't get

25:49

all the way to seeing Trump

25:51

the way. Some younger Americans see

25:53

him as like a genuine world

25:56

historical figure to still get to

25:58

the point of saying, okay. This

26:00

guy is playing this really noteworthy

26:03

role in history, right? The idea

26:05

that like Trump cuts through pretenses

26:07

and exposes realities like just what

26:09

we're seeing in foreign policy right

26:11

now like it is not Trump's

26:14

doing that the European Union and

26:16

Western Europe are extremely weak and

26:18

that the US wants to disentangle

26:20

and pivot to Asia. This has

26:22

been a reality of like every

26:25

presidency for the last 15 or

26:27

20 years. It's just that Trump

26:29

makes it too apparent to deny

26:31

in his sort of naked Trumpian

26:33

style and in that way at

26:36

least can be understood as a

26:38

transformative figure even by people who

26:40

will never, you know, obviously. feel

26:42

respect or admiration for him. So

26:44

Michelle now you would take us

26:47

on to the last like super

26:49

sweet question. Along with your questions

26:51

and complaints about using the words

26:53

um and like. We've also received

26:55

some really nice emails about the

26:58

conversations we've had on this show.

27:00

I like this one from Ryan.

27:02

It's a place where your listeners

27:04

can go to get their own

27:07

internal contradictions a bit clarified. Three

27:09

things the podcast has shown is

27:11

a bit of what each of

27:13

the many sides fear, as well

27:15

as hope for. And finally, how

27:18

in this tangled mess of things,

27:20

people can still sit in a

27:22

room together and try to hash

27:24

it all out. Some days, that

27:26

last part has to be hard,

27:29

like a family reunion every single

27:31

week, right? But thank you for

27:33

trying. May the rest of us

27:35

keep trying as well. This

27:38

is like retweeting praise in podcast

27:40

form, you know, but that is

27:43

very nice Ryan. Thank you. Thank

27:45

you from from all of us

27:47

I think trying is the operative

27:49

word there Don't always nail it,

27:51

but we try I think I

27:53

think we did a good job

27:55

I think it's okay to own

27:58

to own our success. I mean,

28:00

I think this is for me

28:02

the second podcast I've done at

28:04

the New York Times that has

28:06

tried to manifest into being civil

28:08

discourse between people who disagree. And

28:11

the first installment, it was sort

28:13

of formal, it was called the

28:15

argument, it had sort of a

28:17

left-right dynamic, and our conversations have

28:19

been a little more, yeah, a

28:21

little more like a family reunion

28:23

where people have differences but also

28:26

unpredictable ideas, and everyone can't be

28:28

pigeon-holed. But I think it's tremendously

28:30

important. to try to do that.

28:32

And there's just a really striking

28:34

dearth of just attempts in the

28:36

podcast space and anywhere else to

28:38

host sustained conversations between people who

28:41

really don't agree. Not like, oh,

28:43

we've got one never Trump Republican

28:45

on. to tell us how bad

28:47

Donald Trump is, right? But to,

28:49

yeah, actually get a range of

28:51

perspectives. And of course, we haven't

28:53

always succeeded, but I don't think

28:56

it's just retweeting self-praise to say

28:58

that we've done something very valuable

29:00

in having those conversations. So one

29:02

thing I'll add to this is

29:04

that being a columnist is sort

29:06

of the solitary enterprise. It's just

29:08

you and your editor and your

29:11

ideas and your reporting or your

29:13

reading. And your AI chatbot. But

29:15

actually I'm going to miss the

29:17

community that we've built not just

29:19

among the three of us, the

29:21

hosts, but with the larger audio

29:23

team, the people who behind the

29:26

scenes, the people who behind the

29:28

scenes work so hard to make

29:30

it seem like that effortless conversation

29:32

at a family reunion, right? The

29:34

producers and editors and fact checkers

29:36

and mixers and music and audience

29:38

and I mean, they're just, they're

29:41

all such pros and you'll hear

29:43

all their names in the closing

29:45

credits, but. For me, what's been

29:47

interesting too about it is that

29:49

this was, unlike Ross, this was

29:51

my first time, you know, hosting

29:53

or co-hosting a podcast. And when

29:56

you're sitting down to talk to

29:58

Michelle and Ross, you have to

30:00

be ready, right? You have to

30:02

get your acting. You've got to

30:04

get your ducks in a row.

30:06

Each week we tossed around lots

30:08

of ideas for what we're going

30:11

to discuss. Each week I would

30:13

read up to make sure I

30:15

had my own points of view

30:17

clear in my head, and I

30:19

would read what Ross and Michelle

30:21

had written or said about these

30:23

things. I learned to be flexible,

30:26

right, in ways that I don't

30:28

have to be as a columnist.

30:30

You're the ultimate authority in what

30:32

you want to write. But on

30:34

the show, sometimes we cover stuff

30:36

I cared about, I didn't know

30:38

much about. And I'd have to

30:41

like. Go read a book and

30:43

have to go get ready. And

30:45

those became great learning opportunities for

30:47

me. Yeah, Carlos, yeah, the show,

30:49

the show, the show was not

30:51

making you read books. Oh, don't

30:54

try that. Okay, okay. Be that

30:56

as it may. We made you

30:58

watch TV occasionally. We did. But

31:00

here's the thing. At first, I

31:02

would try to like inject my

31:04

columns into the podcast. But over

31:06

time, that often flipped, and I

31:09

would realize that. something that I'm

31:11

going to miss. Well, for my

31:13

part, since I did so much

31:15

on the trail reporting and traveling

31:17

during our time together. I'm not

31:19

going to lie. collect bits from

31:21

voters on the trail that I

31:24

would think, oh, I'm gonna have

31:26

to ask Ross about this, or

31:28

I can't wait till Carlos hears

31:30

this one. And I would just

31:32

put those in my pocket and

31:34

bring them back. So that was

31:36

fun for me. And like Carlos,

31:39

I operate in kind of a

31:41

solitary way a lot of the

31:43

time. So having you guys and

31:45

of course our brilliant production folks

31:47

made it. more of a conversation

31:49

just about my reporting as well

31:51

as any topics that we were

31:54

doing for the show. Yeah, one

31:56

of the things that people always

31:58

ask you when you write a

32:00

column for New York Times is,

32:02

do you guys all hang out?

32:04

And it's always... Ross lives in

32:06

the middle of nowhere. It's inevitably

32:09

the bright, shining intellectual center of

32:11

the universe, Michelle. Yes, that's where

32:13

I live. There's this inevitable disappointment

32:15

that people have when you have

32:17

to say, no, Tom Friedman, I

32:19

did not get beers last week.

32:21

No, I've never met Paul Krugman.

32:24

Do you know? I never met

32:26

Paul Krugmanman. Isn't that kind of

32:28

amazing? Anyway, all of which is

32:30

to say that podcasting has been,

32:32

I think... a way of fulfilling

32:34

what at least some readers consider

32:36

a kind of ideal vision of

32:39

how a columnist or writer for

32:41

the New York Times should be

32:43

going about their work, which is

32:45

collegially, not just in splendid isolation.

32:47

calls and I are both in

32:49

Washington, so we're going to start

32:51

on a little gang, and you

32:54

can come down and visit us

32:56

next time you're interviewing the power

32:58

brokers here. You have to have

33:00

the farewell party here, Ross. It's

33:02

actually it's going to be hosted

33:04

in the in the White House,

33:06

you know, the break room in

33:09

the break room. Before we let

33:11

move become a memory, let us

33:13

take a little break here and

33:15

we come back. We will try

33:17

one last final hot cold. And

33:39

finally, it's time for our last

33:41

hot cold. And this week, guess

33:43

what? Each of us is going

33:46

to get hot or cold. Who's

33:48

going first? I'll do it. I

33:50

want to get serious here. So

33:53

I am ice cold on the

33:55

Trump administration's efforts to undermine the

33:57

free press, as you mentioned. earlier,

33:59

hand-picking who gets to be in

34:02

the press pool covering the president,

34:04

barring the AP the most straight

34:06

down the line of media organizations

34:09

because the AP refuses to play

34:11

along with their new Orwellian version

34:13

of language and geography. And I

34:16

am hoping that Ross, in your

34:18

new capacity, you are going to

34:20

hold their feet to the fire

34:23

on some of these issues. I

34:25

know that it is an interview

34:27

show and not a straight news

34:29

show, but that's the perfect opportunity

34:32

to ask them, you know, WTF,

34:34

guys. Well, I, I, um, Michelle,

34:36

I think, you know, I'm not

34:39

going to have exactly the same

34:41

set of complaints and objections to

34:43

whatever the Trump administration does that

34:46

you would have or that Carlos

34:48

would have, but I think one

34:50

of the goals of a good

34:53

interview is to simultaneously let the

34:55

person you're interviewing make the strongest

34:57

possible case for their own ideas

35:00

or policies if they're in government,

35:02

right, and not just sort of

35:04

treat the interview as a kind

35:06

of gotcha or critique from start

35:09

to finish. But then having done

35:11

that, use that as a grounds

35:13

for having a serious and constructive

35:16

argument about issues and I've tried

35:18

to do that. I tried to

35:20

do it when I interviewed now

35:23

Vice President Vance, and we spent

35:25

a long time talking about his

35:27

policy vision and ended by arguing

35:30

about January 6th, and I imagine

35:32

that that would be the goal

35:34

in the undoubted near future when

35:37

I'm interviewing President Trump himself, who,

35:39

again, I'm sure it's going to

35:41

be right there for me as

35:43

soon as we launch. I have

35:46

great faith in you, Ross. Thank

35:48

you. My hot cold is so

35:50

much less. sort of serious than

35:53

Michelle's, but not because it's not

35:55

seriously held. I believe very strongly

35:57

about this. This is a pet

36:00

peeve of mine that I've been

36:02

quietly holding on to, but we're

36:04

at the end of the road

36:07

here, so I'm just going to

36:09

go for it. And it is about podcasting.

36:11

I listen to lots of podcasts,

36:13

and there's something that happens on

36:15

just about every podcast I hear.

36:17

I bet it has happened today,

36:19

and I just haven't pinpointed

36:22

it. But it happens especially

36:24

in these roundtable conversational type

36:26

podcasts. And that is what I think

36:28

of as the podcast. Giggle. And that

36:30

is that a person is speaking

36:32

and suddenly in the course of

36:35

speaking adds this undercurrent of

36:37

laughter. Not as an aside,

36:39

but in the course of speaking

36:41

the words. Right? Like I just

36:44

did. Now I might be talking

36:46

and suddenly right in the middle

36:48

of the sentence, I'm giggling while

36:50

I'm talking. I find this utterly

36:53

objectionable on both aesthetic grounds because

36:55

it is totally distracting, but more

36:57

so on substantive grounds because I

37:00

don't know what the podcaster is

37:02

trying to convey with the laughter.

37:04

It rarely signals something funny or

37:06

worthy of normal laughter. So I've

37:09

tried to parse the podcast's giggle

37:11

across a number of podcasts and

37:13

sometimes it seems to be embarrassment

37:15

at something that you're acknowledging about

37:18

yourself. Sometimes it's sort of

37:20

shock or disapproval at something

37:22

that is happening. Sometimes it's more

37:24

personal. It's like you're trying to

37:26

distance yourself from something that you're

37:28

proposing because it goes against yourself

37:30

image or the image you think

37:32

listeners have of you. So you're

37:34

just kind of angry yourself while

37:36

you're laughing and saying this thing.

37:38

Our editor Jordana calls it the

37:40

the podcasters like eruption of displaced

37:43

emotion. And I hate to admit it. I

37:45

have done the podcast giggle on this

37:47

show before because once I've listened to it.

37:49

I realize that I did it and it

37:51

really bothers me. And once you're aware

37:53

of it, you can't stop noticing

37:56

it? Yeah, thanks, Carlos. And it

37:58

kind of stops me every time. And

38:00

you know how weirdly now

38:02

people are reading transcripts of

38:04

podcasts? I don't get why.

38:06

That makes no sense to me,

38:08

but they are. The weird

38:10

thing is that you don't read

38:13

the giggle in the transcript. It's

38:15

not there. It's lost. And so

38:17

whatever you're trying to convey,

38:19

people aren't going to get it

38:22

anyway. So that's all I have

38:24

to say. I am cold, cold,

38:27

cold on people doing that kind

38:29

of undercurrent of giggling in

38:31

the middle of speaking during podcasts.

38:34

I read transcripts, I'm not ashamed

38:36

to admit it, without over-psychoanalyzing other

38:38

podcasters. I think that there

38:40

is a way in which we're

38:43

all encouraged to be slightly ironically

38:45

detached from our own most sincere

38:48

thoughts. I certainly find that

38:50

to be the case in my

38:52

own work in part because I

38:54

do write often for people who

38:57

disagree with me and a

38:59

little bit of ironic distance can

39:01

be sort of the spoonful of

39:04

sugar that helps the contrarian opinion

39:06

go down. I just did

39:08

it, see? I do know, I

39:11

just did it, exactly. And that's,

39:13

so I'm sure that however common

39:15

it is and whatever it expresses,

39:18

I personally participate in that

39:20

kind of deliberate distancing from one's

39:22

own opinions that is... part of

39:25

the nature of either the medium

39:27

itself or maybe just sort

39:29

of the broader era in media

39:31

where you are allowed to be

39:34

sincere I guess in expressing your

39:36

hatred of Donald Trump or

39:38

something like that but otherwise there's

39:41

always supposed to be a kind

39:43

of distancing and so I will

39:45

for my hot cold attempt

39:47

not to distance at all and

39:50

say that I am I think

39:52

warmth is the appropriate phrase rather

39:55

than heat because heat might

39:57

be misinterpreted. I feel incredible and

39:59

extraordinary warmth toward both of you.

40:02

I think I think that I

40:04

have confessed, I may have confessed

40:06

previously on the show that

40:08

I read to my children and

40:11

always struggle to control emotionality in

40:13

my voice at like really important

40:16

moments in books, like when

40:18

the writers of Rohan get to

40:20

Venus Tiris in Return of the

40:22

King. Hang on, let me just

40:25

hang on. So

40:28

I've known Michelle a long time.

40:30

Occasionally I get emails from conservative

40:33

friends and listeners saying things along

40:35

the lines of, why do you

40:37

let Michelle give you such a

40:39

hard time in that lovely southern

40:41

twang of hers? And I say,

40:43

well, I have to because she's

40:45

known me since I was literally

40:48

a child. wandering around political journalism

40:50

in Washington DC at a tender

40:52

age. Carlos, I did not know

40:54

at all, except through his incredibly

40:56

erudite book reviews, only 90% of

40:58

which are about Jimmy Carter, before

41:01

we begin doing the show. But

41:03

it's been a truly wonderful experience

41:05

getting to know you through this

41:07

extremely strange, ironically distance medium that

41:09

we're participating in Carlos. And I

41:11

am... I'm really grateful to call

41:13

you both friends and hopefully you

41:16

will continue to talk to me.

41:18

Even after I have gone out

41:20

and interviewed some Silicon Valley tycoon

41:22

who uploads my brain to the

41:24

cloud. And if I do that,

41:26

by the way, you have to

41:28

organize a force of Dominican priests

41:31

in Rome to come rescue me

41:33

from the, you know... the Tesseract

41:35

or the cloven, I guess it's

41:37

the cloven pine that Meg Murray's

41:39

father is imprisoned in in a

41:41

wrinkle in time. So on that

41:43

more dautation note, thank you both

41:46

for everything that we've, all the

41:48

conversations we've had together. It has

41:50

been an absolute pleasure. continue hearing

41:52

your conversations. And then Michelle and

41:54

I will just talk about them

41:56

behind your back. Oh no, I'm

41:58

going to call in. I'm calling

42:01

in. The real fateful thing about.

42:03

recording this episode is now I

42:05

actually have to do the show

42:07

and that's you think that I'm

42:09

expressing strong you think I'm expressing

42:11

strong emotion about my affection for

42:14

both of you but in fact

42:16

I'm just mentally coming to term

42:18

for the fact that I have

42:20

to do more interviews and it's

42:22

in this case the nervous laughter

42:24

is panic that's what the quaver

42:26

in my voice is all about

42:29

panic. Ah another eruption of displaced

42:31

emotion that's right it has been

42:33

an honor to work with both

42:35

of you. And you know what?

42:37

The world takes funny turns. We

42:39

may find ways to collaborate again.

42:41

Bonus episodes? I think so. Such

42:44

bonus. Halloween, Halloween movie discussions again.

42:46

All right, I won't say see

42:48

you next week. I'll just say

42:50

see you around. And with that,

42:52

thank you for joining our conversations.

42:54

Before we sign off, let me

42:56

remind you, stick with this feed.

42:59

There is a lot of great

43:01

stuff coming. Matter

43:12

of opinion is produced

43:14

by Andrea Betanzos, Sophia

43:16

Alvarez Boyd, and Elisa

43:19

Gutierrez. It's edited by

43:21

Jordana Hoagman. Our fact-check

43:23

team is Kate Sinclair,

43:25

Mary Marge Lager, and

43:28

Michelle Harris. Original music

43:30

by Isaac Jones, Ephim

43:32

Shapiro, Carol Sabrero, Sonia

43:34

Herrera, Aman Sajota, and

43:37

Pat McCusker. Mixing by

43:39

Pat McCusker and Carol

43:41

Sabrero. Audience Strategy by

43:43

Shannon Busta and Christina

43:45

Samulewski. And our executive

43:48

producer is Annie Rose

43:50

Strasser. I

44:09

have to tell you something because

44:12

this is my last chance and

44:14

it's weirdly apropos of today's episode.

44:16

Because after today we will never

44:18

speak again. Yeah, I'm counting on

44:20

that. So when I was little

44:22

my older sister Marilu would make

44:24

up these like awesome like worlds

44:26

that we would inhabit like these

44:28

like cinematic universes that we would

44:30

like have rolls in and play

44:32

in together the three of us.

44:34

Like there was like one of

44:37

the worlds was called Boda and

44:39

the other one was called gather

44:41

and then they had a war

44:43

and they merged and became bother.

44:45

But anyway, one of the kind

44:47

of lesser worlds was this place

44:49

called Cheapie Town. Cheapie Town. The

44:51

one thing I remember from Cheapie

44:53

Town is that it was so

44:55

cheap that if you went to

44:57

like a restaurant in Cheapie Town

44:59

and you wanted to get a

45:02

burger or a steak, you had

45:04

to go into the kitchen and

45:06

kill your own cow. The way

45:08

you knew a cow was being

45:10

killed is because you would hear

45:12

it. And you would hear the

45:14

cow say, the cow would say,

45:16

moo, moo, and then the third

45:18

moo would be, moo, right, which

45:20

was like when the death blow

45:22

was landing. Every time we have

45:24

referred to the show as moo,

45:27

part of my head always thinks

45:29

of the cow in cheapy town.

45:31

And today feels kind of like

45:33

a moo, kind of day for

45:35

the cow. This is why I

45:37

don't eat meat. Cheapie town, we'll

45:39

all move there someday.