0:02

Welcome to Macquhive Conversations with

0:05

Balal Hafiz. Macquive uses natural and artificial

0:07

intelligence to educate investors and provide action

0:09

of insights for all markets from rates

0:11

to effects to equities. For our latest

0:14

insights, visit Macquahive.com. Before I start my

0:16

conversation with this episode's guest, I have

0:18

three requests. First, please make sure to

0:21

subscribe to this podcast on Apple, Spotify,

0:23

or if you listen to podcasts, leave

0:25

some nice feedback and let your friends

0:27

know about the show. My second request

0:30

is that you sign up to a

0:32

free weekly newsletter that contains market insights

0:34

and unlocked content. You can sign up

0:37

for that at macrohive.com. Finally, and my

0:39

third request is that if you are

0:41

a professional or institutional investor, do get

0:43

in touch with me. We have a

0:46

very high-octane research and analytics offering that

0:48

includes access to our world-class research team,

0:50

trade ideas, AI models and much, much

0:53

more. You can email me at belal

0:55

at macrohive. or you can message me

0:57

on Bloomberg for more details. Now onto

0:59

this episode's guest, Gary Gersal. Gary is

1:02

a Paul Melon Professor of American

1:04

History Emeritus and Paul Melon Director of

1:06

Research at the University of Cambridge. He's

1:09

the author and editor of more than

1:11

10 books, including two prize winners, American

1:13

crucible, race and nation in the 20th

1:16

century, and liberty in coercion, the paradox

1:18

of American government from the founding to

1:20

the present. His most recent book, The

1:23

Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order,

1:25

America and the World in the Free

1:27

Market Era, was chosen as the best

1:30

book, 2022 by the Financial Times and

1:32

Prospect magazine. He's also testified before the

1:34

US Congress on immigration matters. Now

1:36

on to our conversation. So greetings Gary,

1:38

it's fantastic to have you back

1:41

on the podcast. Thank you. It's good

1:43

to be with you. It's been quite a week.

1:45

Yes, it has indeed. So we're doing

1:47

this podcast just for the reference of

1:49

our audience. It's on 7th of November,

1:51

two days after the election. So I

1:53

guess first up, so Gary, what are

1:55

your initial thoughts on the results? I

1:58

mean, it was very sort of clear.

2:00

Trump won the presidency, the Republicans

2:02

have won the Senate, very likely

2:04

they've won the House as well.

2:07

Also is likely that Trump also

2:09

won the popular vote as well,

2:11

so it seems we haven't got

2:14

final counts in California, but based

2:16

on all of that, what you'll

2:18

take. Well, with this election, Trump

2:21

becomes one of the major figures

2:23

in American political life in the

2:25

last half century, maybe the most

2:28

consequential president since Ronald Reagan. Certainly

2:30

one of the most extraordinary political

2:32

comebacks in American political history. There

2:35

was one other president who grew

2:37

over Cleveland in the 19th century

2:39

who had a term, lost his

2:42

re-election, was subsequently elected. But he

2:44

was not under indictment. He was

2:46

not a convicted felon. He did

2:49

not authorize an insurrection against the

2:51

capital building. It's an extraordinary moment.

2:53

And I say this as a

2:56

critic of Trump. I fear what's

2:58

coming. But it's also the case

3:00

that he won't have to acknowledge

3:03

his importance and power in American

3:05

politics. And this election is big

3:07

for multiple reasons, not just the

3:10

comeback, the first Republican presidential candidate

3:12

to win a majority of the

3:14

popular vote. And there's no talk

3:17

of late results from California making

3:19

his majority into a minority. So

3:21

I don't think that's going to

3:24

happen. The first. Republican candidate to

3:26

win a majority of the popular

3:28

votes since George W. Bush in

3:31

2004. And before that, the previous

3:33

Republican candidate to win a majority

3:35

of votes was George H. W.

3:38

Bush in 1988. So it's only

3:40

the third time in nearly 40

3:42

years that a Republican candidate for

3:45

president has won a majority of

3:47

the votes. And he has done

3:49

this in part, not just by.

3:52

strengthening his base but by expanding

3:54

his base in ways that Republicans

3:56

have not been able to do

3:59

and I'm thinking in particular of

4:01

his success in raising his percentage

4:03

of minority voters especially men young

4:06

men young Latinos young blacks that

4:08

he's been able to amass such

4:10

a large Latino vote is perhaps

4:13

less surprising since there is precedent

4:15

for this in the Republican Party

4:18

George W. Bush got 40% of

4:20

the Latino vote in 2004. But

4:22

the Trump's given his the frequency

4:25

of his racist vitriol and the

4:27

treatment of Kamala Harris and the

4:29

terms he used to describe her

4:32

that he and spy that would

4:34

be able to attract significant African

4:36

American support is something that people

4:39

who observes the political scene in

4:41

America are going to have to

4:43

reckon with in a in a

4:46

very serious way. And the There

4:48

were questions in the last few

4:50

weeks of his campaign. Why is

4:53

he going to New York, Madison

4:55

Square Gardens? Why is he going

4:57

to New Mexico? Why is he

5:00

going to Virginia? These are clearly

5:02

going to be blue states. But

5:04

his strategist knew what he was

5:07

doing because in each, you know,

5:09

in those states, he shrunk the

5:11

margin of votes that he was

5:14

short in relative to Biden in

5:16

2020. He's he improved his chances

5:18

in those states. This has come

5:21

as quite a shock, I think,

5:23

to the Democratic Party and suggests

5:25

that there is an element of

5:28

the Maga coalition that has become

5:30

a multi-racial working-class constituency of the

5:32

sort that the Democrats always talked

5:35

about putting together. So it's quite

5:37

a shock to see the Republican

5:39

Party begin to put something together

5:42

of this sort. So he expanded

5:44

his base on the way to

5:46

winning the popular vote. As to

5:49

what kind of president he's going

5:51

to be, we can talk about

5:53

that. The great fear among many

5:56

Americans myself included is that this

5:58

is a man who does not

6:00

know the American Constitution very well,

6:03

what he knows about it, he

6:05

does not like, he puts his

6:07

personal interests above the law, and

6:10

when the Constitution is in conflict

6:12

with what he wants for himself

6:14

and his party, and the most

6:17

shocking demonstration of that was the

6:19

January 6th, 2021. insurrection that he

6:21

authorized where a mob attacked and

6:24

invaded the people's house, the home

6:26

of representative democracy in the U.S.

6:28

that is the national legislature that

6:31

is the most sacred spot arguably

6:33

for American democracy. He has never

6:35

apologized for his role in that.

6:38

He has never admitted that he

6:40

actually lost the election. He tried

6:42

to violate clear processes of certifying

6:45

the election in order to continue

6:47

in office. Kamala Harris made that

6:49

a big part of her campaign.

6:52

This man has an unprecedented threat

6:54

to American democracy. Her final major

6:56

rally was at the ellipse, which

6:59

is where Trump outside the capital

7:01

building where Trump held the rally

7:03

that preceded the storming of the

7:06

capital on January 6th, clearly trying

7:08

to connect her campaign as a

7:10

kind of redemption against the violation.

7:13

of American democracy at that point

7:15

and the fact that despite the

7:18

effort to to frame him as

7:20

a threat to democracy, a majority

7:22

of American voters seemed either not

7:25

to believe that he was a

7:27

threat to American democracy that a

7:29

lot of the rhetoric was not

7:32

real or they simply didn't care.

7:34

And if it's the latter that

7:36

they simply didn't care, then that

7:39

is very worse and worse in

7:41

development for the future of democracy

7:43

in America. Absolutely. I mean, just

7:46

to take up a few points.

7:48

I mean, I guess what general

7:50

point is, why did... to win,

7:53

how was he able to build

7:55

that coalition? In one observation I've

7:57

seen in it. it seems to

8:00

make sense is that if you

8:02

look at all elections across the

8:04

world over the past 12 months

8:07

or even a bit longer, almost

8:09

every single incumbent, if not all,

8:11

incumbents have either lost or had

8:14

a reduced vote share than they

8:16

had before. So there is something

8:18

about the macro environment of, say,

8:21

high inflation that's affecting every country.

8:23

So in the UK, you know,

8:25

there was a change of government,

8:28

you know, the right-wing conservatives got

8:30

kicked out, labor came in, you

8:32

know, significant boat share unexpectedly, you

8:35

know, and, you know, the council

8:37

goes on, you know, macquarie sort

8:39

of lost to the right. So

8:42

it seems like every single incumbent

8:44

has lost. So, you know, is

8:46

there just generally something in the

8:49

broader proper high inflation and unease

8:51

around that that is just attacking

8:53

every incumbent around the world and

8:56

the reason I bring this up

8:58

is you know there's a lot

9:00

of focus on you know was

9:03

there some errors by the Democrats

9:05

in how they executed their sort

9:07

of campaign you know should Biden

9:10

have stepped down earlier or later

9:12

or you know, is Trump such

9:14

a good, is he able to

9:17

reach segments of the population that

9:19

others can't for appearing on podcast

9:21

and so on? Everyone's trying to

9:24

find the way specific reasons why

9:26

he's done so well, but could

9:28

also just be just the general

9:31

backdrop is such that it's very

9:33

hard for an incumbent to retain

9:35

power. I think that's true. The

9:38

inflation is a very bad time

9:40

for incumbents and the inflationary surge

9:42

was accompanied and in some respects

9:45

fueled by the COVID crisis, which

9:47

was not discussed much during the

9:49

campaign, but the dislocations of COVID

9:52

have been profound. And some of

9:54

the trauma for that is ongoing.

9:56

A million Americans died because of

9:59

COVID. Their deaths are not being

10:01

talked about. The entire economy shut

10:03

down. Children were home from school

10:06

for a year. People were stuck

10:08

in their homes. Normal life as

10:11

we knew it simply stopped. Then

10:13

extraordinary measures were taken to secure

10:15

the economy and to secure public

10:18

health. And that was a difficult

10:20

thing to do well. And any

10:22

governing party that was in power

10:25

during COVID or almost everyone has,

10:27

if there were elections, they were

10:29

punished for things that people felt

10:32

uncomfortable about. So from that point

10:34

of view, you could say, not

10:36

too much to be written into

10:39

this. If he doesn't do well,

10:41

he'll be thrown out of office

10:43

and... four years. The Democrats will

10:46

come back and they didn't worry

10:48

that much. But here is where

10:50

we come across the exceptional nature

10:53

of Trump, which is that he

10:55

has demonstrated that he can only

10:57

accept elections that he wins and

11:00

when he loses an election, he

11:02

can't accept that. That was broad

11:04

knowledge. So we have to weigh

11:07

the extraordinary nature of his character

11:09

against the what we might call

11:11

the what we might call the

11:14

ordinary reaction to an inflationary surge

11:16

in a time of COVID trauma

11:18

and crisis. I think in retrospect

11:21

there's no doubt that Biden should

11:23

not have run again and that

11:25

the decision should have been made

11:28

a lot sooner. I think Kamala

11:30

Harris ran about as good a

11:32

campaign as she could have run

11:35

in the short period of time

11:37

that she had available to her,

11:39

but she was in a very

11:42

difficult situation. She wanted to pose

11:44

as a challenger, but she was

11:46

inevitably tied to Biden. I think

11:49

if Biden had elected earlier not

11:51

to run again, if there had

11:53

been a regular primary season where

11:56

Kamala Harris could have tested herself

11:58

against other Democratic Party candidates, and

12:00

there's quite a deep bench now

12:03

on the Democratic Party side, I

12:05

think that would have been good

12:07

for her. I think it would

12:10

have been good for the party.

12:12

It would have showcased her to

12:14

the American people for a much

12:17

longer period of time. That would

12:19

have helped. It may still not

12:21

have been enough to... overcome Trump,

12:24

but I would say there's no

12:26

doubt that Biden's late leaving of

12:28

the campaign forced the Democrats to

12:31

scramble and intensified their predicament in

12:33

ways that was not helpful. The

12:35

economy was one big issue. Immigration

12:38

was a very second big issue.

12:40

And here, what should not be

12:42

overlooked is... the role of Republican

12:45

governors in the southern states and

12:47

nationalizing the issue, DeSantis in Florida

12:49

and Abbott in Texas, who were

12:52

on the front lines of the

12:54

border crisis. And they said, I

12:56

can't remember how long ago it

12:59

was, maybe two years ago, that

13:01

we're going to start shipping people

13:03

who come across the border to

13:06

the northern states, and they began

13:08

doing this in large numbers. people

13:11

here in Boston, I'm close to

13:13

Boston right now, New York City,

13:15

Chicago. And what they were doing

13:18

was nationalizing the problem of immigration.

13:20

Many of these asylum seekers and

13:22

the law says that if your

13:25

request to have an asylum hearing

13:27

is approved, you can say in

13:29

the United States until that hearing

13:32

occurs. Well, hearing, people are waiting

13:34

for hearings now for four or

13:36

five years. It's one thing when

13:39

that... demographic reality is confined to

13:41

the southern states far away from

13:43

many other places. It's another thing

13:46

when the difficulty of managing this

13:48

situation penetrates the northern states, penetrates

13:50

the northern cities in a way

13:53

that brings this to the attention

13:55

of the entire public. And I

13:57

think it was very shrewd move

14:00

on the part of these Republican

14:02

governors. In part, they were saying

14:04

we just don't want to pay

14:07

for this anymore. But in part,

14:09

they were saying it's not just

14:11

our problem, it's your problem. And

14:14

if you want to support this

14:16

immigration system, we're going to make

14:18

you confirm. the problem in ways

14:21

that we are. So the next

14:23

explanation of that, there was a

14:25

failure by the Democrat government, you

14:28

know, the central, the federal, you

14:30

know, by the government to deal

14:32

with immigration policy that it became

14:35

nationalized in that way. Or is

14:37

it really for the states to

14:39

deal with it? Well, what does

14:42

a good progressive immigration policy look

14:44

like in this era of climate

14:46

crisis? The Trump administration had been

14:49

brutal on migrants, putting many of

14:51

them in camps separating. children from

14:53

parents in ways in ways that

14:56

were horrific. And the Democrats responded

14:58

to that when they came into

15:00

office by saying, we're not going

15:03

to engage in this inhumane behavior.

15:05

We're going to have many more

15:07

orderly processes. We're going to suffuse

15:10

humanitarianism into our immigration policy. And

15:12

the numbers of migrants then increased

15:14

very significantly. In retrospect, it's a

15:17

difficult issue for progressives to deal

15:19

with because how do you balance

15:21

humanitarianism and the extraordinary struggles that

15:24

these migrant individuals and families make

15:26

to reach the United States their

15:28

search for a better life. A

15:31

humanitarian response to migrations for reasons

15:33

of economic hardship or political or

15:35

religious persecution. That has been a

15:38

powerful part of progressive politics for

15:40

a long time. But in this

15:42

world of climate crisis, when there's

15:45

so many refugees in the world,

15:47

where there's so many people who

15:49

can no longer live where they

15:52

live because their land is disappearing

15:54

underwater or they live in regions

15:56

of the world where what had

15:59

been a subsistence agriculture no longer

16:01

supports them, many many more people

16:04

on the move. And this is

16:06

only going to continue to intensify

16:08

to intensify. over the next 20

16:11

to 30 years as the climate

16:13

crisis worsens. So it's understandable that.

16:15

the Democrats were slow to respond,

16:18

but I don't think they anticipated

16:20

it was going to hurt them

16:22

as much as it has. And

16:25

one of the biggest drivers of

16:27

right wing politics everywhere right now

16:29

is the migration issue. It's certainly

16:32

true of Britain. It's certainly true

16:34

of Europe. And the progressive forces

16:36

in these societies haven't come up

16:39

with a policy that both has

16:41

a humanitarian element and also doesn't

16:43

profoundly upset the people already in

16:46

the country who are struggling for

16:48

their own economic sustenance and opportunity

16:50

and mobility under difficult circumstances and

16:53

for whom the migration into their

16:55

country is perceived as a real

16:57

threat how progressive parties labor parties

17:00

democratic party handles that issue remains

17:02

up for grabs and it's understandable

17:04

why the democratic party was slow

17:07

to respond. and slow to pick

17:09

up the threat to their political

17:11

future. And so this became a

17:14

huge issue in the election. Now

17:16

one of the things I'm thinking

17:18

now ahead to what types of

17:21

policies will Trump implement, you know,

17:23

some of them seem to be

17:25

a rehash from the 2016 period,

17:28

tax cuts, for example, on the

17:30

economic side, tariffs. you know, which

17:32

will kind of more extensive tariffs

17:35

on the world, you know, we'll

17:37

see if he follows through on

17:39

that. But another one is mass

17:42

deportations, which was something he's repeated

17:44

at every single rally. So it

17:46

seems like it's it's something that

17:49

he will try to implement. So,

17:51

but a scale he's talked about

17:53

is, is, is extremely large. Now,

17:56

How do you interpret that? Because

17:58

obviously Trump is, you know, tends

18:00

to upsize everything that he talks

18:03

about, but at the same time

18:05

it does seem to be something

18:07

that's a cool, you know, cool

18:10

belief of his. So something like

18:12

deportations, you know, number one, is

18:14

he able to do that? I

18:17

mean, as president and so on,

18:19

you know, can you do that?

18:21

How do you go about doing

18:24

that? And do you think the

18:26

scale that he's talked about Israelis,

18:28

is that possible? Is it possible?

18:31

I think we have to take

18:33

him at his word because of

18:35

his policies when he was in

18:38

office. It's hard to imagine him

18:40

accomplishing the scale of deportation that

18:42

he has promised, not just because

18:45

on a logistical level, it would

18:47

be extraordinarily difficult to pull off,

18:49

but because... The labor that these

18:52

people do in the American economy

18:54

is has been very very important

18:56

and quite apart from the treatment

18:59

of migrants that may deeply upset

19:01

Labor markets employment patterns Become another

19:04

source of inflationary pressure, but he

19:06

he's gonna have the Senate. It

19:08

looks likely that he's gonna have

19:11

the house. He has a lot

19:13

of tools at his disposal and

19:15

I think 25 to 27 when

19:18

he had, if he gets majority,

19:20

because in both houses of Congress,

19:22

he's going to be able to

19:25

undertake that level of deportation, if

19:27

he wants to. It's probably going

19:29

to involve the military, which has

19:32

not been used in deportations before

19:34

or very infrequently. It's a very

19:36

scary scenario. Some people say, and

19:39

some Trump supporters say, That's just

19:41

his rhetoric, which is always greater

19:43

than his actions. One has to

19:46

hope that if there are deportations,

19:48

as I expect there will be,

19:50

they'll be much smaller a number

19:53

than what he's advertising. Just as

19:55

in the case of building the

19:57

wall, he built a lot lists

20:00

of the wall that he promised,

20:02

but he has someone who is

20:04

ideologically deeply committed to this, who's

20:07

going to be involved in this,

20:09

that Stephen Miller. who was a

20:11

key aide of his in the

20:14

first administration and if anything his

20:16

anti-immigrant. demeanor and diatribe has only

20:18

grown stronger and he was a

20:21

speaker at the Madison Square Garden

20:23

rally, the one that attracted so

20:25

much attention. And Madison Square Garden

20:28

rally was meant to mimic a

20:30

rally held by the American Bund,

20:32

a pro-Nazi organization in the 1930s

20:35

in America. And I'll be damned

20:37

if Stephen Miller didn't strike a

20:39

pose that meant to make him

20:42

look like Joseph Gerbels. Minister of

20:44

propaganda in Nazi Germany. So he's

20:46

going to be pushing for extreme

20:49

measures. And we have to be

20:51

prepared that that is going to

20:53

become an important part of his

20:56

policy. He's talked about it so

20:58

much. He's going to have to

21:00

attempt to do it. And historically,

21:03

have there been any precedence of

21:05

this kind, you know, attempts to,

21:07

you know, do mass deportations like

21:10

this? Well, in the 1930s, a

21:12

half million Mexicans were deported from

21:14

the United States, and that was

21:17

under a democratic administration. Also, in

21:19

1924, the U.S. Past Immigration restriction

21:21

act that was blatantly racist, to

21:24

basically said, if you're not from

21:26

these four countries in Western Europe,

21:28

Great Britain, Ireland, Germany, as a

21:31

country, if you're not from one

21:33

of these four countries, you have

21:35

no chance of getting into the

21:38

United States. And that law actually

21:40

remained on the books until the

21:42

1960s. So from that point on

21:45

150,000 people were allowed to come

21:47

into the United States a year

21:49

and though those 150,000, 120,000 slots

21:52

were reserved basically for these immigrants

21:54

from these four countries who were

21:57

seen as being white, civilized. Decimalable.

22:00

So yes, there's and that was 100

22:02

years ago. And so yes, there

22:04

is ample precedent for having deeply

22:06

racially inflected immigration

22:08

laws. Historically, two

22:10

immigration laws have not been

22:12

protected by the US Constitution.

22:15

They've not been protected by

22:17

the 14th Amendment because

22:19

immigration is thought to lie within

22:21

the realm of foreign policy and

22:24

the Constitution does not apply questions

22:26

for foreign policy. So Congress

22:28

and the so the Trump could

22:30

not pass this legislation obviously

22:33

by himself. He wouldn't be

22:35

the support of Congress to

22:37

do this, but they have the ability

22:39

to do this without having to worry

22:41

about the 14th Amendment blocking

22:44

them in this endeavor. When

22:46

he took some actions in

22:48

the first administration to deport

22:50

people and act a Muslim ban, so

22:52

on and so forth, there was... had

22:55

a massive resistance spun. spontaneous

22:58

protests, airports being blocked.

23:00

And that will happen again

23:02

if he undertakes those policies.

23:04

But he has also become much

23:06

more sophisticated in his

23:08

sense of how to govern. He

23:11

had no experience in public administration

23:13

before he became president the

23:15

last time he had no

23:18

idea how to execute a policy, who

23:20

to hire, who to surround himself

23:22

with. And now he's much more

23:24

skilled and effective at that and

23:26

there are people who have been waiting

23:28

to do his bidding and to put his

23:30

words into action and that was not

23:33

the case in his first administration.

23:35

Actually that goes on to this

23:37

yeah a larger question then I mean

23:39

how do you think this administration will

23:41

be different from his first one so

23:43

it sounds like he has more experience

23:46

so his abilities to execute on policy

23:48

will be better than before. I mean

23:50

just just on that One of the

23:52

things we did see in the first

23:55

administration was the incredibly high turnover of

23:57

staff. So, you know, will that potentially...

24:00

be something that could affect this

24:02

experience that in the end

24:04

he just can't keep a

24:06

team together and so you

24:08

know that is faithful flaw

24:10

to some extent in terms

24:12

of execution. Yes that's that's

24:14

the hopeful scenario that his

24:16

chaos will overwhelm whatever legislative

24:18

designs he has. The more

24:20

pessimistic scenario is he relied

24:22

on a lot of professionals

24:24

and finance at the treasury.

24:26

in the military, people with

24:28

long careers in those sectors

24:30

of the economy or the

24:32

administration. And they supplied important

24:34

guardrails when they told him

24:36

when he was exceeding his

24:38

power as president or doing

24:40

something illegally. They told him

24:42

so or they told him

24:44

one thing and then did

24:46

another. Most of those people

24:48

end up either leaving the

24:50

administration of their own volition

24:52

because they decided they couldn't

24:54

work for Trump any longer

24:56

or they got booted out.

24:58

They got fired by Trump.

25:00

I think there's a group

25:02

of people now who are

25:05

much more willing to do

25:07

what he wants. And so

25:09

I think there are going

25:11

to be fewer guardrails in

25:13

place. He also has a

25:15

Supreme Court much more to

25:17

his liking than was the

25:19

case when he first became

25:21

president. And in the case

25:23

of a Trump presidency, the

25:25

recent Supreme Court ruling that

25:27

gives him almost complete presidential

25:29

immunity for whatever he does.

25:31

is a very scary scenario

25:33

for his second term. The

25:35

Supreme Court did not have

25:37

to give him that level

25:39

or degree of immunity, but

25:41

it's going to embolden him

25:43

further, and it's got to

25:45

give him confidence that anyone

25:47

brings a suit against him

25:49

or illegal actions, that when

25:51

it goes to the Supreme

25:53

Court, they will rule in

25:55

his favor. So I think

25:57

there are my worry is

25:59

that there are many fewer

26:01

guardrails in place that combined

26:03

with as much. greater experience,

26:05

much greater knowledge of how

26:07

to operate a government, suggests

26:09

that he's going to be

26:11

more successful at accomplishing what

26:13

he wants to accomplish. Now,

26:15

if he is limited, I

26:17

think it's going to be

26:19

because there are divisions within

26:21

the ranks of the Republican

26:23

Party about what the path

26:25

forward ought to be. On

26:28

one side, Jay-D Vance is

26:30

an example of that. You

26:32

have a group of Republicans

26:34

and they're particularly strong in

26:36

the Senate who won a

26:38

genuine populism as opposed to

26:40

a false populism associated with

26:42

Trump by false populism. I

26:44

mean, the rhetoric is there,

26:46

but the substance is not.

26:48

JD Vance in his acceptance

26:50

speech as vice president talked

26:52

about putting Main Street over

26:54

Wall Street, making wages more

26:56

important than profits, curbing the

26:58

autonomy of the financial sector,

27:00

curbing the power of the

27:02

banks. reassuring manufacturing, high tariffs

27:04

to protect the wages of

27:06

American workers. In terms of

27:08

his details, this is a

27:10

much more genuine populism than

27:12

what Trump left to his

27:14

own devices would deliver. For

27:16

him, I think populism is

27:18

mostly performance. Vance and other

27:20

people like Josh Hawley, Tom

27:22

Cotton, are concerned about the

27:24

welfare of American workers. the

27:26

ability of men to support

27:28

their families, the recognition they

27:30

need good wages, they need

27:32

social security, they need good

27:34

benefits, things have to be

27:36

done to address the opioid

27:38

epidemic. This is one vision

27:40

of the Trump movement. And

27:42

then there's the other vision

27:44

of what the Trump movement

27:46

represents. And this is embodied,

27:48

I think, in a figure

27:51

like Elon Musk, who is

27:53

now moved. quite to the

27:55

center of the Trump campaign.

27:57

probably is going to be

27:59

at the center of the

28:01

Trump administration. And in Musk,

28:03

I see unbounded executive power

28:05

combined with unbounded personal freedom.

28:07

An executive not bound by

28:09

Congress, not subject really to

28:11

democratic oversight, Peter Thiel, who

28:13

is another Silicon Valley figure,

28:15

has said explicitly that democracy

28:17

as the system has failed

28:19

and that for the sake

28:21

of securing personal freedom, radical

28:23

form of libertarianism. We need

28:25

to dispense with democracy. And

28:27

if that means imbuing the

28:29

president with monarch-like powers to

28:31

get things done, so be

28:33

it. Now what's interesting about

28:35

JD Vance is that on

28:37

the one hand, he's a

28:39

populist, talking about putting Main

28:41

Street over Wall Street. On

28:43

the other hand, Peter Thiel

28:45

bankrolled his run for the

28:47

Senate. He spent time and

28:49

as a venture capitalist on

28:51

the West Coast. He's connected

28:53

to these people. This division,

28:55

I think, is going to

28:57

become sharper within the Republican

28:59

Party. And that division will

29:01

be interesting and important to

29:03

watch, because I don't think

29:05

Trump is deeply ideologically committed

29:07

to either side of this,

29:09

but he's going to be

29:12

important in terms of settling

29:14

differences, choosing one side or

29:16

the other, or simply in...

29:18

failing to coordinate the two

29:20

parts of the Republican Party

29:22

and thus sewing a new

29:24

vein of chaos within it.

29:26

So that is a division

29:28

within the Republican Party that

29:30

is worth watching and paying

29:32

attention to. And the fact

29:34

that JD Vance has a

29:36

foot in both camps is

29:38

a nice illustration about how

29:40

the Republican Party is is

29:42

itself divided on this issue.

29:44

Yeah. I was going to

29:46

say, you know, one of

29:48

the... things about the US

29:50

system has been that, you

29:52

know, people have talked about

29:54

reforming things for decades, the

29:56

health care system. the size

29:58

of the state, you know,

30:00

regulation, too much regulation, all

30:02

these sorts of things, but

30:04

it seems very hard to

30:06

change things. And so obviously,

30:08

nature of the US is,

30:10

you know, the federal system,

30:12

there's checks and balances and

30:14

so on, which slows things

30:16

down. So, you know, to

30:18

play devil's advocate here, if

30:20

one was to have more

30:22

of this unitary executive power.

30:24

and one uses that to

30:26

execute on the JD Vance

30:28

populist policy, you know, help

30:30

the working class, help Main

30:32

Street, you know, perhaps that's

30:35

what's needed now to... you

30:37

know, create a change in

30:39

the system, you know, which

30:41

is kind of underlying populism

30:43

at some level, you know,

30:45

people are just unhappy with

30:47

the system. They feel it's

30:49

worked against them. And so

30:51

there could be something here

30:53

around, okay, let's let's reboot

30:55

the system, so to speak,

30:57

to use the sort of

30:59

parlance of these tech type

31:01

people. So, you know, is

31:03

that the possibility? There are

31:05

people who say the political

31:07

system has to be shaken

31:09

up in a profound way

31:11

because the forces of resistance

31:13

are simply too great. The

31:15

inertia of bureaucracy can't be

31:17

conquered. And if we bruise

31:19

people along the way and

31:21

if we create a trail

31:23

of destruction, that may be

31:25

necessary in order to get

31:27

to a better place. I

31:29

think there are certainly people

31:31

who in the around Trump

31:33

who believe that and that

31:35

the only way forward is

31:37

to do that. And they

31:39

see Trump as an instrument

31:41

of that, that you have

31:43

to have a man like

31:45

this, so scoffing of rules

31:47

and regulations and willing to

31:49

break to quorum, mores, norms.

31:51

We don't like what he's

31:53

doing at a certain level.

31:56

We wouldn't want him to

31:58

have him in our family.

32:00

But for the sake of

32:02

getting the economic system moving

32:04

again, we need a figure

32:06

like that. to do that

32:08

in a private company, kind

32:10

of blow things up. It's

32:12

another thing to do it

32:14

in a very complex political

32:16

system that constitutionally is designed

32:18

to frustrate precisely those sorts

32:20

of actions. And the worrisome

32:22

part of that is that

32:24

you get in, you begin

32:26

destroying things, and then a

32:28

democratic system that has had

32:30

remarkable stability for more than

32:32

200 years breaks apart and

32:34

once it breaks apart it

32:36

is not easy to put

32:38

together again. I think also

32:40

is kind of ironic that

32:42

the US political system was

32:44

built in response to not

32:46

having the monarchies of Europe.

32:48

And so it's kind of

32:50

coming full circle now to

32:52

say hang on we actually

32:54

need to have a monarchy

32:56

monarchal powers in order to

32:58

fix the system. So there

33:00

is this kind of paradox

33:02

here. Yes, yes, there's most

33:04

definitely a paradox along those

33:06

lines. And here's an example

33:08

where things could go horribly

33:10

wrong. Trump is clearly frustrated

33:12

that the fact that there's

33:14

a civil service, the government

33:16

is staffed by bureaucrats who

33:19

are not political appointees, and

33:21

they have been doing things

33:23

a certain way, and they

33:25

are not susceptible to his

33:27

will, and he wants to

33:29

break this apart. And he

33:31

wants to put in place.

33:33

Loyalists, people are going to

33:35

execute his will, his decree,

33:37

his executive orders, his legislation.

33:39

Well, the United States once

33:41

had a system like that.

33:43

It was called the spoil

33:45

system. To the victor goes,

33:47

the spoils. The person who

33:49

started this was Andrew Jackson

33:51

in the late 1820s, and

33:53

he staffed the government with

33:55

political appointees, who they were

33:57

people who worked on his

33:59

campaign, who were loyal to

34:01

him. who were pledged to

34:03

execute his will. didn't execute

34:05

his will, they could be

34:07

fired at any moment of

34:09

the day or night. They

34:11

had no protections. And in

34:13

the late 19th century, the

34:15

US government decides this is

34:17

so an effective way of

34:19

running a government that we

34:21

have to get rid of

34:23

this system. And there are

34:25

civil service reform acts that

34:27

protect civil servants from this

34:29

kind of power wielded by.

34:31

the executive. And Britain is

34:33

an example of a really

34:35

strong civil service, right? And

34:37

I know people get frustrated

34:40

with it because they don't

34:42

bow easily to the will

34:44

of prime ministers. But there's

34:46

virtue in that too. So

34:48

the question is, can you

34:50

find a way to shake

34:52

things up without breaking things?

34:54

And I've seen what Elon

34:56

Musk has done to Twitter.

34:58

And that's not an encouraging

35:00

sign or... him using that

35:02

kind of power to break

35:04

up the federal government and

35:06

give it an entirely new

35:08

character. Yeah, no, I mean,

35:10

I think there's a whole

35:12

different arrangement and a private

35:14

company is very different from

35:16

running a large, you know,

35:18

government where it has, you

35:20

need to compromise, you can't

35:22

just be shut off full.

35:24

two weeks and you can

35:26

shut it down and start

35:28

up a new company, it's

35:30

a whole sort of different

35:32

environment. A question I did

35:34

want to ask is just

35:36

coming back to this idea

35:38

that, you know, Trump's the,

35:40

you know, the contrarian, he's

35:42

trying to sort of change

35:44

the system and all of

35:46

these sorts of things. Of

35:48

course, the US has had

35:50

in our previous conversations, we've

35:52

talked about this. you know

35:54

what allowed those two presidents

35:56

to change the system or

35:58

create kind of a new

36:00

regime you know for that

36:03

last did you know an

36:05

era after that and how

36:07

does that compare to what

36:09

you see in Trump and

36:11

how does the Trump way

36:13

of doing things have the

36:15

ingredients for creating a kind

36:17

of a new era, a

36:19

new regime? Well, these previous

36:21

two moments of upheaval occurred

36:23

in moments of economic crisis

36:25

more severe than what is

36:27

going on in the US

36:29

now, the Great Depression in

36:31

the 1930s, the combination of

36:33

great inflation and great recession

36:35

in the in the 1970s

36:37

made it impossible for those

36:39

who were in power. elected

36:41

officials to continue governing in

36:43

a effective manner. So the

36:45

Republicans got thrown out by

36:47

were defeated by FDR and

36:49

the Democrats were defeated by

36:51

by Reagan. Now, it may

36:53

be that we are seeing

36:55

under Trump the birth of

36:57

a new political order and

36:59

that the in some ways

37:01

it is related to the

37:03

economic crisis, the financial crisis

37:05

of 2008, 2009. It takes

37:07

a while for these political

37:09

orders to develop what they

37:11

need, constituencies, think tanks, policy

37:13

makers, a strong narrative about

37:15

delivering to America a good

37:17

life, a general capable of

37:19

holding all these things together,

37:21

since in a country as

37:23

large as America, with two

37:26

parties that by necessity have

37:28

to have diverse constituencies, someone

37:30

who can hold everybody together.

37:32

So there's a way of

37:34

looking at this moment and

37:36

saying what we're seeing now

37:38

is the third political order

37:40

of the last hundred years

37:42

take shape. And for an

37:44

order to cohere, you need

37:46

a leader of extraordinary charisma

37:48

and strength to hold all

37:50

the pieces together once they

37:52

are in place. And Trump

37:54

is a figure of extraordinary

37:56

charisma and personal magnetism. Power

37:58

so we may be seeing

38:00

something of the transformations that

38:02

occurred earlier. The difference with

38:04

Trump is that if he, is that

38:06

he will exceed the rule of law,

38:09

that he will violate the

38:11

Constitution, that he will injure

38:13

and undermine American democracy.

38:15

Now certain of these

38:18

accusations were thrown

38:20

at Franklin Roosevelt himself.

38:22

He was the first and

38:24

only president to serve more

38:27

than two terms of more than two

38:29

terms. a constitutional amendment

38:31

was passed after his presidency

38:33

to say no one considered more

38:36

than two terms in the future.

38:38

He was seeing as grabbing a

38:40

degree of executive power that was

38:42

thought to be by the

38:44

Republican opposition illegitimate. The court

38:47

was against him and so

38:49

he talked openly about packing

38:51

the Supreme Court appointing one

38:54

additional justice for... every Supreme

38:56

Court justice who was 70 years

38:58

as or older, a blatant effort

39:00

to bend the court to his

39:02

own liking. It turned out to

39:04

be a very unpopular move. And

39:07

so he was accused by his

39:09

opponents of being too dictatorial and

39:11

asking too much power in the

39:13

executive branch. You could say that's

39:16

a kind of precedent for Trump.

39:18

But here I come back to

39:20

January 6, 2021. Roosevelt, if he

39:22

had lost, would not have challenged.

39:25

the results of the

39:27

election. No one has challenged

39:29

it as Trump has.

39:31

Reagan would not have

39:34

challenged the election outcome

39:36

the way that Trump has.

39:39

So there's, so one can

39:41

see elements of a political

39:44

order taking shape and

39:46

it's now interesting

39:48

for me to think that

39:50

after a decade of

39:52

volatility Certain characteristics of

39:55

this political order

39:57

economically socially are becoming

39:59

clear. danger is that in

40:01

the process of putting a

40:04

new political order into effect,

40:06

he will, Trump will alter

40:08

the nature of America's democratic

40:10

regime. And no previous president

40:12

has done that. And so

40:14

this would mark Trump as

40:17

singular and as unique and

40:19

posing a greater danger to

40:21

the Republican-American democracy than any

40:23

of his predecessors predecessors. Well,

40:25

according to the Constitution, this

40:28

is the last term of

40:30

Trump, assuming he will step

40:32

down. I mean, what do

40:34

you think will happen after

40:36

Trump, the Republican Party? Because

40:38

presumably, J.D. Vance seems to

40:41

be the heir apparent. So

40:43

presumably, halfway through Trump's term,

40:45

J. D. Vance will start

40:47

to become the ascendances as

40:49

he starts to Jockey, you

40:52

know, position himself as the

40:54

next leader of the Republican

40:56

Party. So I mean, how

40:58

do you think that that

41:00

transition will happen and then,

41:02

you know, can, you know,

41:05

how much of what's happened

41:07

to the Republican Party is

41:09

Trumpism and how much is

41:11

the new Republican Party that

41:13

will be carried on by

41:15

say JD Vance, you know,

41:18

afterwards? Well, to go back

41:20

to where we began, if

41:22

this is just people being

41:24

angry about experience of inflation,

41:26

the high prices are not

41:29

going away, but they... But

41:31

if the prices don't go

41:33

any higher and incomes begin

41:35

to rise as has begun

41:37

to happen in the US,

41:39

if inflation is taken off

41:42

the table, for example, or

41:44

if Trump inflames inflation by

41:46

imposing 20% tariffs on all

41:48

goods coming into the United

41:50

States, then we may be

41:53

talking about a democratic presidency

41:55

and administration in 2028 and

41:57

the resumption of a kind

41:59

of bidenomics. On the other

42:01

hand, if the Trump administration

42:03

is economically and politically successful,

42:06

Then we are talking about

42:08

jade events as an error

42:10

apparent and the question then

42:12

becomes which jade events are

42:14

we going to get? Are

42:17

we going to get the

42:19

Elon Musk jade events who

42:21

wants an all power powerful

42:23

executive and untrammeled personal freedom

42:25

or are we going to

42:27

get the populist jade events

42:30

who wants to put Main

42:32

Street and working class Americans

42:34

back to their rightful place

42:36

in American life? The first

42:38

option we get a kind

42:41

of rogue neoliberalism and in

42:43

the second case we get

42:45

an interesting experiment in populism

42:47

built on a multi racial

42:49

working class base that was

42:51

once thought to be the

42:54

property of Democrats and now

42:56

is being reborn in the

42:58

in the Republican Party. Trumpism

43:00

certainly won't die with Trump

43:02

in terms of this Question

43:04

is, can anyone hold this

43:07

coalition together as effectively as

43:09

Trump has done? He's in

43:11

his own way a brilliant

43:13

politician. And we've seen people

43:15

who adopt his policies. I

43:18

think there are even moments

43:20

where J.D. Vance tries to

43:22

walk like Trump. Doesn't work.

43:24

Didn't work for DeSantis. Won't

43:26

work for the same way

43:28

with regard to J. So

43:31

I don't know who actually

43:33

inherits the mantle of Trumpism,

43:35

and it may not be

43:37

as effective a political message

43:39

once Trump is no longer

43:42

the messenger. But if on

43:44

the other hand, certain principles

43:46

of Trumpism are well established

43:48

by 2028, a relative withdrawal

43:50

of US from Europe and

43:52

world affairs, protectionism, an effort

43:55

to emphasize manufacturing a nation

43:57

with much more restrict. immigration

43:59

laws designed to produce a

44:01

certain kind of American. If

44:03

those are well enough established

44:06

in the next four years,

44:08

then we are beginning to

44:10

talk about this order and

44:12

during for a longer period

44:14

of time. And once the

44:16

contours of an order are

44:19

established, reliable constituencies, policies that

44:21

are agreed to. policies that

44:23

compel the opposition to partake

44:25

of those policies. In this

44:27

way, it's interesting to see

44:29

that the Democrats have come

44:32

around to the Republican position

44:34

on immigration, for example. If

44:36

this political order takes root,

44:38

then one can easily imagine

44:40

the order surviving Trump, even

44:43

if the leader of this

44:45

order does not have Trump's

44:47

charisma or ability to excite

44:49

electrodes. And just finally just

44:51

round off, what is what's

44:53

going to happen to the

44:56

Democrat party after this, after

44:58

Trump's resounding victory? Well, it's

45:00

a big victory. We still

45:02

have to decide whether it's

45:04

resounding or not, because I

45:07

think the current estimation is

45:09

that if it wouldn't have

45:11

taken... that many votes to

45:13

have changed hands for Harris

45:15

to have won maybe 200,000,

45:17

which out of the numbers

45:20

of votes cast is not

45:22

as many. Now, in that

45:24

situation, she would have lost

45:26

the popular vote and won

45:28

the electoral college, which would

45:31

have been quite a switch.

45:33

And it would have been

45:35

it would be interesting to

45:37

see how that would have

45:39

unfolded. I think the Democrats

45:41

have to. If they want

45:44

to continue to be the

45:46

party of the working class,

45:48

they have to expand their

45:50

appeal to the working class.

45:52

And so that's going to

45:55

require a period of reflection.

45:57

about what went wrong and

45:59

a reflection on what went

46:01

wrong that goes beyond saying

46:03

it's all Biden's fault if

46:05

he had dropped out six

46:08

months or nine months earlier.

46:10

Kamala Harris or another Democratic

46:12

nominee would be entering the

46:14

White House in January. The

46:16

rethinking has to go beyond

46:18

that. took a risk by

46:21

appealing to working class minority

46:23

voters, especially young men. That

46:25

probably succeeded his wildest expectations

46:27

in terms of developing a

46:29

new constituency. The equivalent bet

46:32

that the Democrats made was

46:34

as much a failure as

46:36

trumps was a success. Their

46:38

bet was that they were

46:40

going to appeal to suburban

46:42

Republican women. who have a

46:45

deep commitment to the Republican

46:47

Party, but are extraordinarily upset

46:49

about the abortion issue and

46:51

losing reproductive rights. So they

46:53

made a very conscious and

46:56

deliberate appeal to these women

46:58

built on the success in

47:00

2022 that Democrats had in

47:02

multiple states of punishing Republicans

47:04

who were two militantly anti-abortion

47:06

and also successful, including in

47:09

red states, getting protection of

47:11

abortion rights, either put into

47:13

the Constitution or put the

47:15

state constitution or put through

47:17

state legislation. So what happened

47:20

in this election? Republican women

47:22

voted and in I think

47:24

four states succeeded either passing

47:26

legislation to support reproductive freedom

47:28

or installing it into their

47:30

state constitutions. So they supported

47:33

the abortion issue and then

47:35

they went further down the

47:37

ballot and voted for Donald

47:39

Trump. And so the. Democrats

47:41

barely did better among this

47:43

group than Biden had done

47:46

in 2020. And so they

47:48

have to reflect on why

47:50

they got that wrong and

47:52

what they have to do

47:54

to broaden the democratic tense

47:57

so that they can restore

47:59

themselves to being the majority

48:01

party in America. There are

48:03

interesting intersections between Democratic Party

48:05

politics and Republican Party politics.

48:07

It's not just on immigration,

48:10

where we're probably going to

48:12

get a bill early in

48:14

the Trump administration that was

48:16

hammered out by Republicans and

48:18

Democrats in the Senate in

48:21

the fall of 23. But

48:23

on industrial policy, on the

48:25

reshoring of manufacturing, on the

48:27

trillion dollar infrastructure bill, there's

48:29

broad area for agreement. I

48:31

would hope under the Trump

48:34

administration that those infrastructure plans,

48:36

the reshoring of chips manufacturing,

48:38

the most vulnerable piece of

48:40

legislation is the green energy

48:42

initiatives, but the Biden administration

48:45

was clever in putting most

48:47

of those in red states,

48:49

so they're going to have

48:51

local support and there may

48:53

be an uproar if Trump

48:55

decides to root them out.

48:58

But I think the Democrats

49:00

are going to have to

49:02

think harder about who's to

49:04

be in their tent and

49:06

how to appeal to a

49:09

constituency that they have begun

49:11

to lose? And if they

49:13

want to go after new

49:15

constituencies, how to improve on

49:17

their success in 2024? So

49:19

I think it should not

49:22

be, the next three months

49:24

should not simply be an

49:26

exercise and finger pointing, although

49:28

that's inevitable. It has to

49:30

be a time for reflection.

49:32

And it's also important that

49:35

the Democrats not give up.

49:37

For Democrats in the US,

49:39

this is a crushing loss.

49:41

And I mean, not that

49:43

it's a dispiriting loss. For

49:46

Democrats in the US, Trump's

49:48

land. his breaking of norms,

49:50

his insults of women, people

49:52

of color, Puerto Ricans, are

49:54

deeply, deeply offensive to what

49:56

they think America should be,

49:59

and his assault on the

50:01

Capitol, which he has never

50:03

apologized for, his refusal to

50:05

acknowledge his defeat in the

50:07

2020 election, represents one of

50:10

the most profound threats to

50:12

democracy in America in modern

50:14

times. And the Democrats chose

50:16

to fight on that issue.

50:18

So they also have to

50:20

reflect why appealing to Americans

50:23

on those grounds did not

50:25

bring them a majority. Is

50:27

it that the people who

50:29

voted for Trump care about

50:31

democracy and simply don't think

50:34

that he's going to be

50:36

a threat to democracy when

50:38

he gets into office? Or

50:40

are we, and by we,

50:42

I mean, the world community,

50:44

not the American community? Are

50:47

we confronting a loss of

50:49

confidence in democratic systems everywhere

50:51

where ordinary citizens no longer

50:53

have confidence that democratic institutions

50:55

can offer solutions to the

50:57

very real problems that they

51:00

personally and their countries are

51:02

facing? It's also true that

51:04

confidence in democracy declines with

51:06

age, the younger the people

51:08

are. the harder it is

51:11

for them to be enthusiastic

51:13

about democracy and also the

51:15

harder it is for them

51:17

to point to a time

51:19

where they can say you

51:21

know democracy really has worked

51:24

during this period in my

51:26

life if you were born

51:28

in 2000 where do you

51:30

point to a success story

51:32

for democracy that this is

51:35

a system that's really flourishing

51:37

in my country and this

51:39

is a international phenomenon it's

51:41

not an American phenomenon and

51:43

in this way Trump is

51:45

a manifestation. of a global

51:48

trend. So we have to

51:50

think globally about these matters.

51:52

And if it's true that

51:54

confidence in democracy is declining

51:56

and a willingness to. put

51:59

futures in the hands of

52:01

strong men who are willing

52:03

to break the law and

52:05

constitutional norms for the sake

52:07

of putting countries on a

52:09

better track. What do supporters

52:12

of democracy do to restore

52:14

the faith in democracy that

52:16

has been ebbing away? I

52:18

can pose that question. I

52:20

can at this time answer

52:22

it, but it's a very

52:25

important question for people in

52:27

the US, for people in

52:29

Europe. and elsewhere in

52:31

the world, people in Turkey,

52:34

India, other places to confront

52:36

and think hard about. Well

52:38

on that note, slightly kind

52:40

of pessimistic, but hopefully it

52:43

turns into an optimistic note.

52:45

Thanks a lot for this

52:47

very informed conversation and you

52:49

know, I guess we'll get

52:52

to see. how all of

52:54

this unfolds and hopefully will

52:56

get to speak again, perhaps

52:58

sometime into the Trump administration

53:01

to get a sort of

53:03

a mid-term report card on

53:05

how things are going. So

53:07

thanks a lot, Gary. My

53:09

pleasure. Thank you for having

53:12

me. Thanks for listening

53:14

to the episode. Please subscribe to the podcast

53:16

show on Apple Spotify, or ever listen to

53:18

podcast. Leave a five-star rating. A nice comment

53:21

and let other people know about the show.

53:23

We'll be very, very grateful. Finally, sign up

53:25

for a free newsletter at macrohigh.com. We'll be

53:27

back soon, so tune in then.