0:02

Welcome to Macquhive Conversations with

0:05

Balal Hafiz. Macquive uses natural

0:07

and artificial intelligence to educate

0:09

investors and provide actionable insights of

0:11

all markets from rates to from

0:13

equities. to For our latest insights,

0:15

visit insights, visit Macquahive.com. Before I start my

0:17

conversation with this episode's guest, I have

0:19

three requests. First, please make sure to

0:21

subscribe to this podcast show on Apple

0:23

Spotify, or if you listen to podcasts,

0:25

leave some nice feedback and let your

0:27

friends know about the show. My second

0:30

request is that you sign up

0:32

to you sign up to a newsletter that contains

0:34

contains and unlocked content. You can

0:36

sign up for that up for .com. Finally,

0:38

and my third request is that

0:40

if you are a professional or

0:42

institutional or institutional investor, do get in touch

0:44

with me. We have a very high-octained

0:46

offering that includes access to a

0:48

world -class research team, trade ideas,

0:50

AI models, and much, much

0:52

more. much You can email me

0:54

at at Bal macro. Now .com guest can message

0:56

me on Bloomberg for more

0:58

details. of Political Science at

1:01

Marquette this episode's guest She holds a PhD

1:03

in Julia is at in the

1:05

department of She science PhD in Political She

1:07

holds a PhD in political

1:09

science from Yale focuses on the Her

1:11

research focuses on the American presidency,

1:13

American political parties, political communication and

1:16

American political development. She is

1:18

of the people's message, changing

1:20

politics of the presidential

1:22

mandate. mandate. And also a

1:24

regular contributor contributor to 538.com, Politico

1:26

Washington Post. Post. to our

1:29

conversation. So welcome Julia. It's it's fantastic

1:31

to have you back on the the show.

1:33

show. Thank Thank you so much for having me. me. Now a

1:35

lot's since we last spoke, which I

1:37

think was back in January this

1:39

year, and we talked about the upcoming

1:41

US election. the Now it's US election and

1:43

we've had and victory by President Trump.

1:45

know, we had you know we had obviously candidates

1:47

the so on. But your so on about

1:49

Trump's victory? about Because on the surface

1:51

at least, it seemed like it

1:53

was quite a clean sweep in some

1:56

ways. And obviously, and you know, people

1:58

are now digesting some of the

2:00

details of it. which coalitions which factions shifted towards

2:02

him him from him. But him. your

2:04

perspective, how are you thinking about what

2:06

the election has told us? has

2:08

there are a couple of things. I mean, I think that

2:10

what the things. I mean, showing what the results are

2:12

victory that was broad, but

2:15

not necessarily terribly deep. And

2:17

there was this whole narrative that came

2:19

out of whole night that came out of was

2:21

so clear it was so early that

2:23

Trump was gonna win. to win.

2:25

that that this is a landslide this in

2:27

fact what we're finding is that as

2:30

they continue to count to count votes

2:32

So that so relatively margin. And

2:34

Trump may or may not break

2:36

50 % of the popular vote. think

2:38

they're still counting in California, believe it

2:40

or not. so that's I I think, one

2:42

thing I think to that this is is

2:44

really at If you looked at this

2:47

election in terms of what political scientists like

2:49

to call the fundamentals, and you then you

2:51

didn't look at the campaign on the at

2:53

all. all. The result is very much what

2:55

you would expect. would The result is very

2:57

much reflective of the incumbent

2:59

party with an unpopular incumbent. And

3:02

what I think is really

3:04

an interesting question about candidates

3:06

question about how much matter. matter. On

3:08

the one one hand, we saw

3:10

Harris. of an immediate bump of immediate

3:13

bump in the polls after Biden dropped

3:15

out. And it's possible Biden would

3:17

have done worse. On On the other

3:19

hand, we also saw Harris struggle to

3:21

establish herself as separate from the

3:23

administration she served in. she's certainly not

3:25

the first vice not the to face

3:27

this problem. or even or even really

3:29

that label. label really ties

3:31

candidates to dissatisfaction with the incumbent.

3:33

and And that's, I think, really

3:35

critical to so I So

3:37

I think that's the basic basic takeaway of

3:39

the election is that the actual votes

3:41

and the way the electorate behaved very much

3:43

in line with political science. Predictions

3:45

was very much in line. in line with

3:48

kind of of structural factors and wasn't very unusual

3:50

or very interesting, but but unusual and interesting,

3:52

of course, was the two candidates two candidates and

3:54

some extent the way that they got there.

3:56

there. Yeah that also echoes with other elections we've had

3:58

around the world, where it seems like In

4:00

general, elections over the past 12 to

4:02

24 months have all seen the

4:04

incumbents around the world lose or lose

4:06

vote share quite significantly from right -leaning

4:08

governments from India to left -leaning governments.

4:10

It's happened across the board. In

4:13

fact, UK, you saw something similar with

4:15

the Labour Party beat the incumbent,

4:17

and the analysis now is it was

4:19

a broad but shallow victory. that

4:21

reminds what you just said as well.

4:23

Now one big focus with the

4:25

Trump mandate, well, the Trump presidency for

4:27

the second time around, is is

4:30

the focus on the executive having

4:32

a lot more power than historically

4:34

was the case. So we've heard

4:36

in many different courses that there

4:38

may be more like the sort

4:40

of executive type of power that

4:43

will be assigned to Trump. you

4:45

know, that, and he keeps talking

4:47

about wanting to do things very

4:49

quickly, getting rid of what other

4:51

people call checks and balances and

4:53

what he would call regulation and

4:56

the deep state and so on.

4:58

How are you seeing this? aspect of

5:00

his presidency. Yeah, I

5:02

think... I mean, it sort of remains

5:04

to be seen. There's a couple of

5:06

ways of thinking about presidential power, and

5:08

you know, way of thinking about it

5:10

is building out the capacity of the

5:12

executive branch and making arguments about the

5:15

capacity of the executive branch to do

5:17

things kind of beyond the reach of

5:19

Congress. So that is kind of like

5:21

the George W. Bush era story where

5:23

we heard so much about unitary executive

5:25

theory. The other way of thinking about

5:27

it though, I think is potentially more

5:29

applicable with Trump is really a way

5:32

of expanding presidential that is

5:34

about having kind of drilling

5:36

down into control over one of

5:38

the two parties and Not

5:40

going around? Congress, but in

5:42

a meaningful way, sort of altering the

5:44

incentives of members of Congress such that

5:47

they aren't really inclined to oppose the

5:49

president. And there, the

5:51

Senate GOP in particular is

5:53

really interesting. The Republican Party

5:55

is very deeply And that's true

5:57

from the Senate all the way down

5:59

to state. and parties. But there are

6:01

members of the Senate. who sort

6:03

of have their own political

6:05

capital, who have relationships with their

6:08

constituents. in their states and

6:10

who have so far seemed

6:12

somewhat inclined to oppose. some

6:14

of Trump's, you know, more

6:16

unconventional cabinet nominees, for example. But

6:19

that's really the mechanism of power,

6:21

I think goes less through creative

6:23

interpretations, legal interpretation. the the branch

6:25

and more through sort of political co

6:27

-optation of the other branches. And I

6:29

mean, what's seen incentives for Congress

6:31

congressmen or senators around going against the

6:34

presidency? mean, historically, why have they

6:36

done that? know, why do you go

6:38

into your own us see. Yeah, I

6:40

mean, I think that there a couple of things. that are

6:42

going on there And one is

6:44

simply the kind of fractured, nature

6:46

of American political parties, which meant that

6:48

a member of the president's party

6:50

in Congress might represent a state

6:53

that's much more politically mixed.

6:55

So their constituency might be a

6:57

mix of Republicans, Democrats, or

6:59

particularly in the case of of

7:01

senators throughout the 20th century

7:03

constituents who identify as Democrats, but

7:05

are much more conservative than

7:07

the National Party. That's

7:09

typically it. You also hear people

7:11

about kind of institutional prerogative.

7:13

And this is a very distinct

7:15

American thing, very distinct American

7:17

idea that the branches are separate

7:20

and that members. of the Senate

7:22

and also the House. might have a

7:24

sort of sense that the president is not

7:26

the boss of them. the president

7:28

is kind of understood as the head of

7:30

the party. but everybody kind

7:32

of works for their constituents and

7:34

works for the Constitution as it

7:36

is written to select them. that's

7:39

understood as a substantial kind of

7:41

difference. And we are seeing that

7:43

a little bit. with senators

7:45

pushing. back a bit against

7:47

Trump, actually a little bit more

7:49

than I had initially expected.

7:52

Okay, yes. And one feature of

7:54

Trump is that he's very

7:56

public around his disliking particular congressmen

7:58

or senators who - against him,

8:00

which is unusual. I mean, historically, I

8:02

can't really recall someone being as

8:04

public, you know, often happens in the

8:06

chorus of power. I mean, does

8:08

this mean we're in a new paradigm

8:10

in terms of Trump's ability to

8:12

keep his party under his control or

8:14

not? Like, what was the mechanism

8:16

through which Trump can, you know, control

8:18

the party in Congress? Yeah, I

8:20

think that this is kind of important

8:22

to understand because it is there

8:24

are two elements to it. One is

8:27

Trump's willingness and ability to kind

8:29

of go public and to influence constituents.

8:31

And the mechanism of that is

8:33

actually kind of interesting and a little

8:35

bit chilling because on the one

8:37

hand, it's the more traditional sort of

8:39

mechanism of, you know, I will

8:41

support your primary opponent, you I will

8:43

turn your constituents against you kind

8:45

of thing. And then there also is

8:47

a darker element of this where

8:49

members of Congress have reported feeling scared

8:51

of their constituents and scared of

8:53

the far right and of Trump's ability

8:55

to influence people in kind of

8:57

darker ways. So that's kind of part

8:59

of that story is, you know,

9:01

Trump's ability to do that. But I

9:03

think the other piece is that

9:05

Trump is really not terribly concerned with

9:07

branch separations and kind of does

9:09

see himself as the boss of other

9:11

Republicans. I think that's important. And

9:13

I think, you know, that the main

9:15

historical example of this takes us

9:17

back almost 100 years to Franklin Delano

9:19

Roosevelt who decided to get involved

9:21

in some primaries against senators who had

9:23

opposed some of his agenda. And

9:25

it was really unsuccessful. There was a

9:27

really strong backlash to that in

9:29

this sort of sense that we don't

9:31

want presidents getting involved in the

9:34

kind of individual state

9:36

politics. And that sense, I think

9:38

has eroded somewhat. And the American

9:40

political system has become that much

9:42

more nationalized, that much more kind

9:44

of dominated by the president. And

9:46

certainly that is we see that

9:48

being the case with with the

9:50

GOP and Trump in particular. And

9:52

the fact that this is Trump's

9:54

second term, and I imagine, I

9:56

mean, so within a couple of

9:58

years. he'll be a lame duck.

10:00

know, he's not going to really

10:02

run again. What influence will that

10:04

have on Congress? Yeah,

10:07

there's kind of conventional wisdom that

10:09

term -limited presidents are weaker. They

10:11

have less leverage. Everyone knows they

10:13

won't be around for that much. longer.

10:16

and that second terms are kind

10:18

of a curse. And that

10:20

particularly year six, we see face

10:22

all sorts of scandals often

10:24

over -reading their electoral mandate, which Trump

10:26

seems relatively well poised to

10:28

do, kind of overreaching. It's not

10:30

uncommon, the second term. is

10:32

not that successful. Although I should

10:34

point out there's actually not

10:36

surprisingly few presidents who have served

10:38

a term -limited second term under

10:41

under the 22nd Amendment. So

10:43

we don't have that many examples.

10:45

It's like Eisenhower, Reagan, Clinton,

10:47

Bush, Obama basically. Nixon, Nixon didn't

10:49

fill out his full second

10:51

So maybe that's our that's our

10:53

key second term curse is

10:55

Nixon resigning in in year six,

10:57

but But that's typically understood as

11:00

a political liability. On the other

11:02

hand, Other people have kind of pointed

11:04

to the idea that Trump - is

11:06

not burdened by re

11:08

-election. And so what what will

11:10

he be motivated by and some

11:12

of the answers that have been

11:14

suggested again are are pretty sobering

11:16

about, you know, his desire to

11:19

have revenge and retribution, a

11:21

potential corruption and self -dealing. There

11:23

lot of potential motivations. that could

11:25

step in when the electoral motivation is

11:27

not there. And those are not great.

11:30

Okay, understood. know another aspect of the

11:32

second term issue and also not just

11:34

the second term but know if we

11:36

look at the last few presidencies you

11:38

find congress often flips in the midterms

11:40

and so you have really a two -year

11:42

window where you can put things forward

11:44

and that combined with the second term

11:46

issue there's talk that you know Trump

11:48

will try to introduce policies as quickly

11:50

as possible So speed is of the

11:52

essence and so from a practical perspective

11:54

you know and he's talked about know

11:57

about the first hundred days and so

11:59

on I mean How can you execute

12:01

a wide range of policies so

12:03

quickly? Right. I think a lot

12:05

of it will have to come

12:07

through the executive branch, and so

12:09

it will be policies that are

12:11

easily kind of identified under that

12:13

purview. There are a lot of

12:15

opportunities there. This is where Trump

12:17

has talked about the opportunities in

12:19

legislation as is written for the

12:21

president to raise tariffs, for the

12:24

president to give executive orders about

12:26

priority to the Department of Homeland

12:28

Security. This is where we get

12:30

the mass deportations idea. So anything

12:32

where the president can issue directives

12:34

to existing cabinet departments that sort

12:36

of fit into the breadth of

12:38

executive discretion under existing statute. Getting

12:40

Congress to do things I think

12:42

is going to be really tricky.

12:44

Even though there are majorities, the

12:46

Senate has a substantial majority, but

12:48

certainly nothing close to a filibuster

12:51

-proof majority. The Republican Senate could

12:53

eliminate the filibuster. I don't know

12:55

if they will. The House majority

12:57

is very narrow, and Mike Johnson

12:59

struggled a lot in the last

13:01

term with controlling the caucus, and

13:03

he's not, as House speakers go,

13:05

not a terribly experienced legislative leader.

13:07

So I think we are going

13:09

to see a lot of executive

13:11

action and a lot of struggles

13:13

to control the Republican agenda and

13:15

the legislature. Okay, understood. Now, Trump

13:18

has announced most of his cabinet

13:20

picks so far. Some of them

13:22

have been what I would call

13:24

kind of fairly conventional. So Mark

13:26

Rubio, and then others are less

13:28

conventional. So Hexeth, for example, for

13:30

defense, Kennedy for health, then we

13:32

had Matt Gaetz that didn't work

13:34

out. So how have you seen

13:36

his cabinet picks and what's your

13:38

interpretation about what this can tell

13:40

us about this administration? Yeah, I

13:42

think what we're seeing here is

13:45

that Trump is picking people who

13:47

are kind of within Trump land.

13:49

There are relatively few, as you

13:51

said, people from traditional Republican establishment

13:53

ranks. And that does, I think,

13:55

tell you something about the anticipated

13:57

relationship with Congress where there There

13:59

are still some more traditional Republicans

14:01

like John Thunes recently picked as

14:03

the Republican leader in the Senate.

14:05

I think that we also see

14:07

as in the first term. a

14:09

lack of experience with

14:12

government. a of experience

14:14

in the policy areas that they've

14:16

been tapped to lead. And this of

14:18

idea of undermining the regulatory mission

14:20

of the cabinet departments, and this is

14:22

something that was pretty well documented

14:24

in Trump's first term. It's also not

14:27

entirely new. People have kind of

14:29

made the argument that this was also,

14:31

this is also kind of a

14:33

strategy for Ronald Reagan. And the idea

14:35

of kind of undermining government function

14:37

has been a little bit part of

14:40

Republican politics for a long time.

14:42

So I do think one of the

14:44

things that's important to pay attention to is

14:46

the ways in which Trump is unique,

14:48

but also the ways in which Trump is

14:50

not as unique. and is building on

14:52

political forces that have been there for

14:54

some time. I think that's actually

14:56

really the key to understanding the power

14:58

in this presidency. One you know,

15:00

one thing I had a previous guest

15:03

who this about how Trump is

15:05

picking the cabinet, you know, the key

15:07

cabinet members more acting as spokespeople,

15:09

you know, rather than actually formulating policy.

15:11

So it's the executive that will

15:13

come up with policy and these cabinet

15:15

people will just be the front

15:17

people on TV to represent the policies.

15:19

You know, in that sense, having in

15:21

some ways a kind of weaker

15:23

cabinet than historically would have been the

15:26

case. Do you sympathize with that

15:28

view? I guess so, yeah, that, I mean, that

15:30

certainly makes sense. The more inexperienced and

15:32

the more that members of

15:34

the cabinet are dependent on Trump

15:36

for their own kind of

15:38

political fortunes. the the weaker they will

15:41

be. And this has been, again, I

15:43

think we can actually learn more from

15:45

how this reflects. existing

15:47

dynamics than from how Trump is

15:49

unique, which is often the source

15:51

of tension between the president and

15:53

the cabinet departments. As The cabinet

15:55

departments want to be more independent. cabinet

15:58

secretaries have their own vision

16:00

for these policy areas that they care

16:02

a lot about, their own own expertise, and their

16:05

own political ambitions, and and presidents want

16:07

people who are as loyal to

16:09

their political agenda as possible, as

16:11

controllable as possible. That's not unique

16:13

to Trump. And Trump has a much sort

16:15

of blunter way of approaching it,

16:17

it, but it's not like these

16:19

dynamics didn't exist before. exist And so

16:21

you have this sort of tension

16:23

sometimes between presidents and cabinet departments. And

16:26

it's true, I think, that Trump's strategy strategy

16:28

some of that tension. of But the other

16:30

piece of that that I would highlight, that

16:32

that I just sort of say it. sort of say

16:34

departments do departments do and the policy

16:36

and of complex statutes, isn't

16:38

it? statutes of an and.

16:40

and complicated process and

16:42

it has both bureaucracy

16:45

and politics. politics. And I I

16:47

think Trump and people in

16:49

Trump a very a very vision vision

16:51

of how policy works. that's, I

16:53

think this is I think an is

16:55

sort of an underappreciated tension

16:57

sometimes in popular media. And that I I

16:59

think is really what's, you know, one know,

17:01

one of the things that's very, very

17:03

important is, is is the of lack

17:06

of appreciation for that complexity. In

17:08

In relation to to that I mean, does

17:10

it then mean that the next then mean

17:12

that the deputy rung the like the deputy or the those

17:15

appointments actually become much more

17:17

significant. become much more anything we can

17:19

say Trump's done on that side

17:21

that Tom's done on that side, that's I'm

17:23

not sure yet. Yeah, I'm I think yet. And

17:25

I think that's absolutely true. I think... There

17:27

are too many too marks

17:29

here marks here really for... for me me to

17:32

have a good answer, I have I have

17:34

talked to some other journalists about

17:36

the elimination of the sort of employees and

17:38

and civil service protections. and who is doing

17:40

doing we what we level bureaucracy and whether whether

17:42

they have civil service protections or whether

17:44

they're subject to kind of political

17:46

whims, that's gonna be really important really

17:48

I don't know what's going to happen

17:50

or what that's going to look

17:53

like because, again, we're looking at a

17:55

process that is so much more

17:57

complex than complex than the of of rhetoric would

17:59

suggest. and how the president -elect navigate

18:01

that tension once an office is

18:03

unclear to me. And just in terms

18:05

of Trump's power, power, obviously he

18:07

wasn't able to get Gates through to

18:09

be Attorney General. And also John

18:12

Thune, as far as I can tell,

18:14

that wasn't necessarily Trump's pick, was

18:16

it for Senate leader. So

18:18

from those two, what would you say

18:20

from that in relation to what we

18:22

were talking about earlier in terms of

18:24

influence over Congress? Yeah, like I said,

18:26

I think that I've actually been a little

18:28

bit surprised at the

18:31

Senate really demonstrating its institutional

18:33

independence and prerogative. And

18:35

I don't know how that

18:37

will evolve. Again,

18:39

once Trump is really in office.

18:41

But I do know that the kinds of

18:43

political influence that Trump has been most

18:45

successful at wielding are the kinds that

18:47

have tendency to erode once

18:49

the governing starts. And so

18:51

this should be between now

18:53

and of the end of

18:55

April maybe should be his

18:57

strongest point. And you know,

18:59

if that we are actually

19:01

seeing some signs of something

19:03

different within the Republican Party

19:05

a little bit, I think

19:08

that that's that's an interesting

19:10

sign for tensions to come.

19:12

And also for kind of

19:14

again, underappreciated element of Trump's

19:16

first term is that the

19:18

president does not get to automatically

19:20

set the agenda for what Congress does or

19:22

like what bills they consider. And so

19:24

one way that... Bose, Mitch McConnell

19:26

and Paul Ryan kind of slowed

19:28

up. Trump priorities was

19:30

simply not to really put them ahead

19:32

on the agenda. And that's an easy

19:34

way, you know, no one has to

19:36

cast a tough vote or whatever. It's

19:39

just to sort of shift priorities elsewhere.

19:41

And so we're kind of seeing, seeing

19:43

the prospect of at least in the

19:45

Senate of of repeat of that. And,

19:47

And you know, we've got this new

19:49

department, well, non -department Doge, which Elon Musk

19:51

and Vivek Ramaswamy are in charge of,

19:53

which is to look into efficiency of

19:56

the government. We've also seen Elon Musk

19:58

participate in important meetings, you know

20:00

because Trump has had with foreign leaders. He's

20:02

been part of that. So I have

20:04

two questions, I suppose. One is this

20:06

type of group or working group to

20:08

look into government efficiency, an independent body,

20:11

to make government efficient, what's the probability

20:13

of success here, and has happened before.

20:15

And then the other thing is just

20:17

more in terms of what's allowed and

20:19

what's not allowed. I mean, if you're

20:21

not Senate confirmed, are you still allowed

20:23

to come into government or not? Right.

20:25

Well, I mean, one one answer to

20:27

that is kind of who's going to

20:30

stop you. I think that's essentially where

20:32

we're operating from. So I'll take these

20:34

in reverse order. I might have to

20:36

have you remind me in terms of,

20:38

you know, how is this going to

20:40

work? is Musk as a kind of

20:42

presidential as a sort of White House

20:44

official what is and is not he

20:46

allowed to do. There are norms, there

20:49

are even, you know, there are even

20:51

regulations or lawsuits that could be filed,

20:53

but who is going to do that?

20:55

A lot, I think, comes down to

20:57

what does the Justice Department look like

20:59

under Trump, under Pam Bondi, if she's

21:01

confirmed? So we don't really know, or

21:03

is Congress going to try to put

21:05

some kind of stop to it? And

21:08

I don't think that that's likely. I

21:10

think in practice, Trump can have whoever

21:12

he wants in a high-level White House

21:14

position doing the sorts of things that

21:16

would entail. So being in high-level meetings,

21:18

there has been some back and forth

21:20

about security clearance. I haven't been able

21:22

to find a straight answer about how

21:25

that would function or what clearance Musk

21:27

actually has. Does he claims to have

21:29

a high-level one? But in practice, if

21:31

Trump says, Musk gets to be in

21:33

this meeting, who's going to stop him?

21:35

the sort of key advisor. And this

21:37

again is where presidents have often had

21:39

this sort of tension with their cabinet,

21:41

Senate confirmed advisors, and with White House

21:44

advisors, some of whom are Senate confirmants,

21:46

some aren't, and the sort of White

21:48

House inner circle. I mean, nobody is

21:50

going to prevent you from having your

21:52

inner circle be your close friends, your

21:54

relatives, your closest political associates who aren't

21:56

Senate confirmed. And if

21:58

those are the voices.

22:00

in ear, then, you know, that's

22:03

going to shape the decision making and ultimately

22:05

again to go back to George W.

22:07

Bush. the is the decider. So

22:09

I think that's kind of how to think

22:11

about it the key There's a key element

22:13

to this we haven't heard a lot about

22:15

in the media, which is who is controlling

22:18

pulling access to the president. And

22:20

it seems clear that he really Elon Musk

22:22

near him, close to him, I don't

22:24

know exactly what the relationship is with

22:26

Ramaswami or how JD Vance, his Vice

22:28

President, will fit into all that. But

22:31

typically, the access control

22:33

person. that is the chief of staff. And

22:36

that person's skill and philosophy at that

22:38

job is really critical to how the

22:40

White House operates. And we never really

22:42

know how that's going to look and

22:44

we don't know, but in the in

22:46

the first term, answer for the,

22:48

at least for the early

22:50

wildlife with Brian's previous was not

22:52

there's not a lot of control the chief of staff. isn't

22:55

really, wasn't really

22:57

empowered. to control access, and so

22:59

as we're thinking about who will

23:01

be Trump's major influences, we again

23:03

do to kind of think structurally

23:05

about who is controlling access, who is

23:08

Trump empowered if anyone, who has

23:10

he delegated that that to, and who

23:12

is actually in the room. And

23:14

again, that is a matter of a

23:16

discretion of the president. Okay, understood.

23:18

Yeah, the second question related to Musk

23:20

was, will it work? His department

23:22

of government efficiency, he's talked about trillions

23:24

of dollars. They go, he's looking

23:26

at every department and they're saying, you

23:28

know, like schedule F, you know,

23:31

we talked about earlier, why didn't you

23:33

just stack everybody? and all those

23:35

sorts of things. Right. I

23:37

I mean, I don't know. Here's sort of how. I

23:39

see it. First of all, they called

23:41

it a department. It's not. Congress has

23:43

to create a cabinet agency. Second is

23:45

that cutting government waste is always a

23:47

political talking point in the United States.

23:50

And it's very popular until you actually

23:52

start talking about the things you're going

23:54

to cut. And this is

23:56

where I think this may run

23:58

afoul of public opinion because typically

24:00

things that have so far been

24:02

brought up been brought up are defense which in

24:04

this case would include sort

24:06

of sort of veterans benefits Medicare that's health care for

24:09

people over 65, 65 security,

24:11

these are all pretty popular

24:13

and people are pretty attached

24:15

to them. So to possible it's

24:17

can, must can these things. things it's

24:20

It's possible that will change public

24:22

opinion. opinion it won't Republicans have had

24:24

really really bad bad luck to do

24:26

to do these things. should also

24:28

point out it's not just it's not

24:30

had these commissions. Under Obama had these

24:32

commissions on the deficit and spending,

24:34

and this is just like a

24:36

constant back and forth in American

24:39

politics. And the other piece of

24:41

this that I would emphasize is that The other piece

24:43

of do, I would given is

24:45

that what what mess you know, his

24:47

capacity to buy know his media he

24:49

wants. whatever media he wants is to sort

24:51

of ridicule members of government

24:53

and, you know, pick out particular

24:55

projects and make them the

24:58

target of And so I And

25:00

so I think a has a potential

25:02

quite a bit of chaos, a bit of chaos,

25:04

to have a real impact on

25:06

people's lives, even if the think the

25:08

likelihood of to the point to the point

25:11

of having Congress vote on truly

25:13

eliminating things from the budget is

25:15

pretty minimal. You You mentioned JD

25:17

earlier there, and and we haven't actually

25:19

talked about JD Vance. mean, before

25:21

the election, I he was quite

25:23

prominent as vice he was and he

25:25

was viewed as a potential heir

25:27

apparent viewed Trump, and heir sort of

25:29

representing the American first populist wing. first

25:31

He's been relatively silent as far

25:33

as I could tell since the

25:35

election. I mean, he was supposed

25:37

to get Gates appointed, which didn't happen.

25:39

But what do do you see the

25:41

of of JD Vance the the vice presidency? Yeah, I think

25:43

think vice president is in a

25:45

in a situation because on the one hand,

25:47

and I think this will certainly

25:50

be true certainly be who likely has

25:52

some ambitions for himself. himself, you want

25:54

to get - known your own own right. And so you

25:56

want to have a kind of issue that you

25:58

own. And on the other hand, and the real real

26:00

role for the vice the most the most

26:02

advantageous role for the vice president is to

26:04

be a more general kind of close

26:07

White House advisor. And it's not not clear if Trump

26:09

is inclined to give Vance that role

26:11

or not. or not. And seems that Vance has

26:13

been picked, mean, in a weird way, he's

26:15

sort of in the same position, of I

26:17

would argue, as would Harris was with Biden

26:19

and also going back to also going

26:21

back to the 80s, Dan Quayle, under George Bush,

26:24

which is to be kind of a

26:26

party figure and a political figure. figure. And

26:28

so we're going gonna learn. what are JD Vance's political

26:30

political skills? We haven't had much

26:32

chance to observe that. He's only

26:34

been in the Senate for two

26:37

years. for two years. And he quite

26:39

handily in 2022, but. by less than

26:41

many people would have know, you would have

26:43

expected a Republican. win in Ohio. win in

26:45

Ohio. So we don't really know. know. as

26:47

you said, you said, his his prowess among his

26:49

colleagues in the Senate it may be may

26:51

be considerable, but it didn't work out

26:53

that time for Matt for Matt Gates. So

26:55

We don't really know. But I think

26:57

it's gonna depend a lot on

26:59

Vance's ability to forge relationships in the

27:01

Republican coalition. And that's gonna include

27:04

people like to It's also going to

27:06

include people in the sort of tech

27:08

billionaire world where he knows people. world

27:10

And like I said, we're gonna I

27:12

what his political skills are. I

27:14

may be skills about the role that

27:16

he's that he's in the administration, but

27:18

I'm not seeing any evidence that

27:20

he's going to be one of

27:22

Trump's kind of closest and top

27:24

policy advisors on key issues. We

27:26

will see. in terms of in terms

27:28

of policies, Trump, at least

27:30

during his campaigning, he laid out a

27:32

number of different policies. just just run

27:34

through them and how you think

27:37

they're gonna be implemented. The big one,

27:39

of course, is the border and

27:41

immigration. border He talks about kicking out,

27:43

I can't remember don't recent the most 20

27:45

million. I don't know how many 20 million.

27:47

I don't know how many immigrants or bought to

27:49

watch your thoughts on that. How can you get that

27:51

done? your Are there any that? How for this type of

27:53

thing? done? Yeah, I mean, mean, has this issue

27:55

has come up periodically in

27:57

American politics. sort of of anti -immigration. moves.

28:00

This one is on

28:02

of an unprecedented scale, I bring

28:04

up the number around million because that

28:06

is more than the estimate of

28:08

the number of undocumented persons in the

28:10

United States, which means that the

28:12

plan is to prioritize. is

28:14

deporting people who have some

28:17

documentation and they've even talked about

28:19

taking citizenship away from people

28:21

who are born to undocumented parents.

28:23

So this is a tremendous

28:25

kind of bureaucratic and administrative lift.

28:27

What I've seen from people who

28:29

have expertise in immigration policy is sort of

28:31

a mix from this would be very

28:34

difficult to implement to you just implement this

28:36

through the Department of Homeland Security and

28:38

if it's what you want to do, then

28:40

you'll do it. And it's true that

28:42

these mechanisms already exist a few, I think

28:44

few people get denat - denaturalized every

28:46

year here, um, naturalized citizens

28:48

because they've - there's something wrong

28:50

with their paperwork or they lied

28:52

the citizenship process, you know,

28:55

there are a lot of

28:57

opportunities to change. the legal statuses

28:59

that exist or revoke them. The State

29:01

Department has a fair amount of discretion

29:03

there. I think Department of Homeland Security

29:05

would also play a role in this

29:07

through ICE. So So, I mean, no

29:10

one really knows. is It's the long

29:12

and short of it. But a lot

29:14

of these are questions about implementation and

29:16

they could go through the executive branch.

29:18

It's just that, obviously, we're talking about

29:20

a lot of people, so it would

29:22

be very labor intensive. And then the

29:25

other policy, he's talked a lot about

29:27

is tariffs, and that's a recurring theme

29:29

throughout his life, let presidency. Earlier

29:31

in our conversation, you said that

29:33

he actually does have the authority

29:35

to impose tariffs. what are your

29:37

thoughts around sort of tariff policy?

29:39

Yeah, Yeah, I mean, not not

29:41

many, to be honest. This is

29:43

a pretty technical area that I

29:45

don't have a lot of technical

29:47

expertise in. But I think what's

29:49

going on now is, politically, is

29:51

a conversation where, you know, until

29:53

recently, Republicans were really had really

29:56

embraced the idea of free freight.

29:58

and trade policy. very

30:00

much driven by corporate interests who

30:02

interested in cheaper and cheaper goods

30:04

and all of these sorts all of

30:06

these sorts of things

30:09

that happen by in in

30:11

global So So stated stated policies

30:13

are really a reversal priorities

30:15

but Really, both parties' priorities. party

30:17

and party. of sort of

30:19

going back to 19th century.

30:21

philosophy which was very much around like

30:23

was very much around protective and

30:26

and protecting American industries. not

30:28

clear, importantly, I think it's

30:30

not clear what clear the philosophy is

30:32

this time is this time it doesn't It's

30:34

seem to of idea it's

30:36

are going to be a way of getting retribution

30:38

against countries that are taking advantage of us. And

30:40

people who know this

30:43

area have of us this doesn't

30:45

make any sense, area and

30:47

that already sense countries have.

30:49

other threatened to to

30:51

you know to counterimpose terrorists so what I

30:54

think is kind of happening

30:56

in some conservative economic circles circles

30:58

at least a hope that

31:00

some of these business of these

31:02

business people that Trump has get him

31:04

to reconsider will get him to think

31:06

in particular I think in because one

31:08

of the major issues in the

31:10

election was food prices prices and you know know

31:12

price of goods in general that

31:14

tariffs are unlikely to to with that

31:16

because those costs you tend to get

31:18

passed on to consumers and that's

31:20

like the whole logic of protective whole

31:22

is you charge a higher is you charge

31:25

a on foreign goods will

31:27

that people will buy goods

31:29

goods if that's if American goods goods

31:31

are not an an

31:33

option, going that's going to be a

31:35

big issue for and for for various

31:38

imported goods. that's that's how I how I

31:40

see the picture terms terms of

31:42

the politics of tariff policy. policy. And then

31:44

another part of his campaign was around tax

31:46

cuts. it was And it was interesting, of

31:48

there's this kind of paradox about

31:50

bringing are levels are too high, but

31:53

at the same time, we're gonna do

31:55

more tax cuts. He also talked

31:57

about making social security payments, pension payments,

31:59

tax deduction. for people people not having

32:01

to pay tax on that, on

32:03

that, tips, you you know, tips

32:05

that service workers receive, making them

32:07

not liable to any tax as

32:09

well. are What are your thoughts

32:11

then? Obviously, this will then

32:13

intersect will then intersect with as well. then as

32:15

well. need to... to pass these

32:17

policies these you know, and, you

32:19

know, they will. will. It's hard to know. It's

32:22

kind of a mishmash of different types of

32:24

policies. And this was the major legislation in

32:26

Trump's first term. I think it's fairly easy

32:28

when you talk about narrow first term. I that

32:30

don't agree on a lot. It's fairly easy

32:32

for them to agree on lowering taxes. that's

32:35

surely low -hanging fruit for them.

32:37

At the same time, fairly easy for

32:39

them when they did this big

32:41

lowering it wasn't terribly popular. low-hanging fruit

32:43

for them. on taxes has shifted

32:45

a little bit, they did that, bill, you

32:47

know, taxes are still popular,

32:49

but there is a little bit

32:51

of like a kind of

32:53

populist, we don't wanna see see cuts

32:55

for billionaires kind of things so

32:57

So in a politically precarious situation,

32:59

there could be some still still

33:02

some risks there. the other then the

33:04

other was plank was deregulation, know,

33:06

of getting rid of inflation reduction act

33:08

act, environmental policies to excessive planning all of

33:10

these of these sorts of things that he wants to

33:12

rip, rip all of those apart. those apart yeah so this is

33:14

is another area where Trump administration was was

33:16

successful the first time around

33:18

was in issuing rules to

33:20

deregulate, which can also be

33:22

done through the the branch

33:24

to branch to a great extent. How much much

33:26

that can be done in the new

33:28

a sort of new legislative context after

33:30

the act? It Act, a matter of be a

33:32

matter of a matter know, will be

33:35

a matter of a couple of things.

33:37

And some of it will be be

33:39

Trump's executive branch officials are able

33:41

to kind of find of find parts of

33:43

the statute where that's possible. But also

33:45

I think it'll be a matter

33:47

of a matter of whether state attorneys general, if they they

33:49

do things that are in conflict

33:51

with the law, law, whether state attorneys will

33:54

be able to able to buy and successfully

33:56

do that because that has been kind

33:59

of tactic and the past. Actually, you have

34:01

had attorneys general sue the the federal government for

34:03

not not enforcing its own policy. a

34:05

So a weird a kind of a

34:07

weird dynamic of federalism. But I

34:09

think that that's actually going to

34:11

be a substantial source of pushing

34:13

back and a substantial source of

34:15

defending the environmental regulations of the

34:17

Biden administration will come will come

34:20

from the from the states. Okay, that's great.

34:22

great. And I just just had a few questions

34:24

about political parties themselves in terms of

34:26

of the the Republican Party? I mean, how

34:28

how much, I'm thinking

34:30

about this in terms of, let's say

34:33

Trump Trump is, know, know, finishes, he's off

34:35

the scene. the How does the Republican Party

34:37

look? How Party look? How become the party become very

34:39

Or now? some of this just a natural

34:41

reflection of underlying forces of the economy

34:43

that we talked about earlier or the

34:45

society? the How do you think about

34:47

a Republican Party if you remove Trump

34:49

from it? How do think that you kind of

34:51

have a clue. about that by

34:53

looking at the of debates last year. promise?

34:56

So you have a sort of

34:58

competition between people like Nikki

35:00

like Nikki Christie, who have who

35:02

kind of alternative vision for

35:04

the party. vision And then the

35:06

like And then people like Vivek Ramoswami who

35:08

are Santos who are Trump. And I

35:11

think that one possibility, we

35:13

imagine a world in which

35:15

Trump a world in which, his term,

35:17

fills out, serves out his term, retires, leaves

35:20

office, then the GOP is kind of saying,

35:22

well, now what? now what, that you're

35:24

gonna sort of see that of see that seesaw.

35:26

and you're you're to to have a number

35:28

of people with very different visions about

35:30

how to proceed post post- I think

35:32

one thing that Trump does is does is weirdly,

35:34

he's a sort of a sort of coordination point

35:36

between more traditional had a very he's

35:38

had a very transactional relationship with them,

35:40

on on many of the policies we

35:43

just talked about. about. while also satisfying

35:45

his own And so And so he's

35:47

he's not as as some of his

35:49

of his Whereas I that Whereas

35:51

I think that more traditional constituencies

35:53

are more more nervous about people

35:55

like Rhonda who took on Disney or

35:57

Vivek Ramoswami, who simply know, isn't an

36:00

experienced politician doesn't have a track

36:02

record. have a track record. I think

36:04

I be. That'll be the big question be

36:06

the big will the is of the

36:08

in this much much direction,

36:10

which hasn't really been

36:12

that successful without Trump? Trump. Or,

36:14

you know, will know, room for for

36:16

people who have a kind of

36:19

alternative vision. if so, And what even

36:21

is that vision at this point? this

36:23

And what elements, I think it will

36:25

take a of policy elements from a

36:27

lot of and try to establish a

36:29

different kind of political style. to I

36:31

think a different best roadmap we have in some

36:33

ways is those debates. So that's, was a very

36:35

good point. the what next for the Democrat we have

36:37

in some ways as those have

36:39

a lot of ideas, good point. know, there's

36:41

a lot of hand the on about what

36:44

direction they should go. it it

36:46

seems like everybody has has an opinion

36:48

about what direction the Democratic Party

36:50

should go. go And it's a a

36:52

bit ironic because, as I said,

36:54

as I said the party performed exactly as

36:56

you would exactly as you would the circumstances. the

36:58

so maybe it's not a time

37:00

to rethink the whole party. But

37:02

instead, I think you're going to

37:04

see these intro party fights play

37:06

out through this lens of the

37:08

this lens of the And that's similar to

37:10

2016. to But I think the

37:12

tensions have heightened. And the of

37:15

of key fault Democratic the Democratic people

37:17

who people who want to return

37:19

to a pre -Trump status quo, for

37:21

whom Obama's presidency Bill maybe even

37:23

Bill presidency sort of the pinnacle of

37:25

what it was. of be was to be

37:28

a and people And

37:30

are not interested in that are interested

37:32

in more significant in more the status

37:34

quo breaks with the status quo. significant of

37:36

the political economy and the organization

37:38

of power and society. So

37:40

that's more power the society. So that's more

37:42

of wing of the party. kind of

37:44

wing of the I would have said a few months

37:46

ago a few months ago is gaining in

37:48

power and numbers, but that wasn't

37:50

entirely a story of And some members of the

37:52

some members of the squad actually

37:55

lost their primary. So I'm not

37:57

totally sure sure what the with of that,

37:59

future of that. of the party is, and

38:01

if there's any prospect that they'll be able

38:03

to sort of control the party's agenda

38:05

by 2028, but I think they won't, they'll

38:07

still be too big to ignore. So

38:10

I think that's - that's sort of

38:12

what's next for the Democrats. And

38:14

then going forward, it really depends on

38:16

what candidates are available. And those

38:18

candidates will largely, I think, define themselves

38:20

in terms of that conflict and

38:22

try to map themselves onto a set

38:24

of commitments that they think can

38:26

consolidate the party. So whether someone like

38:28

Gretchen Whitmer or Gavin Newsom or

38:30

someone I haven't even really thought about

38:33

is able to do that. I

38:35

think that's the big question. That's great.

38:37

And just to round off, you wrote

38:40

an excellent book a number of years

38:42

ago about delivering the people's message, changing

38:44

politics of the presidential mandate. And And

38:46

I guess you've been updating kind of

38:48

the thesis since then as well. And

38:50

you've been writing around that topic this

38:52

time around. So what's, a research perspective,

38:54

what are some of the focuses you

38:56

have at the moment? I mean, I

38:58

think the book has a lot. of a lot of

39:00

relevance for today because essentially what I

39:02

argue is presidents don't really claim

39:04

mandates based on what happened in the

39:07

election. They claim them based on

39:09

their efforts to expand their power into

39:11

new areas. And that's been true

39:13

for a long time. And I think

39:15

that really helps us understand Trump

39:17

talking about a mandate in the context

39:19

of like the recess appointments and

39:21

trying to circumvent congressional Republicans. And presidents

39:23

talk about mandates when they're embattled, when

39:26

are highly polarized, when institutional

39:28

legitimacy is low, like all all

39:30

the conditions that we kind of

39:32

see today. Since then, I moved into

39:34

writing about race and the presidency

39:36

and I have a book that'll be

39:38

out later this year with Princeton

39:41

University Press on the connection between race

39:43

and presidential impeachment. So obviously Trump

39:45

is a really key case study in

39:47

that book. And what's interesting about

39:49

Trump as the second being elected the

39:51

second term is that We

39:53

usually - see kind of moving

39:55

back after a presidency

39:57

that is more racially transparent.

40:00

that changes in status quo. so the end

40:02

of slavery, the civil rights revolution, and

40:04

then and then the

40:06

first African first We haven't

40:08

seen anyone and we not a

40:10

kind of traditional white

40:12

man traditional white man get elected since

40:15

then. So it's typical progress progress

40:17

is of of forward and steps

40:19

back kind of situation and that

40:21

the and that moves as moves as

40:23

to close to the status quo as

40:25

it can. it can. But what I

40:27

think is really different about this,

40:29

this moment moment that usually .

40:32

is that the party that was associated

40:34

with that transformation with back a

40:36

lot. on those commitments.

40:38

a lot on those I think

40:40

I actually are seeing are

40:42

seeing with Biden's appointments with Biden's approach

40:44

to issues policy issues

40:46

and with the nomination

40:49

of Harris nominee, nominee, you're

40:51

actually seeing a Democratic party

40:53

that is. that is responsive to

40:55

pressures. to be more be more

40:57

diverse and at least somewhat

40:59

more oriented around racial justice.

41:01

And Biden's track record from from

41:04

perfect on that you're But

41:06

you're seeing a more of of

41:08

racially polarized environment. so kind of

41:10

of thinking about what happens

41:12

after these really tumultuous racial

41:14

moments. Usually there was of

41:16

backing away from race on the agenda,

41:19

a backing away from that kind

41:21

of controversy. And this time time it's

41:23

not it's It seems like the country

41:25

is sort of still of still racially so

41:27

we're a little bit a little bit a

41:29

clear a clear from the past about

41:31

what will happen next. happen next. Okay great

41:33

okay well Well, I look forward to seeing

41:35

the book the book and see how that story unfolds

41:38

in real time. Now for the benefit of

41:40

our listeners, our what's the best way for

41:42

them to follow your work or or learn more

41:44

about your work? Yeah, I guess you can me on me on

41:46

Blue which is just is just my

41:48

last last name so Julia Azari on Blue Sky

41:50

and I'll typically my work there.

41:53

I I for a stack called

41:55

Good Politics, Bad Bad and

41:57

we do some audio for

41:59

pay. subscribers well as weekly

42:01

blog posts. excellent.

42:03

excellent. Well, thanks, Julia, that's fantastic.

42:06

usual, very erudite interpretations of events

42:08

of late. you know good luck with the luck

42:10

with the work that you're doing and

42:12

hopefully get to speak again. speak again.

42:14

thank you so much. so much. Thanks

42:18

for listening to the episode. Please subscribe to

42:20

the podcast show on Apple, Spotify, or ever

42:22

listen to podcast. Leave a five-star rating. A

42:25

nice comment and let other people know about

42:27

the show. We'll be very, very grateful. Finally,

42:29

sign up for a free newsletter at McElhive.com.

42:31

We'll be back soon, so tune in then.