0:11

Welcome to this episode of the

0:13

To The Contrary podcast. I'm Charlie

0:15

Sykes. Just a quick word, if you

0:17

have not yet subscribed to our

0:19

newsletter, To The Contrary on Substack, please

0:21

consider doing so free or paid.

0:24

It's actually all freed. But in order

0:26

to keep doing this, I really

0:28

do appreciate your generosity. It is difficult

0:30

to build an audience given the

0:32

inshidification of the rest of social media.

0:35

But we have had remarkable success

0:38

so far. We have more than

0:40

2 million views a month right now

0:42

and have been growing exponentially. But

0:44

still, look, we need to keep reminding

0:46

ourselves that we are not the

0:48

crazy ones. And I just kind of

0:50

want to start with this. And

0:52

I really appreciate, Nick, you joining me

0:54

and Nicholas Grossman, who is the

0:56

editor of Arc Digital and a professor

0:58

of political science at the University

1:00

of Illinois. We have talked before. Thanks

1:02

for joining me. I appreciate it

1:04

today. And I need your help. Great

1:07

to be here and great to see you with a

1:09

new podcast. All right.

1:11

So I'm just trying to get my

1:13

head around this weird combination of

1:15

clownishness and corruption that we're in right

1:17

now. And we're trying to decide, do

1:19

we point out that we're talking

1:21

about absolute clowns? Or are we going

1:24

to point out that those clowns

1:26

still actually have the flamethrowers? So on

1:28

Tuesday, in the midst of a

1:30

stock market meltdown, Donald Trump turned the

1:32

White House into a car dealership. There's

1:35

no punchline. That's what actually happened. Another

1:37

day when millions of Americans are

1:39

seeing their 401Ks go down to getting

1:41

hammered in the stock market, Donald

1:43

Trump decided that this was the moment

1:45

to bail out the world's richest

1:47

man. And

1:50

photographers caught the picture of him holding

1:52

in his hand actual talking points from

1:54

the Tesla website. And he's pretending to

1:56

know what a Tesla is like. He

1:58

gets in the car and goes, hey, there's

2:00

There's lots of computers here. You

2:02

can tell the last time that Donald

2:04

Trump drove a car, like, I don't

2:06

know, never. And meanwhile, we have this

2:08

on again, off again, trade war, escalating,

2:11

although it's changing by the hour, because

2:13

of course confusion and uncertainty is

2:15

exactly what the economy needs right

2:17

now. I don't know, I guess.

2:19

Meanwhile. Donald Trump keeps talking

2:21

about turning Canada into the 51state

2:23

and even the anti-ante Trumpers at

2:26

national review are starting to get

2:28

rattled by this because it's one

2:30

thing to simply troll about it,

2:32

but is he actually serious about

2:34

this? What's actually going on? But

2:36

it gets weirder and more serious

2:39

as we see the measles outbreak

2:41

spread. We have RFK Jr. By the

2:43

way, every one of these things seems like

2:45

it's like a line from a satire, you

2:47

know, a satirical movie. We have RFK Jr.

2:49

going full witch doctor telling Americans that

2:51

measles vaccines are overrated. These would

2:53

be the vaccines that actually eradicated

2:56

measles as a disease in this

2:58

country and that the best protection

3:00

against measles is the breast milk

3:02

of a woman who has not

3:04

been tainted by the vaccine. This

3:07

is the world that we live in

3:09

right now. What could possibly go wrong?

3:11

Meanwhile, half the staff of the Department

3:13

of Education is fired, and the cuts

3:15

are so deep at the Social Security

3:18

Administration, seniors, and the disabled may

3:20

no longer be able to get anyone

3:22

on the phone. So I ask that

3:24

question again. What could possibly go wrong?

3:26

And the answer is that Elon Musk

3:28

has no idea and does not give

3:30

a shit. But I think we know

3:32

that. And of course we continue to

3:35

play chicken with a government shutdown. So

3:37

with all of this happening, we may

3:39

actually get, we may see the government

3:41

actually shut down at the end of this

3:43

week. Meanwhile, our betrayal of Ukraine continues,

3:45

although there was a little bit

3:47

of a blip, and I wanted

3:49

to start with you, Nicholas, on

3:52

this question. We got Ukraine to

3:54

agree to a 30-day ceasefire, but

3:56

of course that depends on what

3:58

Russia is going to do. this

4:00

is an uptick from the humiliation

4:02

in the Oval Office and cutting

4:04

off of all of the aid

4:06

and cutting off intelligence, but give

4:08

me your take right now because

4:10

I know you have been watching

4:12

this very, very closely and writing

4:14

about this. What is your take

4:16

on the U .S. Brokered ceasefire deal?

4:18

Where are we at? Well, it's

4:21

not really a Brokered ceasefire deal

4:23

because Russia is not a party

4:25

to it. It was the United

4:27

States pressuring Ukraine using as much

4:29

leverage as it could, cutting off

4:31

things like intelligence and weapons, denigrating

4:33

the leaders, saying that they wouldn't

4:35

guarantee security, meaning that they wouldn't

4:37

actually help keep the peace stable

4:39

afterwards. And the U .S. kept

4:41

on pressuring Ukraine to agree to

4:43

what amounted to an agreement of

4:45

this ceasefire that is really empty.

4:47

So if you look at the

4:49

actual statement that came out of

4:51

the U .S. State Department from this

4:54

meeting in Saudi Arabia, it makes

4:56

a point of saying that Ukraine

4:58

praised Donald Trump and said that

5:00

he's great. And otherwise, it doesn't

5:02

really require anybody to do anything

5:04

except for them to stop the

5:06

U .S. says stop for 30

5:08

days. And I guess the Ukrainians

5:10

did manage to get the U .S.

5:12

to say it will seek some

5:14

sort of reciprocation from Russia, but

5:16

it includes no demands from Russia

5:18

on anything short or long term.

5:20

And that has always been the

5:22

problem, both in the war itself

5:25

that Putin started it, could stop

5:27

at any time, but is choosing

5:29

not to. And from the Trump

5:31

administration's approach, which is treating it

5:33

as if Putin is a victim,

5:35

Russia is a victim, they just

5:37

want peace if only we could

5:39

help them. And of course, that's

5:41

not what's going on. It's Russian

5:43

aggression and they're trying for conquest.

5:45

And so they are likely to

5:47

not take this all that seriously

5:49

and to continue pressing because the

5:51

U .S. keeps on showing Russia

5:53

that Ukraine side is getting weaker.

5:56

So why would Russia bent on

5:58

conquest be now looking to back

6:00

off once as it started looking

6:02

better for them? Okay, so it

6:04

is it is Wednesday afternoon right

6:06

now. We don't know we haven't

6:08

gotten the formal answer. from Russia, but they seem

6:10

not to be open to the ceasefire. In fact, I was just

6:12

before we began recording this, I saw pictures of Vladimir Putin in

6:14

military fatigues, which is not necessarily the costume that you would wear

6:16

when you were about to sign on to a peace deal.

6:18

So what? Donald Trump, to

6:20

your point, Donald Trump has given

6:23

Russia everything at once. He refuses

6:25

to criticize Russia. He votes with

6:28

Russia in the Security Council. He

6:30

seems to be relying on Putin,

6:32

his buddy Putin, to do him

6:35

a solid on all of this.

6:37

When Vladimir Putin turns down the

6:39

ceasefire, what do you expect Trump

6:42

to do? I'm not sure.

6:44

I mean, my instinct says lie about

6:46

it because that's usually what he does

6:48

when things don't go well for him.

6:51

But I don't know in part because

6:53

I can't really tell from afar how

6:55

much they believe their own bullshit. So

6:57

do they... That's always an interesting question.

6:59

Right, just like how much did they

7:01

really believe it? So they are taking

7:03

a lot of actions that seem aimed

7:06

at trying to help Russia win and

7:08

a lot of their rhetoric for a

7:10

long time had been very pro-Russian anti-Ukraine

7:12

and yet they would always talk about

7:14

it as trying to create peace. And

7:16

so were they conscious that they were

7:18

aeping Russian propaganda about how Russia was

7:20

a poor innocent victim and just had

7:22

to attack a country that was not

7:24

in NATO or you know the Ukrainians

7:26

or warmongers or the Ukrainians were somehow

7:28

tricked tricked into wanting freedom by the

7:30

United States, as if that isn't something, people

7:32

just count because they want it. So if

7:35

they believe that to some extent, then they

7:37

will probably be surprised if Russia does not

7:39

go for this deal now that they finally

7:41

got the war-mongering Ukrainians to agree to at

7:43

least something. On the other hand, if

7:46

what they're really doing is just

7:48

consciously trying to help Russia win

7:50

and trying to string along everybody

7:52

else while they work on that

7:54

and work on extracting the US

7:56

from NATO, if that is really

7:58

what they're doing, then... they'll probably just

8:00

continue stringing it along, of having

8:02

more of a show of peace

8:04

talks, or they'll blame it on

8:06

Ukraine, or they'll say that we

8:08

need to do something else along

8:10

the way, anything other than blaming

8:12

it on Russia, which as you

8:14

noted, Trump has very studiously never

8:16

criticized them, never blamed them for

8:18

the war, never criticized Putin in

8:20

the way that he criticizes many

8:22

other leaders. Yeah, so that makes

8:24

his response all the more interesting.

8:26

Look, there are so many different

8:28

scenarios there including, you know, Vladimir

8:30

Putin playing the victim and saying,

8:33

you know, I would have agreed

8:35

to this, but look what the

8:37

Ukrainians have done, and then the

8:39

United States, then, you know, echoing

8:42

whatever is Russia. Again, I don't

8:44

want to go down that particular

8:46

rabbit hole, but let's go back

8:48

to this point that for the

8:50

last 10 years, Donald Trump has

8:53

ripped just about everybody. He has

8:55

insulted friends, foes, political rivals, people

8:57

in the media, people in entertainment.

8:59

The one person he has never

9:01

criticized is Vladimir Putin. Now, we

9:03

went through the whole Russia, Russia,

9:05

Russia thing early on with the

9:07

whole Mueller report and all of

9:10

the, you know, the walls are

9:12

closing in and of course nothing

9:14

came out of that. Well, that's

9:16

not true. I'm sorry, let me

9:18

back up, you know, obviously the

9:20

criminal charge didn't come out of

9:22

that and Trump was able to

9:24

claim absolute complete exoneration, but it

9:27

still raises the question. Nick,

9:30

what is the deal between

9:32

Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin? What

9:34

is your best theory of

9:36

the case? So first off, I

9:38

just got to say, I

9:40

don't think it really matters in

9:42

that, what matters most is

9:44

his actions, that just how he's

9:46

acting, but the reason for

9:48

it of, it is

9:50

very weird, but I think

9:52

it is a genuine affection

9:55

and envy that he admires

9:57

Putin, he wishes that he

9:59

could have the degree of

10:01

domestic. control that Putin has. What is it he

10:03

admired about Putin? What is it about Putin that

10:06

has triggered this incredible deep

10:08

admiration? Because outside of Elon

10:10

Musk, I've never seen Trump

10:12

behave this way to somebody else. So

10:14

what is it he admires so much?

10:17

Just the strong man? He's rich,

10:19

he's powerful and people look up

10:21

to him. People treat him as

10:24

if they are simultaneously respectful and

10:26

afraid. and show him a level

10:28

of respect, not the sort of

10:30

respect that you get when somebody,

10:32

you know, thinks that you're a

10:34

good person and admires you that

10:36

way, but as the respect of

10:38

other people, whether they like him

10:40

or not, treat him as if

10:42

he is important and respectful. Often

10:44

it's common though that people will

10:46

say in response to this that there's,

10:48

the Russians have something on him, that

10:50

there's, the Russians have something on him,

10:53

like say Lindsay Graham. And I think

10:55

that really lets them off the hook,

10:57

that that's the wrong way to think

10:59

about it, that it is implying that

11:01

Trump and company don't want to do

11:04

this, but that they have been coerced

11:06

against their will into doing it. And

11:08

I see absolutely no sign of that.

11:10

It looks to every sign that we

11:12

have is that they're choosing it. They're

11:15

choosing it voluntarily. He, J.D. Vance, Elon

11:17

Musk, others have been arguing this for

11:19

years, and their arguments, their Russian

11:21

sympathetic arguments are very consistent. nearly

11:23

impossible for somebody to be so

11:25

consistent so enthusiastic when they have

11:28

been forced behind the scenes and

11:30

are having to be constantly have

11:32

the screws turned so that they

11:34

don't deviate to whatever their real

11:36

opinion is. And this is unsettling

11:38

because it's easier to think if

11:40

we can just get rid of

11:42

that coercion, then we could flip

11:44

him better, we could bribe him

11:46

better or something or embarrass him

11:48

better. But if it's just the case that...

11:50

They like this. They think that Putin's worldview

11:53

is the right one. They would like to

11:55

adopt that also. They want to see a

11:57

more Putinist world and a less say, I

11:59

don't know. like Eisenhower, Reaganite type

12:01

of world. And if that's the case,

12:03

then they're really pursuing it and all

12:05

their actions indicate that that's what it

12:08

is. So what is Putin's worldview? I

12:10

want to stick with this for a

12:12

moment because, you know, I remember when

12:14

Trump was asked, I think it was

12:16

by Bill O'Reilly, well, you know, Vladimir

12:19

Putin is a thug, he's a murderer,

12:21

he kills people, and Trump didn't blink.

12:23

He basically said, well, you know, we

12:25

kill a lot of people, a lot

12:27

of people do that. that Donald

12:29

Trump likes so much?

12:31

Is it, where does the

12:33

brutality, where does the fear, where

12:35

does the, you know, complete

12:37

thuggishness play into

12:40

this admiration? I think

12:42

that's it, the thugishness, say, might

12:44

makes right, or not even caring

12:46

whether it's right or not. A

12:48

line from this is a Thucydides,

12:50

you know, an ancient Greece, of

12:53

the strong do what they will

12:55

and the weak do what they

12:57

must. And that, so for Putin,

12:59

he has always been opposed to

13:01

the European Union, to NATO, to

13:03

the broader liberal world order. And

13:05

so we're talking about more of

13:07

a pre-World War II, pre-World even.

13:09

world order in which things like

13:12

liberal democracy and human rights and

13:14

international law play even less of

13:16

a role that they do I

13:18

don't want to claim that those

13:20

are you know say that the

13:22

US never violates those of course

13:24

that's right right but that it's

13:26

a hypocrisy being able to charge

13:29

hypocrisy is better than being able

13:31

then where the values are rejected

13:33

entirely and openly so. merely

13:35

admire Vladimir Putin or does

13:37

he want to be Vladimir

13:39

Putin? We've had some very

13:41

interesting commentary from Peter Baker

13:43

in the New York Times

13:45

that a lot of what Trump is

13:48

doing is kind of Putin ask, which

13:50

again seems like a conversation that

13:52

is almost inconceivable that we would

13:54

have had even a few years

13:57

ago. But does Donald Trump want

13:59

to be? become Vladimir Putin.

14:01

Does he actually think that that's

14:03

a model for what he is

14:05

doing right now in his presidency?

14:08

Which I understand, I understand

14:10

how unhinged that sounds, right?

14:12

I mean, a whole lot of stuff sounds unhinged.

14:14

If you said to me at any

14:16

point, I mean, think of how, if

14:18

someone said, the United States is going

14:21

to side with Russia against a US-partnered

14:23

European democracy. You know who would believe

14:25

you and on top of that it's

14:27

going to be a president from Ronald

14:30

Reagan's party that is going to be the

14:32

one who's doing it. So yeah there's a

14:34

whole lot of that but that's the world

14:36

as it is and I see I don't

14:38

think it helps to shy away from it

14:40

or you know pretend in that case. So.

14:42

Yes, I wouldn't say that Trump, you know,

14:44

has a plan to be exactly like Putin,

14:46

but the degree to which Putin has domestic

14:48

control, and you can apply other models for

14:50

him, like say Victor Orban of Hungary, also

14:52

applies to this, of where Trump expressed jealousy

14:54

of the Chinese government, of how how great

14:57

it was, it said this even before the

14:59

presidency, that they put down the tenement square

15:01

protest with force. Which you also admired. Yeah,

15:03

and he admired when Putin ordered the invasion

15:05

of Ukraine, Trump went on television and called

15:07

it savvy and genius. He was positive from

15:09

the very beginning. And I think he was

15:11

somewhat surprised that it didn't work, or at

15:13

least it didn't work right away. And we

15:15

can see this also with things like the

15:17

tariffs are bullying Canada, that the way that

15:19

they have stood back, you know, I'm not

15:22

going to be pushed around. Yes, this will

15:24

hurt us, but we can hurt you too.

15:26

And the bullying doesn't work, does seem to

15:28

throw him, meaning Trump, throw him, throw him

15:30

a bit. And that the transformation of

15:32

Russia in the 1990s, in which the

15:34

country got poorer and less powerful, but

15:37

it also got, this is the rise

15:39

of the oligarchs and then Putin in

15:41

the late 90s, early 2000s consolidating control,

15:43

that then the country might be weaker

15:46

and poorer, but Putin and his corrupt

15:48

friends have a lot more power within

15:50

it. And that very much seems to

15:53

be what Trump and Musk are trying

15:55

to do in the United States, that

15:57

if the US gets poorer from, for

16:00

example, terrorists, well, there'll be a

16:02

lot more opportunities for corruption, for

16:04

special exemptions for terrorists or favored

16:06

people. Or if things like breaking

16:08

a lot of these government agencies

16:10

and firing a lot of people

16:12

and making it where it doesn't

16:14

work, you or I might argue,

16:16

but that's bad for public health,

16:18

but that's bad for the economy.

16:20

And those arguments don't seem to

16:22

work on them because in both

16:24

cases, they see it as path

16:26

to reduce a alternative domestic power

16:28

center and gain more power and

16:30

potentially corrupt money for themselves. Okay,

16:32

well, I agree with that and

16:34

I probably don't even need to

16:36

ask this question, but that's their

16:38

mentality. And then we have elected

16:40

Republicans all around the country who

16:42

have to understand that that is

16:44

not good politics, that it clearly

16:46

is contradictory to the populist, you

16:48

know, we are the champions of

16:50

the little guy campaigns they have

16:52

been running and yet, as you

16:54

and I are speaking, they are

16:56

all in. There is no... dissent

16:58

in the Republican Party to what

17:00

Trump and Musk are doing. No

17:03

real significant dissent. This is also

17:05

one of those extraordinary historical moments

17:07

where you have congressional Republicans surrendering

17:09

their power without even a whimper,

17:11

turning themselves into potted plants. And

17:13

this was not what the founders

17:15

expected, right? They figured that Congress

17:17

would be jealous of its power

17:19

and its authority. And yet... They're

17:21

not only giving up their authority,

17:23

but to your analysis, there's a

17:25

real danger that this politics of

17:27

oligarchy and corruption is not smart

17:29

politically, unless we're missing something. So

17:31

why are they going along with

17:33

it? The possible thing that we're

17:35

missing, I think this is more

17:37

for the Trump administration, especially the

17:39

musk wing of it, but they're

17:41

operating as if they won't have

17:43

to face voters again. that Democratic

17:45

accountability is not an issue for

17:47

them. And as dark as this

17:49

is, I don't think that's totally

17:51

unreasonable given that we're wrong. already,

17:53

well he already attempted a coup

17:55

and already proved that he can

17:57

beat him. And already proved that

17:59

he can beat the legal system.

18:01

So they are currently operating without

18:03

fear of any of those checks

18:05

on presidential power. The most, always,

18:08

administration's operated with people in the

18:10

White House saying, having a little

18:12

voice in the back of their

18:14

head that, you know, this might

18:16

be illegal and then I could

18:18

be brought up on criminal charges

18:20

later. And they're not operating that

18:22

way. And so, you know, given

18:24

that they did already try to

18:26

overthrow over through the government. I

18:28

see no reason to expect that

18:30

they will leave power willingly and will

18:32

go by normal democracy. But that's at

18:34

least the administration. That would be separate

18:37

from the Congress. Okay, but say now

18:39

that this is the kind of thing

18:41

I would normally. want to push back

18:43

against, except that I think one of

18:45

our failures over the last few years

18:47

has been the failure of imagination. They

18:49

have constantly pushed the lines and we

18:51

keep thinking, well, they're not going to

18:53

cross that line, then they do cross

18:55

that line. And I do think that

18:58

this is part of the problem of, you

19:00

know, of not realizing how much they

19:02

are going to push and how far

19:04

they can actually take it. Okay, so

19:06

before we get to domestic politics. I

19:08

guess I'm also struck by

19:11

the juxtaposition of the admiration

19:13

for Vladimir Putin. The psychological

19:15

and political need that

19:18

Donald Trump had to

19:20

not just abandon Ukraine,

19:22

but to humiliate President

19:24

Zelenski. I mean, there's

19:26

no real parallel in

19:28

diplomatic history to what happened

19:31

a couple of weeks ago in

19:33

the White House. And there was

19:35

something it felt visceral and personal.

19:38

in his need to humiliate Zilenski

19:40

rather than simply say we're going

19:42

to be switching sides your thoughts

19:45

on that. I think part of it

19:47

is personal that you know remember

19:49

Trump tried to extort Zilenski back

19:52

in his first term and Zilenski

19:54

was you know stood strong and

19:56

then Trump got impeved who had

19:59

got caught. and he released those

20:01

funds that he had been impounding, and

20:03

so that also a preview of current

20:05

impoundment, a smaller version. But so one

20:08

is that Trump, Zelenski wouldn't play

20:10

ball, wouldn't help him out. Another one

20:12

I think that applies to Trump in

20:14

a lot of the online right, a

20:16

lot of the culture war right, is

20:18

that Zelenski has been displaying what actual

20:20

strength looks like, and it's the sort

20:23

of thing where he is, he's not

20:25

blustery. He doesn't make a big show

20:27

of it. But when the moment of

20:29

testing came, he was there, he stayed

20:31

there, he's been directly under threat and

20:33

under target this whole time, he even

20:35

goes and accepts things like. dealing with

20:38

insults from Trump because he knows it's important

20:40

for his country and I take that as

20:42

real strength and the Trump Musk etc. contingent

20:44

take you know yelling and bluster and sort

20:46

of putting on a show as what strength

20:49

is and then often backing down you know

20:51

when there's an actual month. The amount of

20:53

people that Elon Musk has challenged to a

20:55

fight in person and then when every one

20:57

of them says yes just managed you know

20:59

disappears you know disappears and never does it.

21:02

It's a great, it's the, you know, the

21:04

guy in the bar who's going, hold me

21:06

back, hold me back. He doesn't want to

21:08

actually get in a fight. He wants

21:11

to be held back. So I

21:13

think, you know, that's part of

21:15

it. And the broader geopolitics of

21:17

it, that where Trump has focused

21:19

a lot of his attention, there's

21:21

another example of weakness. Instead

21:23

trying to bully friends. So

21:26

Ukraine is smaller and Trump

21:28

is ganging up with the

21:30

Russian bully to bully the

21:33

Ukrainians and he you know

21:35

picks countries like with Greenland and

21:37

Denmark or Panama or Canada or others

21:39

that are US friends but that are

21:41

smaller than say Russia or China and

21:43

therefore you know more of an opportunity

21:46

to bully people that were on our

21:48

side as opposed to stand up. Okay

21:50

this is where I wanted to go

21:52

because we started off with his admiration

21:54

for Vladimir Putin and all things Russia.

21:56

You know you and I are both

21:58

old enough to remember. Remember when

22:00

war with Canada was a

22:02

South Park joke. And

22:05

the visceral loathing of

22:07

Canada is now hard not

22:09

to notice. It's

22:12

gone beyond the trolling. And

22:14

of course, his presidency 2 .0 began

22:16

with Panama, Denmark, Greenland. Is

22:18

it just the schoolyard bully looking

22:20

for somebody weaker that he can

22:22

kick around that as part of

22:24

his emulation of the strong

22:26

men, he needed somebody in his

22:29

own backyard that he also could

22:31

humiliate? Where does this go with

22:33

Canada? I don't

22:35

really know. Actually, and that's my answer

22:37

to both of those, of that it

22:39

is very odd and where the bullying

22:41

is clearly part of it. I don't, there's

22:44

such a void of actual

22:46

American interest or policy interest in

22:48

this. And you have to

22:50

be so ignorant. And I'm guessing

22:52

willfully ignorant of how this

22:54

stuff actually works. So things like

22:56

the degree to which the

22:58

US agricultural companies rely on Potash

23:00

from Canada and with US

23:02

energy companies interacting with them or

23:04

the fact that North American

23:06

air command is integrated. It's not

23:08

US defending the continent, it's

23:10

US and Canada together defending the

23:12

continent. And even just extracting that

23:14

would be difficult. A very close

23:16

intelligence partner where there's so much

23:18

trust. And that's the part that people who

23:20

are more flippant about this I think

23:23

are missing of how serious it is that

23:25

some Americans might say, oh, you know,

23:27

he's trolling or he's putting on a show

23:29

even as he continues doing policies that

23:31

are harmful to Canada. But for the Canadians,

23:33

this is deathly serious. National security is

23:35

something that requires long -term planning. And if

23:37

you don't plan in advance when the problem

23:39

actually comes, if you haven't hedged against

23:41

it, it's too late, especially when you're dealing

23:43

with somebody stronger than you. So from,

23:45

you've got this new upsurge of Canadian

23:47

nationalism. You've got the, you know, Canadians

23:49

genuinely worrying about a friend flipping to

23:52

an enemy. But even if the United

23:54

States doesn't follow up on any of

23:56

that stuff, even if we never escalate

23:58

to something as insane as. I used to

24:00

be able to say absolutely not to

24:02

a Canadian invasion, and now I have

24:04

to at least say I'm not sure.

24:06

I don't think so, but really. Really?

24:09

I mean, I very much doubt physical

24:11

force against Canada. But can I say

24:13

concretely, definitely not totally rule it out

24:15

the way I would have a year

24:17

ago? No, not really. I'd say small

24:19

percentage chance, but just merely that

24:21

those threats are undermining trust that

24:23

take a lot of effort to

24:25

build up over time and is

24:27

very valuable and we can't simply

24:30

get back. I would have said America if

24:32

I were them. Okay, well, this is

24:34

the key thing. And it's not just

24:36

them, of course. It's many of our

24:38

allies who are going through this process

24:41

of realizing that America has switched sides

24:43

now in what we used to call

24:45

the Cold War is certainly no longer

24:47

a reliable ally, is no longer a

24:50

trustworthy ally. In fact, I think there's

24:52

real doubt whether or not we are

24:54

an ally at all, which means that

24:56

we're going to see the tectonic

24:58

plates of the world order perhaps

25:01

shifting here. What are the implications

25:03

for say nuclear proliferation or for

25:05

new alliances for me do you

25:07

think? So I had I've been

25:09

unfortunately been about predicting this for a

25:11

while and I see it panning out

25:14

of that nuclear proliferation was one of

25:16

the big legacies of Trump's first term

25:18

and I thought upon him getting elected

25:20

that that would likely accelerate a lot.

25:22

So in his first term the two

25:25

things he did along these lines were

25:27

to normalize North Korea's nuclear program by.

25:29

saying lying that North Korea is no

25:31

longer a nuclear threat and treating Kim

25:33

Jong-un is more of a normal leader

25:36

rather than as a pariah, and to

25:38

let Iran out of nuclear restrictions

25:40

in exchange for nothing.

25:42

And in both cases, that

25:44

increased proliferation risks. And now,

25:46

by undermining the US commitment

25:48

to various allies, has prompted a

25:50

lot of nuclear talk in countries that

25:53

are no longer as secure as they

25:55

thought they were. So Poland and South

25:57

Korea are two that are already openly

25:59

talking. about it. I've seen some conversations

26:01

start up in Canada about it and

26:03

I wouldn't be surprised if others are

26:05

at least having this now is a

26:07

more serious conversation. Part of the reason,

26:09

and this one goes back to Eisenhower,

26:11

part of the reason for the U.S.

26:13

nuclear umbrella was to convince countries that

26:16

they could be secure from things like,

26:18

say, Soviet attack. by US protection and

26:20

didn't need their own nukes because of

26:22

the fear that the more countries have

26:24

them, the more chances there are for

26:26

accidents or for somebody to steal one

26:28

and sell it on the black market

26:30

or mistakes to happen, any other disaster

26:32

scenario. So that in general, argument against

26:34

proliferation. And the lack of the US

26:36

did so much to try to make

26:38

that credible to make that commitment credible

26:40

to make it that all the Europeans

26:42

and the Russians and say the South

26:44

Koreans North Koreans the Chinese that all

26:46

of them really did believe that America

26:48

would do it and that's a hard

26:50

thing to convince people of you would

26:52

actually destroy the world if we invade

26:54

you know I don't know. Latvia, something

26:56

like that. And so the US would

26:58

do things like put a lot of

27:00

US troops there. So that you couldn't

27:02

invade Latvia without also killing Americans, which

27:04

would prompt an American reaction. And it's

27:06

that commitment, that level of trust that.

27:08

All these countries, adversaries and allies alike,

27:10

believed that if you mess with the

27:13

US ally, you're messing with the world's

27:15

most powerful country. And that's the thing

27:17

that Trump has undermined. And it's sending

27:19

a lot of not unreasonable panic through

27:21

national security establishments where they're starting to

27:23

take more seriously if we can't rely

27:25

on the American deterrent. Maybe we need

27:27

our own. And somebody like Poland can

27:29

see that the United States doesn't invade

27:31

North Korea, even though it's a, you

27:33

know. would like to see regime change

27:35

in North Korea but North Korea as

27:37

nukes and a powerful military and they

27:39

can see that Russia attacked Ukraine which

27:41

isn't in NATO but has not bombed

27:43

any country that is in NATO it

27:45

still fears NATO's deterrent and so from

27:47

Poland's perspective if America won't be there

27:49

for them well then maybe the only

27:51

way they can actually keep the Russians

27:53

out is with nukes of their own.

27:55

Well and this is not a switch

27:57

that you can turn back on again

27:59

you know And when Biden came into

28:01

office, he said, America is back. But

28:03

I think it's pretty obvious now that

28:05

Europe has to has to forge its

28:07

own path. I'm trying to think it

28:10

was the French official who during the

28:12

election said, you know, we can't have

28:14

the security of the world dependent on

28:17

swing voters in Wisconsin every four years,

28:19

which I took personally as Wisconsin. But

28:21

I think that's the way the world

28:23

is looking at us, that in fact

28:25

we are no longer a stable and

28:28

reliable ally, and so they need to

28:30

reevaluate the world. Speaking of not being

28:32

stable, this is always fraught to talk

28:34

about domestic politics. I want to talk

28:37

about the CR, this continuing resolution, and

28:39

I have to admit I have a

28:41

certain bias about this, that it feels

28:43

like there's the periodic Kabuki dance that

28:45

we all go through, and then eventually

28:48

it gets settled, or maybe there's a

28:50

shutdown. not to get too deep into

28:52

it. But this is a rather

28:54

interesting moment where you have Donald

28:57

Trump and Elon Musk dismantling the

28:59

government, and then we're just a couple

29:01

of days away from the possible

29:03

shutdown right before you and I

29:05

began recording this conversation. Chuck Schumer,

29:07

the Democratic leader in the Senate,

29:09

said, we're not going to, the

29:12

Democrats are not going to bail

29:14

you out on all of this.

29:16

You had the continuing resolution passed

29:18

the House by the narrowest conceivable

29:20

margin. along basically partisan lines.

29:22

It needs Democratic votes. It

29:24

needs Democratic votes in the

29:27

Senate. They're not going to get

29:29

very many. What do you think? What

29:31

happens here? Does Donald Trump

29:33

and Elon Musk want to see

29:35

the government shut down? And, you know,

29:37

will Democrats be blamed, do you think,

29:39

if in fact, there is a shutdown

29:42

on Friday? So like you I'm used to

29:44

thinking of this thingy that for years of

29:46

it's a bunch of posturing and that they're

29:48

trying to set up future blame games and

29:51

Maybe we'll get a short shutdown for like

29:53

a few hours, but then we'll get this

29:55

announcement of something or other and you know

29:57

the the markets right right then recover and

30:00

and that's just how it goes.

30:02

And the big difference now in

30:04

unprecedented in US history is that

30:06

the executive branch has openly declared

30:08

and followed up with actions. that

30:10

it doesn't think Congress has power

30:12

of the purse, that it thinks

30:14

it can just ignore that part

30:16

of the Constitution whenever it wants

30:18

to, and there's so, and not

30:20

only violate the Constitution, an Article

30:23

I of the Constitution, but also

30:25

explicit congressional law of the Impoundment

30:27

Act, that makes it clear in

30:29

case there is any ambiguity, no, you

30:31

cannot just simply not spend the things

30:33

that are signed into law, and given

30:35

that. It is not the same

30:38

sort of situation because Congress,

30:40

if it does pass something,

30:42

that's something will be treated

30:44

by the executive branch as

30:46

advisory, not as binding. And

30:48

so that is hanging over this entire

30:50

fight, I think. At least for the

30:52

time being, it looks like that Republicans

30:55

will maybe squeeze through a sort of

30:57

continuing resolution on their own. I don't

30:59

know if Democrats will go along with

31:01

that, but at least for the time

31:04

being, they didn't get it through the

31:06

filibuster in the Senate. that doesn't mean

31:08

if maybe if they don't in the

31:10

future they'll change the rules they only

31:13

need a narrow majority you know 50

31:15

plus one to get rid of that

31:17

so if Democrats stick to it I

31:20

wouldn't be so surprised if they do

31:22

but I don't really buy the Trump

31:24

and Musk want a government shutdown thing

31:26

because Government shutdowns look bad and the

31:29

problems that they've been causing have been

31:31

happening very quickly and causing more problems

31:33

for all sorts of regular people throughout

31:36

the country and people are noticing those

31:38

and this is where you see things like

31:40

showing up at Republican town halls and

31:43

Republicans running away from it. And

31:45

there. Just not able to shut down

31:47

as much as they would like with doing

31:49

say with a lot of the impoundments So

31:51

some people argue that oh well then if

31:53

the Congress doesn't do it then they'll like

31:55

it and it'll get worse But I think

31:58

that seems almost like negotiating against yourself that

32:00

it's sort of too cute. The public

32:02

tends to blame the president when things

32:04

go badly and tends to credit the

32:06

president when things go well. And this

32:08

president in particular has said more than

32:10

others about how it is entirely him

32:12

that is doing stuff and he can

32:14

do it and do it really quickly

32:16

and fix anything. And so if things

32:19

are going badly. No, I don't think

32:21

that that is good for the people

32:23

in charge. The people in charge tend

32:25

to get blamed when things go badly

32:27

and that it would be a mistake

32:29

for Democrats to effectively signal that they

32:31

are, the things are normal and they're going

32:33

to validate the actions that the President is

32:35

doing and that the President is doing and

32:38

that means if, so they fight really hard

32:40

to get something in a bill and then

32:42

the White House just says, now we're not

32:44

going to do that and tells a Treasury

32:47

to freeze the money and then that Congress

32:49

had just evaporated. So I

32:51

think if I don't have right

32:53

in front of me, but back

32:56

in November, sorry, back in December

32:58

before this administration began, you wrote

33:00

a piece, you know, talking about

33:02

the bending of the need to

33:05

Trump was troubling, but the normalization

33:07

by Democrats was even worse. Talk

33:09

to me a little bit about

33:11

this, because the Democrats do seem,

33:14

with some exceptions, to be flailing

33:16

around, and that many of the

33:18

things they have done have treated many

33:20

of the abnormal things that the

33:23

Trump folks have done, as if

33:25

it is just sort of same

33:27

old, same old. Have they figured

33:30

this out? Have they figured

33:32

out how to navigate the existential

33:34

abnormality of this

33:37

moment? I don't think

33:39

so. I mean, do you? No. But

33:41

in fairness, it is, it's unprecedented in

33:43

the United States. It is a very

33:45

difficult moment. There are many things going

33:47

on at once. So I don't think

33:49

the fact that they don't have a

33:51

full handle on it is devastating on

33:53

its own. That strikes me as reasonable.

33:55

I don't have a full handle on

33:57

it. It's not like I'm sitting here.

34:00

and saying they should do exactly this

34:02

and I'm confident it will work. I can't

34:04

be confident that it will work. That said,

34:06

I have been unsettled and so much disturbed

34:08

by how much they seem to be

34:10

treating it as, or at least some

34:13

of them, and this is less so

34:15

than they were before, but as business

34:17

as usual. as. And a number of

34:19

them have regretted it one way or

34:21

another. There were, I remember early Bernie

34:23

Sanders and Rep. Rokana and there were

34:25

few others who spoke positively of Doge

34:27

and how excited they were to work

34:29

in Musk on cutting, whatever their personal

34:32

priority of cutting. They all voted for

34:34

Marco Rubio. Sure another good example of

34:36

some of them voted some of them

34:38

voted for RFK some of them and

34:40

some of the Senate Democrats have come

34:42

to say now publicly that they regret

34:44

voting for somebody or that they Oh

34:46

he told me something privately but then

34:48

he acted in the way that he

34:50

has been consistently acting in public for

34:52

years and that I wonder did you

34:54

really believe it or did you just

34:57

think that this excuse of I trusted

34:59

his words in private makes you sound

35:01

good but either way the backtracking where

35:03

they oh I I didn't vote for

35:05

them. Or now that we see Senate

35:07

Democrats saying that. They are not voting

35:09

for this continuing resolution that Republicans try

35:11

to use to keep the government open

35:13

while they work on a bill. That

35:16

shows maybe a little more of the

35:18

spine, that anger from constituents and calls

35:20

to their offices and things like that

35:22

probably helped. The fact that the economy

35:24

has a lot of metrics that are

35:26

going negative probably helped. If the economy

35:28

was going well in Trump's approval ratings

35:31

were rising rather than falling or something

35:33

like that, I bet more Democrats would

35:35

be wearier. that they were really on

35:37

the back foot from the election took

35:39

the election results as opposed to what

35:41

it really was was a yes a

35:43

trump victory but an awfully close election

35:45

in which you showed millions upon millions

35:47

of people preferred the Democrats and instead

35:49

treating it as this big national referendum

35:51

in which like the the will of

35:53

the American people as a whole were

35:55

really into this and don't want it

35:58

Democrats to do anything about it. I

36:00

think that initial shock is wearing

36:02

off and the fact that Trump

36:04

and Musk are screwing up in

36:06

various overt ways is helping Democrats

36:09

strengthen their spine. Okay, so we

36:11

also, we still have three branches

36:13

of government. How do you think

36:16

the judiciary is looking at this?

36:18

And by the judiciary, I mean

36:20

the Supreme Court, which broadly immunized

36:22

Donald Trump, you know, it's a...

36:24

You know, we talked about how

36:26

unprecedented it is that you have

36:29

someone who is almost literally above

36:31

the law, unaccountable in many of

36:33

the ways that the founding fathers

36:35

thought that the presidency would be

36:37

unaccountable. You've had a series of

36:40

legal challenges, the most interesting of

36:42

which, though, was watching Chief Justice

36:44

Roberts and Amy Koni Barrett.

36:46

actually break with the administration

36:48

on their spending? And of

36:50

course, Maga is up in

36:53

complete, you know, hair on

36:55

fire, that, you know, Justice

36:57

Barrett has betrayed us and

36:59

everything. But do you sense that

37:01

that the judiciary or at

37:03

least the Supreme Court is thinking,

37:06

you know, we're responsible for

37:08

a lot of what's happening

37:10

right now and the dangers

37:12

that we face, are they rethinking

37:14

their posture? vis-a-vis Trump.

37:16

I don't, you know, I don't

37:18

know what they're thinking or have

37:20

any insight. Of course not. But

37:23

the, I'm not willing to give

37:25

them credit for that. And for

37:28

one of that... Need the hope.

37:30

Need the hope, man. Do. Sure.

37:32

Well, I do think that there's,

37:35

there's hope in a broader judicial

37:37

reaction and that you can see

37:39

the Trump administration arguing various cases

37:42

in court. Rather than just declaring

37:44

that they don't have to listen

37:46

to any case result that they

37:49

don't like with things like

37:51

different things have been put

37:53

on hold that there was

37:55

the recent arrest without any

37:57

charges of the former Colombian

37:59

student. and that was one where a

38:01

judge stated, and at least as far

38:03

as I know. that he is still in

38:06

the United States and that is going

38:08

through at least something now that is kind

38:10

of like due process or moving in

38:12

that direction more, that they've with when they

38:14

try to get rid of birthright citizenship that's

38:16

been blocked by the courts because that's

38:18

just so wildly unconstitutional. But with the Supreme

38:21

Court as much as I had objections to

38:23

say some decisions if you know maybe

38:25

I disagreed with a citizen or disagree with

38:27

on policy, the immunity decision I thought was

38:30

one of the grossest on American things

38:32

I'd ever seen and belongs on the list

38:34

of infamy with dreadscot and with the

38:36

koramatsu decision that allowed Japanese internment. Just the

38:38

very idea that it more or less was

38:41

George the third was right and all

38:43

of the founding fathers were wrong about what

38:45

the presidency is you know George Washington and

38:47

then and later Teddy Roosevelt was saying

38:49

no man is above the law they were

38:51

just all wrong and the only person

38:53

who ever got the presidency right was Richard

38:56

Nixon when he said you know if the

38:58

president does it it's not illegal anyway

39:00

that's just absurd and they made up so

39:02

much stuff that's not in the Constitution to

39:05

do it but the reaction that with

39:07

five four I on the recent vote to

39:09

say that Congress does have at least to

39:11

some extent power of the purse that

39:13

I found it that four justices were willing

39:15

to vote against that I know really

39:17

disturbing and that it should have been just

39:20

a very clear nine oh of course you

39:22

have to follow the law of course

39:24

you have to follow legislation the article one

39:26

is very clear about who controls the money

39:29

it is not the president it's Congress

39:31

and that even there were four that wouldn't

39:33

do it. So what it made me

39:35

think of more, especially with Roberts being a

39:37

swing vote, was the Muslim ban in Trump's

39:40

first term, which is a bunch of

39:42

judges said it was unconstitutional and it reached

39:44

the Supreme Court and it was executive order

39:46

and it reached the Supreme Court and

39:48

what they said was, you know, it doesn't

39:50

quite fit there are some issues with it.

39:53

And so then they technically struck it

39:55

down and immediately the Trump administration just did

39:57

it again with a few tweaks. And

39:59

the Supreme Court said, you got to leave

40:01

it in place while we adjudicate it, as

40:04

opposed to you have to stop it,

40:06

just fully within their power, put a stable

40:08

adjudicate it. And then this happened a second

40:10

time, where then, ah, they hadn't dotted

40:12

all the right eyes and the T's, so

40:14

we shot it down. The administration did

40:17

it again. And when its lower court stopped

40:19

it, the Supreme Court said, you have to

40:21

allow it. And then eventually made it

40:23

to them and they said, okay, now it

40:25

complies with the law. And so I am

40:28

wait and see on a lot of

40:30

this impoundment and power the purse fights because

40:32

they could get to a point where

40:34

they say could very easily just one vote

40:36

would change it and where they say something

40:39

like, you know, this is, I guess,

40:41

technically closer enough that we're not going to

40:43

get involved in a dispute between the branches

40:45

and I do not have faith in

40:47

them that they will. stand up for rule

40:49

of law rather than come up with some

40:52

lawyerly way to give Donald Trump special

40:54

exemptions, much as they made up the whole

40:56

idea of official acts and unofficial acts

40:58

of presidents with official acts being ones that

41:00

were no longer subject to law. Yeah, that

41:03

was that was bullshit with with with

41:05

with her on it. Let me grasp for

41:07

a couple of straws of hope. I always

41:09

distinguish hope from optimism optimism to believe

41:11

things will get better hope is the belief

41:14

that you know if you if you

41:16

if you strive that you can improve things.

41:18

It was interesting that, you know, as Trump

41:20

marches through the Department of Justice, weaponizing

41:22

the Department of Justice, purging, senior lawyers, purging

41:24

the FBI, that you are having a number

41:27

of people from that world, federalist society

41:29

world, who are saying, you know, I'm not

41:31

going to do this. You had the one

41:33

prosecutor in SDNY, who... when he was

41:35

ordered to drop the charges against Mayor Adams

41:38

of New York said it was never

41:40

going to be me and this is a

41:42

former clerk to some of the justice this

41:44

is somebody that they know from that

41:46

world so I do wonder as they move

41:48

through because they're not doing it in a

41:51

They're not doing

41:53

it in a careful

41:55

way. They're not doing

41:57

it in a prudent

41:59

way. And you do

42:02

have an entire

42:04

generation, I think, of

42:06

conservative jurists and lawyers

42:08

who are not necessarily

42:10

gonna go along with

42:13

MAGA. That's number one,

42:15

number two. And

42:17

this is maybe a little bit

42:19

more speculative. The law firm that has

42:21

been targeted by the Trump administration, how

42:23

do you pronounce it Perkins? Coe, is

42:25

that the name? I've only read it. I've

42:27

only read it, I've never seen it.

42:29

Sure, let's go with that. All right,

42:31

let's call just Perkin. I

42:34

would suggest that people go and

42:36

look at the brief that was filed

42:38

by this law firm. This is

42:40

a big law firm, lots of influencers.

42:43

And given the pattern of watching

42:45

one institution after another bend the knee

42:47

or cave in or try to appease,

42:49

the fact that these big law firms

42:51

who have a lot on the line are

42:54

pushing back so aggressively, at least

42:56

for now, makes me think

42:58

that, okay, at least now, we've come

43:00

up against something that is, and

43:02

the lawyers are not afraid to put

43:04

their names on. And there's

43:06

a lot of them that

43:09

are stepping forward in doing that.

43:11

And the reason I'm mentioning this,

43:13

that given the collapse

43:15

of the political opposition in the

43:17

Republican Party and Congress to Trump, you

43:20

have to hope, at least at

43:22

this point, that there is

43:24

still some resistance in the legal

43:26

community and in the judiciary.

43:28

I share with you the skepticism,

43:31

but it's there and we don't

43:33

have a definitive answer. We have

43:35

a definitive answer about congressional Republicans,

43:37

right? We know that

43:39

one, but we don't know how

43:41

the judiciary is going to respond

43:43

yet. We don't, and

43:45

I agree that that is a

43:47

reason for at least some hope that

43:49

at least some members of the

43:51

judiciary and the bar are acting as

43:53

if they care about their own

43:56

power and authority and principles in ways

43:58

that, as you mentioned, founding

44:00

fathers thought that faction would

44:02

check faction, that ambition would check

44:04

ambition, that people in Congress

44:06

would just not, they would never

44:08

want to give up their own power

44:10

and own authority. What type of ambitious person

44:12

would want to give up that? And

44:14

so that part's been surprising. But I have

44:16

seen people, I agree with you that

44:18

in the legal profession, not all of them,

44:20

of course, and they're ones we could

44:23

criticize, but that there have been, and we

44:25

even saw some of this also in

44:27

the time in between the terms when Trump

44:29

was facing legal charges, or when there

44:31

was the Judge Ludig as a maybe great

44:33

example of this, as a conservative judge

44:35

who, you know, stellar credentials and who made

44:37

a strong argument that the 14th Amendment

44:39

barred Trump as an insurrectionist from

44:41

running. Another thing the Supreme Court

44:43

changed of the law clearly saying that

44:45

they're not allowed to run unless Congress grants

44:47

them an exemption, and the Supreme Court

44:49

changed that into they are allowed to run

44:51

unless Congress passes something saying they can't. But

44:54

so again, not really, you know,

44:56

trust the courts. But I have seen

44:58

so in terms of hope that I think

45:00

the conservative number of conservative judges and

45:03

lawyers, at least a subset of them is

45:05

one, some business leaders, you know, I

45:07

saw that maybe some like in the finance

45:09

world are realizing their mistake that they

45:11

seem to have told themselves that all that

45:13

stuff Trump was talking about, about tariffs

45:15

and all this, you know, other volatility, he's

45:17

not going to do that. That's just

45:19

for the rubes. And you know, they really

45:22

had convinced themselves of that. Yes, they

45:24

really had. Yeah. And you know,

45:26

who's the Rube now, guys, but

45:28

the, but I have seen some,

45:30

you know, Jamie Dimon or other

45:32

sort of big CEOs starting to

45:34

change different even changing forecasts. Goldman

45:37

Sachs lowered its target for Tesla,

45:39

I think of, you know, what

45:41

it's expecting along those lines. I've

45:43

seen things of a protest against

45:45

Musk specifically and like the Tesla

45:47

takedown campaign seems to be informing

45:49

more people and in a way

45:51

that does seem to be bugging

45:53

him. know, you mentioned with Trump

45:55

doing an advertisement for Tesla

45:58

from the White House. wildly

46:00

corrupt, but would not be the sort

46:02

of thing that he was doing if

46:04

the decline of Tesla's stock price was

46:07

not something that was genuinely concerning Elon

46:09

Musk and looking at potentially something that

46:11

could damage their power. And also you

46:13

mentioned with the Europeans, I think the

46:15

fact that in so many ways that

46:17

the Trump administration and a lot of

46:20

this goes on Musk, but has been

46:22

so reckless. with it, that yes, that

46:24

makes it harder for people to get

46:26

a handle on it, but it also

46:28

is disabusing people of illusions. The Europeans,

46:31

they could have strung along a lot

46:33

of Europe for a while with, you

46:35

know, maybe and if, and well, we

46:37

would just like you to do more

46:39

of this, instead of denigrating them outright

46:41

and saying that the US doesn't really

46:43

think their security as priority. Same thing

46:45

with a lot of the tariffs with

46:48

Canada or other economic management, with a

46:50

lot of the Musk-Dodge stuff destroying parts

46:52

of the government, firing a lot of

46:55

people that thought that arguments like, but

46:57

I'm trying to cure cancer, but this

46:59

will hurt children, or this will make

47:01

us all really a lot poorer. Why

47:03

do you want to do that? That

47:05

those arguments are in resonating with the

47:07

administration, but they're resonating with people. People

47:09

in communities will know when they, you

47:12

can't help but notice when you got

47:14

fired. And when you ask, why did

47:16

I get fired? And the answer is

47:18

because Elon must cut our funding. and

47:20

illegally cut our funding, that's something that

47:22

people care about. So I think there

47:24

are many hopeful signs of a larger

47:27

societal reaction and whenever people, as much

47:29

as, you know, I am fairly pessimistic

47:31

in the sense that I think this

47:33

can get worse before it gets better

47:35

and I've been pretty, I think my

47:38

track record on that is quite good.

47:40

I'm happy to go back and look, you

47:42

know, but in the ways that I thought

47:44

it was going to go bad, but also

47:47

people can often get too dumerish, too defeatist

47:49

that Decently more entrenched authoritarian

47:51

governments more more entrenched and more

47:53

authoritarian governments in the Trump administration

47:55

have fallen and The way that

47:58

they end up falling is much

48:00

of the time ultimately is

48:02

rising popular opposition. Nobody knows

48:04

exactly where that threshold is, but

48:07

there is a limit of how

48:09

much of broader society, how much

48:11

civil society institutions like those lawyers,

48:14

or just the general public, how

48:16

much people you can really hurt

48:18

and really piss off before you

48:20

start getting a overwhelming reaction. So

48:23

I don't think we know where it's going.

48:25

But we're going to find out, aren't

48:27

we? We're going to find out over

48:29

the next few years. Nicholas Grossman, thank

48:31

you so much for joining me. You

48:33

can find Nicholas's work over at Arc

48:36

Digital. He's a professor of political science

48:38

at the University of Illinois. We will

48:40

have to have you back again. So

48:42

thank you very much for all your

48:44

time today. Sure, I'd love to. It's

48:46

a real pleasure. Thanks. And thank you

48:48

all for listening to this episode of

48:51

To the Contrary podcast. I'm Charlie Sykes.

48:53

We do this several times a week

48:55

because now more than ever before we

48:57

need to remind ourselves, we are

48:59

not the crazy ones. Thanks.