B (3:07)

Tim Miller. The old explanations don't apply anymore either, though, because to Paul Rykoff's point, this isn't where the American people are. This isn't where MAGA is. I mean, there isn't some mandate to put troops trained for war or natural disasters on the streets picking up garbage. There's no mandate for that. The argument that Democrats have begun advancing about crime and violence, I think we heard at the beginning of the week from Governor Pritzker and the mayor of Chicago when they said our cities will continue to have a violence problem as long as red states have a gun problem. I wonder what you make of the extreme confidence in acting well outside the mandate of even the MAGA voter.

A (3:57)

Yeah, they're actually probably acting in an anti mandate stance, at least when it comes to the military part of this. Maybe not the troops in the streets, but there was at least some. Trump had this weird coalition where there were some people that were excited about his violent rhetoric and authoritarianism and saw him as a tough guy. And then there were other people that saw him as a peace candidate. And you heard this, this was part of the RFK Tulsi coalition and part of the Manosphere coalition. They didn't want, they thought, they believed Trump and he was like, I'm going to get us out of wars. Right. And so here he is renaming the Department of Defense the Department of War. Not exactly subtle. And to use Pete Haggs as language, smoking random drug boats, allegedly drug boats in the Caribbean. And so this was absolutely not what, at least what some segment of his electorate had voted for. And again, I think that if people had the courage to speak out against it, there would potentially be vulnerability here politically, particularly on the military side of things. I think that the law enforcement side of things in the streets of the cities maybe is more probably appreciated among his supporters. But look, and I think that we can even should even step back and not even really grant that it was a drug boat that they took out in the Caribbean until we know the facts. I mean, the same people that lied and sent these Venezuelans to a foreign torture prison based on their tattoos and Trump, it's the same president, went out and said that they had sent Abrego Garcia there because he had MS.13 on his knuckles and he was looking at a photoshopped image. He was too stupid to realize that the photoshopped image was not real and that those weren't his real knuckles. So you can't trust these guys to be telling us the truth. And I think that watching them act with impunity, doing summary executions and renaming the Department of Defense Department of War is something that I think there could be a backlash among some segment of his base if folks were willing to speak out about it.

B (6:03)

Tom, let me come back to your piece about the other big piece of news on this. Pete Hagg says Department of Cringe is the title of your new piece, quote, last month, when the plan was still just a hypothetical, the president was asked why he favored it. He said that Department of War quote, just sounded better and that it would be a callback to the name under which US Forces fought in the two world wars. But the change is also a reflection of how much Trump and Secretary of Defense his title for now, Pete Hegseth, think of themselves as tough guys, real fighters who will no longer trifle with silly names about defending things. Hegseth in particular is obsessed with war fighters, a clunky Pentagon term that's been around for far too long, who will engage in war fighting with great lethality. It is the height of stupid politics for Donald Trump, who beat both of our old boss, I mean, who wins in the Republican primary in 2016 because he is the most anti war person and then drives a wedge between Hillary Clinton and some independent voters over issues of national security and war. His entire identity is wrapped up in being an anti war figure. And so as he's shedding voters over his crappy economy and shedding voters over who were really, really looking forward to reading all of the gigabytes of data. And since I asked how big a gigabyte is, my feed is full of explanations of how many documents that is. This is a lot of documents. They're waiting for all of them. Not one book. He's shedding another little layer of the onion here. And I'm not saying he's going to lose the MAGA coalition. And I'm not saying anyone in Congress is going to wake up tomorrow morning and find their spines or any other body part. But it is not good for him politically to be wrapping all this, the thing that is part of his political strength and identity.

A (7:52)

Yeah, look, let's just set aside the merits of his foreign policy and of isolationist foreign policy for a second because I'm pretty much against all of Donald Trump's foreign policy instincts. Maybe not every single one, but darn close to it. And just look at the politics of this purely. I don't think you could argue with the fact that Donald Trump clearly benefited politically and the Republican Party benefited politically from being positioned as being a more anti war party over the last eight years. Maybe that was bs, you know, obviously, maybe people that were Palestinian advocates who kind of went along with that might look back at that and think, ooh, that was a bad deal that we made. But like, just out of pure politics, he positioned himself with the electorate as somebody that was going to be more skeptical towards these wars that people are frustrated with and tired of. And he did that effectively in both 2016 and 2024 in his victories. And I think that the Democrats, because a lot of times Democrats get stuck in this bind where they want to defend institutions for good reason, want to defend the Defense Department, want to defend the FBI, found themselves at times kind of being more defensive over this foreign policy, bipartisan foreign policy establishment that people weren't that fond of. And so to me, I think it's a stupid name change. Obviously it's childish, it's silly, but I think provides Democrats a little bit of a propaganda opportunity back to kind of say, no, actually these guys are who you thought they were. They are the war candidates. They are the ones that are acting recklessly. They're the ones that are gonna create problems in foreign affairs. And I think it'd probably be smart for Democrats to try to take that mantle back a little bit.

B (9:38)

Viewers of this program know it well. Institutions across our country are buckling and self censoring on a daily, sometimes hourly basis in the face of Donald Trump's reelection and his clear, brazen public commitment to pursuing authoritarian tactics and quest for power. Just this week, Northwestern lost its president who had clashed with Republicans. Harvard is still negotiating a massive settlement with the Trump administration despite a big win in court this week. Law firms are quietly working for the Trump administration now as part of their quote unquote deals. CBS is on the precipice of a legacy altering set of decisions. But Amid all of this cowering and shape shifting, one group, rather inexplicably remains completely undaunted, Emboldened, actually. They're comedians and comedy writers. Case in point, the cartoon South Point. South park has been merciless, more provocative than ever since its new season began earlier this year. And skewering Trump and his administration and those figures and institutions who have fallen in line, highlighting the absolute absurdity of that complicity in the process. Does any of it matter politically?

A (10:57)

Yeah, well, I think there are two parts of this. One is, can it give other people the backbone to get to speak out? And that's like the most frustrating part about all of this is you would think that south park would be showing the way that, like, there's not the risk here that all of these people say there is, that you can speak out against Trump, especially if you come from a place of power and privilege. I think that's the most frustrating thing about watching all these tech execs go there and slobber over him yesterday, as if the richest people in the history of the world could not survive and keep their dignity intact at the same time. But hopefully, I'm not counting our chickens on that. To me, I think the political implication that is maybe more powerful, which is true especially of south park, is, is you're seeing this trickle down into other more kind of comedians that appeal more to people in the maga. Right. Particularly the kind of manosphere type comedians. I'm thinking of Tim Dillon in particular and Andrew Schultz. I don't. Your viewers might not be familiar with them, or they might, but I've been watching a lot of their shows lately and they are pretty. They're starting to get pretty skeptical of this administration and they want to be outsiders. They don't, you know, comedians don't want to be talking heads and mouthpieces for the administration like a Charlie Kirk might. They wanna be contrarian. And Trump's given a lot to work with, whether it be the military stuff or whether it be there's a lot of funny material out there about J.D. vance I've been watching, and Peter Thiel and his four speeches on the Antichrist he's giving coming up and how maybe we should be a little bit concerned if one of the most influential people in MAGA is giving four speeches on the Antichrist in the next month. So I think that like the south park and the Tim Dillons starting to poke fun at these guys, I think could have a real political impact. It might pop the bubble of invincibility that Trump has had with some part of his base.