Loading summary
Transcript54 lines
- [00:07]
A
Welcome to Talking Feds, a roundtable that brings together prominent former federal officials and special guests for a dynamic discussion of the most important political and legal topics of the day. I'm Harry Littman. In case you couldn't tell from the last time you pumped gas, the latest news is that Trump is escalating his war of choice with Iran. U.S. diplomats are working overtime to try to find a new ceasefire deal, but pundits are already saying any lull may come too late to save Trump and the Republican Party from a midterm shellacking. But Democrats still have to make it to the November finish line, too. A bitter, high stakes primary in Michigan between Haley Stevens and Abdul El Sayed is reopening intraparty struggles. The ugly fight makes the main race look sunny by comparison, since the Dems there moved quickly to get behind new nominee Troy Jackson and put the Graham Platner saga behind them. To discuss a war that grows grimmer and less manageable by the week and key hurdles for Democratic prospects of retaking the Senate. It's a pleasure to welcome three guests with deep insight into the policy and politics at play. And they are. Susan Glasser, a staff writer at the New Yorker, where she writes a column on life in Washington and co hosts the Political Scene podcasts Washington Roundtable. She previously served as editor of several DC based publications. Great to see you again, Susan.
- [01:56]
B
So happy to be with you. Thank you, Harry.
- [01:58]
A
Ested Herndon, an editorial director at Vox. Previously he spent seven years in the New York Times where he racked up many awards for his political coverage. He now hosts Vox. Great podcast America, actually. And I'm always pleased when I get to say this. It's his first time on Talking Feds. Welcome. Ested Herndon.
- [02:21]
C
Yeah, thanks for having me. I'm pumped to be here.
- [02:23]
A
And not her first time, I'm very happy to say. Juliette Kyem, the faculty chair of the Homeland Security Program at Harvard's Kennedy School, served for several years as Obama's Assistant Secretary for Intergovernmental affairs at dhs. If I did the whole bio, that would consume the episode, but let me just add, she's just launched a substack early warning. Great name, by the way, with Juliet Kiam.
- [02:50]
B
Thank you.
- [02:51]
D
I was avoiding substack for a while and then I was like, all the cool kids are here.
- [02:56]
A
It's true. It's that whole different channel now.
- [02:59]
D
Now I just got to get off of X. That would be a sign of pain.
- [03:04]
A
One step at a time. Okay, let's. Let's go straight to Iran, which we haven't talked about on this podcast in a few weeks. Heating back up. A month ago, Trump looked like he was going to do his well known, well worn tactic, really, of declaring victory and telling everyone to just move on. He's now taken the country back to a historically unpopular war. His ratings reflect it. What the hell's going on with the war? And why are we deeper and deeper in what's no longer a sort of temporary, quick skirmish?
- [03:41]
B
So, Harry, first of all, Donald Trump was in a political bind by starting the war without any kind of justification for it, without selling any reason why the American people, never mind to the US Congress, which actually has the power to declare war. He did so when he did so, offering a variety of rationales for the war, none of which panned out. Remember, it started out as a regime change war and the Iranian people were going to benefit. Then all of a sudden he said, no, actually, the new leaders are great after killing the old leaders. You know, he said, it's about ending the nuclear program that he had already previously obliterated. Then he said, no, actually, it's just about reopening the Strait of Hormuz that was open before the war started. And against that backdrop, and rising oil prices, which of course were leading to rising prices for basically just about everything, Trump felt enormous political pressure to end it. What he did was come up with a typically bullshit memorandum of understanding that from day one, you could predict that this truce, this ceasefire with Iran was going to collapse. Because although Donald Trump told us at the time, it was actually the greatest, most important historic and transformational memorandum of understanding, by the way, that's a phrase that was amplified in some of our media, shockingly, should never have been on day one. The description given by Donald Trump, by Marco Rubio, his Secretary of State, of what was in that concerning the Strait of Hormuz versus what the Iranians said about it was exactly opposite. So from day one, you had the Iranians saying, essentially, it's ratified our control of the strait, and it says essentially you have to go through us. Donald Trump and Marco Rubio said, no, it says that the strait will not only be open, but that nobody has the right to charge tolls for it. Except maybe the US does, remember when Donald Trump said that? So I think it collapsed on the weight of its own contradictions. And a lot of Middle east experts who are much smarter than I am at understanding how the Iranians negotiate, their view is that Donald Trump has inadvertently empowered Iran far more than the possession of a nuclear weapon would have in the sense that it's given them built in chokehold over the global economy that they can turn on and off at will. And so the idea that Iran at this point is going to negotiate that away with Donald Trump, whose word can't be trusted anyways, very unlikely. And so it suggests that we're now in a new cycle of almost constant, perhaps stopping and starting conflict. We'll see. Trump has threatened to take it from a low grade conflict to an intense all out warfare, scorched earth against civilians. We'll see if he does that. He's blustered about it a lot of times, but to me that is the kind of where we are now and where we might be for the foreseeable future.
- [06:35]
A
Yeah, I mean even the MOU at the time, many people pillar read as really no better than the deal we had before, but doesn't stop him from declaring victory. There's also this, there was a Wall Street Journal article that basically said, and you always have to think about his pettiness, I think that he's just mad at those Iranians and he, you know, calls them scumbags and lunatics. But really nothing has panned out so far.
- [07:03]
D
We lost. This is all background worries and I don't mean to denigrate the commitment of this war is ongoing. We've already lost it. So it's just a question of whether Trump's ego escalates before we lose or de escalates before we lose. Like there's no victory here. And just picking up on, on Susan's points, I just, this was written on day one. Whatever has been happening with these ceasefires for two reasons. One is, yeah, we know, we know how to drop bombs. Like if I see another military analyst being like, that was. First of all, we don't know how to drop bombs because we killed a bunch of girls at a, at a school. But like the idea that this was going to be a war fought in the skies, anyone who knows the area, it was going to clearly be a war about the waters. Right. I mean, and any gaming we had done or scenario planning always understood that Iran's power lie on the waters, not in the skies. And yet there we go. So that's the first. And you can't unwind that because they've already asserted their dominance over the strait. And whatever people say about the Gulf, I do a lot of work and we've lost the Gulf. They want out, they want done.
- [08:18]
A
You mean the surrounding states?
- [08:19]
D
Yeah, look at Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia, like, like, wait, we Just had a deal. And Trump. So that's the first thing is, is how the war would be fought. That's why we lost. The second is asymmetrical commitment. That's what we call it in MySpace. It is who is committed and why to winning. So, you know, people talk about, you know, nuclear and the Strait of Hormuz. It's not about that for Iran anymore. It is. This is existential. This is about deterrence. They have to make it hurt. You know, Trump seems surprised that they're not agreeing to ceasefires. The only thing they have is to protect themselves, because all governments want to protect themselves. Is time. This is what I wrote about in my substack, is time. And we have an asymmetrical commitment. We have a president with no plan, no agenda, short attention span. And I hope that the White House realizes that we lost before we lose more service members or before they delete how many service members we've lost. As we're seeing they're doing now is they're lying about the numbers. I don't believe the casualty numbers anymore. As I said, the future is just background noise.
- [09:28]
C
I defer to them on the kind of analysis from Tehran, but I definitely think that Donald Trump laid the groundwork for his own defeat from the beginning here. The inability to bring allies into the premise, to bring the public in to the premise, particularly matters. I think in my world of kind of election results, in reality, there's a universal, kind of pervasive sense that this is not a war in America's interest. And I think that is a correct sense from the public, because they never got an explanation from the White House about why these actions were happening in the first place. Not yet to mention pain at the pump and shock and oil prices leading to rising gas prices and other kind of immediate concerns for people. And I just think, you know, they, too, see a world that doesn't seem much safer than the one that started. And so it seems to me, as someone who does kind of who reads about the White House more from the outside and its political impact rather than the inside, that Trump thought that he was going to, you know, do Venezuela Part two, and that he could just, I think, wipe out individuals in kind of a projection of strength. But I think the point about asymmetrical commitment is an important one. The point about the differences between this region and that is an important one. But those are all things Donald Trump was warned about. I mean, like, you know, I'm sure, like, you know, like, I've talked to John Bolton I'm sure the rest of y' all have. I mean, we've talked to people about who talk about warning him about these exact things, about the possibility that the Strait of Hormuz could have been seized. And so he ignored those warning signs for reasons that he even used to articulate in his first term. So I think that the blame falls squarely with the president for what is an increasingly unpopular war. But I think the last thing I'll say is the point of escalation is really important here. I don't know that Donald Trump responds to blowback by moderation. He. He often responds to blowback with escalation. And so I think that even as we see him becoming increasingly unpopular or midterms elections, that might be a rebuke or an increasing global stage that is calling out the White House's whiplash on kind of policy, I don't know if that stops them more than it causes them to dig in, because their reaction to crisis is usually to up the temperature.
- [11:42]
B
Yeah, I think that's a really important insight about Trump that applies specifically to what's happening in the Middle east right now. But it also applies more generally, I would argue, to. When we think about what are the next two and a half years of Donald Trump gonna look like as a lame duck. I think there's this idea that a lame duck, especially one who is so historically unpopular as Donald Trump is as president, that his power flows from him and that he'll become an increasingly sort of isolated and pathetic figure. That is sort of how Washington might normally work. I think what it doesn't account for is that Donald Trump detached from the constraint, such as it is, of public opinion, of facing reelection, of any advisors surrounding him who are daring to say no to him. Trump detaching from what those slim remaining guardrails is very likely to be a more volatile, reckless figure. And by the way, launching a war in the Middle east and upending the global economy is pretty much the definition of volatile and reckless. Right. And so I think that for a guy whose whole career predating politics is about someone who got himself in a lot of scrapes six different periods of time when he faced bankruptcy, never really faced accountability for that, was always allowed to come back, was always allowed to sort of regroup and do some other crazy thing, we should expect that this, in some ways, is what we're looking at more type out there things and then just to underscore, bring it back to kind of the political conversation, I think what's relevant to the rest of Our talk today is that it's Donald Trump believing that he really defines not only American national security policy, but the Republican Party is whatever he says it is. And so while Republicans are deeply divided over what kind of foreign policy we should have, and many of them, like his own vice president, jdb, and seem to actually believe Donald Trump when he said, we're the party of no new wars and no endless wars. Donald Trump is not bound by that. In fact, he get really mad when Tucker Carlson broke with him over this war and he said, hey, wait a minute, I am maga. They're not maga. I'm maga. MAGA is whatever I say it is. And so, again, I see this as a political dynamic that it will be affecting not just the course of the conflict in the Middle east, but a lot of the stories that we'll be following.
- [14:21]
D
Yeah. On Susan's point about escalation, I would put it at 75% now that we do something in Cuba. It's just too weird that in the middle of a war that's not solved casualties, military casualties. Last weekend that Marco Rubio spent the entire week on Cuba and this communism thing. I know that people think, oh, he's attacking Democrats as communists. There's a narrative that ties for a certain generation obviously back to Cuba. And I thought, no way, you know, four months ago when this little thing happened. But between what? Everything Marco Rubio is saying, an exit or an escalation that Trump needs to show that he's in charge, and the lack of veto, which we'll never get from Republicans. And then there's other things going on in the government, like in my world, in counterterrorism, like, there's a lot of reports coming out that, you know, no one pays attention to, but people like me that are really focused on Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism. People. No, I mean, it is, but it's not like a scary state sponsor of terrorism. So I think that's right. I mean, I think for us, we should anticipate that that's the next shoe to drop.
- [15:35]
A
It is such an important point that Susan makes. I mean, normally a semi rational kind of adult president understanding you're coming to the end of the line and there's a future in history to judge will reign herself or himself in. But I think the ebbing of power, the feeling of a possible lame duck, the increasing departure of some members of the party, are likely only to inflame him to do more and more and crazier Trump stuff, not MAGA stuff, not Republican stuff. And, you know, we've got the mad king sort of in the attic, isolated and just doing this and that. And the third, it's a really, I think, frightening and trenchant point. You've both mentioned the War Powers act and the vote in the House and Senate. Ested, maybe I can ask you about this. It's gotten very close. The House a couple times has passed. The Senate sort of did, but it was a hiccup and went back. They just rebuffed it. Is that all political theater? I know the administration, and not just this administration's institutional view, has been the War Powers Resolution passed in the wake of Watergate is unconstitutional, if only as a political rebuke. Would the possibility that the Senate get over the line and both houses pass a demand which the Constitution and the law that we now have and has been upheld, permits to stop the music, mean anything?
- [17:13]
C
I certainly think in a political context, it would reflect what we know is a growing distance between the administration and some Republican senators on the margins. Donald Trump has created some of his own problems in the Republican caucus, particularly in the Senate. His targeting of Bill Cassidy, his targeting of, of John Cornyn in Texas, what's happening with Mitch McConnell, there's like a sense of greater rebellion, if you could call it such, among some. But I just think that we should couch that in the reality of this administration. I mean, one, they have, I think, successfully exacted revenge on congressional Republicans who have crossed them, whether it be impeachment or Save America act or other things. So much so that I think the lesson of this primary season is one of Trump's power entrenched, even if he is kind of diminishing among the public overall. And so I don't think we have seen necessarily the scale of congressional backlash that even I think the numbers from the electorate may warrant. So I don't want to give the Cornyns and Cassidy's of the world too much credit. So all I'm saying is, like, I hear you about war powers, and I certainly think if the Senate were to act on that front, that would function as a sort of political rebuke. But. But we don't know. And it's unlikely that they would change policy. And this is already an administration that has made its point to grow executive power and to minimize the role of Congress and the courts in executing its agenda largely. And so even those moments of rebukes are usually returned to with a new way to get the same thing to happen as we saw, even with tariffs this week. So I would just Put that asterisk by any sort of political blowback, even if we do see that resolution passed us in it.
- [18:57]
A
Fair enough. And that's a natural segue to the whole political landscape. But I didn't want to move on without Juliet giving you a chance to comment. It is amazing. We're finding out now that the casualty numbers have been. I mean, it's like Pravda or something. We can't even begin to believe our own government. I know you were pretty focused on, and I just wanted to ask you about that, but how it plays in. In your mind for the damage that Hegseth is doing to the Pentagon as an institution.
- [19:32]
D
Yeah. And I mean, look, I mean, if you can't believe the numbers, why would you believe anything else? Right? I mean, these are people who died in service to the country. I'll tell you. The Pentagon deleted four names from the death number of those that have died in the war in Iran. So they're literally just deleting these people from the service that they had to this country. And so now this has obviously built up a lot of anger, both Democrats and Republicans. I work with the Senate Dems on the oversight committees. And I mean, they tell me that they think even the numbers about the injuries are completely off because someone will say, Pete Hexth said there might have been hundreds of injuries in July. Someone, you know, maybe a senior general would have said that. But then the official Pentagon list only shows like 32 or 42. And a big part of the gap, the Pentagon is saying, is because of their concussion numbers and the quick to return duty. In other words, the Pentagon is saying, well, if it's just a minor concussion, I don't know what that means. Or if they return to duty within 24 hours. That's not. That's not truly an injury. And you're like, really? Because that's not how we used to do this.
- [20:50]
A
It's not how it is in the NFL, which you've worked on, right?
- [20:52]
D
Yeah, exactly. And that they're just. They're playing with the numbers. So that's like. So I don't believe anything they say. I've never, you know, I think we all have to take that attitude towards this White House. But the deleting of four names from the death and combat list, that, you know, I sometimes I just wonder how low they'll go. And like, guess what? I can't. My mind can't even go that low.
- [21:15]
B
Well, if I could just add to this, because I think I'm so glad that Juliet has brought this up because I think it's part of a very concerted strategy by the Department of Defense. Remember that they first thing they did before we were at war in the Middle east was to purge the journalists from the building of the Pentagon itself. Now there's ongoing lawsuit, as you know. Well, Harry, about this. And I fully expect probably, you know, journalists to win some version of the way back, because what they did is they basically required them to sign a policy that would, in effect, make independent journalism impossible. Even Fox News, Pete Hegses former employer, refused to sign on to this new policy, as you'll recall, the result of which has been the purging of journalists. And then you combine that with the fact that they then feel no accountability and actually had not given a briefing on the war for, I think, six weeks or so.
- [22:15]
A
Yeah, it's been. Right. This is not Rumsfeld, Right?
- [22:18]
B
Well, exactly. You know, it's not like the Rumsfeld Pentagon was the, let's just say, the gold standard of communications, but there was an obligation to, to speak to the American people in the midst of war. And I find that we're in such a time where, again, it's this detachment from the constraints and norms that are supposed to operate in our constitutional system. So they go to war in our name on our behalf, using our tax dollars, with our own young people serving in their forces, and they feel no accountability to the American public. So one example of that that's particularly horrific is literally people who died in service of our country being denied the status of having died in combat because of a lie that the Pentagon is eager to perpetrate. Okay, so that's a really chilling example, but it also goes with a broader sense of lack of accountability. So not only would I include on that list lack of briefings to the public about what's actually happening on the ground, lack of regular communications about what's happening. I mean, I covered the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as a foreign correspondent. And I went and covered both on the ground in Afghanistan and the US Invasion of Iraq. And there was a sense that we had to put out information about the nature of not just who died in the war. That's a bare minimum what was happening. So I thought an amazing story this week, again, was the extent not disclosed of enormous damage that has been carried out by the Iranian missile attacks in American military facilities across the Middle East. And the New York Times, using open source information, satellite photographs and the like, has been able to show. I highly recommend it because it's so powerful the destruction that has rained down on various US Military facilities in Jordan, for example. I mean, we're talking buildings that are obliterated. Same thing in Kuwait. There are facilities in UAE and Qatar, in Saudi Arabia that have been gone after that partially explains why Juliet mentioned earlier that the Gulf partners who were initially some of them more than willing to have Trump embark on this war, are pretty much now saying, please get off the destruction. We are not being told accurately in a timely fashion or in an honest fashion what the nature of the war is and the actual risks and damage to the United States in the Middle East.
- [24:54]
A
Thus saith we all. And I'll just add this insulting little feature of Trump putting words in the mouths of the killed U.S. soldiers. Can you imagine being their parents? And that's the final thing is this is what Johnny would have said. It's beyond belief. Okay, man. As everyone seems to think, if this is going to go on for a long time and its purpose will remain inscrutable. Hey everyone, Harry here. As the weather heats up, I wanted to give another shout out to Queen Quince Clothing. Their organic cotton crew neck, their Traveler 5 pocket pants and their Pima cotton T shirts have been great parts of my wardrobe and they're breathable enough to feel fantastic on mild or warm summer days. They look good, fit well, and are inexpensive to boot. And I'm looking forward to checking out their new European linen pants and shirt for even more summer comfort make your summer wardrobe easier. Go to Quince.com TalkingFeds for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns now available in Canada too. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E.com TalkingFeds for free Shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com TalkingFeds let's move to brass tacks of politics a little back home. I want to start in Michigan where you've been very involved estad and there's this primary race coming up between Representative Haley Stevens and Abdul el Sayed on August 4th. And the reporting suggests that that it might be a kind of bellwether election. You know, journalists are fond of doing this sort of thing. Oh, this is the one that will show the national trends, et cetera, and they divide between the mainstream establishment, whatever you want to call them, Dems and progressives. You had a pretty long and interesting interview on America actually with El Sayed last week. Can you give us your your thoughts about how the race is shaping up and your conversation with Elsa Yad?
- [27:25]
C
Yeah, I do think this Race has risen in importance as the calendar has gone on. And I think it's really because the Democratic Party post 2024election embarrassment are in a state of reflection or whatever you want to call it. And that has these kind of warring factions, I think, jockeying for the right to define this future. I think that for a lot of people there is a bigger question of whether these progressive candidates have statewide resonance and whether that's outside of traditionally blue areas. And so I think that's why Wisconsin and Michigan particularly have risen in importance in terms of these primaries to come. Yeah, we talked to El Sayed a couple weeks ago and one of the things that really stuck out is like he reflected some of the other progressive or leftist DSA candidates we talked to, even though he's technically not a DSA candidate. And the way that he's making this America first of the left argument I wrote about last week, where the focus is on tying the unpopularity of the United States, support of Israel's actions in Gaza and Lebanon, tying the United States even somewhat of the amount of money that was given to Ukraine, and saying those things should be focused at home. Now I remember those arguments as MAGA right wing ones, but it's certainly become one that has been more and more adopted by progressive communities. Now that's coupled with Medicare for All. That's coupled with the kind of raise in corporate taxes or embrace of things like data center moratoriums or things like that. But the central argument is actually, frankly, a grassroots populist one that we heard from the MAGA reshaping of the Republican Party. And so that came through really clearly. But what I think I would say is like, you know, I think at the heart of this is some shifting demographic groups. You know, I think we've told ourselves a story about what black voters believe or what X amount of voters believe for a long time. But the trend lines in terms of if you just take that group of that group universally supporting Democrats in those numbers are moving in the opposite direction. And so I think we really need to apply the lens of nuance to all these communities. We should get used to generational splits among groups. We should get used to income and college education being clear splits even among or within demographic groups. And so I think some of that is playing out here in Michigan too, because I don't think that the moderate and progressive boxes actually encapsulate some of the more nuanced shifts we've seen from the electorate in the post Trump era.
- [29:52]
D
I don't think it's a coincidence that this is all happening in Michigan. I mean, part of it's the calendar and stuff like that. I think we cannot underestimate Gaza and its legacy for the Democratic Party moving forward. I am Lebanese background and my children are Jewish. And I am shocked at their anger at a party that I thought would reflect their viewpoints. And I think we should not view it as a bunch of crazies. I don't think anyone here does. Or that the party will right itself. I don't think the party is gonna right itself. And, you know, and Governor Bashir, you know, I like him, but someone convinced me that he's gonna be the future. Right. As compared to someone else. And I think you're seeing that obvious shift in someone like Rahm Emanuel, who has been very, very forceful this week. But I think you also see it in a piece that came out in Susan's the New Yorker this week that is, you know, the chattering class has been chattering about it. And just quickly, it's just a, it's a. Let me put the worst light on it and the best light on it. I'll start with the best light. The best light on it is there were a bunch of people who were committed to protecting Israel and were played by Netanyahu for several years in terms of minimizing the harm in Gaza. You ask my son who also read it, and he'll say, oh, they knew exactly what was happening and that this is part of their redemption campaign. I'll leave the decision to someone else. But the fact that that article I think, even came out now and that it was clearly people from the Biden administration speaking on record showing regret about what happened. They see that the party needs to figure out what happened with Gaza before it moves forward. And Michigan being the largest Arab and Muslim American population in the United States.
- [31:48]
C
Yeah. And one thing I would say is like, that's kind of undeniable from the trail. I remember being in North Carolina weeks before 2024 election and having a woman tell me she's just her first time not voting for the presidential race because she doesn't think the Democrats have earned their vote by through supporting what she felt was a genocide. I mean, we heard that consistently. We hear even in communities that we've talked to more recently, a desire for Democrats to take accountability for and I think a media credibility question, too. We hear that come up a lot in terms of trust loss. And so I really do feel as if there's been somewhat of a sidestepping of what has been a fundamental electoral shift that's actually riling Republicans and Democrats. I think there's some question about, like, how that plays out in the presidential primary, like whether that's embodied by your AOCs or your John Ossoff's or JB Pritzkers are a different flavor of some of that. But I definitely think the median has kind of shifted. And our reporting is because a lot of folks see it as a gateway for trust and accountability overall. Like, they believe you'll fight more for, against the landlords because you're willing to fight more for just your values in general if you reflect what they feel is a moral fundamental question on the first base.
- [33:01]
B
Yeah, I mean, I think there's a number of things I would point out in regards to Michigan this year specifically to pick up on this. I mean, number one, Democrats are Democrats, right. And they do like to beat up on each other more to a certain extent. So, you know, that's where you can see both parties have paid more attention in recent years because of the breaking of our system. Quite honestly, you know, we don't have any room in the center anymore. We only have 18 competitive House districts this year, which is really remarkable. A dwindling number of competitive Senate races. You mentioned Maine. Maine is the only Senate race in this country this year in which the senator is up for reelection. And the state voted a different way in the presidential election. You know, there's dwindling space in the center. Now, Michigan happens to be the state that is in the center. And so, you know, one of the questions that people have, from a purely political point of view, the big question here, is Donald Trump gonna have a Senate led by Republicans enabling him or not? And what's the best way for Democrats to, to stop that from happening? A year ago, by the way, we would have said the Senate wasn't in play, that the map was just too difficult for Democrats. And it's a reflection of Donald Trump's cratering approval ratings, the political environment that he finds himself in. Republicans are increasingly facing this difficult time that it's even in play. Michigan is a must win state for Democrats if they have any hope to win the election. Now, Donald Trump won Michigan in 2024. Joe Biden won Michigan in 2020. And the answer is, is that Michigan is one of the few states that it's must win for the parties, and it's still contested. So part of the question is this question of who's, who's the most electable. I think, you know, there's also the interesting question that I have, and I'm really interested in Acid's impression of this, having talked with El Said, there are different ways of looking at this visceral anger in the Democratic primary in Michigan and other places around the country this year. One of them is ideological. That tends to be how it's written about, talked about. Most commonly that it's a sort of between the progressive left and the more center left, establishment left. So ideology is one way to look at what's happening in the party. The other way, I think, and these are not either, or is that we in Washington or in political journalism, we tend to over prioritize, in my experience, over several decades at this point in politics, is that we tend to overemphasize policy arguments and ideological arguments because that's what we care about. And we're interested in health care policy and we're interested in tax policy. And American voters, as you know, often you listen to them in a focus group or look at them, they have things they don't know they're supposed to be like down the line on this or that. And they often have views, you know, that aren't strictly following whatever the ideological lineup of the day is. Democrats are very, very angry right now. And a lot of them, I think, are out there cheering the AOCs and Bernie Sanders, because AOC and Bernie Sanders did a tour around the country and they filled stadiums full of people saying, we're mad as hell and we're going to do something about Donald Trump. And a lot of people, whatever their kind of ideological perspective, also very angry with Democrats because they feel they're hypocritical. Gaza. Julia had some great points about the hypocrisy on Gaza, the fact that Joe Biden decided he was going to run for reelection and asked the Democratic Party to support him when he was going to be 86 years old and then withdrew in the middle of the election. A lot of people are justifiably furious about that and believe that many of those advisors who were quoted in that piece, my colleague wrote, the big screw up that they made was not just Gaza, and it was failing to stand up and say, jesus, if you don't want Donald Trump to come Back to power, Mr. President, then you need to get the hell off the stage. And so there's a visceral rage vote combined with especially a young person kind of feeling like we're outside of politics and that it's so broken right now. So I think you can't disentangle it all. They go together. But I find Michigan very interesting on all of those.
- [37:18]
D
Yeah. I mean, one thing I want to say Austin sort of made this point, or he did make this point. So I'm going to repeat it because I had never heard it and I think it's important. Gaza makes me angry on policy grounds, but it's a litmus for values, which is what I do think Democrats tend to vote on.
- [37:34]
A
Can I serve up a closing question in this area for you, Esteb, but anyone else? So look, yeah, there are things about Michigan that are unusual demographically, biggest Arab American population. But you had more than half the Democrats in the House vote to cancel aid to Israel. And there's different ways of interpreting what happened in New York and counterpoints, et cetera. But I want to ask a very sort of brass tacks, almost value neutral point. What this portends for sure is an increasing schism between different constituencies within the Democratic Party. Is that in and of itself bad news coming into midterms and 28 because without something akin to the consensus that the MAGA party and constituency has been able to forge in the Republican Party, you're looking at a kind of, you know, Democrats will be Democrats, as Susan said. And is this, it seems to me there's an argument that man, oh man, they've got to get it together, go one way or another and man oh man, each week, each Michigan makes it look less likely that it will. Thoughts?
- [38:49]
C
Well, I guess I would say a couple things. Like one, I mean like I guess maybe my age is going to jump here, but I think that like the establishment has not earned credibility on electability. They have actually lost it. So even on the premise which they usually use to marginize the left, which is that you have to run in this way because this is how you win general elections. The 2024 election blew that. So I say, like, I think you're dealing with a Democratic base that fundamentally does not believe the electability premise that the establishment is selling anymore. So I don't think that means electability doesn't matter. I just think they're going to have their own versions of it. And so the way Joe Biden imposed a specific view of the way that should look and work, I think it's going to be harder to do going forward. I will also say I actually don't even think particularly the question of Israel and the shifting sentiment from the electorate is a schism more so than there's a consensus among the grassroots and the schism is from bottom to top. I actually think it's a uniting issue among most of the Democratic base. I think it helps Azoran make connections with black communities. I think it, you know, I think that's actually a thing that for a lot of people becomes a way to weed through. But I think there's a real schism is between that and elected leadership, between that and certain important corners of the party that and donors. Like there's a lot of places where that is a schism. But I don't think we should actually put it on the voter because both numbers wise and in my reporting wise, it's actually a universal shift that you hear reflected in a lot of different corners. Like, it would be one thing if I heard about Palestine or Gaza from college activists or New Yorkers or wherever. And I'm saying over the last couple years, it's everywhere. It's Wisconsin, it's North Carolina, it's Trump's UFC event with Republicans, it's Texas, you know what I'm saying? Like, it is so pervasive, it actually makes me think we shouldn't talk about it. But like issue polling schism, we actually talk about it like an issue polling consensus that is being not reflected from bottom to top.
- [41:05]
B
I agree with that, Asad. Although I would point out, if you look at the numbers, this has actually been something that's been happening even before Donald Trump came in. It's a product actually of Netanyahu and what he has done and a very purposeful strategy he had to essentially embrace the Republican Party in the United States. And so Israel was losing Democrats, hemorrhaging Democratic support for the last 15 years as Netanyahu has become the longest serving leader in Israel's history. And it's been accelerated by the horrific events in Gaza over the last several years. Right. So that essentially solidified and cemented a political trend that Democrats were warning about. I remember when the group J Street was formed, it was 15 or so years ago, explicitly because they understood that there was going to be a long term future where it was impossible to expect that Democrats in the future would be supporting Israel if it continued to go in the course that it's been going on. So that's really important. It's a long term trend that like a lot of long term trends, including polarization in our politics, they predated Donald Trump and then they've been given sort of, you know, accelerated by him. And that's the other thing I would like to say though, that is fascinating to me. And it goes to my point about Democrats are gonna Democrat, you know, which party uncritically supports Netanyahu and what he's done in Gaza. Guess what? It's not the Democratic Party. And you wouldn't know that from this conversation, it's the Republican Party. And I'm sorry, but, like, I find it fascinating that Democrats wanna beat each other up about this. I understand that it's an important moral issue and I absolutely agree with Juliet's point about, you know, it's, it actually has this broad appeal because it's actually a kind of a values and a hypocrisy issue. And I totally agree with all of that. But I still, if you pull back a little bit, how fascinating it is that the conversation isn't about the party that is literally in the pocket of Israel, that literally has said, Israel is our most important partner in the world. They have said this. The Republican party's platform in 2024, in 2024, in the middle of the Gaza war, was, Israel can do no wrong. They're our most important allies. And, you know, Donald Trump's view was literally, well, you know, why not let them be even more brutal? He literally came out and said we should get rid of all the Palestinians in Gaza and depopulate the place and I'm going to build myself a nice golden.
- [43:37]
A
A resort. Right?
- [43:38]
B
And everybody's like, oh, that's fine, that's fine.
- [43:40]
D
Yeah. No, I mean, I don't, I don't disagree with you on that. I get it. I hear that, Susan, My anger, like, I'm like a litmus. I feel like I'm a litmus, like, which is, I mean, because of everything you say, right? Because if we're not, if the Democrats are not an alternative to that vision, what are we? I mean, so, so part of it is a larger trend because of Netanyahu. But unless the party contends with what the Biden administration did, I really believe this because you're going to have to answer to it in any primary, let alone in general. We are not going to move forward. Right. Because it's both about Gaza, but it's also about Israel and it's also about, well, what's our value proposition. Right. And if it's not electability, it's got to be something else. And that's what I'm in search of. I'm as lost as, as the 20something. And I couldn't be more, you know, as my kids say, conventional in terms of my, my professional experience. That's not a compliment, by the way. That's not a compliment. They say it.
- [44:46]
A
I'm the oldest guy here as I normally am. This just occurred to me off the top of my head. So it may be half baked, but it to me, it has a little bit of the feel again, getting back to the brass tax of politics of like 67, 68, the Vietnam War, the bigger trend, the the party coming around. And yet 68, Nixon, Southern Strategy, a really bellwether election in kind of a bad way. I'm just, I think there is a shaping up of a pretty big schism in the party and I just, in raw political terms, wonder what that means for to me, the primary goal of changing this administration. All right, it is now time for a spirited debate brought to you by our sponsor, Total Wine and more. Each episode you'll be hearing an expert talk about the pros and cons of a particular issue in the world of wine, spirit and beverages.
- [45:56]
E
Thank you, Harry. In today's spirited debate, we unbottle the truth about wine. Is there really a right or a wrong way to enjoy it? Wine drinkers near and far have lived by a certain set of written yet unofficial rules to follow, particularly when it comes to pairing wine and food. You've heard a couple of them before. White wine pairs with seafood. Red wine pairs with big old juicy steaks. And while we like to think of these more as guidelines than rules, some suggestions actually do serve a higher purpose to help your wine get the most from your dish and vice versa. One pairing that's not quite as obvious involves tannins. Tannins are the dryness that you taste and feel in wine. They come from grape seeds, skin or oak barrels. Traditionally, high tannin wines and spicy foods don't pair well together. The dry components of the wine become more pronounced with spice, which makes the food itself taste even hotter than it actually is. From drinking red wine with fish to white wine with beef. We say you do you. But there is one no no that we wholeheartedly live by. Always. Yes, always hold your glass by the stem and not the bulb. And there are a few reasons why putting your warm hands on the bulb transfers unnecessary heat to the wine. As wine warms up, it will become off balance and you will taste the alcohol more and more. Not to mention, you can easily avoid smudges to your beautiful glassware. To truly enjoy wine, you can never go wrong. Pairing the wonderful selection and helpful guides at Total Wine and More. Cheers.
- [47:25]
A
Thanks to our friends at Total Wine and More for today's a spirited debate. I did want to take a minute to talk about Maine. I think, as Susan says, there's no way to a majority or control in the Senate without Michigan. I think people will say that about Maine too, which has this feature that I think the last four elections have all gone for the Democrat. And here you have Susan Collins. Susan Collins, enough said. But we had, you know, this sort of last minute switch in history. I think of, I don't know, Thomas Eagleton and Sergeant Shriver and Biden himself. It's a tough place to start. What are your thoughts about Jackson? How he managed to consolidate all the support so quickly and how he shapes up in particular including this time issue against Collins.
- [48:26]
B
Astin, we're turning to you as our political expert.
- [48:29]
C
Okay. Yeah, yeah. I think Democrats are in a better situation now than they were in a month ago. I mean, you know, for as much drama and I think rightful anger there was at the allegations against Graham Platner. What that distracted from was making this a referendum on Susan Collins, which is the better place the Democrats want to be for a must win race. I think the switching candidate allows them to focus that energy more clearly. I also would say we should probably highlight how the main Democratic party ran that replacement process in an open fashion. And so one thing I think is a clear learning that Democrats have had since 2024 is basically because of that lack of trust and credibility. I think party leaders have one way to combat that is by opening it up. And so there was a lot of concerns from the left that this would be some shady installation of a corporatist candidate that did not materialize. And I think that we should give the main Democratic party credit for a process which everyone can agree has united around a singular candidate. But I think that's Democrat learning. I think that's a way that is beyond ideology but is about process. And just as much as that 2024 story was a story of individual egos in Washington and blah blah blah blah, it was also a story about a DNC primary process that insulated the party from being reactive to voters. And so I think we see the kind of fruits of some of that understanding now just merely in the transparency that this process took place through.
- [50:01]
A
And how does Jackson play, do you think? He seems to be a strong progressive, but a history of not just being a Republican, but an anti choice Republican and the like. And I think it's fair to say doesn't have he's not magnetic on the campaign trail the way Platner. And by the way, who was surprised that another shoe was left to drop with Platner and what the hell was he doing there? But in Any event in terms of the actual matchup, because I think of Collins, even apart from the things she's done in her positions, as also not a sort of charismatic senator. To the extent it's a now head to head fight, what do you think of the respective chances?
- [50:46]
B
I mean, one observation, right, is that Susan Collins has been there before. She's spent her entire career kind of swimming against the grain. She's the chair of the Appropriations Committee. She will be talking about a long record of essentially whatever you think of me personally or Donald Trump, I've delivered for Maine. The Democrats are sort of in crazy leftist politics, whatever they are, and they're not focused on delivering for Maine. That's a very, you know, it's a kind of a throwback message to an era of politics when it wasn't about the vibe and it wasn't about, you know, how we felt about people. It was, you know, much more the era of pork barrel politics and, you know, when we expected our politicians to sort of do stuff. That's what she'll be running on. She also has the benefit of having been doing this for some time. I think the latest numbers suggested she had something like $11 million in the bank versus, you know, he, he's. Troy Doctor has raised a lot quickly, but it's just raised a million dollars now, of course, because of the Supreme Court unleashing the floodgates of sort of unaccountable limitless funds, national Democrats and national Republicans can and will play in here because of the importance to the Senate map overall, will send in millions, if not hundreds of millions of dollars into this race anyways, regardless of the amount that's in the candidate's own bank accounts. So I would flag the fact that they already have a strategy and a plan. So remember, a generic Democrat against Collins would win. So the question is, is Troy Jackson close enough to generic Democrat to win? Right. Graham Platner. It was the specificity that got him in the end, you know, the specificity being scandal after scandal. You know, if it's about Jackson, not clear. If it's about Holland, I think she'll lose.
- [52:41]
D
And there's a new issue on the table that I'm looking at, which is the ICE issue that. Cause I'm in New England, I see all the continuing coverage, the national press. There's been eight other ICE scandals since then. But this seems to me something that Democrats did not have a month ago. And yeah, they should use it. I mean, in the sense it's a horror that an immigrant was shot in this altercation, ICE and Collins voted for this incomprehensible surge of resources to ICE and has been pretty ineffective in this post killing era. She essentially took credit for a very quick turnaround by DHS about not using vehicular stops or violence during vehicular stops, which of course Trump turned it around. So I'm watching that because one of these undercurrents of why is Trump so unpopular is whatever we think about the American public at various times it seems like we do have a consensus on immigration, which is most Americans want tighter borders and most Americans really hate this stuff that ICE is doing. So I don't know if a Democrat can tell that narrative, but that's what I'm looking at in Maine to see how much oxygen that horror has.
- [54:06]
A
And it looks, it's not just the shooting part, but we do seem to have the same old gearing up of a story initially told by ICE agents that's not holding up. It is the kind of anecdote that could really, I think drive an election. Estad you may never want to come back to talking feds. Feel free to duck this, but just a sort of final question here. Things have have gotten complicated in Maine. You've mentioned Michigan. There's still, you hear the, the kind of bromides on all the shows of the Dems can really retake the senators in play. You know, is that so much hopium now in your view, or is it really close to a jump ball?
- [54:50]
C
I think it's for real. I mean the biggest reason that it's for real is Donald Trump, like not even the Democratic Party. The biggest reasons for real is that he's unpopular and is engaged in a conflict that nobody wants, that is raising prices. And he's probably going to escalate before November. And so I imagine that's going to inspire Democratic motivation, particularly in battleground races. And I think the degree to which this election is about Donald Trump is a good thing for Democrats. So I don't think it's copium at all. What I think is distinct from, and this was true in 2022 and 2018, is that we're talking about different populations than a presidential result. We're talking about different groups that are going to shape the party's primary result. And so I don't think that we can extrapolate a Democratic vote in November to mean an endorsement of the Democratic Party or to be even an endorsement of the next Democratic nominee or just more than a clue to where that conversation is going to go. But that's going to be a long developing one. These midterms are a patchwork of elections that are principally around the President, and they are not the foremost authority on the open question of the Democrats vision. And so they lost the vision contest in 2024. So I don't think this answers that for them this year, but that does not mean it's a bad year for them. I would much rather be a Democrat than than the Republican if the question is who's going to get more votes in November.
- [56:17]
A
Great point and we hope you will come back. And as things begin to clarify in this patchwork, we're out of time. Another great conversation. Thanks so much to everybody. Just a minute for our final feature of five Words or Fewer. It's been another scary week of health news. Measles cases have hit a record high, with more reported in the last two years than in the preceding 24 combined. Not to worry, RFK Jr. Has a solution. Five words or fewer, what is it?
- [56:51]
B
All right, I got exactly five words here for you, Harry. Believe me, not the science.
- [56:59]
C
I came up with five words too. Mine were we'll all be dead anyway.
- [57:06]
D
Mine is just three words. Visit Taco Bell. It will kill you first.
- [57:12]
A
It'll do it sooner than right. And I'm going with cod liver oil body bath. Thank you so much, Susan, Asted and Juliet. And thank you very much listeners for tuning in to Talking Feds. If you like what you've heard, please tell a friend to subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts or wherever they get their podcasts. And please take a moment to rate and review the show. Check us out on substack@harrylitman.substack.com where I'll be posting two or three bulletins a week breaking down the various threats to constitutional norms and the rule of law. Paid Substack subscribers can now get Talking Feds episodes completely ad free. You can also subscribe to us on YouTube, where we are posting full episodes and my daily takes on top legal stories. Talking Feds has joined forces with the contrarian. I'm a founding contributor to this bold new media venture, committed to reviving the diversity of opinion that feels increasingly rare in today's news landscape, where legacy media seems to be tacking toward Trump for business reasons rather than editorial ones. Find out more@contrarian.substack.com thanks for tuning in. And don't worry. As long as you need answers, the Feds will keep talking. Talking Feds is produced by Lou Cregan and Katie Upshaw, Associate Producer Becca Haveian Sound Engineering by Matt McArdle, Rosie Dawn Griffin, David Lieberman, Hamsum Hadranathan, Emma Maynard and Hallie Necker are our contributing writers and production assistants by Akshaj Turbailu. Our music, as ever, is by the amazing Philip Glass. Talking Feds is a production of Doledo, llc. I'm Harry Littman. Talk to you later.