A (2:47)

In what way do you think that he's not a strong president? And talk about some of those parallels.

B (2:52)

Well, those are two separate things. The way in which he is not a strong president is, I think it is hard to disagree with the fact that he is crumbling mentally. And I am not a medical doctor in any stretch of the imagination, but I have watched this man now for decades, and he can't put a sentence together. He doesn't seem to know if he's a foot or horseback. And as that's happened, the power in the government has devolved to other people. And you watch that and you recognize that the reason that he has stayed in the position of power that he has is because he could commandeer the MAGA voters. And a lot of Republicans stayed on board with him because he could deliver these voters. Now, if something happens to him, where do those voters go? Do they stay committed to the Republican Party? You know, you look at the splits in Congress, you look at the splits in MAGA across the country, it's a little hard to imagine that anybody coming after Trump is gonna be able to deliver those voters. So if that's not the case, what happens? And this is, you know, we don't know what's gonna happen in the future. But I think you can look at somebody like Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene backing away from her much more strident MAGA positions to positions that are much more in keeping with what appears to be the interest of the American people right now on, for example, healthcare, and think it's not clear that MAGA is going to stick together. And if MAGA doesn't stick together, what does that mean for those people who kicked the can down the road? Are they able to say, oh, I never believed that stuff anyway, you should come back and vote for me? Or are they so tarred with that after things, for example, like the Young Republicans group chat being leaked yesterday, that their moment is over? And, you know, I don't predict the future. I predict the past. But it's. I think it's a really vulnerable moment for the president. And then, you know, we could talk about what's happening with his actual policies and so on. But just in the terms of the structure of the government, I always like to think about power as its own bucket, if you will, who's got power and the idea that power is inherent in certain positions in the government. It's actually not true. Power sloshes around. Who grabs it, who takes control of it, who uses it, who walks away from it. And in this moment, there's a lot of power that is sloshing around right now, seemingly picked up by Russell Vogt at the Office of Management and Budget and by Stephen Miller, the deputy White House Chief of staff. But will they continue to hold it, those two unelected officials? Will Congress take it back? Or will the American people finally say, hey, wait a minute, we have this little thing called the Constitution that we were real fond of for 248 years. Let's take a look at that baby again.

A (5:29)

It's hard to predict what Donald Trump's mental faculties are gonna be in 2027, et cetera. @ this moment. I think there's no doubt that Russell Vogt and Stephen Miller have taken a lot of power. It's pretty noteworthy how little Congress has taken, and I think that kind of cuts against this idea that Trump is weak right now. I mean, there are a number of areas where Trump's put forth policies that ostensibly people in Congress would be against, either for their own parochial political interests or for ideological views, whether that be Ukraine or tariffs or various issues like that. And you see now, between the tariffs, which he's just doing unilaterally, I don't know. We bombed another boat in Venezuela yesterday. People don't even notice this anymore. And there's been no declaration of war. We bound another vote in the Caribbean of Venezuelans. So across economics, funding the government, foreign policy, Congressional Republicans have just totally abdicated all power to the president, at least for now.

B (6:24)

I think that's right. And on those two things especially, it's really glaring, because the Constitution gives to Congress and to nobody else the power to regulate tariffs. And this is one of the eight emergencies that I think it's eight that the President has declared since taking office in January so that he can work outside the constitutional system. And that's, of course, really tied to the political theories of Carl Schmidt, the German political theorist who became a Nazi, with the idea that if you operate according to exceptions, that really shows you who has the sovereignty in a system. And there is, I think, absolutely no doubt that the President is trying to become a dictator, but it would be easier, I think, if he were actually able to control himself, his underlings and power. Now, the thing about the striking of the boats, which really important to remember that we have no information about those except what the White House says. There has been no information about those at all. So we assume they are Venezuelan boats, but the idea that they are narco terrorists importing drugs into the United States that are going to kill tens of thousands of people, as the President said, is solely on Trump's word, which is not how our system is supposed to work. And it overlaps pretty strongly with their idea that undocumented migrants in the United States are members of transnational narco terrorist gangs, which is what they are talking about. And in both of those cases, really dramatically now, in the case of striking those boats, they are trying to make the case that we are, in fact, the equivalent of it war. And legal analysts just say that that simply does not fly. But it seems pretty clear that's the analogy they are trying to bring to the United States. Whether or not that's going to work, I think, depends a lot on the pushback in the courts, but also the pushback of the American people doing things like showing up in frog costumes and going, do I look like a narco terrorist? Which is actually really effective. I do want to point out with those boats, just to be clear, the United States has always intercepted boats that seem to be up to no good, but they do it in a really simple way. They shoot the engines. This is not rocket science. And then they take them to law enforcement officials. These are deliberate strikes that at this point have killed 27 people, that people who are observers who understand international law are simply calling mass murder. That really, really matters, whether or not these people are drug traffickers or not. At least one of the alleged widows of them has said he was a.

A (9:08)

Fisherman, and the Colombian president has said that one of the victims was Colombian or thought to be Colombian, which I guess it's possible that it could have been a Colombian working with the Venezuelan Trent Aragua or whatever. But, like, to your point, we don't know. No evidence has been put forth, and there doesn't seem to be any evidence that there was within the White house or the DoD legal review of any of this, or that there are lawyers that are okaying it.

B (9:32)

There has been no issue of any kind of legal justification for this except this general idea that they are putting out there that we are the equivalent of in a war, which, again, is not, according to our Constitution, something that is supposed to be determined by the president. It is literally supposed to come from the Congress, although that's, of course, been really wiggled around a lot since World War II.

A (9:59)

You know, when catastrophizing starts around the bulwark, that leads you to start thinking about other things, other possible catastrophes in your life. And that's where one of our sponsors comes in. Trust and Will. Trust and Will turns estate planning from a when I have time task into a quick, straightforward process ensuring you're protecting your family's future. Today go to trustandwill.com bulwark to get 20% off their simple, secure and expert back estate planning services. You know I'm not really a planner. I'm living like 24 hours at a time these days. People have texted me about what I'm trying to get me to do something in December, like when is fucking December. So thinking about the big picture is a challenge for me. And that's why I needed to turn to a product that made it easy for me, let's just be honest, made it easy for my husband to do the work on it. And Trust and Will was right there for us. Their easy to use website is simple to navigate. Plus all your information and documents are securely stored with bank level encryption. Easily share all your estate planning documents with trusted friends and family with the new shared document access feature so loved ones know their role in your future. Add some peace of mind to your future with Trust and will go to trustandwill.com bulwark for 20% off. That's 20% off@trustandwill.com bulwark I'm just curious, just sort of open ended on this. Whether the historical precedents or lessons or risks that are associated with this. I do think it would have been unimaginable, one of maybe the founder's naivetes. I was reading through some of the old Federalist Papers for a different project I'm working on the other day. It's like this notion that people wouldn't want power for themselves. There was this kind of belief that everybody would be selfish in that sense and that that would be a check that whoever the speaker of the House is would have their own interests that they, you know, care about. And the absence of that right ends up being kind of a weakness in the system, it turns out. And I'm wondering what you think about that, if there are any precedents to that, that call to mind.

B (12:01)

I actually think what the framers missed was partisanship. Remember, they did not expect there to be political parties in the United States. And when they talk about factions in those early papers, in federalist number 10, for example, they are talking about partisan politics. And until the 1990s, I think in the United States there was always the sense that above all, and not entirely, I mean you can Certainly find exceptions of this in the 1850s is a glaring exception, but that was less about partisanship so much as partisanship being a reflection of financial interest. But until the 1990s, there was always the sense that you were certainly willing to use your party to turn out voters at the polls and to articulate your vision of the country. But the country still mattered that America came first. That country came before party. And I think with the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, there was a really concerted effort on the part of that faction of Republicans who wanted to roll back the New Deal back to the 1920s, people who were represented by individuals like House Speaker Newt Gingrich from Georgia. They began to insist that partisanship mattered more than country, and then began to believe, I think, in those years since then, that those who stood against them in politics stood against the United States. So we've gotten to the point where a legitimate election in 2020, a legitimate presidential election, seemed to be considered by the president's supporters as illegitimate simply because their guy had lost. And that understanding that the way you get ahead in American politics is by adhering to political extremism or a position of partisanship rather than by advancing the interests of the nation, I think we're seeing right now, really in a very pointed way, when you have the president saying, I'm going to cut Democrat, as he says, programs and keep Republican programs, well, of course, they're not partisan programs. And in fact, it's red states that are being hit hardest by cuts to education, for example, cuts to research, cuts to universities. This idea that somehow they're going to keep the good Republicans on board and push away the bad Democrats really reflects, as I say, that kind of political philosophy of people like Carl Schmitt. We're friends and enemies. And one of the things that people like me are trying to make the case for that in fact, in a moment like this, we are we the people against a would be autocrat. And that's simply a different reordering of society. But the framers, I think, would be much more on my side. The idea that we're supposed to be protecting a system from a dictator, rather than saying, I'm a monkey party as opposed to your kitty cat party.

A (14:55)

I just think there's obviously a tangible example of this happening right now, which is the National Guard being deployed into blue states and cities. I had Governor Pritzker on yesterday. I'm kind of interested in how you see what is happening there, because on the one hand, obviously there's some people out there stoking this is civil war type discourse and obviously it's very serious. Like, on the other hand, Pritzker was on yesterday talking about how they've been fighting and winning in the courts. You know, at this point, the National Guard from the other states have been limited to federal buildings in the state. We'll kind of see how that shakes out over the coming weeks. So I'm wondering kind of how you see what's happening now and any past parallels we could learn from.

B (15:37)

Can I just start by saying to people, this stuff is really complicated. And I get when people are like, I can't even tell what's happening because there are so many layers and so many different events that, you know, I'm overwhelmed. And I sit here doing this, you know, 24 7. So I get it if people are like, oh, just make it all go away. And the reason I prefaced this, what I'm going to say with that is because I think there are many layers to what is going on with the deployment of National Guard troops in the various places that they have been deployed in this moment. Let's start with Pritzker and what Pritzker is doing, because there's a number of layers to Pritzker as well. But it is important to remember, first of all that deploying the National Guard is unbelievably expensive. Like, there is no more expensive way to make things happen than to deploy the National Guard. So governors don't like to deploy the National Guard if they can possibly avoid it unless they can get the feds to pay for it. And that's a really important caveat. So if you look, for example, at Operation Lone Star in Texas, which has been underway for years now, I don't remember when caused a huge problem among the Texas National Guard because they're like, you have ripped us away from our families for absolutely nothing. It does not appear to have had the effects that the governor, Greg Abbott, says it has. But I believe the price tag on that baby so far is $12 billion. And the Texas government is hoping that the federal government is gonna pay for that.

A (17:11)

Just for folks that's sending the National Guard to the border in Texas, that was 2021. That started so early. Biden, which makes sense.

B (17:16)

That's right. So that's a pretty hefty price tag. So that's one of the things going on is the cost of this and who is going to bear the cost of this. And then another thing that's going on that I think Pritzker is playing on quite heavily and maybe not getting a lot of press for is he is pointing out that states don't want to do this. They don'. Want their National Guard to go to other states unless the other governor has asked them. Why not? Because they want those guards to be available when they need them. And different National Guards specialize in different things. And so it's not like you can say, well, if I can't get this state, I'll get another state. I mean, you want the state that is really good on, let's say, medical care if you have a medical emergency. So beyond all of the politics of this, there is simply logistics of you don't want to do this if you can possibly avoid it. And that includes a number of Republican states as well. So one of the things that both Gavin Newsom in California and Governor Pritzker in Illinois have done is they went to the National Governors Association. Now, the National Governors association depends on payment from the states that belong to it to continue to function. And they're both very wealthy states. And they've said, you have to come out against this or we're gonna leave the National Governors association. And then good luck to you. That's an organization that's been around since 1908 and is designed to be outside of politics. And you saw on the back of that, Governor Stitt from Oklahom, Oklahoma, Kevin Stitt from Oklahoma, who is quite a far right Republican, saying, I disagree with these deployments. All right, so there's all that mechanical stuff going on. But there is also the real story, the larger story here, which is Donald Trump, the president of the United States, trying to use military people to enact his will in Democratic cities especially, and ICE and Border Patrol. And the troops from Homeland Security are not the same thing as the National Guard, which is controlled by the states unless it is federalized by the president. And they are not the same as US Troops. And all of those are reacting very differently to what's going on in the cities. The other piece of that that we may or may not want to go into is why are they doing this? In addition to simply wanting to enforce Trump's will, Pritzker has said, and I think is not wrong, that they want Americans to get used to having troops in the street because they are looking to the 2026 election. And that is, you know, the end. The end game right there. They want to go ahead and control politics, control the government. And again, to go yet maybe above 30,000ft. Why do you want to control the government. Because if you can control the United States of America, you're the biggest dog in the fight. And there is one heck of a lot of money riding on all this stuff at an international level. And you can see that sloshing around, too.

A (20:09)

Pritzker made that point about troops in the street yesterday and getting folks used to it. I think that's right. And I think another thing worth talking about, because a lot of. I'm sure you see this in your comments on Substack. Some people kind of will push back on me and say, why are you even talking about this? Like there's going to be normal elections in 2026. Why are you gaming this stuff out? We're already in this fight against an authoritarian that's going to ensure we don't have free and fair elections. Because this stuff is complicated and nuanced. I just think it's important to point out that's not quite right. They're trying a bunch of stuff. It's like the velociraptor and the doors. They're trying to open all the different doors and figure it out. So on the one hand, the redistricting fight is part of this. That is premised on the fact that maybe they think they can just win the election and keep the House and Senate if they game the system well enough. That's cheating, in a sense, but it's not stopping the election. It's not having free elections. It's just they think that if they game the system well enough, they could win. Troops in the streets are like, well, we'll see what the reaction is to this. Right? And you've seen Trump in various ways, dip his toe in the water and then pull back. And I think that is why it's important to talk about this in the context of we are still in a system where public opinion matters, public action matters, pushback matters. All of this stuff is in early stages as compared to what you see in other places. And living in that gray is complicated. But I wonder how you kind of see all that.

B (21:40)

Well, for once, I'm going to be the pessimist here. I would say, okay, that we don't have free and fair elections. That in 1986, when the Reagan officials recognized that the second round of tax cuts could very easily be overturned with the election of a Democratic Congress and a Democratic president, they started to do two things. One was to pack the courts with, with right wing operatives who would, as Edwin Meese, Reagan's Attorney General, said, make certain that the Reagan revolution was going to stay in place no matter what the voters did. And they also began to say that they needed to protect ballot integrity, is what they said at the time. And they started spreading the idea that Democrats were winning only by fraud. I mean, we could walk through the whole history of how this exploded after the Motor Voter act of 1993, when you start to get the idea that illegal immigrants are the ones who are voting for Democrats. Always a myth. And now and going on through 2010 when you got Operation Redmap and the extraordinary gerrymandering, and then Citizens United and then 2013 when you get the gutting of the Voting Rights act under Shelby versus Holder, we are already looking at a system that is heavily skewed toward the Republicans. And then you add under that the Electoral College system, which was perverted in, well, beginning in 1800 by Thomas Jefferson and then in 1929 by the Capping of the House of Representatives and so on. So we are already along the lines where if in fact we didn't have partisan gerrymandering in a number of Republican dominated states, we would have a Democratic House of Representatives. We are already in a place where the Senate is reacting not to the majority of American voters, but to the minority that are in place because of the way the Senate works. So it's not like everything is hunky dory right now. And every time I hear somebody saying, why don't black people turn out to vote? Look at how the numbers dropped after Shelby versus Holder. And in fact, in our last election, what was it, 64.1% of eligible voters turned out to vote. And people always say, oh, they're apathetic. A lot of those people tried to vote and they couldn't because of the lines or they couldn't because the dropboxes were gone and so on. But that being said, I don't think the radical Republicans would be trying to take away rights to the degree they are if they thought they could win. And the fact that they are throwing all the spaghetti at the wall says they know how deeply unpopular they are. And what you just said about public opinion really matters, not because it's gonna change the people in office necessarily. Although as I say, I think Marjorie Taylor Greene is a really interesting bellwether right now. But because it's gonna change the people who are coming into the system, if they wanna get elected, they want to encourage these new voices and they will push back on the ways in which the system is suppressing. So in a system that is predicated on the very idea that we the people, as our Constitution says, have given our power on a temporary basis to those leaders we elected to create our laws. If we say we don't support this anymore, we are taking our power back, that government in fact loses legitimacy.

A (25:00)

And this is the last word that I agree with. And I think sometimes, sometimes some folks get a mixed message. And this is why I just want to just sit on this for one more second. Because taking our power back means that people have to believe that they have the ability to take their power back. And if they believe that we're already in a place where we don't have free and fair elections, it's akin to one of these authoritarian foreign countries like Turkey or something, or worse Russia, then what's the point? Why not just be apathetic? Why engage in this at all? Why get involved? Because the game is already rigged. So some of what you're saying, I think the way that the map is, you know, benefited towards the Republicans is surely true, right? Like particularly with the electoral college in the Senate, at least for now. But like the House popular vote in 2024 was, I pulled it up here. The Republicans won by 2% and they have whatever seven seat majority in the House like that. I mean, the House was basically representative and there are gerrymandered states in both parties. Like there's some really bad Republican gerrymanders in North Carolina, Utah, Tennessee, some other places. But like it was winnable. Like that last election was winnable to the Democrats. And I don't want this just a complacenc to set in because people can feel like, well, fuck it, it's rigged, so there's no reason to get involved and we deserved it. That's not really true. The Democrats lost last time in part because they weren't speaking to a part of the electorate that they needed to speak to. What do you think about that?

B (26:21)

So I agree with you that the game is not over at all. And yes, it's incredibly important to turnout because the longer we wait, the harder it will be to turn things around. And that's never to say that people don't have opportunities to overturn a system that is increasingly unrepresentative. Look what happened in Syria just this last year. So absolutely that is true.

A (26:46)

God willing, we don't get to Syria, we don't get to the Syria level.

B (26:51)

But that's a pretty extreme example. Right? But just to go back to the idea that the Republicans won in 24, I do think you have to look at what happens when you have a severely gerrymandered state, people get apathetic and they say, there's no point in me turning out. So in North Carolina last year, Kate Barr ran a run for her district in which her tagline for her campaign was literally, kate Barr can't win because it was so badly gerrymandered. And she just wanted people to get involved in the system so that gerrymandering badly suppresses votes. But so too do the voter suppression measures that have gone into place pretty dramatically first since 2013, immediately after Shelby versus Holder.

A (27:32)

But then again, we had more people turn out in 24 and 20 than in any election ever.

B (27:37)

I'm just saying you could have had more. And I'm not saying that people shouldn't do it, but I think it is a real mistake to look at the American population and say, oh, yeah, I mean, I guess we're saying the same thing from a different angle. I don't think the American people want what is happening right now. And my support for that comes from the vast number of polls that say, in fact, we want common sense gun safety legislation, we want health care, we want, you know, we don't want these tariff wars, we don't want our neighbors being taken off the streets. You know, I think people want a different government than they have gotten. And the answer to why they have gotten this government is in part because of misinformation or disinformation, is in part from apathy. But it is also in part because we have not adequately fought back against a system that is increasingly putting its finger on the scale for an extremist faction of our country. And this is the moment to step up and say, crap, I wasn't paying attention to gerrymandering. I care a lot about that. In fact, we know Republicans and Democrats both don't like partisan gerrymandering or saying, hey, wait a minute, what's going on here with healthcare? I think this is a really bad idea. Now is the time to do that.

A (28:51)

I agree with that. The fighting back is so support part. I also think that that's. We're getting way late from what I wanted to talk about. But this is an important topic because one thing that also has changed since 08 versus now from the Obama era and even the Roy, the Bush era when I was coming up in politics is the people least likely to turn out are actually kind of were the best. For Trump, I feel that, like the least engaged and the most apathetic, he did the best with. Right? So, like, figuring out a way to engage those people is like, absolutely critical for fixing this. And, you know, that's a little bit of a change in how politics has happened.

B (29:23)

Well, Hannah Arendt talks about this in her book on totalitarianism, and she makes the point that this is precisely how you get the ARR of an autocrat. Or she's actually talking about. There's a number of different flavors she's talking about. But by turning out those people who were not previously engaged and who believe that this is their opportunity to be heroes, that they will save the country from this horrible fate that the dictator has portrayed will happen if he doesn't end up in power. But what she says is that they don't stay engaged in politics. They go back to being unengaged when that moment passes. And that's the real question. Right. Well, my guess is that we will see when this moment is on the other side what we saw with somebody like Berlusconi. So many people saying, oh, I had nothing to do with that man. Well, you know, he had a solid 25% every time he was elected. And now you can't find anybody who voted for him. And I suspect we will see a lot of people simply saying, I don't do politics. You know, it got away from me. And you see it to some degree now with podcast bros who are saying, oh, I wish I'd never gotten involved in politics. I didn't know this is what Trump was going to do.

A (30:36)

I want to get into a couple of history things with you, but just one other politics thing we were talking about since you're in Maine. Obviously, there's a lot of interest in the Maine Senate race going to be one of the most important ones next year. There's a little controversy about the DSCC seems to be, which is the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee seems to be getting involved on behalf of Janet Mills, the sitting governor, and giving her preferential treatment in various ways that's made some people upset on the Internet. Folks are excited about Graham Platner, who is the oyster farmer. There's some other candidates. You're there on the ground. I'm wondering what your seeing with regards to that race. And there's also a ballot initiative I think, in the state that you were talking about recently, folks should probably hear about.

B (31:13)

Let me start with the ballot initiative. It's an attempt to get rid of absentee voting in Maine. Maine is a very old state Demographically, and about 40% of Maine voters vote by absentee ballot. And this is a method being pushed by the Republicans, especially a group of radical People on the far right saying that this is making the Maine vote insecure, and there's just, again, no evidence for that. And that's a great example of. Of trying to shrink the voting population so that you can keep a small group of people in power. But it is worth pointing out that when you get these moments where an electorate shrinks because people are taking away the right to vote, when they go too far and the people they're trying to suppress get into power, they open up the vote, and then those people who took away the vote pay for it for a political generation. And I think that's an important piece to have here in the mix.

A (32:03)

Yeah, this is question one. This is on this year's ballot, actually, in May. And question one is the one that's seeking new restrictions on absence voting. So we have Maine listeners, we have main viewers want to make sure that they're on the right side of that one.

B (32:15)

So I'm in this state, but I'm.

A (32:16)

Yeah, I just am curious. You're around, you got neighbors and stuff. I'm just curious what you're hearing.

B (32:21)

Well, so that's really interesting because, you know, I'm married to a lobster fisherman. You know, I hear a lot of stuff in a lot of different places, and I think my take may be different than a lot of people's. Graham Platner came into the race a bit ago. Exciting guy, speaks incredibly well. And let me tell you what the lay of the land is. And then when I think about it, Janet Mills has been in the state sort of as a groundbreaking figure now for a long time. First female attorney general, first female governor, and is very. Has been really, really effective at getting school meals, expanding Medicaid, overturning a lot of what her predecessor, who was sort of a Trump Republican had done, and has actually great things for the state finances and all that. There were two other people leading in the race. There were four people at the top. One was the guy who had started or been instrumental in starting the Main Beer Company.

A (33:19)

Yeah, Dan Cleveland.

B (33:20)

Yeah, Dan. And then another one, Jordan Wood, who was. Is sort of a political operative, mostly based outside the state, but he's actually from the state. What happened was the question is, would Mills get in? Because here's the thing about Mills. Maine. It's hard, really hard in Maine to win a statewide election because you have the very wealthy coastline and the very liberal coastline, and then you have all the way up to District 2, up to Aroostook county, and they tend to be very far right. And so You've got this weird I can make it in District one, but I can't make it in District two thing going on. And what's interesting about Platner is the way he talks. I wonder if he. He can make it in District 2, but that's because he talks about taking on the establishment and nobody's paying attention to you and so on. Neither Platner nor Wood has ever held an elected office except Platner, I believe, has been harbor master, which is not a small thing.

A (34:19)

What is harbor master? I don't know what that is.

B (34:21)

Harbor master is the person who quite literally takes care of issues relating to the use of the harbor in the area around it. So moorings and lost boats and injured boats and people being jerks and all that kind of thing.

A (34:38)

Well, I was trying to nudge you into the race when we last talked in December. So you're familiar with the Moorings things that. Outside of the.

B (34:44)

I'm familiar with the Moorings, but I don't have the personality to deal with the Moorings. Cause that's a lot of, like, interpersonal stuff. But that's really kind of a problem. If you have never run in an election. You haven't been vetted first of all. And that really matters. Cause you don't know what's gonna come later on. And you don't know if you can make. Make it really anywhere. Now that works sometimes. You know, certainly it works sometimes. But that, I think, is probably why there's a push for Mills. Because last time around, everybody thought Sarah Gideon stood a good shot. And she had. She was actually. Had been a very, very active in the legislature, couldn't win District 2. So that's what's going on here. I will say this. I think new voices in American politics right now, especially younger voices, are unbelievably important. That's how you change the political system. But I also believe people who know how to move the levers of power are important as well. And this is a moment of transition where I think, if you want to take a look at where the Democratic Party has made a huge error over the last 20 years is they walked away from the lesson of machine politics or the lesson of somebody like Harry Reid in Nevada. They should have been bringing along younger people from within the system. And we should have somebody here in Maine who has the ideas and the language of Platner, who has been vetted, but who knows how to win an election and how to govern when she or he does it. So now Maine voters have to Choose. Do you want to the significantly older person who's accomplished stuff, or do you want somebody who doesn't have any track record at all? So you're a little nervous about what that might look like.

A (36:39)

Yeah, maybe it's a Fetterman situation or whatever. I don't want to accuse Platinum of that. But that's just the type of thing that you would be looking for. Right. You get a Fetterman who's an outsider, and then all of a sudden it's like, oh, whoa, we didn't really get what we thought we were getting here. And I don't know. Platinum.

B (36:54)

Yes, I think that's right. But I think there's one other wrinkle. I don't think people give enough credit in Maine to the issue of Susan Collins, because we look at her. I mean, I'm in Maine, but I look at a national level. We look at her as a real problem at the national level. If you're looking at the state of Maine. And Janet Mills said something recently that she got jumped all over for by saying, you know, she said something nice about Susan Collins, and they were like, oh, she's terrible. You know. She did.

A (37:22)

Yeah, right.

B (37:23)

Remember, Janet Mills stood up in, I think it was February to Donald Trump in the White House in his own place and pissed him off so badly he pulled all kinds of federal support from Maine. Maine's a really poor state. Right. And Angus King in the Senate, an independent, has been out there since the beginning saying that Donald Trump is breaking all the rules and he's breaking the Constitution. So on Jared Goldin, who's a representative, and Shelley Pingree, you know, they just don't have a lot of poll. The only person who's been really running interference for the state of Maine in all this is Susan Collins. So that is also, I think, a factor. If people are thinking that Donald Trump might stay in power. I can see them saying, crap, we don't like her, but we can't get rid of Bath Ironworks, because that's like a major anchor for our economy. We gotta keep this woman in place because she at least can play nice with Donald Trump. And I think that's gonna be a factor as well for people in the state. State. You know, again, that's not going to fly for people in Illinois looking at Maine going, why the hell are you keeping Susan Collins in there?

A (38:29)

Right.

B (38:30)

But that does matter here because a lot of jobs depend on, you know, funding for the Coast Guard and for our buoys and for the military installations and things like That I think Maine's complicated, but I'm all for a primary. You know these people saying Mills should drop out. I'm like, because you think Platner can't do it? If he can do it, he should. He should. And she.

A (38:52)

Same thing, a lot of time ahead. Cool. That's interesting. I'm glad I asked about that. You do sometimes these newsletters that go a little deep on a random thing that is happening in the government that hasn't got that much attention kind of historical perspective. One of those was from earlier this week about the Triumphal arch. I had missed this, except for you mentioning it in your newsletter, I guess. Trump had showed Canadian officials a plan for an arch that would sit on the baton opposite the Lincoln Memorial. The idea would be that it would commemorate the 250th anniversary. There's a lot of historical references, though, to the triumphal arch. I'll just kind of let you cook on that because I was interested.

B (39:28)

Well, a triumphal arch comes from ancient Rome, of course, and it's the idea that you build these. They're very distinctive, actually. They're an arch that has sort of a flat top and you can put engravings on it or statues on it or whatever. And they tended to commemorate military victories or later on important public events. And the idea of this plan, and by the way, the whole idea that the Trump administration is so profoundly changing the landscape of Washington, D.C. i think is something we really should be engaging with, because I think to some degree, his handlers are encouraging him to do it because he likes to develop properties and it keeps him happy. He's talked about changing the Kennedy center, of course. He's already at work on getting rid of the East Wing of the White House to replace it with a ball room. And this, now, this arch would sit between the Lincoln Memorial and the Arlington House, which is the former home of General Robert E. Lee. And the reason that those two are connected is because the Arlington National Cemetery was deliberately placed by the Civil War era Republicans on the plantation home of Robert E. Lee, so that the dead from the Union's armies were literally on his plantation. And then, of course, Lincoln was set where he was because he's the person who oversaw the successful United States victory in that war. So there is that going on. But the reason I wrote that piece, I mean, I thought the arch was. I think it's just a boondoggle. Aside from anything else, I think it's a crazy idea. But the juxtaposition of that with tearing down the original Social Security building was, I thought, incredibly powerful because one is, in a sense, a triumph, historically a triumph to a dictator. The other was this building that was built, finished in 1940, to house the Social Security Administration. That's not what it was called then. It was called the Social Security Board. But the idea with Social Security changed the nature of the American government, to make it responsive to everybody in a community and for the administration to be tearing that down. And crucially, in that building are these murals from the era, these social realist murals from a number of really prominent artists that we paid for in the 1930s and 1940s that are on the chopping block now just seem to me so on the nose for what this administration is doing. And I'm just heartbroken over these murals. And I hope they find some way to save them and perhaps the building, simply because that is absolutely our heritage. And what at the time people thought was a change in the nature of the American government that would serve the American people forever. And that we are in a moment where we are seeing it dismantled again. I think most Americans would not want to see that dismantled. But here we are.

A (42:32)

This last topic we could do a whole podcast on and maybe we should in six months. So I don't want to keep you another hour, but maybe just one little nugget. This conversation I've been having over and over with Democrats on the pod is let's just be optimistic for a second and think that this gets beaten eventually, that MAGA gets beaten. How should the Democrats talk about that? And with some lessons from your area of expertise, the Reconstruction era and lessons learned from looking back on that. And there's some Democrats who you talk to who say we should be saying right now that we are going to be back in charge and when we are, you're to going, going to be coming for you. The law is going to be coming for you if you broke the law right now. And so you should be scared to follow Trump. There are others who say, well, you know, we want somebody who's going to be messaging about how we can bring peace and comity, you know, to our times and bring people back together. I'm just wondering if there are any kind of nuggets from that post Civil war era of history you could leave us with as we kind of think about how to talk about that right now.

B (43:32)

Well, the post Civil War era was the era in which we backed away from those kind of commitments, which was a terrible error. And, you know, one of one of the things that we talk about a lot is how there were no executions after the Civil War with the exception of the people who were involved either in Andersonville Prison camp or in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. But in fact, there were thousands of executions after the Civil War. They were just of the people who had sided with the United States. And that's really, really important to remember. They were extra legal, of course. This is the Ku Klux Klan, for example. But it's important to remember this idea that there's peace and happiness so long as you exhibit forgiveness is simply wrong. Now that with being the backdrop, because you asked about the post Civil War years, I think it's more interesting to look at the periods before the victory is won. And one of the things that Lincoln did and I pay attention to all the time. But you also see it with people like Theodore Roosevelt in the late 1890s and early 19 aughts. You also see it with people like Franklin Delano Roosevelt and with people like Dwight Eisenhower. Now, I've just given you a Republican, a Republican, a Democrat. And a Republican is a reliance on American values. That is the idea of equal justice before the law. That doesn't say we're coming for you. That says we believe that whether you are the President of the United States or an undocumented immigrant who arrived a minute and a half ago, we are going to exercise the law according to how you interface with this government. The reliance on the law and exercising the law and standing on the principles of the United States. The idea of equality before the law, the idea that you have a right to have a say in your government, the idea that you have a right to equal access to resources, including things like health care and education, the idea that we care about hard work and rising through hard work and we care about education, those sorts of of returns to our fundamental principles that have stood us in good stead since the beginning, even when they did not apply to everybody in our country. But they gave everybody a touchstone to look at when they thought about creating a future. That's how I talk about it. It's not about you need to behave because we're coming for you. It's we will restore the rule of law to this country. And that I think is really, I thought when Gavin Newsom, governor of California the other day said to universities, hey, you kowtow to Trump, you're losing all your funding here in California. That was an important moment because I think Biden, President Joe Biden very carefully tried to say, we're all in this together. We're going to treat everybody equally. And what that did was it said to a number of people that they had to behave for Trump, but they didn't have to behave for Biden. And so what you got was almost this abusive kind of relationship where everybody did what the bad dad insisted on while assuming the mom was always gonna be there loving them. And what that ended up with was a second Trump administration. So, you know, my thing is always in a moment like this, as Lincoln did, Teddy Roosevelt, and so on, is to go back to our classics. What do we stand for? And that has a touchstone moment, I think, for all Americans to say, hey, yeah, I know who Lincoln is. And I think Lincoln was a good guy. And he believed that you should be treated equally before the law. Whether you were Simon Cameron, one of his first cabinet secretaries, who was corrupt as the day was long, or whether you were one of the soldiers who fell asleep on duty, those things actually matter to the preservation of American democracy. And I stand for that.

A (47:32)

Yeah, it's interesting you say that when you just think about the universal principles. I got a text yesterday from a friend friend who's talking about the principles that Ohio was founded on. Thinking about what's happening in Ohio, that state constitution in 1803, it was religious freedom, public education, and prohibition of slavery. Those are the three original pillars in Ohio. Right. And going back to those kind of original principles does feel maybe the path forward. Heather Cox Richardson, thank you so much. I really appreciate everybody. Check out your substack as always, and we appreciate everything you've been up to and I'm sure we'll be talking you to again soon.

B (48:06)

Back at you. Thanks for having me.

A (48:07)

All right, everybody else will be back here for another edition of the Bulwark Podcast tomorrow. See y' all then. Peace.

B (48:24)

Took a bus straight to Baltimore on the way took a nap dropped off another said I'm giving this note back.

A (48:30)

Yes, there's a lot coming going on.

B (48:31)

Underneath the roots, the pipes and the.

A (48:34)

Drainage like so.

B (48:51)

Oh, ham trailing suffering I sing clearly calling crashing I pace faster than anyone Hind jets rusty they swing louder than anything Trumly lonely this place is flatter than it seems the.

A (50:15)

Bulwark Podcast is produced by Katie Cooper with audio engineering and editing by Jason Brown.

C (50:22)

This is Chiquis from Chiquis and Chill Podcast. My fur babies a y como me quieren Even when I get home late or I'm too tired to play esporo amor and that's the kind of love I want to give right back that's why I trust Hill's Pet Nutrition because you're only human, Hill Science does more Most days, my schedule is jam packed. I'm either out all day recording new episodes of Cheekies and Chill, or I'm stuck in back to back business meetings. And I feel super guilty knowing my babies, Ryu and Pancho are at home waiting for me to get back. But when I'm finally home, that's when I show them how much I love them by feeding them their favorite pet food. I know I can't always be the perfect pet parent, but with Hills, I'm much closer because science does more. Find the right food@hillspet.com iheartra.