← The Bulwark Podcast
Loading summary
Transcript73 lines
- [00:00]
Bill Kristol
Foreign.
- [00:13]
Tim Miller
Hello and welcome to the Bulwark Podcast. I'm your host, Tim Miller. It is Monday, so we are back with editor at large of the Bulwark Bulwark God King, Bill Kristol. What is that, Bill?
- [00:25]
Bill Kristol
I don't, I don't get the God King deference and tributes often enough, frankly. So thank you for that.
- [00:30]
Tim Miller
I agree with you.
- [00:31]
Bill Kristol
Thanks for Sarah. You know, jvl, Sam, they're not really into that stuff.
- [00:35]
Tim Miller
I don't know why I can be the one that throws roses at your feet, getting prostrate down in front of you. All right, well, let's just get into it. Jams Fest is over, so all my revelry is done. I ended with Remy Wolf last night. And so now I'm just back to the dire reality of trying to read Trump's bleats and determine how seriously to take them. You are out with a newsletter this morning that is sort of on this front about Trump's increasing megalomania about how he is. He wants to be the department store God king of America and the world. Why don't you just kind of summarize the argument that you're making?
- [01:12]
Bill Kristol
You know, I first was going to write about the staff, and I do write about that some. I'm very struck. If I could just begin with that, that, you know, in the first term, who was bumped in the first month? Mike Flynn. Who was bumped in the first year? Steve Bannon. The crazies were for a while marginalized to some degree. To some degree. I don't overstate this. And the normies kind of ran the show for two or three years, more or less. Or at least we're able to curb Trump, the Kellys and the Mattis and so forth. Right. So John Bolton McMaster, in the second term, it's the opposite. I mean, I don't want to make too much of it, but some of it was just personality and idiocy and so forth. But it is interesting, I think the more I've thought about it, that waltz was the first one to go, the most normal, probably least sycophantic, least maga, you know, dedicated of the national security team. And I kind of, I've talked to someone who says, I said, come on, it can't be Steve Miller as national Security Advisor. And this person who's sort of in touch with MAGA adjacent world said, oh, absolutely, it could be he's already in effect on the National Security Council. You can see that from that signal gate chat, right, where Miller weighs in and says, I think what the President meant was this, and corrects. Vance, incidentally, corrects the Vice President. Miller is the national security advisor. So that's one half of it. Things are worse this second term than the first term because he's surrounded by sycophants and authoritarians, not at least half surrounded by semi normie accommodators. And things are also worse because he's crazier. I sort of resisted that because I don't like the psychologizing of Trump much. I don't think I'm very good at it. And I feel like it's better just to analyze what he's doing and how he's destroying our democracy and not get into his head too much. But he's clearly more megalomaniacal. It's all gone to his head, don't you think? I mean, first term, he says in the interview, I think, was it the Atlantic? First time I ran the country, but this term I'm running the country and the world. And I don't think there's any irony when he says that, you know, I'm with you.
- [03:01]
Tim Miller
We leave the Trump armchair psychologizing on the Bulwark Network to George Conway. I don't know whether or not he's crazier. Here's what I do. I think we can judge objectively, though. He definitely seems. Doesn't seem. He definitely is more reckless about things. Right. And that could be because he's gotten more megalomaniacal, certainly. I mean, he was already like the top 0.00001% of megalomaniacs in the entire world the first time around. So could you up that level a little bit? Sure. I guess maybe it's because he's more megalomaniacal. I think I took the same about this a little bit over the weekend. I think, though, part of it is he has a lack of care about his political standing. Like he feels like he already has won. He was worried about being in jail for a minute. Now he won again. Nobody believed him he could win the first time, nobody believed he'd win the second time. You know, nobody was at his second announcement except for Brick, Brick Wall Suit. You know, Gates didn't even show up. His kids didn't even show up. Right. And so he's like, fuck it. I do think that there's, like a recklessness about him that, like when Ashley Parker and Michael Shearer were asking him about, you know, his political standing and whether he's worried about the terrorists in the economy, he definitely just Feel like he doesn't really care that much about the normal political ramifications. And I think that does make him much, much more dangerous to the country. Maybe the one silver lining of that is it kind of means that he isn't really thinking about, you know, doing a coup at the end. Because. Because if he was, maybe he'd be more concerned about his political standing. I don't know. Now, we're maybe getting a little too deep into the brain. But I think that is objectively true that he is less concerned about normal political considerations than he was last time and so less willing to be reined in by people around him, even if there were people around him to rein him in, which there aren't, as you pointed out.
- [04:55]
Bill Kristol
Yeah, I mean, coming back in January 6th, look, he was counted out after that and he probably thought that deep down, Jesus, maybe I, you know, I botched this and I am not going to make it back. And then Kevin McCarthy showed up in Mar a Lago and everything fell into place. But as you say, it wasn't obvious he was going to crush DeSantis and late 22, early 23. So then the assassination attempt, maybe even psychologically, I've always discounted all the nonsense. I was saved by God. But who knows what he thinks, right? I mean, I don't think he believes in God the conventional way, but he could believe in his own fated dominance and destruction of the American political system.
- [05:30]
Tim Miller
His own godlike whatever traits.
- [05:33]
Bill Kristol
And the way I said it in the piece, I'm not sure it's an accurate use of the terms. It probably isn't that he had gone from being a narcissist in the first term to a megalomaniac nature. Now, I don't know if that's quite right, that distinction, but I just trying to capture somehow the notion that it's gone to another level. And I do think that's true. It does make him more reckless. It also makes him interesting things in Canada, Panama and Greenland. Right. The territorial expansion stuff, he didn't have any think about that in the first term. He wanted to get reelected and do a lot of corrupt stuff and get even wealthier and so forth. Now, he still wants to do that, all that, of course, but even on that, the scale of it is so much more ambitious and so much crazier that it is more reckless also, I suppose. But on the territorial expansion, it's as if he does have in his head, gee, if you want to be like a world historical figure, you need to increase the size of your empire. That's kind of what it means to be, you know. So I, yeah, I think it really leads to recklessness. I think it's bad on the whole, very bad, honestly. And I don't even think, I think even in terms of the coup at the end, it could just lead him to really prepare for the coup instead of doing it in a somewhat, thank God, haphazard and slapdash way in those last three months. So in that respect, I don't know that he really believes there should be an election in 2028 in which he or his anointed successor should lose power. He's not behaving like a guy who thinks that, fine, I'll if I lose power, I lose power, you know.
- [06:51]
Tim Miller
All right, seven minutes in on a Monday. We're really, we're really doing the bulwark thing today, Bill. Ok, how about we go back to the military parade on Friday after we taped the army confirmed there will be a military parade on Trump's birthday as part of the celebrations around the Army's 250th birthday. Plans for the parade call for about 6,000 soldiers, 150 vehicles and 50 helicopters to follow a route from Arlington to the National Mall. Officials say it will cost tens of millions of dollars. Trump was asked about this directly with Meet the Press over the weekend, and he's, yeah, he's, he's in as we're doing it, we're going to do the Kim Jong Un thing. Obviously, this is in line with your megalomaniac thesis.
- [07:38]
Bill Kristol
The army had planned for, I think, a rather modest sort of demonstration of some equipment and some tributes to soldiers and veterans and so forth on the Mall on June 14, which is the 250th anniversary of the US Army. It also happens to be Trump's birthday, and Trump, seeing I think for him more importantly that it was his birthday as well, decided to go for the huge parade with him up there in the reviewing stand. I don't know. I don't know the history of this entirely. I could be wrong. I have the impression, certainly military parades are pretty rare in the US and they tend to happen after a military victory. The only one I've seen was the one after the first Gulf War in 1991, and that was even a fairly modest thing. And there was even then, at the time, should we be doing this? But I think for the first President Bush thought we got to this is so long ago. We've got to shake the Vietnam syndrome so we can, like, be proud that we won this one in early 1991. And so there was a modest parade down Pennsylvania Avenue. Yeah. This is not something that normally. And they've been parades, obviously, after World War II and so forth, but this is not the kind of thing that normally happens. And from Arlington, for people who don't know Washington geography all the way over to the White House, that's much longer than the inaugural parade or anything like that. And the tanks, it's going to be grotesque. And Trump will be there. And I bet the rhetoric by June 14th will be more about Trump's birthday and less about the US Army's birthday.
- [08:51]
Tim Miller
We also haven't won any wars. I mean, he's actually currently surrendering in a war. I mean, you know, I was a little child, so I do not remember the national victory celebration in 1991 that you referenced.
- [09:03]
Bill Kristol
It was modern. And that's the point. It wasn't. Even if you hadn't been a little child, it was forgettable. And to Bush's credit, he sort of wanted to do it because he sort of wanted to show we weren't suffering from the Vietnam syndrome anymore, but it was not a big thing.
- [09:15]
Tim Miller
Yeah. Previously to that, it looks like 1946 New York City victory parade. I don't know. Trump was impressionable. Since he's 100 years old, he might have remembered that one. The point, I think the whole thing is kind of grotesque and is not. Definitely feels more authoritarian than American. But to this point, just about how it is not a result of some celebration of military success. It's centrally about him. Even if they try to position it as an army celebration, it is centrally about him overseeing the power and the might and trying to, you know, menace foes and maybe menace, who knows, maybe Menace Greenland, who he volunteered over the weekend, that he does not want to rule out military conquest over and, like, that element of it and, you know, I mean, like the branding side of it, like, that is how the Trump brain works. Right. That. That is what this is. It's about a Trump USA branding exercise.
- [10:14]
Bill Kristol
It's a good point. I hadn't thought of it until we were just talking. This part, this point I'm about to make, which follows on your point, which is if one wanted to do this and one were a somewhat devious politician with a big ego, which God knows there are plenty, and you sort of like to have a parade that you got to preside over and kind of coincides with your birthday. That's kind of nice. You would arrange for the army or for Pete. Hegseth you know, when secretary or the Secretary of the army works on Hegseth to recommend this parade for the 250th anniversary, and then you would sign off on it because, you know, the army wants it and the Defense Department wants it. Right. Trump isn't disguising the fact that it's his idea. I think, in fact, he's sort of boasting about it. Right. And this is sort of. I'm the guy who's responsible for this, for this parade. That's the way he talks about it. Which again, just emphasizes your point. There's not even a pretense that this is a kind of genuine thing that the army would be doing. It's all about Trump.
- [11:04]
Tim Miller
Yeah. No subtext, no pretense with Trump ever. We also had the discussion about rebuilding and opening Alcatraz last night, which is also clearly a branding exercise. We have some foreign listeners to the podcast. So for those who are not familiar with Alcatraz, I do want to offer briefly this audio from the great Phil Hartman as Alcatraz tour guide Vicki.
- [11:26]
Bill Kristol
This is the main cell block area, home to such famous criminals as Al Capone, Mickey Cohen, Joseph Dutch Fritzer, and Robert Stroud, the famous birdman of Alcatraz.
- [11:42]
Tim Miller
I saved some of our listeners from the section where he discusses what happened to people's ocular cavities in Alcatraz. So we'll just leave that for the people that know. But what do you think? Is it a sign of a great society in the golden where, like most of the focus of the government is the. On the expansion of prisons domestically and foreign.
- [12:01]
Bill Kristol
No, it's ridiculous. It's been a museum for like, I've never been. But did you ever go when you were out there, you lived out in the PFA area?
- [12:07]
Tim Miller
I. I never went.
- [12:08]
Bill Kristol
I looked at it. You can sort of see it from there.
- [12:11]
Tim Miller
Yeah.
- [12:11]
Bill Kristol
Some of those buildings in the Presidio. Right. And stuff.
- [12:14]
Tim Miller
I mean, I, I'm not a prison man. I've never been about prisons. I don't, I don't, you know, that's just not my vibe.
- [12:21]
Bill Kristol
But I mean, all I'm saying is I don't know how long it's been a museum, but it's like forever in my adult lifetime. I don' Believe it's been. I think it was closed in the 60s or 70s or something as a prison. So just the. I mean, it's so insane. Let's spend a fortune to rehab this thing into a prison. So we can. What do we helicopter the people out there. Take them out there on a boat for what? Our prisons aren't secure enough elsewhere. I mean, it's all crazy, obviously, but he loves, he saw movies about Alcatraz when he was a kid. Very Trump, like. Right. And it was a big, it was a thing kind of in the 50s and 60s Alcatraz, you know, the stories about it at the impregnable place you couldn't escape from. And he just likes that idea. More prisons. Bigger prisons. Prisons, bigger walls. That's what Trump's all about.
- [13:02]
Tim Miller
Close. 1963. It is. I mean, not. It's like, how seriously do you take this stuff? Like it is noteworthy, right? Like this is where the focus is. Like we're building this massive prison outside of San Salvador. He wants him to expand it. We want to rebuild our most famous prison here and like reopen it. Right. Meanwhile, you know, there might be a little pain for small businesses and kids might have to have fewer dolls and pencils. They will. I mean like the whole thing put together and we're going to have a military parade. I mean, you tie it all together and it is the picture of. I keep coming back to Libya because I feel like Gaddafi is my most, I think, acute comparison right now to Trump because Gaddafi was also very interested in the costuming and the branding. And it feels like a tin pot dictatorship where we're focusing on expanding our prisons. Possibly we're gonna have to tighten the belt a little bit on the economy, but we are gonna have big ostentatious parades to celebrate the leader.
- [14:03]
Bill Kristol
Yeah, totally. And even the tariff stuff, I mean, it is a kind of autarky, if you want, you know, we're gonna not depend on these other countries. All the movies are gonna be made here. That, that's sort of a piece with it too, don't you think? It's not quite the brutal side of it, but it's the kind of self obsessed and insanely nativist side of it.
- [14:22]
Tim Miller
Yeah. I mean, he also wants to tariff foreign movies. It's unintelligible. Sonny Bunch wrote about it in the newsletter this morning. People want to read about it. I've gotten a couple texts from Hollywood folks. So I don't. Obviously Hollywood folks are panicked because it's like, what does this cover? Does it cover movies that have multi shoots? But he doesn't know or care or think about it. It's just, it's again, it's about branding. It's about Hollywood should tape.
- [14:44]
Bill Kristol
In Hollywood, there's a reason goods are tariff, not intellectual property. Usually I Mean, how would you even do the tariff and all that? Incidentally, if anyone cares. And it's not worth enthusiasts. It's so idiotic. It's a huge net plus for us, needless to say, films and movies and associated, you know, tv, TV shows. It's like we export them to the rest of the world. As one knows. If one ever travels and finds all these people who've watched all these American things and everyone else is offering incentives to film stuff elsewhere to catch up with us. But even there, those incentives end up helping, you know, American actors and American, you know, camera, cameramen and so forth. I mean, it's not even worth getting into, as I said, but it's, it is, it's utterly insane.
- [15:26]
Tim Miller
Yeah, I do like how it's like the other countries are offering incentives and so we're going to tariff. We're not for tariffs. I don't know if you understand really how incentives work, but you did bankrupt a casino, so that makes sense. Y'all parents know the hustle is real. With work, kids, errands and everything in between, there's rarely time to slow down, let alone figure out a ten step skincare routine. But no matter how busy life gets, your skin still deserves more than just the basics. That's why I've been using today's sponsor, One Skin. Their products are true multitaskers. They hydrate, protect and support your skin's long term health. And it's all thanks to their OS1 peptide. It targets cells that accelerate the visible signs of aging, like wrinkles, thinning skin and a dry, dull complexion. One Skin supports the skin at a deeper level. So even if you run it on fumes, your skin can get what it needs. You can try their cleanser, moisturizers, sunscreens, or their new peptide scalp serum and get 15% off with code Bulwark at Oneskin Co. For parents who do it all now there's a skincare routine that does it all. We're mentioning parents because we're coming up on Mother's Day and Father's Day and you know, Mother's Day's first. Mother's Day is right around the corner. My mom's birthday and Mother's Day are always like a couple days from each other, which feels like a burden for me. I know everybody feels really bad about me, but having to do two gifts at once, it's a challenge. And you know, my mother is pretty well suited when it comes to moisturizing creams, as you might imagine. But maybe your mother isn't. You know, moms are different and I guarantee you your dad's different. So if you got a father out there, Father's Day in the future, you can check that off while you figure out your Mother's Day plans. Either way, you know, send them a little bit of moisturizing cream. Those straight dads, they need it. Some of the moms, they're going to enjoy trying something different, even if they do already have moisturizers. Who doesn't like a bunch of different ones to try? Try it out. Try out the one with the OS1 peptide. You should do it. OneSkin was founded in 2016 by an all woman team of scientists with PhDs in skin regeneration, stem cell biology, immunology and BioInformatics. OneSkin's entire RD process is run in house, strictly adhering to the rigor of the scientific process from start to finish. We still do science in this country. Oneskin is the world's first skin longevity company. By focusing on cellular aspects of one skin keeps your skin looking and acting younger for longer. For a limited time, you can try one skin with 15% off using code bulwark at OneSkin co. That's 15% off OneSkin co with code Bulwark. After you purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we sent you. Give your skin the scientifically proven gentle care it deserves with one skin. Our old friend Karl Rove was on Fox last night and I gotta tell you, Turd Blossom was cooking. He was cooking on Fox News last night so much that I need to play a highlight reel. Let's listen.
- [18:24]
C
Tweeting out a picture of you as the Pope is deeply offensive to a great many people. Going out there and saying, for example, this guy from Maryland, I don't know whether he's a good guy or a bad guy. I don't know if he's a gang member or not. But the fact is, bring him back to the United States, lay out the facts in a court of law and get it done. I thought it was really problematic when he said, well, you know what, the kids, you know those little girls at Christmas, they don't need 30 dolls. They can do it too. And if they have to pay a couple more bucks for them, you know, okay, well, it sounds like Mr. Scrooge and the ordinary American is like, wait a minute, I thought you were on my side. The president is, you know, saying, get gas is $1.90 and I just filled up my tank. It ain't $1.90. And we do not have it. Have inflation tapped down to 2% and we're going to. And we run the risk of having to jump up at least in a one time way if these tariffs are put in place.
- [19:25]
Tim Miller
Welcome to the resistance. Karl Rove. I've tried to get him on the Borg podcast. He's welcome anytime doors open. Carl, you're sounding familiar. I don't know Bill, what do you think?
- [19:36]
Bill Kristol
I mean Carl's pretty careful to try to stay in the center of the party and well plugged in with everyone he wants to be plugged in with. So I'd say what do you think is where would we characterize him as being most of the Trump years? Trump adjacent acquiescent excusing of Trump in the normie camp that's willing to vote for Trump and defend Trump. The John Thune camp, let's call it.
- [19:55]
Tim Miller
Yeah, I don't, I actually don't know if he voted for Trump. Yeah, well maybe he did like maybe even a little closer to the Paul Ryan.
- [20:01]
Bill Kristol
Okay. He certainly never said he didn't. I don't believe he ever said he didn't though. And he certainly didn't wasn't there at those Republicans for Harris events, you know. But anyway, I'll just pay Carl the respect of saying we say what he believes here and he's thought about it. But I also believe it must show the people he's talking to. The Karl Rove circles are edging away from some aspects of Trump.
- [20:21]
Tim Miller
Yeah, no, the Thom Tillis's of the world. And like, because this is like when Carl and I were on a panel together a couple months ago, we are kind of arguing about the Thom Tillises. Right. You could tell that is really where he's trying to, where he is positioning himself. It's the senators he still talks to and it's the ones that I think he genuinely thinks want what he thinks ideologically for the country would be the best policies, et cetera. But it's just like he's going to have to act way more Trumpy than they really are. Right. And so I do think that him speaking out is maybe, maybe a signal that that is where all those guys heads are at and we're trying to nudge. Maybe Carl's just fucking annoyed and done with it. I don't know, who knows who needs to say, who needs to psychoanalyze. But it's not really a great sign that you know, you're three months in and you're at Fox prime time. You got, that's Trey Gowdy with. With Carl. And they're just, like, running down the list of all of, you know, Trump's obvious mistakes. And it's pretty blunt, you know, and it doesn't sound hair on fire. It's not like, besides the Pope situation, it's not really obsessing over, like, random tweets. Like, it's like, here are the fundamentals of the politics and policy that you're screwing up right now. So anyway, Carl, we'll keep an eye on it. We'll see it. I'll show, too.
- [21:39]
Bill Kristol
He should come on. You're probably. I can't believe he hasn't been on the podcast.
- [21:41]
Tim Miller
Yeah, me neither. Come on, Carl. Water's warm. It can't be. I'm not. I don't bite.
- [21:45]
Bill Kristol
I'll email him and tell him not to come out, then I'll come on.
- [21:47]
Tim Miller
Okay. I mostly don't bite. This show is sponsored by BetterHelp. I'm a therapy man. I was just doing a little therapy talk, a little midlife crisis therapy talk with one of my buddies over the weekend who was in town for Jazz Fest. And I've been on a break for my therapist, but he was considering whether, you know, it's something he should look into. And I was just discussing all of the value that I got out of it and the way in which. As a patient, you want to ensure that you're getting therapy that serves you and getting therapy that serves your needs and is something that is useful for you. And there are ways to do that. It can be a little intimidating, but there are ways to do that. And one of the ways is by using our new sponsor, BetterHelp. Mental health awareness is growing, but there's still progress to be made. 26% of Americans who participated in a recent survey say they've avoided seeking mental health support due to fear of judgment. When people hesitate to get help, it doesn't just affect them. It impacts families, workplaces, and entire communities. BetterHelp has over 10 years of experience matching people with the right therapists from their diverse network of more than 30,000 licensed therapists with a wide range of specialties. BetterHelp is fully online, making therapy affordable and convenient. Convenient is important. Serving over 5 million people worldwide, we are all better with help. Visit betterhelp.com thebullwerks to get 10% off your first month. That's BetterHelp. H E L p.com I want to go back to your comment earlier because I don't want to get lost on Stephen Miller as National Security Advisor. Let's think about that in the context of I'm breaking a rule. Trigger warning. Trump's voice is coming. Very briefly, I want to play Trump talking to Kristen Welker about the situation in the Russia, Ukraine war.
- [23:40]
Bill Kristol
Are you any closer to reaching a peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia?
- [23:44]
D
I hope so.
- [23:46]
Bill Kristol
How would you?
- [23:46]
D
I do believe we're closer with one party and maybe not as close with the other, but we'll have to see. I'd like to not say which one we're closer to, but we did do a deal for the American people that was good. We were able to get rare earth. You know, the Europeans are getting paid back. They have a loan. We didn't. Biden just gave him $350 billion. He has no idea where the money is, what happened. And at least we'll, in one form or another, get our. I don't feel so foolish.
- [24:16]
Tim Miller
Boy, let's just dissect that a little bit. So we do have a deal with Ukraine where we are taking a ransom back for helping them. So we've got that done. The rare earth, we've got our bounty, but we're trying to do a peace deal. This is one of the parties. It's a secret, which is not playing ball as much. It sure seems like he's talking about Russia there. Right, because he just did the deal with Ukraine. But he can't criticize Putin. Never can criticize Putin as the junior party partner in the relationship. And it doesn't seem like there's really any evidence there that because Putin isn't going on with the pco, that's going to change his attitude towards Ukraine because he goes on to continue insulting Ukraine and talking about how we wasted money there. So I tie that into the Stephen Miller as National Security Advisor and Mike Waltz, whatever you think of him as a quasi traditional Republican being pushed out over to the UN and it's like, I don't see much hope here. I basically analyze that Trump is pivoting more towards the nationalists and that he's annoyed that his buddy Putin isn't doing what he wished. But that's not going to actually change the policy towards being tougher against Russia. Do you interpret it any differently than that?
- [25:32]
Bill Kristol
No, I very much agree with that. This deal he's done with Ukraine, I don't really understand it. There's no money right now. We have rights for the future. That may be okay or not. It's obviously done under huge pressure of the Ukrainians. Also not clear that we'll exercise those rights or we won't forgive them later on. Or they will, you know, and the next president may not want to. The president of a country that's taking advantage of Ukraine when it most needed help. No, but I am not optimistic about Trump helping Ukraine, which I think is the key. The key is, is there going to be aid for Ukraine this fiscal year? That's the question. And secondly, will we continue what we're doing a little bit behind the scenes? Some of the intelligence sharing and other stuff? The second I can't judge, maybe Trump doesn't focus on it and there are decent people and the intelligence community and the investor world would keep on doing it and Hexa doesn't stop it. Maybe, maybe. But really, is there going to be aid? And that's something where the Republicans in Congress, all of whom still, some of whom still sound pro Ukraine, need to actually act. There's going to be actually appropriation, actual appropriations bills, or an omnibus, or a CR something. Congress is going to appropriate money at some point in the next four or five months and they're going to be a bunch of items in this appropriations bill for everything from border security to obviously to Medicaid and everything else. And one of those items could be military support for Ukraine or it could not be. I don't believe Trump would veto the bill over that. If he did, you might be able to override it. So will the Thom Tillises of the world and the Wickers of the world and the McCall's of the world and the Mike Turners. There are certainly plenty to get it done. Half the Republicans on the Hill voted for aid for Ukraine a year ago. If half of those half go for it, almost all the Democrats will be for it. It'll easily pass as an amendment to whatever appropriations bill is up. So that's for me, that's the question. And will Trump really fight against it? Or maybe he will take kind of a hands off attitude. But I don't know. I think that with Vance and those people, unfortunately, I'm pessimistic.
- [27:22]
Tim Miller
I'm pessimistic too. Maybe the intelligence sharing. It does seem like there's maybe some momentum for like Trump's face save here is, you know, you put on some, whatever, some more sanctions on Russia, like how much more can we really do? I'm already like close to maxing that out. But there's some sort of Russia sanction element to it that makes it feel like we aren't abandoning Ukraine as we do. Essentially kind of feels like a most likely outcome to me, to the Hill point. This was last week. I don't think we got a chance to talk about it. James Lankford was on the Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer. You see this? And he was asked if he needs to reconsider the lockstep support for Trump's agenda. Lankford, the senator from Oklahoma that had worked with with Democrats on that immigration deal, so has shown some openness to working with Democrats on deals, said there's two ways to do checks and balances. One is to do press conferences and the other one is to go privately to people. You'll find a lot of Republicans go to administration officials behind the scenes when nobody's looking. We're doing the right thing. I mean, that's a pretty discouraging posture from the type of person that you would need to do this. And I do think that Democrats like a useful thing that Democratic senators could do that they felt a little bit shy about for whatever reason. Interpersonal other deals is like actually pressuring these guys to, to join them. Or even you could do it cheekily and nicely. But just like, I would love to work with James Lankford on this. Right. But like do it in a way that forces them out of their, their bunker a little bit to the extent that's possible. I don't know what you make of any of that.
- [29:01]
Bill Kristol
No, totally, totally agree. One thing on the administration, incidentally, I guess two months ago, three months ago, when the German elections were happening, Elon Musk was wildly pro afd, the neo Nazi party, or at least anti anti Nazi party if you want to be nicer to them. But certainly elements of neo Nazi types in there and very right wing, obviously pro Russian, pro Putin party. And Vance was also explicitly. The others stayed out of it as far as I can recall, in terms of they endorsed. It's unbelievable the US Vice President endorsing the, the neo Nazi party following Musk. But I sort of thought maybe that's Musk. Vance has his own hobby horse. We know that from the signal gate text. Also, he hates the democratic European states nations. But I was very struck this week that Vance reiterated his support of the AfD and Rubio jumped on board. Did you see that? Rubio couldn't resist tweeting. So he's now both Secretary of State and National Security advisor. And just to show that he's fully on board, that he doesn't have a shred of decency or dignity left, he retweets this praise. It was Musk, I guess, who originally appraised it as centrist. A centrist party. You can't believe that they're. I think the German government had done something to investigate some terror links and foreign, I think Putin links for the. In the AfD. And this is being denounced as, you know, an attack on. I don't watch freedom in Germany. And so Rubio joined in the attack. Your man Rubio has not really been an, really a pillar of strength. I'm just going to say, you know.
- [30:27]
Tim Miller
My man, I don't know. We'll have to go Back to the 2015 archives to see who is, who.
- [30:32]
Bill Kristol
Is on the advisory committee that was. What's that called? When Trump does that all the time? Projection. Projection me projecting onto you.
- [30:38]
Tim Miller
I'm happy you brought this up because the Rubio attack on Germany, on the German government was about how they are targeting the political foes here AFD with this investigation and how that is just totally unacceptable authoritarianism status European. And it's just like meanwhile, it is Rubio who is the point person on going after people in this country on fear, on visas, you know, and taking away their visas and deporting them and jailing them. I mean, some of them have been now detained even though they're no danger for months. I mean, there's the Mahmoud Khalil who they wouldn't even let out for the birth of his child, you know, which is like crazy. It's like this person is a murderer. Like whatever you think about his political views, that's insane. He's in a detention center and he can't go be with his wife and child when they're born. That's Rubio doing that. Like that is our government directly targeting people for being opposed, I guess politically to their position with regards to Israel. And so like the whole thing is just like preposterous.
- [31:46]
Bill Kristol
Yeah, Rubio's doing that chest beating. Right. I'm personally going after these lunatics who are coming to our country and. But then. And what? And right. Co signing an op ed that was critical of Israel's policy in Gaza. That was the case, I think, with that one woman in Tufts. Yeah.
- [32:01]
Tim Miller
Oz Turk. Yeah. Just a few other items out here in the news worth mentioning. Enrique Tarria, former leader of the Proud Boys, got a chance to personally thank Trump on Saturday night for issuing the pardon that cut short his 22 year prison term that he was serving in connection with his organizational efforts. Around January 6th, Tario came with his mother. I guess they got invited to Mar a Lago and got to go up to Trump and congratulate him, thank him. I mean. I mean, I'm just, again, I'm trying to think about, like, parallels where you have, like, basically, you know, kind of a rogue militia outfit that was acting in support of a political leader. The leader of that militia gets jailed for their violent efforts. The political leader then pardons him, and then has a meeting with him where they can congratulate each other again. It's like it is something that would be happening in a Turkey or a Libya. Right. Like, this is not what would even be a parallel to this in our country.
- [33:12]
Bill Kristol
I mean, probably in 1882, some Southern governor pardoned a KKK leader who had killed newly freed black men in the south and then met with him. Right. I mean, it's probably such an instance, but it's like that. It's horrifying.
- [33:28]
Tim Miller
Sure.
- [33:29]
Bill Kristol
I was talking about the radicalization, self radicalization of Trump. You see it so clearly on the January 6th thing, where at least he knows on January 7th, you sort of have to pretend I didn't want the violence. Two, three years later, he's defending them, promising to pardon them. And then I come back that first day, we all screamed and yelled about it, but it's sort of disappeared, obviously, with all these other things that have been happening. The pardon of all of them, the blanket pardon of all of the January 6th people. And no, no ifs, ands, or buts. Very indicative of where Trump's head was for this second term. And I do think that was a case where some of the White House counsel's office were saying, let's go through them. Maybe there are some of them, we should just have a little more limited clemency and stuff. And it was basically, I think Trump was quoted at the time and saying, let's just pull the band aid off and let's do all of them. And you know what? He probably thinks I didn't pay any price for that. That hasn't come up a heck of a lot. And now he's, let's see if he pays the price. He won't pay any price for this meeting, I suppose, down at Mar a Lago with this proud boys guy who was one of the main organizers. The other point going forward, though that is more serious is again, the signal this is sending for the possibilities of vigilantism on behalf of Trump, on behalf of his policies, on behalf of those against those he hates and helping those he, as the KKK analogy, helping those he wouldn't mind having, intimidate some of his enemies. And again, in the run up to 2026, but especially the 2028 election. I think that part, Trump has a certain lizard brain cunning about why he. Some people might say, you shouldn't be seen with this guy. And Trump in the back of his mind, kind of knows, you know what, I may need these guys at different moments if there really is a serious opposition to some of the stuff I'm trying to do.
- [35:04]
Tim Miller
Yeah. And we're also on that point. The government has reached settlement with Ashley Babbitt, who was that day, who's trying to storm through the windows in the Capitol. So there's not even just a pardon, but we're now paying out the people that were targeting the Capitol. I wonder if that will continue as well with other folks as they have lawsuits against the government, et cetera. I wanted to go to the other side of the aisle real quick. Jonathan Cohn has a piece out. He's our newest policy man who's living in Michigan. So he kind of did a deep dive. Whitmer, kind of the context around her meeting with Trump and the event that they had in Michigan where they got the news or the squadron was not canceled, that existed in the state. And I don't know, we got to talk about this quite a bit on the next level, so I don't really need to belabor the point. But I guess I'm curious what you made of sort of the context around what happened with Whitmer and what. What you think a good posture should be for Dem governors right now.
- [36:13]
Bill Kristol
Yeah, I discussed it with Jonathan a little on the podcast I did yesterday, the Sunday Bulwark, and it was mostly about RFK Jr. Who's very bad. And I actually learned a lot about how dangerous and damaging Trump administration health policies are, which Jonathan knows a ton about that. But he did write this interesting piece about Whitmer. He was being fair and balanced, as we used to say in Fox Days. I'm a little unsympathetic to Whitmer.
- [36:36]
Tim Miller
You're unfair and unbalanced.
- [36:37]
Bill Kristol
Yeah, I've always been more on the unfair and unbalanced side. And I don't know, I admire Janet Mills telling Trump to go so that they'll see, you know, he'll see her in court if he tries to pull Maine's federal money, federal education money, because they don't like Maine state laws on transgender youth. And I think maybe if I read that the administration sort of gave in to Maine a little bit on that, so maybe the maybe confrontation doesn't always fail again. Look, they're Governors. I'm too fair. They have real, you know, they're real citizens, real constituents. They can't simply pick fights. Well, they could, but they probably don't think it's wise. And I don't begrudge them that. It's a little different from the law firms. They're watching out for their own profits, frankly. Right. Or maybe if you want to be nice, they're clients, but they're not watching out for the public interest. You know, she is watching out for the public interest in Michigan, at least in part. But I still think, I don't know, I'm still more on the Janet Mill side. But what about you?
- [37:35]
Tim Miller
Yeah, no, it's a massive thumbs down for me. And I don't even really actually buy the argument that she needed to do this to protect the squadron. Who knows? I guess this is all counterfactual, but you couldn't send the lieutenant governor. You could sell me on the fact that in the midst of this kind of inflection point, it did not make sense for her to go full JB Pritzker and start poking her finger in his eye. And maybe it made sense to not do that for six weeks or two months or whatever. And nobody would have noticed, frankly, so nobody would have talked about it. But to go welcome him on the tarmac, have a hug, like, the whole thing is just sick to me. And I go back to jbl, wrote a pretty provocative piece, as he is meant to, as he's known to sometimes. I think it was right after the election, I believe, and he wrote that the Dems needed their own Desantis, like the Dems need a governor that will really just be an aggressive opponent to the president and do things to troll them and kind of reject the policies that are put in place and really go to the mat at every possible opportunity to argue and counterbalance towards what was happening out of Washington. Since Dempsey had no power in Washington, I had thought that that was basically right. I think that the courts are going to be protecting the states rights. This was one area where the Supreme Court would probably be pretty sympathetic despite their lean to kind of a federalist style argument, since that's where all the six majority Republican judges come out of that sort of background, that schooling. So I don't know. I think that's the right thing to do. Pritzker is kind of doing it. I don't really see anybody doing it with like as great effect as DeSantis did. Now, it didn't pay off for Desantis in the end Obviously. But I do think there was something to be said for more aggressive confrontation from the states. And, and I think a lot of the concerns about the Trump targeting the states has been a lot of empty threats. And, like, we'll see what actually happens.
- [39:45]
Bill Kristol
Yeah. It's mixed up with the whole question of should the Democrats be more centrist, should they be more, you know, outspoken, and they kind of get melded together. Right. Nice being nice. Trump sort of equals reaching out to Trump voters, which sort of equals not being too lefty on a bunch of issues. And I think that a lot of these are not really. It's a false conflation of all these things, but I get the impression that that's paralyzing some of these governments. I mean, I was thinking about just as you saw. So Wes Moore, whom you've had on the show and whom I think you and I both respect and like. Yeah, I mean, Van Holland went to. I guess maybe it was appropriate. He's the federal officer, the Senate senator. He's the one who flew to El Salvador. But of course, Westmore is actually the governor of that state. Right. I mean, in which Mr. Garcia was resident. So maybe he could have done a little more. There's a lot of triangulation going on, and mostly the main thing is to be said, A, I'm sort of against it anyway, and B, it doesn't matter. It's not going to work. No one's going to remember you three years from now when you're running for president in 2028 for what you said in 2025. And honestly, just as a matter of real civic duty, Trump has to be taken on and all these things. And I do think it sends a bad signal to people who aren't certain whether. I don't want to blame Gretch Whitmer for this. Exactly. But if you're a business type, who's wondering, should I risk a little bit with my shareholders or employees by taking on Trump? If you're a law firm, if the political leadership of the opposition party won't do it, it's bad. When the political leadership of his own party won't do it, we're already paying a huge price. If the political leadership of the opposition party won't do it, then I think if you're a CEO in the Midwest, if you're a CEO in Michigan, Auto company auto parts, you think, oh, God, I mean, Whitmer's not taking them out. I'm not going to. So I do think that it does some damage, don't you think?
- [41:24]
Tim Miller
I totally agree with that and I couldn't agree more. Also with the hubris of thinking that the exact wording of your op ed is going to resonate three years from now. And this is just like total political consultant brain. People that are not listening to podcasts like this do not even know what was in Gretchen Whitmer's speech. Frankly, the hugging of Trump is much riskier than like going, you know, fighting for Kilmar Abrego Garcia. You know, like, sure there is there something you could do in 2025 that could harm you in 2028? Like, you know, saying that you're for, you know, the abolishment of the prison state or whatever. Like that you want to replace all the police officers with, with nice people with batons that do, you know, mental health services. Like, yeah, sure. Like you could take like positions that are so insane that like somebody could remember it. But again, like anything within the 30s, you know, people just are not paying that close of attention to you right now, except for insiders. And so do the right thing and argue passionately for the right thing and see what influence you can have. I think that that's obvious and there's way too much overthinking of it. I'm going to close with a little bit of good news. I don't want to pretend to be an expert on this, but it happened. Australia's Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is from the Labor Party down there. Center left party secured a second term. It was a very kind of similar path to Canada. They have blessedly short elections there. It was a five week election, but so it happened kind of right in the shadow of the Liberation Day. And in Australia they thought that the Conservative Party was going to potentially win or do much better. Ended up going the other direction. The Conservative Party is called the Liberal Party down there. So the Liberal Party leader Dutton lost his seat just like Pierre Poliev lost his seat, the Conservative Party leader in Canada. So it is pretty noteworthy and not doing us a lot of good, but intriguing that Donald Trump is tanking the political prospects of conservative leaders across the Anglosphere.
- [43:26]
Bill Kristol
God knows, I don't know actually in Australia I've been a couple of times. I do their TV and radio stuff occasionally. I know somehow when Murdoch owned the Weekly Standard I was like, had some vague connection to Australia, so I'm still on their list or something. And I am always struck how much they know about and how closely they follow American politics. I mean that's generally the case around the world. We are, you know, we don't follow anyone's politics. And I don't much either. I'm embarrassed to say I should. But we are a very big country, big player in their world. And so people will say, well, they're getting them. Canada is one thing. It's right across the border with Australia. Were they paying attention? They were. When Trump launches the tariffs and does other things that call into question his commitment to our traditional alliances and Australia is a close ally and Australia's paid a price for sticking with us and being anti China because they are much closer to China and they've. Their trade with China has suffered sovereign. They're always being bullied and badgered by China, et cetera. They follow this. And I do think, therefore it is sort of interesting and it's encouraging us, encouraging that Australia wants to do the right thing and that other Australian people want to stand up for, you know, against countries like China and stand up against authoritarianism. It's. I don't know if it's encouraging for us and it's encouraging for the world if these other allies can sort of fend for a while without us being on side, on their side. I still worry that that's a sort of a lot to ask of the Australians and Canadas of the world for them, hang tough. But we're going in the wrong direction.
- [44:49]
Tim Miller
It is a lot to ask, but it is encouraging that you're doing it. It's interesting. I forget there was a Dem economist. It might have been on one of your conversations. It might have been Furman or Summers, but I forget where I heard it. But one of the prominent Dem economists was saying there's a way that you could in theory do a trade war with China that could be more effective. But the anti of that is getting the Australians on board and the Canadians on board. Yeah, and Europe super close.
- [45:18]
Bill Kristol
That's what the TPP was supposed to be, which they all walked away from in 2015. But 16, you tighten the alliance and then they are willing to say, okay, we're all really tight, we're all trading, we're all defending each other. We can afford to join you in standing up a little more to China. We've done the opposite, of course.
- [45:35]
Tim Miller
Yeah, we've done the opposite. And it is noteworthy this trade war is happening in the context with these other countries. Our close allies feel so alienated that they are, that there is real political action in their country in negative response to what we're doing. I've been saying this about the Dallas Mavericks GM Nico Harrison. You got to fuck up really badly to have to do something, which in his case was trade Luka Doncic. And then have people come to your office the next day with signs calling for your head. You've had a bad day at the office if you make a decision and the next day people call for your head. And that's really Trump. You've got to do a really bad job of presidenting and of working with our allies to have two countries, like their political dynamics totally shift and reject the party that would be your ostensible ally. Like, just because of how negative and aggressive your actions have been. Like, it can't just be like a little bad. You got to really fuck it up for that to happen. So anyway, kudos to the Aussies. A little less good news in the UK when we're looking at our Anglophone allies. Farage, we've been seeing the reform. The Brexit guys have been doing better in the local elections there. So I don't know. We'll monitor that. Bill, do you have any other final topics for us? Anything else that struck you over the weekend?
- [46:56]
Bill Kristol
God. From Australia to Stephen Miller to all over the. All over the waterfront. But no, absolutely. Why would Trump be doing this foolish stuff? I mean, either he wants to do it because he wants to be on Putin's side and G side and not on the Democratic allies in Europe and the Democratic allies in Asia side. I think that's partly true and. Or it's all gone to his head somewhat. Just as we were saying at the beginning of our conversation today that he thinks he can do anything and kind of not pay attention to normal rules of geopolitics or other countries interests and so forth. And I guess those two would go together, I guess, in a way. Right.
- [47:35]
Tim Miller
I do think we have a little bit from column A and a little bit from column B. All right, Bill, Crystal, we'll see you back here next week. And everybody else, check us out tomorrow. Peace.
- [48:03]
E
Again with the same old bag of be on the radio we got some hungry mouth to me going back to Al Standing down on a highway A hundred one ways to go solid Terry. So confined to the legend of Geronimo I know how to bring the rain I used to dance for ABC all the break down down the road back home and now the trail.
- [49:12]
Tim Miller
The Bulwark Podcast is produced by Katie Cooper with audio engineering and editing by Jason Brown.