Intellectual Trade Deficit

Summary

The Commentary Magazine Podcast: "Intellectual Trade Deficit" – Summary

Release Date: April 7, 2025
Host: John Podhoretz, Editor of Commentary Magazine
Guests: Executive Editor Abe Greenwald, Social Commentary Columnist Christine Rosen, Washington Commentary Columnist Matthew Continetti

---

1. Introduction to the Episode

The "Intellectual Trade Deficit" episode delves into the complexities surrounding President Donald Trump's recent imposition of tariffs aimed at addressing the United States' trade deficits. Hosts and guests engage in a robust discussion analyzing the economic rationale, political underpinnings, and potential ramifications of these protectionist policies.

---

2. Trump's Tariff Policies and Market Reactions

Market Volatility and Trump's Statements [02:34 – 04:36]

John Podhoretz opens the discussion by highlighting the immediate stock market correction of 10-12% following Trump's announcement of new tariffs. The uncertainty surrounding the market's response is emphasized, particularly in light of Trump's ambiguous messaging about the true purpose of the tariffs.

Notable Quote:
Christine Rosen criticizes Kevin Hassett's analogy: "It's like saying if you walk up to someone and punch them in the face, there's no risk to you. That's why they're retaliating." [15:46 – 16:37]

---

3. Economic and Political Implications

Purpose and Effectiveness of Tariffs [04:36 – 08:25]

Matthew Continetti scrutinizes the administration's claims that tariffs are a necessary measure to eradicate trade deficits and shift the American economy towards high-skilled manufacturing and exports. He challenges the assumptions underlying this strategy, questioning whether tariffs can effectively balance the trade scales without adverse economic consequences.

Historical Parallels: Japan and Germany [07:27 – 08:25]

John Podhoretz draws parallels with Japan and Germany's export-driven economies, noting that prolonged reliance on exports can lead to economic stagnation. He warns that the U.S. might face similar challenges if it continues down a tariff-heavy path.

Notable Quote:
Podhoretz states, "Japan has been fundamentally stagnant with an economy built almost entirely on exports for more than 30 years." [07:27]

---

4. Internal Dynamics within the Republican Party

MAGA Coalition and Traditional Republicans [11:12 – 15:45]

The conversation shifts to the internal divisions within the Republican Party. Continetti explains that while Trump's MAGA base remains robust—with 77 million votes—traditional Republicans like Nikki Haley and Mike Pence express growing discomfort with Trump's methods. This schism raises concerns about the long-term cohesion of the party.

Notable Quote:
Continetti remarks, "The Trump shock is very different... Senators and representatives react to it in ways that are different for the Trump era." [23:13]

---

5. Populism and Economic Nationalism

Rise of Populist Sentiments [11:12 – 15:45]

Continetti links Trump's tariff policies to broader populist trends, citing Perry Anderson's analysis of populism's key components: attacks on inequality, plutocracy, and free trade. He suggests that Trump's approach epitomizes these elements, blending economic nationalism with populist rhetoric to galvanize his base.

Notable Quote:
Continetti states, "There are three keys to populism... Trump is attacking all three." [07:27]

---

6. Impact on Voters and Economic Well-being

Voter Sentiment and Economic Realities [24:56 – 32:30]

The discussion examines how Trump's policies are impacting everyday Americans, particularly retirees whose 401(k) accounts have suffered due to market volatility. Continetti argues that the administration's focus on high-level economic strategies neglects the immediate financial concerns of the broader populace.

Notable Quote:
Continetti emphasizes, "It doesn't matter to Trump, if Northern Virginia feels poor next year. It only matters whether his voters feel poor." [45:25 – 46:00]

---

7. Democratic Party's Response and Global Implications

Potential Shift to 'Abundance' Progressivism [53:03 – 57:20]

The panel explores how the Democratic Party might respond to Trump's tariffs by adopting an "abundance" progressivism stance, focusing on supply-side solutions to counteract protectionist measures. This shift could redefine economic policies within the party, emphasizing increased supply to drive growth.

Geopolitical Consequences [36:06 – 43:07]

The guests discuss the international repercussions of Trump's tariff policies, warning that unilateral economic actions could fracture longstanding alliances and isolate the U.S. on the global stage. The potential for strained relationships with key allies like Japan and the destabilization of strategic partnerships in the Pacific are highlighted.

Notable Quote:
Christine Rosen warns, "The intertwined nature of the world order that the US has shepherded... will be no more. It's going to be a much more hostile world." [58:41 – 59:46]

---

8. The Possibility of an Induced Recession

Strategic Economic Downturn [30:58 – 35:29]

Abe Greenwald and Continetti debate whether the administration might be intentionally inducing a recession to reset the economy, positioning the Republicans advantageously for future elections. They analyze the feasibility and risks of such a strategy, considering historical precedents and current economic indicators.

Notable Quote:
Greenwald posits, "If they get the timing right, wrong, or if the recession is quite severe, this will have been a self-inflicted policy wound." [35:09 – 35:29]

---

9. Philosophical and Ideological Underpinnings

Critique of Populism and Economic Theories [40:05 – 57:20]

Podhoretz and Continetti engage in a philosophical critique of Trump's economic policies, questioning the sustainability and intellectual coherence of protectionist strategies. They explore how Trump's short-term focus undermines long-term economic planning and consistency.

Notable Quote:
Podhoretz concludes, "The real problem in the world is that everybody else in the world is screwing us... You can't just say the problem is them." [65:15 – 65:25]

---

10. Conclusion and Final Reflections

The episode wraps up with reflections on the broader implications of Trump's tariff policies for the U.S. economy, internal political dynamics, and international relations. The panelists express skepticism about the long-term success of protectionist measures, cautioning against the potential for economic hardship and geopolitical isolation.

Final Notable Quote:
Christine Rosen remarks, "Whatever works out or doesn't work out in terms of the trade deficits and leveling the playing field, we are going to be a much more isolated country." [58:41 – 59:46]

---

Key Takeaways

• Trump's Tariffs: Intended to eliminate trade deficits but have led to significant market volatility and uncertainty about their true purpose and effectiveness.

• Political Dynamics: The Republican Party is experiencing internal divisions between the MAGA base and traditional Republicans, raising questions about future cohesion.

• Economic Nationalism vs. Historical Evidence: The panelists express concerns that protectionist policies may mirror past economic stagnations seen in countries like Japan and Germany.

• Impact on Voters: Economic policies are disproportionately affecting middle Americans, particularly retirees, without clear strategies to mitigate adverse effects.

• Democratic Response: Potential shift towards supply-side progressivism to counteract Republican protectionism, though this comes with its own set of challenges.

• Geopolitical Ramifications: Unilateral tariff policies risk isolating the U.S. internationally, weakening alliances, and destabilizing strategic partnerships.

• Strategic Recession Concerns: There is speculation about the intentional induction of a recession as a political strategy, though this approach carries significant risks.

---

This comprehensive analysis in "Intellectual Trade Deficit" provides listeners with an in-depth understanding of the multifaceted issues surrounding current U.S. trade policies, their economic implications, and the intricate political landscape shaping these developments.

Transcript

[John Podhoretz]

This episode of the Commentary Magazine Podcast is sponsored by sapir. If you listen to this podcast, you're likely a fan of Bret Stephens. And if you're a fan of Bret Stephens, you really should be reading the quarterly journal he edits devoted to ideas for a thriving Jewish future. The journal is called sapir, that's S A P I R and is currently offering free one year subscriptions, print subscriptions. Yes, you heard that correctly. If you live in the US you can now receive this excellent publication direct at your home, free of charge. The current issue, because SAPIR has topic issues, is on the theme of diversity and it includes deep and incisive takes on America's contentious diversity discourse with articles by Commentary Zone Mayor Soloveitchik on how he can reject identity politics while building Jewish identity, Adam Kirsch on inclusion and anti Zionism, and David Denby on the Mel Brooks classic Blazing Saddles. It also includes an article by Israel's President Isaac Herzog on Zionism and diversity. Go to sapirjournal.org commentary magazine to sign up for your free subscription today. That's S A P I R J O U r n a l.org Commentary magazine.

[Matthew Continetti]

For the best expect the wor.

[John Podhoretz]

Pain, some diapers, no way of knowing which way it's going. Hope for the mistakes, make the worst, Hope for the best. Welcome to the Commentary Magazine Daily Podcast. Today is Monday, April 7, 2025. I am John Podhoritz, the editor of Commentary magazine. With me, as always, Executive Editor Abe Greenwald. Hi Abe.

[Christine Rosen]

Hi John.

[John Podhoretz]

Social commentary columnist Christine Rosen. Hi Christine.

[Abe Greenwald]

Hi John.

[John Podhoretz]

And Washington Commentary columnist Matthew Continetti. Hi Matt.

[Matthew Continetti]

Hi John.

[John Podhoretz]

Well, we have nothing to talk about, so I guess we'll be, we'll be back. We'll be back tomorrow with another fun episode of the World Is Coming to an End. Okay, maybe the world is not coming to an end. I don't know if the world is coming to an end. It's 8 o'clock in the morning.

[Matthew Continetti]

We rechristened the podcast the Daily Meltdown.

[John Podhoretz]

Is that. Well, it's not my meltdown. I got to say, I, I, I fully emotionally prepared for what happened here.

[Matthew Continetti]

Good.

[John Podhoretz]

Myself. I do think that it is very interesting that as we, I should say, as we are having this conversation is 8am Monday morning. So we don't know how the markets are going to open. In light of what happened over the weekend and in light of things that Donald Trump said last night on Air Force One and in light of appearances on the Sunday, we don't know whether there is going to be a continued meltdown. There was a 10 to 12% correction since Trump announced the I don't even think we should call them tariffs because it's a tariff imposition, the purpose of which is to end trade deficits, apparently. And I don't know if that means that the tariffs are for the purpose of levying imposts on other goods or if they're actually to create a worldwide condition under which, according to what Trump said last night on Air Force One, we don't have any kind of balance of payments issue with any other country that is not in our favor. So is that a tariff or is it some kind of dream of a world in which you don't even have to pay for goods? Somehow if you pay for goods, you get goods back in larger quantities than the ones that you paid for. You don't pay for them at all anyway. Matt. Matt Conetti, yeah.

[Matthew Continetti]

Well, I have some observations. First, you know, the markets are about to open. Mixed messages over the weekend. Clearly, the president isn't interested in negotiating. On the other hand, he did advance to the next round of the senior championship at one of his golf clubs. So it's possible that the market may take some relief at that, that, you know, the swing, the, the swing is still good.

[John Podhoretz]

According to him. He won. And he won. He won. I don't know if, you know, if he won. He won. He literally said, I won five times. Yeah, that he won.

[Matthew Continetti]

So maybe that will put him in a good mood. He didn't seem like a very good mood in the press availability, though. On the way back, he told the reporter to move out of the frame kind of gruffly, and then he told another reporter that it was a very stupid question. When asked if, you know, he was satisfied with the way markets have been performing, President Trump said, of course he doesn't like that they're going down. But once again, he likened what he has done to a medical procedure, an operation. Other times, he's been using the metaphor of medicine, that these policies, the Trump shock, Liberation Day, are meant to somehow cure what is ailing the American economy. And I think it's a mistake for people to assume that he is going to come out today after meeting Prime Minister Netanyahu this afternoon and say, well, Israel's promised to drop its tariffs on US Goods, so we're going to drop all our tariffs on Israeli goods. I think Israel got slapped with the 17% tariff that will go into effect on Wednesday. I think he feels as though this is necessary in order to change the global economy in a way that transforms the American domestic economy toward one based more on high skilled manufacturing and export. Now, there are a few assumptions, of course, in that argument that I disagree with. One, the idea that the American economy is fundamentally ailing. As we've discussed many times before on this podcast, to the degree that middle America has been hurt by changes in the global economy over the past two decades, I happen to believe the cure is better regulatory policy, better tax policy, better workforce policy, better educational policy. All of these are interconnected. And then there's the other assumption built in there that Howard Lutnick, our commerce secretary, who's emerging as Trump's Trump in this second term, put out over the weekend in his appearances on the talk shows, which is somehow the high tech, high skilled manufacturing export economy is a better model than the current model. What we have where America is an exporter of services, right, but does have trade deficits in manufacturing goods with other countries. I think we've seen the limits of the export based economic model when you look at the pathologies of the German economy, Japan, Japan, even China.

[John Podhoretz]

Japan has been fundamentally stagnant with an economy built almost entirely on exports for more than 30 years. I mean, it's the world's second or third largest economy, depending on how you measure it. So it's not as though it hasn't suffered. But there was a point at which Japan, much smaller than us or than China, was possibly in the position of overtaking us as the world's leading economy had it stopped its top down distortions relating to forcing the country to be an export economy. So we actually have a real world example of a country that has done itself long term damage with this. Now it has. Cultural reasons are largely responsible for that in Japan's case, that do not exist here. But nonetheless, it's not like we don't have. We can't say, well, no one's ever tried what Trump's trying before, so we gotta give it a shot.

[Matthew Continetti]

No. And Germany, of course, I think is also an example that it is very clear what's happened to the German economy also. Not just because they're so heavy on export industry, but also because of their environmental policies, which has effectively de industrialized Germany. And of course Trump does not share those environmental policies. I'll just finally, if those assumptions are flawed, in my view, what's happening here? Well, I think what's happening here is politics and it's not about wealth accumulation. It's about wealth distribution. And the Trump voter, the voters in the Heartland of America, the forgotten Americans who have been the base of the Trump coalition now for a decade. They have consistently been much more economically nationalist than us, than the people in the bubble, the people in the Acelic corridor. I just saw a map on Axios of the distribution of AI data centers across, across the country. The Acelic Corridor is huge. I mean, China, Russia, if you're listening, just look at that Axios map, right? You see the distribution of power and wealth in this country. And the voters who have lost out from this change over time are the Trump voters. And I've been reading interviews with them throughout the weekend and they're like, well, you know, they too would prefer things not to go down, but they'll say, yeah, it's been too long. We need to assert ourselves. We need the fact factories back. They seem to be holding with Trump. And this is why I just close. Among my reading this weekend was a essay by the Marxist historian Perry Anderson in the London Review of Books. And I would recommend this essay if you have 45 minutes. Perry Anderson likes to write lengthy essays and he's analyzing, as he always does, the state of things. And he says basically there are three keys to populism. One is an attack on inequality. The second is an attack on plutocracy or oligarchy, whatever fashionable phrase you want to use. And the third is an attack on factor production, that is free trade, immigration, global capital flows. And when I'm reading this essay, I say, well, here's Trump too. He's attacking all three. And it is much more populous than Trump won. And we really don't know what will happen in the long run because this has never been tried before.

[John Podhoretz]

So just to, just to respond. So you're saying the Trump voter is hanging with him?

[Matthew Continetti]

Yeah.

[John Podhoretz]

So Trump got 77 million votes, the base voter. Right.

[Matthew Continetti]

That's very importantly, as John Burdock Murdoch pointed out in the ft, the Republican voters who, you know, are kind of pre Trump voters, who are still part of that coalition, the Nikki Haley people who like Nikki Haley, that type, the people like Mike Pence, you know, traditional Republican voters, they are beginning to have severe indigestion, if not departing, supporting Trump, full stop.

[John Podhoretz]

But that's why I bring this up, because he got 77 million votes. He did not get 40 million votes. And yes, he won the swing states, and among the swing states are states of the forgotten man of the Midwest. But not only those are not the only swing states he won because Georgia was one of the swing states he won and Arizona was another swing States he won and Florida, and they are.

[Matthew Continetti]

Not a swing state anymore, but.

[John Podhoretz]

But they are not part of this model. And not only is it 77 million voters, so we know that the MAGA base supposedly makes up 30 to 40% of the Republican vote. Like, you know, in other words, the people who would shoot someone on Fifth Avenue, you know, if he asked them to. Right. So that's a huge number of people. It's the largest, probably right now, the largest single factor in American politics as a sort of. As a grouping, let's say, aside from, say, evangelical Christians, something like that. So I'm not discounting the deep importance of the Trump base, but he is not a candidate in a congressional district or even in a red state. He is the President of the United States. He received votes from way many more people that are just forgotten over the 21st century and dealing with problems like fentanyl and family problems and educational issues and all of that. He is the Republican. He is the president states, and he was the candidate of the Republican Party. And Scott Bessant, his Treasury secretary, who was a hedge fund guy, said the other day, hey, look like 48% of the stock market or 40% owned by the top 2% of people, and then the other. And then another 40% is owned by the top 20% of people. And then you have other people. And so we're basically not doing what we're doing for them. That's 160 million people that Scott Besant was waving away with a flick of his wrist at the idea that it matters if the market goes down 4,000 points in two days. And he said, and you know, most people aren't checking their 401ks to see where they are. Oh, really? So people, retirees in the United States who literally live on their 401ks aren't watching the value of their 401ks drop by 10 to 12% and aren't watching it, since that is the sole sum, aside from Social Security, of their income. This is why rich people spent a century learning how to talk about money in a way that would not cause pitchforks to be brought to their. To their hedgerows and have their houses set on fire. And Besant and Trump, to some degree, and Lutnick and others are reigniting what I would call leftist populism in response to them. They are sounding clueless. They are sounding heartless. They are sounding like when Bill Clinton in 1993 said, we're gonna raise taxes. This is in the spring of 93. Because to oppose that is to be unpatriotic. To oppose having your taxes increased is to be unpatriotic. That was one of those moments, marker moments, when you knew that Clinton did not have a connection with the proper connection with the American people. And so, yes, there is a huge populist thing going on here, but the nation is not popul. Part of the Republican coalition is populist. It's not even necessarily a majority. What he has is huge support among Republicans who have been happy with him thus far. We'll see where that number is in July if things don't change.

[Christine Rosen]

My favorite.

[Matthew Continetti]

Go ahead.

[Christine Rosen]

I just want just the most flabbergasting bit of sophistry that I heard over the weekend came from Kevin Hassett, the director of the National Economic Council, where he went on TV and he said, look, if, if American consumers are paying the price of this, then why are foreign countries retaliating? Because they know that we're not paying the. We're not paying for this. They are. And that's why they're retaliating. Which is like saying if you walk up to someone and punch them in the face, there's no risk to you. The other person knows that. That's why they're punching you back in the face because you're safe.

[Abe Greenwald]

Well, he also confused the messaging in a way that I think is also leading to lots of volatility in the market response and in the public response by saying we have 50 countries are on the phone ready to negotiate, which undercuts this idea. And Trump himself was promot this over the weekend that this is an economic revolution. He used the word revolution and the idea that our populist revolutionary.

[John Podhoretz]

Whoa, whoa.

[Abe Greenwald]

Betide the country that that has a leader who in pushing age 80 suddenly becomes a revolutionary. You know, he was hosting a million dollar a plate fundraiser at Mar a Lago and golfing while he sent out his minions to television to give several different messages. Right. It's either an economic revolution to bring manufacturing back to this country and transform our economy and help all those people, as Matt said in the, in the forgotten men and women of the country who were left behind in a globalized economy. It's either that or it's a negotiating tactic as is was seemed to be during his first term. But and then you've got Elon Musk posting videos of Milton Friedman arguing that tariffs are a bad idea. So it's not even clear to me what Trump himself thinks he does ship day to day. And I'll be very curious to see if Those voters you're talking about, John, the ones who hung with him this time around, but aren't his hardcore base, whether they really wanted and voted for an economic revolution, I'm skeptical that they did.

[Matthew Continetti]

Well, first, Trump is a second term president and like all second term presidents, he views his second term as his chance to enact his vision of the world, even if that means legacy time that he misreads the mandate. We should also say though that, you know, throughout the campaign when Trump was talking about 60% tariff on China, everyone said to themselves, oh, he doesn't really mean it. It's like he's going to end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours. Well, the average effect of tariff on China on Wednesday once this latest round comes in, is approaching 60%. So he gave everybody advance warning that this was going to happen. It's just that people, especially in parts of his coalition on Wall street, did not take him very seriously. And then I think that's the point that you raised, Christine, that's worth expanding.

[John Podhoretz]

On seriously, but not literally. And you're saying they should have taken him literally.

[Matthew Continetti]

This was the time. This was.

[John Podhoretz]

Yes, this is the time to reverse.

[Matthew Continetti]

Selena Guido's formula to take him seriously on trade. Because as we know, this is like the one fixed principle he's had for the last 40 years. Right. But what Christine raises is important is that, and that is this is the first time really in the Trump era where we can see visible strains within the MAGA coalition. I would say that whether it's doge.

[John Podhoretz]

The border.

[Matthew Continetti]

The anti woke campaign, there is very little argument among Republicans. There is a lot of caterwauling from Democrats in the left.

[John Podhoretz]

Right. The only argument. Right. And we could get this later. I mean, the only argument which is substantive and complicated in terms of the overall Republican coalition is are some of these due process questions relating to the deportations. Like that. But only on the matter of constitutional principle, not even on the matter of whether or not we should be throwing out terrorist supporters to the extent that we can do so because we need to dot our I's and cross our T's. Only area aside, and even there, the.

[Matthew Continetti]

Criticism'S more intellectual than it is from the elected, the elected officials.

[John Podhoretz]

This show is sponsored by BetterHelp. Therapy can be a source of support for any area of your life. It could be time to shift the focus from doing it all to knowing that we're better when we ask for help. I've benefited from therapy several times in my life. I have no difficulty thanking my therapists. For the help that they have given me, and I am proud to be someone to recommend therapy to people who are in need of help that they can't get anywhere else. Better Help is fully online, making therapy affordable and convenient. Serving over 5 million people worldwide, you can access a diverse network of more than 30,000 credentialed therapists with a wide range of specialties, and you can easily switch therapists anytime at no extra cost. Build your support system with BetterHelp. Visit betterhelp.com commentary today to get 10% off your first month. That's BetterHelp. H-E-L-P.com commentary hey everybody, vacation season is upon us. Spring has hit New York. Got some warm weather, got some rain, but it's just making me think about the summer and the fun that I can have, fun my wife and I can have. We got a trip planned for Wisconsin in July. Other stuff we're going to do with our family later in August. And this year I'm going to treat myself to the looks upgrades I deserve with Quince's high quality travel essentials at fair prices. And the premium luggage options and stylish tote bags they offer are perfect ways to carry all of my Quince goods. My sweaters, my polo shirts that I just got from Quince and those like everything else you get there, priced 50 to 80% less than similar brands. How? By partnering directly with top factories, Quince cuts out the cost of the middleman and passes the savings on to us. And Quince only works with factories that use safe, ethical and responsible manufacturing practices and premium fabrics and finishes. So for your next trip, treat yourself to the looks upgrades you deserve from quints. Go to quints.com commentary for 365 day returns plus free shipping on your order. Plus that's quite n c e.com commentary to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Quints.com/complyment this is different.

[Matthew Continetti]

The Trump shock is very different. And so you have seen senators and representatives react to it in ways that you not that are different for the Trump era. It's not necessarily outright opposition, though there are cases like that. There's also a general stance where Republicans say we just don't know how it's going to happen, you know, or we just trust Trump. It's a gamble. It's a gamble. Was very interested to see on Friday Senator Ted Cruz, someone who is probably thinking of future presidential campaigns in the back of his head say that, you know, he's against tariffs. He doesn't he would prefer that we have zero tariffs. We'll see how this works out. Right. Over the weekend, as you say, Christine Elon Musk taking shots at Peter Navarro and at Howard Lutnick, the two most protectionist members of the Trump inner circle. And so you saw also figures like Bill Ackman come out over the weekend saying that Trump should announce a 90 day pause on the Liberation Day tariffs in order to provide the markets reassurance. So this is the, this is the real issue here, is that if, depending on how this goes, the Trump coalition could begin to snap and I don't know, will it, you know, I don't know if Trump's going to back off. It doesn't seem like he's going to back off. But that's what I'm focused on because this issue in particular, the trade issue, is the one that seems to have the most variance in how Republicans react.

[John Podhoretz]

Okay, I want to talk about the red pilling effect because I think Bill Ackman, Pershing Square hedge fund guy, very interesting example of this. He came to the right not through cultural issues. I mean, his red pilling over the course of the last two years, largely the result of October 7th and his fight with Penn and his disgust at his university for its behavior and all of that. And as red pilling happens, it is as though once one domino falls in the world of conventional opinion, you start saying, what other forms of the conventional opinion that I have simply accepted because it's not really my field and I don't pay that much attention to it. What other forms of it am I now seeing? What, what other nonsense have I been peddled? And you could see this over the course of 2024, when a lot of people who were anti Trump but not, you know, but not like hostile to Republican whatever, but sort of like say, started saying, yeah, and you know what else? Trans is bad. You know what else? And you know what else this is? All of which, as Matt, you say, is, is the binding glue of the Trump coalition in 2025. The stuff where it's like you all went crazy, liberals went nuts. They started saying that men and women, men are men and women are men are women and women are men and our educational system is terrible and people are supporting terrorism. And what is it with this, these open borders and all of that, Right? So total red pilling to the extent that people then were even like. And he knows, you know, there's all sorts of interesting things going on with the. Maybe we do need to have some rebalancing in trade, maybe, maybe, you know, yeah, you know, China's bad and they're threatening Taiwan tariffs on China were actually pretty good in 2017 because we needed to do something to stop them. So let's see where this goes. This is why red pilling is a bad phenomenon politically in this sense, or why it is intellectually bad. Because yes, while I believe that there is a consistency in issues across, you know, ideological across, that's what ideologies are, is they try to explain things in various realms with intellectual consistency that ties together ideas about freedom or government or whatever and explains how they function in economics, how they, how they function in foreign policy, how they function in social policy. But if they're tied to a person, then the problem is the red pilling is. Yeah, I like what he's doing on trans. I like what he's doing on educator. I like that he's, you know, activating Title 6. I like this, I like that. Wait, oh, whoa, wait a minute now, this is something I know about and this is crazy. Could we get a pause? Because, like, I really liked where all this was going. And I only bring this up to say that the proper response to Donald Trump as a political phenomenon from 2015 onward was to remain emotionally, to the extent possible, if you wanted to be an intellectually serious, to remain emotionally detached from him. Because the hilarity of what when Christine said he's an 80 year old man, he's not quite 80, but you know, he's like an 80 year old man who's a revolutionary. Is everybody who has dealt with Trump for the last 40 years that I have known, I'm taught businessmen, lawyers, everybody else says that the key to understanding him is that he thinks in terms of the next five minutes. If he's testifying in a deposition and you ask him a question, he'll answer the question that will get him through the next five minutes, not, oh my God, I really have to answer this correctly so that two years from now someone can't bring up my answer in this deposition and say, well, you're totally contradicting what you said 18 months ago and therefore, you know, I'm going to find against you. He does. What is the next thing in front of him to get him through the next five minutes? And now he is advancing and embarking on a 10 to 20 year strategy of rebalancing the entire planet's economy. This is not his field. This is not in his wheelhouse. This is not who he is.

[Matthew Continetti]

You know, I agree about the next five minute thing. But the one a difference may have been the assassination attempt. And people who have been around him since the assassination attempt have said that his manner changed. And I think the public saw that a little bit in the aftermath of it, especially during the Republican convention, which happened the following week. And of course, he's now said repeatedly that he believes his life was spared by God in order to make America great again. And of course, that made Hillary Clinton laugh or it made Pelosi laugh. Gulf of America made Clinton laugh at the inaugural. But the line about Providence made Pelosi laugh at the budget speech. But if he believes it, it does mean that he is taking a different tack, that he is going to follow through with this to see, you know, the real. There's a lot of alarm here. Obviously, the stock market not doing well. Interestingly, the fact that yields are falling, bond yields are falling, and the dollar is falling suggests that the market thinks that there's slow growth ahead, that there's a recession ahead. And the politics of recession are interesting. Trump had to deal with the, the pandemic recession and of course, that we began recovering from right around the time of the election.

[John Podhoretz]

No, but during his presidency, in other words, there was one bad quarter right when the economy literally shrank by 34%. And then of course, it grew by 15 quarter because the base had shrunk because that was, that was the next.

[Matthew Continetti]

So here's, here's my thinking about what the White House political office might be thinking. And that is let's get this economy was completely unbalanced. Not sure the MAGA believes it was unbalanced for decades because of China and global trade. But Scott Bessant thinks it's overbalanced because there's too much debt, there's too much regulation. Biden inflated the economy through his huge spending bills. Most, you know, huge growth in government employees, not the private sector. Let's have the recession now. Let's have the recession in the first year of the second term. Because a year from now, when things have finally hit bottom and are recovering, Republicans can go into 2026 and saying the Trump policy worked. Now, I know as I say this, plenty of people listening to this podcast or watching will say, that's crazy, you're stupid. But remember, this is not the end time. Time progresses forward. And there is, there is presidents who are considered lucky tend to have the recession at the beginning of their term rather than during an election year.

[Abe Greenwald]

But I think you could argue if that's a strategy, at least it's a strategy that makes some Long term sense. The challenge however, is that if they get the timing right, wrong, or if the recession is quite severe, this will have been a self inflicted policy wound that they brought on themselves because the economy otherwise might have been recovering. Inflation was going down. There were some signs that things were improving, although slowly. So in that sense, I think it's why we haven't heard a lot from Bernie Sanders recently who loves tariffs in the way that Trump is using them. I mean the horseshoe theory of this economic argument they're making is fascinating to me because it is, it is quite radical. It is not the way America has done business as a, as an economic powerhouse. So it's such, it's, maybe it'll work. It is a huge gamble, but it is a, it is a very revolutionary way of understanding the economy and it is also placing a great deal of. It's making many assumptions, I should say about the American worker. I listening. Was it besent? It's the one who looks sort of like a grown up Teddy Ruxpin doll. I think it's besent. When he was on one of the, one of the shows he was saying, oh, or maybe it was Lutnick. They were saying, well, we're going to have an army of H vac engineers. We're going to have people. Okay, that was Lutnick. Okay. So you know, the people, we will be the ones with the teeny tiny screwdrivers making the iPhone.

[Matthew Continetti]

Well, but then he changed, you know what he said? You're absolutely right. He starts out by saying we're going to have the millions of people screwing in bolts into iPhones. And when he said that, I was like, but want that, you know. But then he immediately changed, he amended it by saying no robots are going to do that.

[John Podhoretz]

We're going to have the high skill, the robots. We're going to think that's high skills manufacturing, right?

[Abe Greenwald]

We will service the robots. That's, that's the American.

[Matthew Continetti]

Well, you know, that takes, that takes skills.

[John Podhoretz]

Someone got to fix the robots. We need to train. This is Dan Quayle, got it. Became Vice President United States in the late 80s because he was a job retraining person. That was the first effort by Washington to deal with the phenomenon of the hollowing out of the manufacturing sector was, you know, we need to do is have a giant national program to train people in new work, new kinds of work if the work that they're having is going away. And that did make Dan Quayle's career because he passed a piece of legislation as a Young senator didn't work out very well because top down things like job retraining from the federal level, even if it's block granted is nonsense. That's not. People get jobs and then they train on the job to learn how to do their job. And this is some kind of weird national effort to make everybody into a robotics repairman. Like according to Howard.

[Abe Greenwald]

I've long been a fan of the idea that too many people go to college and we need to have a more robust apprentice and trade option and path, particularly for young men in this country who don't, don't want to go to college and would rather learn a trade. That is a good thing. And the government actually could do some things to support that. That's a very different role.

[John Podhoretz]

But they do it through deregulation, right?

[Abe Greenwald]

Exactly.

[John Podhoretz]

In a lot of ways.

[Christine Rosen]

But can I say something about this idea about, you know, if they front load the recession and then it's over and then let's say this, this plan works exactly as Trump has envisioned. Right. We're still in a different world after this in terms, it's a much less friendly world in terms of more expensive coffee. But, but, but in terms of international cooperation on all sorts of issues, the.

[Matthew Continetti]

Geopolitics of this ignored. We should probably talk a little bit.

[John Podhoretz]

I mean, I mean I, I want to just put this in the final context then we should, really should talk about specific issues and why, what's going on here. But there was, has been for the last five days a kind of moment that I have likened to Carrie Fisher running into John Belushi with her machine gun in this tunnel in the Blues Brothers where he has left her at the altar and she has finally found him and is going to gun him down. And John Belushi looking at her says, my mother got sick, the dog ate the homework, my car had a flat tire, there was a rainstorm, the bridge was out. He just throws out 25 different explanations. And then finally she says, oh, oh, Jake, honey. And then he, like, I can't remember, he punches her or something and runs away. Right. So this week we have seen, you know, like tariffs, you know, we're actually doing is rebalancing the world economy against trade deficits. You don't like to hear about trade deficits. What we're really doing is we're gonna refinance, we're gonna cause a breakdown in the bond market. The bond market is gonna crash, we're gonna refinance our national debt at a lower level and therefore we're gonna be able to pay off our national debt or like significantly reduce our debt load. That's actually why we're doing, you know, we're doing it. We're trying to get the recession in the first year. So to get the recession out of the way to help Republicans. You know what else might be helpful? You know what it is we're trying to do that, like, it's like, you don't like this explanation for this completely what appears to be deranged, unilateral policy that has come out of nowhere without any trigger. I got one for you. I'll try it out on you. What the hell? There are 17 Fox shows. We could each go. Every one of us can go on a different Fox show and throw out a different explanation. We're doing it because Trump wants it to be done. And we are ex post facto trying to come up with explanations, all of which track with ideas about the US and world economies over the last 30 years. A lot of those ideas are totally anathematic to everything that made the distinction between left and right possible in the world of economics, like, you know, supply and demand and, you know, and things like comparative advantage and other ideas. I mean, the ultimate. Okay, so I'm just saying, like, there is a disingenuousness to the way this has been treated where it's impossible to know. Is Besson saying, telling the truth about maybe he wants a recession, but Lutnick wants us to be screwing in iPhones. And Trump said on Air Force One last night he doesn't want us to have a trade deficit with any other country.

[Matthew Continetti]

Right.

[John Podhoretz]

What do you mean? Like, if I want to buy, you know, if I'm in France and I want to buy, you know, like a cafe au lait in France because I'm visiting there and I spend five francs or five euros or whatever the hell it is on my cafe au lait. I'm then in trade deficit.

[Matthew Continetti]

You've contributed to the trade deficit, John.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah. I'm just saying, like, no more trips.

[Matthew Continetti]

To Paris for you.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah. So, you know, in my darkest suspicions, it is Trump is a guy who like hires people and then doesn't like to pay them and tries to do what he can as a businessman to not pay the people that he hires, his lawyers, people who work on his, on the sort of like the gardening at his facilities and things like that. He tries to stiff people. This is like a 30 year, 40 year policy of his. And like, this is how he thinks about trade. It's like the ideal thing that you should do is get everything for free. And if you don't get things for free and you have to pay for them, then you're kind of being screwed by the person who is selling you the good that you want to buy.

[Matthew Continetti]

I want to talk just briefly about the horseshoe thing because this issue is not dividing the Republican Party alone. It's also dividing the Democratic Party. And I think that's important. And I think that there are many people in resistance land, you know, when I plot my telescope and I look over and observe them, who are angry that the Democrats are not more fulsomely protesting the protectionism and the tariffs. And the reason that the Democrats are a little bit of mixed bag here in their messaging is, as Christine says, many of them been arguing for decades that global trade is imbalanced and has hurt American workers. And so something needs to be done. This is a policy. The roots of this policy go back really to the 1980s and figures like Richard Gephardt coming out of the Midwest, Midwest, Democrat labor backed, talking about American economic nationalism as a Democratic issue. And here again we see how the coalitions have shifted. Where Trump has now adopted, as he's long adopted, the idea of economic nationalism and protection, we see that the UAW was there when on Liberation Day at the White House. And organized labor is kind of of two minds in this, but they're not, you know, vocally protesting the new policies. And you have figures like Bernie Sanders and Democrats from Pennsylvania, for example, who are like, well, you know, maybe you're just going about it in the wrong way. This is another case where the confusion that the longtime Democratic pollster Mark Penn expressed to me recently, where he said, you know, I woke up and somehow the Democratic Party has become the party of foreign wars, open borders and free trade. And he's like, that's not supposed to be the Democratic Party. So again, the economics of this are not good. They're not good.

[John Podhoretz]

19Th century Democratic Party.

[Matthew Continetti]

Yeah, right.

[John Podhoretz]

Exactly right.

[Matthew Continetti]

And the Republicans are going back.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah. No tariffs because of the cotton trade. Right. Expansionist wars to Mexico and out into India in order to expand the number of slaves.

[Matthew Continetti]

Southern markets.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah, yeah. Anyway, that, yeah.

[Abe Greenwald]

Democratic Party, we should mention, it's also changed the tone of the organized, organized resistance, which over the weekend staged lots of protests here in Washington, in New York City and elsewhere, where I was struck by the contrast between first term Trump, where they were all wearing their pussy hats and screaming about his personal behavior. Now they're waving their 401k statements and talking about tariffs and doge And I mean, it's just, just it's, it's a fascinating shift. Now, it wasn't as what the resistance will look like because as, as Matt, you say correctly, it hasn't organized itself and it's not even sure who is, who is its leader right now, who is leading the Democratic Party's resistance because they are fractured.

[John Podhoretz]

Okay. But that is a benefit to them. And this is where I think I may be in some disagreement with the two of you. So this weekend, most of this is obviously paid for as a kind of paid for political ad by the resistance. You know, paid for by the, by Progressive Insurance and George Soros and other people organizing people, getting them, paying them to show up in weird places like Carson City, Nevada, where there were 10,000 people and salt Lake City in places you wouldn't ordinarily expect to have giant demonstrations against Donald Trump and all of that. The problem is that those organizations, those resistance fights in 2017 were largely cultural in emphasis. Right. And Trump may be handing the Democrats economics in a way that they have not had economics in their wheelhouse, certainly not since the beginning of the pandemic when Biden was so foolhardy in handling America's economy. But you could say like since 2008, they've been high handed. They're very top down regulatory. They seem not to be interested in jobs if the jobs are in areas that aren't green. So that when you have states like Pennsylvania and others that are having job booms over fracking or, you know, or oil export or all of that, they're kind of like against it. And all of this. And now if Trump, by handing, by deciding unilaterally to create a worldwide economic crisis, maybe for the purposes of a wondrous 22nd century in which America, you know, becomes, you know, runs everything on all, on all the planets in the solar system, that's, that, that's really great. But you are good if your 401k goes down 25 points. And Trump, you know, Trump, one of Trump's great benefits was the vote of people who are 55 and over. And you can start saying he's immiserating you like you don't even need a resistance.

[Matthew Continetti]

I mean, the question is, a year from now, do people feel like they're poor because of Donald Trump?

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah, I mean, that's always the question, right? There's always the question.

[Matthew Continetti]

That was the question under Biden.

[John Podhoretz]

Right. And so the problem for Trump is that every piece of economic wisdom that I've learned in the course of My life and studied to the extent that I wasn't an economics man, but I studied economics, have read about it, have edited articles at all. This is that what he is trying to do here isn't going to work.

[Matthew Continetti]

Well, there's a corollary to my argument, and there's not just are you feel poor next year, but it doesn't matter to Trump. Matters to me. Doesn't matter to Trump if Northern Virginia feels poor next year. I just matter whether his voters feel poor.

[Christine Rosen]

Regarding the resistance, I don't think they're anywhere near there yet, though, on their message. I mean, what I saw.

[John Podhoretz]

No, it just started. They only. They.

[Christine Rosen]

Yeah. First of all, I don't think it's resistance. I think it's. I think it's like a sort of tribute to the resistance, you know, And. And they were. They were.

[John Podhoretz]

It's like Beetle Mania. It's like.

[Christine Rosen]

Yeah, exactly, exactly. And they were out there with, you know, the no oligarchs signs and angry about laying off federal workers. Still a little bit of identity politics mixed in, talking about lgbtq. So they're not even. They're still against the issues where Trump has the 80 versus the 20.

[John Podhoretz]

Right? Well, that's true. Yeah, that's absolutely true. I'm saying that what we could see here is something that is bigger than a resistance, that is way more helpful than a resistance which is a macroeconomic phenomenon in which voters turn on Trump because for no reason that they can discern, he has introduced this note of crisis into the American economy. It's not like we got attacked on 9 11. It's not like the subprime mortgage collapsed. It's not like the dot bomb. The dot bomb. The, you know, the dot com bomb.

[Matthew Continetti]

I like that, though.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah, I know. Bomb went off. And it's not like there were margin calls in 1987. He just did it on a Wednesday.

[Abe Greenwald]

This is the cup of coffee problem because this is what drove it home for me. I love coffee. We don't. The only state in the United States that can grow coffee is Hawaii. It's very expensive out there for a number of reasons. So most of the coffee you drink is imported from somewhere else. You cannot make American coffee great again, we can't make coffee here. It's not possible. So the fact that the average American and most Americans drink coffee, their cup of coffee is going to cost more whether they buy it themselves at Costco, buy the huge pounds of beans, or they go and get the fancy latte every day at the cost of that. Every day, they will see, they will be drinking their coffee. And that's the message. If you're a Democrat. He did that. It's the, it's that Biden sticker we saw in every gas pump for one summer.

[John Podhoretz]

You know, for some April is the cruelest month, but I don't think so. April is the month that we bring ourselves back to life. We put our old jackets away, we do a big spring cleaning, particularly if you're Jewish, you're cleaning up the house for Passover and when you finish that deep cleaning, you put the jackets away and you get your summer clothing ready for use. We're prepping for warmer days ahead and the most satisfying thing that you can do might be to refresh your bed. I have just done so with new bowl and Branch signature sheets. Made with the finest 100% organic cotton. The sheets feel buttery to the touch, breathable to sleep in and get softer with every wash. They are the perfect foundation for your best sleep this season. A perfect accompaniment to that effort to restart, to renew, to revigorate and to restore yourself to the joys of outdoor life, summer living and a general sense of well being. And I can say this because I just got them and they're fantastic. They are really fantastic. I can tell you this because put them on the bed, we use them for two days. My wife and I immediately we felt the difference. Softer, better. Then gotta say, our cleaning lady came, did the wash, put the old sheets on and they weren't as nice, weren't as comfortable, weren't as fresh, weren't as, weren't as soft. So they're made better, they're made different so you can sleep better at night with that hundred percent organic cotton. Finest on earth. Crafted by artisans who earn the pay and respect they deserve. Designs and colors for every bedroom style and mattress size. These all season sheets have a breathable, unmatched softness to start. They get softer with every single wash. Perfect foundation for ball and branches, airy bed blankets, cloud like duvets and so much more. And there's a 30 night worry free guarantee so you can try the sheets for an entire month. Seriously, wash style, feel them for yourself risk free. And if they don't change the way you sleep, you can send them back for a full refund. So upgrade your sleep during Bowland Branch's annual spring event. For a limited time, get 20% off at bowl and branch.com commentary that's B O L L A N--B-R-A N C-H.com commentary to take 20% off sidewide for a limited time. Exclusions apply. See site for details. So I'm just saying like that that is a big thing. Like he can't say even. And by the way, this then gets to a slightly secondary issue.

[Matthew Continetti]

Oh can I can make one point about what you're your mass resistance or you know, how the how the public turns on or how the Democrats can capitalize on this. I thought a very interesting moment. I don't know if it went viral or not. It was certainly in my Twitter feed at my X feed happened last week. It was an exchange on the CNBC Late show between the CNBC hosts and Derek Thompson of the Atlantic who's a co author of this new abundance book with Ezra Klein. And you know the thesis of the abundance progressives is that the Democratic party has for too long believed in everything bagel liberalism and has weighed down America through restrictions on supply, primarily restrictions on supply of energy and housing. And to this the net effect of this has been lower growth, which is what we should should care about. Right? We should want higher growth. And so Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson are kind of leading this effort in order to move the Democrats toward abundance. Now there are huge internal contradictions with this thesis and I think the best critic of abundance liberalism or progressivism is our friend Raihan Salaam, the president of the Manhattan Institute. But let's just imagine if we put on our mat our our imagination caps here for a second that over the next two years the Trump shock creates the incentives for a widespread abundance progressivism movement and someone emerges who takes on the Democratic Party as successful nominees tend to do on the basis of these ideas and argues for whether it's practical or not a supply side oriented progressivism. Well that that would could be dangerous to the Trump coalition. It could very well be dangerous to the Trump coalition. Do I see it happening?

[John Podhoretz]

No1111 repos to that which is that you can see there's a historical analogy. So everybody blames Reagan. If you don't like what happened in the economy and supply side economics, it's Reagan fanatic wanted to cut taxes. All of that supply side economics was an act of brazen intellectual theft by the right because the original supply side tax cut was enacted by John F. Kennedy in the 1960s and the material that was used to reduce the value of the supply side tax cut by Jude Winiski, whom Matt mentioned last week and others was the results of the supply side tax cut of the 1960s by the Kennedy administration and the Democratic party had progressed so far down the road away from the idea that, that taxes, that cutting taxes could have a salutary effect, that it just sort of handed this issue lock, stock and barrel to a party that had a whole bunch of other things going for it, including you know, being in a better position on national security and law and order, but had not a very popular message on, on economics for most people that was mostly like we need to have low deficit, we need to cut deficits, we need to, you know, green eye shade like we're spending too much money and all of that. And that didn't answer how anybody was feeling about inflation or anything like that. You handed this issue abundance in theory is almost exactly this in reverse. That is the Republican Party has been deregulatory pro energy, pro doing things to make sure that housing codes are, are less onerous so that you can build more housing. Anti nimby, all of this stuff. And now you have Ezra Klein and, and Derek Thompson sort of taking up this mantle. You look at this book, a lot of people that I know look at it and are going well like you guys are just plagiarists like so admit. So either come to our side or that you can't just say democr. Democrats should are supporting this. They don't because they're okay all these things.

[Abe Greenwald]

But his but, but historically this is actually something that's healthy in our system. Bill Clinton doing welfare reform that wasn't. He stole that idea. But you know what? We got welfare reform. So that's actually a sign of health.

[John Podhoretz]

The great moment again, not to get too pop culture Y great moment in Star Trek 6. Yes, Star Trek 6. The Undiscovered country where, where. Where Spock says to Kirk we have to go negotiate with the Klingons. The Klingons are near death. Sort of. It's the glasnost perestroika thing. And, and Kirk says what are you talking about? They murdered my son. Let them die. And Spock says there is an old Vulcan saying only Nixon can go to China. Right. Maybe the only way to get an abundance agenda is, is for a Democrat to propose it. But that would require the Democratic Party to be a much more flexible also there what the big sword hadn't happened yet. We didn't have. These are the two parties being as ideologically rigid in the 1970s as they have become. And they were regional. There were a lot of regional differences in places to exploit. And now we really do have these parties that. I mean the cultural homogeneity of the Democratic Party is a very, very serious.

[Matthew Continetti]

And abundance also requires the Democrats to downplay culture.

[John Podhoretz]

Right.

[Matthew Continetti]

And focus on economics. And if there's one lesson from our current era is that culture is privileged above economics. Right. Our politics are fundamentally, in my view, cultural politics.

[John Podhoretz]

Right.

[Matthew Continetti]

And so perhaps the Trump shock will create a situation where economics is privileged once more over culture. And then you need a Democrat to emerge who embraces abundant. There are a lot of ifs in this argument. I'm saying it is one possible future that, that would be, you know, salutary in my view, because I am a supply sider. I want us to increase the supply.

[John Podhoretz]

Of goods and services. And we want America to not to be intellectually stagnant. I mean, that's also that which goes to the other problems with this. One of the things that was exciting about Trump coming in was this embrace of ideas that have been marinating on the right about how to combat the ideological domination of the higher waters or the higher points of our culture, from the academy to the culture to library, whatever. And that this didn't come out of nowhere and that we are, this is something that we have been been fighting for what nobody has been fighting for outside of a very weird ideological point on the map. That is this horseshoe point is we need to be in a worldwide trade war to help us for the, you know, so that by 2050 we'll be in much better shape. Now, a, this gets to where we want to come back to you. And the question of the world, after last Wednesday and what we're hearing now, it is only five days and things can change and all of that, but something happened. And what do you think the manifestations of it are?

[Christine Rosen]

Well, I mean, I think much like Trump's, his approach to Ukraine and NATO here, but this is, I think, much larger scale, the sort of intertwined nature of the, the, the world order that the US has shepherded, you know, over the past Cold War decades will be no more. It's not going to be the same. Regardless of whatever works out or doesn't work out in terms of the trade deficits and leveling the playing field. We are going to be a much more isolated country. Countries that were considered allies will be much more inclined, I think, to work with countries that we have considered enemies. You see some of that already in the Pacific. It's going to be a more hostile world because of this.

[John Podhoretz]

You know, an interesting, short, brilliant, not surprisingly brilliant little essay written by Matt and Christine's colleague at AEI and are one of my oldest, oldest and dearest friends, Nick Eberstadt, author of the most popular piece that we've ever published in commentary, our miserable 21st century. A person who is not averse to saying that, you know, the economy of America in the 21st century has had very deleterious consequences on the American people. And for a lot of people in the United States, as he wrote in that piece, has a short essay on the AEI website about America's national suicide attempt. And it's interesting because in theory, Nick could have gone another way. He could have gone the our things are so bad and so parlous here that what we need to do is, you know, like, as Victor Davis Hansen is arguing this morning in the Free Press, like we need to go to war with the rest of the world. Like there's a 50. For 50 years we have been holding the world on our shoulders like Atlas, and this is unsustainable and we should not have to bear this burden. And that is not what Nick says. What he says is we've built painstakingly over time, built a post war order that is flawed though it may be, that has made possible sort of economic growth and America's retaining America's primacy while helping a lot of other countries and knitting the world into a series of obligations and relationships. And we're just, just throwing it out, you know, with the bathwater and, you know, and that is, it's a national suicide attempt. And I think that's a very, it's very striking because as I say, Nick, as an example of a thinker, there are ways in which you could have seen this go a different direction. But if you've been alive for 70 years on this planet, or however long and been through the 70s, through the 2000 and 20s, and had some sense of scale and scope, Trump's idea that the world has screwed us is very tempting. Right? The truth is that we've screwed ourselves. That's, I think, the ultimate thing that binds the right, which is the screwing that has gone on that he diagnosed in our miserable 21st century is a result of internal American flaws. How we dealt with our education system, how we've dealt with income inequality, how we've, how, how we view, we don't view economic growth as so paramount to help the, the, you know, the sort of the lowest quintile, that we don't place onerous regulatory restrictions in ways that make it impossible for people like that to get a leg up and to make money and to build houses and to live the way that they should be able to live with hopes of growth, because we ourselves are placing roadblocks in the path of progress in the United States. And where Trump, I think, is morally bad for the country's soul is that he has taken this truth and he has exported it and said, the problem is not us. We don't need to fix. We don't need to fix our education. I mean, he's for it. I'm not saying he's not, but it's not that we have all these things that we need to fix here. He does say that, and he says Democrats are communists and it's all terrible and we need to stop them. But this message is a complete contradiction of that. It is. The real problem in the world is that everybody else in the world is screwing us. And, you know, we have the largest economy in the world. We're the richest country in the world. We are supporting 333 million people with a per capita income over $70,000 a year. And there is something more, there is something depraved about looking at a planet in this condition and this country in this condition and saying everyone else is being unfair to us. Like, we don't have to think that, you know, we owe the world things, which a lot of Democrats, unfortunately, I think, and liberals have come to. Not that we're helping the world in order to help ourselves, but that we owe the world things because we're so mean. But you also can't just say the problem is them. So I'm going to make, you know, Madagascar pay a 70% tariff. Like, physician, if you're going to talk about medicine, heal thyself. This is not healing. You know, you don't heal. You know, you don't heal somebody by shooting the person with COVID who might get you. You try to figure out how to cure the person with COVID or keep yourself from getting Covid or something like that. It is a very serious problem. And I don't think in me, I think in message rooms, you can see the potency of it. But unless it works, which, again, I don't think it can, it's actually the. The moral rebalancing we need is something away from these. This horseshoe idea that the problem is that we're bad. Either. Either we're bad because.

[Abe Greenwald]

Or that we're also always a victim. It's a victim. There's a victimhood strain in much of that, too, which I think is very satisfying in the near term, but as you say, potentially damaging in the long term.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah, yeah.

[Matthew Continetti]

It's classic populism and so this is playing out just one note on the geopolitics. You know, the, the post war world, post World War II World was built on an alliance structure and the view by the foreign policy establishment in both parties that allies were force multipliers, first in our conflict with the Soviet Union and then in the post Cold war era as ways in order to lead and maintain, you know, the liberal international order, so called. And Trump clearly disagrees with all this and allies to him is a nebulous concept. And so I think one geopolitical problem with the tariff plan is that it really doesn't distinguish on the basis of friend or foe. That there's a couple, there's one except the UK got off relatively easily. It's just this base 10%. And of course we long standing relationship, Israel and Australia, they got higher tariffs. Right. Those are our allies, Canada, Mexico, those tariffs have been kind of sustained. Suspend that the looming tariffs have been suspended because of us MCA thing. But then Japan, our most important ally, especially in the most critical region of the world, got hit hard. Even Vietnam, which had kind of become the new base of low cost manufacturing for export to the United States after the first Trump round of tariffs and Trump won, they got slammed. And the end I was joking last week about Cambodia and Laos, they also got slammed. But they were also places where industrials moved manufacturing in order to escape the China tariffs. Well, Vietnam, sure they're sending us a lot of Nikes, but they were also critical to our anti China strategy. Not fans of China, the Vietnamese, that that relationship is jeopardized now. So I think I can look at the politics of this and as people have heard, I can see some rationales behind it. But where maybe I'm most concerned is the geopolitics. And a world where the alliance system kind of crashes is not a safer world. It's just not, I think.

[John Podhoretz]

Right. I think that's very deep. And by the way, there is one possibility as we as never a dull day with the Dodgers, as they used to say in before I was born. And, and so Bibi Netanyahu is at the White House I think as we speak or will be at the White House.

[Matthew Continetti]

Well, the Dodgers are actually going to be there.

[John Podhoretz]

Well, the Dodgers, the Dodgers is never a dull day with them because I think they're ten and one or something like that. Anyway.

[Matthew Continetti]

I think they're, yeah, they've, they lost two, I think.

[John Podhoretz]

Oh, did they? Okay. But, but the Dodgers are having a hell of a season. So this is a good Maybe this is a good day to beat the Dodgers. But, but however you want to slice it, Bibi's coming, coming to the White House and there's this idea that he's coming to talk about tariffs. And I think a lot of people don't understand that he's probably not there to talk about tariffs. Weird stuff is going on. Not weird, but like there is dark. There is complicated stuff going on in the Middle east, in the global geopolitical map, going on odd news out of Iran about earthquake eruptions near, near nuclear facilities, as we mentioned last week, movement of American bombers to Diego Garcia, meaning they are potentially pre positioned to do some stuff. Israel moving on Gaza and Lebanon simultaneously and in the west bank simultaneously. And Iran making noises, fearful noises about trouble. And this meeting at the White House may have something to do with Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and Iran. And you're going to get the famous wag the dog talk, which is we're all Trump will only do this now. Maybe Trump will do Iran because he wants to wag the dog and change the subject from the tariffs or something like that. Wagging the Dog, of course, a movie from 1998 where a war is invented that doesn't even exist, written by David Mammon. A war is invented in order to distract the American attention from a, from a White House political scandal. But as I once wrote in 2002 when people started talking about how Bush's Iraq strategy was wag the Dog, I wrote a column that got the, that for the momentarily sort of right wing ish Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo, who was a hawk on Iran, on Iraq, like, very mad at me. I said, okay, good. Go wag the dog. As long as it means that we invade Iraq, Yes, I said it. You can come at me if you want to. It's fine. I don't care. And I'm going to say it again. If Trump wants. If Trump. If what we need to get the United States to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities and its oil exporting platforms in conjunction with Israel is to have Trump wag the dog. I am all for it. Wag that dog. That's what I'm saying. Because it is. That would be the most positive event in foreign policy in the last 15 years. And I would be, I would be very much in, in, in. I, I'm all in. I'm all in.

[Matthew Continetti]

Are you prepared, are you prepared to make Wag the Dog your recommendation for April 7th?

[John Podhoretz]

I am not. I don't like the movie.

[Matthew Continetti]

Yeah, I didn't think That I don't really like it.

[John Podhoretz]

I don't like it. But, but, but it as a term, it has of course great resonance and it's, it's. It's.

[Matthew Continetti]

Do you have an alternative recommendation?

[John Podhoretz]

Do I have an alternative?

[Matthew Continetti]

Does anyone on the.

[John Podhoretz]

I. I have. I have a. Go ahead. Abe has something. Hey. No, you don't. Well, Abe had half. Abe had I was a recommendation and then he decided that I was right and the thing that he was praising was wrong.

[Christine Rosen]

That's true.

[John Podhoretz]

He went to the Criterion Collection has a. Has a series of movies that is. It is made available in a sort of festival format as it. As it will if you subscribe to it, called Fun City, which is. Which are these movies about New York in the 1970s that show New York.

[Christine Rosen]

And all 60s starting late 60s 60s.

[John Podhoretz]

And all of its horror like the horror of the. As New York was degrading and declining. And he watched a movie called the Angel Levine with Harry Belafonte and Zero Mostel, based on a Bernard Malamond short story that Abe, you were. You were thrilled to discover did not know this had originally been published in. In Commentary. Yeah, the Angel. The Angel Levine, who is. So that. That.

[Christine Rosen]

That informed my enthusiasm for it as I was watching it, but then I.

[John Podhoretz]

It.

[Christine Rosen]

But it couldn't sustain it.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah, well, so when he said I love it and I was like, really? As I recall, it's unwatchable. And I think it does end up being completely insane and unwatchable. It's a. It's a fable story about a. About a. About an old Jewish man who is met by an angel. And the angel Levy is black. And how does he deal with the fact that this angel has black skin? I mean, that is.

[Christine Rosen]

The angel's black and Jewish. It's a. It's. I'll say this much, it is a very surreal way of approaching like. Like black Jewish relations in New York in the late 60s.

[John Podhoretz]

Yes, it is, but the story is. Is a fable, which is what. Which is what Malamud's stories are. And the movie is a kind of, you know, you are there with her like psychedelics and this. And anyway it's. But I thought that's where you're going. But anyway, Fun City has some great stuff in it, including the, you know, taking a Pelham 1, 2, 3, the single best movie ever made.

[Matthew Continetti]

My favorite movies and.

[John Podhoretz]

And the French Connection and Bye Bye Braverman. Another. Actually a movie about Commentary, oddly enough, based on a novel called to an Early Grave, which is about the death of the writer Isaac Rosenfeld and four guys who go to the funeral of this writer, Isaac Rosenfeld, and get lost on their way to the funeral.

[Matthew Continetti]

That's available on that.

[John Podhoretz]

Is it on the Criterion Channel?

[Christine Rosen]

Yeah, yeah, the package is great.

[John Podhoretz]

It is great. But so. Yeah, but.

[Abe Greenwald]

So we're going to recommend the Criterion Channel.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah.

[Abe Greenwald]

Mileage may vary, but recommend.

[John Podhoretz]

This is one of those things you can do where if you go to prime and you select a Criterion Channel, you can subscribe for a week, watch everything and then cancel it. But before the week is over, as long as you remember to cancel it. So I'm now teaching you a hack, a life hack for the Criterion Channel or any, any miniseries on one of those networks that you don't actually want to subscribe to if you're willing to surrender your week to it. So there we go. Recommendation was made. We'll be back tomorrow. For Christine, Matt and Abe, I'm John Pothoritz. Keep the candle bur.