Putin, Tariffs, and Dem Disaffection

Summary

The Commentary Magazine Podcast Summary

Title: Putin, Tariffs, and Dem Disaffection
Host: John Podhoretz
Release Date: August 7, 2025

The Commentary Magazine Podcast delves deep into the geopolitical tensions between the United States and Russia, the strategic use of tariffs, and the evolving disaffection within the Democratic Party. Hosted by John Podhoretz, the episode features insightful discussions with Executive Editor Abe Greenwald, Commentary columnist Matthew Continetti, and social commentary columnist Christine Rosen. This summary encapsulates the key points, discussions, insights, and conclusions drawn during the episode.

---

1. Unexpected Summit Between Trump and Putin

Overview:
The episode opens with the unexpected news of a forthcoming meeting between former President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Unlike traditional summits involving multiple officials and breakout sessions, this meeting appears to be a direct, head-to-head confrontation between the two leaders.

Notable Quote:
John Podhoretz [03:09]: "This seems to be just head to head. Trump and Putin, you know, in a room, oiled up, you know, chairs, chairs, going to throw chairs at each other... ultimate fighting."

Discussion Points:

• The summit's timing coincides with the implementation of Trump’s tariffs, particularly targeting Russian goods.
• Tariffs are posited as a strategic weapon to influence Putin’s stance on the Ukraine conflict.
• Christine Rosen expands on Trump's strategy, highlighting the dual approach of imposing tariffs while seeking a peace deal, potentially favoring Russia.

---

2. Impact and Strategy of Tariffs

Overview:
The conversation shifts to the economic implications of the newly imposed tariffs. The speakers analyze how these tariffs affect Russia and other countries like India that trade with Russia.

Notable Quote:
Christine Rosen [05:09]: "Trump has now elevated the tariff on India to quite a high extent in order to get them to separate from Russia. I think this is a good thing."

Discussion Points:

• Russia: Tariffs on Russian goods are designed to exert economic pressure, aiming to curb Russia’s actions in Ukraine.
• India: Secondary tariffs on Indian imports from Russia aim to reduce India’s reliance on Russian energy and weaponry. However, this move strains US-India relations.
• Economic Effects: Despite expectations, the immediate global economic response has been muted, with stock markets stabilizing and oil prices remaining relatively steady ([31:02] John Podhoretz).

---

3. Trump’s Negotiation Tactics and Putin’s Response

Overview:
The speakers evaluate Trump’s negotiation tactics and Putin’s likely responses, especially in the context of ongoing sanctions and tariffs.

Notable Quote:
Matthew Continetti [17:15]: "There's no question Trump's changed his tune. The problem remains that there is no negotiation to be had with Putin."

Discussion Points:

• Deadlines and Consequences: Trump’s initial 50-day deadline for a ceasefire was reduced to 10 days, putting additional pressure on Russia.
• Putin’s Stance: Putin remains steadfast, showing no inclination towards a ceasefire, thereby rendering Trump’s diplomatic overtures ineffective.
• Future Meetings: The possibility of future summits without tangible concessions from Russia may further advantage Putin.

---

4. Role of China in US-Russia Relations

Overview:
Christine Rosen addresses the often-overlooked role of China in the US-Russia dynamic, questioning why it remains less discussed compared to tariffs and sanctions.

Notable Quote:
Christine Rosen [40:18]: "Trump has not been as hawkish on China in his second administration as you might think... We're allowing China to purchase these very high-end chips that Nvidia creates."

Discussion Points:

• Trade Practices: While tariffs target Russia, China’s significant role as a global trade power and its environmental impact remain underemphasized.
• Policy Shifts: Recent policy decisions, such as allowing China to purchase high-end chips, suggest a complex and perhaps inconsistent approach towards China.
• Democratic Party’s Stance: The Democratic elite’s engagement with Chinese funding on college campuses contrasts sharply with their hardline rhetoric.

---

5. Democratic Party’s Internal Struggles and Shift to the Left

Overview:
The episode delves into the internal disaffection within the Democratic Party, highlighting a potential shift towards more radical left-wing positions and its implications for future elections.

Notable Quote:
John Podhoretz [51:59]: "We are seeing terrible numbers on Democratic approval... it's more a sign that the Democratic Party is losing its mind and is going to shift hard to the left."

Discussion Points:

• Primary Battles: Municipal elections, such as those in Seattle and Michigan, indicate a rise of more radical candidates challenging moderate Democrats.
• Disaffection Sources: The decline in Democratic approval is attributed not to a leftward shift but to dissatisfaction with ineffective policies and leadership.
• Long-Term Implications: A more radical Democratic Party could alienate independents and moderate voters, posing challenges for Republicans in future elections.

---

6. Economic Implications of Tariffs and Future Outlook

Overview:
The speakers analyze the short-term and long-term economic effects of the tariffs, debating whether they will effectively curb Russia’s aggression or backfire by increasing inflation and straining international relations.

Notable Quote:
Christine Rosen [38:59]: "President Trump's truth account... Billion dollars in tariffs are now flowing into the United States... Democrats don't like this revenue at all."

Discussion Points:

• Immediate Effects: Contrary to fears, the stock market hasn’t crashed, and inflation hasn’t surged significantly yet.
• Long-Term Concerns: Potential future increases in prices are expected, and the tariffs’ effectiveness in changing Russia’s behavior remains uncertain.
• Political Ramifications: The Supreme Court may rule on the constitutionality of Trump’s tariffs, potentially leading to significant changes in trade policy and economic stability.

---

7. Final Thoughts and Future Projections

Overview:
In concluding the episode, the speakers reflect on the broader geopolitical landscape, the effectiveness of the current strategies, and the potential outcomes of ongoing political maneuvers.

Notable Quote:
Christine Rosen [60:05]: "Smoot Hawley gives Trump the power to do this, I think they'd have a strong case based on Jed's analysis."

Discussion Points:

• Historical Parallels: References to the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act highlight the dangers of protectionist policies.
• Strategic Missteps: The potential overreach of executive power in imposing tariffs without Congressional backing could lead to legal and economic repercussions.
• Electoral Impact: The effectiveness of Trump’s strategies and the Democratic Party’s internal shifts will significantly influence the political climate leading up to the midterms and beyond.

---

Conclusion:
The episode of The Commentary Magazine Podcast offers a comprehensive analysis of the intricate interplay between US economic policies, international relations, and domestic political dynamics. By examining Trump's approach to tariffs and diplomacy, the role of China, and the Democratic Party's internal challenges, the podcast provides listeners with a nuanced understanding of the current geopolitical and political landscape.

Recommendation:
For those interested in deep dives into political strategy, international relations, and economic policies, this episode serves as an insightful resource, enriched with expert opinions and timely analysis.

Transcript

[John Podhoretz]

Hey, it's John. I want to talk to you about Shopify. A lot of people talk to me about starting podcasts. This podcast is 10 years old. It's in a different place from a lot of podcasts because we're obviously part of a nonprofit institution and it's not a way that we are seeking to earn our livelihoods. But a lot of people look at this and say this is something I can really do to create a business and run the business and do it in a really comfortable, practical and serious way. Gotta wear a lot of different hats when you start your own business. Can be very intimidating. But one of the things that I know from a lot of people is that if your to do list is growing and growing and growing and that list starts to overrun your life, you need a tool that not only helps you out, but simplifies everything that can be a game changer for millions of businesses. That tool is Shopify, the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world and 10% of all e commerce in the US from household names to brands. Just getting started. You get started with your own design studio. With hundreds of ready to use templates, Shopify helps you build a beautiful online store to match your brand style. You can accelerate your content creation because it's packed with helpful AI tools that write product descriptions, page headlines, and even enhance your product photography. You get the word out like you have a marketing team behind you. Easily create email and social media campaigns wherever your customers are scrolling or strolling. And best yet, Shopify is your commerce expert with world class expertise in everything from managing inventory to international shipping to processing returns and beyond. If you're ready to sell, you're ready for Shopify. Turn your big business idea into Kaching. With Shopify on your side, sign up for your $1 per month trial and start selling today at shopify.com commentary go to shopify.com commentary that's shopify.com commentary hope for the Expect the words Some preacher.

[Abe Greenwald]

Pain Some die of thirst no way of knowing this way it's going Hope for the best expect the worst.

[John Podhoretz]

Welcome to the Commentary Magazine daily podcast. Today is Thursday, August 7, 2025. I am John Bot hor, the editor of Commentary magazine. With me, as always, Executive Editor Abe Greenwald. Hi Abe.

[Matthew Continetti]

Hi.

[John Podhoretz]

John Washington, Commentary columnist and Director of Domestic Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute, Matthew Continetti. Hi Matt.

[Christine Rosen]

Hi John.

[John Podhoretz]

And Matt's colleague at AEI are social commentary columnist Christine Rosen. Hi Christine.

[Unnamed Speaker]

Hi John.

[John Podhoretz]

So the big news this morning out of nowhere is that after Steve Wytkop went to Moscow to talk to the Russians. Trump and Putin are having some kind of a summit at some point in the next some kind of days. And I guess we're not officially going to call it a summit. They're going to meet. Summits are very elaborate affairs with breakout groups of officials at all levels of government talking about, I mean, the classic summit, you know, commerce, culture, cultural exchanges, military matters, all of that. Both, you know, know the State Department, the Defense Department, their, their people all get together and issue communiques or have meetings or all of that. This seems to be just head to head. Trump and Putin, you know, in a room, oiled up, you know, chairs, chairs, you know, going to throw chairs at each other, you know. No, no referee, ultimate fighting. Two things about this. One is that it comes at the time that we, that the tariffs are now going, the presidentially order tariffs are now going into effect. And they have a particular effect on Russia because not only are do we have a tariff on Russia, but there are tariffs on Russian goods that go to other countries, particularly India, that are going to be incredibly punitive toward the Russians. And Trump has that in his pocket as he goes to talk to Putin about changing his course in the, you know, sort of the warfare with Ukraine. The one good thing I could think of to say about the tariffs is that maybe they can be used as a weapon to bring Putin to heel. We're going to talk about the tariffs a little later, Matt.

[Christine Rosen]

Right. Was there a second thing that you wanted to say about the Ukraine, Russia? You said there were two things.

[John Podhoretz]

Okay, so that.

[Christine Rosen]

Well, I sort of, you combine the.

[John Podhoretz]

Two because the other is this move that Trump has made basically to come in as unless things change at this summit and they have a love fest to come in and essentially serve as Ukraine's cheater.

[Christine Rosen]

Well, yeah, this is why this summit news is a little bit confusing to me. I just want to take a step back and go, go over some of the recent events. So Trump, you know, gave initially a 50 day deadline to Russia to reach a cease fire or to face punishing tariffs and additional sanctions, perhaps even the bipartisan bill in the Senate that would have crippling secondary sanctions on countries that purchase Russian oil. That's Russia's main export is oil and gas. Last week Trump shortened the deadline to 10 days and the deadline comes up tomorrow. We're recording this on August 7th. The deadline is August 8th. And so Putin, of course, has shown no sign that he is, wants to reach a cease fire. And so there Was there is this deadline that Trump has established which is tomorrow for a cease fire or consequences. In the midst of that, we had Wyckoff travel first to the Middle east where he visited Gaza with Ambassador Mike Huckabee and met with Israeli officials regarding the food situation in the Gaza Strip and perhaps next moves on the ground as well. And then we were surprised when we learned that he was tacking on a trip to Moscow. First. It was unclear whether he would meet with Putin at all. It did turn out that he met with Putin yesterday. The meeting was about three hours. That's typical for a Wyckoff Putin meeting. Putin does most of the talking, I think. And the Russian government released a statement saying that it was a productive meeting. And that was the same statement Trump issued on truth social media. What does this mean? Well, it means that we had this news that Trump and Putin intend to meet at some point in the future. Russia says that could happen as soon as next week, that they're looking at a location. I remain slightly skeptical. We'll have to see. We also have to see what Trump does tomorrow. Again, you know, the whole taco complex. The idea that Trump always chickens out does haunt the administration. And so if he just ignores the deadline he sent set and doesn't impose any consequences for Putin's total disregard for Trump's demands and gives Putin a meeting, I think that there's no way to spin that as other than advantage Putin, advantage Russia. So just one more comment on India. Even though this diplomatic track is happening, I do think it's wrong to say that Trump is one sided toward Russia in this conflict. We had a very successful NATO meeting earlier in the summer where NATO was full force behind the 5% GDP for defense commitment. We'll see how that plays out. Of course, Trump was effusively pro NATO, talking about how these nations just want to defend their countries. I think as I've mentioned before on the podcast, Trump has been persuaded to some extent by the Europeans and probably by his own intelligence services other than our Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, that Putin plans to expand the war if he's successful in Ukraine, maybe after a year or so. But he does intend to eventually challenge NATO itself. And as a result of that, Trump not only issued the deadline I just mentioned, but he also came up with this deal whereby NATO would be purchase weapons from the United States and then hand them to the Ukrainians. That's happening. We are providing military aid to the Ukrainians in addition to the military aid. That's already been appropriated. Right. And so that's continuing. The additional NATO thing is continuing. And then we have this secondary tariff essentially on India. India is a huge purchaser of Russian energy. India also buys weapons from Russia. And Trump has now elevated the tariff on India to quite a high extent in order to get them to separate from Russia. I think this is a good thing. It is damaging to US Indian relations, which are in a free fall right now. But I do think it's a good thing. My, My additional comment would be, where is China in all this? And I'll just finish with this. The Trump. A lot of Trump people, a lot of MAGA people say, well, Donald Trump, he's. He's going to pull a reverse Nixon. He's going to improve our relationship with Putin and pull Putin away from China, just like Nixon recognized China in 1972 with his visit there and pulled China away from the Soviet Union. I've always thought that was a flawed analogy for many reasons. One, the Soviets and Mao Zedong's China were on the brink of nuclear war when Nixon came in and was able to create the relationship with China. But I also think it gets it wrong. I think if there's any possibility, it's that Trump tries to push China away from Russia and tries to get a better deal with China in order to get China, Xi Jinping to somehow say to Putin, time to wrap up the war. And that may explain why, while Trump is imposing these secondary tariffs on India, he is not talking China right now. My lecture has ended.

[John Podhoretz]

Very interesting analysis. I think something changed in Trump's spirit. You know, we're always, People are always talking about looking into Putin's heart. You know, Bush, George W. Bush said he looked into Putin's heart. Hillary Clinton in 2009 said she thought that there was the possibility of a reset because we see these things about Putin that nobody else necessarily sees. And I wonder whether something happened with Trump where he saw Putin's heart, but in the reverse way. He is not the same person toward Putin that he was in January. It's just the fact of the matter that he may never quite have grasped just how serious Putin was about swallowing Ukraine up and that we don't know what intelligence the president sees. We don't know what they know. We don't know how deeply they've penetrated the Russian government. Clearly, very deeply, because we had extremely good intelligence on the run up to the invasion of Ukraine, clearly in 2022. So we have reason to believe that we know a lot of what is being said in the councils of power that Trump wasn't privy to because he wasn't president, and they were trying to throw him in jail and everything. And I. I don't know what's going to happen tomorrow. I don't know. This, you know, grand game of China, Putin, Russia, United States, all of that. Just the music is different, the tone is different. He no longer thinks that Putin is a friend.

[Christine Rosen]

Well, Putin gave him the bird that. I mean, I think that's basically what happened, right? Trump went out of his way to say, let's bring this war to an end. Remember at the outset of the administration, when the first trip to Europe at the Munich conference, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth was saying, of course, Ukraine's not going to ever become a NATO member. Then we've had comments from the administration saying, well, a peace deal would recognize Russian territorial gains, right? Especially in Crimea, which Russia annexed a decade ago, and then probably also in the four provinces that Russia claims sovereignty over, yet has not completely conquered militarily. Trump was ready to give Putin a deal. Basically, Trump is ready to cement the status quo as part of a ceasefire arrangement leading to the end of hostilities. And what has Putin's response been? No, no, no peace initiative, and instead the nightly bombing and droning of the Ukrainian civilian population. And so Trump has been very clear in the past couple of weeks where he's talked about how Putin was tapping him along, about how he'd have all these nice conversations, and yet he'd get home at night and Melania would say, well, did you see what he did after he stopped talking to you? He killed babies. And I think that got to Trump what Trump always needs to have face in any negotiation. Right. And Putin has spurned him. At the same time, I think that Trump is so eager to achieve peace deals that he might be willing to give Putin another, what is it now? 11th chance. Even though the only way to change Putin's calculus is by increasing pressure on his regime, economically, militarily, and politically. And we have yet to really amp up the pressure.

[Unnamed Speaker]

Well, and the other. The other thing Trump does seem weirdly aware of in the last few weeks, and I thought of this when I heard him answer a question about who his successor was going to be the other day. And he did talk about Vance. He talked about Rubio in a way he hadn't before, is that all Putin has to do is out last Trump's term. Trump time is of the essence for Trump, but not for Putin. And that's something that Putin has long known, and he is playing a long game because he can, he's not going to be, you know, he's not going to, he doesn't, he's not term limited. So there's, there's that sense of urgency, I think, on Trump's part. I, I worry a little bit about the lack of, to Matt's excellent point about China, the lack of conversation about China because India immediately picked up the phone and started talking to Brazil and China when they heard about the tariff on Russian oil or the potential, you know, these tariffs on Russian oil. So there is a lot of strategic stuff going on that we haven't heard much from the administration about. I'm sure there's stuff going on behind the scenes in that regard at the State Department. Thank God for Senator Tom Cotton, who's been on top of the China stuff from, you know, forever. And it continues to do excellent work in making sure that our interests are protected. But I wonder how much of this is just Trump feeling, the fact that he's a second term. He doesn't. Time is really ticking away for him. We've got midterm elections coming up. He's obviously getting involved in the redistricting debate that's going on. So he, you know, that urgency might lead to more pressure, but it could just as well lead to, as Matt suggests, him giving Putin another chance to come to the negotiating table, which Putin has no interest in doing.

[Matthew Continetti]

Yeah, I think there's no question Trump's changed his tune. I think the problem remains that there is no negotiation to be had with Putin. And even, although we have not hit him hard energy wise in terms of sanctions, even if and when we do, it's still going to be very hard to bring that to bear as something that would actually get Putin to sit down and make a deal. Because Putin's built the economy for the Russian economy, for this war to endure the slings and arrows and the disapprovals and all the tactics of adversaries, including economic sanctions. So Trump likes to say, look, this isn't my war. This is Biden's war. But it is Trump's peace plan. That's all his. That's his baby. From the start, it was supposed to be one day, and we're well past that. And I think it's gonna be an ongoing problem for him and obviously for Europe.

[John Podhoretz]

Hey, it's John here. And you know how we believe all these things, it turns out, are myths. You got myths like going out in the cold will give you a cold, that kind of thing. You know what else is A myth. Thread count. You've been hearing about thread count for years, about how the number of threads in an inch or whatever indicates the softness and high quality of sheets. Thread count is a myth. It's silly. If you want great sheets, you need to look at thread quality, not count. And Bolin Branch uses the highest quality organic cotton threads for long lasting sheets that get softer over time. And I can, I can attest to that because I have bowen branch sheets and they get softer with every wash. There's no question you can feel the quality immediately, but you know, after a couple of months, you just have no doubt that you are sleeping on the most comfortable sheets you've ever had. And that is a really, really wonderful quality. We've been talking about Bowlen branch for years and I can just tell you it's true what I'm telling you. Okay, so they're made with the finest 100% organic cotton and a soft, breathable, durable weave. Their products have a quality you can feel immediately and become even softer with every wash. Like I say, and that 30 night worry free guarantee, sleep on them. You don't like them, send them back. Feel the difference an extraordinary night's sleep can make with bowl and branch. Get 15% off plus free shipping on your first set of [e-mail] commentary that's B O L L and B R A N C H B O L L A N D b r a n c-h.com commentary to save 15% and unlock free shipping exclusions apply. Hey John here, talk to you about one of my favorites. You know, you've heard me talk about it. It's Quince. Why drop a fortune on basics when you don't have to? Quince has the good stuff. High quality fabrics, classic fits and lightweight layers for warm weather. All at prices that make sense. Everything I've ordered from Quince has been nothing but solid. I got a whole bunch of new polo shirts that I really, really enjoy that I've been wearing this summer. Quint's has closet staples you'll want to reach for over and over. Like cozy cashmere and cotton sweaters from just 50 bucks. Breathable flow knit Polos, the ones I just mentioned. And comfortable, lightweight pants that somehow work for both weekend hangs and dressed up dinners. And the best part, everything with Quince is half the cost of similar brands. By working with top artisans and cutting out the middlemen, Quince gives you luxury pieces without the markup. And Quince only works with F factories that use safe, ethical and responsible manufacturing processes and premium fabrics and finishes. So keep it classic and cool with long lasting staples. From Quince, go to quints.com commentary for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E.com commentary to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com commentary Two things about that so Trump is a bully. And Zelensky came to the Oval Office and had that excruciating session in which junior bully J.D. vance as the as the Marx Brothers would was Groucho Marx once said, hey, you know, little bully, why are you beating up on that big bully? Or hey, big bully, why are you beating up on that little bully? There they were, you know, they nailed him. They threw him out of Washington. He flew home. We didn't have dinner, all of that and he was unshaken. The only instability in Ukraine in the last three years, politically, whatever came with this trouble over the revision of an anti corruption law, it's a domestic issue. There's no widespread protests about how the war is being conducted. There are no widespread protests, you know, Israel style, about how let's just bring this to an end because our children are suffering. The Ukrainians do not want the war to end. Zelensky just put his head down and kept working with the Europeans and did not get into it, didn't scrap with Trump and Vance. And I expect that there is a part of Trump's brain or spirit or heart or whatever that gained renewed respect for Zelensky for not folding and cratering under his you don't have the cards line that you that might was not predictable.

[Christine Rosen]

I have a different read on the situation. I think that Zelensky did respond to what happened in the Oval Office in February by aligning himself with the peace initiative, aligning himself with Trump's objective to achieve peace by agreeing to different cease fires, by agreeing to a potential cease fire in the air, which would favor Russia, by the way, because Russia maintains the conventional advantage on the ground. And that I produced a welcome response on Trump's part. And so then, then they were able to shift to Putin and say, okay, okay, well, Zelensky is ready. And I would also just say that there was some polling data that came out just this morning showing that Ukrainians are tired of the war, as you would imagine they would be. But this constant nightly bombing of their cities. What they want is some type of negotiated settlement. And it's in a way similar to the Israeli public. The Israeli public wants some type of ceasefire deal that would lead to the release of the hostages. In both cases, the enemy will not grant that, and that's what. That's the strategic problem. You have to figure out how to bend the enemy to your will. And in both conflicts, we have been unable to do that at this point.

[John Podhoretz]

Okay, so I want to align myself with what. With what you. With what you said here. I think Zelensky had an easy hand to play in relation to Trump because he understands Putin in a way that Trump doesn't. And he knew that there was almost anything that he could agree to, that Trump was proposing precisely because Putin would not agree and would see the fact that he was saying this as a possible sign of weakness and therefore that he could march forward. And, of course, the Ukrainians are tired of war and are abused and, you know, and suffering, and it's terrible. It's a little different from the Israeli situation because those in Israel who do want, you know, a ceasefire and an end to hostilities with this weird question of then what happens to Hamas. Hamas that a lot of people who are in the sort of peace camp, yada, yada, over, sort of like, we'll bring the hostages home and the war will be over. Well, what. What. What will that mean to. For the war to be over? Does that mean Hamas remains in power? Is that safe? What message does that send in future conflicts? All of that. And they don't answer the question, because what they want is the magical thinking that you can somehow say the war is over and the hostages will materialize in an Israeli hospital and everything will. And the. And the. And the bodies of the murdered hostages will somehow manifest themselves, and no one has to deal with the consequences afterward. That. That is the problem with the Israeli psyche or those who are on the side. I doubt that there is anybody in Ukraine who has. Who can maintain that kind of sentimental illusion after the last three years. Which is why what they may be saying is we just don't see a path forward. We have held off the destruction of our. Of our country, and if we end up with a solution that is guaranteed by the Americans, we will effectively have defeated Putin even if we don't get everything back. That may not have been something that they would have said in the middle of 2022, but it is certainly the case that the. The heroic resistance of the last three years must be something that is a matter of great pride to individual Ukrainians and that they will look at the fact that they were not swallowed up as everybody sort of expected them to swallow be swallowed up as a rallying cry for their own nationalist or their own national long term existence with all of Europe behind them and, and with the United States effectively behind them. So in that sense, while you're right that Zelensky bent to Trump in some rhetorical fashion, what he did was say, I want to be, I am a civilized person. We are a civilized nation. We want to end up on the side of the civilized nations of the world. Will follow your lead. If this is where you think we can go to find a civilized solution, I don't think it's going to work. But we will, we will follow your lead because we are, we need you and you are our friend and you have been friendly to us, even if you were mean to me in the Oval Office. So that is the difference. And of course, it's all a question of how Putin reads the situation. Does he read Trump saying, let's have a meeting or them saying together, let's have a meeting or something like that as a capitulation, or is he preparing himself to have the American hammer slammed down on his head?

[Christine Rosen]

This is why I think the sequence is important and why I believe Trump should follow through tomorrow with his deadline. I think he should impose some costs on Putin tomorrow. Say, look, I gave you the 10 days, you haven't given us anything, so here's higher tariffs on you. And you know what, we're going to impose additional banking sanctions as well and see what Putin does. If Putin says, okay, I still want to meet with you to talk, then I think it's net zero. That is, Trump had consequences, but then he's having the meeting and we'll see what we're going to do. Putin might respond by saying, well, I'm not having the meeting, in which case, okay, you see what Putin's up to. I think that from the strategic standpoint, the worst thing would be Trump say, you know what, we're going to have this meeting in September, so I'm not going to do anything tomorrow because that just keeps the status quo going. And look, the status quo is not an inevitable Ukrainian defeat as you sometimes see portrayed in the media. It is just the inevitable slow march of Russia throughout these provinces that it is attempting to annex in the eastern part of Ukraine. And more Ukrainian deaths, more Russian deaths, and of course, more Ukrainian civilian deaths as well. And that's, of course, no one, no one wants that.

[John Podhoretz]

So let's move on to discuss the tariffs. None of us, I'm now going to, I'm acknowledge from the ads, none of Us is an economist. None of us is a trade economist.

[Unnamed Speaker]

You sound like the very special episode of like a sitcom in the 80s. Like, this is a very special episode.

[John Podhoretz]

Where we warn you, we're going to warn you about the tariffs. Just say no. Just say no to the tariffs.

[Christine Rosen]

Or today where they say, warning, someone may be smoking in the show that you're about to watch.

[John Podhoretz]

Have you noticed, by the way, that if you watch anything anywhere, any show, anything, podcast, whatever, in which they mention a suicide, the show has to end with a. If you have suicidal thoughts, please call.

[Unnamed Speaker]

I don't mind that. I think that's harmless by the way.

[Matthew Continetti]

It starts with it.

[John Podhoretz]

I watch something that says this.

[Matthew Continetti]

This episode portrays suicide.

[John Podhoretz]

If you have thoughts, if you have this, please contact the hot spoiler alert.

[Christine Rosen]

If they put it at the front.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah, exactly. Okay. Anyway, I'm sorry, I just thought it was interesting because it is part of that, the tradition of the very special episode. So the tariffs go into effect and we are. The world's response to the tariffs is not what has not been all year, what we thought that it was going to be, which is very interesting. And maybe 30 years ago it would have been this and it's not now, which is that there's no panic. Stock markets aren't cratering by 10,000 points. There are no crazy sell offs. Margin calls are not coming in. If you hold positions in companies that are likely to have grave consequences from the tariffs, like some Japanese automakers or something, you're not fleeing into bonds. There's no sign of a kind of international. The world is ending. There was a little bit back in March, but it resolved itself and stabilized. Dow Jones is at close to 44,000. Oil prices are not appreciably higher. I just looked there at $65 a barrel, which is not a panic number. If Trump tomorrow imposes tariffs on Russian energy, which he has done, as we say, kind of like secondarily with this weird energy Russian tariff on India to some extent. We'll see what happens there. So the question that free traders and people who are think that tariffs are really bad are going to have to deal with is if it's a dog that doesn't bark, what's the argument against them? And there are many good arguments against them, and I'm not going to get into that. Our friend David Bonson has complicated. I mean, almost every economist that you've ever met will explain to you why this is bad and history will explain to you why it's bad. But I don't think Trump is going to be feeling it and then he can mask it or mask the effect of the tariffs in his brilliant PR way by having Tim Cook of Apple come to the White house and announce $100 billion program to make the glass for his computers in Kentucky. Now, by the way, all of that glass is going to be made by robots. So the idea that this building, this plant, now building a plant, you have to employ workers. So that's one thing. So you're going to build a plant in Kentucky to make glass for computers and you'll employ workers for the period of time in which it takes to build the glass or, you know, clean the grounds or whatever. But it's not like this is a high employment move. It's not bringing jobs back to the United States. This is an entirely roboticized industry. And the manufacture of this high, high manufacturer's high quality glass is not overseen by a lot of people, but it is a pretty, was a pretty good play yesterday.

[Unnamed Speaker]

Who's going to remember that when the price of lots and lots of things is, is in three or six months now much, much higher? I don't think anyone will care about a factory that Apple is building. And I do think those prices will increase. You say there hasn't been power panic yet, but we have, we haven't actually lived with the effects of the tariffs yet either. And so that, that, you know, inflation has not gone down as much as many had hoped. If you increase prices and then you've got all the Democrats running around saying he's cutting Medicaid, he's doing, you know, the midterm elections will be in some sense a referendum on, on the price of things in this country. And I've seen more an uptick on social media and other places where people are comparing, even from a few years ago, grocery bills, things like that. So he does have to keep in mind whether what the consumer will end up paying because he's telling Americans this is good for you, but if they don't feel that in their pocketbook, they will not believe that message.

[Christine Rosen]

I think we've seen some effects from, from imports becoming more expensive. Overall. I'm not sure we've seen the tariffs affect the inflation rate. And a recent conversation with the CEO, he, he, he said that one reason inflation is still elevated is all goes back to the Biden spending binge. It takes just a long time to get all that money out of the system and return to normal. And that's why he expected inflation to fall in the coming year. They actually expect growth to increase in the coming year as well, ahead of 2026. I think the most striking thing about the tariff debate is the field reversal on taxes that is occurring in the two parties. This morning, I woke up to President Trump's truth account, as I usually do, and he posted at midnight on August 7th. And you know he means it because it's all capital letters and four total exclamation points. It's midnight. Billions of dollars in tariffs are now flowing into the United States of America. And this has been a constant. The revenue that is being generated by the tariffs. And you have more Republicans coming around and saying, look at the $30 billion that's flowing into the treasury every single month from the tariffs. However, we finally discovered a tax that Democrats don't like, and it's the tariff. Usually Democrats are for any type of tax. They want more revenue to the government. That's the whole mechanism of liberalism. More revenue to the government that liberals can redistribute. Now, though, they don't like this revenue at all. And not only is it the Democrats who found a tax they don't like, the Wall Street Journal observes this morning in its editorial pages, which remain conservative, that Jerome Powell doesn't like tariffs. In fact, he's holding interest rates because he's worried about, as Christine says, the inflationary effects of tariffs, the potential inflationary effects of tariffs. And yet he never voiced any opposition to the Democrats tax plans throughout his four years. The desired increases in upper incomes, the proposals for wealth tax that Kamala Harris was floating, the global corporate minimum tax. That was a key part of the Biden treasury agenda. So I would just like some consistency. I think we find some consistency here in my ivory tower at the American Enterprise Institute. We don't like any taxes, whether they fall on incomes or whether they fall on imports. But that clearly ends as soon as you step out onto the street of Massachusetts Avenue.

[John Podhoretz]

Republicans were free traders, and then now Trump introduced the tariff regime back. And now suddenly, yes, Democrats have found a new religion in the idea that. It's weird, though, because they should be opposed to China. They should be hostile to China, the global warming contingent in the Democratic Party. China is the largest pollutant on the planet Earth by, you know, by sort of like square inch or growing or whatever. And. And so what? Why is it left to us and to Tom Cotton and others to talk about China's trade practices and the, you know, evils of that? They. They should be screaming about it. They're. They're the unionized, they're the Party of unions. They're the party of the American unionized worker whose position in manufacturing cars and things like glass and all of that have been hampered by, by the, by the 30 year opening to China and the low, and the low engagement with Chinese import. You know, the fact that we, there.

[Christine Rosen]

Are some Biden officials, former Biden officials, who are critical of the Trump administration's trade approach on China. You know, going back to what we were talking about earlier, Trump has not been as hawkish on China in his second administration as you might think. They recently allowed, for example, China to purchase Nvidia chips that the China hawks really opposed. But that was basically part of a deal whereby we're allowing China to purchase these very high end chips that Nvidia creates. And China has said that they're going to let out more rare earth minerals, which they have a monopoly over, essentially. So you read people who are sympathetic to Biden, people who were supportive of Kamala Harris in the last election, they've become more hawkish on China, where the real divide is over the global trade regime that Trump has kind of concocted out of his whims. And using various arguments, he has totally reshaped global trade. And if I'm in the administration, I have to be wondering what my game plan is if the courts rule that Trump has exceeded his power under the statutes governing presidential trade authority. Last week we had the hearing at the Federal Court of Appeals, not far from the White House, where the court at that level is looking at a lower courts ruling that Trump's tariffs, many of them are unconstitutional, that they exceed his authority, the levels that he set in the global reciprocal tariff. And we'll probably get a ruling from that court in the next month. And that tees up the Supreme Court to visit Trump's trade authority in the coming term. And this is huge because, you know, the Constitution grants the power to tax and the power to control trade to the Congress. And while the Congress has delegated quite a bit of trade authority to the president over the past 90 years, it doesn't seem like they granted this much. And so we may wake up one morning, and the Trump administration may wake up one morning to find that a lot of what Trump has done will have to be redone. And that will, I think, produce a whole other set of gyrations in the economy and in American politics. Because Trump won't be happy if the Supreme Court says, you have to roll these back.

[Unnamed Speaker]

Yes, but the American people should be. Because just as we argued that the abuse of executive use of emergency. Everything being declared an emergency is often an attempt to overreach one's authority and power. I think if, if, if the legislature is forced to actually clarify what an emergency power is, that would be good long term for how our system operates, because there's a ton of abuse by both sides on that. I also just want to add one other thing to the China question. We should at least acknowledge that the Democratic Party elite spends a lot of time on college campuses that are funded by Chinese government money, that the amount of money poured into play into lots of these institutions. There was this supposed scandal that went nowhere because there was not a smoking gun about the Penn Biden center at University of Pennsylvania. But, you know, Hunter Biden traveled with Joe Biden when Joe Biden was vice president, went to China to set up a Chinese hedge fund or something, you know, to do business with China. So the Democratic Party elite has been perfectly comfortable being very cozy in taking a lot of money flowing back and forth between the United States and China, even as we knew that China is not an ally. So I think when you talk about the workers, the reason that the Democratic Party has abandoned them and many of them then abandoned the Democratic Party in the last election is that the elite in the Democratic Party stands to benefit financially. And as we see this on the college campuses with these centers, which are heavily funded by CCP money.

[John Podhoretz]

Hey, by the way, not just college people. Who took 19 trips to China before he was nominated to be the vice presidential candidate of the Democratic Party in 2024. Coach Walls.

[Unnamed Speaker]

Masculine man, Coach Walls.

[John Podhoretz]

And he wasn't no college professor. He was a high school guy. Because China was doing what the gutters have been doing and what attempting to create influence inside the country by reaching down further than universities and engaging with high school teachers to bring them along to their views. Even before he, you know, see, I.

[Unnamed Speaker]

Want him to write a memoir, not Kamala. And it can be called, like, Honeymoon in Beijing or something. And we get the whole inside story of his trips to China.

[Christine Rosen]

That's a great question, actually. Why hasn't he announced a book deal? Yeah, maybe there's no market for it.

[John Podhoretz]

Who would want it? Who would want it?

[Oliver Darcy]

I'm Oliver Darcy.

[John Passantino]

And I'm John Passantino.

[Oliver Darcy]

We have spent years covering the inner workings of the news media, tech, politics, Hollywood and power. Now through our nightly newsletter status.

[John Passantino]

And we're bringing that same reporting and sharp analysis to a new podcast, Power Lines.

[Oliver Darcy]

Every Friday, we're breaking down the biggest stories shaping the industry, explaining why they matter and saying the things most people are thinking but too timid to say out loud.

[John Passantino]

No spin, no fluff, just sharp analysis that isn't afraid to call it like it is. We also pull back the curtain via our exclusive reporting to take you behind the scenes.

[Oliver Darcy]

My understanding having reported this is that the Pentagon protested to CNN and tried to effectively exile the CNN producer. And when the moment calls for it, we've got some hot takes. I just think Brad Pitt, honestly, he kind of seems a little washed up.

[John Passantino]

Oh my God, that's Power Lines presented by Status Follow Power Lines and listen on Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, or your favorite podcast app.

[Abe Greenwald]

Hi everyone, I'm Matt Ebert, CEO and founder of Crash Champions. Welcome to Pod Crash. On Pod Crash, we'll dive deep within industry leaders and game changers because we want to uncover their secrets to success. We're going to explore everything from building trust, building a rock solid team to champion blue collar work. And we also want to talk about creating explosive growth in your business. You'll hear actionable advice, real leadership and business lessons along with what's worked for these incredible people throughout their career. We're even going to go in depth into what I call a championship mindset. This is the very philosophy that I use to champion people and take Crash Champions from a single shop to over 650 locations today. And now I want to share that information with you. Watch or listen to pod crash on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you.

[John Podhoretz]

Get your podcasts, by the way. So to move on from this interesting stuff is going on in the Democratic Party primary in Washington state seems to indicate that the the move to the right in Seattle after the total catastrophe of Seattle in the wake of COVID and Black Lives Matter, which led to the election of a bunch of local political figures who were more moderate than the people who had been running the city during its worst days. They're now up for reelection and that the early indicators are that they are being displaced by more radical Neo Mamdani types in Seattle. Which brings up an interesting talking point for the right that I think the right is misunderstanding. We are seeing terrible numbers on Democratic approval in the united worse than 30 years, 40 years, deep disapproval of the Democratic Party. And people are saying, oh, you see, the Democrats, they move too far to the left and people don't like them and they hate them. And that is not where it appears those numbers are coming from. Those numbers are coming from disaffection with the Democratic Party from the left, from the Democratic left, from an from the idea that the Democrats screwed the pooch, you know, did wrong with Biden, holding on to Biden and, you know, are kowtowing to Trump and allowed, somehow allowed Trump to get reelected and that they, what they did was they didn't do enough. Everything that we look at in the Biden years and think, my God, this was an unprecedented growth of federal spending and unprecedented growth of the use of federal powers to control things like the rental apartment market in the United States and businesses and all kinds of things, and all the efforts to, you know, forgive loans and all of that, that was nothing. That was, eh. What was that? It was nothing and they got nothing and it did nothing. And I think we are seeing an interesting political dynamic in the United States where the right thinks that the numbers for Democrats are a good sign for them. And they might be because the American people are coming to their senses. But I don't think that that's what these are about. And I think that they're more a sign that the Democratic Party is losing its mind and is going to shift hard to the left or is in the middle of a hard to the left shift that is anti Israel, anti Semitic, anti capitalist, supportive of extralegal means of discipline for being terrible on issues that you care about, like kind of liking Luigi Mangione for shooting the head of United Healthcare in the back, that stuff. And aside from whether or not it's politically good for Republicans in the short term, it's obviously terrifying for anybody who is worried about the American future in the long term, because there are only two parties really in the United States. And if one of them is going stark raving insane supporting terrorism and opposing capitalism, I mean, we saw some of this in the late 60s, early 70s with the shift in the Democratic Party then. Still, I think people are enjoying it too much and are not dealing with the possible horror that we are seeing here in these municipal elections, which function in a, in a, in a party all of whose power is urban. Democrat Party is a party centered in 10 metro metropolitan centers. But so it functions almost like a midterm for liberal Democrats to be ousted by radical Democrats in 2009, in 2025 is a harbinger of a move in the party in general.

[Matthew Continetti]

But are we certain that the complaint is that the party hasn't been left enough or that it hasn't been effective enough and that there's this sort of broad. And people aren't sure how to get to an effective party, what that would.

[Unnamed Speaker]

Mean or what that would mean Abundance or anarchy? Right.

[Matthew Continetti]

Right. Yeah. Well, right exactly, yeah. At the two extremes.

[Christine Rosen]

Yeah. I think the test case I'm looking at is the Michigan Senate race and the primary in Michigan. It's an open seat. Mike Rogers, who barely lost in 2004, is going to be the Republican nominee. He's, he has a clear path to the nomination, but it's a three way race on the Democratic side. And the, it's very interesting. You have one of the candidates is the State Senator Mallory.

[John Podhoretz]

McMorrow.

[Christine Rosen]

Mallory, who made it kind of went viral for some speech she gave, I think on trans rights in the state legislature or state Senate and then made an appearance at the DNC last year. So, you know, more progress, cultural progressive. Then you have Representative Haley Stevens, who is a kind of, I would say almost. Well, she's to the right of Michigan's Senator Alyssa Slotkin, especially on questions of Israel. She's a supporter of Israel, but again also a supporter of abortion rights and you know, of taxing the rich, whatever kind of litmus test on the gun control you want on the Democratic side. And then you have the third candidate who is the Bernie Sanders candidate whose name is Syed, I believe. Let me see. He is a doctor and yes, Abu Al Sayed. And he is right out of the Mamdani Omar Fatah Ilhan Omar Rashida Talaib, AOC Hate America, hate Israel, anti Semitic mold. Michigan's an interesting taste case. Obviously huge Arab population in Michigan.

[John Podhoretz]

Relatively speaking. Relatively speaking, 400,000.

[Christine Rosen]

Right. It's the largest Arab population in the country is in Michigan.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah.

[Christine Rosen]

And. But it's still Michigan and you know, it's. And it's statewide and so if you could see Al Sayed win that primary, then I think you're right, John. But then it's like. But I think it's still open. And so it's. Again, you look at these cities and they are like petri dishes for socialism and radicalism and they, and because they've essentially forced out the middle class over the past couple of decades. There is no middle class in the cities. There's even working class is hard to find in the cities. It is a barbell coalition, wealthy liberals and then people who are working poor. Right. You get all these distortions. And if I'm, if I'm a Republican right now, what I'm thinking about, I know I've used this formula. If I'm the hypothetical. I don't know why I'm in this today, but in case I'm more concerned about what's happening on independents than I am with the Democrats. Because what I've been looking at at the polls is independents are rushing to support Democrats in the polls and that will not be good for the midterm election for Republicans next year unless Republicans can remind independents that the, the people that they're rushing to are insane.

[Unnamed Speaker]

But this. Okay, wait, can I just add, because I stepped on Abe's earlier point, which is a really important point, about whether this is tactics or philosophy on the part of the Democrats. And I wonder if some of that is a confusion to them because of their geriatric leadership right now, which has, remember, I remember Pelosi with the squad. Remember how she managed them? She was sort of like, well, they're getting positive attention for us, they're raising money, they're doing some crazy things, but I'll just let them play around in their sandbox. And the very, very aging leadership of the Democratic Party, particularly in the, in the House, House and Senate side and some of the, you know, impetus for these younger candidates who are more radical to push them out. I don't, I think there's still a fair number of Democrats, the older ones, who think that they can manage these people in a way that, that has gotten away from them. And so those independents, I think Matt's absolutely right. That is an area where a moderate Republican, if they don't get gerrymandered out of their congressional district in the next few months, can say, well, you might not like everything Trump does, but that's what your future will look like if you, if this is what you're going to vote, if you vote for that, we know what's coming and that's socialism. That's a squad, that's, you know, anti Semitism, all that stuff. But I do think Abe's point about whether it's tactics or philosophy, that's the battle they're having between the older generation, the younger.

[John Podhoretz]

Okay, so it's a dynamic process. The Republicans will benefit in 2026 with independence if the Democrats continue to go down this road because there will be real world examples, and we can see this in how Mamdani is running here, of what it will be like if these people run for office. And the parallel is 2010 and the tea Party and Tea Party Republicans who primaried Republicans, primaried moderate Republicans saying that they were weak, vacillating, were not opposing Obama enough and basically did a pre takeover of the party, scared those who survived them and got them all basically in line either by the election of 2010 or after they won the house in, in 2011. So I think the Democrats are, I don't agree with you that, that there are still people who think they can, they can manage. Mamdani I think they're scared. I think they know this is coming for them. They know it better than we do. They, they have, you know, they have survivalist instincts honed over many decades of political action. They, they can feel the pulse and temperature of people on their streets and things like that and in, in their, in their regions and they, and they can trim their sales accordingly. My, my, my feeling, though, is that Republicans who look at what is going on and think that it functions as a kind of national endorsement of Trump that the Democrats are so unpopular are misunderstanding the meaning. I don't think that this is a shift toward, I think the shift toward Trump has already happened in the electorate in some ways, but they are misreading the national mood, which is not particularly favorable to Trump now. And also in 2010, just to finish this point, they had one issue that they could nail Obama on as well as the where they were going, which was Obamacare. There was this one giant thing that happened. And if Trump provides them with a giant thing like massive confusion over the tariffs, either they do increase inflation or the Supreme Court rules that the tariffs are unconstitutional, which means, by the way, that they're going to have to be paid back.

[Christine Rosen]

Like, like they're going to, that's the most complicated part.

[John Podhoretz]

That is the most complicated.

[Christine Rosen]

That's insane. I mean, I just don't know how that's going to work. On if someone says, well, these are unconstitutional tariffs and so you have to pay them back. This is why I actually don't think it's a slam dunk that the Supreme Court's going to overrule the tariffs, by the way. And I also on, on just quickly on the terrorists. Jed Rubenfeld of the Free Press, excellent legal columnist. He had a very good piece early on on the constitutionality of the tariffs. He said what the Trump administration should really be doing is arguing for their constitutionality under the Tariff act of 1930, also known as the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act. So if the Trump administration does go to the court, the Supreme Court, later this year and say, look, yeah, we know we've been arguing under these other set of statutes, but at the end of the day, we think that Smoot Hawley gives Trump the, the power to do this, I think they'd have a strong case based on Jed's analysis. And it'd be ironic if Trump, who has resurrected Smoot Hawley like protectionism is actually saved by it. But just a couple of things on.

[John Podhoretz]

By the way, we should just mention for people who are sane and don't actually.

[Christine Rosen]

Right.

[John Podhoretz]

Follow this that closely. Swoon. Hawley is among the most notorious pieces of legislation, not only the history of the United States, but in the history of the world. It is largely given credit for causing the worst depression in the history of. Yes.

[Christine Rosen]

Many people.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah. And many, many, many people are.

[Christine Rosen]

Milton Friedman had a different.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah, I know he did. I know he did.

[Christine Rosen]

I'm more. I'm with Uncle Milty always.

[John Podhoretz]

But yeah, they were. It wasn't good.

[Christine Rosen]

It wasn't a good thing. Not gonna argue. I've been arguing saying that their taxes. I hate taxes. All our.

[John Podhoretz]

Yes.

[Christine Rosen]

Here's, here's what's interesting about the Mamdani the timing of the Tea Party so that you had all these primaries and then they go right into the cycle. And then you had two years of the Tea Party Congress and the debt ceiling crisis. The debt ceiling crisis and fights over Obamacare and such. And what happens? Obama WINS Reelection in 2012 and the Democrats maintain control of the Senate in the same year. Mamdani, if he wins in November of this year, we'll have 10 months of governing New York City next year ahead of the midterm elections. And that will be a gold mine for Donald Trump and the Republican Party if Mamdani decides to govern New York City according to his beliefs. And so that could change the equation.

[John Podhoretz]

That's what I meant by saying that it's a dynamic process, what the candidates say and what Mamdani and maybe whatever the new mayor of Seattle or the.

[Christine Rosen]

New Seattle or the Michigan Senate candidate. Right.

[John Podhoretz]

Or the Michigan candidate says. But I mean, you do, you are right that there will be, there will be political acts during 2026 that can become matters that the election will litigate in November. But it does, it did help Republicans, obviously, for Obama to pass the most controversial piece of legislation again in sort of modern American history. And history is contingent also, because who knows what would have happened if John Roberts hadn't pulled his bizarre, Talmudic, pseudo Talmudic decision to support and oppose Obamacare at the same time and then leave it standing in his terrible decision of his terrible opinion of 2012. I mean, we don't know if Obamacare had been ruled unconstitutional, if Obama would.

[Christine Rosen]

Have survived or if Hurricane Sandy hadn't hit New York and New Jersey.

[John Podhoretz]

Yes. So history is always contingent. The one thing to note, though, is that everything that Trump owns, everything himself personally, that's the one aspect of his governance, I.e. obama was a little like this and maybe Bush. So maybe everybody is. I don't know, maybe I'm going in the wrong direction. But I mean, basically, if Trump is at 40% popularity on Election Day 2026, that will have gigantic national consequences. And it's relatively new for a midterm election to ride on a president's favorability. You know, there 435 candidates or 900 candidates for House and Senate. Yeah.

[Christine Rosen]

You know, and seems to be the most correlated factor is presidential job approval.

[John Podhoretz]

Right. Then that wasn't true. Again, that wasn't true in, like, when I was. When I was in my 20s and 30s. That wasn't true. And it's become more and more true as the president has taken on the powers of Congress. So that the idea that, you know, anyway, it is. It's a very. I only began this by wanting to caution the triumphalist people on the right who love seeing the Democrats have bad numbers, that people who are worse than you can even imagine might be coming down the pike as a result of those bad numbers. And they can win elections and they can drag this. They can. The consequences for the country in 2028 could be incredibly disastrous. So there's some crushing morosity for you. We'll leave it there for Matt, Abe and Christine. I'm John Podowortz. Keep the candle bur.