David Pakman (3:31)

And here he has the chart.

Donald Trump (3:33)

So if you look at that China, first row, China, 67%. That's tariffs charged to the USA, including currency manipulation and trade barriers. So 67%. I think you can, for the most part see it. Those with good eyes with bad eyes. We didn't want to bring. It's very windy out here. We didn't want to bring out the big charts because it had no chance of standing. Fortunately, we came armed with a little.

David Pakman (4:00)

Smaller chart anyway, so, you know, nobody can read this crap. It's so small. It's a mess. Trump's confused. There also seem to be some issues where Trump believed Taiwan was charging 64%, but they were charging 6.4%. It's all a complete and total mess. Pointedly, Donald Trump also saying that effective at midnight last night, there would be a 25% tariff on all foreign made automobiles.

Donald Trump (4:27)

Why? Effective at midnight, we will impose a 25% tariff on all foreign made automobiles.

Caroline Levitt (4:34)

Yeah.

David Pakman (4:38)

Really strong orange announcement. And then also Donald Trump waxing poetic about that classic term, that beautiful nostalgic phrase, groceries.

Donald Trump (4:49)

Likewise, an old fashioned term that we use, groceries. I use it on the campaign. It's such an old fashioned term, but a beautiful term, groceries. It sort of says a bag with different things in it.

David Pakman (5:00)

It's a bag with things in it.

Donald Trump (5:02)

Groceries went through the roof. And I campaigned on that. I talked about the word groceries for a lot.

David Pakman (5:09)

We talked about the etymology and where did this word actually come from? Because a lot of people won't tell you it's English. This is a deranged, demented rant. And this is what happens when you try to justify the unjustifiable. Later, we'll look at Caroline Levitt, the White House press secretary attempts in a futile manner to defend this. Donald Trump is predicting that there will be complaints in the coming days, but the complaints will be from the globalists.

Donald Trump (5:41)

Beautiful. In the coming days, there will be complaints from the globalists and the outsources and special interests and the fake news, always fake news. Will always complain, but never forget. Every prediction our opponents made about trade for the last 30 years has been proven totally wrong. They were wrong about nafta. They were wrong about China. They were wrong about the Trans Pacific Partnership, which would have been a disaster if I didn't terminate it. If I didn't turn that, terminate that, United Auto Workers, you would have had no jobs in this country.

David Pakman (6:16)

Right. And of course there will be complaints, but the complaints are not going to be from globalists and media elites. They're going to be from American working families, small business owners, everyday Americans who already today are seeing their savings, their retirement accounts collapse as usual. Now, almost a requirement of any Trump signing is that he gives his speech and he forgets that he does have to sign this stuff and he leaves and then he is gently guided back, oh yeah, I have to sign this stuff. So here's Trump leaving and then people are starting to say he didn't sign it. So he's turned around and now guided back onto the dais. And of course, some chuckling. Yes, just everybody forgetting, I guess, that you didn't have to, he did have to sign that stuff. And then they guide him back and he does ultimately sign it. This is a disaster for the American people. People, we have been talking long enough now. Six months, 12 months longer. Tariffs are a tool. And like any tool, it might be the right tool for the job or it might not be the right tool for the job. If you're trying to eat soup, a powered drill is not a particularly useful tool. It doesn't mean the drill is bad bad. It's just not the right tool. And if what you're trying to do is stimulate small business, generate domestic GDP growth, which is what they said they want to do, some people might say, I don't care about that, then you have different policies. But if that's what you want to do, placing an import tax on everything is not going to achieve that. And so our first signal as to what is going to happen as a result of this, the first signal is what's happening in the markets. And I want to talk about that right now. There is a reason that Donald Trump announced these new blanket global tariffs after the market closed. And the reason is that immediately after hours trading started tanking in real time as Donald Trump was signing those completely whacked out till tariffs. You had CNBC analysts saying, we've never seen anything like market reaction after hours.

Caroline Levitt (9:06)

I've never seen anything like it. This, I think, fair to say, is worse than the worst case scenario of the tariffs that many in the market expected the president to impose. You laid out a number of the percentages there and there's some question of how the administration calculated the percentages that they're responding to.

David Pakman (9:28)

Yeah, there's a real question about that.

Caroline Levitt (9:29)

In each of these cases, are they adding in value added taxes? He talked about, you know, non, non tariff barriers as well. So I think while many were hoping that this would eliminate uncertainty, there's going to be more uncertainty in the market. And from those watching policy tomorrow on, well, you know, if, if countries push back on how these non tariff barriers were calculated, will there be wiggle room here? Exactly when do these go into effect? How quickly are companies going to have to adjust their pricing?

David Pakman (10:05)

Yeah, we are very quickly going to see how the art of the deal works out. And immediately there were questions like, okay, so Trump announced a 34% additional tariff on Chinese goods. Is that in addition to the 20% tariff that's already there, therefore it's 54% or is it that you're adding 34% to 20, which would make it more like 26, 27? We, we just don't know. And it's not even really clear that they know. Now what is the aftermath right now as I am recording this show for you? The Dow Jones Industrial Average is down 1500 points. 1500 points. Now, by the time the stock market closes, the number may be different. Why do we care about the stock market if you might not have any stocks, if stocks are disproportionately held by the rich and corporations? Well, unfortunately, unfortunately, as a futures market, the stock market can, can tell us a lot. And what such a precipitous decline tells us is that this is going to affect people even who don't have shares of stock. Many people who don't have shares of stock work for companies that are publicly traded. More generally, when you start to see these sorts of market declines and this level of market instability, it is a signal that corporations are going to start to say, wait a second, things aren't looking so good. Maybe we need to lay people off. Maybe we need to buy fewer source materials for the things that we build, which will hurt the companies that they buy from, whether they are American or not. It will leave them with less product with which to make final goods. That means their revenue goes down. This means they don't make as much money, meaning they don't have as much money to pay employees. This is how you set off a problematic economic system cycle. As I said earlier, when you look at this and you say, I want to understand the economic justification you will find and there are people floating around who go, we're with, this is so great. This is going to be so great for the country. And finally they'll respect us again and There is no real economic justification. I've given this example before. I'll give it one more time. If you came to me maybe with tears in your eyes, maybe not. And said, David, I think that for economic reasons and national security reasons and economic independence reasons, we need to bring back semiconductor manufacturing to the United States, I would say, okay, that sounds reasonable. Let's put in a plan to do it. And what we would do is a combination of, let's give subsidies and tax credits, credits to people building semiconductor manufacturing in the United States. Let's on ramp a tariff for those getting semiconductors from Taiwan. But we won't do it overnight. This will be a 6, 8, maybe 10 year plan during which we will start to roll in tariffs for people buying semiconductors from Taiwan, provide tax incentives for people to do it here. Maybe it's deferred taxes or who, who the hell knows? And then eight years from now, 10 years from now, because remember, this is 50 years in the making. You don't turn it around by signing with a monster Sharpie on April 2nd. This takes time. Over the next six, eight, 10 years, we will have carefully, strategically strengthened American manufacturing, made ourselves more resilient. If there were to be a supply chain interruption from Taiwan, or if there were global conflict between China and Taiwan, that imagine China invades Taiwan and says, you're not selling any more of these semiconductors to the United States or we're going to jack up the prices or whatever. We've achieved something, we've done something thoughtful, we've been careful, we've been deliberate. That is a good use of the tool that we call tariffs. This is not a good use. There is no economic justification. The justifications are political and they are three letters. Ego. Trump's ego. And that's the reason that we are seeing this stock market collapse. I, I have to say thank you. I was notified yesterday via audiovisual means, telephonically, some call it, that my book hit the New York Times bestseller list. I don't even know what I'm doing. I jokingly said to my editor on the phone, I don't even really know what I'm doing here, but it's thanks to you, we don't yet have numbers. I have no idea on the audiobook, I have no idea on the Kindle, but just based on sales of the hardcover book, this is now, it's the instant bestseller, the Echo Machine. So thank you so much. I was notified by my publisher that they have 5,005, zero signed book plates available, which, you know, I signed thousands of these. We now have 50 left so we are opening those up. Any new purchases of the book, no matter where you buy it, go to David pakman.com/free book stuff. If you've already gotten one of these it's you're not eligible. They will double check. Go to David pakman.com/free book stuff. You'll be invited to submit you'll proof of purchase and we've got 50 of these. If the page works you'll be able to get one so you can check that out. And I'm without speech, I'm speechless and I have only you to thank. And just so people, I got an email from someone saying David, you're not going to obnoxiously open the show now by saying that you are a New York Times bestselling author, are you? Of course not. Of course not. I will open every other appearance I do with that, but I'm not going to subject that this audience to that. So thank you. Let's take a very quick break and back right after this. Millions of Americans grind or clench teeth at night and most don't even know it. If you have jaw pain, headaches, there is a great chance you are one of them. Teeth grinding is often caused by stress and it'll erode your teeth and enamel and it can lead to some expensive dentist bills. The solution can be a mouth guard. Dentist made mouth guards can cost hundreds of dollars. That's where our sponsor Remy helps. Remy makes dental grade professional quality mouth guards with no painful price tag. Up to 80% less expensive than what you'd pay at the dentist. And you don't have to go to the dentist for one. Remy's process is simple. They send you an at home impression kit to mold your teeth. You send it back, their dental team will make a custom fit guard. Remy's guards are so comfortable most customers forget that they are wearing them. I often use a mouth guard when I sleep. It's been a game changer. No more pain during the day. I'm saving my teeth. And with a 45 night satisfaction guarantee you can try it risk free. Go to shopremy.com pacman use the code PACMAN to save up to 50 50% that's shop R E M I.com/pacman use code PACMAN for up to 50% off. The link is in the podcast notes. There is no longer any denying it now in the aftermath of these global tariffs announced by Donald Trump yesterday on so called Liberation Day. Republican Civil war is here. It's Cracking wide open. We have now seen a stunning rebuke in which four Republican senators joined every Democrat in a 51 to 48 vote to block Donald Trump's tariffs on Canadian imports. This is not about the global tariffs. This is specifically on Canadian import tariffs. Those tariffs are certainly an important part of Donald Trump's so called Liberation Day agenda, which is a very stupid thing to call it. This resolution that has passed the Senate would also undo Donald Trump's emergency fentanyl declaration, which he's been using as a very flimsy excuse to jack up taxes on goods from Canada. And so far, this is really the clearest sign that Republican lawmakers are not patient with Donald Trump's economic chaos. They either don't want to wait for the short term pain to become long term gain, or more likely, they don't believe that the short term pain is going to become long term gain. A former Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, did not hold back. He said straight up tariffs are bad policy. Trade wars hurt working people the most. That's true. Donald Trump personally attacked the four Republican defectors. They are Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell. But behind the scenes, this is a much bigger story. Every single member of Congress, and by the Congress, I mean the House and Senate that we interview. This is now 10, 12 of them. They tell us the same thing. Not every Republican, but many Republicans privately are horrified by what Donald Trump is doing to the economy. They don't believe there's any rhyme or reason for these tariffs. They believe it's just generating chaos and uncertainty. And what's fascinating here is that what we are seeing is that these are not really principled breaks with Trump ism. These are desperate attempts to stop the bleeding. These Republicans didn't suddenly discover a love for working families, for example. What's happening is that there are some Republicans responding to pressure from businesses, from voters, from donors who see that the Trump economic policy is a complete and total wrecking ball. And this is a really important thing in terms of orienting ourselves over the next couple of years with regard to American politics, which is that even inside the MAGA movement, there are cracks forming. We've seen them for a while. I've been talking to you about them for a while. And the fear is no longer about angering Trump. It's what happens if we keep letting him run the show. Because they see the same numbers we see. They see The Dow down 1500 points today. They see industries panicking. They see that no one is seeing these tariffs and saying you know what I'm going to do? I'm going to bring manufacturing back. Allies are turning cold and it may be too late, but some of them are starting to realize that Donald Trump is torching what is left of American economic credibility. Even the Republicans who voted with Trump are sort of sweating. You know, you've got Senator Kevin Kramer admitting that this is hopefully just the start of a negotiation and not the plan that announcing these tariffs will have some short term effect. But then it's all going to be negotiated away, eliminated and things will be good. But I don't know that that's actually what's going on here. And that's not really a strategy. That's just fear that's making people scared. Rand Paul is usually a Trump ally. He torched the whole idea. In a floor speech. He said every dollar collected in tariff revenue comes out of the pockets of American consumers. And he's right. The tariffs are paid by American businesses that import. Those businesses pass the cost onto consumers. It's consumers who pay the tariffs. When your house costs a little more, you've just paid the tariff to the homebuilder who paid the tariff to the country that they got building materials from. That's how it works. If you want a sort of wake up call as to how absurd the situation is. Yesterday we had Senator Rand Paul, a Republican and Senator Tim Kaine, a Democrat, doing a joint appearance on Fox News saying this is not.

Donald Trump (22:11)

What's the rationale for getting behind this?

Greg Cassar (22:14)

Well, one, we should not live under emergency rule. The constant Constitution said taxes are raised by Congress. Most specifically, taxes originate in the House and come to the Senate. Some against emergency rule, but on the tariffs in particular on the idea of trade. Trade is proportional to wealth. The last 70 years of international trade has been an exponential curve upwards and the last 70 years of prosperity has been upwards. Also. We are richer because of trade with Canada and so is Canada up. Whenever you trade with somebody, when an individual buys somebody else's product, it's mutually beneficial or you wouldn't buy it. If the trade is voluntary, it's always beneficial. There is no Canada versus us. The consumer wins when the price is the lowest price. Tariffs raise prices and they're a bad idea for the economy.

David Pakman (23:03)

It is pretty rare that you see Rand Paul and Tim Kaine agreeing on everything. Now the, the agreement would be quite limited in the sense that while they agree that the tariffs are bad, they would disagree, I'm sure, about the type and degree of regulation that's necessary for these manufacturing businesses. They would agree only about the tariffs being bad. But Rand Paul is correct that this. I don't even know that I would call it economic nationalism because it's actually bad for the country. But these blanket tariffs are just a tax hike for working Americans. Rand Paul also pointed out that there is a historical record for these sorts of tariffs being terrible, terrible for the economy.

Greg Cassar (23:50)

Tariffs have also led to political decimation. When McKinley most famously put tariffs on in 1890, they lost 50% of their seats in the next election when hot.

Donald Trump (24:01)

Smoothly put on their tariff and they.

Greg Cassar (24:03)

Early 1930s lost the House and the Senate for 60 years.

Donald Trump (24:07)

So they're not only bad economically, they're bad politically.

David Pakman (24:11)

That's right. And it is not just Congress that's starting to turn on Trump. Tomorrow we're going to be looking at right wing influencers, specifically Joe Rogan and Dave Portnoy, also increasingly questioning not on tariffs, but on deportations and on signal gate. But the big picture here is that some of the online warriors that Trump was relying on for the cultural dominance are asking questions and it's really not about policy anymore. This is a legitimacy crisis for Trump within the movement that he created. Chuck Schumer arguably said it best. He said public sentiment is everything. And right now public sentiment is saying this guy is wrecking the economy. So the cracks in MAGA are showing. Trump's enemies are not just on the left anymore. They're in his own party, they're in the Senate, they're in his fan base. And one last note, this has become one piece of what could be a full blown economic disaster. Trump's tanking the markets. We talked about that. He's provoking trade retaliation. That's already happening. Basic goods are going to get more expensive. If Republicans really think they can just ride this all the way to November of 2026 without a voter revolt. Maybe they can, but they're gambling. They're really playing with fire here. Inflation and job losses and a possible recession. These are maybe feeling like abstract fears right now, or Maybe they did 24 hours ago, but they're real and they're coming. And when you look at where the stock market is today, it's hard to think that it's that far off in the distant future doing insane things and then sending Caroline Levitt out there to try to clean it up is not functioning as a strategy. But that's exactly what Donald Trump is doing. Just hours after the announcement of these blanket tariffs, which tanked the market, terrified economists, and even have some Republicans saying, we've Got to do something to block this crap. Caroline Levitt went out onto the White House lawn and attempted to defend it to CNN's Kate Baldwin. The problem is there's no way to defend this. And so Kate Baldwin asks Caroline Levitt, does this mean higher prices for Americans? How much of this short term pain is ok? And Caroline Levitt doesn't really answer in the most immediate.

Greg Cassar (26:33)

I mean these farmers, as Tom Seller says farmers are one crop away from bankruptcy. That farmer doesn't have time to wait for tariffs to work their way into the system for the benefit of it to work its way into the system at all. This is going to mean higher prices for Americans in the most immediate. That's why I asked the question how much pain on a temporary basis is okay, what's the standard that the President is looking at in terms of how much pain a majority Americans can feel on a temporary basis that he's okay with? Again, the President is focused every single day on lowering the cost of living in this country while simultaneously implementing these very effective tariffs. Massive deregulation, energy boom and tax cuts are the economic formula that will mean more prosperity and the lower cost of living.

David Pakman (27:29)

And it's and of course sure it's not wrong that growth will help Americans. The problem is that Trump policy isn't going to generate growth. And if you're feeling that that like that answer leaves things a little bit lacking, you're right. And it's because there is no way to defend what they are currently doing. Kate Baldwin pointed out to Caroline Lovett markets are just collapsing. What do you say about that? And she goes oh, Trump knows what.

Greg Cassar (27:56)

He'S what is the White House reaction to as we just had those numbers up, global markets tumbling this futures down sharply. To anyone on Wall street this morning, I would say trust in President Trump. This is a President who is doubling down on his proven economic formula from his first term.

David Pakman (28:16)

We just trust him.

Greg Cassar (28:17)

Wages increase, we saw inflation come down. We had a Trump energy boom. We had the largest tax cuts in history. And that's exactly what the President intends to do following his historic announcement he yesterday for reciprocal tariffs. It's the golden age rule for the golden age of America and the United States of America is no longer going to be cheated.

David Pakman (28:38)

This would make Soviet propaganda broadcasters blush.

Greg Cassar (28:42)

By foreign nations around the world. And as the President declared yesterday, this is indeed a national emergency. We have a $1.2 trillion trade deficit and counting. We've had 90,000 factories, countries close in the last couple of decades. Since 1997, Americans have been put out of 5 million manufacturing.

David Pakman (29:01)

She goes on and on and on and on. The message is close your eyes, put your noise canceling headphones on, and just trust Trump. And the reason that that's all they have is because there is nothing else. There is no economic justification for what they're doing. It completely contradicts basic economics. Finally, sort of the cherry on top, Kate Baldwin points out, you know, these blanket tariffs may violate some provisions of international agreements like Naito. Caroline Levitt just goes.

Greg Cassar (29:36)

Now, the foreign minister of Norway and in Brussels for NATO meetings said this morning that the tariffs could violate an article of the Naito Treaty that orders members to promote economic stability and collaboration. If this is a breach of the Naito Treaty, will the president reassess his approach? No, the President is firm in his approach and the President is ensuring economic stability here in the United States of America.

David Pakman (30:08)

And of course, the idea that Trump cares about American commitments based on treaties we've signed in our parties to. This is a different era. Kate Baldwin, of course he doesn't care about that. You know, no matter how well prepared you are, you really can't defend something as indefensible as what we're seeing right now. And that's the problem for Caroline Levitt. Remember that the only way to reach you directly is our newsletter. If YouTube, Facebook, Tic Tac, if any of them shut us down, all of which have happened temporarily in the past, our only way to reach you will be our newsletter where we own the data. So I invite you keep in touch by signing up for that newsletter. You can do it on my website, David pakman.com you can go to David pakman.substack.com or you can just email info@david pakman.com and say, hey, put me on that newsletter. We'll take a quick break and be back after this. Did you know that an estimated 5 billion plastic, hand soap and cleaning bottles are thrown away every year? Our sponsor, Blue Land, is on a mission to eliminate single use plastic by reinventing cleaning essentials to be better for you and better for the planet with the same cleaning power that you're used to. The idea is super simple. Blueland offers refillable cleaning products with a beautiful cohesive design that'll look great on your countertop. You fill your reusable bottles with water, drop in the tablets, wait for them to dissolve, and you'll never again have to grab the bulky cleaning supplies on your grocery run. Refills start at just $2.25. You can set up a subscription or buy in bulk for additional savings. And Blueland products are independently tested to perform alongside major brands. They are free from dyes, bleach and harsh chemicals, from cleaning sprays to hand soap, toilet bowl cleaner, laundry tablets. All Blueland products are made with clean ingredients. You can feel good about Blueland is trusted in over 1 million homes, including mine. I've been using the Blueland dish to detergent and the toilet bowl cleaner for a while. Couldn't be happier. And you'll get 15% off your first order at blueland.com/pacman that's blue e land.com/pacman for 15% off. The link is in the podcast notes. It's great to welcome back to the program today. Democratic Congressman Greg Cassar representing Texas's 35th congressional district. This includes parts of Austin, it includes parts of San Antonio. It's so great to have you back on, especially today, because we saw these tariffs very confusedly signed into law yesterday by the President. And we're hearing from people all over the country, including in Austin, specifically about how concerned they are as to what this will mean for for the cost of everyday things for the long term of the economy. Do you have a sense from inside the House of Representatives as to what Republicans believe is the long term plan here in terms of is the idea to set a fire that they then put out and take credit for, or is there any long term plan?

Caroline Levitt (33:40)

To me, it always keeps coming down to Donald Trump wants to enrich his billionaire friends. He wants to threaten other foreign leaders or other people he feels threatened by in order to have them cut a check or be able to say he won in some sort of fight. And so at the end of the day, there isn't a real plan as far as how this is going to try to help the everyday person or the American worker. And from inside the House, a lot of Republican members of Congress, they didn't know exactly what was coming or what the plan is. And so I think the best way for everyday folks to understand this at home is that Donald Trump went and promised everybody, whether they voted for him or not, that he was going to lower prices for you. And he was clearly lying through his teeth. This is going to raise prices all across the economy for the everyday person, while Donald Trump's real priority continues to be in Congress, not to have a plan to bring jobs here, not to lower prices, but to give billionaires another tax cut to take Social Security away and be able to give it away to big corporations. The end of the day if you were an everyday worker, everyday consumer, Donald Trump lied to you. But the people he's not lying to are his donors and his billionaire friends. That's really the frame within which we can understand all of this, which makes sense.

David Pakman (35:02)

But at the same time, I have to imagine that some of his billionaire friends who are heavily invested in the stock market, are seeing the Dow down 1500 points as you and I are talking right now, and are going to him or to people who can get to him and saying, you know, what, what is this? What is Cut the crap, right? The counterpoint would be they get the wink, wink, nod, nod, nod, that this will drive down asset prices. They can swoop in and pick up shares far cheaper. But at some point, there has to be some pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, right? Or otherwise. Wouldn't the billionaires also be saying, this is no good?

Caroline Levitt (35:37)

Right? And that's why we've seen him do this, you know, announce a tariff one day, pull it back the next day, or like we saw during the last administration, he sets up a big, a big set of tariffs, and then he creates exemptions for his friends or for people that are familiar with him, where people that didn't like him before that then come and change their minds and become Trumpers. And so that's what this whole scheme always seems to be about. I was just on the news and they showed me there an Eric Trump tweet where he said, if I was a foreign leader, I'd be. Want to be the first one coming and begging for mercy from his dad. And so that's what this keeps on coming down to. Look, Mark Zuckerberg being the perfect example. We saw this this week. Mark Zuckerberg under investigation for monopoly activity, illegal white collar crime. You see Facebook meta buying up WhatsApp, buying up Instagram, trying to make sure that there's no competition to what it is that they do. Next thing you know, mark Zuckerberg gives $25 million in a settlement, quote, unquote, but ultimately, $25 million cash to Donald Trump himself. Now it's his third visit to the Oval Office. Now he gets what it is he wants. So the Mark Zuckerberg who you know, Donald Trump with lambast before, now they're buddies. And so that's part of how you can see all of this, is that Donald Trump acts recklessly, acts, acts erratically. People say, what is the plan here? And the plan on his part is to hold people hostage, whether it's American consumers, whether it is, you know, a billionaire that he wants to come genuine in front of him. And then at the end of the day, what he's trying to do is extract money for himself or his or his friends or at some times just for his ego.

David Pakman (37:30)

You've made some criticisms about the Democratic Party that are very similar to ones that I've made. You've talked about Democrats losing their working class identity and needing to sort of regain that. You've criticized ideological purity tests that sometimes take place within the Democratic Party and sort of within the left. All criticisms I agree with you on. Is anything happening right now at the top level of the party that recognizes this to reorient into 2026?

Caroline Levitt (38:02)

I think the perfect example of the party reorienting is what's happened over just the last four months around Elon Musk. You can go and pull headlines, and I hope folks will go look it up. Just a few months ago, there were all sorts of headlines saying, democrats debating whether to buddy up to Elon Musk. Should the Democrats actually go right at Elon Musk and call him out for the grifter and liar he is? Or should we say maybe he'll bring innovation to government? That was an active fight within the Democratic Party and because there always have been since I've been alive, some very corporate elements of the party that said, oh, maybe this billionaire is kind of a role model and we shouldn't go after him. And I and others were really clear that if we want to reclaim the working class mantle of the Democratic Party and be a popular populist party again, there's no better opportunity than to go after the richest man on earth who is firing veterans, taking their salaries and stealing that money for himself and for his own contracts. There's no better villain than Elon Musk, who makes $8 million a day off of federal government contracts, who's then going out and calling Social Security recipients and Medicaid beneficiaries moochers. And we had that argument, and even all the way up to just a couple nights ago, the Wisconsin Supreme Court race, there were articles saying elements within the Democratic Party worried about whether this Elon Musk message will work. Well, we won that argument a couple of nights ago when we blew out Elon Musk in that race. And in fact, Elon Musk's own campaign spending, I think, backfired on him. And that's exactly what we want. If we're going to be the party of the people against the party of big money, then we need to recognize they're always going to have more money than us, let's use their own money against them by pointing out that they are corrupt and trying to buy public politicians. That worked the other night. And I think that is a hopeful direction for the Democratic Party. We have won that fight for the around the whole party. But I think just in the last few months there has been a consolidation of Democrats around fighting Elon Musk and I think there will be more and more Democrats running for office now, whether they are more progressive or more moderate Democrats on this more anti corruption platform.

David Pakman (40:29)

I spoke not long ago with your colleague Jake Auchincloss and one area of concern for him in looking back at November of 24 and sort of the last election cycle and looking forward was he thinks that the party overall hasn't struck the right tone. For example, on the issue of crime, the idea that yes, of course we recognize systemic realities when it comes to crime and we don't abandon any of that stuff. But there were a lot of people who just didn't like or feel like they were being taken seriously by Democrats all the way up to Kamala Harris when they said, hey, here's what I'm seeing in my community being shown the FBI crime stats. That's all well and good, but what I'm telling you is what I'm seeing in my community and not feeling heard and like their concerns around that issue was dismissed. Can you talk about how to find a balance between rejecting, you know, the lurid stories and anecdotes of Trump at rallies around this issue of crime, but also not seeming to dismiss the real concerns of people with regard to this issue? Where do you find the middle ground there?

Caroline Levitt (41:44)

I think that progressives and Democrats need to be the party of safety for you and your family. And where progressives and I include myself quite a bit in this, have failed in the past is we try to say, well, we're the party of public safety and of civil rights and we're going to be for your public safety. But civil rights violations, we just point those out as just wrong. And they are. But I don't think we've pointed out enough when we talk about people's civil rights is that civil rights violations make you less safe. When Donald Trump uses law enforcement to go and arrest someone that has done absolutely nothing wrong and then ships them overseas to a Salvadoran prison camp, not only is that morally wrong, but first of all, it endangers people's basic rights and safety of if they could come after you next. But let's put that aside. They just Took all of these law enforcement resources that we should be using to keep you safe, to actually go after people that could threaten your health and safety, to actually go and solve cases that are unsolved. And he went and spent them deporting an innocent hairdresser. He went and spent resources the other day deporting a 10 year old who was recovering from brain cancer, who was on her way to her appointment. Shouldn't those resources be going after somebody that has actually hurt someone or has actually killed someone, or is the actual threat to your neighborhood? So I think that as progressives, and I include myself in this, we need to learn from our mistakes. That doesn't mean throwing out civil rights, but it means letting people know that civil rights violations are actually a violation of your safety. This isn't just a, an idealistic pursuit. We're in that actually making sure that law enforcement follows the rules and goes after the real threats isn't just an idealistic cause, it's a public safety cause.

David Pakman (43:52)

Yeah, I think the other thing that's being lost in some of the commentary is like I was listening to Joe Rogan talk about some of those very same deportations you're talking about and saying it's a disaster, it hurts the cause, etc. It almost sounds like the conversation some are having are about whether some of these individual cases are sympathetic people. It was a dad, it was someone recovering from an illness. But due process should apply regardless of whether the individuals are sympathetic. And I feel like that's an aspect of the conversation that's not getting the attention it deserves, that needs more attention.

Caroline Levitt (44:23)

And frankly, this is another place where I think that the progressive wave that I know is coming of 2025 and 2026 can be just as strong but smarter than we were in 2017, 2018. And here's how we need to stand for free speech for everyone. We need to stand for due process for everyone. Because if we stand for due process in cases where the person is sympathetic and not sympathetic, when we stand for people's safety, no matter the politics of the issue, I think that makes, that is inherently a progressive value and makes the Democratic Party stronger. And on free speech, we should be able to stand up for the free speech of people on college campuses, no matter whether they are right wing activists or left wing activists. We should support views being published in our newspapers, whether they are left wing or right wing, because that's what actually protects everyone. And I do think that our sort of progressive wave of four, five, six, seven and eight years ago sometimes was censoring views and not focusing enough in on free speech. Let's have the debate. Let's protect everyone's speech, and we're going to be better off that way. I think about how a few decades ago in Austin, there was a big controversy here right up the road on Congress Avenue, where a small number of KKK members were going to march. And it was a big controversy, and people asked the mayor to revoke the permit and not let these. Whatever it was, few dozen maniacs from the KKK march.

David Pakman (46:03)

Yeah.

Caroline Levitt (46:03)

And the mayor did the right thing. He let them march. But then hundreds of Austinites showed up, lined up on the street, and as these few dozen KKK ers marched up the street, they all turned around, pulled their pants down and mooned the KKK members. And that was the best exhibition of free speech you could ever imagine. It humiliated the, you know, complete racist maniacs without giving them the platform of pulling away their right to speech. So I think right now is such an important moment for due process and for free speech in this country, and I think that that's. That the Democratic party should sort of correct where we've been on those issues in the past.

David Pakman (46:44)

Last example I want to run through with you, and I think this is super useful in thinking about how it is we should be talking about these issues. Another one that's generated a lot of controversy is this issue about trans rights, but specifically sports, which I want to say at the outset, we're talking about a sliver of a sliver of a sliver of the population. We're talking about an issue that I'm not diminishing its importance to those whom it touches, but it will only touch a sliver of it. We're talking about a very small number of cases which the right has really successfully contrived and weaponized into a massive cultural battle. When you look at the data, 80% of the country believes that, at least on some sports, there's a fundamental lack of fairness if you allow certain individuals to compete in women's leagues. Okay. I'm trying to frame it as sort of like, objectively as possible. On the one hand, it's so important for us to stand up for the dignity and rights of everybody. I don't want anybody to be discriminated against. I don't want people's dignity to be jeopardized. On the other hand, I also see some on the left kind of taking the poison pill which they've made for us, and defending everything under the sun, even when these are really minority views, and they probably hurt Democrats electorally. What's your sense of that issue? Not because it's the most important issue statistically, but because they've so successfully weaponized it. How should the left and Democrats deal with that?

Caroline Levitt (48:22)

Two things I will go to how I think we deal with the issue specifically.

David Pakman (48:27)

Yep.

Caroline Levitt (48:27)

The most important thing you just said is how is it that the right wing has turned an issue that only deeply affects a sliver of a sliver of a sliver of people into one of the biggest national issues in this country, a driving issue in a presidential campaign? Something everybody asks me about. How do they do that and why is it? I think the most important question is why hasn't the Democratic Party been able to turn Social Security into that issue since that affects hundreds of millions of people, tens of millions of people directly, hundreds of millions of people indirectly? Why hasn't the left and progressives been able to turn health care into an issue at least that big, since the Republicans right now in Congress are trying to end Medicaid as we know it?

David Pakman (49:15)

Yeah.

Caroline Levitt (49:15)

So I think the real core question is how and why is it that the right has turned this issue that again, like you said, deeply affects the people it affects. But ultimately, nobody whose door I knock on, Republican, Democrat or independent, when they open up the door and I'm knocking on doors in the neighborhood say, thank God, this is what I want to talk to you about. Nobody has ever done that. How have they managed to do that? And the answer is, I think that the Democratic Party needs to draw a stronger contrast with the Republicans on core economic issues of wages and Social Security and health care. Make there be a much bigger difference so people really notice. Two, we have to pick villains and tell a clear story about why you're getting screwed over on those economic issues. And we've got a hone in on always talking about those pocketbook issues in an interesting, not boring, not incremental, not technocratic way, AKA we can't be talking about it the way we've been doing it. And if we can turn Social Security and health care and worker wages into that, a real issue, then I think the salience of how you answer that other question goes way down. So we've got to ask ourselves, how did they make this such a huge issue and how can we do that on things that actually should be much easier to do it on because a lot more people care? And once we do that, then I think the answer to your first question is much lower stakes because people can be like, that's not actually that big a deal to me now. So that's really my main answer.

David Pakman (50:50)

Yes.

Caroline Levitt (50:50)

But then if we were to go to. Okay, so then how do you respond to that? Yeah, I do it all the time. I do it all the time in groups of people that disagree with me on the issue. Because like you said, tons of people might agree or disagree on this issue. And I say, look, I know, you know, that swimming is different than table tennis is different than wrestling, and so does the ncaa. And so the NCAA has a committee and they figure out what the appropriate testosterone levels are for people to compete. The Olympic Committee does, too. And I'm just really not that interested in who really does Olympic swimming or not. I've never met an Olympic swimmer. And so I'm going to kind of let the Olympic Committee deal with that. You might agree or disagree with what they do, but I'm going to dedicate my life and my time to making sure nobody's discriminated against in the workplace. To make sure that you get a decent wage, to make sure you get paid overtime when you work over 40 hours a week. To make sure you get a tax break instead of Elon Musk. To make sure that not only do we save Medicaid as we know it, but I think we should actually expand our public health care system so that you don't have to be calling an insurance company who's just going to tell you no to make money. And when I say that, it tends to break through and break beyond the person asking that question.

David Pakman (52:01)

That's really good. I like that. I'm going to think about that. We've been speaking with Congressman Greg Cassar. Always great having you on. Thank you so much.

Caroline Levitt (52:10)

Thanks a bunch.

David Pakman (52:11)

I am not exactly a wizard at building and fixing stuff around the house. I leave it to the pros. I recently moved and the blinds in my new home office looked like they were from 2005. The room needed a little updating, so I went to Three Day Blinds, the leading manufacturer of high quality custom window treatments in the US you don't need to leave home to shop for blinds. Three Day Blinds has local, professionally trained design consultants with an average of more than 10 years of experience. They'll come to your home, they'll give you guidance, they'll tell you, here's what would work in this space. The quote is free with no obligation. And their expert team will then design, measure and install everything. So you just sit back and relax. You don't have to do anything. I love the new window treatments. That three day blinds got me for my office. It looks great. Three Schedule your free no charge, no obligation consultation. You'll also get their buy one get one 50% off deal on custom blinds, shades, shutters and drapery when you go to three day blinds.com/pacman that's buy one get one 50% off when you go to the number 3D a Y blinds.com/pacman. The link is in the podcast Notes. I want to play a clip for you of George W. Bush destroying Donald Trump's entire economic and geopolitical perspective. This is from years ago. This is not a new clip. And I want to be really clear. This is not a rehabilitation of George W. Bush. This is not Wasn't Bush great war criminal helped lie the United States into a war that killed hundreds of thousands. His presidency was a disaster on multiple fronts. The reason I want to play this clip is that it's an incredible reminder of the stark contrast between Bush era Republicanism, which was bad enough, by the way, which still understood some basic economic principles and geopolitical strategy, and the complete and total collapse of rational thought under Donald Trump. So let's take a look at the video and then we'll talk about what's.

Donald Trump (54:25)

Interesting about our country if you study.

Caroline Levitt (54:27)

History, is that there are some isms.

Donald Trump (54:30)

That occasionally pop up.

David Pakman (54:31)

Pop up.

Donald Trump (54:32)

One is isolationism and its evil twin protectionism and its evil triplet nativism.

Caroline Levitt (54:39)

So if you study the 20s, for.

Donald Trump (54:40)

Example, there was, there was an American first policy that said who cares what happens in Europe?

Caroline Levitt (54:48)

Well, what happened in Europe mattered eventually because of World War II. There was Smoot Hawley, which is a.

Donald Trump (54:54)

Part of an economic policy which basically.

David Pakman (54:56)

Said we don't want trade.

Caroline Levitt (54:57)

In other words, let's throw up barriers. And there was an immigration policy that I think during this period argued we had too many Jews and too many Italians, therefore we should have no immigrants.

Donald Trump (55:07)

And my point to you is we've been through this kind of period of.

Caroline Levitt (55:10)

Isolationism, protectionism, native nativism. I'm a little concerned that we may be going through the same period when.

David Pakman (55:17)

George W. Bush starts to sound like the adult in the room. You know, we've fallen very far. Republicans used to understand that a blanket tariff is bad for consumers, it's bad for trade, and it's bad for American jobs. They used to at least pretend to care about alliances, about global stability, about not blowing up post World War II international order. That, flawed as it is, has helped to prevent some wars and has also helped to sort of maintain the US as a credible negotiating partner who doesn't just say, I don't like this deal and I don't like that deal, and we're not going to come to your defense, even though we agreed to, which is what we've seen under the Trump era, which is just embarrassing for the United States. You know, under Trumpism, it's tariff everything. Who cares about Europe? And let's blow up global markets. Because it makes me feel strong and it sort of placates my ego. It's isolationism plus protectionism plus nativism, and that's really like a full package of economic and diplomatic brain rot. And that's the cocktail that Bush was warning about. And as disastrous as Bush was, he sounds reasonable in this clip compared to what's taken over his party. I'm not saying Bush was a good president. Don't write to me saying, david, how can you say Bush was a good president? He wasn't a good president. The point here is to show the contrast and how far things have fallen. It used to be that we disagreed with Republicans on policy. Health care, taxes, labor rights. Now we're in a world where the Republican Party doesn't even believe in basic economics or facts or alliances or basic sanity. There used to be some bipartisan agreement that trade and diplomacy and global cooperation are net positives. There are negatives. You want to balance it, but that they are net positives and that we benefit as a country when we are connected to the rest of the world, rather than we want, than when we wall ourselves off from it. Now, there could be disagreement about how should those relationships be structured, which deals were fair and which deals were unfair. What industries do we want to protect? Which industries don't we want to protect? But the idea that tariffs are taxes on Americans didn't used to be controversial. Incomes, Trump turns it into a loyalty test, and suddenly any grasp of basic economics is considered globalist treason. And there's a really deep irony here. Trump's entire agenda is anti conservative tariffs. Massive government interference in the free market, not a historically conservative principle. Blowing up alliances, risking military entanglements and economic collapse, using emergency powers to bypass Congress. It's straight up authoritarian. There's nothing conservative about it. And the people who spent decades warning about big government are now cheering on a guy who is using state power to micromanage international trade like it's a vending machine. It doesn't make any sense. There's no economic justification. The cracks are starting, and tomorrow we will look at Trump's approval hitting a new low. We will look at the Republican alliances that are looking to fracture and interfere with what Donald Trump is doing. And this has the potential to become a sort of silent civil war within the Republican Party. Now on today's bonus show, we will address that to a degree, because House Democrats have their own plan to force a vote on killing Donald Trump's tariffs, and we want to see where that lands. Eric Adams is bailing on the Democratic Party because he couldn't win the Democratic primary in the New York City mayoral race if he ran in it. And he's saying, I'm going to be an independent. Now we'll talk about whether it will work, and we will also talk about should new mothers be allowed to vote by proxy in the House of Representatives. Seems like a simple yes. MAGA Mike Johnson says no. All of those stories are on today's bonus show. Sign up@join pacman.com to get instant access. 50 signed book plates remain. If you've not yet ordered my book, get it anywhere and then submit your Receipt at David pakman.com/free bookstuff will get you. The next 50 people to submit will get a free book plate and sticker. And remember to review the book on Amazon, Barnes and Noble and Goodreads. I'll see you on the bonus show. I'll see you back here tomorrow. Tomorrow.