A (4:23)

First on the Republicans, then on Schumer and the Democrats. There was an argument back in those days. I mean, I think you could look at what Ted Cruz did and you could look at the filibuster and you could look at the challenges to Obamacare and say, look, this was something that was largely in service of Ted Cruz's presidential ambitions or his attention seeking needs. And it really wasn't much more than this. This was a way to, to please the base, to get people ginned up for, you know, for political ends, for, for Ted Cruz. And I think, you know, if you look at everything that's happened since, there's a lot of reason to believe that that's, those were the dynamics at play. Having said that, I remember I did a lot of reporting on this at the time, talking to Mike Lee and talking to others who were supportive of Cruz, and they would make a different argument about why it was worth taking on what everybody understood as this quixotic effort to block Obamacare that wasn't going to happen while Barack Obama was. And, and they would say, look, it's really important for Republicans to just make this stand, to make very Clear that Republicans as a party oppose this bad idea because bad things are going to happen. And when bad things happen, it'll be really important that voters understand Republicans did everything they could to fight this. I suspect that's where these sort of base Democrats, the Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, the Bernie Sanders types, the others who are critical of Chuck Schumer are today, which is they look at Donald Trump and they say, look, bad stuff is happening. We oppose almost everything that this guy's doing. We've tried to make that clear. We tried to make that clear during the election, we're trying to make it clear now, but we really have no power. So the only power that we have, the little leverage that we have, we have to use it. I think the problem with that is there really wasn't much leverage. I mean, what were they actually, what concessions were they actually going to win? You know, they'll, they'll talk about sort of things on the margin, but it's unclear that anything was actually going to happen. And in order to make the, the stand that they say they wanted to make, I think they would have had to have something to show for it. So I'm actually pretty sympathetic to what Chuck Schumer eventually did, but I think he did a crummy job of getting there. He didn't really help guide particularly House Democrats, but also Democrats in the Senate by letting them know sort of this is where he was headed. And in fact did the opposite at several times over the course of the sort of internal quiet wrangling behind the scenes in Democratic circles suggested that there were other alternatives that they might end up in a different, different place which led, you know, for instance, House Democrats in non safe districts to take votes they might not have otherwise taken. So I think he did a lot of damage getting to the place that I think everybody expected him to get to.

B (7:24)

Megan, can you talk about some of these new factions emerging from the ashes of the Democratic Party? What are Abundance Democrats?

C (7:34)

They are people who think that the supply side matters. I think if you look at, I don't want to say kind of ground level Democratic politics, which is much less ideological and much more like people scrambling to get elected. But if you look at what the factions in the party were, they were all arguing about how to redistribute what the economy makes. That's what they're fundamentally interested in. They take the production for granted and then we're just arguing about who gets what. And they would make gestures towards, well, this is going to help the economy. So you know, for example, during Obamacare, people would argue that giving people health insurance would enable people to start new businesses because they wouldn't be afraid to leave their job for loss of their health insurance. I always thought that this was not very convincing and indeed I don't think that there's been any evidence that that happened. Because the people who start businesses tend to be in their 40s who worry about health insurance, right? Like the people who are really like I have to have health insurance. Those people tend to be in their 40s and 50s and like they do indeed worry about their health insurance. They also worry about their mortgage and paying for their kids college education. And so, you know, that didn't materialize, but they would, they would recast what they were doing as it's stimulus, we're taking the slack out of the economy. But that's all demand side stuff fundamentally, right? Stimulus is the idea that we're going to goose consumer demand and then that's going to go demand for labor and that's going to bring us back to full employment. And what the abundance Democrats are saying now is that they have looked at New York and California and other places and said wait a minute, we can't even make stuff to redistribute, right? And they're mostly looking at government stuff, right? Stuff like infrastructure, but they're also looking at things like housing which are provided by the private market mostly and the fact that it's now functionally impossible to build anything but luxury housing in blue states because the projects take so long. The only projects that are going to pencil out are high end housing where you, if you have a three year delay for which you are employing people to, you know, run around working on your project, you are maybe getting starting financing and so forth. You can afford to sort of rack that into the margins on your luxury housing. And so their idea is no, wait a minute, we've got to look at the supply side. We've got to, instead of thinking in this scarcity mindset of we have a fixed amount of stuff, how do we distribute it? We need to think about how do we grow the pie, to use a phrase very popular on the right. Although in their new book, Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson specifically say that they think that that's a bad metaphor. They want to make more stuff to redis before they start redistributing it, which is a welcome corrective to, you know, what is blocking this in so many places is decades of Democratic politics, and especially Democratic politics catering to groups like the environmentalists who really didn't want anything to be built and thought that was a bad idea and wanted us to just all, like, huddle in our little apartments that already existed and eat our vegan cheese and bean casserole. And this is the faction that is trying to push back on that.

B (11:02)

All right, Jonah, can you put us in, like, a historical context here? Abundance Democrats is the Republican Party from 2012. A lesson, you know, as I think about the names that I'm hearing most often for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination, it's Wes Moore, Governor of Maryland, Gretchen Whitmer, Governor of Michigan, Andy Beshear, Governor of Kentucky, Josh Apiro, Governor of Pennsylvania. But all of these guys, quite moderate, and I don't think they'd ever describe themselves as Abundance Democrats. I don't even think that's a thing right now outside of, you know, intelligentsia, think tank circles. But this is how it trickles down, right? Eventually it trickles into some wing of a party. Is. Is what's old new again? Is this new? Tell me, Jonah, tell me.

D (11:49)

So it's funny when you first brought up the autopsy period, the Ted Cruz and Mike Lee fights, and, you know, there's a certain. We all know there are these people in Washington, they're a little bit older than us or some cases a lot older than us, where if you bring up, I don't know, some obscure thing from Watergate, they. They perk up and they're like, wait a second, let me tell you about Haldeman, right? And they get deep in the weeds really frigging fast, right? Or like the Vietnam vet at the bar where, you know, you. You just briefly mention some battle, and they're like, look, you don't understand. It was raining that day. And, you know, and that's how I feel when you guys talk about some of this stuff, because I have so many, like, old fights that feel like, you know, it's like they're just loaded guns on my desk that I would really like to play with. But they matter not at all to the. I mean, they're interesting and I think the parallels are. Have some very. But the Democrats have a different problem today, I think, basically. And I think this is what ties all this together, because I agree with you entirely, Sarah. The Abundance Democrats are. They are not. Even if you want a historical parallel, they have not even reached Atari Democrat level awareness. At least Atari Democrats, I can still name it. Like. Like Gary Hart, a couple politicians at presidential level associated with it. I mean, I don't know who an actual abundance Democrat is outside of the authors of a few books that come out lately. The reason those books exist now, right? I just had Yoni Applebaum on my podcast. It's got a great book called Stuck. And I just had Mark Dunkelman on his book why Nothing Works. I told you guys before we started rolling, I was high, so I'd be.

A (13:31)

Like, your brain doesn't work.

D (13:34)

That's sort of what I mean. But for external reasons anyway. Although now they're internal. Anyway, my point is, is that the problem that the Democratic Party has is that the Democratic Party is the party of government, but it's actually the whole reason a party of government exists. And they exist in every modern industrialized country. In fact, there are lots of countries where they only have parties of government. The whole pitch for the party of government is to help the voter, not the vast coalition of rent seekers, constituencies that are dependent on the government sector and the extended sort of network of institutions outside of it. The way the Democratic Party has become, you know, there's this whole fight among the Dem, among liberal, intellectual, progressive intellectuals about the role of the groups, which is just a super clever way of shorthanding interest groups, because that was the real problem facing the Democrats is they took too much time saying the full phrase interest group. And if they just say the groups now, people will, like, efficiently argue about these things. But the point is that they've lost the plot. And they don't. The Democrats have lost the ability to actually talk to the median voter. Instead, they basically talk to the median voter who is dependent in some way on government. That whole political situation is one of the reasons why the abundance Democrat crowd is emerging, is because they're realizing that that's a losing proposition politically. Because as much as we have people dependent on government in one way or another, they're still a fraction of the total population. And that makes Democrats seem. It makes the Democratic Party itself seem like a special interest. And that's why a big reason why Trump won was that he was able to actually speak to that median voter. That whole she's for they, them, he's for you thing was speaking directly to that, is that the Democratic Party is now seen as captive.

A (15:26)

And.

D (15:27)

And I think they're casting about for some sort of way out. And the problem is they've got this guy running the Senate Democrats, to paraphrase Seinfeld, sounds like he should be trying to send back soup at a deli, right? He is just this cranky old guy from New York from Queens, and I saw him on Morning Joe yesterday. And let me tell you, I think the rise of anti Semitism in America is terrible and dismaying, and it proves horseshoe theory in all sorts of ways. We are not gonna beat back this sinister tide with Chuck Schumer as the spokesman against it. I'm just gonna put it out there right now. Anyway. So, like, I just think the problem is the Democratic Party. They don't have a theory of the case about why they should be in power beyond one that appeals to trial lawyers and teachers unions and university presidents and deans of, you know, diversity deans and the like. And they're so deep in their bubble, they don't know how to tell a story that appeals to the normal voter. Shapiro, among that group that you mentioned, I think is the only one who comes close to an abundance, because when a big chunk of road caught fire in his state, he said, yeah, we're going to suspend all the rules that all you morons set up that would make it take 18 months to get this done. And he got it done in, like, two weeks or ten days or something like that.

C (16:40)

Nine. Yeah, nine days.

D (16:41)

Nine days. Yeah. Because he was actually interested in the median voter, not the median public sector, you know, public sector union worker.

C (16:48)

I actually think it's even worse than that. Like, yes, sorry. Sorry to interrupt, but, like, the groups were not even interest groups in the way that they've been traditionally understood. Right. The AARP is an interest group. It's really powerful because it has a ton of members. And if you do anything to any old age entitlement, the AARP will send up the bat signal, and a hoard of angry seniors waving their canes will descend on your office to pummel you.

A (17:17)

Wait, you realize Jonah is AARP eligible right now?

C (17:22)

I am also AARP eligible, and it was the worst day of my life. Life. I was like, I. I am suing for libel.

D (17:29)

Aarp, in fairness to us, they do keep lowering the age requirement.

C (17:35)

Yeah, it's. The age is now 50 when they send you out the special.

D (17:38)

So, Steve, you're. You're eligible.

A (17:40)

Oh, I thought it was 55.

C (17:42)

No, it's 50.

A (17:43)

Oh.

C (17:44)

I got it on my 50th birthday. And thank you. Happy birthday.

B (17:48)

Hey, look who on this podcast is not AARP eligible. Hi.

D (17:53)

Sarah's got 22 years until she's eligible.

A (17:56)

Yeah.

B (17:58)

My four and a half year old asked if I was going to die on my next birthday because I was getting so old. So that's, you know.

C (18:03)

But the groups that the Democrats were increasingly. And like, I Will say public sector unions are a valid interest group in this sense. Right. They are really interested in these issues. They are membership groups. But a lot of the groups they were listening to were not. They didn't like Black Lives Matter is an example. No one, like black people did not get together and elect Black Lives Matter to represent them.

D (18:28)

Right.

C (18:28)

But Democrats completely acted like they had. Similarly on immigration, right? The most shocking thing in the last election is that immigrants swung by some crazy like 25 point margin towards Trump and by who was doing exactly the opposite of what the people that Democrats thought represented immigrants were demanding. And like that problem in the Democratic Party, that it was actually this kind of interlocking collection of foundation funded, professional class people who got listened to because they had gone to school with the professional class. Democratic staffers and everyone kind of nurtured this collective delusion that a really small number of elites kind of could represent huge classes of voters who were not themselves making $100,000 a year doing X, Y or Z. Had not gone to Harvard. And no one would have said that if you take white men, if some dude from Harvard walks up to you and says, I represent white men, you would be like, there are many white men and most of them did not go to Harvard. But somehow when it was immigrants, then, you know, people's brains dropped out of their head and they said, oh yeah, I understand you represent immigrants. And like to some extent they do, right? They have shared experiences with immigrants that people who aren't immigrants don't. But those shared experience, they also have a lot of shared experiences with other professional class elites and that tended to dominate Democratic politics. And I don't know how the Democratic Party walks back from that, in part because one of their real groups is the public sector unions. And those guys don't want stuff to change. They're really invested in the status quo. What they want to do is be paid more and work less. Which is, I mean, like, to be clear, that's what everyone wants and is a noble goal. But it is a problem if you are the party of government and one of your major constituencies and you were, you're like, and I'm an abundance Democrat, I want government to work. And then one of your major coalition groups is like, well, but if it worked, that would be bad for me. So no.

A (20:39)

Aura frames are my favorite gift to give. I gave one to my mother several years back and I hear from her on a near daily basis that she loves seeing the pictures that I upload. But more than that, she loves seeing the pictures that her grandkids upload and I get feedback about what she's observing in their everyday lives. What I really love is that Aura Frames comes packaged in premium gift box with no price tag. It already feels like a thoughtful gift even before they open it. You don't have to wrap a thing and I'm not one for wrapping presents. For a limited time, visit auraframes.com and get $45 off Aura's best selling Carver mat frames named number one by Wirecutter by using promo code dispatch at checkout. That's a U R A frames.com promo code dispatch. This exclusive Black Friday Cyber Monday deal is their best deal of the year. So order now before it ends. Support the show by mentioning us at checkout. Terms and conditions apply.

C (21:42)

If we knew more about our sleep, what would we do differently?

B (21:45)

Would we go to bed at a.

C (21:46)

Consistent time or take steps to reduce interruptions to our sleep? With the all new Sleep Score, Apple Watch measures your bedtime consistency, interruptions and sleep duration. Then every morning it combines these factors into an easy to understand score from 1 to 100. So you'll know how to take the quality of your sleep from good to excellent. Introducing the new Sleep score on Apple Watch. IPhone 11 or later required.

B (22:12)

Hi, I'm here to pick up my son, Milo.

C (22:15)

There's no Milo here who picked up.

B (22:17)

My son from school. Streaming only on Pica.

A (22:23)

I'm gonna need the name of everyone.

D (22:24)

That could have a connection.

C (22:25)

You don't understand.

D (22:26)

It was just the five of us. So this was all planned.

B (22:29)

What are you gonna do?

C (22:30)

I will do whatever it takes to.

D (22:32)

Get my son back.

A (22:33)

I honestly didn't see this coming.

D (22:35)

These nice people killing each other.

A (22:37)

All her fault. A new series streaming now only on Peacock.

B (22:43)

Steve, this is gonna be a very simple point. When you look at polling around the Democratic Party and there was this very pretty simplistic cross tab and it was white men, no college degree. White men, college degree. White women, no degree, White women, college degree. And the point of this was that basically white women with a college degree were just total outliers on the far left of everything. They asked about your opinion of Donald Trump, J.D. vance, Elon Musk. It was, you know, negative 40s across the board, Republican Party negative 35. Volodymyr, Zelensky plus 53 D E I plus 31. Just nothing like that in any of those other groups. And then you get to the Democratic Party. White men, no college degree, negative 58. That's their net opinion of the Democratic Party. White Men, college degree, negative 38. White women, no degree, negative 36. So all of those pretty much in line with each other. White women, oh, still negative four. It's the only one that all four of those groups agree on. The problem, I think, is that when you're the party out of power and when you just lost, everyone's mad, nobody approves of the party, and then everyone can argue over why. And so you see that. And I think it's very easy for abundance Democrats to say, yeah, it's because everyone's sick of the government not having any common sense, not being able to get stuff done. The road takes 18 months to rebuild. And it's because the Democratic Party didn't fight enough. It's because they weren't far left enough. It's because they weren't willing to stand up and actually believe in DEI the way they told us that they did. And all of those things are true at once when you're out of power. And I think it's just so important for people to realize because we have such weak political parties because of campaign finance reform, according to me, that has gutted the money and the infrastructure of the political parties in the name of low dollar, small dollar donors. So no more political parties are left, which bizarrely, actually increases partisan polarization. It also, though means that the winning presidential nominee of a party redefines the party each time. Totally can do it from scratch.

C (24:50)

Right.

B (24:50)

Donald Trump recreates the Republican Party in his image in 2017 because he won, not because the party nominated him. If he had lost, he would have had no control over the Republican Party. And so when we talk about the future of the Democratic Party, and again, this is where I want to make. I know this is a really obvious point. I don't think we have any clue what's going to happen to the Democratic Party until a presidential candidate wins the presidency from the Democratic Party. And that person tells us what the Democratic Party is.

A (25:19)

Yeah, and the inverse is true. Right. I mean, I think if Trump had lost to Kamala Harris this time, there would have been this massive movement among Republicans and conservatives to say, boy, everything Donald Trump believed about the Republican Party and the changing nature of our politics was wrong. And therefore, you know, Republicans and conservatives should do this. So I have not, I have not yet read the Abundance Democrats books. I've seen sort of some interviews and things, but I wonder, since Jonah and Meghan have looked at it more carefully, would you say that part of their argument is sort of less reliance on government than, say, Barack Obama era Democrats offered. Or is it more? Hey, government is great. It should be at the center of our lives in the same way the, you know, the Life of Julia video had it back, you know, under Barack Obama, it just should be more efficient. What's a, what's the right way to understand the role of government in this new argument?

C (26:24)

I would say, look, and I should disclose I have both Dunkleman and Abundance Dunkelman's book, why, why Nothing Works and Abundance. And I've started Abundance, but I've not finished it. So there may be stuff in there that I haven't gotten to yet. But that said, I would say just like from listening to interviews, which I've now listened to like 90, they're the best podcast like bookers. They have podcasts, Ezra and Derek, and they're everywhere. And I know and like both of them. I was actually Derek Thompson's first boss at the Atlantic, and his description of that was that I was, I ran my boss. I ran, I was a boss boss, like my boss dumb, followed my politics, which was totally laissez faire. But in his case, it worked. And so I would hope that that experience would have given him a greater appreciation for. Look, I, I, I think both like Ezra, who I've known, you know, since he was like 21 and who is now in his 40s and has kids, which just makes me sad because it means that I'm even older. They're both. I think Ezra especially has moved towards more respect for the need for the market to supply stuff. But I also think if you listen to his podcast with Tyler Cowan, who says to him, you know, like, why, you know, for example, pharmaceutical price controls is a good example of something that Ezra favors. And that's a distributional problem for him. And for me, that's a huge supply side problem. Why would you do that? And his argument is, well, the government could, you know, step in and make the, the regulations that make it expensive to bring new drugs to market easier and that that would offset that. And look, that's an argument we can have, but I would sure like to see the regulatory piece happen first before we start doing the pharmaceutical price controls. Let's run the experiment. It's similar. There are people who propose prizes for pharmaceutical development from the government in order to offset pharmaceutical price controls. And again, I'm actually, I am interested in running this experiment, but do that first.

B (28:29)

And here's.

C (28:29)

So this is another thing that worries me about the abundance Democrats, right? Is that this stuff, like pharmaceutical price controls, super popular because I mean, we should think of abundance Democrats, it's like never trump Republicanism. It is an elite phenomenon. This is like upper middle class people who have, who are vested in the establishment, who have like, who think the economy works pretty well, who think the system works pretty well. That's who this movement is for. And so the problem is that the stuff that's easy to do is the pharmaceutical price controls. The stuff that's hard to do is to do an Operation Warp Speed level commitment to bringing drugs to market. And look, I think Operation Warp Speed was one of the greatest government successes of the past 50 years. And I supported the interventions they did, which were both removing bottlenecks from distribution and production and throwing money at the problem. But like, that's also kind of a wartime spending thing. You can't run an economy and, or a normal government that way. We cannot constantly be throwing hundreds of billions of dollars at random into the pharmaceutical industry, in part because voters would hate it.

B (29:39)

The great irony of Operation Warp Speed and this, as you say, probably the biggest governmental success in a hundred years. And it's Republicans who are complaining that the vaccine didn't go through enough regulatory steps and it turns out wasn't safe or shouldn't have gone to the market so quickly or needed more warnings. They're the one, I mean.

C (29:58)

Huh? Yeah. So I think the challenge for the abundance Democrats is a going to be doing the stuff that makes the abundance before you do the other stuff that, that your coalition is really interested in on the redistribution side. And then the other challenge is that they have a lot of factions who are going to, who have personal vested interests and also ideological opposition to this and that this stuff is actually not going to pull that well. I think it's actually right, but it's not going to excite voters. It's going to excite people like us. And as the Never Trump Republicans discovered, that was not necessarily a winning political coalition, even if it is an absolutely victorious moral coalition.

D (30:39)

So I see it a little differently. I mean, Virginia Pastoral was the one who made the argument to me that because there's this movement on the right, the Cornucopians, the Roots of Progress Project.

B (30:50)

The Cornucopians is a terrible name that's just going to be difficult to say, spell anything else.

D (30:56)

Libertarians proved by what they call themselves that they're bad at coming up with names for things. Even Friedrich Hayek was like, take that class. That's such, that's such a look. Hayek was like, it's so un. Euphonious. I Can't even call myself a libertarian. Right? So Virginia Bristol, who's, you know, one of the chief proponents of dynamism, right, like, you know, wants a really productive economy, all of these kinds of things, liberating the economy, liberating human ingenuity. She, she says the, the sort of the Ezra Klein project is to get rid of red tape for government to be more efficient. And the sort of libertarian pro growth crowd is for getting rid of the, the red tape that prohibits the private sector from being more productive. And obviously there's going to be some overlap there, right? But like, again, I think everything bagel liberalism is like a really terrible term. So it proves that libertarians aren't the only ones with bad at labeling. The idea is that you can't get anything done if every stakeholder, every ideological stakeholder gets a sign off. You need somebody. Ultimately, Dunkelman's argument is the left got so terrified of repeating the horror that was Robert Moses that they basically empowered all of these people from the ground up to be able to stop projects. And I was talking to Duncan about this on the Remnant, like, pretty sure Steve will remember. Sarah might have still been in grade school, but Rachel Maddow about 15 years ago, used to run these ads on MSNBC. It was during this weird phase where MSNBC was constantly running commercials that were basically commercials for Obama. And she's standing in front of the Hoover Dam and she's like, america used to do big things like this. That's what government is there for. That's what liberalism is for, is doing the big things, blah, blah, blah. And I probably wrote five columns about this over the years because the idea that if someone tried to build the Hoover Dam, Rachel Maddow would be out there chaining herself to old growth trees right away, right? The environmentalists stop everything. The racial people stop everything, all that kind of stuff. And so the point behind the everything.

B (33:19)

Bagel definitely have a land acknowledgment on the Hoover Dam.

D (33:22)

That's right.

B (33:22)

For suresies. And then we'd argue a lot over the language for the land acknowledgement.

D (33:26)

And so like, the forces against progress on the left want to just prevent big things from happening, and Ezra wants the government to do big things. Again, that's a different argument than what you'd get on the right. It doesn't mean they're wrong, right? I mean, it's a scandal that it took 22 years to do the Big Dig, right? We built the Pentagon in what, like 16 months. We built the Empire State Building in like 13 months. It takes 13 months probably to get the paperwork together to like talk about tearing down the building that you would want to tear down before you even talk about the permitting for getting something like the Empire State Building. And so I actually think that that argument has some appeal to the median voter if he can do it. Right. But it's gotta be done by a good politician and not some pointy eggheads who's just like, look, government is here to help you. We lost our way. The Republicans are here to help themselves. We want government to be able to do the important things that we all agree need to be done. And I think as much as I disagree with that on some philosophical level at some, you know, some places, I think that's actually a party winning argument. I just don't think any of these people in Washington have much credibility selling it.

A (34:41)

Yeah, it's at least a new argument.

C (34:43)

Right.

A (34:44)

I mean, I think that's part of the problem Democrats face is they've been making the same old argument. And the contrast between what you're describing getting from these abundance Democrats and what we saw from Chuck Schumer both in the negotiations or non negotiations last week and the appearances, you know, Chuck Schumer's now been out doing public appearances in support of, well, it's sort of in support of his new book on anti Semitism, even though he apparently canceled some of the book tour. But I caught a clip of Chuck Schumer on the View this week making this, I mean, it's just sort of this sad but, you know, very energetic Schumer esque argument that was like a recapitulation of the Obama, you didn't build this argument. And it just felt, I mean, I didn't like that argument with Barack Obama made it, but at least I guess Barack Obama had sort of the, this. There was a coolness factor to Barack Obama. And so you could oppose the argument on its substance, but you knew it would have some purchase because people wanted to like Barack Obama and he could make unpopular things popular. But watching Chuck Schumer make that argument this week, you know, you didn't build that. You, you think you built your, your company but you know, you had to drive on roads or, you know, he said something sort of like that. It was just so pathetic. And you're watching that thinking, if this is the guy that Democrats put forward and if these are the arguments that they're making, they really, they really might be out of power for a long time.

B (36:25)

All right, I want to make sure we get to these Other two topics. First, on a little podcast called Advisory Opinions, we talked about these threats of judicial impeachment when judges are not ruling the way that Donald Trump and his supporters like, obviously, there's the history. There's one time where a president tried to impeach a justice for not ruling the way that he liked. That was Samuel Chase and Thomas Jefferson in a famous showdown. Thomas Jefferson wanted to start with Samuel Chase, but his goal was to remove John Marshall after that and get rid of the federalist judges that Adams had put on the court, and Washington, too, for that matter. And the impeachment of Samuel Chase failed. And from that point forward, like, let the word ring out that we don't remove judges for voting a way we don't like or even the wrong way. And yet, here we are. There's some irony as well to all of the conversation about, you know, there's 700 of these judges, and they weren't elected by anyone, and yet here they are stopping a president who was duly elected by the people. But these were the same people who were suing President Biden and going to these same judges and asking them to stop exactly what an elected president had done. The eviction moratorium, the vaccine mandate, student loan, debt forgiveness, and the list goes on and on and on. They were thrilled. And in fact, if judges didn't do that, they were screaming about judges in the pocket of Joe Biden. So, look, this is why I put this not first, because I don't know what else there is to say other than, like, yup, people are hypocrites these days. This is horseshoe politics. People just want outcomes. They don't care about process. And I'm a process girl in an outcome world. It's all things I've said before. So I guess I'm just gonna go to each of you and ask, do you have anything new or interesting to say about this topic? Steve?

A (38:18)

Yup. People are hypocrites. This is a horseshoe world. No, I mean, unfortunately, I, I largely agree with you. I mean, I think there's been so, so much analysis of all of this, and, and there's this, this attempt to. To intellectualize what we're seeing. And, you know, in. In some ways, you can understand that, because I think if you're. If you're making the argument on behalf of the Trump administration or in favor of what, What Trump is doing, you. You need to find a way to justify or rationalize what you're doing. When the reality is Donald Trump likes judges who agree with him and doesn't like judges who don't agree with him. And that's, that's basically it. He wants judges to bless the things that he's doing, whether constitutional or, or not, if he believes that they should be done. And he opposes judges who oppose him. I mean, it wasn't what, a week ago that in his, maybe it was a little more than a week ago in his speech from the Justice Department, he suggested that criticism of, you know, a Trump favored judge, Judge Cannon, might be illegal. And now he and his supporters are arguing that we should impeach judges who have come to a different legal conclusion than the President and his team. So, no, unfortunately, I think this is largely just a matter of hypocrisy and picking sides. Now, having, having said that, let me introduce a couple of quick sort of caveats. There's an interesting short post from our friend Shannon Coffin over at National Review, who walks through some potential problems with what Justice Roberts did this week. Justice Roberts came out, put out a statement, in effect, saying, hey, impeaching judges is not the proper remedy here. You can, you know, you take, you can challenge, you can go through the appeals process, but impeaching judges is not the right solution. And Shannon takes some exception to that and points to the possibility that if, you know, House Democrats take the, the house in 2026 and try to impeach the president, this could create problems for Justice Roberts down the line. Our friend Tim Sandifer, who's written for the Dispatch before from the Goldwater Institute, had an interesting post arguing that, in fact, impeaching judges is part of what you do. If you think that judges consistently come to the wrong legal conclusions and therefore these arguments are actually solid and people should be making them.

B (41:15)

I feel like this is where I need to put on my John McLaughlin hat wrong. I mean, it's wrong.

A (41:22)

Look, I was ultimately not, I would say I was ultimately not persuaded by either of their arguments.

B (41:26)

But these are people who like, if judges are getting it consistently wrong, we should impeach them. That's what the appeals process is for. In fact, we have two layers of appeals in case you draw a bad first judge and you draw a bad appellate panel with three more judges, you can have four bad judges in a row and you still get another shot to win. So that's why we don't impeach judges for getting it wrong, even if they keep getting it wrong, because it sort of builds into this independence to the system that we're okay with a little bit of wrong, because it will get corrected. And if you can't win with one district judge, three circuit judges, and at least five Supreme Court justices. I don't know what to tell you. Maybe they're not the ones who are wrong. Rant over.

D (42:10)

This is the conversation that Donald Trump and crew want us to have about whether it's right or wrong to impeach judges. The simple fact is we're not going to impeach this judge.

B (42:19)

Correct. There's not even enough Republicans in the House.

D (42:21)

Then to convict, it takes 2/3 of the Senate.

B (42:25)

Yeah.

D (42:25)

Right. So I don't know that you would get 2/3 of Republicans voting to convict.

B (42:29)

No.

D (42:29)

So never mind. Two thirds of, you know, plus all the Republicans and then a solid half of the Democrats. It's never going to happen.

A (42:35)

Right.

B (42:36)

I did like Elon Musk saying that it took 60, though. Just like his constitutional ignorance, he's so, so proud of it. Bothers me a lot. Didn't he have to take a citizenship test? What happened here?

D (42:45)

Elon Musk is the. Is an Asbury but yet human form of Chesterton's fence. But the reason I think they're doing this is they're trying to get the back of the frontline prosecutors who are bringing these cases to not chicken out in front of judges who are pissed at them for shenanigans and to also change the subject from whether or not Trump did anything wrong to whether or not judges have any right to say so. Right. And it's a very cynical move. It's a very effective move. I kind of got a little dark on some congressmen last night on Twitter. I shouldn't have done it. It was late. But he was like, I don't remember voting for this judge on the presidential ballot or something like that. And it's like, you're a frigging Congressman. You swore to uphold the Constitution. Don't ever let me catch you hearing, this is a republic, not a democracy. Again. I mean, like, if you don't know that you never vote for the judges. Right. If you don't know that judges are actually supposed to, like, second guess, you know, the executive and the legislative branch from time to time, why the hell are you a congressman? And. But it's a desire to whip everybody up for an issue so that it gives Trump more maneuvering room the next time he does something that pushes the envelope and he's going to do them. He's been doing them constantly, like when he frog marches people out of the US Institute for Peace. And if some judge says, you shouldn't do this, he says, ah, There goes another rogue judge. Right. Rather than paying attention to the judge's actual arguments or, you know, or anything else. And it's effective so far. It's very demagogic, but it's very effective.

B (44:32)

All right, Megan, what about you say something new about this issue.

C (44:36)

Oh, I look, I think that I agree, right. That he wants this fight and he wants this fight because what happened at the border is super unpopular. And getting into a high profile fight with a Democratic judge.

B (44:51)

There are no Republican and Democratic judges.

C (44:54)

Democratic appointed judge. Sarah. I, I, I flogging a base myself.

D (44:59)

Oh, can I get a fact check on this real quick? I don't want to interrupt, Megan, but Sarah.

B (45:03)

Yeah.

D (45:03)

I watched an NBC News piece about this news.

B (45:07)

I don't know why you emphasized the word news, but okay.

D (45:09)

Well, because it was like it wasn't msnbc. It was like a new electoral NBC News.

B (45:13)

Yeah, but NBC, but like NBC News.

D (45:19)

Whatever.

C (45:19)

It wasn't, it wasn't a rerun of Columbia. He didn't just see this on a rerun of Colombo. He actually saw it on news podcast.

A (45:26)

Wasn't part of the NBC entertainment.

D (45:28)

The judge whose name I can never like, stick to my head.

B (45:31)

Yeah.

D (45:32)

Who apparently was a roommate with Kavanaugh in law school that the reporter said was appointed to the US District court by Bush and then promoted to the federal bench by Obama. Well, is it if Bush is appointing him to a district, isn't that a federal bench too? Or is there usage of federal bench for only higher courts? You see my point?

B (45:56)

So, Jonah, thank you so much for asking. They are both federal, but only in the very technical sense because one is to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. So it's the quote unquote, what would be the state court for D.C. but because D.C. isn't a state, it's still appointed by the President. I'm glad I so like, it's only federal in that sense that D.C. is federal. And I think it is more helpful to say, like treat that as a municipal position that is appointed by the President. And the federal bench refers to the district court.

D (46:29)

Right. My, okay, but the broader point is he's not a wackadoo left wing judge. He was like a point first put on the bench by Bush, that kind of thing. That's all.

C (46:37)

Sure. No, I, I, I, I'm making a different point, which is not that he's a wackady left wing judge.

B (46:43)

I'm broadly so long ago Megan, I don't even.

C (46:47)

Yeah, fair enough. But like, look, the public thinks of the rule. First of all, the public's just not interested in procedural things. And I think that 30 years of history, right, Republicans were convinced they were going to get Bill Clinton on perjury. And it turns out no one frigging cares because it's procedural. And Democrats were so, I mean, like the thrill in their voice, the little tremulous vibration as they said the words 37 felony convictions and no one cared because these were procedural crimes. And no one. And it's the same with the documents case. And I'm not saying, by the way, that these aren't necessarily good procedures. There are good reasons for the rules against perjury. There are good reasons for the rules about, you know, classified documents. The public just doesn't care that much. You are never going to get them interested in procedural problems. What they do care about is that Democrats by, in some cases, kind of dubiously rewriting the rules. Functionally, we're like, what if we didn't really have much border enforcement? I mean, so my favorite example of this is the Obama administration like to tout its record number of deportations, which it did by changing the definition of deportation, right? So like anyone it encountered at the border and was like, no, you can't come in. They treated that as a deportation. And then of course, deportation skyrocketed. And so like, but the fundamental thing was that no, Democrats did not want to enforce the border. Their groups didn't want it. They didn't want to make the groups angry. And so they didn't. The public is mad about that. And so by picking this fight where some pointy headed Democratic appointed judge is like, no, no, no, there's procedure. And he's like, I would like to get these gang. I'm not saying they are actually gang members, but he says they're gang members. I would like to get these violent gang members out of here. That's a fight that he wants to have because that is a fight that he is winning politically. I think it's incredibly dangerous because I think, as we all agree on this podcast, the procedures are really important. But I think of them as kind of like them and the norms as kind of like an elite truce is like, we're going to have some rules because we're in a repeat game and we know how out of hand this can get, but the average voter just doesn't care that much. It's really important. I am not like, I am, because I think we're all agreeing this is bad, right?

B (49:11)

Like, but I want to yell at you anyway. Megan.

C (49:13)

Okay, go ahead.

B (49:16)

So this is the nationwide injunction problem. Neither side, both sides decry nationwide injunctions. This idea that one judge can stop a president, president's policies from going into effect across the whole nation. So you can sue in 300 districts and all 300 judges can say no. But if that 301st judge says yes, then you get a nationwide injunction, and it's a huge problem. And it is a huge problem. But when they're the party out of power, they're so excited to get a nationwide injunction. So I will just say I was very proud when husband of the pod, when he wrote a op ed for the Wall Street Journal supporting nationwide injunctions before, I think it was before the 2020 election. Anyway, the point was, he was like, this is something that you want if the bad guys win, so don't get rid of it just because you're in the seat right now. And the shortsightedness. This is the common good constitutional idea. Right? We want the government to do things for the common good. And process is not in and of itself a moral thing. Yes, but why do you think that the government is always going to be geared towards the common good? And who defines the common good if you're not the one running the government? And we still have elections. The only way this works is if we get rid of elections and you just become a dictator. And when you say that, they just kind of like, move on to some other point. It's really confusing to me. And I needed to yell at you about that, Megan.

D (50:46)

That's the funny thing is that the trad Catholics who like this common good stuff do not like Pope Francis.

B (50:52)

Yes, also true.

C (50:53)

Although Adrian Vermeule kind of does. Like, he is. He has, like, gone full horseshoe and is like, he is the Holy Father. God has anointed him.

B (51:01)

Like, I did hear about a clerkship applicant who was asked, you know, I don't know how you read something, and he's like, well, however the Pope says it, it's like, oh, that's not the right answer for this clerkship. Okay, Steve. This is the Steve Hayes podcast, in case you haven't picked up on that yet. President Trump and Vladimir Putin had a phone call this week. It lasted a really long time. Nothing really got solved. Why do I care?

A (51:28)

I think there are a bunch of reasons to care, in part because nothing really got solved, but also because of the way that the phone call itself unfolded. Speaking of process, there are a couple things that I'll highlight. One, there was this controversy sort of leading up to the call, or as the call was set to begin, about whether it was starting on time or not. And this played out over social media. It had been reported before the call that the window for the call was March. I think it was March 18th between 9am and 11am and the call didn't start at 9am so you had some people who were following this in real time on social media say, hey, this is late, this is late, this is late. And Vladimir Putin, who was at the time holding a meeting with some Russian industrialists, was interrupted as he was on stage by an aide saying, hey, isn't your call with Donald Trump supposed to be happening now? You need to kind of go. And Putin kind of shrugs this off with a laugh and dismisses his aide and says, you know, we don't need to listen to him kind of thing, and then continues. The meeting keeps going with the meeting leading some people to conclude that Putin was making Donald Trump wait for this meeting, just as he had made Steve Witkoff, Trump's emissary, who had visited Putin a few days earlier, wait eight hours for their meeting. Whether or not Mike Waltz, the National Security Advisor, later said, no, no, the meeting started on time, whether or not the meeting started on time, it seems clear that Vladimir Putin was happy to let the impression live that he was making Donald Trump wait. And you just think about all of the drama at the Zelensky Trump meeting and perceived slights. And, you know, you know, they didn't like Zelinsky's body language and they hated that he didn't wear a suit and all of these things. And yet in this instance, when Putin is doing this, the White House doesn't push back. They don't correct him. They don't challenge it. They don't complain that the Trump, that President Trump has been insulted in any of these things, which I think provides further evidence that what they did with the Zelensky meeting was just to make an issue where there really wasn't one. But more substantively, there were strong disagreements, I think substantive disagreements between what the Russians said about the call in the Post call readout and. And what the White House said about the call in the Post call readout. Russia claimed that Vladimir Putin, in the call with Donald Trump, insisted on a suspension of all aid to Ukraine. Donald Trump, when he was speaking about this, after that Russian readout came out, said that that issue didn't come up at all. The Russians then put out another statement insisting that it did, in fact come up. National Security Advisor Mike Waltz tells CBS News, after those first three statements that it did not come up. And, you know, on the one hand, you could say, well, it's just a misunderstanding of what was discussed in the call. But that seems to be a pretty fundamental point. Did they or did they not talk about suspension of aid? Somebody's right there, somebody's wrong. And undoubtedly they have at least very detailed notes about the call. I suspect a recording of the call. This is checkable and knowable. And it seems interesting to me that we haven't gotten this kind of clarity. One possible contribution, I mean, one possible explanation for this is that the White House knows it's going to end all aid and doesn't want it to look like it was doing so at the insistence of Russia. And that Putin is insisting that he raised this and said he wanted this so that when it happens, he can show that he's pushing Donald Trump around. At the very least, I think it's unhelpful to have that lack of clarity around what seems to be a pretty central element to this proposed ceasefire on both sides. And then the final point of disagreement was that Russians said that they would agree to it. I mean, basically, Vladimir Putin didn't agree to the kind of ceasefire that Volodymyr Zelensky had agreed to and that Donald Trump was pushing. So in that sense, the Russians rebuffed this effort from the Americans and to a certain extent, from the Ukrainians. But in another point of confusion in the analysis of what had happened after the call, the United States said that the ceasefire would involve not. No attacks on energy and infrastructure, so power grids and, say, bridges. The Russians insisted that it was a ceasefire only in attacks on energy infrastructure. So just the buildings that house the power grids or the facilities that. That house the power grids. And within an hour of the end of the call, Russia attacked the energy infrastructure in a city called Sloviansk, which suggests, I mean, there hadn't been anything agreed to. So Russia wasn't violating any formally signed ceasefire. But in terms of a show of force, it probably wasn't a mistake that this had happened right after the end of the call. I think the bottom line for all of this is Donald Trump continues to, I think, do the bidding, more or less, of Vladimir Putin. Putin knows that he's in the catbird seat that he can insist on all of these new concessions, and we have to label them new concessions because the White House and the Trump administration has preemptively offered so many other concessions before we even got to the point where there were negotiations about the negotiations over a ceasefire, but Putin still seems to be in the catbird seat. The president seems much more sympathetic to Putin, and it's hard to imagine that this ends up in anything good for the Ukrainians.

B (57:45)

Jonah, at the same time the ceasefire broke down in Gaza, is Donald Trump going to do a like, hey, look over here to try to move away from foreign policy right now?

D (57:54)

I don't think so. I think he is totally fine with Israel breaking the deal, breaking the ceasefire. And I shouldn't say Israel broke the deal because, like, you can find all sorts of areas where Hamas broke the terms of this arrangement. But at the same time, it was, you know, Israel that started the shooting. I think that to me, the sort of I think we're going to see a lot of talk about foreign policy for the classic reason that the economy is not doing what the president wants it to do. And so we're going to come up with, let's talk about impeaching judges and making Canada a state. You know, who's supporting, you know, who's a supporter of drug cartel terrorists or Middle Eastern terrorists this week as a way to not talk about the fact that he said day one, grocery prices are going to go down when he got elected. And meanwhile, all the forecasts are that the economy is going lower. One of the problems that we have in this business is that this business that we're in normally rewards really sharp and insightful and clever and intelligent analysis. And you don't sometimes that sort of mode of operation can distract you from how better to understand Donald Trump, which is that his motivations are really simple, his operations are really simple. And when subject A is bad for him, he talks about subject B. Subject B is bad for him. He makes subject C into an issue when it's not one. That happens in politics a lot where people like turn to presidents, turn to foreign policy when domestic policy is problematic. But I think we're seeing it in earnest very quickly now because Trump has always rhetorically considered himself a wartime president. He likes talking like a wartime president. He just likes to talk about how the enemy are other Americans. And now he has the ability to do that both domestically and abroad, including not just about Hamas and Mexican drug cartels, but about those perfidious, sinister Canadians. And I think we're going to get a lot of that.

B (60:05)

Megan, last word on foreign policy today.

C (60:08)

You know, I think that the Trump term administration's first term did better on foreign policy, certainly than I expected. I was not, let us say, super sanguine about the prospect of Jared Kushner going out and fixing the Middle East. But, like, the Abraham Accords worked. And I think that the problem for the Trump administration is the lesson they learned from that is that if you just pick a winner, you can make, you can, like, move conflicts that have seemed frozen for a long time. And the problem is, like, playing against the Palestinians and just picking a winner and saying, well, Israel, like, we're just on Israel's side now. And you guys, like, look on my works, humanity in despair. That that didn't work so well when it came to Russia, which has a lot more power. Right. We can't just kick Russia around. They're a nuclear armed state. And so what this looks like is him just trying to find a way to supinely give Putin everything he wants. Because the strategy of the United States going in and saying, like, we've decided what's going to happen isn't going to work here. And he does not seem to have another play in the book. And I think that is, you know, that that's what I'm seeing. But I'm no foreign policy expert. I got the Iraq war wrong and then decided that, like, I should concentrate on my strengths. So I am looking at this from the outside. I think the Ukrainians are the good guys, the Russians are the bad guys, but I don't see any way that this is going to end well for the Ukrainians with Trump and power.

B (61:42)

All right, A very short. Not worth your time. I remember several years ago when they started making fun of sad beige children stuff. Sad beige children clothes, sad beige children toys. And it was very funny. But now they're talking about sad beige house. And I feel like that's kind of just a misunderstanding of economics, right? Because, like, what you'll hear from home builders is that, like, well, I could put in a lot of fun colors, but then one person is like, well, I don't like the color yellow. And then they're not going to buy your house. Whereas, like, no one's really offended by white, gray, beige colors. So you make it all of that when you're selling the house. And then when someone buys the house, it's really expensive to paint rooms in your house. And if you do choose nice colors, those colors go out of fashion at some point relatively quickly, a lot quicker than the color white. And so then you gotta repaint your house, which is also really expensive. That being said, Steve, the room you're in has a beautiful, like, bronzy color on the walls. Jonah, the room you're in is, like, a crimson red, which is, like, really bright and fun. Megan, you're in a hotel room. So yours is.

C (62:58)

I'm in a very, very sad beige hotel room. It is.

B (63:02)

That's right.

C (63:02)

It's actually a nice hotel, but the. The decor is definitely sad beige, so. Because they don't want to offend anyone.

B (63:09)

That's right. So is sad beige house worth our time to complain about, or is it? Okay, And I'm not gonna start with you, Steve. I'm gonna start with Megan, because you seem like a person who would not have a sad beige house.

C (63:23)

I do not have a sad beige house. It is true. I'm very against the sad beige house, but my main ayre is actually reserved for the open floor plan, which was foisted on us by the home and garden television network. And the thing is, what people don't understand is they see all these, like, open kitchens, and what they don't realize is that the reason that they. That everything is always an open kitchen is not that, like, that's the best way to have a kitchen. It's that that's the easiest thing to film, because if you try to film a galley kitchen, it looks like you are filming the inside of a prison cell. And so they rip the walls out to make it easier to film. And then everyone's like, oh, that's what's glamorous. And I want that. And in fact, they. They end up with houses that are designed to look at rather than to live in. And I think that that's a little bit of a variation of this ad. Beige house is that, like, it is designed to show rather than to please the occupants. And I think, in general, when you are making renovation decisions, when you are making paint decisions and all the rest of it, don't think about the house resale value unless you are planning to move in a few years. Think about the house you want to live in. You're only on this planet for so long, and trying to maintain your home like a little showroom so that when the buyers walk in, they can see the perfectly matched furniture is a mistake. You are not living in a department store. Don't act like it.

B (64:49)

Okay, but, Jonah, I'm speaking from a little PTSD right now, because I tried to repaint my dining room. The color I. I even. I bought the little samples. I painted it on the walls. I picked a color. I was wrong, but I didn't know that until the whole room had already been painted that color. And then I was like, this is very, very Wrong. And then I painted it a new color. It's better than the last color, but it's still not great. And now I'm just gonna have to live with it because at some point, I've spent all the money that I possibly had to allocate toward painting my dining room, and I should have just left it beige.

C (65:20)

This is why you start with an accent wall.

B (65:22)

I did. That's what I did, Megan. I had. I loved my accent wall. It has beautiful wallpaper on it. And then I was like, oh, but I think the rest of the room needs some color to, like, pick up on that and wall wallpaper. And that was a mistake. It did not.

D (65:34)

Okay, so I have so many points of view, and none of them are responsive to your question, Sarah, because I couldn't care less about paint color. But I have been reading and following and friends with or acquaintance with at various points, Megan McArdle for a quarter century or almost now. I have never disagreed with her more about anything until her absolutely preposterous dismissal of big, open floor plan kitchens, which I have and I love. And I spend, I would say, 60% of my time in the giant comfortable care with my dingo, watching TV in the kitchen. And my wife and I, we like to cook. And when she does not want me involved in the process, I like to be with her and hang out with her while she's cooking. And so this is like, this is the center of. We bought our house precisely so we could hang out in a kitchen. I grew up on the Upper west side of Manhattan, as did you. You know, like, the classic west side kitchen is where you basically store the Irish woman who does your cooking for you, because you never actually go in into the kitchen yourself. And that is a cramped and uncomfortable way to cook. It is not open to family and excitement and friends and people getting together. Every time we have a party at this house, which is not often, but whenever we do, everyone congregates in the kitchen, and we kind of like it that way. So you're wrong. Sit there in your wrongness. But the thing that distracted me was that I was gonna. You're talking about sad beige. I mean, the word sad is a problem, right? Don't ever adopt happy beige fashion. Exciting sad up front. But, like, when you were describing savage, which I. Savage beige, I had to Google because I was not aware of said sad beige trend while you were talking. You know what I want? I want sad beige politics. That's the only thing that appeals to me about ranked choice voting is it produces. It's likely to produce. Doesn't guarantee more vanilla candidates that are the least objectionable candidates. That's what I want in politics. I think it's a great idea for a column. I might run with it. But, but, but Megan McCardell, you're dead to me. I mean, that's. That's all I have to say about this whole kitchen thing. You're completely wrong.

C (67:55)

Oh, no, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. I have to defend myself. First of all, if you like open floor plans, have one. But think about what you're using it for. What I object to is the house with no walls. You want a giant kitchen. You want to put a television, a sofa, a garage. I'm all for that. I wish I could have one of those kitchens. I live in a row house. It's not feasible. And in fact, I have a. Like, a pass through to my kitchen. But I. What I don't like is these kitchens where there's functionally almost no storage space because you have your giant, beautiful waterfall island, and then like, a teeny, tiny area for the stove and a sink, but nothing's happening in the kitchen, and there's no privacy. All of your cooking grease is spreading all over your house. But also, like, look, everyone should follow their bliss. My objection is that I think a lot of people during the pandemic discovered they didn't. They liked having walls in their house and that they had ripped them all out at the behest of our HGTV overlords. And I think people like. I like having a dining room, too. I like having a kitchen where people, like, hang out with me while I cook, and then having the dining room where we sit down and eat and are all joyous.

B (69:08)

I miss my efficiency apartment sometimes. But also, that would mean I. Just to be clear, I also don't want any other people in my efficiency apartment. I just miss when Scott is gone. When, like, the boys aren't here and Scott's gone. Like, I. Scott calls it my apartment. I move into our bedroom. I move my food into our bedroom. Like, everything then is in our bedroom. I just watch stuff on my laptop. I never leave. That's what I want in life. Steve. Sad beige house.

A (69:32)

So it'll probably surprise you that I have a lot to say on this. Actually, it surprises me, but not necessarily about sad beige house. I have a lot to say about what both Megan and Jonah said.

C (69:48)

I'm sorry that I pivoted us to a different conversation.

A (69:52)

No, it's great. I mostly agree with You. But I also strongly disagree with you in the same way Jonah did. But at first, I have to say, I love just being on a podcast, having co founded a company with a guy who can talk about having an Irish woman who comes in and does the cooking for you. As everybody on the Upper west side.

D (70:14)

Knows, we did not have an Irish woman cooking for us. But that's when the apartments were built. They had Irish women doing it.

A (70:21)

Jonah, man of the people.

C (70:22)

You know, he's right. I spent years of my life sleeping in our maid's room, which did not have a maid in it because no one on the Upper west side in the seventies had a maid. But originally, these apartments were designed for families. We lived in what's called a classic six. So it had two bedrooms, a dining room, a foyer, a kitchen, a living room, and then off the kitchen, this teeny, tiny little room that was the maid's room.

D (70:51)

We had something similar.

C (70:53)

Yeah. In all of these apartments. And it is really anachronistic. We did not have an Irish woman. We. Actually, that's not true. We did have an Irish woman who cooked for us every night. Her name was Joan Farrell McArdle.

B (71:05)

I do want to emphasize to Jonah and Megan how little anyone outside of a 2 mile radius cares what it's like to grow up in Manhattan. Like, just not even a little. Like, it just doesn't. Y' all don't. I never think about you.

A (71:21)

But you were not the elites who had the Irish women. No, you were.

C (71:25)

No, no. We were living in. In the ruins.

B (71:28)

Why are you asking more questions, Steve, and they weren't?

A (71:32)

Because, I mean, I. I wanted to clarify. I mean, if I'm. If I'm mocking Jonah and I'm wrong to mock Jonah, that's not good. There's plenty of.

D (71:40)

There's so many things where I'm right about.

A (71:42)

Yes, exactly. Second point is that it's incredible to me. Speaking of mocking Jonah, it's incredible to me that we took a discussion about sad beige and Jonah turned it to politics. Really? Like rank. Jonah goes from sad beige houses to rank choice politics. I mean, come on.

D (72:03)

Guilty.

A (72:04)

Now, Jonah is. Is. Well, Megan is right about our HGTV overlords being the reason. I mean, there's a little bit of a chicken and egg element here, I think. But I think that. That Megan is substantially right that HGTV drove this move, this shift towards open concept kitchens. I mean, if you ever watched House Hunters International or just House Hunters or anything, it is. It was the case. I mean, we used to we used to say it along with the people. Like they would come into the houses and we would be watching these shows and you, you know, they would say, what do you want? And the very first thing they would say is, well, we're looking for like an open source or an open concept kitchen. And you could say it along with them because every single person said the same thing. And so I do think it was encouraged by the filming of HGTV shows in much the way that Megan suggests. But I agree with Jonah entirely. Open concept kitchens are good anyway. They are great. It's a great place to gather your family. It is the case. Yeah. We don't really throw many parties either, but we always have clusters of people in our home and everybody always ends up hanging out in the kitchen or when we can, when it's nice out, when the kitchen spills out to the outdoors. So those are great. Having said all that on sad beige, I don't have an opinion. And Sarah, it's the case that if you hadn't told me, like, if you had started this by asking me to close my eyes and tell you what color the walls were in the room I'm currently sitting in, I would not have been able to tell you. And it could have been like, it could have been navy, it could have been pink, it could have been green. I would have.

B (73:50)

Grass cloth, isn't it. It's not paint.

A (73:53)

I don't know if.

B (73:53)

Does it have texture?

A (73:54)

I don't know if it's grass cloth.

D (73:55)

What do you mean?

A (73:57)

It's, it's, it's like texture.

B (74:00)

It's grass cloth. I can see it's grass cloth because you see behind his head, Megan, you can see the seam. And that's a grass cloth seam.

C (74:07)

Yeah.

A (74:08)

Oh, okay.

B (74:09)

Yeah, so that's beautiful. Also fancy though, to be clear.

A (74:12)

Thank you. I chose it myself.

B (74:14)

I can tell.

A (74:15)

No, the other day I was out talking to my sister in law and they were doing some renovation of their kitchen and she was asking me if I like black countertops. And I said, well, you know, the black countertops out by my grill get really hot. So on the one hand they're great because you can't see dirt as much and everything. On the other hand, they get really hot in the summer. And she said, what about the black countertops in your kitchen? And I said, we don't have black countertops in our kitchen. And she said, yes, you do. Your island is some white marbley thing and the rest of your countertops are black. So I had literally no idea what the color of our countertops were in our kitchen. And I'm not. That's. I'm okay with that.

B (75:07)

All right, listeners. I don't even know what this segment was about. I don't know, frankly. Maybe the whole podcast. So apologies or something. I look forward to the fight in the comment section over whose house is sad Beige house. Basically, I bought a sad beige house, and I'm trying to unsad beige it. And I'm fighting a losing battle on some days. And I just really feel that right now in my life.

D (75:28)

Is it. I'm going to call this a sad beige podcast. Is that gonna be the title?

B (75:32)

That's what it feels like to me. All right, we'll talk to you next.

D (75:56)

Sam.