Is Donald Trump's Golden Age Here?

Summary

The Dispatch Podcast: "Is Donald Trump's Golden Age Here?"

Date: February 13, 2026
Host: Steve Hayes
Panelists: Jonah Goldberg, Kevin Williamson, Megan McArdle
Theme: Roundtable discussion on Trump-era politics, DOJ actions, Congressional dysfunction, the economy, and the culture of performative government

---

Episode Overview

This week, Steve Hayes hosts a lively and deeply critical roundtable with Jonah Goldberg, Kevin Williamson, and Megan McArdle. The panel dissects the failed DOJ attempt to indict six Democratic lawmakers over a public video about refusing unlawful orders, political theater around the Epstein files, ongoing administration corruption, and the current state of the Trump economy. The conversation is frank, at times sardonic, and laced with dismay at the erosion of institutional norms.

---

Key Discussion Points

1. DOJ’s Attempted Indictment of Six Democratic Lawmakers

[00:00–13:10]

• Context: Six Democratic members of Congress (with military and intel backgrounds) recorded a video reminding active-duty personnel that unlawful orders must be refused, in response to controversial Trump administration military action. The DOJ sought to indict them; the grand jury refused.
• Panel Reaction:
  • Kevin Williamson calls the DOJ's attempt "absurd and silly," adding, "The Trump administration’s attempt to criminalize this activity is an example of exactly the sort of thing these people are talking about, which is using power of the government in irresponsible and dangerous ways" ([04:05]).
  • The group agrees the video itself is performative and arguably unhelpful, but the criminalization effort represents a chilling escalation.
  • Jonah Goldberg: “...this is sort of next level... for people who comfort themselves... this stuff is not theoretical... they tried to criminalize this video” ([07:13]).
  • Megan McArdle, on the grand jury’s rejection: “It is good news that the system holds, but that's kind of like saying, you know, it's good news that my airbags worked. Something has gone badly wrong by the time you have verified that your airbags were functional” ([11:35-12:01]).

Notable Quotes:

• On institutional decay:
  “Impeachment is pretty much a dead letter at this point. No president's party will ever vote for it... that constitutional safeguard has just been falsified” – McArdle ([12:09]).

---

2. Congressional Hearings and Political Theater: The Epstein Files

[13:10–24:04]

• The panel discusses a “useless” House hearing centered on Pam Bondi and the “Epstein files.” Hayes and Williamson agree these hearings are mostly performance for partisans and, notably, Trump himself.
• Kevin Williamson compares congressional hearings to a “mock trial in eighth grade,” criticizing the lack of substance and a complete absence of self-respect among participants ([14:47–16:56]).
• Jonah Goldberg notes that the real audience is Trump: “Cabinet secretaries are performing for an audience of one on TV... They're trying to prove to Donald Trump that they're fighting for him” ([18:57–19:24]).
• On Bondi’s approach: Goldberg sees her contempt for oversight as impeachable and sees echoes of “North Korean level praise for Dear Leader” from Trump loyalists.

Notable Quotes:

• “Self-respect keeps you out of that job. It’s just so embarrassing... It’s gotta be embarrassing for them in some way. But then… their ability to be embarrassed has just been removed.” – Williamson ([16:42])
• “It's more interesting in terms of inside-the-Beltway Kremlinology... They're not trying to persuade the public... they're trying to prove to Donald Trump that they're fighting for him.” – Goldberg ([18:57–19:24])

---

3. Corruption and Cronyism: The Commerce Secretary Saga

[26:20–33:53]

• The NYT exposes a donor-driven effort, involving Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Trump, to block a new international bridge (benefiting a billionaire's monopoly).
• The panel agrees there is little pretense; such stories are "shocking but not surprising."
• Megan McArdle: “He has left people who are manifestly bad at their jobs in position because they're obsequiously loyal to him…” ([29:26])
• Kevin Williamson: “Kind of New York, Palm Beach rich guy world is even more... small and incestuous. And the incentives are very strong there to stay in the good graces of that circle.” ([32:18])
• On lying as an inherent practice: “These people just sort of lie for practice... They're going to the liar’s gym.” — Williamson, jokingly, with McArdle chiming, “Never skip lie day.” ([33:53–34:04])

---

4. Tariffs, Congressional Cowardice, and the Economy

[34:10–47:55]

• Two House votes saw small numbers of GOP members break with the party on Trump’s tariffs—a sign of possible but limited dissent.
• Jonah Goldberg: Republican backbone often appears only after primary deadlines have passed, and “Trump cannot cost them the nomination” ([36:10]).
• Megan McArdle: “As his popularity numbers decline, he’s going to lose some people... It is leaking into Donald Trump’s approval ratings. And the more that slips... what is the benefit in two years of sucking up to this man who is shortly going to leave the scene?” ([39:11–42:50])
• On economic reality versus political narrative:
  • Kevin Williamson & Jonah Goldberg point out tariffs are both a small fraction of GDP and a regressive tax—felt most by lower-income Americans ([46:53–47:55]).
  • Jonah Goldberg rails against Navarro’s assertions: “Peter Navarro is a liar” ([47:59]).

---

5. State of the Economy & Perceptions of Progress

[44:00–48:24]

• Despite January’s strong job numbers, the panel stresses that long-term job growth has been overstated—downward revisions to the past year’s figures, combined with stagnant mobility in jobs and housing, have left Americans feeling “stuck.”
• Kevin Williamson: “The downward revisions in the job numbers... suggests that that first year left us something short of the golden age that Donald Trump thinks we are in.” ([45:39])
• Jonah Goldberg: “Tariffs as being implemented are regressive. The regressive taxes on lower income Americans.” ([47:14])
• Steve Hayes notes, “Neither political party is offering any real reform agenda on the entitlements that are driving that [national] debt” as the CBO projects massive debt expands to $64 trillion in a decade ([48:24]).

---

6. Not Worth Your Time: Valentine’s Day Roundtable

[48:24–59:00]

• The closing segment takes a humorous turn as panelists reveal their attitudes and strategies for Valentine's Day. Standout moments include:
  • Jonah Goldberg (whose wife is away): “...You do the minimum or more. And so I’m always a flowers and chocolates guy.” ([50:07])
  • On combining Valentine's with his daughter’s February 11th birthday: “If they... combine Valentine’s Day and birthday, that's a real test... Not good enough for my daughter.” ([50:13])
  • Megan McArdle: “I expect Valentine’s Day to be celebrated... But I am cheap and... do not appreciate extravagant romantic gestures made with our joint money.” ([51:21])
  • Kevin Williamson recounts buying his wife literally all the tulips at Whole Foods: “We had a house full of tulips, and she was very happy about that. And it was kind of absurd...” ([54:13])
  • Much camaraderie and self-deprecating banter on romantic expectations, domestic labor, and chainsaw use ensues.

---

Notable Quotes & Moments (with Timestamps)

• “It is good news that the system holds, but that's kind of like saying, you know, it's good news that my airbags worked. Something has gone badly wrong by the time you have verified that your airbags were functional.” — Megan McArdle ([12:01])
• “Cabinet secretaries are performing for an audience of one on TV... They are trying to prove to Donald Trump that they're fighting for him.” — Jonah Goldberg ([18:57])
• “These people just sort of lie for practice... They’re going to the liar’s gym.” — Kevin Williamson ([33:53])
• “Our institutions are still strong enough to hold against that. Which means, if you are a Republican, what is the benefit in two years of sucking up to this man who is shortly going to leave the scene?” — Megan McArdle ([42:50])
• “If you say [Valentine’s Day] is a bogus holiday, it wins you nothing. So you do the minimum or more. And so I'm always a flowers and chocolates guy.” — Jonah Goldberg ([50:07])

---

Important Timestamps

• [00:00–03:29]: Intro, context, and the lawmakers’ video
• [03:29–13:10]: DOJ attempts at criminalization and its implications for the rule of law
• [13:10–17:40]: Epstein files hearing and political performativity
• [24:04–34:04]: Commerce Secretary corruption and cronyism
• [34:10–42:50]: Tariffs, House votes, and future party fractures
• [44:00–48:24]: Economy, labor/job market, CBO projections
• [48:24–59:00]: Valentine’s Day: lighthearted closing roundtable

---

Tone & Style

• Cynical, exasperated, darkly humorous: There’s deep frustration—and sometimes resignation—at the normalization of performative governance, escalating attacks on institutional norms, and rampant cronyism.
• Conversational, incisive, occasionally personal: The panel weaves policy substance with personal anecdotes, especially in the closing segment.

---

Summary Takeaway

This episode delivers a sharp, sometimes wry assessment of year two of Trump’s second administration: a climate where government power is weaponized for personal grievance, political loyalty supersedes competence, and policy debates are increasingly staged for spectacle rather than substance. Institutional guardrails are holding—barely—but there’s broad agreement among the hosts that the American political system, its parties, and its public discourse are in a dangerous, at times farcical, place. The “golden age” is an illusion muddied by economic stagnation, mounting debt, and deep civic disillusionment—leavened, at least, by the panel’s capacity for humor and camaraderie.

Transcript

[A]

The Dispatch Podcast is presented by Pacific Legal Foundation. Suing the government since 1973. Welcome to the Dispatch Podcast. I'm Steve Hayes, joined today by my Dispatch colleagues, Jonah Goldberg, Kevin Williamson, and Dispatch contributor and Washington Post columnist Megan McArdle. On this week's roundtable, we'll discuss the failed attempt by the Trump administration to indict the six Democrats involved in a video urging members of the military to refuse unlawful orders. We'll also get into Pam Bondi's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee and Trump's economy, one year into his second term, and the stronger than expected January jobs numbers. Finally, for not worth your time Valentine's Day, Is it worth your time? Before we get to today's conversation, please consider becoming a member of the Dispatch. You'll unlock access to bonus podcast episodes and all of our exclusive newsletters and articles. You can sign [e-mail] join and if you use the promo code Roundtable, you'll get one month free. And if ads aren't your thing, you can upgrade to a premium membership. No ads, early access to all episodes, two free annual gift memberships to give away, exclusive town halls with the founders, and a lot more. Let's dive in. Last fall, six Democratic lawmakers, all former military or intelligence officials, recorded a video reminding active duty service members that they aren't obligated to follow unlawful orders in response to the Trump administration strikes on alleged drug traffickers in the Caribbean. This video not only enraged Donald Trump, but we learned this week that the Department of Justice tried to tried to indict those six Democrats for that message. Let's take a listen to that video.

[B]

I'm Senator Alyssa Slotkin.

[C]

Senator Mark Kelly.

[A]

Representative Chris d'.

[D]

Aluzio.

[B]

Congresswoman Maggie Goodlander. Representative Chrissy Houlihan.

[C]

Congressman Jason Crow. I was a captain in the United States Navy, former CIA officer, former Navy.

[A]

Former paratrooper and Army Ranger, former intelligence.

[B]

Officer, former Air Force.

[C]

We want to speak directly to members of the military and the intelligence community.

[A]

Who take risks each day to keep Americans safe.

[B]

We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now. Americans trust their military, but that trust is at risk.

[C]

This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens like us. You all swore an oath to protect.

[B]

And defend this Constitution.

[D]

Right now, the threats to our Constitution.

[A]

Aren'T just coming from abroad, but from.

[C]

Right here at home. Our laws are clear.

[A]

You can refuse illegal orders.

[B]

You can refuse illegal orders.

[D]

You must refuse illegal orders.

[B]

No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.

[C]

We know this is hard and that it's a difficult time to be a public servant.

[B]

But whether you're serving in the CIA.

[A]

The army or Navy, the Air Force, your vigilance is critical.

[B]

And know that we have your back, because now more than ever, the American people need you. We need you to stand up for.

[C]

Our laws, our Constitution, and who we are as Americans. Don't give up, don't give up. Don't give up.

[B]

Don't give up the ship.

[A]

KEVIN we learned this week that the Department of Justice went to a grand jury in Washington, D.C. attempting to indict those six sitting Democratic lawmakers for that ad that we just played. The grand jury, which grand juries often the old saying is grand juries will indict a ham sandwich, did not indict this ham sandwich, and did not believe that they broke the law. What's your reaction to these developments? KEVIN well, first of all, it kind.

[C]

Of is a ham sandwich in the sense, ham in the sense of the theatrical sense of the word. This performative stuff. I don't love this video for all sorts of reasons. It is true that people don't have to and shouldn't carry out illegal orders, but amping up the, you know, the threat is coming from within the government stuff is, I think, not the best way to go about that. That said, the notion that there's anything criminal in this, of course, is just absurd and silly. And the Trump administration's attempt to criminalize this activity is an example of exactly the sort of thing these people are talking about, which is using power of the government in irresponsible and dangerous ways. Yeah. What else is there to really say about it? I mean, there is the endless hypocrisy point that, you know, the same administration that says, you know, if you criticize the president for scotch taping the back of his tie to the front of his tie because he doesn't know how to tie a tie, then that's treason, and we're going to, you know, execute you for it, or whatever else that is treason today is, of course, nonsensical. It's a really ugly and dangerous sort of place to be where we have to seriously entertain these questions about what do agents of the government do if they're given illegal orders. And that's not, I think, a crazy hypothetical thing. I think that's well within the realm of possibility, things we should be talking about and thinking about and trying to deal with doing it in that particular way. This sort of sanctimonious don't give up the ship made for social media video stuff is, I think, irresponsible and not the best way to go about doing it. And then, of course, trying to indict these people for that is precisely the sort of stupid, vindictive, idiotic thing that we would expect the Trump administration to do. You know, I'm really running out of stuff to say about these folks. I think maybe that's part of their strategy. I've talked to Jonah about, I've actually talked at Jonah about this a little bit where it's just the end of the first year and barely into the second year, and there's only so many ways to say stupid, vindictive, irresponsible, illegal, semi criminal, corrupt, venal. I'm going to run out of thesaurus here in a minute talking about these people. And by the end of the second term, which we can't be sure will be the last term, we're just going to run out of ways to talk about it, I think.

[A]

Well, Jonah, on that point, people do. I think there comes a point where you get sort of numb to this. The email that I sent you all and the conversations I had about what we should talk about today, I was a little reluctant to go back to these rule of law questions like, ah, we've, we've had conversations about this stuff before. Should we find something new to talk about? You know, I keep wanting to talk about old school policy issues. You know, should we discuss, bless your heart, healthcare? Yeah. But the reason that I chose to have us spend a few minutes on this is because this is sort of next level. Right. And I think, you know, for people who comfort themselves, particularly Republican elected officials and Republican normies who are happy that the dow is above 50,000, this stuff is not theoretical. Yes, they didn't succeed here. Yes, you could argue that the guardrails worked, but it really is the case that the Trump administration, the Trump doj, tried to criminalize this video. I agree with Kevin. I don't have. Yes, it's performative. Maybe it wasn't helpful for them to release this video, but I think everything that's said in the video is indisputably true and sort of a banal observation about the role of the uniform military. And yet you had the Trump administration actually go and try to indict these six sitting members of Congress. That is next level. This isn't theoretical. It's not just Donald Trump with his heavy breathing. They're like trying to criminalize this stuff.

[D]

Yeah. So I'm with Kevin about the video, I didn't like the video. I thought it was, I find it understandable. Right. Gotta remember when it came out, they were hearing all sorts of stuff about blown up the boats and there was, there was like leaks and chatter and I get that. But there is this sort of an implicit sort of insinuation. If I record a video, just an open video saying, you know, Donald Trump, you should know that it's wrong to sexually molest spider monkeys. Just remember that, like there's going, like the assumption is, is that there's a reason why I am saying that.

[C]

Right.

[D]

And so I could see a normal president would have been legitimately furious at the video. Like if someone did this to Obama or Bush or whatever, they would have said, come on, this is, you're hyping things up and it's outrageous. That said, there's reason to believe that Trump wants the army to follow unlawful orders.

[A]

I mean, they were saying this in their defense. These same Democrats and most of the Democratic Party and a lot of Republicans, including people on this podcast, Andy McCarthy, were saying at the time, what Trump is doing is illegal. So it wasn't like some sneaky hypothetical.

[C]

Right.

[A]

I mean, this, I agree.

[D]

But no, I agree with that entirely. And you got to remember going back to the Fox News debate with Brett Baer, asking him about whether or not generals would follow his unlawful orders.

[A]

Right.

[D]

Trump insisted, my generals, they'll obey. Trust me, they'll obey whatever I order them to do. I think one thing to say about this that I'm probably going to revisit a couple times, given the topic list today, is that in a more healthy political age, Congress would, regardless of the party affiliation of the people in that video and regardless of the party affiliation of the people in leadership, would have lost its mind in outrage if a president tried to file charges against sitting members of the Senate and House for this kind of commentary. There have been times in American history where I wrote about this a while ago, where Teddy Roosevelt once suggested that the Congress was afraid to be investigated cuz they're also corrupt. And Congress lost its, blew its top over it. How dare you. Trump posted crap literally saying that these lawmakers were guilty of sedition and then said, and sedition is punishable by death. And I'm not saying it's punishable death. Trump says it in the Post, right? He's saying basically these people deserve to be hanged. And an institution that actually cared about itself would say, whoa, slow your roll, you cannot talk to our members. You know, it's like the Whole pointing column I wrote was about sort of like from Animal House is like, you can't say that to our pledges. Only we can say that to our pledges. Right. The idea that the White House would marshal the Justice Department to indict for sedition, in effect these people shows you what contempt they have for Congress and what contempt Congress has for itself.

[C]

Like when Sam Rayburn was Speaker of the House and he this great apocryphal story where he tells a young Democrat that the Republicans aren't the enemy, they're the opposition. The enemy is the Senate.

[D]

Right.

[A]

Megan, should we be concerned about the fact that the Department of Justice tried to indict these senators, or should we take some comfort in the fact that the sitting grand jurors didn't buy the argument? It's not common. That does not happen very often, but it happened here, and it's happened increasingly over the first year of the Trump administration. Is this the system working as it should?

[D]

I learned the stat this morning. It's less than 1%. It's like.06% of the time that they reject. The Justice Department does not actually get any indictment.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

I mean, look, I think ham sandwiches everywhere are rejoicing that the Trump administration is making it safer for them to go before our grand jury. And I think it is good news that the system holds, but that's kind of like saying, you know, it's good news that my airbags worked. Something has gone badly wrong by the time you have verified that your airbags were functional. And I think that's where we are. The system is not working nearly as well as it should. I have said before, I will probably say again many times, he should have been impeached, removed from office, and barred from ever running again after January 6th. That part of the system has failed. Impeachment is pretty much a dead letter at this point. No president's party will ever vote for it. I mean, I guess I can imagine circumstances where, like, you are caught in the Oval Office molesting children, and even your own party deserts you. But short of that, impeachment, that constitutional safeguard, has just been falsified as a constitutional safeguard, and that's sad to learn.

[C]

And let's not be so sure that sexual offenses against minors would do it either, which I think we'll get to in a little bit.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

I am not guaranteeing this, I am sad to say, but so, like, no. Do I take comfort the grand jury refused to indict? Yes. Am I glad that we have the judicial system and the jury system as a backstop against tyranny. Absolutely. I would rather not have a tyrant testing those limits.

[A]

Yeah, I don't want to spend a ton of time on just this aspect of the rule of law because we have other things to get to from this week. And I want to spend just a moment looking at the sort of theatrical several hours that took place on Capitol Hill yesterday when Pam Bondi appeared before a House panel and Democrats asked her many, many questions about the Epstein files. Republicans either gave her an opportunity to answer or sort of hold forth or sort of offer praise for Donald Trump or took on the Democrats. It was, I mean, those kinds of hearings are often pretty useless. This was as useless in terms of actually producing substance or getting answers, as useless a hearing as I've seen in a long time. But it probably tells us something. Pam Bonney was asked about the Epstein files. Remember, she was behind this effort last year to bring right wing influencers to the White House to give them these white binders where they were supposedly given all of the details about the Epstein files. In fact, what they were given was all old stuff. And that effort, that sort of moment of theater, I think led us in part to the kind of things that we saw yesterday. Kevin, did you watch much of the hearings and if you watched any of the hearing, did you learn anything from this about the Epstein files or anything else?

[C]

No, I don't like these sort of hearings very much because they're not designed to do the things the hearings are supposed to do, which is to elicit information. These kinds of hearings are the great, great example of the transformation of our politics into pure spectacle and theater and ritual and performance and all that stuff. If there is going to be any real investigation of this stuff, it'll happen, you know, elsewhere. And I mean, yeah, do they deserve to be raked over the coals for this stuff publicly? Sure. I'm glad to see Congress doing at least that aspect of its job. I wish. Again, it feels almost quaint to say this, but every time I see something like this, I'm shocked by the sophomoricness of it. I suppose, like I'm used to being kind of rude or uncooperative or whatever in these hearings or making fun of the other side or complaining that this is all political and you don't know what you're talking about and all that, but the kind of school you are at, Steph, you're a loser lawyer. Why, you're not even a lawyer. Just, you just wonder, do they have any self respect? I Mean, obviously they don't have any self respect. She wouldn't have the job if she had any self respect. Self respect keeps you out of that job. It's just so embarrassing. And it's embarrassing for me just as an American to watch this stuff that I'm notionally at some level represented by these people. But it's gotta be embarrassing for them in some way. But then there are times when I suspect that they have some kind of condition where their ability to be embarrassed has just been removed. Which would explain, you know, Ted Cruz and JD Vance and some of these other people, Mike Lee especially, where there's been some sort of like some version of a lobotomy where they, where that has hit that nerve that's responsible for the sense of public shame and embarrassment and just managed to disable it. Yeah, that was my main takeaway from it was just. I can't believe these people are. I tell you what it reminded me of when I was in, when I was in eighth grade, we did a bunch of mock trials where we would do like, we put Kaiser Wilhelm on trial for starting the war and I was Kaiser Wilhelm and I was a very combative 13 year old Kaiser Wilhelm and I made the prosecutor cry. Very nice girl named Whitney.

[B]

This is very on brand, Kevin.

[D]

This is so perfect. Did you have the helmet? You have the little spiky pickle Helm?

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

Yes. That was back in my motorcycle riding days. I think that I probably sounded a little bit more mature and sophisticated in that argument than Pam Bondi did in front of, in front of Congress. It's just, it's just absurd.

[A]

Jonah, if, if, if you strip away all of the, you know, schoolyard epithets, the ad hominem attacks, to the extent that Pam Bondi made an argument, the argument that she made in response to the Democratic accusations about the Epstein files was why are you all excited about this now? You never asked Merrick Garland any of these questions. Where was all this interest in the plight of the victims when Joe Biden was president? I think there's an answer to that. But do you think she has a point?

[D]

I think she has a purpose. Right. I mean, that's an effective talking point. I think there are answers to it too. But let's just be honest. It's obvious that the Democrats are motivated, at least in part, bipartisan opportunism here. It doesn't mean they're not actually concerned.

[B]

Right.

[D]

But it's also true that Trump of unforced errors in politics, this has to be in the top 10 in our lifetimes, right. Guy campaigns on releasing all the Epstein files. His attorney general like first what week, first month in office says, I have all of the Epstein files on my desk, including the client list. Then the clowns, a whole bunch of their biggest podcast bro influencers by giving them sort of like bogus dummy binders, saying that they're releasing them and it turns out all to be fake. And then Trump sort of takes it back. Like to expect Democrats not to sort of take that bait is preposterous, particularly when there's just so many obvious lies in a lot of this. I will say it's funny. I'm just staying on my theme for just two seconds here. This is another area. Look, I do not like Jamie Raskin. I do not like a lot of these Gerald Nadler, right. These are not my favorite people in Congress. I think they are partisan and duplicitous in many respects, but they're doing their job. It is literally their job to do oversight of the Justice Department and its compliance with the law. That was passed overwhelmingly very recently. And the contempt that Bondi has shown, this is not the first time she's done this show is the kind of thing that merits impeachment and merits some outrage from Republicans. And it's also, I agree with Kevin. I don't like these hearings. I don't like these dog and pony shows. The only thing I think that makes this a little more interesting, I've talked about this before on here, but it's sort of why the Sunday shows are more interesting than they have been for a while. It's because cabinet secretaries are performing for an audience of one on tv. And so it is more interesting in terms of inside the Beltway criminology to see how they're not trying to persuade the public, they're not even trying to persuade their own biggest fans. They are trying to prove to Donald Trump that they're fighting for him. And I hate most of the sort of academic, vulgar Marxist stuff, you know, explanations of things. But when the attorney general is being grilled about alleged cover ups of pedophile ring, sex trafficking, refuses to turn around and even face the victims, and then says, you know, what we should really be talking about is that the dow is over 50,000. Like, it makes you think maybe the Marxists were right about how gross capitalism is.

[A]

Breaking news from Jonah. The Marxists were right.

[D]

Yeah, well, but that's what you get when Trump, you know, in his office is sitting there fuming, saying, why isn't anybody talking about how the Dow broke 50,000. Why are we still talking about Epstein? And so she has to go out there and use this unbelievably stupid talking point to try and shame Democrats. Like, oh my gosh, can you believe the Democrats aren't talking at a judiciary hearing committee with the Attorney General about how the dow is over 50k? It's so grotesque.

[C]

We might add, by the way, that the Attorney General also was the Attorney General of Florida during some of the time in which Epstein was doing his business down there.

[D]

That's fair.

[A]

All right, we're going to take a quick break, but we'll be back soon with more from the Dispatch Podcast. Do you love the Dispatch's journalism but don't have time to read it all? We hear this pretty frequently from our members, which is why I'm very excited to introduce Dispatch Voiced, a members only podcast feed that helps you keep up with our work on your schedule. Here's how it works. We've built two feeds, editors picks for our biggest stories, and the Morning Dispatch for our daily newsletter. Powered by realistic AI voice models created by 11 Labs, these high quality audio versions are delivered broad right to your favorite podcast player. Whether you're commuting at the gym, out grocery shopping, even walking the dog, Dispatch Voice fits our reporting into your schedule. Jonah Goldberg's latest column, the biggest news from Capitol Hill, our most colorful cultural analysis. Now it's all available in your podcast feed. Ready when you are. Most episodes use advanced AI narration that sounds remarkably like a professional audiobook reader and will occasionally feature authors reading their own work too. Ready to take the Dispatch on the go? Members can set up their feed on their account [e-mail] not a member yet? Start listening today when you join the Dispatch. We're back. You're listening to the Dispatch podcast. Let's jump in. Megan. I think that's the only way really to understand what we saw yesterday for Pam Bondi. And we see, as Jonah points out, we see this on the Sunday shows, we see this in these hearings, we see this in the Cabinet meetings when they're sitting across from table from him. They go out of their way with sort of North Korean level praise for Dear Leader. And in Pambandi's case, she has been the subject of widespread speculation over the past couple months that she's sort of on the outs, that Trump has been frustrated with her, disappointed with her. I think that speculation was accurate. I think it was true that she was on the outs. And it seems to me that she came into this hearing looking for a way to shore up her position internally more, more than do anything else. And it's almost, I think, you know, we watch this and we get frustrated with the performance, we get frustrated with the theatrics. Certainly the Democrats were frustrated, the Republicans were sort of amused, I think, at the theater. But from her perspective, this feels like a success. She got to make the point, you know, Trump was watching, or at least we'll see the clips, and she probably did shore up her standing in the Trump administration and make her job a little safer, isn't that right?

[B]

I think that's right. I mean, look, to be maximally fair, many government officials who are testifying in front of Congress are far more concerned with shoring up their internal position, protecting their turf, et cetera, than they are with helping improve the administration of the government. But here's the thing. It's pathetic what shores up your position in this administration. Right. Like, you know, I, When I use ChatGPT, I have been trying to train my GPT to not be so fawningly obsequious because I don't like it. It's off putting. And I am trying to put myself in the head of someone who enjoys having obviously insincere and over the top praise, like, showered upon him from his minions at all times. Like, what centers in the brain. Is that tickling? Does he believe that they mean it or is it just that, you know, when you are an authoritarian, when you are keeping power solely through your power of bullying and intimidation, is it that, you know, you need that signal all the time? It's like, why, why did Saddam Hussein win elections by like 98.99, 100%? Right? Like, why not keep it believable? 75%, right. No, it has to be that high because they feel all the time that their situation is so precarious that if there is any signal of dissent whatsoever, that might be the thing that starts the snowball rolling. And that's what this feels like to me. And I mean, it's shameful, it is pathetic, it is beyond disturbing that this is the leadership of the United States government.

[D]

But that's where we are, particularly the Justice Department, right? I mean, like, if this was going on in Commerce, okay, Commerce is always occupied.

[A]

Almost all the time it is going on at Commerce. And we're gonna get to that. Thank for that terrific segue.

[B]

Foreshadowing, right?

[A]

Exactly.

[D]

We usually expect Commerce secretaries to be kind of party hacks. Right? You don't expect the Attorney General to be the same level of kind of like, oh, you gave a lot of money to the super pac. Let's make you Commerce secretary. Right?

[A]

Right. And Commerce, if we were making lists of cabinet agencies that could go, Commerce would be among the first. So there's a question as to whether that really serves much of a purpose at all. Let's move to Commerce because I want to spend just a moment, I want to talk about the economy and tariffs, but I want to spend just a moment before we do on a story that the New York Times broke middle of this week. And this is one of these stories that you read it and it's, you know, we've had this discussion here. I used to talk about it with Charles Krauthammer all the time. There's got to be a word for shocking but not surprising. This is one of those shocking but not surprising stories where the Times reports that a Detroit billionaire had a conversation with Howard Lutnick, the commerce secretary, shortly before Donald Trump went public and said he was going to block the opening of a new bridge that connects Canada and Detroit. And the reporting suggests that this was done at the behest of this big donor. Here's the lead. The billionaire owner of a bridge connecting Michigan with Canada met Howard Lutnick, the US Secretary of Commerce, on Monday, hours before Trump lambasted a competing span in the latest flashpoint in the deteriorating relationship between the US And Canada. The story goes on to report that Lutnick talked to Trump about the matter. And Trump then went public with this. We get these kinds of stories about Howard Lutnick quite a bit. There's really not much pretense that this kind of back and forth, quid pro quo, I would call it, corruption, is taking place. Lutnick was also caught lying about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Lutnick had sort of famously said that he met Epstein, I believe he put it, in 2005. And he was so disgusted being in Epstein's presence that he would never meet with him. He left the meeting, that meeting and knew Epstein was a bad guy, would never, ever have a relationship or meet with him again. And it turns out that Lutnick not only had met with him and continued this relationship and was emailing him about business and art shows and real estate matters, but also visited Epstein on his island and forgot that, didn't mention that he went and had lunch there. The question I think is Donald Trump is famously reluctant to frustrate anyone because he doesn't want to give the media news cycle. He doesn't want to do anything that will make Democrats Happy. But Howard Lutnick has caused the president, whether it's news stories like this, whether it's the Epstein stuff, some PR trouble. Is there any chance, Megan, that he's shown the door? Or is this something that Trump just tolerates because of Ludwig's obsequiousness in other areas?

[B]

That's a really good question. I'm not sure I know the answer, but let me lay out the parameters. I mean, look, during the first Trump administration, he was reasonably willing to fire people who embarrassed him, but it was always true that he was selecting more on loyalty than on, say, competence. And in this administration, that latter effect has ratcheted up and he has left people who are manifestly bad at their jobs in position because they're obsequiously loyal to him. I mean, Kristi Noem is a good example of someone who completely botched. Like, I don't think the federal government should have gone into Minneapolis in the first place. But if you're gonna do that, do not put Kristi Noem in charge. And she's still hanging around. You know, in another administration she would have resigned because she was causing the administration problems. Even, like, forget doing terrible things and attacking the Constitution at its roots, she was causing political problems for Trump. But she's still there because as, as we were talking about, because she displays the like primate symbols of submission in adequate volumes for Trump to keep her around. And I think this is kind of the same sort of thing.

[A]

Kevin, is there anyone that we might expect will go in the next three months, six months, based on what you're seeing from the administration today?

[C]

I'd be surprised if anyone of any significance left other than on his or her own volition. I mean, somebody may at some point decide, hey, I'm going to have a, I want to have a career after this. And this administration's getting so embarrassing that it's going to hurt me in my attempts to do that. But no, I think he selected for, you know, abject sycophancy thoroughly enough on the front end that he's not going to have to police it very much on the back end. It's not like one of these people who's going to suddenly discover some self respect and start acting, acting in that way. The Lutnick thing and the bridge especially reminded me that how little things change in politics, because what really made me think of was Chester Arthur and back when he was, was at the port collector in New York, which was like the great patronage job you wanted to have because basically all the trade in the country or like, you know, some enormous share of it, like 70% of the imports in the United States and exports went through the port of New York. And so that was the great place to have, you know, the position because you got payoffs from everybody and it was a great patronage place. And so I was reading the volume of trade going across the bridge into Canada is like $300 million a day or something like that, some huge, huge chunk of money. So of course someone's going to be very defensive about protecting that monopoly on that bridge there. And it's just a very familiar kind of political situation that just never really goes away. When you've got these choke points and you've got economic interests attached to them, those are going to quickly become political interests and political powers pretty quickly. The other thing it made me think of is that New York rich guy is a very small world in a lot of ways. And that kind of New York, Palm beach sort of axis is a very, very small world. You know, one of the reasons that Rush Limbaugh was so quick to become a Donald Trump guy wasn't that they knew each other because, you know, Rush wasn't the go out and be a playboy in New York kind of guy. He was kind of a homebody. But they had adjacent private jet parking, so their terminals were next to one another, so they kind of knew each other that way. And it's just a very, very small world and these people know each other and it's hard to avoid people like that in that world. You know, you really have to kind of go out of your way in some ways in a way that a guy like Lutnick isn't really going to do, I don't think, to really cut yourself off from someone like that. I was reminded of a little bit. Someone posted something on our internal Slack the other day about, do you know anyone who works in a DC Comms firm? And like every one of us had, like, oh, I have a brother in law, this guy I went to high school with, or this friend or this person I used to work with at this other place. And I was like, yeah. And to think people think that Washington is a swamp made up of people who have interlapping, you know, personal, family, and economic and professional interests that all end up being, you know, one big mess. But kind of New York Palm beach rich guy world is even more, you know, small and incestuous. And the incentives are very strong there to stay in the good graces of that circle. So it doesn't really surprise me that much and that he would lie about it is just kind of natural. These people just sort of lie for practice. I mean, they'll often lie when there's not even a good reason to. It's just like they want to just like, keep up their. Their lying muscles, you know, it's just exercise for them. They're going to the liars gym.

[B]

Never skip lie day.

[C]

Never skip lie day. I want to know, though, why. Why Jonah chose spider monkeys is what I want to go back to. Like, they're howler monkeys.

[D]

They're all sorts of spider monkey is just inherently funnier.

[A]

Jonah, the what Megan said there about lie day, that's a joke. That's like a. An exercise joke. Like people skip leg day. If you're not familiar with gym culture.

[D]

You know, I figured out from context.

[A]

That's good. That's good. So I want to use the remaining time to talk about tariffs in the economy and some votes that took place in the House of Representatives this week. There was in the middle of the week a resolution that would have, in effect expressed disapproval of Donald Trump's tariffs. And three Republicans voted with Democrats to.

[D]

Was it three or six?

[C]

I thought it was six.

[A]

Yeah, well, it was six on the second vote, three on the first vote. So what happened was there was a procedural measure that failed with 217 opposed, 214 in favor, including three Republicans voting against the measures. So they were part of the 217. And then there was a subsequent vote on approval or disapproval of Trump's tariffs with respect to Canada that garnered six Republican votes. This opens the door to a series of these kinds of procedural votes in which Republicans will be put on the record either favoring or opposing Donald Trump's tariff regime. It's very clear. Some reporting, I've done lots of conversations, common sense, many, many more than six Republicans oppose Donald Trump's tariffs. But we got six Republicans to vote. Jonah, do you expect we're going to have more of these votes? This is an opportunity for those Republicans to say, hey, we aren't on board with all these tariffs. Do you expect that number to grow? As it becomes clearer to those Republicans voting that that's what this is, that they will then have a series of votes on their record in favor of Donald Trump's tariffs as they head to midterms, where the economy is likely to be a major or the major issue. Does that factor here, or are they just going to go along? Because they're going to go along.

[D]

I sort of refer back to my standard answer about all the various versions of this question that we've had and are going to have in the future. Watch the filing deadlines for primaries and the more people get past the deadline and so that Trump cannot cost them the nomination, the more courage some of these people will find. I don't think it's going to be a huge number, but it'll be more, you know, there'll be more swing voters like those 18 Republicans up in sort of Biden seats or whatever the number is. Biden districts, they're already sort of chomping at the bit, trying to find ways to distance themselves at the margins from Trump. Not to say that they're anti Trump, but just so that they have something to say at a town hall that makes it sound like they are a little independent on some of these things. And again, I'm just going to keep playing my institutionalist Congress sucks card here. One of the reasons why it is so difficult for members of Congress to show any independence is that legislation is almost all crafted in the Speaker's office and crammed down their necks at the last minute because it doesn't go through regular order, it doesn't go through committee. And then you get to run these ads against members of Congress saying so and so voted 100% of the time with Nancy Pelosi. Yeah, because they only had X number of chances to vote at all. And they were told that this was a party loyalty test. And so they all vote with Nancy Pelosi because Nancy Pelosi is actually the legislator in chief. And the same thing with Mike Johnson is they this so and so voted 100 times with Trump. They don't even say Mike Johnson because Trump's the guy in power and it makes it impossible to show any kind of independence unless you're willing to go full Massey and earn the wrath and wear it as a badge of honor.

[A]

Of Trump and Thomas Massie, who Jonah is referring to representative from Kentucky, seems to almost relish now. I mean he's a famously libertarian, not a go along to get along guy on any of these things. He's pushed the administration on the Epstein files, he's pushed them on tariffs. He's somebody who I think actually believes stuff, which distinguishes him from a lot of Republicans or at least he believes stuff and he's willing to stand up for it. So to Jonah's point, Megan, Donald Trump, President tweeted last night. Or truth posted on social media.

[C]

There you go.

[A]

Any Republican in the House or Senate that votes against tariffs will seriously suffer the consequences come election time and that includes primaries. Our trade deficit has been reduced by 78%. The Dow Jones has just hit 50,000. The S&P7000, all numbers that were considered impossible, all caps one year ago. The political dynamics here, he seems pretty likely to keep them on board by making these threats and making them explicit in a political season that's dominated by.

[B]

Primaries for a bit. But I actually think as his popularity numbers decline, he's going to lose some people. Look, partisanship means that you don't lose as many people in your own party as you used to. But he is going to lose some people in his own party who are sick of the inflation, who are upset about what tariffs have done to their company or something else. They will peel off slowly. This is what you see with unpopular presidents, is that as things, things get worse and inflation is just a situation where things keep getting worse. The job market's okay, but it feels quite frozen where people, they're not leaving their jobs and companies aren't firing people, but people are not leaving their jobs and they're not hiring either. And that's just. It just doesn't feel good. If you look at the polling on how people feel about the economy, about the country, about, you know, right, track, round track, none of it is good. And it is leaking into Donald Trump's approval ratings. And I think the more that slips and the closer he gets to leaving office. I mean, I think you saw some of this dynamic with Biden where, like, why did they eventually organize to defenestrate him at the moment when it became clear that he was not merely not going to win the presidency, but was simply not going to be a force in American politics anymore and was going to cost them, and was gonna cost.

[A]

Them more than he could possibly help them, right?

[B]

And Donald Trump is also almost 80, and he is not gonna be a force in American politics forever. And he is an increasingly costly ornament to have around. And I think that that is going to change decision making in a way that, like, look, we've seen this before, so I don't want to predict this is gonna happen next week. I'd like it to happen next week, but I don't think it will. That people would be like, ah, he's finished. And they would rally and they would. But he is heading for the finish line. I'm not even disputing that he might try to somehow undermine the 2028 election, but I don't think he will succeed. To go back to what I said about the grand juries and so forth, I do think that our institutions are still strong enough to hold against that. Which means, if you are a Republican, what is the benefit in two years of sucking up to this man who is shortly going to leave the scene? I mean, sure, he can sit in Mar a Lago at the age of 82 and try to organize a primary challenge against you, but when he is no longer alive, possibility that's going to be considerably less risky. That's right. He didn't actually have great success with primary challenges against people that he targeted. He does not have a lot of coattails. He really is. And I think in a way that the Republicans underestimate, he's just sui generis. The Trump charm or, you know, evil or whatever you want to call it, it just does. Not the evil leeches, but the, you know, whatever magnetism he has. Unlike someone like Obama, it just doesn't help his party except when he's on the ballot. And I guess I should say Obama had a lot of big midterm losses because they swung big and they made Congress take a bunch of votes that then cost a lot of the moderate seats. And also the way he ended up organizing the party was very centered around Obama. He's creating parallel organizations that he controls and ultimately presided over huge down ticket losses for his own party, in part because he was pushing them to the left. And so I think that that is gonna be. But he left office a lot more popular than Trump is gonna leave office.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And I think that you just have to do that calculation and hey, guys, now is the best time to start. Yeah, should have done it four years.

[D]

Ago, but like, yeah, five years ago was the best time to start. Now is the second best. Five years.

[B]

And now is the second best.

[D]

I should also just add on that. But you know, three different polling agencies, including Rasmussen, which, you know how I always say, you know, when Wiggy Goldberg's name comes up or Jeffrey Goldberg's name comes up? No relation. Rasmussen actually has no relation to Scott Rasmussen anymore. But it is a wildly pro MAGA polling outfit that does stupid trolling stuff on Twitter and all this kind of thing. YouGov was another one. And I can't remember, it was a Reuters, Ipsos. But anyway, three polling firms find that more Americans think Joe Biden was a better president than Donald Trump. And you just have to think about, first of all, how unpopular do you have to be to get that finding, but also how much that must infuriate Trump. I mean, I can think of no poll finding out there that would annoy him more.

[A]

Time for a break. We'll be back shortly. And we're back. You're listening to the Dispatch podcast. Let's jump right in. Kevin, let me get focused on something that Megan mentioned almost in passing, but I think is a really important point. She talked about the jobs market and people getting feeling like they're stuck. There's not a lot of mobility, not a lot of opportunity to leave a job, to get a new job, to improve your situation, for upward mobility. And I think we could say the same thing is true about the housing market market. People feel like they can't move in this housing market. Interest rates are too high for them to sell a house. Some people are locked into really good interest rates, 2 1/2% from a few years earlier. And making the change to something else, even if they wanted to downside is prohibitive. Given where the housing market is, I think stuck is a pretty good way to describe the current state of the US Economy overall. Having said that, the job numbers for January for Donald Trump were good. They beat expectations by more than double. And if you're looking, if you just isolate, and most of those jobs came in the healthcare sector, there's probably something to be said about that. But if you're just looking at January, you isolate January, think, okay, things are headed in the right direction. However, and this is a point where the however probably matters more than what preceded it. The downward revisions in the job numbers for the past two years, but in particular as it relates to our politics and the midterms, the last year revising downward the number of jobs added by a million suggests that that first year left us something short of the golden age that Donald Trump thinks that we are in. Is he to be able to sell the argument that we're in this golden age? He's right. When he points to and when Pam Bonney points to the dow being above 50,000, that's a big deal. Is that going to matter more than this sort of pervasive sense that we're stuck, that things aren't moving, that people can't move jobs, move houses.

[C]

Yeah. Well, a couple of things that we should probably mention is that in a lot of these cases, we're talking about very small numbers relative to the size of the US economy. So when there's a downward revision of 50,000 jobs in a jobs report or 100,000 jobs in a jobs report in a country of 340 million people and 100 odd million households and however many workers, these are pretty small numbers. So even A million downward revision jobs in the course of the US economy over the course of a year is not a huge number. And for all the time we spent talking about tariffs and all that stuff in 2025, total tariff revenue came out to something like six tenths of a percent of GDP. That's a lot of talk over a pretty, pretty small number now. It'll probably end up being a little bit bigger next time around.

[D]

I should also just put up a fine point on it is tariffs as being implemented are regressive. The regressive taxes on lower income Americans. Tariffs affect people who shop at Costco and Walmart and Target more than they affect people in ways that are felt by the consumer who shop at Tiffany's.

[B]

And I'm not sure those things are mutually exclusive. Jonah. It's very hard to get good groceries at Tiffany's.

[D]

Fair. My point is there are a lot of people who shop for groceries at Whole Foods or whatever, and they're used to being upcharged on all that kind of stuff. Yeah, and the terrorists are taking in a lot of money, but it's not coming. You know, they're always. It's amazing how many studies have been coming out lately ratifying what everybody on this podcast and everybody who's read about this stuff since Henry George or Haslett or whoever has known is that the vast, vast 90% and upwards of the tariffs are being paid by Americans in one form or another.

[A]

But Peter Navarro says that they're being paid by foreign countries. Jonah.

[D]

Yeah, but Peter Navarro is a liar.

[B]

And I think you are excluding the possibility of these crazy and I don't think that's quite fair. Jonah.

[D]

Fair? Fair.

[C]

You know, as someone who's been trying for years to write fictional parody of American politics, Peter Navarro is a character you just couldn't make up.

[D]

Yeah, he is such no, you would.

[B]

Be drummed right out of the Realistic Fiction Writers Workshop.

[C]

Yeah, he is such an outlandish crackpot, it's just hilarious.

[A]

There are a few of those I will just add as we wrap up this uplifting discussion of the U.S. economy in its current state that the Congressional Budget Office projected yesterday that Debt will reach $64 trillion in 10 years, up from the $38 trillion we hold right now. And a reminder that neither political party is offering any real reform agenda on the entitlements that are driving that debt. Finally, for not worth your time, Jonah, I assume that Tiffany's was on your mind because you have been shopping for Fair Jessica in advance of Valentine's Day. If she listens to this. We're going to post this Friday the 13th. She listens to this. The day before Valentine's Day, will Jessica learn that she is going to be getting something extravagant and beautiful from Tiffany's? And more broadly, are you a believer in Valentine's Day when you do the romantic stuff associated with Valentine's Day?

[D]

Okay, so first of all, my wife left town yesterday, so I'm off the hook. And so I don't like Valentine's Day. I think it's kind of a bogus thing. It's part of the, you know, the great greeting card mafia kind of stuff. But in the past, I've been pretty good about honoring it because it's just the risk reward of saying if you say it's a bogus holiday, it wins you nothing. So you do the minimum or more. And so I'm always a flowers and chocolates guy.

[A]

When she's at the minimum. When you say the minimum, is that what you mean? Flowers and chocolates?

[D]

Yeah, something like that. Flowers and, or chocolates or, you know, something, you know, some, some gesture that shows how near and dear you know, your loved ones are. But I have told my daughter, whose birthday was yesterday, February 11, that the test for any potential suitor going forward is whether or not they try to get away with combining Valentine's Day and birthday. And that's a real test. And if they, oh, I just thought I'd do it all in one. And it's like, nope, not good enough for my daughter. It's gotta be two completely separate things. And I'm letting the world know that we're paying attention right now.

[B]

I thought you were gonna say like Valentine's Day and President's Day and I was picturing the Washington, George Washington commemorative coin.

[A]

I could get behind that.

[C]

That would be awesome.

[A]

Megan, do you.

[D]

What are your expectations, Megan?

[A]

What's the least. To follow Jonah's lead? What would be the, what does that look like for you?

[D]

What's the bare minimum for Peter?

[B]

Well, so we, I, I expect Valentine's Day to be celebrated, but my husband. And my husband knows that. But he also knows that I am cheap and that I do not appreciate extravagant romantic gestures made with our joint money. Which is not to say that like a thoughtfully extravagant gesture is one thing, but he knows better than to bring me roses on Valentine's Day because the price of roses goes up significantly before Valentine's Day. So some other flower.

[A]

Yeah, but you can still get em at Costco for like, it's like 20 bucks for two dozen. Just saying.

[D]

Would you prefer like some sort of mushroom log? Cause it lasts a long time.

[B]

No, I just don't like overpaying for flowers. I do like roses. He gets me roses other times of the year. He actually, like, every time I travel, Peter goes and gets some flowers. So they're there when I come home. Cause I really like it. I am girly in that way. I like chocolate.

[D]

On Hayek's birthday, he brings you flowers.

[A]

Good on him.

[B]

I also really don't like going out to dinner on Valentine's Day because it's always such a scene and again, the prices go up. It's usually these weird or often these weird fixed price menus. And so we dine at home for Valentine's Day and do a dinner some other weekend.

[A]

Do you make him oxtails?

[B]

I'm not making him oxtails. And Steve, I owe you an email because we're gonna do oxtails. I've got. Sorry. I'm like, everything in my life right now is like, just in time production. I'm dropping balls left and right. But I. It is, it is top of mind. And you will get an email today. But so we're gonna do dinner at home. I might make some sort of like lovely little chocolate dessert. And he will oblige me by not bringing me roses. And that is, you know, it's. It's the gift of the magi right there.

[A]

It's pretty good. Kevin, are you a hopeless romantic?

[C]

You know, there's this whole kind of like sitcom dad convention where when anyone brings up your wife, you're supposed to say, you know, I really just married outside of my. Kicked out of my league, you know, that sort of thing. But I have this experience. I don't have to do that because I have friends like you all who do that on my behalf and.

[D]

We hold seminars. How did Kevin pull that off?

[C]

Every one of you has had this experience that people, when people first meet my wife, they go, hmm, how did that happen? Because it ain't looks and it ain't charm. We all know that. So I make a little effort on this stuff. Here's my. My favorite Kevin being a good husband story. My wife tells this story sometimes. So we were still living in Dallas at the time, and we are fancy whole food shoppers, right? And I was going to Whole Foods to buy some groceries, and my wife said that it was. It was tulip season, right? Tulips were coming in and could I buy some tulips? Because she likes tulips. And I said, fine, but I Need instructions, you know, are there particular kinds of tulips? Are there different colors of tulips? Which tulips do you want? How many tulips should I buy?

[B]

Oh, man. How many times have I had similar conversations in my house?

[C]

And she just jokingly says, just buy all the tulips. And. And I went to Whole Food and I bought all the tulips. I bought just buckets and buckets and buckets of tulips, and I don't know how many buckets of tulips there were. It was a lot. We had a house full of tulips, and. And she was very happy about that. And it was kind of absurd because they were sort of all over the place, but we had had a lot of tulips. But on a similar story in a much less romantic way. We needed toilet paper and paper towels. And she said, just get enough that I don't have to think about it for a while. And I bought so much of this stuff that the supply I bought lasted, I want to say, two years that we didn't have to go back and buy either one of those items. And I think that actually made a better impression than the tulips did.

[B]

So, yeah, that is true romance.

[C]

I buy my wife flowers, I would say an average of more than once a month, typically.

[A]

Wow.

[C]

So. So Valentine's Day itself I won't do very much for. Because it's sort of a New Year's Eve kind of thing where, you know, you're playing against the expectations. Plus, we don't really go out to dinner very much. We have a whole bunch of little kids, and we live in a pretty small town where there's, like, two restaurants and they're both fine. No, no complaints about the restaurants here. But it's not really something that's on our. Our agenda so much. Where I really get credit is, like, if there's some small, like, particular man thing that needs to be done, and I actually go out and take the time to do it. Like, we had some trees that needed some attention, and I got the chainsaw out, and I was chainsawing trees and stuff. And you would have thought that I was just John Wayne from. From having. You know, from having Megan's tearing up. So I think you need chainsaw man.

[B]

Who does not thrill to the sight of her guy with a chainsaw. It's just, you know, it's primal.

[C]

Although I am such a sissy about some things. I don't like loud noises. I just really don't. I hate leaf blowers. And things like that. So I like loud music. I listen to Slayer, but I don't like loud noises. So I have an electric chainsaw, and electric. I have the Tesla of chainsaws, and it doesn't make all that much noise. And it's. It's. It's okay. And going out and chainsawing some trees in a sort of peaceful way on an early winter afternoon where we live in the mountains is. It's not a bad way to spend a few hours.

[A]

Happy Valentine's. The trees are trimmed, the trash is.

[C]

Taken out, and the oil's been changed in the minivan.

[A]

And I mean, that's good. That's good. I mean, it's the sort of. The basics. So there's no big gesture. There's no. There's no effort to. To get further in her good graces, then doing a little more of maybe what you do all the time, you.

[C]

Know, I'll make a big gesture every now and then. Like, I'll buy her an extravagant gift from time to time. But I don't do it typically on Valentine's Day or Christmas or her birthday. Just sort of do it in a. A genuine, true surprise. And that seems to work out pretty well.

[B]

That's good.

[A]

Yeah, I'm not. I've never been a flowers guy. I'm way too practical. And I would make this argument to girlfriends past where I would say, but they're just gonna die in a few days, maybe a week or two. My feelings for you will last much longer than these flowers. Why would I do that?

[C]

You know, you didn't actually try that line, did you?

[A]

Oh, yeah, it worked. Worked like a charm. The discovery of the $20. I think it's $22 for two dozen roses at Costco. That's a flower purchase I can get behind. Yeah, I'm not. I'm. I don't do much on Valentine's Day. I think a nice card is nice, but we don't do the extravagant gifts. I'm not doing Tiffany's like Jonah does, or flowers and chocolates.

[B]

She's not coming home to rose petals. A path of rose petals leading her to the bedroom with the 89 candles arrayed in different areas and the.

[A]

No, I mean, if I tried that.

[B]

Just a suggestion, Steve.

[A]

If I try. It would actually be funny to try that just to. And then, like, for film her reaction, because I think she would be so perplexed or like, what is this? Who is this for?

[D]

What have you done with my husband?

[B]

Yeah, I know Peter will never do that because he's neater than I am and the idea for him of deliberately putting something on our floors never fly, he would not be able to handle it. He would be like starting to pick it up as I walked in the door.

[A]

So I love it. Well, to all of you who do celebrate Happy Valentine's Day. We hope it's a memorable one if there are such memorable Valentine's Days. And we'll talk to you next week. If you like what we're doing here, there are a few easy ways to support us. You can rate, review and subscribe to the show on your podcast player of choice to help new listeners find us. And as always, if you've got questions, comments, concerns or corrections, you can email [e-mail] we read everything, even the ones from folks who go over the top to celebrate Valentine's Day. And I should make mention of the fact that some of your emails have gotten caught in our spam filters. We've addressed the problem. We think we fixed it. So know that every email you send us will be read. That's going to do it for today's show. Thanks so much for tuning in. And a big thank you to the folks behind the scenes who made this episode possible. Noah Hickey and Peter vonaventure. Thanks again for listening. Please join us next time.

[D]

It's tax season and at LifeLock. We know you're tired of numbers, but here's a big one you need to billions. That's the amount of money and refunds the IRS has flagged for possible identity fraud. Now here's another big number. 100 million. That's how many data points LifeLock monitors every second. If your identity is stolen, we'll fix it, guaranteed. One last big number. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com podcast for the threats you can't control. Terms apply.