Loading summary
Transcript61 lines
- [00:00]
A
The gist is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Fiscally responsible financial geniuses, monetary magicians. These are things people say about drivers who switch their car insurance to Progressive and save hundreds. Visit progressive.com to see if you could save Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states or situations. It's Tuesday, January 13, 2026, from Peach Fish Productions. It's the gist. I'm Mike Pe. A message came in my inbox yesterday. You remember inboxes, embassies. It was from the New Yorker. Dexter Filkins, who's great, great reporter, reports on Marco Rubio's transformation from Reagan conservative to Trump enabler. Technically, Secretary of State is the title. He also, I think, runs the UN bunch of other agencies, but we call it enabler here. I'll read from some of this email. Marco Rubio has developed a two step routine in service of Donald Trump. Yes, he is in service of Donald Trump. As Secretary of State, he serves at the pleasure of the President, as all Secretaries of State have. What do we expect? Who do we think is going to serve in this role? Malala? Kofi Annan? Okay, let's pick an American. This is going to be someone who is aligned and who pleases Donald Trump. So from that universe of people, I don't know, maybe we could do worse than Marco Rubio. If you don't believe me, just look slightly to the left. Who's sitting on the couch? Well, it's J.D. vance, but I digress. For now, Dexter Filkins observes in a timely and penetrating profile in this week's issue. I'll be the judge of that. Step one, praise the boss effusively as a hero. Step two, explain that whatever unprecedented thing the President has done, capturing the head of state in another country in the middle of the night, promising to take control of Greenland, is in fact, entirely normal. Yes, yes, I did understand that this was a part of the job. If you want to keep the job and if you want to keep the job and keep power within the job. I read on. Rubio seems less like a foreign policy advisor and more, quote, like a support staffer for the President. Filkins writes, quote, ultimately, he has to be 100% loyal to the President. And when the president zigs and zags, Rubio has to zig and zag too. One former diplomat who's worked with Rubio said he's had to swallow a lot of shit. You gotta, you gotta include that quote. As one retired ambassador told Filkins, trashing our allies Gutting state and foreign aid, the tariffs, the damage is going to take years to repair. If it could be repaired, I hope it ruins his career. The resulting portrait is of a man who is ideologically malleable, always ready to execute the president's most draconian impulses. So as I read this, I said especially the shit quote, that's great language, but it just doesn't fit with the Marco Rubio I know, which isn't the Reagan conservative. It isn't even the immigration advocate as he was when he came into the Senate. It's the guy who's not J.D. vance. So there are two power centers within the administration and they are and are represented by the isolationism of Vance and the whatever Trump wants to do with removing the head of state in Venezuela. Also attacks on Syria and attacks on Iran. And some of those attacks, in my view, but also from reading the assessments, actually went well. Venezuela, we'll see. But even going back to the leaked signal chat, which was about warranted attacks on the Houthis, who by the way, are in decline, it was Vance who was raising all the objections and being quoted as objecting to using military force in a way that would expand the United States interests, especially because the beneficiaries would be overseas entities that the United States should not be supporting, that is Israel, but also others. JD Vance just doesn't think we should ever lob a missile to help the Europeans in that came up in the signal chat. But on the side of yeah, let's take out a Houthi if we can, was Marco Rubio so was he in fact executing the most draconian impulses? Well, what would the impulses be around Ukraine and Russia and the negotiations thereof? As I understood it from all my reading of the reporting, JD Vance wants to sell out Ukraine, wants to basically give Russia what it wants and allow Russia to operate within its sphere of influence. Marco Rubio is the other side, other power center. He's not John Kerry, he's not Madeleine Albright, he's not Dean Acheson. He's maybe something close to the best we can hope for as a non JD Vance with inside the Trump orbit. Also, I do think J.D. vance certainly countenances and maybe has ideological alignments with neo Nazis. And I do not believe that Marco Rubio does. I would have maybe a year ago said, well, Marco Rubio is Cuban. The white nationalists won't like that, except they love Nick Fuentes, who is Cuban, and J.D. vance, who certainly countenances maybe toe touches, maybe even likes the White nationalist is married to a woman of Indian descent who he just says he wishes would convert to Christianity. So my point is this isn't the Marco Rubio I know. But you know what I didn't do? I didn't read the article when I reacted and then I did. And the article's great. The article is also 12,000 words. So it contains more multitudes about JD Vance than I think any human being actually has. And I wrote up all of my observations about this. One salient fact of this article in Pesca profundities. And that'll air tomorrow. It doesn't air. Listen to me, the radio veteran that will post on Substack tomorrow because I noticed in this 12,000 word profile there were almost 250 quotes. I mean there are literally if you do a control search for quotation marks on the article, you get 496 quotation marks. So divide by two. Assuming all quotation marks are closed, if they're opened, you get over 250. But I do have to warn you, a couple of those are from the New Yorker cartoons. They do print on the page. So there are hundreds of quotes. The majority, close to the vast majority are off the record. In fact, if you listen back to all those quotes about stirring the shit and where I hope he fails, those are all off the record. One senior diplomat. So I do a analysis on Pesca profundities about that. I've done an analysis about what came in my inbox and a little bit about Marco Rubio, who perhaps his obituary will say in the first paragraph the most noble and righteous thing he ever did. He opposed J.D. vance. On the show today, a spiel about radicalism. A little bit on the right, but somewhat on the left. Let's not call it radicalism per se. Let's talk about being a coalition in a two party system and what that means when the far reaches of the coalition don't want everyone else to know what they actually think. But first, Reese Gorman is here. He covers Congress for the new outlet Notice. He is also the host of the Notice podcast. What would you call the Notice podcast? When you get politicians, maybe put them on the hot seat. Yes, on notice. And I put him on notice. As we talk about the news of the day and his pipeline, the inner thoughts of Republicans in Congress. Reese Gorman, up next, Thanks to Home Serve for sponsoring this episode. Being a homeowner is amazing. It helps to be married to a somewhat brilliant architect who designs a home such that it should go in some sort of digest. But I gotta tell you there's a lot of stuff to do around the house. Cracks in the ceiling, cracks in the facade. You know what the big win was? In the last few months, the neighbors demolish their house and we have the same kind of brick for our facade than they do. So we took some of their brick. They were just going to throw it away. And now we can mix and match all the cracks that their demolishment caused with our house. So what I'm saying is you protect your health, your car, your phone, but what about your home? It's the biggest investment you have. And when things go wrong, you don't think of it in the context of insurance, like life insurance or any of those other things I talk about about. So regular homeowner insurance doesn't cover the day to day wear and tear like plumbing failures and H Vacs and electrical issues. Hey, you're on your own. And that is where HomeServe comes in. They're here to say you're not on your home. You subscribe to HomeServe for as little as 499amonth. They got your back and they get back to you quickly. Repairs hit hard and fast, but they have a 24. 7 hotline scheduling repair has never been easier. A little bit about them. They have four and a half million customers. They're 4.8 out of five on their rating. They have an A plus for the better Business Bureau. They're the real deal. And as for me, I don't know. It's. It's so many things but the cracks on the ceiling of the kids room, which we've been diagnosed that you better just fix the whole ceiling to plumbing failures. Two floods, lots of floods. Maybe air conditioning systems installed backwards. An emergency repair service really would have helped us out so many times. I'm glad I have it now. Help protect your home systems and your wallet with home serve against covered repairs. Plans start at 4.99amonth. Go to homeserve.com to find the plan that's right for you. That's homeserve.com not available everywhere. Most plans range from 499 to 1199amonth. Your first year terms apply on covered repairs. True Work. I'm wearing True Work now. It's fashionable, but it gets the job done. And that's how it was started. The founder was a guy who worked in the trades who said, why am I always wearing jeans? Maybe back then they said dungarees. They get wet. They don't really work for me. So they made comfortable, capable, ready for work. Whatever the day throws at you, I have. I could list all the gear. I got this, I think it's called a Wabi hoodie. I got this great hoodie wick. The moisture is wicked away. I got a couple of pair of pro work pants. Lots of zippers, lots of hooks and they look good. I got one in black, which, you know, everyone is black. Then I got one in this kind of burnt orangey thing. It's cool looking pair of pants. They have over 50,000 five star reviews from pros in every trade and every climate. I personally endorse True Work. It's not what you say, it's what's on your body right now. And that's what's going on with me. Upgrade your day with workwear built like it matters. Get 15% off your first order@True Work.com with code THE GIST. A lot of times we spell the name of the company. It's very important. There's a little wrinkle here. T R U E W E R K dot com. You get it? T R U E W E R K dot com. Let me tell you a little bit about Notice. It's a new, relatively new news site. In fact, the N in Notice is news. And the Otis is the whole Otis thing. Flotus go to potus. Funny that Notice wasn't there. Now Notice is there. They even have a podcast called On Notice. It is hosted by Reese Gorman, who let me give you a little vibe if you're not watching the video on this. If Zach Galifianakis were told to have an office job, that's what you'd get in Reese Gorman. He's delightfully bearded, I'm going to say somewhat ginger haired guy. He covers politics. He's either from Oklahoma or at least has a background with the Norman Transcript, which at first I thought was about the invasion of England in 1066, but let's have him on. Reese, how are you? Welcome to the Gist.
- [12:04]
B
Thanks for having me on. I appreciate it.
- [12:06]
A
Let's talk about Notice and we'll get to the news of the day. Like I said, it showed up in my inbox one day. I didn't even know that I subscribed, but it's really interesting. It's an upstart startup and what's the theory behind it? Is it? Is it? What's the theory behind it? Is it? As far as I could tell from the consumer point of view, we're going to fund journalism by giving some, maybe losing bets in the beginning on young Journalists, but we're going to establish something that is nonpartisan and is lasting power. Is that the deal?
- [12:39]
B
Yeah. So the founder of Politico, Robert Albrin, sold Politico and then started a nonprofit called Auburn Journalism Institute and notice. And so he did this. His idea was to have kind of a teaching hospital for journalists. I love it. Where people, you. We have, every year we have a get a group of 10 fellows who are given a contract for two years where they get to learn and do journalism up in D.C. and learn from, and learn from teachers. And we have some mentors that are, that come in as well. But then they also get to learn under actual journalists who have been there and done that for, for, for a lot, for quite a bit of time. That's myself, Riley Rogerson, Oriana Gonzalez, who can't make it today, Daniela Diaz, Jasmine Wright, that teaches the fellows. So the fellows, then, after their two years, the idea is that they get jobs. And honestly, we've had a great success rate. The first class, only one class of fellows has graduated so far. And everyone in there that wanted to go to journalism has gotten a journalism job.
- [13:38]
A
Every news organization, almost every news organization posits themselves as nonpartisan. And then they come out with an inflected view of the world and maybe they can't help it, or maybe they want to lean into the idea that these days objectivity is not the sort of thing that journalism should pursue. What do you teach the fellows and what do you think of the idea of objectivity or similar synonyms that aren't as fraught in the media landscape today?
- [14:04]
B
Yeah, I just teach them that just the news is the news. There is, I mean, there's very clear newsworthiness and what's going on. I think that if you're looking at a story, you go into it with the story not already written in your head and you, and you do the reporting and that kind of plays out in what you report. I consider myself kind of an equal opportunity asshole regardless of I'll cover and write a story about whoever, whenever. It's just, if it's a story, it's a story. And so I kind of taught the fellows, I'm like, just go into it with an open mind, regardless of who it is, whether it's a Democrat, whether it's a Republican. Just go in. It's like not thinking like, oh my God, so and so is like terrible and evil and messed up, just going to it, thinking, okay, there's something newsworthy here, let's just cover it, let's talk.
- [14:45]
A
About some of the things that notice is reporting on today. You have as the top item in the newsletter that Bill Huizenga who is Republican representative says that behind closed doors I haven't gotten full, detailed, satisfactory answers yet get about Donald Trump's plans for selling oil. So this is good because he's on the record and useful to the audience to do exactly what you do to show that there is some form of dissent within the Republican ranks. So that's good that you can surface that. But then what what's the next step after that?
- [15:23]
B
Then the next step after that would be trying to figure out me what the plan is. I mean that's, that's obviously hard to do. But I mean if nobody's getting a briefing like I mean it doesn't seem like they're the administration really even knows what the plan is right now. Just kind of keep turning that thing showing that there's not a plan. We saw the excellent CEO basically saying that Venezuela is uninvestable right. Right now at this point. And so I think that's the constant reporting on the fact that there isn't a plan. There doesn't seem to be an actual plan in motion right now. And the effort and reporting on the effort to find a plan, to get a plan, to build a plan is something that I believe is very beneficial.
- [16:01]
A
Yeah. What about what is the have you presented and notice an articulation of not just the administration's talking points or what Carolyn Levitt would say, which is often, you know, grandiose and not that tethered to reality, but some sort of real politic version of what their theory of the case is, which as I see it, but you tell me as you see it from what they've articulated, we made the day after Maduro was captured better for Venezuelans than the day before. And we can't guarantee what's going to happen, but we think we'll steer the ship in the right direction with a couple of caveats like we're not going to have a large scale invasion. We are going to have more oil wealth for the Venezuelans and us and we hope that good things can result. Like that's how I'm seeing what essentially the best version of backing what Trump has done that is the best version of it. Does that fit with what you're hearing, what you're reporting?
- [17:00]
B
Yeah, I think there's members as a Congress reporter is kind of my main focus. And members, I mean that's what they're hopeful for. They're hopeful that something to that effect will happen. But at the same time they don't really have a full scale idea of what's going on. They, they didn't know this was even going to be a thing. They didn't know Maduro was going to go. And it's been talked about that Trump might meet with the opposite leader, Machado and see what comes of that. But I mean even then, I mean currently in power seems to is Maduro's vice president. And so members are just strictly confused as to what's happening. There's a hope that like eventually with American support and with America going in there with the oil infrastructure and kind of revitalizing that, that it will grow to be better. But just people haven't been artic. There's been no articulated plan from the administration. Even in these class briefings with the members.
- [17:53]
A
Have any members told you that they object to not having being put on, pardon the word, notice beforehand? Any Republican members criticized the administration for not keeping them in the loop? On the record? I think not. Or off the record?
- [18:08]
B
There hasn't been so much on the record. There's been people kind of, there's definitely been Republicans that have been frustrated that they weren't given a heads up. But at the same time, I mean the people who would usually be given a heads up in something like this is limited to eight people and there'd be the speaker and the minority leader and then the Senate majority leader, Sen. Minority leader and then chair of intel and then chair of intel on both sides. Chair and rank and Intel. So the Gang of Eight. And so those folks Republican wise have not necessarily came out and complained. Republicans have stuck to the talking point that this did not warrant the kind of notification from Congress. So some members who I've talked to are not a member of those Gang of Eight, but or just members of Congress in general have expressed some frustration that this not necessarily strictly about the Venezuela not being notified about that, but more about how this is kind of a theme with this administration where Congress are consistently left out of the dark or kind of ignored or gone around. And that's been a concern that many Republicans have had that I've written about that they feel as though they're just being steamrolled by the administration at times on a lot of issues, whether it be foreign policy, whether it be appropriations, whether it be the stuff like we're seeing in Venezuela or tariffs. This has been an ongoing concern that has festered among Republicans for sure.
- [19:26]
A
So I've heard that with tariffs, have anyone even said that about Venezuela privately.
- [19:32]
B
It seems part of the larger, it seems to be just part of the larger just complaint. I don't think there's been a strict be like, oh, Venezuela, this was such a bad thing that we didn't get notified. It's almost as if they expected like, oh, we're not, definitely not getting notified.
- [19:43]
A
Right. That's what my perception is, too. So they've been a little bit like, I don't know, a beaten dog, an abused child. Do they, do Republicans privately tell you that they regret giving up their prerogatives on all of these issues? So many of these issues?
- [19:59]
B
Oh, definitely. I believe I've even me and my colleagues have written parts about this in times too, about how they, they, they are upset that Mike Johnson, there's one reason why members are so miserable. A lot of them are leaving Congress in mass because they're so upset that Congress almost just given up, throwing their hands in the air like, oh, yes, sir, Trump, like, you can take and do whatever you want and we will not fight you. You are, you're our leader. And in the first Trump term, you didn't really see that. You did see some more kind of fighting with the president. But here it's just kind of like, oh, he won. Like, we're just going to let you do, oh, you want, you want reconciliation. We'll figure out a way in the first term, in the first year, they're like, we're going to try to figure out a way to do reconciliation. And now you are seeing a little bit more pushback. But it's hard to get that power back once you give it away. So people are not complaining, but it's like, like you gave it away to begin with. So now like you want it back. It was, it would have been gone.
- [20:50]
A
Are they complaining fecklessly in private or are they doing anything to actually reassert their power such that they have it and to underline the fact that, you know, Congress is at least a co equal branch of government.
- [21:06]
B
I think you would, you're seeing that in the discharge petitions that have been been filed and been been ripened.
- [21:12]
A
Right. So there was an Epstein one. Were there others there?
- [21:14]
B
Epstein one. There was the Affordable Care act subsidies one as well, which was to extend those, which is something that the administration did not want to do. Republicans in large en masse did not want to do it. But this is a way of some members of advancing the agenda of like, okay, like if Mike Johnson is not going to do anything unless Trump tells him he gives him the green light that we're going to take matters into our own hands. But you're not seeing very much senior members go about this. It's not like you're seeing the chairman or whatever of committees sign these petitions and go along with this. It's much more kind of rank and file members who are like, okay, we're going to take the power into our own hands if our leadership won't do it. And that's, that's kind of how you're seeing this play out and how you're seeing members try to take back their control. But for the most part, yes. I mean, it is just like they can't do much. I mean, once you kind of give this much power to Congress, it's. And the speaker doesn't want to. The speaker is perfectly.
- [22:04]
A
Why don't you give this much power to the President?
- [22:06]
B
To the president, rather.
- [22:08]
A
Yeah, yeah. And remind us, what was the upshot of the discharge position petition on the ada? It allowed for a vote, but what was the results of that vote?
- [22:17]
B
Yeah, so allowed for a vote to extend the Affordable Care act tax subsidies, the enhanced ones that were created under Covid, and it passed the past 17 Republicans joined with every Democrat to pass this legislation which would expand, clean. Expand these subsidies without any kind of reforms for something Republicans definitely didn't want. Now this bill has zero chance of passing. The Senate in its current form is going to have to be really be reformed quite heavily. But it's.
- [22:43]
A
This is something of my point. Yeah, it is, it is symbolic. And the Epstein thing was, I think, more symbolic than anything. It yielded some results, but the through line is that Republicans in the House are not standing up for the House as an institution or their prerogatives. They might, when there is an issue that cuts directly against them, make the calculation that it's more in our interests to make this stand now on this issue, because we really could lose a reelection if the, if these subsidies don't get passed and we at least don't put ourselves on the right side of the issue. So there are rare instances when they will do it. It has to be motivated by something very acute. But there is. Tell me if I'm wrong. You see any signs other than privately grousing to you and other journalists? There is no real effort to do something forceful just for the sake of the institution or you could say more broadly, rule of law. Is that about right?
- [23:46]
B
Yeah, not really whatsoever. Yeah, it's, there's, there's no real effort to do that.
- [23:51]
A
So then Do Republicans have a theory of the case? Do they say the ones who are privately complaining to you, and we heard a lot about this in the first term. We heard Mitt Romney say if there was a private ballot, Trump would be voted out of office. And I never knew what to do with that. It. Does that make me look at these Republicans as well? They're not so terrible. Does it make me look at them as weak but opportunistic? Yes, a little bit. Yeah. So to go back to my question, other than privately grousing to you, do they have a theory of the case about what they should have done, or do they say there's nothing we could have done except, you know, complain a little bit about how weak Congress has become?
- [24:30]
B
Yeah, I don't. There's really not them. No. Like, there's. The members are not really wanting to do much, but also, they still like Trump. Like, that's the thing. Like, they're upset about how it's happening, but, like, members are still like Trump. I wrote about this earlier, about late last week, and I think it published on Friday how Trump's coalition is, quote, fraying but not breaking. And there's words that one GOP member told me, and it's almost like, yeah, like, he's making decisions that we think are dumb. We don't agree with his decisions right now, but, like, we can't really. Like, he's still, like, there's still this fear factor, GOP primaries where he's still omni. Like, he's like mentors coming up. If Donald Trump endorsed it gets you, you're. You're screwed. And so members do still have that fear. So. And like, also, but members don't hate him. Like, they still like Donald Trump. They still like what he's doing. They just might not like how he's going about it or some of the things he's doing. So they think that there's not like the first term was. There's a secret disdain for the, for Trump. Like, now it seems everybody, for the most part, outside of a handful of people, seems to be on board. Okay, yeah, we really like the president. We like Trump, but it's like, we might not like what he's doing in certain issues, but, like, as far as him, like, they, it's hard to find a member that will trash talk Trump as a person or as a, as a president.
- [25:49]
A
Is that because Trump did anything other than show that he's. He has enduring popularity among the Republican coalition? Does he do outreach? Is he a nice guy? Does he Give in to their concerns politically once in a while. Is he easy to work with?
- [26:01]
B
With? I think members do find it very accessible. Members call him, he talks to them. He, he. There's some members who he has a relationship with where they, they talk on a regular basis. There's other members who are just like, you know what? Like, he seems to be swaying, like, he does sway between. This is what members have told me. It's like he sways between like, hardline conservative ideology and also like this very populist, almost progressive views at times. Like telling Republicans not to worry about Hyde or bringing up credit card fee caps or credit card interest rate caps. Like, Mike Johnson had to pour cold.
- [26:36]
A
Water on that to hide the Hyde amendment about abortion.
- [26:38]
B
The Hyde Amendment which restricts federal towards abortion.
- [26:42]
A
Right?
- [26:43]
B
Yeah. And Trump was like, ah, we don't, we need to be flexible on that. Like, come on, like, let's not focus on this. And so I think members generally, like, just don't view him like, if you, you're in his wrath, you're in his wrath. Whether it be Marjorie Taylor Greene found out, Thomas Massie found out, Rand Paul's finding out, Susan Collins, etc. I've also found out, but for the most part, like, there's a lot of members who, like, they just go along, they vote with him and he's nice to them every time he sees them, he remembers their names, he calls them out at events. And they do have this kind of liking towards him.
- [27:16]
A
He's kind of good at this.
- [27:19]
B
Good at the retail part of it with members especially.
- [27:22]
A
Interesting. Anyone say anything to you over the last couple months about cognitive decline in the President?
- [27:30]
B
No, that's not really a concern that I've necessarily heard amongst Republicans. I think that there's people that have broached the subject. I haven't done much reporting on it whatsoever. And my focus is mostly on Congress and for that, that's not really something I've heard among members.
- [27:45]
A
Are most members of Congress miserable to some degree or another? I mean, personally, not like when you deal with them.
- [27:52]
B
Yeah. Oh, yeah. They're deeply people. Like. So, for example, I had about six members text me. So last week, members Congress got on Friday and they were scheduled, they had to be back here by Monday afternoon. And so many members were texting me, like, this is the worst thing in the world, having to fly out on a Friday and be back on a Monday. Like, I hate this. And members don't like being here because they know, like, nothing we do matters unless it's like none of, we're just here for bullshit reasons, like we're going to pass appropriations, like we're gonna maybe pass appropriations. We're trying to do this. But like even that, it's like so hand tied. And so you have to give so much because the far right Freedom Caucus isn't gonna vote for something. It's just like people are just, just demoralized with being in Congress right now. And you're seeing, you saw another retirement today.
- [28:38]
A
Who was it?
- [28:40]
B
Neil Dunn of Florida.
- [28:41]
A
Uh huh.
- [28:43]
B
Yeah.
- [28:44]
A
So I know I've done a little loop, but I have to come back to this. They're miserable. There's nothing they can do. They like Trump personally, but do they have a theory of power about how they got into this situation? Could they have done anything differently? Or do they say even though Johnson has the slimmest of slim majorities, all we had, all we could do was really acquiesce? Or do any of them go back in time and said if we had taken a stand here, there or the other place, we'd have been in better position?
- [29:17]
B
Oh, definitely. I think there's definitely people that regret giving so much power because that's what the one reason why they're so miserable. Right. Because they don't have the ability to do what Congress is supposed to do. And there are members that regret allowing Trump to kind of take control of appropriations, to defund all these agencies, to demand, say, jump, and then the conference just has to say, how high? Just do it.
- [29:41]
A
So the Doge era was an area now that they look back and said, we should have been more forceful.
- [29:46]
B
Exactly. And I wrote stories too about basically Trump's OLA team, who now they've grown to like. But at the time they came in basically thinking their principles and the con and the members of Congress are their subordinates. So they'd walk in, in the meetings and be like, oh, like you have to do this. And then members of Congress, like, we're elected, you're not. But the attitude of these, of these kind of aides was look at like, no, the President's telling me to do it, I'm your principal. And that's how members felt. They felt like it was just like Trump was dictating these aides around to tell them, or these aides were going around believing they're blessed by the hand of Trump to like tell them what to do. So that angered them a little bit. There was some pushback that since then I haven't heard as much complaints about ola. They actually seem to like them.
- [30:29]
A
That's the Office of Legislative Affairs. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So again, look, I'm not a Republican member of Congress. It seems hard, but, but with, as with Epstein and the discharge position petition on ada, here is one where in retrospect, they look back and they regret what they did. But also the politics around it changed. At the time. It may have been the case that, you know, Elon Musk and Doge were on their way to becoming the most popular institutions in America. Now they're, they're some of the least popular. Musk is no longer really affiliated with Trump, so it's kind of easy to say or to Monday morning quarterback, oh, we should have done that knowing how it played out. I don't know if this is a question for them, but my observation is when there was a chance to do something different, the politics or their immediate perception of what would be the political win in the moment was much more overriding than any long term thinking.
- [31:28]
B
Yeah, I think, I think, I think that's accurate. As they were, they took this kind of short term success of, oh, like Doge is popular, Musk is popular. This is what America wants.
- [31:38]
A
Yeah, we're going to get steamrolled by Trump. Maybe they've again, like the beaten dog, maybe they've just been conditioned to think that there's nothing we could do against Trump. We're going to get steamrolled. Look how popular Musk with the chainsaw looks. And they're wrong. I wonder if any of them have gone back and said not just we should have done something differently, but here's a lesson for the future.
- [31:59]
B
Yeah, that'd be a good question. I mean, I think that there's definitely a story to be written there about these concerns and these beliefs.
- [32:07]
A
And the man to write it is Reese Gorman. Not only does he write For Notice, which I do recommend and read every day, he is the host of their popular podcast which has the inevitable but I think very accurate title On Notice. On Notice with Reese Gorman. Reese, thanks. Thanks so much for letting me put you on notice.
- [32:26]
B
I appreciate it. Thank you.
- [32:34]
A
The gist is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Fiscally responsible financial geniuses, monetary magicians. These are things people say about drivers who switch their car insurance to Progressive and save hundreds. Visit progressive.com to see if you could save Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states or situations. Logan Fury did something smart. He saved hundreds on auto insurance, switching to Progressive. With that money, he bought a mini treadmill, is walking on it during Video conference calls more distracting than he thought. Yes. And is that because he overestimated his foot? Eye coordination, definitely. But it's Logan's savings. And if he wants to burn calories and any chance at a promotion, we.
- [33:18]
B
Say, good for you, Logan.
- [33:20]
A
Switch and see if you could save with progressive and treat yourself. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. And now the spiel. There are a lot of really, really bad ideas on the far and not so far left. Cue the cavalcade of caveats. The right is worse. The ideas aren't in the mainstream of the Democratic Party. I'm phrasing these ideas in exactly. I'm more worried about these bad ideas than some other bad ideas. Now you're talking about the bad ideas on the left when we're threatening Jerome Powell when we're shooting nice lesbian moms in Minnesota now. Okay, yeah, I get it. I'll concede everything just so that maybe you. I know you're with me, but someone who you give this podcast to who was a little skeptical so they can actually hear the case that I'm making. And the case is there are a lot of really bad ideas on the left and not so far left. And also that those ideas are gaining purchase more widely and that if these ideas are pursued, it will be bad for the democratic brand. More importantly, if these ideas are widely embraced or attempted to be adopted into law, it will be bad for most of us. That is what I'm saying. If what you need me to say is the right is worse, okay, sure. White Christian nationalists are worse. After every utterance, pretend I'm saying that or here I'll do this. White nationalists and the far right is worse. Now you could tape that or have a second audio player and just pipe that in as I say this next stuff. So last week a woman named Sia Weaver was confirmed that a fairly big agency in New York City, she will be overseeing tenants rights, which by extension means owner's rights, which she doesn't think should exist. Here's a reminder of some of her philosophy.
- [35:02]
B
I think the reality is, is that for centuries we've really seen treated property as an individualized good and not a collective good. And we are going to in transitioning to treating it as a collective good and towards a model of shared equity will require that we think about it differently. And it will mean that families, especially white families, but some POC families who are homeowners as well, are going to have, have a different relationship to property than the one that we currently have.
- [35:38]
A
Housing is a human right which is something dozens of those on the left say what it means in the purest form is something like what you just heard. There shouldn't be property rights. Now some don't go this far, some on the far left do believe there should be property rights or are smart enough not to say otherwise. But at this time when socialism is ascendant in the big cities, in the Democratic Party, let's just point out it is the classic socialist belief that is gaining more esteem that there shouldn't be property rights. And that is a stupid idea. Or let's just say it's unworkable at this point in US history. Also in that category are ideas about price controls, greed, flation police, abolition, abolish landlords, prison abolition, end wage labor, all real slogans or ideas that are popular, actually mandatory if you're going to be a socialist in true standing. All are bad ideas. By the way, the price control thing Trump trots that out every once in a while too. Oh let me not forget mmt. That is an idiotic idea that has been proved to not work that the left still bandies about and enjoys. Horrible. Also, beyond just the ideas, there is the analysis, the structure of how to think about something. Let's take one. The prison industrial complex prisons exist. Here's how the theory goes. Prisons exist to give jobs to workers and contractors, not to imprison criminals. Most of the criminals in prisons don't deserve it. It's just a jobs program or a government subsidy for what they would say is racist prison guards. And all of that adds up to the horrible conditions in prisons that will never change, that will never get better because there is this financial incentive. Well here in New York State the situation that is playing out is that there are fewer and fewer prisoners, but also many fewer prison guards. And that absolutely makes for dangerous conditions. If the prison industrial complex idea or explanation was right, reality would be working backwards from what reality is actually doing. Not all self identified socialists adhere to the bad ideas in their purest forms. There are plenty of Nordic style social democrats out there. The most famous American socialist politician, Bernie Sanders, he's one of the. But if you're a socialist who actually believes in the classic, they would say the true or only definition of socialism, you go a lot further than Sweden and Denmark. So just like after October 7th, there was this tweet going around saying what did you think we meant? Vibes. That's how the socialists think about this moment. And there are lots and lots of socialists in there only getting stronger in the Democratic coalition. I don't care what label they use. I'm not falling into the trap of calling everyone I don't like socialists. I'm just calling the ideas that are actually socialists. That's a socialist will say, these are our ideas. Yeah, we believe in them. I'm just saying a lot of people do believe in these ideas and these ideas are animating. So yeah, you're probably screaming, oh my God. What about the right nationalists? I've been thinking about them. There's a lot in common with the white nationalists and the socialists or the far left, let's say in terms of tactics. Because again, socialists could just mean, you know, this side of a centrist in Denmark, I'm talking about the dsa. I'm talking about Seal Weaver, talking about Mamdani.
- [38:54]
B
Probably.
- [38:56]
A
Both groups, when they talk about what they believe, they have definitions that are capacious and that are shape shifting and they mean different things to different audiences. Some very well meaning, earnest people will say socialism is what Bernie says. Yes, we still have private property and markets and redistribution. You're so crazy if you think I want anything other than Finland. And many of these people would be genuinely upset if someone suggested that socialism means anything more extreme than that. Though socialists say we mean things much more extreme than that. This kind of person, the kind of Bernie identifying now, let's just redistribute a little more. They probably look at criticisms of socialism, maybe the very criticisms I'm engaged in as a caricature or a smear. All they want is a little more redistribution. But there are plenty of socialists. They speak at socialist conferences. They work with the Democratic Party. They have and give a lot of momentum to Democrats in cities and outside of cities these days. They believe in the socialist definition of socialism. That government should own the means of production or close or let's try to get there if we can. Socialism can mean a tweak or it can mean a revolution. And that ambiguity is often by design. To be a Democrat these days is to be to some extent a larger and larger extent in coalition with these views. That's how a two party system works. Now, I'm not someone who has voted for a Republican since the year 2000, I believe, but I also believe a lot of these very left leaning ideas, not because they have the label left leaning just on the basis of the ideas are terrible. Ideas should not be adopted, should not be indulged. They're being indulged. The other party faces the same situation. I'm not a member of the other party and I really engage in their media as much as I do in the, quote, mainstream media. I don't live in a city where the right wing equivalent of See A Weaver has been appointed. And by the way, that right wing equivalent, they're out there. Maybe they go by the name Big Balls and you know that their appointment would be treated as much more dire than maybe the forgivably idealistic Seal Weaver or those of her ilk. I've also been thinking about this. The radical right comes across as much more dangerous just inherently than the far left. The radical right is hierarchical. The left presents itself as a universal struggle. The oppressed versus the oppressors. The oppressed are always imagined to be more numerous and therefore it's more democratic to believe in what the left is saying. The promise is that we're going to unlock the majority against a minority that's holding them down. White nationalism is about convincing Americans to justify exclusion or discrimination. It's not a theory of mass liberation. It seems to me that it takes a little more consideration of implications of what the left is saying to realize that there's a lot of downsides to it. The white right just smacks you in the face with their radicalism. And again, I'm not saying that Seal Weaver is like Nick Fuentes. I don't think they're anything alike. One's a bad person, one might just be a good person who has ideas that if implemented, would be really, really bad. And that's what I do. I'm the person who's observing all of this and pointing this out. I don't play sides. I don't root for a team. Just seeing a phenomenon that's increasing and I'd like to point it out. And so indeed I have. And if it's the caveats that make it all go down, all the better. And if it doesn't go down at all, maybe then it's just a little food for thought, a morsel. So that you may consider, huh, Maybe a lot of these people actually believe this. And that's it for today's show. The producer of the show is Cory Wara. Leah Yanni is our production coordinator. Kathleen Sykes helps me with the gist list. Jeff Craig helps me with everything that's a pixel. And Michelle Pesca helps me be direct and yet at the same time loving and uplifting to the aforementioned members of the team, I hope, ideally. Rupuji Peru Duparu thanks for listening.