Loading summary
Transcript51 lines
- [00:01]
Thumbtack Advertiser
Recommendations can be great. Maybe someone recommended this podcast and here you are. But home projects are a little different. If the podcast isn't your thing, you might lose a few minutes from your day. But if you hire your cousin's neighbor to mount your tv, you might end up with a lopsided screen and wall damage. I know a guy isn't a good strategy for your home. That's why thumbtack works so well. It matches you with top rated local pros with photos, reviews and credentials all in one convenient place. For your next home project, try thumbtack. Hire the right pro today.
- [00:42]
Amazon Advertiser
Support for the show comes from Amazon. There are the things you can plan for a first birthday party, a movie marathon, a renter friendly bathroom reno. And then there are the things you can never plan for. A surprise rainstorm, a Blu Ray player calling it quits. Stick on tiles that looked way better on the package for all things planned and unplanned, Amazon has you covered. You'll find low prices on everyday essentials and last minute lifesavers. Shop Amazon and save on essentials. Save the everyday.
- [01:37]
Host (likely a Vox podcast host)
So I am really excited to welcome to the Gray Area Friday for the first time, Matt Iglesias, the co founder of our esteemed website and now current proprietor of the Slow Boring Blog. I don't know why I'm using such fancy official language for this, but Matt, welcome to the show. Oh yeah, yeah, I don't know.
- [01:55]
Matt Iglesias
That was weird getting into a lot of, a lot of words.
- [01:58]
Host (likely a Vox podcast host)
We are talking about an old essay that you wrote back in early Vox days, the before times 2015. And so I do really want to emphasize that this was before it was published, before anyone was taking Donald Trump seriously. Right. And Matt wrote, I'm going to quote it because it really just in hindsight it really hits you. If we seem to be unsustainably lurching from crisis to crisis, it's because we are unsustainably lurching from crisis to crisis. The breakdown may not be next year or even in the next five years, but over the next 20 or 30 years. Will we really be able to resolve every one of these high stakes showdowns without making any major mistakes? Do you really trust Congress that much? So what is this breakdown that you were worried about? Matt and I do want to talk about whether we're in it in a second. But first I want to understand, right. Like people are warning about American democracy collapsing. You predicted American democracy collapsing. Why did you predict that?
- [02:56]
Matt Iglesias
Yeah, I was thinking not about Donald Trump or the particulars of his personality or the particular nature of right wing populism, but about the structural properties of the American political system. And I was elaborating on the work of the late Yale political scientist Juan Linz, who had this observation that these presidential type systems had always broken down every place that they were tried except for the United States of America. And you know, he, he wrote an essay in the early 1990s and he was saying like, why is America the exception to this rule? And his take was that American political parties were unusually low discipline and unusually non ideological, that they were these sort of catch all, geographically very dispersed political parties. Clearly, if you look at the time between 1994 and 2014, that stops being true. Right. America moves to a much more tight, ideologically organized party system. To, you know, just yesterday I, I, last week rather, I was saying, you know, it's a shame that Democrats can't recruit former governor John Bel Edwards to run for the Louisiana Senate seat. And you know, people were telling me, well, it's like there's no point, Louisiana is too red of a state. You know, it doesn't matter who you recruit, it doesn't matter what you do. And you know, whether that's true or not, as a mentality, as an observation, that's a sign of the rise of national, ideologically coherent, disciplined political parties rather than the traditional American model where, you know, there would be a Louisiana Democratic Party and it would just be very different from what you had elsewhere and there would be, you know, a Massachusetts Republican Party and looseness. So, you know, I was saying in advance of Trump, in advance of this sort of mainstreaming of concern about democracy, that the Obama era crises, that we were having these standoffs over the debt ceiling, the multiple government shutdowns, him exerting executive authority over immigration in unusual ways, that these were signs of the United States moving in a more, I guess you would call it, a Latin American type direction where the President and Congress are ultimately going to butt heads and they are both going to appeal to the people, the military, the bureaucracy, whatever it is, to say, you know, my way or the highway. And we saw Nayu Bukele in El Salvador, you know, has essentially pulled off a, a classic Latin American democratic collapse several years ago where you know, he was, he was clashing with Congress over something, he was very popular. He just kind of had the army come into parliament and then he like purged the judiciary, changed the Constitution, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And something like that could come to the United States is what I was
- [06:13]
Host (likely a Vox podcast host)
saying American democracy is in the middle of a crisis.
- [06:16]
Blinds.com Advertiser
Right.
- [06:17]
Host (likely a Vox podcast host)
I think we all agree on that. But it's not the classic Kwan Lin's crisis that you anticipate. You describe a similar scenario playing out in Honduras where there's these dual claims to authority between the legislature and the executive, and both claim reasonably to be the people. This standoff can't be resolved and ultimately the armed forces or someone has to step in. That's not what's happening. What's happening in the United States right now is, is there's an executive who is just doing whatever he wants and Congress isn't claiming authority because Congress is part of his party. He's controlled by his party, and so is the Supreme Court. And so there's not even a trilateral authority question. There's no, there's no question. It's mostly just the president doing what he wants and the other institutions kind of letting him do it. So it's a little bit different, I think.
- [07:02]
Matt Iglesias
Oh, I agree. I mean, people ask me about this article all the time because I'm not constantly bringing it up because actually what I was talking about there is pretty different from what's going on now. You know, I made in that article some very definitive predictions about the future. My more mature self would just admit to more uncertainty about everything. But I do think that the sort of basic structural question that that piece raises can get a little bit underrated these days relative to things that are idiosyncratic to Trump because, you know, he, he's such a spectacular figure. Like, he gets a lot of attention, deservedly so, but that can like blot out everything else that's. That's going on at times.
- [07:47]
Host (likely a Vox podcast host)
I want to be clear on my agenda here, so I'm not trying to slam you personally, I'm not like, Matt, you didn't predict that we would elect this?
- [07:54]
Matt Iglesias
Well, also, I mean, that would be
- [07:55]
Host (likely a Vox podcast host)
weird to invite you on. No, no, no.
- [07:58]
Matt Iglesias
I'm just trying to give due credit to the weirdness of history.
- [08:02]
Host (likely a Vox podcast host)
Yeah, look, what I'm trying to do more is probe the whole Lindsayan framework because I'm a little bit skeptical that it diagnoses a way, like a sort of symptom of a problem. But oftentimes it seems like it's being caused by a deeper problem in the system. The system can output crises in various different ways however you structure it.
- [08:22]
Matt Iglesias
The Lindsay and critique is that it can break down over, frankly, fairly. I don't want to say minor, but like non existential controversies. Right. That like you just have a disagreement between Barack Obama and Paul Ryan about what the trajectory of the welfare state should be. And it's like in retrospect, it feels weird. People think like, oh, those were the good old days, right? Like we weren't in this constant despair. And it's true, like normal people were not in a state of constant despair about the state of American politics in 2020 12. Because the argument, it was like heavily fiscalized. It was about important, earnest, but like boring stuff. And yet you couldn't just like meet in the middle and compromise. And you also couldn't just like pass a bill that reflected what one people liked and resolve it at the next election. You had this thing where it was like for the government to function, Congressional Republicans needed to write a bill and then the Democratic president needed to sign it. The country almost defaulted. And lots of people like myself included were saying at that time that like, you know, like, Obama shouldn't give in to this hostage taking. He should invoke the 14th Amendment. He should do, you know, XYZ, blah
- [09:48]
Host (likely a Vox podcast host)
blah, blah, mint the coin. Mint the trillion dollar coin. Yeah.
- [09:51]
Matt Iglesias
And you know, so this was like a very mainstream center left take, was that the president should resort to gimmicks. I don't know what you want to call them. I don't want to overstate, but, you know, move outside the bounds of normative politics to sidestep this hostage taking tactic which itself was outside the bounds of normative politics but has become increasingly normalized over time. And then I think House Democrats will feel pressured to use.
- [10:36]
Amazon Advertiser
Support for the show comes from Amazon. There are the things you can plan for a first birthday party, a movie marathon, a renter friendly bathroom reno. And then there are the things you can never plan for. A surprise rainstorm, a Blu Ray player calling it quits. Stick on tiles that looked way better on the package for all things planned and unplanned. Amazon has you covered. You'll find low prices on everyday essentials and last minute lifesavers. Shop Amazon and save on essentials. Save the everyday.
- [11:14]
Red Bull Advertiser
Ready to soundtrack your summer with Red Bull Summer All Day Play. You choose a playlist that fits your summer vibe the best. Are you a festival fanatic, a deep end dj, a road dog, or a trail mixer? Just add a song to your chosen playlist and put your summer on track. Red Bull Summer All Day Play. Red Bull gives you wings. Visit red bull.com brightsummerahead to learn more. See you this summer.
- [11:40]
Blinds.com Advertiser
The right window treatments change everything. Your sleep, your privacy, the way every room Looks and feels. @blinds.com We've spent 30 years making it surprisingly simple to get exactly what your home needs. We've covered over 25 million windows and have 50,000 to prove we deliver. Whether you DIY it or want a pro to handle everything from measure to install, we have you covered. Real design professionals, free samples, zero pressure right now. Get up to 45% off with minimum purchase plus get a free professional measure@blinds.com rules and restrictions apply.
- [12:16]
Host (likely a Vox podcast host)
There's this political scientist, her name's Laura Gamboa and she studies that strategies that opposition parties use in cases of democratic backsliding. It's like one of the only people doing really rigorous, interesting work about this. And the Venezuelan opposition, back when Chavez was still consolidating power, really screwed up badly, right? And her view, the reason they screwed up badly is that they pushed too hard and ended up backing an attempted coup against Chavez. And the coup failed, right? And the coup failed. And that gave Chavez a pretext to start really being authoritarian. Because then it's beforehand we can sort of try to push at the edges and see what popular, what people will support. But afterwards he's like, they tried to overthrow me. I need to protect the sovereignty of our country from America. And these coup plotters and Chavez, they
- [13:02]
Matt Iglesias
felt that Chavez was so obviously a threat to the stability of Venezuelan institutions that it justified this coup effort. But then the coup becomes the justification for, you know, hyper empowering of Chavez. Not just domestically, but, but, but I think, I think in the international arena, you know, a lot of left of center people were sympathetic to that because there's, you know, hostility to the record of right wing coup efforts in Latin America. Right.
- [13:39]
Host (likely a Vox podcast host)
And so the point, I think this sort of nicely encapsulates your point. Right. She ends up coming to this conclusion that the optimal opposition strategies are, I forget the exact language, but it's something like moderate and instit institutional is that instead of trying to overthrow the government through a military coup or even something more subtle, be like we're going to stage a general strike until they hold new elections or something like that. What you do is you use leverage points in institutions, votes in Congress, and maybe you can stage some demonstrations that are designed to support this particular leverage point, say try to stop bills from coming through with a, restrict your ability to participate in elections. And then you participate in elections and you get power back to a degree and you start trying to reverse what they did. But those are two very different oppositional approaches, the very confrontational one and one that really just tries to work within the framework of the existing system. But I spoke to her about this, and one thing that she says that she's changed her mind on since early work is the role of extra institutional strategies in supporting those institutional pushes, like a protest that is designed to back up what a party is doing. And to me, that suggests is when we're thinking about how do you deal with these particular institutional crises, that you need to have a sort of broader framework for what oppositional politics. Before we even get to the question of how to fix systemic design, right. You have to answer the question of what do you do in the system that is not working very well for a variety of reasons.
- [15:09]
Matt Iglesias
I mean, there's a question of tactics and there's a question of substance. And I think that's something that we've seen throughout both Trump terms, is that mass demonstrations, you know, continue to be an efficacious way to get things done. Particularly if you, as was happening in Minneapolis, are concerned about like a specific object level grievance, like you can, you can make real progress that way. There's, there's lots of great work that's been done on, you know, the strategic logic of nonviolent resistance. And I think you really saw that play out in Minneapolis. There's a question of the substance, right? Like, I think that most, I don't know, most, many, and I think most center left intellectuals have reacted to the Trump years by adopting the view that the opposition party needs to adopt a more substantively radical agenda. You know, AOC was at the Munich Security Conference and she was making the case for this, that the fact that these authoritarian populist movements are gaining support in her mind is evidence that dramatic substantive policy change from the left needs to happen. Waleed Shahid has made this case, criticizing me several times on his substack, to say that if liberalism feels like it's being eaten away by a left right horseshoe, that shows that center left liberals need to become more radical. My first boss, my mentor in many respects in this game. Michael Tomaski has a new piece out in the New Republic reflecting his deep thoughts on what Democrats need to do from here. And it's like all in on anti billionaire kind of politics. And he did interview on a TNR podcast, Greg Sargent Hosin is talking to Tomaski. And Tomaski starts saying there, well, you know, all these guys like Bezos and Zuckerberg, they're supporting Republicans now. And Tomaski says, like in good riddance, like, we don't need those guys. We shouldn't be taking their money, et cetera, et cetera. And you know, in the really recent past, right, like everybody is mad, Everybody in Washington D.C. is mad at Jeff Bezos because of what's happening with the Washington Post in Trump's first term. Jeff Bezos was an excellent steward of the Washington Post. You know, he supported them as they did excellent prize winning reporting on the Trump administration. Those journalists were repeatedly attacked by the Trump administration. Trump also engaged in very classic authoritarian tactics targeting Bezos. You know, Trump was trying to damage Amazon's business interests to retaliate against Bezos's stewardship of the Post. Joe Biden becomes president and appoints an FTC chair, you know, who was very young, very smart, but very young, a little, you know, under qualified for this kind of gig, but who had become a big celebrity in left intellectual circles because she wrote an essay saying that the basic framework of American antitrust policy needs to be altered specifically in order to be bad for the interests of the Amazon. Now, you know, maybe she's right, who knows? But to me, if you're going to start like ranting and raving about like, like, why are these guys all supporting Trump now? Like, well, that's why, you know, like if you, if you take, if as a wealthy person you take risks under an authoritarian interlude, you come out on the other side of it and like the newly empowered opposition just starts saying like, you're fucked no matter what. As long as we're in, like, of course those politics are going to swing against you. And you know, I think that this cycle of radicalization on the substance of policy is essentially entrenching Trump's power in a way that is really risky. And so you have that on like an elite level in dealing with the business community, but you also have it in dealing with, you know, policy questions that touch on mass opinion, that it's hard, I think, to defend democracy without being willing to accept like the actual existing cultural views of the mass public. And that to an extent that itself is part of the crisis of democracy that we're seeing in the West. Part of why some of these multi party systems in northern Europe are able to navigate it successfully is that they
- [20:21]
Host (likely a Vox podcast host)
allow for
- [20:24]
Matt Iglesias
a modicum of accommodation without the center left leaders needing to like, compromise themselves, you know, in a way that people find distasteful or unworthy or, or something else like that. And so you can, you can offer people like normal politics as a solution to these things. Whereas I feel like I, I read these takes on like what Democrats should be doing. And they are essentially endless crisis politics, but just saying, like, we're going to win it this time, which to me is like a very dangerous game.
- [21:00]
Host (likely a Vox podcast host)
When there's a perception that democracy is on the line, a widely shared one, then it can unite previously fractious opposition groups. You saw this in Poland in the last election. Right? Right. And then you see in Hungary right now, actually there's an alignment behind a center right candidate who shouldn't win, but because he's been able to break through and he has unified support of the opposition, he actually might overcome a super authoritarian electoral infrastructure and win. And so and all of that, like it is really essential to highlight partially the corruption of the regime, but also that in question, but also to use democracy as an umbrella, as an umbrella issue that not only guides where you choose to pick fights, but also like who it is that you include.
- [21:46]
Matt Iglesias
I think that democracy has been invoked in anti Trump politics by, or I should say by Democratic Party politicians in anti Trump politics in fairly superficial ways. You know that Joe Biden becomes president and you know, there's a world in which there are several prominent Republicans in his cabinet and he is saying, I'm going to be a one term president. The mission of this presidency is simply to sort of secure accountability for the perpetrators of January 6, to get the country out of COVID There's going to be a primary in the Democratic Party as to who should be my successor. And like, those people will argue about how much of an aggressive policy agenda should we be trying to push in 2025. But like I am trying to stabilize the country in partnership with Mitt Romney, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, like all these Republican senators who like voted to convict Trump on a second thing, who support NATO. And there was clearly a side of Joe Biden who wanted to be that president. You know what I mean? There were like things he said that clearly spoke to it. But at the end of the day, the Democratic Party base, but also the Democratic Party elite, like the, the policy demanders in the Democratic Party did not want that. They wanted aggressive action on climate change. You know, Bill Cassidy in Louisiana will be out of the Senate soon because he voted to convict Trump on impeachment charges. The Biden administration wanted to shut down offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico because that's like a policy objective of theirs. They didn't say like, well, we've got an ally in Louisiana on the preservation of democracy and we've got to work with him and we've got to work with Senator Murkowski. On Alaska's natural resource management and to me that is a choice to not center democracy. Whether or not you sometimes give a speech about how the MAGA movement is undemocratic, right it is a choice to treat this as normal politics. I get so many headaches every month.
- [24:23]
Amazon Advertiser
It could be chronic migraine, 15 or more headache days a month, each lasting four hours or more.
- [24:28]
Botox Advertiser
Botox Audubotulinum toxin a prevents headaches in adults with chronic migraine. It's not for Those who have 14 or fewer headache days a month. Prescription Botox is injected by your doctor. Effects of Botox may spread hours to weeks after injection causing serious symptoms. Alert your doctor right away as difficulty swallowing, speaking, breathing, eye problems or muscle weakness can be signs of a life threatening condition. Patients with these conditions before injection are at highest risk. Side effects may include allergic reactions, neck and injection site pain, pain, fatigue and headache. Allergic reactions can include rash, welts, asthma symptoms and dizziness. Don't receive Botox if there's a skin infection. Tell your doctor your medical history muscle or nerve conditions including als, Lou Gehrig's disease, Myasthenia gravis or Lambert Eaton syndrome and medications including botulinum toxins as these may increase the risk of serious side effects.
- [25:13]
Amazon Advertiser
Why wait? Ask your doctor, visit botoxchronicmigraine.com or call 1-844botox to learn more.
- [25:21]
Carrington College Advertiser
Your next chapter in healthcare starts at Carrington College's School of Nursing in Portland. Join us for our open house on Tuesday, January 13th from 4 to 7pm you'll tour our campus, see live demos, meet instructors and learn about our Associate Degree in Nursing program that prepares you to become a registered nurse. Take the first step toward your nursing career. Save your spot now at Carrington.edu events. For information on program outcomes, visit Carrington.edu.
- [25:49]
Tekovas Advertiser
sci start the spring season off right with a new pair of Tokovas Western boots. Handcrafted in over 200 steps from genuine leather, they're built to last and feel broken in the moment you put them on. From cowhide to exotic leathers, Tekovas blends timeless style with all day comfort. Pair them with premium denim Western shirts and accessories for an effortless, polished look. Shop quality Western goods in store or online@dacovas.com.
- [26:26]
Host (likely a Vox podcast host)
So I I just got back from Brazil and Brazil is a presidential system, but they also, and we haven't talked about this yet, they also have a multi party system. Yes and that that made a huge difference when Jair Bolsonaro was president. If you're not familiar with it, Matt, I know you are, but. But he was basically, he wanted to act a lot like Trump did, I would say. He was called the Trump of the tropics. That was his moniker. He wasn't quite as aggressive with executive authority, but he's a lot more aggressive than people remembered. And then of course, at the end of his time, he plotted an outright coup, right, like an actual military coup. And they did their own version of January 6th on January 8th. And what's interesting is I went there to go study why their Congress and Supreme Court were much more resistant during his time in office to executive power grab type tactics than what we're seeing in the US right now. And it turns out I tried to resist this conclusion because it wasn't my prior when I went there, but it turns out a bunch of. The answer is the multi party system. Brazil is something like 20 parties currently in its Congress. And that made it incredibly difficult not only for Bolsonaro to jam through legislation because the Brazilian system works on pork barrel trading basically, but it also made it really hard for him or any other president to get partisan Supreme Court justices through who are just like pure partisans. So the Supreme Court ends up being this very rule of law, good government group of people who are sending private text messages in 2020 about how Bolsonaro is Hitler and are really working to organize against him. And so it does really seem like there are institutional constraints from the two party system that, that mess with the way the party makes decisions and makes it just a lot more difficult to adopt a kind of popular front pro democracy movement than in, in the way that you've seen in some other backsliding democracies.
- [28:19]
Matt Iglesias
Yeah, no, no, I mean I, I completely agree that there's no. And this is why, you know, I advocated strongly back in 2021, 2022. I was really hoping that you could get now former Senator Manchin, then Senator Romney Murkowski to form some kind of cross party caucus that would. Because clearly Manchin and Cinema, probably some other Democrats were not thrilled with the direction that things were going in. And I thought that there was a chance in the institutional mechanisms of the American Congress to like actually pump the brakes there, which was not like the way the Biden administration was pursuing its legislative agenda was not a democratic crisis, to be clear. But I think that it was not appropriately responsive to the democratic crisis that had put them into office in the first place. And that there was a need to find a way through the logic of the American institutions, which is Just not friendly. Right. That if you, if you look at what happens in the Biden years, it was as if none of this Trump stuff had ever happened. It was just the most normal thing in the world that like, you come in, you have a new trifecta, it's really, really narrow, but you brush off the fact that it's narrow and you just take your coalition's entire agenda, copy and paste it in, and then the most moderate members of your parties are like, whoa, that's too much. And so they edit it down and then some of it, it goes through and then there's backlash in the public and you lose ground in the midterms. That's just like every American presidency. Right, Right. And the, and the exception to that is the freak 9, 11 midterms of 2002. And that's weird, right? Like, it's weird to. In what, like, I would say, you would say, but also Joe Biden would say were like extraordinary times, at critical times for American democracy to just operate like on autopilot. But that is because the logic of these political institutions is very powerful. Like every administration, Democratic backsliding or not, like, makes this exact same overreach and backlash mistake such that like, I, I mean, you know, as journalists, we often call things mistakes, but as, as informed, deep thinking people, like, am I really smarter than like every president who's ever held office in post World War II? Or is it like not a mistake? Right. It's like, it's something about the logic of the situation causes people to do the thing that is not really smart. Right. And in a different institution, if you have a multi party Congress, it's like, you can't do that. There's just always some centrally positioned party institutionally whose job is to be like, ha, ha ha, no, you can't do your agenda. Like, we've got to do some horse training.
- [31:28]
Host (likely a Vox podcast host)
I do have to say that I am more persuaded after going to Brazil that a multi party coalitional presidential system would work in the United States than I was beforehand. Which is not to say I have an here's how to get from A to B as to how to do that. Right. That remains the big problem for any kind of structural reform in American politics is they're all fundamentally precluded by the incentives of the two parties that exist right now who want to continue to exist in their current form. But if there's anything that could push for, like, could like break through, this would be a constitutional crisis. Right. Or some kind of just not to say I'm rooting for that. I'm saying that the worse things get, the greater the possibility is for some kind of radical structural reform.
- [32:12]
Matt Iglesias
Well, and that was fundamentally the point of my piece was to try to say that, like, I don't, I did not think at that time that it was very likely that we would, would avert crisis fully, but that if we understood the kind of institutional drivers of crisis, there was a better chance that when a crisis arose, we would try to adapt in a useful way to it, rather than, I mean, it's hard to know. Right. But again, part of my point was that we have a tradition in history in Latin America of backsliding and then re sliding, but then backsliding again because you haven't, like, done anything about this. Right? So, like, Venezuela has had a lot of back and forths over the years and different kinds of things. And that, you know, what you want is what Brazil had, right. Which was that they came out of their last period of military rule with a different constitutional system that some people say is now, like, more, more robust than the one that they had before. And like, that's good, that's a good idea. Especially because, I mean, I was not envisioning like an actual military dictatorship and, you know, hard authoritarian rule. But it's like, you know, the, the president has command and control authority over all these people, people with guns. And it's always, it's always out there as a possibility that orders are given and orders are followed, and if there's some legal stamp on it, like, why wouldn't they be followed?
- [34:04]
Host (likely a Vox podcast host)
This actually is the big mystery of the Brazilian case, incidentally, is like, why the military said no to the coup because they were offered it. There was like a sit down meeting where there was a plan presented to them and like two out of the three top generals said no, no. The admiral, the head of the navy said yes, but the head of the air force and the army, and the army guy who's really the one who mattered, said no.
- [34:21]
Matt Iglesias
It's hard to do a coup with boats. Yeah, exactly. That's not the right branch of the armed forces.
- [34:26]
Host (likely a Vox podcast host)
No, he got the wrong one. And to this date, nobody knows why. Right? So to that point, right. It's like when politics get down to that point of constitutional rupture, it's not even clear that presidential command and control authority is what matters. What matters is the decisions made by the guys who command the loyalty of the people with guns.
- [34:48]
Matt Iglesias
And again, I mean, that's scary. Notably, some of the first stuff that Trump did was in a legal but highly irregular way, change up the senior military command. Right. In the United States. And, you know, this is one reason that I'm always like, people ask me questions about stuff and I'm always. That's complicated because sometimes a president does something that's like, flagrantly illegal, Right. Other times a president does something that's like 100% the most legal thing in the world. There is no doubt that the President of the United States is within his rights to relieve the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and replace him with somebody else of his choosing who will then be duly submitted to the Senate for confirmation. That is like an unquestioned, legitimate presidential power. But it is so much more eyebrow raising as a turn of events. Then, you know, you, like, issue an executive order about like, some regulatory agency, right? And the court's like, law. No, that's not what the law says. You're breaking the law, man. Because as you say, like, what matters on some level is like, what happens when orders were given. You know, you're talking about, like, we don't really know what happened in Brazil. I think it remains slightly unclear exactly what was going on on January six. Yeah. At the highest levels of the American government. I mean, there is a view that, you know, Nancy Pelosi and the Joint Chiefs and Mike Pence kind of like worked something out.
- [36:24]
Host (likely a Vox podcast host)
Yeah, it's, it's, it's a very behind the scenes from the public record. You look at this and you're like, is that there certainly was a period of time when Trump wasn't doing anything and yet National Guards were deployed and so did. So what would happened there?
- [36:39]
Matt Iglesias
Right. I mean, and it seems like he was de facto taken out of command authority to say, really? And, you know, and maybe in some ways this was unwise. Right. I mean, Mitch McConnell and Trump seem to have either through explicit understanding or, or just mutual convergence right around like, like Trump was not convicted of impeachment charges. And also, Trump stopped messing around, you know, for the final weeks of his presidency. And like, perhaps it would have been all for the better if Trump had, like, issued flagrantly illegal orders and forced the question on the Senate and like, been removed from office and had the hard break inside the Republican Party between, you know, the MAGA cult and the conservative defenders of democracy. But instead we got that in a, in a soft way. And, and it's all, it's all come back and we, you know, it's like Susan Collins just up for reelection in Maine and like, she voted to impeach Trump. Right? But like she's in the Republican Party and voting to confirm these judicial appointees and like it's, it's a very vexing situation for everybody and you know, I guess she'll probably lose in, in November. But I guess like my main point about everything is that just like ratcheting up polarization is not really the solution to these kinds of things. Like you, you, I, I would also vote to defeat Susan Collins at election in Maine. But it's like in a stable democracy, you need there to be some people who are right of center. You need like people who stand for right of center ideas but like also stand for democracy and constitutionalism. And we keep instead just like grinding those people out as they fail to do anything efficacious and as our institutions don't mediate any kind of stable coalition formation.
- [38:47]
Host (likely a Vox podcast host)
Matt, I unfortunately have to let you go. That's going to do it for us. After a conversation I hope you enjoyed as much as I did. This episode was produced by Beth Morrissey and Thorneur writer. It was edited by Jorge Just, engineered by Shannon Mahoney and Christian Ayala. Theme song is by Emma Munger. The show is part of Vox Support Vox's journalism by joining our membership program today. Go to Vox.com members to sign up and if you decide to sign up because of this show, let us know. And specifically let them know it's because of me, right? Not Sean, me. And then Matt, thanks for being here. Well, I could plug myself. Where can people find. Find your work?
- [39:24]
Matt Iglesias
Find me mostly on my substack slowboring.com. i also have a new, a new experiment I'm doing where I have AI writing articles about local news in DC. It's called dclocal.substack.com and it's, I think a pretty cool, interesting experiment.
- [39:40]
Host (likely a Vox podcast host)
Yeah. From what I understand, the robot's trained on your writing style, right? So you can actually get like. It's robomat really, Right?
- [39:45]
Matt Iglesias
Yes. I mean, it's very insulting to me to see what AI thinks I write like, like, but, you know, that's fine.
- [39:52]
Host (likely a Vox podcast host)
All right. You heard the man, right? Go subscribe to Matt's website and Robo Matt's local politics website. You should go listen to both of them. Thanks, Matt. Thanks for coming. It's great talking to you about this stuff.
- [40:07]
Ryan Reynolds (Mint Mobile Advertiser)
Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile with a message for everyone paying big wireless way too much. Please, for the love of everything good in this world, stop with Mint. You can get premium wireless for just $15 a month. Of course, if you enjoy overpaying, no judgments. But that's weird. Okay, one judgment anyway, give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment of $45 for
- [40:30]
Red Bull Advertiser
3 month plan equivalent to $15 per month required intro rate first 3 months only, then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra. See full terms@mintmobile.com.