A Lame Duck Trump and What Comes Next

Summary

Podcast Summary

Podcast: The Opinions – The New York Times Opinion
Episode: A Lame Duck Trump and What Comes Next
Date: December 4, 2025
Host: Aaron Retica
Guests: Bret Stephens (NYT columnist); Frank Bruni (NYT contributing writer)

---

Overview

This episode delves into the political climate following Donald Trump’s reelection as a “lame duck” president, exploring American voter sentiment, the evolving future of Trumpism, the strength or peril of centrism in American politics, and foreign policy challenges from Venezuela to Russia. Hosts Aaron Retica, Bret Stephens, and Frank Bruni offer sharp analysis of the Republican and Democratic party coalitions, Trump’s unpredictability, and global ramifications of U.S. decisions. Several reader questions bring depth and a wide perspective, including one from Kazakhstan.

---

Key Discussion Points

1. Voter Sentiment & Trump’s Political Position

Timestamps: 01:52 – 06:07

• High Cost of Living:

  • In North Carolina and elsewhere, people are “expressing disappointment and concern that… the cost of living is not coming down” (Frank Bruni, 02:43).
  • Voters notice the gap between Trump’s promises and his delivery but “haven’t closed the door on him yet” (Frank, 03:20).

• Democratic Weakness & Trump’s Houdini Politics:

  • Trump benefits from “an opposition that is still kind of broadly pathetic” (Bret Stephens, 03:32).
  • He’s adept at creating—and then solving—problems, e.g., tariffs and inflation (Bret, 03:52).
  • Voters “think in longer increments of time” than the news cycle allows. Trump’s reversals and overreach may serve his political purposes (Frank, 04:25).

• Second-Term Behavioral Patterns:

  • Trump is “a second term president operating in many respects as second term presidents do.” Such presidents shift focus to foreign policy and worry less about public opinion because “they’re lame ducks and they’re playing for an entirely different audience” (Bret, 05:23).

---

2. The Future of Trumpism and the Republican Party

Timestamps: 06:07 – 09:38

• The Many “Trumps” and Successors:

  • The Trump family will “be politically relevant… for a long time after their father is out of office” (Bret, 06:52).
  • Trumpism might fracture into several directions:
    1. A "JD Vance version": more isolationist, truculent, illiberal.
    2. A “quasi-restoration” of “Normie Republicanism” with populist tinges.
    3. A future led by “aggressively bigoted, anti-Semitic, wildly illiberal” personalities a la Tucker Carlson. (Bret, 07:27)

• Republican Fissures:

  • The Trump era held together a wildly disparate coalition “by Trump's force of personality.” Once he’s gone, these “fissures… may become something much wider, much more jagged, much more destructive,” possibly leading to chaos or opportunity for Democrats (Frank, 08:32).

---

3. The Power and Peril of Centrism

Timestamps: 09:38 – 20:54

• Centrism as a Winning Tactic:

  • “Politics are really still won in the middle of the electorate” (Bret, 11:28).

  • Cites Trump’s electoral comeback via swing voters and Bill Clinton’s successful centrism (12:54).

  • Democrats need candidates like “Joe Manchins” over Elizabeth Warrens or Kamala Harris—governing from the center culturally and economically.

    “The trick is, how do you create a charismatic center?”
    —Bret Stephens (16:13)

• Pushback: Bigger Dreams vs. Median Voters

  • Aaron contends Democratic highpoints came from “ambitious, dreamier, liberal left coalition[s]” (14:40) and worries centrism could appear “wishy-washy” (15:49).
  • Bret counters that charisma is rare in the center, but essential—“charisma lives at the margins” (16:13)—and doubts a left-leaning coalition can sustain governing majority.

• Centrism in North Carolina

  • Bruni highlights the difference between economic and social centrism: “A Democrat who is pretty far to the left on economic issues but does not go all the way there on social and cultural issues… could win in North Carolina” (Frank, 18:14).
  • The “center” is more a cumulative average than a fixed position on each issue (Frank, 19:14).
  • He suggests now “a centrist who was poetic and charismatic about the desire to heal, the desire to turn down the temperature, the desire to create a space that may not match everybody’s political preferences… could be a charismatic pitch” (Frank, 20:11).

---

4. Pivot to Foreign Policy: Venezuela

Timestamps: 20:54 – 28:27

• Venezuela Crisis & Trump’s Foreign Policy

  • Trump’s “McKinleyite” focus on Western Hemisphere caught observers by surprise (Aaron, 25:35).
  • On Pete Hegseth scandal: He’s alleged to have ordered the killing of survivors after a raid on a drug-smuggling boat (“That… is by many definitions, a war crime”—Frank, 22:06). The administration denies it, but if true, “it is unmistakably a war crime and… absolutely shameful” (Bret, 24:33).
  • “If the US is able to accomplish the same with the Maduro regime [as with Noriega in Panama], it will be remembered the same way. If… a quagmire… then it’s obviously a very different story.” (Bret, 24:33)
  • Bret: Venezuela situation “plays to a lot of important themes” for Trump—refugee crisis, foreign meddling (esp. by China, Russia, Iran), and drug trafficking. Ousting Maduro could be “restoration of democratic leadership in what was once Latin America’s richest state” (Bret, 26:23).

• Motivations and Ironies

  • Frank gently mocks claims of Trump’s high-minded motives: “I don’t think Trump is hugely concerned about the stealing of elections… [or] the world’s worst dictators… My theory is he kind of likes to make a statement that presidents should be able to do whatever the hell they want with impunity” (Frank, 27:40).

---

5. Russia, Ukraine, and the Global Order (Reader Q&A)

Timestamps: 28:27 – 32:45

• A Question from Kazakhstan:

  • A young reader asks if a failed outcome in Ukraine would embolden Russia to threaten Kazakhstan, especially its Russian-populated north.

• Bret’s Response:

  • “I would be very fearful if the results of the current round of negotiations essentially vindicates Putin’s war effort… whatever ceasefire comes of it will for Putin merely be a pause in which he can regroup… and aggress again” (Bret, 30:12).
  • U.S. “selling Ukraine out… the price is going to be paid all over the world, many times over” (Bret, 31:53).

• Frank’s Agreement:

  • “I want to wrap him in a big, sloppy bear hug of agreement for everything he just said… It has reassured me somewhat, Marco Rubio’s apparent role… not capitulating to Putin’s demands as others, namely the president, seem willing to do” (Frank, 31:53).

---

6. Favorite Live Music (Reader Q&A; Lighter Segment)

Timestamps: 32:45 – End

• Aaron: Seeing the Dead Kennedys in Connecticut, 1980s. Memorable moment: Lead singer Jello Biafra calmly insulting an unruly heckler (33:32).

• Bret: Multiple Rush concerts—“I’m a huge Rush fan… they meant the world to me… the greatest thing the city of Toronto ever produced” (Bret, 33:54).

• Frank: Tony Childs at the Bottom Line, Greenwich Village, late 1980s—her unique, powerful presence in a small venue “felt intimate and… singular” (Frank, 34:54).

---

Notable Quotes

• On Trump’s Second Term:

  “They’re playing for an entirely different audience… not as concerned with what the daily poll numbers are telling them because they know that they’re lame ducks.”
  — Bret Stephens (05:23)

• On Future Republican Factions:

  “One of those three futures is possible. In fact, all three futures is possible.”
  — Bret Stephens (08:20)

• On the Challenges of Centrist Charisma:

  “When you get to the center of politics… charisma leaves the House. Charisma lives at the margins.”
  — Bret Stephens (16:13)

• On the Need for a New Centrist Narrative:

  “A centrist who was poetic and charismatic about the desire to heal… could be a charismatic pitch.”
  — Frank Bruni (20:11)

• On the Global Consequence of U.S. Action in Ukraine:

  “Whatever ceasefire comes of it will for Putin merely be a pause… and aggress again.”
  — Bret Stephens (31:43)

• On Trump’s Motivations in Venezuela:

  “I think Trump is obsessed with potency, or at the very least the appearance thereof… I’m not sure it’s about a whole lot more than that.”
  — Frank Bruni (26:02)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Voter Sentiment & Trump’s Political Position: 01:52 – 06:07
• Trumpism and GOP after Trump: 06:07 – 09:38
• Centrism and Democratic Strategy: 09:38 – 20:54
• Foreign Policy – Venezuela: 20:54 – 28:27
• Russia, Ukraine & Global Order: 28:27 – 32:45
• Favorite Live Concerts (light close): 32:45 – End

---

Tone & Language

The discussion is candid, analytical, occasionally humorous, and thoughtful, mirroring the urbane yet accessible tone of NYT Opinion writers. The podcast features moments of sharp disagreement offset by mutual respect and wit, particularly in exchanges about party strategy, Trump’s psychology, and American foreign policy.

---

For listeners seeking insight into both the nuts and bolts of current U.S. politics and the underlying historical and psychological forces at play, this episode provides a rich, opinionated, and lively exploration.

Transcript

[A]

Hear that? That's what it sounds like when you plant more trees than you harvest. Work done by thousands of working forest professionals like Adam, a district forest manager who works to protect our forests from fires.

[B]

Keeping the forest fire resistant, synonymous with.

[C]

Keeping the forest healthy.

[B]

And we do that through planting more than we harvest and mitigate those risks through active management. It's a long term commitment.

[A]

Visit workingforestsinitiative.com to learn more.

This is the Opinions, a show that brings you a mix of voices from New York Times opinion. You've heard the news, here's what to make of it.

[C]

I'm Aaron Retica, an editor in NYT Opinion. I'm here with one of our columnists, Bret Stephens, and one of our contributing writers, Frank Bruni. Hello to you both.

[D]

Hello, hello, hello. Hey, Frank, how are you doing?

[B]

Hey, how are you guys? Great to see you.

[D]

Good to see you. Aaron, how was your Thanksgiving?

[C]

Mine was very nice. Turkey was well done. The politics were only slightly underdone. Let's just say we got through it. Frank, what about you?

[B]

I was with, I think we had a headcount of more than 30 Brunies. And we have learned when we reach those numbers not to go near politics. Although since we're Italian, the food is political, you know, whether the hosts made enough pasta to go with the various turkeys is a quasi political question for us because we're Italian, right?

[C]

I'm also Italian, so I understand it well.

[D]

I'm the son of an Italian Jew, so it's the same story. We only had 15 at our table, but it was actually delightfully apolitical. I don't know why. Maybe because we all know we agree about everything, so there was no need to talk about it.

[C]

Speaking of political, in the last column we included a call out for readers to ask the questions that they have for Brett and Frank. And we're gonna some of those in a minute. But first I want to just talk about what seems to be on the mind of a lot of people insofar as they pay attention to politics at all. And that's what's going on with the President, who's a bit all over the place these days. But he's spending a lot of his time focusing on foreign policy. Americans, of course, never foreign policy, even with wars, is never at the heart of how they're living day to day. And affordability is a much bigger issue and it's certainly a huge issue now. And Frank, let me start with you, because you're in North Carolina. What are you seeing in terms of how people are reacting to Trump, what they're thinking about Trump, what role he's playing in their lives.

[B]

I hear people expressing disappointment and concern that the price of living is not coming down, the cost of living is not coming down. I think they have some serious questions about whether the blame for that belongs with President Trump, and they definitely notice the contradiction between what he promised them and what he's delivered. But I also get the sense that the jury's not out. I say this as someone who obviously is rooting for a successful Democratic performance in the midterms next year, but I think there is plenty of time for Trump and his administration to try to right that ship, because I don't get the sense that the people who were kindly inclined toward him, who wanted to give him a chance, or who were fans, I don't get the feeling that they have closed the door on him or henceforth.

[D]

Yeah, I think that's right. I think Trump is, first of all, the beneficiary of an opposition that is still kind of broadly pathetic, a fact that was, I think, vividly illustrated to all sides by the shutdown and then the capitulation towards the shutdown. I also think that Trump has the ability to create problems for himself and then solve them. I mean, one very good way of solving the affordability crisis, which is still very much, I think, on people's minds, is by lifting the very tariffs or many of the same tariffs that he has unilaterally imposed. So I don't think this moment in time necessarily tells us very much about where we'll be in, say, 11 months and one week. That's to say, at the midterms.

[B]

I want to echo what Brett said. I think that's completely true. And I think we all need to remember, the three of us, all of our colleagues, we think in sort of three minute increments, we're taking the pulse of the situation every three days or every three hours or every three minutes. I think voters think in longer increments of time. And some of the stuff that we're so surprised at in Trump and that we criticize him for the way he, you know, reverses what he says he's gonna do, doesn't follow through, goes back on his word, et cetera, and his executive overreach, those things could be his greatest tools before the midterms in terms of finally reckoning with the fact that he's not delivered on his economic promises, finally reckoning with the fact that he has not brought down the cost of living we could see him doing very sweeping and unilateral and emphatic things that reverse what he's done before and from a certain perspective look ridiculous, but actually end up for his political purposes being very efficacious.

[D]

Let's not forget Donald Trump is a second term president operating in many respects as second term presidents do. They turn away from domestic politics quite typically and focus on foreign policy where they feel they have more control. They're looking for a global legacy because they've already secured essentially their political vindication through their reelection. And at some level they just don't care. Right. I mean, that's just a theme in a lot of second terms that there are just no longer as concerned with, say what the daily poll numbers are telling them because they know that they're lame ducks and they're playing for an entirely different audience. And I think we're seeing a little bit of that also with President Trump right now.

[C]

That is a perfect segue, actually to the thing I wanted to get into next. Which is what? Trumpism after Trump, what you imagine it to be. This is a very hard question actually. Right. Because there's so many different forms of MAGA. I mean, we've learned over the past 10 years. There's the national conservative people, there's the post liberals, there's the traditional Republicans who are willing to live with it like Rubio or whatever, but they're also connected to a whole set of ideas about making Republican Party work as a working class party. There's other taxonomies that could do so. Brad, let me start with you. Trumpism without Trump, is that possible? What's it gonna look like? Who's gonna lead it? What shape?

[D]

Well, first of all, don't forget there are a lot of Trumps, Eric and Don and Ivanka and Lara Trump and a whole line of succession there that don't discount them. They will be politically relevant, I think, for a long time after their father is out of office. I think Trumpism without Trump is going to move in different directions because Trumpism was always a some amorphous set of half baked ideas connected to a singularly charismatic, in my view, odious, but odiously charismatic figure. I think one side of it is kind of the JD Vance version. Much more isolationist, truculent, illiberal in many of its core instincts. Another side of it could be sort of a quasi restoration of what we used to call Normie Republicanism. You mentioned Marco Rubio combined with a slightly more populist tinge, but a return to sort of The Republican Party that we used to know, a third aspect of it, a third possible direction. And the one that terrifies me most is the one that's embodied by Tucker Carlson and the more aggressively bigoted, anti Semitic, wildly illiberal streak that looks like an American version of the AfD party from Germany or other very far right wing parties in Europe that kind of openly incorporate and celebrate fascistic elements in their core thinking. So one of those three futures is possible. In fact, all three futures is possible.

[B]

Well, I mean, what's interesting listening to Brett talk about that, because everything he said is wholly accurate, is we spend so much time talking about how untenable the Democratic coalition can be and left versus center and Democrats and just how does that party stay together? What Brett is describing are so many different ideological tribes of different temperature within the Republican Party that are being held together and have been held together for a while now, really by Trump's force of personality. And I think the question is, once he's gone, all of these things we describe as fissures, do they become something much wider, much more jagged, much more destructive, and do you have a sort of chaos within what was once referred to as the Republican Party and has already changed so much? I don't know, but I think it's possible. And I think if our Democratic institutions have not been totally corrupted and enfeebled by the time that happens, it could really be a disaster for the so called Republican Party and an extraordinary opportunity for today's Democratic Party.

[C]

Okay, so a question that is always on your mind. You guys have brought it up already that definitely want to get at. And then our readers were very interested in. I'm going to read a reader question about this a second. Is about centrism. Its power, maybe not its power. Right. So let me just read to you from this question. In the conversation, Frank said Democrats need to reclaim the dead center of American politics. In some ways, that's going to require a considerable shift to the right.

[D]

I think I said that.

[C]

No, I don't know. Okay, well, this person said it was you, but the rest of the question is fabulous.

[D]

I'm going to take that mistake as a compliment.

[C]

Exactly. Please go deeper into this. How is it that being more conservative is gonna help the Democratic Party? How does it help Americans? I'd prefer I'm still in the voice of the reader here, but it's not untrue of me either. I'd prefer to see the Democratic Party a little left of center on many issues, such as healthcare. Why do you think that it doesn't work politically. Why can't Americans have the safety net that European countries provide so well for their citizens so that, you know, countries that have a, you know, other countries that are top of a happiness list? I want to add to the question, though, to make it even harder or make it a little harder, I want to divide the centrisms, right, because there's a identity politics eschewing centrism that potentially is maybe very electorally effective. But if it's a centrism that doesn't change any of the economic arrangements that are currently obtaining, I'm not sure that would work, no matter how much it pushed back against the linear elements of the coalition.

Brad, I know this is a subject dear to your heart, so why don't I start with you?

[D]

Well, first of all, I just have a theory of politics, which is that politics are really still one in the middle of the electorate. And the reason Donald Trump was improbably reelected for a non consecutive term is that he won a lot of voters who had shifted toward Biden four years earlier. And he was able to do so because people had memories of prosperity under Trump, at least until the pandemic hit. And I just think you look at, not just in terms of the national elections, but in terms of the congressional elections when you see Democrats who are winning in purple areas. I think the New York Times had a very excellent editorial on this subject. Time and again, the people who are gonna win, who are gonna give you the governing majorities, are not the Elizabeth Warrens, they're the Joe Man. So wherever the Democratic Party can find those Joe Manchins, right, who are going to win difficult seats in purple states, they need to recognize their value. That's just a political reality. The second thing is the most successful Democratic president of my life was Bill Clinton. And Bill Clinton learned the lesson that when the Democratic Party had, according to broad perception, shifted too far to the left, it became unelectable and it became electable again when he pushed the party way back to the center of politics in both senses. I mean, this was a president who was pro death penalty and acted on that as governor of Arkansas. And he was culturally much more at the center of American politics. You remember he had the famous Sister Soulja moment back in 1992. He talked about abortion being safe, legal and rare. This was a president who understood that Americans didn't particularly like the kind of the radical touches of the Democratic party from the 1970s and 1980s. And Americans don't like the radical touches from the last decade either. So one of the things that I think a successful Democratic nominee is gonna have to do is he's going to have to take the cultural issues off the table in order to win by not appearing to be, as Kamala Harris was, essentially a progressive in the clothes of a centrist. Final, Final point. Democrats have a big problem because in too many places, cities, at least at the municipal level, cities run by progressive Democrats are exactly what Americans do not want. And states run by progressive Democrats, I'm thinking of Governor Pritzker in Illinois or Gavin Newsom in California are what Americans do not want. Right. The Democratic Party needs to lean into its Andy Beshears. It needs to lean into its Josh Shapiro's. It has. Maybe Wes Moore will be the guy, I don't know. But it needs to lean into that side. Roy Cooper from North Carolina might be another figure who will speak to that middle of American politics that wants sanity. Not another four years of radicalism to one side or the other.

[C]

So, Frank, before you start, let me just push back against that a little bit and show how we could do it civilly. Democrats at their greatest, though, at least to my mind, right. The FDR coalition, the New Deal, the LBJ coalition, and the Great Society, much of which I presume you don't love, but some of which you probably do at least like or tolerate, that was a much more ambitious, dreamier, liberal left coalition, bringing in actual critiques, people who were critiques of capitalism all the way to the centrists and the farmers and a much broader coalition. And what I worry about with what you're talking about is that that center is narrower than. I'm not saying it's not electorally viable for the House, but I worry a little bit that if the Democrats have a problem where they're seen as equivocators, as not dreaming big, as not really thinking about people's lives, that if they simply tack toward, you know, what political scientists call the median voter, they'll actually end up seeming more wishy washy than they do. Now.

[D]

My memories of the LBJ administration are admittedly vague, Aaron, since I was minus five years, but.

[C]

Yeah, but you heard about it, at.

[D]

Least from the history books. I seem to recall that the final term of the Johnson administration was not a very happy one and that the guy who became president was someone named Richard Nixon. Is that a name familiar to.

[B]

Oh, I've heard of him. Yeah, Right. He had a rough presidency.

[D]

No, And I also. Well, not the first term, but the second term was less glorious. And I remember Joe Biden coming to office, campaigning as a centrist and then governing as progressive and being a one term widely despised president. I mean, not just for his policies, but also in part for those policies. So I'm not quite sure. I guess you have to go back to FDR to find an example that confirms your theory. So I just don't see that happening. But here's the problem, Aaron. The problem is that when you get to the center of politics, typically speaking, charisma leaves the House. Right. Charisma lives at the margins of politics. Mamdani was a charismatic politician, is a charismatic politician, to take one extant example. The trick is, how do you create a charismatic center? And again, I go back to Bill Clinton. It was that unique personality of his that got personal charisma tied to centrist politics and got a broad coalition of Americans behind him. Remember, he left office, despite all the scandals, with what, 63% approval rating or something equally stratospheric. So my question to you, or maybe to Frank, I don't know, is what does this left liberal coalition support and can it run more successfully than, say, Harris did last year? I don't think so.

[C]

And frankly, I actually want you to center it a little bit on North Carolina, because North Carolina has to be part of any emerging Democratic coalition. Right. Obama won it first time. And he lost it the second time.

[B]

Yeah. Romney won it the next time.

[C]

And Romney won it the next time. So North Carolina is a really, actually very interesting bellwether for the future of America for a million reasons. It's got all the research universities, one of which you're now part of. So talk to us about Brett's question, but actually, let's talk about North Carolina at the same time.

[B]

Well, North Carolina was also Biden's narrowest loss.

[C]

Oh, interesting.

[B]

Yeah, yeah. In 2020. You know, when I look at North Carolina, I do not think a Democrat who was identified primarily as a social progressive, who had laid himself, herself, or their self open to the kind of ad that if you were living in North Carolina during the last election, as I was, you saw in perpetuity the transgender inmate ad that ended up with that in terms of its political effect. Brilliant line. Donald Trump is for you. Kamala Harris is for they, them. Right. My point is, if you're a Democrat with a record or are emphasizing things in the fashion where you can be identified that way, as far to the left on, for lack of a better shorthand, social, cultural issues, then I think you're in trouble. Where I think there is space and possibility, perhaps is a Democrat who is pretty far to the left on economic issues but does not go all the way there on social and cultural issues, at least in a state like North Carolina. I could see that combination winning. And it goes back to. I think you said one of the most important things at the beginning of this chapter of our discussion, Aaron, which is there are many centrisms. I would put it a different way. When we talk about a candidate being tenable because that candidate is in the center, do we mean in the center on every issue, on every kind of spectrum that you could establish? Or do we mean when you add it all together, the way it comes out in the wash is as kind of centrist? I think that is a more realistic thing, and I agree that we need that. Only a centrist candidate can prevail. But one last thing, Brett, you made a great point about how much more difficult charisma is in the center or for a centrist than it is for someone else. I think there may be an opportunity right now for that to be not true. I think Americans, those who are not spending all their lives on social media, are so tired of the temperature of our political discourse, are so tired of the melodrama of American political life that I think a centrist who was poetic and charismatic about the desire to heal, the desire to turn down the temperature, the desire to create a space that may not match everybody's political preferences, but that is a space in which we can actually live amicably and get some minor stuff done, find some compromises so that we have incremental progress as opposed to utter sclerosis. I think that could be a charismatic pitch.

[C]

We were talking about how presidents pivot to foreign policy in their second terms, and I want to do that, too, because it's critical to what's happening in the news. To start with Venezuela, we're recording this on Monday and there is a meeting going on later today. So who knows what will be happening by the time this comes out. But a lot has already happened and there has not been a ton of stirring in the American public about what's happening in Venezuela. But there is starting to be some pushback in Congress.

Let me start with Frank. Actually, on the ground in North Carolina or in your conversations or anything like that, are you seeing any kind of tremors from what's happening with Venezuela, people ignoring it completely? Are people talking about it at all? Is it?

And I'm also curious.

[B]

I hear my friends in academia talking about it, and I do not hear my Neighbors talking about it who are not in academia. And while not representative, many of them are physicians and healthcare workers. I don't hear them talking about it. I think what Pete Hagseth stands accused of, according to that Washington Post report as we speak, I think is crucially and vitally important.

[C]

Let's say what that is for people who don't know what we're talking about. Do you want to?

[B]

Sure. I mean, I'm gonna perhaps mischaracterize it, but he is accused by the story in the Washington Post of essentially giving orders, I mean, at a remove, to strike and kill any survivors of an attack on an allegedly drug smuggling boat. I'm using really sloppy shorthands. Even though the mission of essentially sinking that boat, taking that boat out of action, even though that was accomplished and these people were mere survivors clinging to the wreckage to go ahead and kill everyone anyway, that. That is by many definitions, a war crime. I'm hedging it just because. Are we at war? There are all sorts of intricacies here. I think that accusation is profoundly important. I think figuring out what happened and responding in a forceful way is incredible. I don't mean militarily forceful. I mean, in terms of what happens to Pete Hegseth, I think is incredibly important. And yet it is one of those things, if we're being realistic, that I don't think you're gonna hear voters talking a ton about, because it's not something that is entering their daily lives in a way that they can feel now. Who knows? It's still very early. It's still very young. And I love that you've made me the voice of North Carolina and the sort of weatherman in North Carolina. But most of my time.

[C]

Most of my time, I couldn't resist. Sorry.

[B]

But I also believe you went to college there. Yeah, and I went to UNC Chapel Hill, so I went to a public university. But I also believe in total transparency. And most of my time is spent either walking in the woods with my beloved dog Regan, or commuting between my upper middle class kind of suburban neighborhood and an elite university. So I do not have my finger on the pulse of North Carolina quite in the way I wish I did.

[C]

Brett, let me give you a chance to talk about Venezuela. I do want you to take into this a little bit, like, what happened to America first, though, right? I mean, you have your own thoughts about what we should be doing in Venezuela, which you should outline. But let's start with the Hegset situation, and then you talk more broadly about Maduro and what's happening overall and the threats that the government is making.

[D]

I'm in the. A peculiar position in that.

The administration is pursuing, or seems to be pursuing, a policy I broadly support, but they're pursuing it in ways that I find not just objectionable. But in this case, the one we're speaking about, if indeed that report is correct, despicable, because there's no question, I.

[C]

Guess we should say that the administration has denied that that is the case.

[D]

So if that is in fact the case, it is unmistakably a war crime and it is absolutely shameful. With respect to Venezuela, look, the jury is very much out. I'm old enough to remember the first Bush administration invading Panama to get rid of a drug running dictator there, Manuel Noriega. And it was, I think even most Panamanians would agree, was a necessary act of regional hygiene that did Panama a great deal of good, was good for the United States. And I think that if, if the US Is able to accomplish the same with the Maduro regime, it will be remembered the same way. If it ends up being some kind of long running quagmire for American forces in Venezuela, then it's obviously a very different story. I happen to believe that. I think it will look much more like the US Invasion of Panama than it will like the US Invasion of Iraq. But I've been wrong before and I could be wrong again.

[C]

This is all caught up in some ways with what has been a bit of a surprise in the second Trump administration, which is this McKinleyite obsession with or Monroe Doctrine, however you want to think about it, with the Western Hemisphere and what's our space. I wasn't expecting anything to happen. I mean, they weren't talking about Venezuela on the campaign trail, obviously. And yet somehow it seems to have become very important to, to him.

[B]

I think Trump is obsessed with potency, or at the very least the appearance thereof. I think these notions of territorial expansion, these notions of bringing other lands to heel and that sort of thing, I think it's so consistent with his psychological needs and I'm not sure it's about a whole lot more than that, but Brett is much smarter on this.

[D]

I will say. I don't think it's just psychological. I actually think that the Venezuela issue plays to a lot of important themes in the Trump administration. There is a massive refugee crisis that is the result of the misgovernance of the Chavez and Maduro regimes. I think the question of foreign meddling in the Western Hemisphere matters and Venezuela is an ally of China, Russia, Cuba, and also of Iran. So that's another issue. It is in fact the case that the Maduro government essentially supports itself thanks to looking at a minimum, looking the other way at the narco traffic that goes through its borders. So all of these are actually highly legitimate issues. And by the way, the Maduro government is one of the worst dictatorships in this hemisphere and it stole an election last year. And so for Trump, if Trump were to get rid of the Maduro government and bring back the guy who won last year's elections and have him in office, it would put Democrats in a quandary because this would hardly be a matter of an American led coup. It would be the restoration of democratic leadership in what was once Latin America's richest state.

[B]

I just have to amicably push back and note a few ironies. I don't think Trump is hugely concerned about the stealing of elections. I don't know where I get that, but that's just my theory.

[C]

Touche.

[D]

Touche.

[B]

I don't know that Trump is usually concerned about the world's worst dictators. He exchanged love letters with the leader of North Korea and he seems awfully eager to please Vladimir Putin. My third point. And if he's so concerned about narco trafficking, why did he just extend a pardon to the former president of Honduras? My theory is he kind of likes to make a statement that presidents should be able to do whatever the hell they want with impunity. And I think he just likes to show that he has the muscle to do these things. But that is another action that, all due respect, my friend Brett slightly contradicts your high minded analysis.

[D]

It's fair. All your points are well taken.

[C]

Okay, I want to read another question that was sent that's gonna get us to Russia. And you know, it's always a dream when you work on these things that like some kid in Moldova is reading it and like you're having an effect on their lives. And here we go. This question comes from Kazakhstan. Hi. Hi. It's from. I hope I'm doing this right. Aristan, who is from Astana. Hi. I hail from Kazakhstan. I guess I'm the only teen or even individual in Kazakhstan to read your articles. Ha ha, ha ha. That's what he says with your quote unquote SAT words. I attained a good score in the exam. Besides that, I mentioned one of you in my personal statement. Let's see what happens. I read Frank Rooney's books. They had a huge role in changing my life. Although I sometimes have different Views from Brett Stevens, to which I have to say, get in line.

He taught me how to have a constructive.

[D]

Thanks, Aaron.

[C]

Yeah, well, you know, I'm here to serve. He taught. He taught me how to have a constructive dialogue despite differences. And here's his question. Do you think that if something goes amiss in Ukraine, it will embolden Russia to wreak havoc on a bigger scale? As I said, I'm from Kazakhstan. I'm fearful for our northern part because the preponderance of Russians live there. But Mr. Putin explicitly or implicitly has claimed this chunk of land and said it's historically theirs, as obviously they did with Ukraine as well. We have an overlapping history, similar to Ukraine under the Soviet regime. We were starved to death with millions of people dying. And he wants to know what you think about that. How real is that fear? And what should we be saying to someone who's asking a question like that?

[D]

Well, first of all, what a. A generous and lovely note and it's hugely flattering to know that we are being read by a young person in Astana. Thank you for paying attention to what it is that we do and for the partial compliment, I'll absolutely take it. Look, I'm proud that I was barred for life by the government of Russia three or so years ago, and that, I think, is to do with 25 years of non stop anti Putin editorials and op eds and columns. I would be very fearful if the results of the current round of negotiations essentially vindicates Putin's war effort. I think we have to think of Putin and his allies in Beijing, Iran and Pyongyang as constituting a kind of a new axis of aggression that directly threaten free people everywhere in the world, but most especially free people who live at the margins of that access, whether they're in Taiwan or Astana or Kishine or anywhere else. So I look on these negotiations, whatever ceasefire comes of it will for Putin merely be a pause in which he can regroup, continue to build his impressively resilient war machine, and aggress again for the sake of the restoration of the old Soviet Union. So I, I am really concerned about what appears to be an American administration selling Ukraine out, because the price is going to be paid all over the world, many times over.

[B]

Having gently pushed back at Brett in regard to Venezuela, I want to wrap him in a big, sloppy bear hug of agreement for everything he just said. And I don't have anything to add to it, really, except I want to say one thing. It's easy and it's correct most of the time to be calling out and criticizing people in the Trump administration and people he's put in his cabinet, most of whom are spectacularly unqualified for what they're doing. And so when there's a moment to kind of say it looks like someone is really trying to do something positive, I always want to shout it out. And it has reassured me somewhat, Marco Rubio's apparent role in place in what's going on right now, because he does not seem as ready to capitulate to Putin's demands and to let Putin have his way as others, namely the president, seem to be willing to do. And I want to thank him for that.

[C]

I want to end on something lighter, which is another reader question. This one came from Daniel Hahn in Ohio. He says, I love this column. It's a driving reason why I subscribe, which is nice. Thank you, Daniel. I want to know what your all time favorite live music concert you've ever attended is, so I'll say mine, even though who could possibly care what mine is? But it's a sort of funny story, so I had to think hard about it. And then I realized it was seeing the Dead Kennedys in Connecticut in the late 1980s. And the reason is that the concert itself was great. But Jello Biafra, who had the lead singer of the Dead Kennedys, had shaved his chest hair in stripes, which is the kind of thing you learn at a punk rock concert.

But this is the part of it that I really remember so well. Some drunken frat guy had gotten on stage and was yelling the lyrics to one of their songs, which is Kill the Poor, Kill the poor, Kill the Poor. And then Celibiafra got on a back mic and he just said very quietly, same to you, buddy. Same to you.

Brett.

[D]

Well, I probably should say seeing Jordi Saval play Viola da Gamba at the Metropolitan Museum many years ago, but that would be a lie. The truth is, I'm a huge so he is awesome. I will say he's very great. But truth is, I'm a huge Rush fan. Rush, the Canadian progressive rock trio of Getty Lee, Alex Lifeson, and the late great Neil Peart, whose name surname I'm correctly pronouncing. They were massive influences on me, especially when I was a teenager. They meant the world to me. I went to see them in concert many times. And I'm just not gonna deny how much I love these three truly great Canadians. The greatest thing that the city of Toronto ever produced. And I say that with no disrespect to the Blue Jays or any other great Torontonians.

[C]

Mr. Bruni.

[B]

In the late 1980s, there was a singer, songwriter, I guess she was in the pop rock space. Came out with a debut album that critics quite liked. Her name was is Tony Childs, and the album was called Union. And Tony Childs had presumably still has one of the most distinctive singing voices I've ever heard. I mean, big and raspy, but also just. It had all of these kind of curlicues and wrinkles to it that were extraordinary. And when she went on tour with Union, I guess she hadn't hit it big enough. There was not much muscle or money behind it. And I bought a ticket, a friend of mine and I, and we went and she was at the Bottom Line in Greenwich Village, which is tiny, and I guess that there was so little money behind this, or she was still so nascent that in my memory, and I may have this slightly wrong, she stood there in her kind of weird, like, one piece, billowing dress, barefoot, and every time she sang, it like the walls of the place vibrated. And, you know, people say metaphorically that they got goosebumps. I had goosebumps that entire concert. It felt intimate and it felt singular.

[C]

Okay, we'll get the Conversation playlist posted as soon as possible. Thank you both very much. It's great to talk to you both.

[D]

Good to see you.

[B]

Great to be with you both.

[A]

If you like this show, follow us on Spotify, Apple or wherever you get your podcasts.

The Opinions is produced by Derek Arthur Vishaka Darba, Kristina Samulewski and Gillian Weinberger. It's edited by Kari Pitkin and Allison Bruzek. Engineering, mixing and original music by Isaac Jones, sonia Herrero, Pat McCusker, Carol Sabaro and Afim Shapiro. Additional music by Amin Sahota. The Fact Check team is Kate Sinclair, Mary Marge Locker and Michelle Harris. Audience strategy by Shannon Busta and Christina Samulewski. The director of Times Opinion Audio is Annie Rose Strasser.