‘We Are Going to Deeply Regret This War’

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Opinions – ‘We Are Going to Deeply Regret This War’

Host: Robert Siegel (The New York Times Opinion)
Guests: E.J. Dionne (Political Writer/Author), Mona Charen (Policy Editor at the Bulwark, Host of the Mona Charen Show)
Date: March 28, 2026

---

Episode Overview

This episode of The Opinions focuses on the wide-reaching consequences of the U.S.-Iran war, particularly its impact on America's global standing, its relationships with NATO and Israel, and the domestic political fallout, especially regarding Trump’s leadership. The discussion is timely, incisive, and full of regret—and warnings—about the direction of American foreign and domestic policy in the Trump era.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

---

1. The U.S.-Iran War and Trump’s Leadership

• E.J. Dionne: Opened with a strong critique, warning of lasting regret:

  “I think we are going to deeply regret this war precisely because of how he handled it.” (01:46)

  • Trump’s inconsistency and decision-making are causing international confusion, weakening U.S. influence, and sidelining the Ukraine crisis.
• Mona Charen:
  • Called Iran a genuine threat—“a vicious, expansionist, revolutionary regime bent on getting nuclear weapons”—but lamented having “such an unserious leader who seems to act on whim, on impulse, on feelings in his bones” at the helm. (02:40)

---

2. U.S. Relations with NATO

• Alliance in Trouble: Dionne declared NATO “in deep trouble,” highlighting eroded trust and support among European allies due to Trump's unilateralism and transactional approach. (04:05)
• European Strain:

  “How to Lose Influence with Friends is the title of, I think, the president's memoir about this period.” – E.J. Dionne (05:10)

• Charen’s Perspective:
  • Cited Trump’s unprecedented threats, such as threatening a NATO member (Denmark over Greenland), pointing out his lack of consultation and disregard for allies’ needs, especially those more dependent on regional stability (oil, fertilizer).

  “He simply acted in a way that affects them far more than it affects us…” (05:25)

• NATO’s Durability: Siegel noted historical precedent for overcoming alliance crises, but Charen responded:

  “It depended for its durability on the strength of its premier member, and that was the United States.” (07:49)

---

3. The U.S.–Israel Relationship and Shifting Public Opinion

• Closer Military Coordination, Waning Support: Siegel highlighted unprecedented military alignment but noted Gallup data showing greater American sympathy for Palestinians for the first time. (08:39)
• Charen on Domestic Factions:
  • Noted Israel faces opposition from both the “progressive left” and the “hard right” in the U.S., with declining bipartisan support fueling Netanyahu’s urgency with Trump in office. (09:32)

  “The hatred for Israel is coming from both sides.”

• Dionne:
  • Described historical shifts: bipartisan pro-Israel sentiment splintering since Netanyahu’s U.S. address was arranged by Republicans only, further dividing U.S. politics.
  • Noted policy inconsistencies:

    “The administration itself has made it more awkward…” (11:50)

  • Observed emerging distinctions in Mideast alliances (e.g., Israel vs. Saudi interests in war outcomes).

---

4. The Israel/Palestine Debate among Progressives

• Charen: Argued that anti-Israel sentiment among progressives existed before the Gaza war, referencing pro-Hamas reactions after October 7 attacks on campuses. (13:36)
• Dionne: Contested the scale, seeing it as initially a “very small piece of the left” but widening as the war in Gaza continued. (14:03)

---

5. Domestic Political Repercussions: Parties & the 2026 Election

• Erosion of GOP Support:
  • Dionne: Trump’s unpopularity is shifting local election results, even in strongholds—citing Democratic wins in Florida. (17:28)
  • GOP loyalty is driven by fear of Trump’s base and primary challenges.

  “In a normal world, some Republicans...would start backing away from Trump. But we don’t live in a normal world.” – E.J. Dionne (18:36)

• Personalized, Polarized Politics:
  • Charen:

    “We live in an era of this personalized politics...vastly exacerbated by our system of partisan primaries.” (19:16)

  • General elections are often foregone conclusions due to gerrymandering and polarized primaries, further entrenching extremes.
• Shrinkage of Moderate Republicans:
  • Dionne: Continuing exodus of moderates has “reduced this party to a party of Trump.” (20:51)
  • Charen noted Trump’s circular logic in touting 100% approval among MAGA identifiers, while overall support declines (21:17).
• MAGA Base and National Challenges:
  • Dionne: Noted historic low approval for Trump on economy and cost of living. Criticized how “MAGA Trump obsessions drive substance out of politics.” (22:47)

---

6. 2028 Republican Presidential Prospects

• Candidates: Siegel asked if the Republican field was limited to Vance and Rubio. Charen and Dionne agreed it depends on the administration’s perceived success or failure; otherwise, an outsider or a yet-unknown candidate could emerge.
  • Dionne referenced GOP pollster Whit Ayres:

    “There is a possibility of someone we never heard of.”

  • Charen strongly asserted:

    “He cannot run again. It's in the goddamn Constitution.” (25:12)

  • Dionne added, “The Constitution doesn't seem to bother Trump very much on anything else...” (25:17)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Regret & Irony:

  “How to Lose Influence with Friends is the title of, I think, the president's memoir about this period.” – E.J. Dionne (05:10)

• On the state of the GOP:

  “We live in the world of Republican politics that President Trump has created.” – E.J. Dionne (18:36)

• On Trump running again:

  “He cannot run again. It's in the goddamn Constitution.” – Mona Charen (25:12)

• On public joy:

  • Mona Charen, on the No Kings rally:

    “I found the last no Kings rally to be very inspiring. I was struck by the cleverness of some of the signs, by the spirit, by the patriotism.” (26:06)

  • EJ Dionne, on interfaith social work:

    “All these people in the country who in the midst of all this political chaos are out there working to help other people...” (27:27)

  • Siegel, on baseball:

    “The return of baseball simply brings joy to my life.” (28:07)

---

Important Timestamps

• Trump’s handling of Iran war: 01:46–03:37
• NATO alliance critique: 04:05–07:49
• US–Israel relationship & public opinion: 08:39–13:36
• Progressive vs. hard right Israel debate: 13:36–14:19
• Domestic politics: GOP loyalty & primary system: 16:44–22:54
• Potential 2028 Republican candidates: 22:58–25:39
• Joyful, nonpolitical moments: 26:06–28:49

---

Tone and Language

The conversation is urgently critical, with moments of wry humor, historical reflection, and frustration at the current political dynamic under Trump. Mona Charen adopts a tone that is dismayed yet determined; E.J. Dionne balances analysis with regret and dry wit. Robert Siegel’s hosting is factual, questioning, and occasionally nostalgic.

---

Conclusion

The episode provides a deep dive into the strategic, diplomatic, and domestic pitfalls of the ongoing U.S.-Iran war, the breakdown of old alliances, intensifying polarization over Israel, and the transformation of American political parties. The conversation ends with reminders of hope: civic activism, communal service, and the enduring spirit of sport.

---

Transcript

[Nature's Bounty Announcer]

At Nature's Bounty, the belief is simple. You already have a brilliant body. Supplements just help support your journey. For over 50 years, nature's bounty has offered vitamins and supplements to help you eat, sleep, thrive, repeat from magnesium glycinate for heart and muscle support to hair growth capsules for fuller, thicker hair and probiotics. With 20 billion live cultures for digestion, Nature's Bounty. It's in your nature to thrive. Learn [e-mail] these statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. These products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

[Show Host/Producer]

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.

[Robert Siegel]

Hi, I'm Robert Siegel in conversation about politics with two very insightful political writers. Joining me at the New York Times Washington bureau are political writer and author E.J. dia.

[E.J. Dionne]

Great to be with you.

[Robert Siegel]

And joining us today is Mona Charan, policy editor at the Bulwark and host of the Mona Charan Show.

[Mona Charen]

Thanks so much.

[Robert Siegel]

Thanks for joining us. We're recording this on Wednesday, so it's possible that some of our discussion may be overtaken by events, but I think that our focus today will likely be unrevised very much for the near future. We're focusing on relations under stress, under stress from the war in Iran. Quite apart from what this war has done to Iran, it it has also wrought changes in U.S. relations abroad and even changes with our politics, too. To start, how do you think Trump is doing in handling this war? E.J.

[E.J. Dionne]

i think we are going to deeply regret this war precisely because of how he handled it. I mean, I think the idea wasn't good in the first place, but he made it so much worse. This war will raise questions about our lack of staying power in the world. He goes back and forth to the point where even the Iranians sound like political commentators when they say, oh, he's saying this stuff about negotiations cuz he's worried about the markets and oil prices. He's creating all this division and alienation among our allies that we're gonna talk about. He's strengthening Russia by lifting those sanctions. He's taking everybody's eyes off Ukraine, which is what I think we should be in the middle of. And these inconsistencies and contradictions about our purposes. Sort of the world will look at us and say, what kind of leadership does this country have on one of the most serious questions a country faces, which is whether to go to war.

[Mona Charen]

Mona It's a profoundly serious challenge that Iran represents to the world. It is a vicious, expansionist, revolutionary regime bent on getting nuclear weapons, bent on the destruction of one of our allies and the undermining of others, an enemy of ours for all of these years. But to approach a problem of that seriousness with such an unserious leader who seems to act on whim, on impulse, on feelings in his bones, we have reached this critical mass of Trumpism where it is laid bare. Even the Trumpiest explainers out there cannot say that he's playing some sort of three dimensional chess here. It is obvious that he is winging it and he is making gross errors.

[Robert Siegel]

Well, now onto some relationships, starting with our relationship to NATO and our NATO allies. Back in his first term, President Trump was often criticized for talking to the NATO allies in very transactional terms, not drawing upon some deep fraternal democratic spirit that we had in common. Compared with the past couple of weeks, those were the good old days of the alliance ejaculation. Is the NATO alliance on the rocks?

[E.J. Dionne]

It's in deep trouble. And I think you can tell how much trouble it is in when Mark Ruta, the General Secretary of NATO, is getting criticized for saying he supports the president's action in Iran. Because so many countries in Europe are longtime allies, are at best extremely skeptical about what the president is doing. And I think there are many reasons we're gonna regret that the president took us into this war. I think that one of the top reason is that if there was any hope of sort of putting the Western alliance, if I can call it that, back on some sort of track, this set it back even further. Here was President Trump. First he puts big tariffs on all these allies and says they're supposed to take it. And then he says NATO isn't really important. And then at times he seems to side with Vladimir Putin in the Ukraine struggle. And he does all this to our allies. And then when he says they need to help me in this trade Hormuz, and they were a little reluctant, he says, my God, why aren't they helping me? Aren't they terrible for not helping me? And so how to Lose Influence with Friends is the title of, I think, the president's memoir about this period.

[Robert Siegel]

Yeah, Mona.

[Mona Charen]

Well, E.J. there's a long list of Trump's insults and threats toward Europe, toward NATO. You forgot to mention Greenland, where the president basically did something that was inconceivable when we were contemplating a second Trump term. None of us, I think, anticipated that he would actually threaten a fellow NATO member with an American invasion. And yet that is where we were a few short months ago. And then regarding this war, there was no consultation. He did not inform our allies. He simply acted in a way that affects them far more than it affects them affects us because they are more dependent on oil, fertilizer and other things that go through that part of the world. But in addition, he then insulted the premier of Great Britain, who at one point early March was saying he might send two British aircraft carriers. And Trump, proving that he is the greatest boor ever to serve in the White House, said, oh no, we don't need any help from people who are just trying to get in on the war after it's already been won. A few days later, Trump was reduced to begging the Europeans for help opening the Strait of Hormuz. So, yes, the strain is immense, but I think the Europeans have no choice but to attempt however they can, with string and glue, whatever it takes to keep this alliance together. Because of the huge role that the United States plays.

[Robert Siegel]

I was forced to think, in thinking about the state of the alliance, to think back on pretty big crises that NATO has weathered. And it may be a more durable alliance than we'd think. In the 1950s, Eisenhower over Suez told the Brits and the French they couldn't have the Suez Canal back. It was a big crisis. NATO got over it. In the 1960s, Charles de Gaulle threw NATO out of France. NATO was in France until 66. He withdrew French troops from the integrated NATO command. It was a crisis. NATO somehow survived and got over it. So perhaps this is, at least in the past, was a pretty durable institution.

[Mona Charen]

Well, it depended for its durability on the strength of its premier member, and that was the United States. And in this, Trump had part of a point. The US spends 10 times more on defense, and plus the US provides the nuclear umbrella. And so while the Europeans are now having to think about possibly looking for friendlier climbs, looking for people who do agree with them about democracy, about the rule of law, about international law, and all of those things where Trump seems far less like a traditional American and more Putin esque, and yet still the challenge, the act just physical challenge of Europe, the idea that they are going to be able to replace the American contribution, defense wise, is very tough.

[Robert Siegel]

Let's look at one other international relationship that is between the United States and Israel. Twice last June and this year, the US And Israel have conducted coordinated airstrikes against Iran. It's hard for me to remember any time when the US And Israel were militarily this close. On the other hand, when it comes to public opinion in the United States, Gallup has been asking Americans for decades about their sympathies for Israel and for the Palestinians. They'd been converging for several years, but this year was the first time that more people said they felt sympathy for the Palestinian cause than for the Israelis. Mona, as Trump continues to coordinate an air war with Netanyahu and as American support for Israel seems to wane, what do you think about the relationship going forward?

[Mona Charen]

So it is worrisome on many levels. First of all, there's sort of a pincer movement where you have people on the progressive left who despise Israel because they consider it a settler colonialist imposition on the Middle east. That is a sort of cat's paw for imperialism in the West. And then you have the hatred of Israel and frankly and of Jews coming from the hard right in the United States, the Tucker Carlson's and so forth, who are influencing the younger generation of Republicans. So the hatred for Israel is coming from both sides. And Netanyahu seems to have made a calculation that he's aware of this declining support for Israel in the United States. And he seems to be saying, yep, that's in the future. We're not going to have the U.S. and so we're going to go for everything right now while we've got Trump, try to get everything done, eliminate Iran as a threat, eliminate Hezbollah, Hamas, and then we will be secure and we won't have to worry about American good opinion.

[Robert Siegel]

So you're saying the loss of some American support has the perverse effect of creating more a greater complaint against Israel and the United States.

[Mona Charen]

It's very possible, E.J.

[E.J. Dionne]

i think that you can go all the way back to when Netanyahu appeared before Congress and he was invited by the Republicans, notably not the Democrats, and gave a speech attacking President Obama's deal with Iran. And to have a foreign leader come before Congress at the invitation of only one party, I think began to drive a wedge through our politics. And I think, you know, historically liberals and progressives were broadly sympathetic to Israel. Most liberals and progressives also very staunchly supported, you know, Palestinian autonomy, two states. But that was the consensus. I think after Gaza that began to break up. You know, many of us are old enough to remember Prime Minister Rabin or old enough to remember Labor Israel. For many young people, they have only known this Israel under Bibi Netanyahu. The war is, I think, very awkward. And you know, the administration itself has made it more awkward when Marco Rubio came out and said to try to explain this war and said, well, we knew Israel was going to do it, and so then we had to go out because we had to defend our bases first. It was nonsense in terms of whether we went into the war, but it was a remarkable thing to say. And so the administration, in its many inconsistencies about this war, has opened that door. And I also think it's simply the fact that the interests of Israel and the interests of the United States do not totally coincide in this war. And the Times had a really interesting story where there's also a difference, it appears, between Israel and the Saudis, where the Saudis really want the war to go on. Until there is regime change, Israel could probably live with easier with a much weakened Iran. And so I think you're gonna see another fight in that area.

[Mona Charen]

Although, I don't know, it could be that the Israelis are happy to see the Saudis being the ones to push Trump to continue the war so that it doesn't fall on them. But I think they are would be happy to continue the war as well.

[E.J. Dionne]

And let's assume that. And I think that creates a real problem for Israel because I think there are a lot of people in the United States, you know, majority opinion is against this war. Our friend Bill Galston the other day, of the polling average, 39% support for this war. That's unheard of at this point. So most Americans want this to end. And so to the extent that the Saudis or the Israelis are pressuring the United States, that's a real problem for both countries, I think, in the long run.

[Mona Charen]

So could I just. I agree with pretty much everything you said, with one exception, where you talked about the progressives were broadly pro Israel until Gaza. I don't think that's quite right. Right after os October 7, you had celebrations of the Hamas attack and you saw campuses around the country, you know, leftist groups on campuses celebrating that attack.

[E.J. Dionne]

So I think it's a very small piece of the left and that people allied with that grew as the war continued, as the destruction in Gaza continued, and Israel didn't end the war much earlier than they did.

[Robert Siegel]

I'm thinking about this in our own domestic politics, we've gone from very strong bipartisan support for Israel to each party having a pretty considerable faction within it that is extremely anti Israel. Looking ahead to the next presidential year, I mean, the conventions, do you expect fireworks over Middle east policy? Is it that big an issue?

[Mona Charen]

So it very much depends on whether this war is perceived as successful. If the war is unsuccessful, then what Trump will have succeeded in doing, and Netanyahu as well, is they will have given a huge gift to Candace Owens, Nick Fuentes, Tucker Carlson, Joe Kent, that whole wing of the Republican Party, conspiracists, the conspiracists, the anti Semites, who are more than happy. First of all, they already think that Israel killed Charlie Kirk and that Israel was responsible for the Iraq war, for which there is absolutely no evidence. And now they can, with Rubio's stupid comment, they can even claim that Israel dragged us into this war. And so they will be empowered tremendously if the war goes badly.

[E.J. Dionne]

I'm not sure how this goes well, sitting here on this day by the end. So I'm very curious how if Americans will look back and say this was a good idea. But I think you're already seeing even splits within the pro Israel camp. There is a real rebellion against AIPAC within the Democratic Party among very mainstream Democrats, particularly after their intervention against Tom Malinowski, who was historically very pro Israel but said, no, I will not give a blank check to Israel. And they intervened, their candidate failed and they ended up electing someone who is far more anti Israel. And so I think you will see within the Democratic Party certainly a real distancing from the, you know, it's aipac, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, from that wing of the pro Israel movement. And I think you're gonna see a real fight because of this generational split. I think you cannot underestimate how radical the split is. Younger people in their attitudes versus older people when it comes to Israel. And that's a real problem for Israel in the long run.

[Mona Charen]

It sure is. And it's in both parties.

[E.J. Dionne]

Yes.

[Robert Siegel]

This brings us more broadly to Democrats, Republicans and the election coming up this year in November. Republican loss of the House of Representatives is talked about quite a bit. It's very possible. There's even some talk about the possibility of Democrats winning the Senate. Obviously, in states where the Democratic Party has a pulse, Donald Trump is not a big help to Republican candidates. And E.J. i wonder, what do you make of the what seems to be a very strong loyalty to Trump among Republicans, even as he makes very public, unpopular moves, whether they're in the war or with the economy or in his remarks about the passing of former FBI Director Mueller?

[E.J. Dionne]

Well, let it be recorded that in the state legislature in Florida, thanks to a special election in Florida, the people in the district that Mar A Lago was in elected a Democrat to the state legislature. And there was another state Senate race that also swung to the Democrats. Every. Every election we've had since Trump's election essentially has shown an average. I think the last time I looked, the average was about a 13 point swing, and some of them were even bigger. So this is a real problem. In a normal world, some Republicans at least, would start backing away from Trump. But we don't live in a normal world. We live in the world of Republican politics that President Trump has created. And Republicans are not only so afraid of losing primaries to the Trump faction, which is now the dominant faction in the party, they're also worried about those folks turning out in the general election. And I think when you look at the problems Republicans face, where I do agree that the Senate is now at the point where it could come into play, I think that the most consistent number are in the polls are when you ask people, not only do they approve or disapprove of Trump, but do you strongly approve of Trump or strongly disapprove of Trump? The strong disapprovers outnumber the strong approvers by three to two or two to one. That's a real problem for turnout, and I think you're seeing that in these races. So it's a combination of the country swinging against Trump and the enthusiasm swinging against Trump. That's real trouble for the Republicans. Maybe they will discover later this year after their primaries are done, that they have an interest in distancing themselves. But. But I still think many of them are very afraid.

[Mona Charen]

Speaking of if we lived in a normal world, part of what makes our world abnormal now is that we live in an era of this personalized politics, and it has been vastly exacerbated by our system of partisan primaries. And it is the case now. Our elections are determined by a tiny slice of voters who turn out in primaries. And so, you know, the primary's the only race that matters.

[Robert Siegel]

The general election is a given which party will win. Will win.

[Mona Charen]

Exactly. And so because of gerrymandering, because of self selection and sorting, because of the kinds of media that we all consume, and as long as the Republican Party officials, Republican politicians fear their primary electorate, which is the only thing that they have to fear in most cases, they're not gonna depart from Trump no matter what. And we will see how that turns out for them in the generals this time, because the cratering of his support among independents does not bode well for the general election this time.

[E.J. Dionne]

And I think part of the problem is not just the existence of the primary system. It's also that that over time, since Trump appeared On the scene 11 years ago, a lot of people who are more moderate or even moderate conservatives aren't Republican anymore.

[Mona Charen]

That's exactly right.

[E.J. Dionne]

This goes back even longer. Actually. There's been a long drift of moderate Republicans out of the party going back to the 90s. And the collar counties around Philadelphia are a good example of that. Places that were very loyal for people like George H.W. bush or Senator John Heinz. And now a lot of those folks just don't think of themselves as Republican anymore. So you're reducing this party to a party of Trump.

[Mona Charen]

Yes. And by the way, you know, Trump just the other day was touting, you know, somebody had done a poll where they said, you know, 100% of those who identified as MAGA Republicans approved of his actions in Iran. Well, of course, if you are willing to identify yourself as a MAGA Republican, then you're going to be in favor of circular reasoning.

[Robert Siegel]

That is the definition of a MAGA Republican.

[Mona Charen]

Exactly. And there are fewer people who do identify as MAGA now than before the Iran war started.

[E.J. Dionne]

100% of Celtics fans root for the Celtics. Just here is I think one of the interesting questions and that we don't know the answer to this yet is can the MAGA base begin to break up? I was really struck by, I think it's a Reuters Ipsos poll that came out last week or this week where only 29% of Americans approve of Trump on the economy and only 25% approve his handling of the cost of living. And I think one of his biggest problems, and I also think there's a real problem for the country is this kind of mega politics means that real problems we face now and in the future, housing, healthcare, childcare, elder care, how to give young people entering a really difficult economy a leg up, particularly people who didn't go to college. All these big questions. If we were talking about these, Mona and I could have real arguments about real problems that matter to people. And the MAGA Trump obsessions drive substance out of politics. And boy, that's bad for every party,

[Mona Charen]

especially for people like us.

[Robert Siegel]

Just one more point about politics here. In addition to telling us what the next Congress is going to be like, the November election, that's typically when we really start thinking about the next presidential race. Isn't somebody going to have to express an interest in the Republican Party pretty soon? And is it down to two people who are both part of this administration, that is Vance and Rubio? What should we expect in that regard?

[Mona Charen]

Well, I think the Vance Rubio rivalry has already engaged. We've seen lots of evidence of that. But again, I will come back to whether this administration is perceived to have been successful. If so, then it's clear that one of those two will be the nominee. But if not, then there could be an outsider, there could be an insurgent, but that would probably take something catastrophic to do that. So it's hard to make predictions, especially about the future.

[E.J. Dionne]

Thank you, Yogi Berra. I think that Whit Aris, a great Republican pollster, sort of was talking about the Rubio Vance thing, and he said, but there is a possibility of someone we never heard of. And I asked him, you know, what candidate are you for? And he said, I think I'm for somebody we never heard of. And I think it partly depends. Well, first of all, Trump has to decide not to run again, and I still haven't. And put aside the possibility that Trump, given everything else he's done, would claim some weird right to be in it again. But I do think there may be, even in the Republican Party, sheer exhaustion with this that may lead someone else to say, we need a new track for this party if we're gonna survive in the long run. But it's not obvious to me who that is.

[Mona Charen]

Yeah, maybe I have one little quibble, not with you, about the way you phrased it, but lots of people in the press talk about if Trump decides not to run. They say things like, if he's not going to run, that is not a thing.

[Robert Siegel]

Yes, exactly.

[Mona Charen]

He cannot run again. It's in the goddamn Constitution.

[E.J. Dionne]

Amen to that. And I think it's very important that we say that over and over again. But. But the Constitution doesn't seem to bother Trump very much on anything else. So I don't see why it would bother him with its very explicit language about this.

[Mona Charen]

I know it doesn't bother him, but I think everybody who comments on it should constantly reiterate that the Constitution forbids this and it cannot happen here.

[Robert Siegel]

Here. I'm with you. Well, Mona, we've developed a tradition in this conversation. We've been a short live conversation, but we've already have a tradition, and that is that we should end every conversation that we have on an upbeat note by asking what each of us has experienced in the way of joy recently. Something that's not political or military or whatever. Joy. Something joyful you can describe in life.

[Mona Charen]

I think I can. So this weekend, there is going to be another no Kings rally. Now, I am not A protesting sort. Spent my life being a conservative. You know, if I were to chant something, it would be along the lines of, what do we want? Incremental change. When do we want it? In the fullness of time. But I found the last no Kings rally to be very inspiring. I was struck by the cleverness of some of the signs, by the spirit, by the patriotism. And I am encouraged that there are millions of other Americans who feel the danger to democracy and our republic. And it gives me hope. So I'm looking forward to participating again.

[Robert Siegel]

And thank you, E.J.

[E.J. Dionne]

amen to that, too. I went last week to the celebration of the 25th anniversary of the White House Faith Based Office sponsored by the center for Public Justice. Now, there are all kinds of arguments that I've been involved with over the years, too, about the proper role of government vis a vis religion. And if anybody wants to see my views on that, there's a report I did for Brookings some years ago with my friend Melissa Rogers. What hit me that day that gave me joy was how many people from churches, synagogues, mosques, and also lots of secular people who are deeply involved in helping homeless people, in helping immigrants, in helping the left out, in helping battered women, in helping poor people overseas. All these people in the country who in the midst of all this political chaos, are out there working to help other people who are less well off than they are. They exist. God if I may. God bless them all. And we shouldn't forget that they are very much part of our national conversation, too. And we ought to think about those good folks and say thank you.

[Nature's Bounty Announcer]

Thank you.

[Mona Charen]

Amen.

[Robert Siegel]

Amen. And for me, it was. I should have known it was coming. The return of baseball simply brings joy to my life. And I got hooked by the World Baseball Classic.

[E.J. Dionne]

Ah, yes.

[Robert Siegel]

And I, the Italian team in particular, which only had three guys from Italy on it, I think. But it reminded me of these names from my childhood. DiMaggio, Rizzuto and Bera and the Venezuelans. I would have liked to see the Americans win the final game, but so be it. They had their victory. And I just found the whole thing wonderful. And I'm even looking forward to Major League Baseball with a machine that overrides umpires when they call balls and strikes wrong.

[E.J. Dionne]

Do you realize how many arguments in living rooms that will set aside? I know, but also how many cheer, how many screaming at umpires is really fun, but we're gonna lose some of

[Robert Siegel]

that to learn to scream at a. At a computer. Mona and ej EJ and Mona. Thanks to both of you. It's great.

[E.J. Dionne]

Thank you.

[Mona Charen]

Thank you.

[Show Host/Producer]

If you like this show, follow it on YouTube, Spotify or Apple. The opinions is produced by Derek Arthur, Vishaka Darba, Victoria Chamberlain and Gillian Weinberger. It's edited by Gillian Weinberger, Jasmine Romero and Kari Pitkin. Mixing by Carol Sabaro. Original music by Isaac Jones, sonia Herrero, Pat McCusker, Carol Sabaro, Efim Shapiro and Amin Sahota. The fact check team is Kate Sinclair, Mary Marge Locker and Michelle Harris. The head of operations is Shannon Busta. Audience support by Christina Samulewski. The director of opinion shows is Annie Rose Strasser.

[E.J. Dionne]

So good, so good, so good.

[Mona Charen]

New spring arrivals are at Nordstrom Rack stores.

[Show Host/Producer]

Now.

[Mona Charen]

Get ready to save big with up to 60% off rag and bone, Marc Jacobs, free people and more.

[Nature's Bounty Announcer]

How did I not know rack has Adidas?

[E.J. Dionne]

Because there's always something new.

[Mona Charen]

Join the Norty club to unlock exclusive discounts. Shop new arrivals first and more. Plus, buy online and pick up at your favorite Rack store for free. Great brands, great prices. That's why you rack.