Loading summary
Transcript73 lines
- [00:06]
A
Welcome to the Political SCENE from the New Yorker, a weekly discussion about the big questions in American politics. I'm Susan Glaser and I'm joined as ever, by my great colleagues Jane Mayer and Evan Osnos. Hi, Jane.
- [00:18]
B
Hey, Susan.
- [00:19]
A
Hey, Evan.
- [00:20]
C
Great to be back with you guys.
- [00:25]
A
All right. Well, today we're joined by two very special guests. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is here. She's joined by Karen Yarhimilo, dean of Columbia University School of International and Public affairs and her partner in both teaching a class at Columbia University and releasing a book out this week inside THE Situation Room about how leaders make decisions in moments of crisis. And wow, do we have a lot of crises. This conversation could not be more timely. I promise we're going to get to it all for from Jimmy Kimmel to Putin's war in Ukraine to the psychology of Donald Trump, Secretary Clinton and Dean Yarhi. Milo, we are very glad to have you with us at such a moment. Thank you.
- [01:10]
D
Thank you.
- [01:10]
E
Great to be with you.
- [01:12]
A
Before we get going, I think we all agree this is a sort of a five alarm fire of a news week in Washington once again. So tell us what your reaction is to the extraordinary response by Donald Trump and by his advisors to the assassination of, you know, one of the leading MAGA political figures. It's, it's pretty remarkable that we're canceling comedians. We now have Steve Bannon saying that the left has declared war on America. Donald Trump is now a wartime president, except the war, of course, is on the American opposition. What do you think of this?
- [01:50]
D
Well, I think they are taking a terrible crime, a horrible tragedy for that young man and his family and of course, his friends and colleagues, and using it in order to crack down on opposition and do whatever they can to extend a sense of intimidation and chilling to the larger society. And I don't think it should surprise anyone who's read any kind of history of authoritarian regimes that it's, you know, death by a thousand cuts. Sometimes, though, there can be a great big gash that provides an opportunity to leap forward with oppression and domination. This is where they were always heading, Susan, in this second term, to try to not just reshape politics but reshape culture which is extraordinarily influential with respect to any kind of political issue or outcome. So this is part of the playbook and they are shamelessly exploiting a terrible criminal act and a personal tragedy. And I sympathize with everyone who is grieving over this young man's murder. Yet this is way beyond that now.
- [03:17]
A
So it sounds to me like you're not in favor of canceling Jimmy Kimmel.
- [03:22]
D
Look, Jimmy Kimmel and all of the late night comedians have certainly said a lot of things about me that I found painful, offensive, outraging. It never crossed my mind that I could call up and say, hey, get rid of this guy. And guess what? You're going to be operating on very fertile ground because all these companies are scared to death of you and your administration. So go after them. It's just beyond the realm of what anyone thought we would see in our country. And it's all at the behest of the president, who wants to stifle and remove any opposition and certainly anyone who makes fun of him, which is kind of a occupational hazard if you're in politics. It seems to me in a democracy now, if we are morphing into some as yet unnamed form of exceptionalist American autocracy, this is right down the alley of where they're heading.
- [04:28]
A
You know, it's interesting, Evan, we were talking right before Secretary Clinton came on, what's the theme that we could have for this conversation at such a moment? And we said basically, it's the authoritarian playbook. That's the theme of this conversation.
- [04:42]
C
It is. And in a way, the book you both have written here is about countering the authoritarian playbook around the world. And all of the insight and the preparation and the expertise that goes into that, that word really rises to the top. A question for you, Dean. One of the clear takeaways here is this idea that if you don't have expertise in the room, that you're disadvantaged. Right now, this administration is pretty systematically expunging expertise from the government. When you look around the world, and we'd love to pin you both down on this question, I'm sure you get this. But when people ask you what keeps you up at night, what is the issue that we are most vulnerable to right now because of this transformation of the role of expertise in government.
- [05:30]
E
Yeah. So thank you. Look, we are at the moment, and this book is really about what happens in this situation when leaders have to make tough decisions. And today there's so many of those decisions. If you look at Ukraine, if you look at what happens in the Middle east and the war in Gaza and the whole region, that can become even more unstable relations with China, where this is going, and so many more unique challenges in the moment. We haven't even talked about how AI and everything that technology can affect crisis situations and decision making in the Situation room. And we need good people, we need experts, we need policymakers that have a lot of experience being in those situations, have expertise that is specific to the region, to the country, to the topic. And we're not getting it right now. And we're seeing this. Even if you look at Steve Witkoff and the negotiations around the world and who is around him and the team of experts, even if you think about the Middle east, where are we heading with this? What is this strategy, the long term strategy for ending or solving the Arab Israeli conflict? Who's working on those issues? So what we're trying to do in the book is to basically say, look, those decisions are very, very difficult and we have a lot of empathy for the people in the room and how to balance the emotions, the role of the advisors, the decisions about to use military force or diplomacy. And for that we really need to remember that the academic community has a lot of expertise and we need to use it. And, and policymakers who've been career diplomats should be in the room, should be in the process. We need good processes. And during the Cuban Missile Crisis, for example, if you look at the National Security Council, the work that was done back then to advance different policy options, and we don't have that to the same extent today, and we might be paying the price for not having the best policies and the best minds around the table.
- [07:34]
B
I'd love to ask Secretary Clinton a little bit about the price that we're paying. You know, it's interesting to me that of the photographs, the iconic picture of you guys in the Situation Room during the bin Laden operation was something that Trump loved. He thought it was the most powerful picture of what a presidency should be about. Yet that Situation Room is sitting empty most of the time. And the meetings, I guess, are taking place around his desk as people just flow into the Oval Office. And the process seems to be whatever he's thinking or saying. What do you think is lost in that situation when those voices are no longer around the table in that room? And specifically, I also, it seems that you have made the argument for among the voices that should be in the room in the situation are women's voices. And what's lost when there are no women's voices in that room, but also no voices other than the sort of one. I'm curious, what's the impact on the country and the world when this happens?
- [08:41]
D
Well, Jane, I've thought about that a lot because I've said and I've written that the process we used leading up to President Obama's decision about the raid to go after who we thought was Bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan, was a very good example of thoughtful, smart presidential decision making. The people in the room did not agree, number one. And we didn't bring the President in until we'd had several meetings because, you know, even the smartest, most self aware person with the President sitting at the head of the table is going to be kind of looking like, am I getting through to him? Is he buying what I'm selling? You know, Instead we sat around that table for hours and debated. Was the intelligence actionable enough to take a step of any sort? If so, what should it be? Do we put a Predator drone over it? Do we launch, you know, a Tomahawk missile? Do we do a raid? If so, how do we do it and avoid the potential of what happened in Iran? And Bob Gates was Secretary of Defense. So there was a lot of experience in the room, a lot of expertise in the room and a lot of honest disagreement in, in the room. And to the President's credit, he did not ask for consensus. He said, I'm not coming in until you all agree. He said, basically, hash it out. Ask every question you can imagine and do something else. Red team the intelligence by people who were not on the bin Laden portfolio. Bring in people who are Asia experts or African experts or whatever. Bring them in and let them go through the intelligence so that, you know, we get the benefit of their questions as well. And then at the end, the President had each one of us tell him what our recommendation was. And I go through that detail because I do not think any of that is happening. I think that people are cut out of the process who know the language, know the culture, know the leaders involved. Karen mentioned Steve Witkoff, the President's envoy. And let's remember, envoy for Russia, envoy for Iran, envoy for the Middle east. Doesn't travel with any support so far as I can see in the pictures. Doesn't even have his own translator, relies on Putin's translator, for heaven's sakes. I mean, the whole idea of expertise is not just rejected, it's ridiculed. You know, we are going to operate from our gut. We, we know what should be done. And of course, the biggest we is at the end of the day, the President. So from what I'm told about decision making, you want to get to Mar a Lago or Bedminster in order to have a meal with the President, you want to get into the Oval Office, you want to go golfing, you want to get your viewpoint directly into his ear. But then you gotta hang around, as a lot of these people do, because he'll listen to the next person and maybe all of your maneuvering and flattery will no longer be sufficient. So this is like a medieval court who can court the king, who can ingratiate him or herself with the king. And the way you do that is not by presenting expert advice or options or, heaven forbid, contradicting some other voice that's going into his head. You do it through flattery, you do it through insinuation. You do it through all of those courtiers skills that you read about in, you know, Henry VIII or God, Henry the First. I mean, you can go all the way back. If it weren't so serious, it would be ridiculous, but it's deadly serious. You know, the Situation Room is obviously a place, but it's also a metaphor. It's a metaphor for decision making, decision making that is at the highest levels, often under crisis conditions. And it is a metaphor for how it operates. You know, it's a shorthand for saying, okay, when I traveled, sometimes we'd go into a tent set up in a hotel room so that you could keep away from surveillance and block out noise. We'd go for a walk, literally in the woods. We'd go into the limousine and turn on the radio. I mean, you always had to be aware that others were watching and listening. In this administration, you just have to figure out, you know, what's going through Trump's mind.
- [13:11]
A
That is such an important theme. And, you know, both of you have talked about that. You've been in the room and experienced what it's like to have to evaluate another leader face to face. Karen is an expert on psychology and the role of crisis decision making. I can't think of a more relevant expertise, frankly, right now. Although in many ways it's the inverse of what we used to expecting. Now the, the volatile factor is the United States of America. And it's not just other world leaders that we're evaluating, but our own president. We're going to take a quick break. When we come back, we'll talk more about the psychology of leaders, and especially one particular leader, Donald Trump. The political scene from the New Yorker will be back in just a moment.
- [14:04]
F
I'm Katie Drummond. I'm Wired's Global Editorial Director.
- [14:07]
G
I'm Michael Colory, Wired's Director of consumer Tech and Culture.
- [14:11]
H
Hi, I'm Lauren Good. I'm a senior correspondent at Wired. And our show Uncanny Valley is about the people, power and influence of Silicon Valley.
- [14:20]
F
And right now, Silicon Valley and Washington have never been more intertwined. So each week we get together to talk about a big story, often at the intersection of tech and politics.
- [14:30]
G
Right. So whether we're talking about Trump, Coin, Doge, or Elon Musk, we will always explain how these Silicon Valley forces are.
- [14:37]
H
Affecting Washington and how they affect you.
- [14:41]
F
Make sure you're following Uncanny Valley in your podcast app of choice so you don't miss an episode.
- [14:49]
I
From the Cascades to PDX to your kitchen. We recycle like we live here. That's why governments, brands and recycling companies are all joining together to bring change, to make recycling better. As in trusting that your recyclables end up in the right places to be made into new things and having brands help fund the cost of recycling. You can find the Latest updates@recycleon.org Oregon. From Mount Hood to the bin under your desk. Together we can do this.
- [15:26]
A
Madam Secretary, last time you and I spoke, it was right before the Alaska Russia summit, which I think is a very interesting case study of what we're talking about here. The explosion of process and the uncertainty about what America's foreign policy is right now. You made a bit of a splash, actually, on the eve of that Alaska summit with your statement, which I think was kind of misinterpreted or people didn't get the joke when you said you'd personally give President Trump nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize if he managed to make peace without giving away any of Ukraine's territory, knowing full well that of course that wasn't going to happen.
- [16:01]
D
So you can always hope, Susan. You can always hope.
- [16:05]
A
Maybe it's just me, but it was pretty clear to me that you didn't think it was going to happen six weeks later. This almost looks like a case study for one of your Columbia classes on the failure of coercive diplomacy and the undermining of America's credibility in the world. But, you know, how does it look to you this, this Alaska summit?
- [16:28]
D
Well, it looks like a total failure. We teach in our class that if you're going to attempt coercive diplomacy, you first have to have credibility so that the threats you make coupled with whatever reassurances you want to provide are going to be seen as credible. So you have to have a reputation for resolve, for following through. And clearly that's not something that, you know, President Trump enjoys. And it was poorly conceived, as I really go back and look at it. And so this was a last minute slap dash decision which gave the Russians huge advantages coming to our Territory being received, a leader who has been indicted as a war criminal for the kidnapping of Ukrainian children. The whole thing was just absolutely outrageous. Now, if there had been some agreement, we would have all said, what a genius. I mean, you know, he acted impulsively, but he read Putin, right? And the very fact that Putin was being received by him on this issue, maybe some progress could be made. Which just goes to show you, he has no idea who Putin really is. And I just wanna say something and then let Karen explain it. Cause this is something that I've learned in working with Karen, teaching this course. You know, the great benefit of the sort of psychological insights that we now have, how human beings, not just leaders, evaluate risks and gains, is so pertinent to both what's happening between Russia and Ukraine, but also we believe what is helpful in explaining where Netanyahu is right now. And that's something called prospect theory. And if you just give Karen a minute, I'd love for her, for your listeners, to explain this, because I view this as a great insight. And I think that when you look at the three main personalities that are roiling the world right now, put Xi Jinping aside for a minute. But you take Putin, Netanyahu, Trump. I think this is very informative.
- [18:41]
E
Look, in the class we talk about the human element and how much the psychology of leaders is such a critical factor in understanding what we're seeing. And prospect theory is basically one element coming out of the work of Kahneman and Versky that revolutionized the field of behavioral economics. And this is the idea of leaders are much more sensitive when they're in a domain of loss, and they're much more willing to run risks and to recoup losses compared to when they are in a domain of gains. So what we see with both Putin and with Netanyahu, especially post October 7, and we'll get to this, is a great willingness to run risks that to us look not rational or extremely reckless. And from both of them, if you look at this psychology, it comes from the reference point in their mind of how much they lost for Putin is the loss of the Soviet empire. And that's a big drive for him. And that's why he's willing to run such risks in Ukraine and elsewhere. And for Benjamin Netanyahu, it's really interesting, right, because before October 7, the reputation of Benjamin Netanyahu is that it's a lot of talk but no action. That he's actually very risk averse. And after October 7th, with the trauma, the loss, the humiliation, you see Almost a very different Benjamin Netanyahu running risk. Even look recently with the attacks, the strikes in Doha, which was crossing of a major red line. And so what explains the change in Benjamin Netanyahu's behavior that all of a sudden is much more willing to run risks to that extent. And we talked about it in class, and it was a very interesting conversation about how he After October 7, something changed. And it's again, it's a domain of loss and the willingness to run risks, that explains a lot of the behavior. And we see the same thing with Putin. But we have a problem understanding that. We have a problem understanding the actors that we're dealing with because we tend to analyze them from a kind of rational actor perspective. We call this mirror imaging. We tend to assume that their intentions and their resolve and their willingness to run risk will mirror ours. And that's why we get surprised again and again and again. And it was true during the Cold War as well. We never thought that they would put missiles in Cuba. We didn't see Saddam willingness to go into Kuwait. We didn't see think about Putin actually running the risks by invading Ukraine in that way. And that's a problem that we are not taking this psychology of the other leader into account, and we have the significant blind spots as a result. And if you add the personal diplomacy into this, you magnify those biases and it makes it much harder to even debate with the president. Because how can you as an intelligence analyst tell him you're wrong? If he's in the room thinking that he knows the guy and he can trust him, and he looks at the intelligence analyst and he will tell them, well, I've been in the room, I know him. And this is not unique to Trump, but he just took it in a different level, which makes it extremely difficult. So that just a theme in the class that international politics can be about great power competitions and capabilities and alliance and institutions. But at the end of the day, we're talking about people, we're talking about human beings and the psychology and how much that affects what we're seeing happening in the Situation Room and in foreign policy.
- [22:14]
B
I have to say, when I hear you speak about the losses and the importance of the psychology of the losses, I kind of wonder if we as a press corps and country maybe overlooked the effect on Trump of the loss in 2020 and the humiliation.
- [22:32]
D
Absolutely, Jane.
- [22:33]
B
And the effect of the prosecutions of. What do you think, Secretary?
- [22:37]
D
I think that that's an important insight. Look, you can go all the way back to his childhood and everything that happened there. Read his, you know, niece's books, and you can get that kind of mentality. This is a guy, and I joked about it, but this is a guy who never got over not winning an Emmy. Every loss is a humiliation. Every loss is in his mind. Again, you know, I'm not a psychiatrist, but I'll go there anyway. Every loss a defeat in his father's eyes. I mean, the whole thing is psychopathology on steroids. And we have failed to understand it for the very reasons Karen has talked about. You know, it's difficult. We kind of impute motives, analyses, understanding of other people to how we see the world. And whether you just are working on a one, on one basis with somebody at the workplace or in a relationship or on the world stage, we have to do more, to take the insights from psychology and apply them. So why is he still claiming there was no Russian interference? Because I got more votes than he did. Even though he ended up winning the Electoral College, he cannot let go of the fact that I got nearly 3 million more votes. That is what motivates this effort to rewrite history, to eliminate the factual evidence that Everybody came to 2020 humiliation on a much larger stage.
- [24:11]
A
I'm glad you brought this up, because this goes to this question of vengeance and as a sort of theme of the post2024 victory that we're looking at, that this is the basis, in some ways, of Trump's domestic policy, if not his foreign policy. Just last month, Stephen Miller, one of his closest advisors, was calling for your prosecution on the basis of some rewritten version of 2016 in which you were engaged in a, quote, unquote, seditious conspiracy. This goes back to our first conversation about going after his domestic enemies after the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Have you seen any efforts to follow through on that? What does it mean when Stephen Miller says, you should be prosecuted right now in 2025? Do you take that seriously?
- [24:58]
D
Well, I think you have to take everything they say seriously, because they are literally on a witch hunt. I mean, they believe by silencing critics, by rewriting history. And we're about to see that on a huge scale. Cause they're gonna try to rewrite the history of America for our 250th anniversary next year. They've already started. I mean, it was shocking when they directed the National Park Service to start removing references to slavery and take down the infamous, renowned portrait of the slave with the terrible scarring on his back. Why are they doing this? Because they can't win a fair fight. They can't win a fair fight in politics, and they can't win a fair fight in history. So therefore they have to silence voices, they have to prosecute people, they have to rewrite whatever they can because it's too painful for them to accept that their version of America is not supported by the majority of the American people. It is not supported by the facts, evidence, or historical truth. And so they've got to eliminate that in order to feel comfortable. You know, Susan, getting back to the psychology, this creates cognitive dissonance in these guys. They are not mature enough, they're not emotionally stable enough in order to be dealing with different thoughts at the same time. I mean, part of the hallmark of somebody who tries to be fair minded to, tries to get to whatever the truth is, is sometimes you have to hold two different thoughts in your head at the same time. That is absolutely uncomfortable for these guys. And so their version of America, this white supremacy version of America filled with all kinds of vengeance and persecution complexes is what they are trying to impose on the rest of us. So, you know, they've got some kind of investigation going in the justice department about 2016. They already did that once with the guy that they appointed as a special prosecutor back, back whenever he first termed Trump Durham, you know, and he like looked under every rug. He brought two failed prosecutions. He deposed me for a couple of hours. I mean, it was so pathetic. But they're back on that. And you know what, they do scare a lot of people. They intimidate institutions. And so it's working for them. And that's what's so frightening to me, is that people are capitulating, complying. And so we don't know what the next act.
- [27:29]
C
And this is this question of psychology which we've talked about so well now on the domestic side as well as on the foreign side, when you look across to a scene of the kind we had in Beijing recently, where you've got the three leaders, you've got Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un, when you try to look at them, we, as you say, we sometimes say, well, these are rational actors, they're not gonna do something suicidal, they're not gonna attack us. But Secretary Clinton, are you concerned that, by the way, that we are conducting policy making, if we can use that term, that we are underestimating and perhaps misreading what's going on in that very complex and evolving relationship over there?
- [28:13]
D
Probably. I mean, I can't speak for the intelligence services inside the US Government. Right now I know they got Xi Jinping wrong because I was there and their view of him and his psychology and what kind of leader he would be, really missed. The intense focus on, once again, the domain of loss. They lost Taiwan. They want it back. They dominated centuries ago the waters around China, you know, South China Sea and others. They want it back. So I think that when you look. And don't forget to put Prime Minister Modi in there, when you look at the North Korean, Chinese and Russian leader all together in Beijing and also holding hands with the Prime Minister of India, who we worked very hard to support as a counterweight to Chinese influence in Asia, it should ring alarm bells because, you know, Vladimir Putin has been willing to sacrifice over a million Russian men dead and injured without the blink of an eye. You see Xi Jinping purging his military on a regular basis. We don't know all the reasons why. Some of it may be corruption, but some of it may be they're just not ready yet to do what he wants to do with them. And then you've got Kim Jong Un, who has certainly continued his nuclear weapons program. And we know, or at least we should know, that the missiles he's developed with Chinese and Russian help of whatever kind can reach Hawaii and may be able to reach the west coast of the United States. So that puts them, especially if they are in some kind of triumvirate, it puts them in a position to threaten. And if you are a Trump, who I think has a view of the world in an almost 19th century balance of power, spheres of influence way, I think you could see whole chunks of the world being ceded to China and Russia. You know, Putin wants to control as much of Europe as possible and intimidate the rest. Trump seems to be okay with that. China wants to control, you know, not just its borders, like Laos, Cambodia, et cetera, and its puppets, you know, like North Korea, but intimidate the rest. And now we've got Trump using gunboat diplomacy, blowing these small boats out of the water with no evidence, no process to demonstrate overwhelming military might with respect in our hemisphere. So I think whether this is written down somewhere or just a kind of gut reaction, let's divide the world up, I'm not sure, but that's what I see. When I saw that meeting in Beijing and when I saw Modi and Karen and I write about this, we have a piece coming out in the Times, I think, early next week about the limits of face to face diplomacy. You know, remember, Trump and Modi were best bros in the first term, Trump went to India, huge rally. Modi came to the US Huge rally. They helding hands all the whole deal. And then Trump told Modi he wanted credit for ending the flare up between Pakistan and India. And Modi was like, what? You didn't do anything? I did it. This tit for tat stuff is not particularly long lasting. It's not strategic. But forcing adversaries along with at least hopeful allies into some kind of alliance has very long term dangers for us.
- [31:53]
E
I just want to jump in and just say on the realignment. So obviously you can think about what's happening in the world right now and say, well, it's inevitable, right? I mean, unipolarity. At the end of the day, you will see realignment. So the idea that there might be balancing against the United States, one could argue, yes, it could have happened, should have happened at some point. But what we're making in the op ed and in the class and in the book is that the leaders actually matter in terms of when it happens, how it happens, to the extent that we will see change in the status quo. What we're talking about is not just about the psychology of how we assess them, but as important as how they assess the United States. And when they look at the United States. The key term that we talk about in the class is credibility. And if you want to think about deterrence or reassurance, those concepts that helped us so much during the Cold War rely on consistency, on our ability to do it again and again and reassure in a credible way that we are reliable, we're a reliable ally, and when we make a threat, we follow up. And when you have volatility that replaces credibility, it's no wonder that you see a realignment of the world order or alliances forming, because we cannot be trusted in the same way, not to deter effectively and not to reassure effectively. So it's not just the psychology of how we assess them, but they at the same time assess us. And that's another blind spot that we have. We don't understand our image in the eyes of those dictators.
- [33:40]
A
We're going to take a quick break, and when we come back, we'll talk about the threat to fair elections here at home and how Democrats are standing up to Donald Trump or not. The political scene from the New Yorker will be back in just a moment.
- [33:59]
J
Right now, we are living through some of the most tumultuous political times our country has ever known. I'm David Remnick, and each week on the New Yorker Radio Hour I'll try to make sense of what's happening alongside politicians and thinkers like Cory Booker, Nancy Pelosi, Liz Cheney, Tim Waltz, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Newt Gingrich, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Charlamagne, tha God, and so many more. That's all on the New Yorker Radio Hour. Wherever you listen to podcasts.
- [34:36]
B
You'Ve described a sort of a panoply of problems here that are really serious. And I have seen Secretary Clinton that you've said, you know, the way out of this is win elections. And I just, you know, wondered, I'm watching various legal challenges to the Voting Rights act and other kinds of tampering with elections here. I'm wondering, do you have absolute faith that we will be having elections on the level in the near and further future, midterms and beyond?
- [35:10]
D
Well, I have absolute faith that the other side is going to do everything they can to prevent that. And obviously, gerrymandering is the public face of it. Calling Greg Abbott saying, find me five more seats, and then having Gavin Newsom smartly counter that than going now to Indiana and other places to scrounge up some more gerrymandering to try to produce votes. They can't win a fair fight right now. I mean, people have seen too much of what they did. Remember, you know, I used to tell people after 2020, there was a very, I think, even odds that Trump could have gotten reelected, but for the way they handled Covid. But that was enough to just push people away from him. And still, though, more people voted for him in 2020 than voted for him in 2016. So we know it's going to be a tough race because it's a divided country. But we have every reason to believe that if we had a level playing field, if we had fair and free elections without big thumbs on the scale against it, we would win. And that's why they're doing everything they can to undermine it. And then below the surface, beyond this gerrymandering ploy, they are very clearly trying to grab election material, demanding registration rolls. They're gonna try to throw people off. That's the tried and true Republican tactic. They know how to maneuver and manipulate elections to their advantage, and that's what they're full throatedly trying to do right now. So I can't answer the question, Jane. I mean, where we have elections that are our state run, we're winning. We're winning, you know, handsomely. And we most likely will win the governorships of New Jersey and Virginia and maybe by, you know, significant margins. So we are on a winning streak, not because of how smart and strong we are, so much as how they have displayed their values. They have intimidated people, they have scared a lot of people. And as hospitals are beginning to cut back services, as people are understanding their, you know, healthcare costs are gonna go up on the health exchanges under the Affordable Care act, all of this is unfolding. We should win in 2026. They looked at the same numbers that people like I looked at. So now they're doing everything they can to throw all sorts of wrenches into the electoral machinery.
- [37:41]
A
Democrats are divided over how to respond, though, and that's true on some of these foreign policy issues. And it's certainly true when you look our domestic politics. Do you agree with Governor Gavin Newsom, for example, that Democrats have to fight fire with fire on the redistricting or in some of their stiffening of the spine in Congress? What's your take on how Democrats are doing in standing up to Donald Trump?
- [38:07]
D
I absolutely agree with Gavin. I talked with him and people in the California legislature about this. It's not anybody's first choice. But what Texas is doing is so clearly intended to deprive voters in every other state of the opportunity to see a change in the House of Representatives. And I think Gavin is absolutely right. Now he has a harder road to hoe. He has to go and get this proposition passed. But other Democratic governors are similarly looking because, you know, Trump didn't stop with Texas. I mean, all I would want, and every Democrat that, that, you know, that is worth anything, in my opinion, would want is a fair fight. They cannot win a fair fight on the policies that they are behind. We now see that they're not going after violent criminals to deport. They're picking up the guy who works at Home Depot and the woman who takes care of your grandmother. I mean, they're going after people who nobody thought were a risk because they want to purge immigrants from our country for their own political and ideological reasons. Now, we're also seeing the result in the employment figures. You know, we are stripping people out of jobs that need to be done. They are having to backtrack on things like farm workers. But, you know, this is doing serious damage. They are the most ideologically driven administration and they are doing serious damage to our politics, our economy, our society, et cetera. Now, the final thing I would say is, look, I think the Democrats are finding their voices. But remember, in order to take back the House, we've got to win so called purple districts. So they're not districts filled with People who want us to on the ramparts, you know, they want to know, okay, what does this mean to me? The independent voters in America are now, I think, at a higher registration level than either Republicans or Democrats. So it may be a little frustrating for people who've already made up their minds that, you know, Trump is an existential threat to the future of democracy and our country. But for people trying to figure out, how do you win in this district or that district, what the Democrats are trying to do is thread a bunch of really tough needles. And until we get into the election itself and individual candidates can get some attention to speak for themselves. You know, Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer are very experienced politicians, and people can second guess them and complain and all the that, but they are trying to win. At the end of the day, that is what matters. And winning is not won online, and winning is not won by a fiery speech. Winning is, you know, the slow, hard, boring of hard boards, as Max Weber said. And that's what they're trying to do to that point.
- [40:58]
C
One place we're about to have an election, just very briefly, before you go, is New York City. I mean, I think you saw Kathy Hochul has endorsed Zoran Mandani for mayor. Trump, interestingly, responded to that endorsement, and he said something that is, in the present context, I think, something we have to be quite concerned about. He said, Washington will be watching this situation very closely. He has a deep interest in New York. He's sent troops to other cities. So whoever the New York City mayor is, is gonna be dealing with Trump. And as we go here, I'm curious, Madam Secretary, do you think that the Democratic nominee for mayor in New York is up to the judge?
- [41:34]
D
We don't know. I mean, you never know with somebody who has never held that kind of office before. A lot of people rise to it, a lot of people don't. And so I think the proof is in what the governing looks like after the election. But I do think that, you know, one of Trump's contradictory feelings is about New York. He really wants to be accepted in New York, and he has. He has business interests still in New York. He does, you know, have real estate in New York. So he does have a economic interest, a kind of personal attachment. So I don't have any idea what, if anything, he will do. I don't know any more than you guys do about what may be going on behind the scenes. So I think there are a lot of things we have to wait and see.
- [42:19]
A
I want to thank you both for an amazing conversation today with Secretary Hillary Clinton, with Dean Karen Yarhimilo, and a chance to talk about the project that they're working on together at Columbia, a class and a book inside the Situation Room, the Theory and Practice of Crisis Decision Making. That's edited by Secretary Clinton by the Dean. It's out now.
- [42:42]
D
Thank you. Thank you all very much.
- [42:44]
B
Thanks so much.
- [42:46]
D
Take care.
- [42:54]
A
Well, guys, I think we should do a sort of a rap segment if you're gaining it.
- [42:58]
C
Yeah, rap direction. Let's do it.
- [43:00]
A
Because I thought that that was Hillary Clinton on fire is what I thought.
- [43:04]
C
Unplugged, really unplugged.
- [43:07]
B
She's letting it rip.
- [43:08]
C
You know, what comes to the surface is what's so fascinating is, you know, we talk about politics in all kinds of levels. In the end, what does it come down to? It comes down to psychology. It comes down to what's happening in the brains of these figures, whether you're talking about geopolitics like Putin or as she said. And I was really struck by this, the psychological effect of loss on Donald Trump, that you can't understand this guy without seeing how that reverberates through his psyche.
- [43:36]
A
They made this leap, Evan, that I thought was really fascinating to connecting the psychological dots, if you will, between Netanyahu, Putin and Trump, these sort of three very dominant figures right now in the international scene. And that what's driving and animating all three of them is this sense of loss and grievance. Jane, you nailed it with Secretary Clinton on the idea that the underrated factor of Trump's 2020 defeat as sort of the organizing principle for a lot of what's happening right now.
- [44:05]
B
I mean, she seemed really animated about that. I also really, I have to say, I enjoyed hearing her reminding us of the kind of process that went into getting bin Laden because it's so easy to forget what the world was like when there were experts arguing in THE Situation room and what a difference it made. And I think what a difference it makes to have opposing points of view allowed to voice their opinions and argue things out, because you get to better results that way. I mean, there are reasons why autocracy's not the best form of government. You need to have transparency and you need to have opposing points of view. You get more wisdom out of people clashing than out of one guy sitting at the Oval Office and dictating. And I think she made that argument so well. On the bin Laden instance, I'm also.
- [44:55]
C
Struck by this idea of the limits of face to face diplomacy, because Trump takes it to a cartoonish level where he imagines he can get in the room with some head of state and just kind of jawbone them into agreement. But you do see this. I've always been wary of leaders, and Joe Biden is also somebody who has often thought that using the powers of personal knowledge and diplomacy, that you can have this effect. Look, I think what we're seeing right now with the realignment of Russia and China and even India, which, after all, has been the object of such sustained American attention and courtship, is a sign that these countries have their own interests. And we might look at it and say to ourselves, oh, you know, we're projecting a message, the right combination of threat and assurance and what have you, but it is rapidly slipping beyond our grip. And I think you heard them describe that today with a real sense of alarm.
- [45:55]
A
That's the one question I would have wanted to ask, actually. Secretary Clinton, at the end, was listening to her react to your question, Evan, about this sort of axis of upheaval, as it's been termed, given our conversation about Donald Trump. Does the world know which side America is on anymore? And for me, that's the big thing hanging over for any conversation about America and the world right now is that the uncertainty is about which side we're on.
- [46:24]
B
I mean, she basically said we've lost so much credibility that the other leaders around the world are turning to each other and basically counting us out. Right now. They're forming new alliances because we're unreliable. I was gonna say I also found her both alarming and also uplifting in her belief that if there's a fair fight fight in this country, the country will not back autocracy and the kinds of policies we're seeing from the Trump administration and will turn them out of power. But what's alarming is given the chance, she did not say, I absolutely have faith we're going to have a fair fight. And that is really something in this country to hear that.
- [47:13]
A
This has been the political scene. From the New Yorker, I'm Susan Glaser. We had research assistance today from Alex Dalia. Our producer is Nora Ritchie. Mixing by Mike Kutchman. Steven Valentino is our executive producer, and Chris Bannon is Conde Nast's head of Global Audio. Our theme music is by Alison Layton Brown. Thank you for listening. We'll be back next week.
- [47:38]
D
Foreign.
- [47:42]
F
I'm Katie Drummond. I'm Wired's global editorial director.
- [47:45]
G
I'm Michael Colory, Wired's director of consumer.
- [47:48]
H
Tech and culture and I'm Lauren Good. I'm a senior correspondent at Wired. And our show, Uncanny Valley, is all about the people, power, and influence of Silicon Valley.
- [47:58]
F
At Wired, we're constantly reporting on how technology is changing every aspect of our lives.
- [48:03]
D
Lives.
- [48:04]
F
So each week on the show, we get together to talk about one of the biggest stories in tech.
- [48:08]
G
Right? So whether we're talking about privacy, AI, social media, or a major tech figure, we will always explain the Silicon Valley forces behind these stories and how they affect you.
- [48:19]
F
Make sure you're following Uncanny Valley in your podcast app of choice so you don't miss an episode.
- [48:29]
A
From prx.