Marco Rubio: “Modernizing” Conservatism

Summary

---

The Political Scene | The New Yorker

Episode: Marco Rubio: “Modernizing” Conservatism
Date: June 4, 2018
Host: Susan Glasser
Guest: Senator Marco Rubio

---

Episode Overview

This episode features a wide-ranging conversation between The New Yorker’s Susan Glasser and Florida Senator Marco Rubio. The focus centers on Rubio’s perspective on the evolving Republican Party in the Trump era, especially around national security and economic policy, his views on the U.S.-China rivalry, election interference, and the internal dynamics of working with President Trump. Rubio also reflects on how conservative policy must adapt — or be "modernized" — to address current realities. The tone is conversational but direct, with Rubio candidly responding to pointed questions about the GOP's future and his own political evolution.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

---

1. The China Challenge and U.S. Foreign Policy

[02:31 – 07:14]

• Rubio’s Longstanding Focus: Rubio has long been concerned with China’s military expansion and human rights record, but says his understanding has “crystallized” as he observed China’s broader strategy.

  • Quote: “You start putting all the pieces together … and you realize this is much deeper than just a conflict with a country. This is an all out effort to change the world order.” (Marco Rubio, 03:51)

• China as a Great Power Competitor: Rubio sees China as having a detailed, long-term plan to challenge U.S. global leadership, not just economically, but strategically.

  • Quote: “China has a very well crafted plan, a 25, 50 and 100 year plan to recapture what they believe is their rightful role in the world, which is to be its most powerful country.” (Marco Rubio, 05:53)

• Economic vs. Security Framing: Rubio argues that the conversation about China should expand beyond trade and economics, emphasizing how Chinese policy threatens U.S. technological leadership and national security.

---

2. Trump’s Approach to China and Governance

[04:12 – 05:47]

• On Trump’s Instincts: Rubio believes Trump’s instincts on China are right, that China has taken advantage of the U.S., but notes the administration is characterized by public and internal debate.

  • Quote: “His instincts on China are right ... there's nothing final yet. I mean, ... he encourages sort of a diversity of opinions and a vibrant debate publicly.” (Marco Rubio, 04:34)

• The Internal White House Debate: Rubio positions himself as one voice among many lobbying for a tougher stance on China.

---

3. Comparing China and Russia: Election Interference

[07:17 – 09:45]

• Different Threats: Rubio delineates between Russia’s attempts to disrupt U.S. democracy and China’s more systemic, long-term challenge.

• On 2016 Russian Interference: Rubio pushes back against claims that Russian hacking changed the outcome of the 2016 election, aligning with official intelligence assessments.

  • Quote: “Suffice it to say that I don't believe, I personally don't believe. I've seen no evidence that the outcome of the election would have been different as a result.” (Marco Rubio, 07:52)
  • Acknowledges Putin’s clear preference for Trump over Clinton, but distinguishes that from claims of collusion or actual election impact.

• Goal of Russian Interference: Emphasizes that Putin’s main goal was to sow chaos and undermine American political authority.

  • Quote: “His real goal ... was to sow chaos in American democracy because that way he can turn around and say, you have no right to lecture us on our internal processes.” (Marco Rubio, 09:30)

---

4. GOP Post-Trump: Modernizing Conservatism

[11:10 – 13:41]

• Learning from the 2016 Campaign: Rubio discusses how campaigning changed his thinking, leading to a greater recognition of the “human cost” of economic policies like free trade.

  • Quote: “What perhaps people like me have not done enough of in the past is recognize ... the 30 [jobs] it destroyed are not machines or statistics. They're human beings with families.” (Marco Rubio, 12:15)

• Reform vs. Modernization: Rubio prefers “modernizing” to “reform,” describing it as software updates that respond to real-world challenges.

  • Quote: “We're modernizing and trying to ... just like every couple weeks I get an update that there's a software update on my phone ... I think we have to update it because there’s new ideas.” (Marco Rubio, 13:41)

---

5. Working with President Trump

[13:56 – 16:19]

• Personal Relationship: Says there was never a true personal problem, even at the campaign’s nastiest (“Little Marco” incidents).

  • Boxing Analogy: “I've never heard a boxer after a match asked, 'hey, were you upset when he punched you in the face in the third round?' ... It was a boxing match.” (Marco Rubio, 14:29)

• Approach to Cooperation & Dissent: Rubio explains his philosophy of working with the President, trying to influence policy, and being ready to publicly disagree and vote against Trump when warranted.

  • Quote: “When I disagree with him, I've spoken about why I disagree and I've tried to change his mind … if I still can't convince him, I'll vote against it.” (Marco Rubio, 15:49)

---

6. Future Political Plans and Party Critique

[16:19 – 20:51]

• 2020 and Beyond: Rubio avoids ruling out another presidential run, citing personal and political factors, but underscores his current focus on the Senate.

  • Quote: “I'm just not in a position to honestly tell you how I'm going to feel in four and a half years. I don't know. ... I don't say no.” (Marco Rubio, 16:44)

• Responding to Criticism of Congressional Compliance: Reacts to Jeff Flake’s speech that criticized Congress for being “utterly supine” in face of Trump, distinguishing between constant criticism and pragmatic engagement.

• On Outrage Cycles and Media: Rubio argues that outrage—by the media and the opposition—feeds into Trump’s strategy.

  • Quote: “Living in New York all his life, he's mastered how to do that to great advantage.” (Marco Rubio, 18:42)

---

7. Principles of Engagement

[20:22 – 21:10]

• Rubio’s Stance: Lays out a three-pronged approach: work with Trump where possible, attempt to influence when they disagree, and oppose when necessary.

  • Quote: “If we agree, let's work together ... If we don't agree, let me try to influence it, and if you still go forward, then I'll oppose it.” (Marco Rubio, 20:49)

• Bridging Differences: Emphasizes the need for dialogue, compromise, and example-setting to make American governance work.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On China’s Strategy:
  “When you put it all together, suddenly the light bulb goes off and you realize this is much deeper than just a conflict with a country. This is an all out effort to change the world order.”
  — Marco Rubio (03:51)

• On Learning from Political Campaigns:
  “If you spend a year of your life traveling the country, ... and it doesn't impact your thinking in any way, then you're not alive.”
  — Marco Rubio (11:25)

• On Reforming Conservatism:
  “We're modernizing and trying to, you know, just like every couple weeks I get an update that there's a software update on my phone that I should download. I think we have to update it because there's new ideas.”
  — Marco Rubio (13:41)

• On Working with Trump:
  “My job is to serve in the Senate and to work with him to achieve good things for Florida and for the country. And that's what I've tried to do. And when I disagree with him, I've spoken about why I disagree and I've tried to change his mind.”
  — Marco Rubio (15:04)

• On Political Outrage:
  “You wake up every morning and the news is always about what can people be outraged by today. And the president understands that, by the way, which is why he dominates every news cycle.”
  — Marco Rubio (18:27)

---

Major Segment Timestamps

• China’s global strategy: [02:31 – 07:14]
• Trump’s instincts and policy debates: [04:12 – 05:47]
• Russian interference and intelligence: [07:17 – 09:45]
• Reflections on the GOP post-Trump: [11:10 – 13:41]
• Working with Trump: [13:56 – 16:19]
• Future plans and party criticism: [16:19 – 20:51]
• Rubio’s engagement philosophy: [20:22 – 21:10]

---

Conclusion

The episode offers a clear window into Marco Rubio’s thinking as he seeks to “modernize” conservatism in real time. He stresses the need for the GOP to adapt its long-standing principles to new realities, especially in an era of global competition and political disruption. Rubio positions himself as both a pragmatist and a principled actor, willing to challenge the president and his party when necessary, but also eager to find areas for cooperation. The conversation is notable for its candor, humility, and the depth of insight into the modern conservative project and U.S. political life.

---

Transcript

[A]

As summer draws to a close and the kids go back to school, I know I'm going to want to keep in touch with my kids at a price I can afford. Back to school Shopping can be a hassle, but your phone plan shouldn't be. That's why I made the switch to Mint Mobile. For a limited time, Mint mobile is offering three months of unlimited premium wireless service for 15 bucks a month. So while other parents are sweating overage charges, I have a little bit more room in my budget for cool back to school threads. Say bye bye to your overpriced wireless plan's jaw dropping monthly bills and unexpected overages, Mint Mobile is here to rescue you. All plans come with high speed data and unlimited talk and text delivered on the nation's largest 5G network. Use your own phone with any Mint Mobile plan and bring your phone number along with all your existing contacts. Dish overpriced wireless and get three months of premium wireless service from Mint Mobile for 15 bucks a month. This year, skip breaking a sweat and breaking the bank. Get this new customer offer and your three month unlimited wireless plan for just 15 bucks a [e-mail] New Yorker that's that's mintmobile.com New Yorker upfront payment of $45 required, equivalent to $15 a month limited time new customer offer for first three months only. Speeds may slow above 35 gigabytes on unlimited plan taxes and fees extra. See Mint Mobile for details.

[B]

I'm Dorothy Wickenden. On today's Politics and More podcast, Senator Marco Rubio speaks with the New Yorker's Susan Glasser. Rubio discusses the threat posed by China and how the Republican Party has changed since the election of Donald Trump.

[C]

There was a time quite recently in the scheme of things, when Marco Rubio was the shining future of the Republican Party. He was a conservative, a national security type, but young and charismatic, and he represents the crucial swing state of Florida. Republicans had been saying that they really needed to capture the Latino vote, and Senator Rubio, who's Cuban American, seemed like the guy who could do it. Now, that was before he went up against Donald Trump, who indelibly dubbed him Little Marco. And we know how that story ended. Senator Rubio had said that he would quit politics if he didn't win the presidential election. But he had a sudden change of heart. And since the election of 2016, he's been weighing in on the Russia investigation as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and pushing the president to get tougher with China, Venezuela and other countries. The New Yorker, Susan Glasser writes about politics from Washington and she caught up recently with Senator Rubio in his office.

[B]

We're here on Capitol Hill and, you know, big events, as always, are happening as we are talking today. You know, in the news, China, the President's negotiations with China, with North Korea in. And you have been particularly active. China has always been one of your foreign policy interests. And of course, back in the 2016 campaign, you really built your presidential campaign in many ways around national security issues and your profile, thinking about America's future, role in the world, how's it fit in now in the Trump era?

[D]

I was always concerned about elements of China, in essence, their military expansion in the South China Sea, you know, sort of their human rights record. But only in the last year and a half have I been able to kind of sit there and view it in its totality. You start putting all the pieces together, I mean, all the different elements. What they do in their commercial practices, how they steal intellectual property, how they use the US Immigration system against us in many cases, how they buy up small companies on Silicon Valley to be able to get underneath the scrutiny of government, but buy up these key components that are critical to future technologies, their influence campaigns around the world, whether it's strong arming Marriott to the point where they fire an American worker for tweeting something that China didn't agree with. When you put it all together, suddenly the light bulb goes off and you realize this is much deeper than just a conflict with a country. This is an all out effort to change the world order. And I think that's a dangerous development because anytime you have these kinds of imbalances in the world, it leads to conflict.

[B]

Well, it's really interesting because you would have expected in a way that President Trump, he campaigned on some of these themes and yet there's been sort of veering back and forth the extent to which China really is at the center of his view of the world. Do you think that he's putting China at the center of his view of.

[D]

His instincts on China are right. And primarily those instincts are based on the idea that China has taken advantage of the United States. But the other thing to understand about the President is there's nothing final yet. I mean, there's, this is, I think the difference between this administration and others is that he encourages sort of a diversity of opinions and a vibrant debate publicly. And so he has people in the administration that agree with me and he has people that don't. And so that debate is going on internally and we are just one additional voice trying to weigh in on one side of that debate and hopefully influence the outcome.

[B]

Well, exactly. You and many others are publicly lobbying, in effect, a still ongoing internal White House process. But I want to talk about what this debate means and how you put the evolving China negotiations in the context of your own thinking about politics and your own future. I think the economist, you give a fascinating interview to them recently. They called it Marco's Makeover. I don't know if that's overstating it or not, but clearly you're thinking about what's different about politics in the Trump era than, say, when you thought about the presidential campaign and how to frame your message. Let me ask you that. What is different? How have you changed as a politician and how do you think the country is?

[D]

Well, first of all, I would challenge the idea that it's the Trump era. I think the era made Trump, not Trump made the era. How does China fit in? I think it's different from every other global challenge that we face. China has a very well crafted plan, a 25, 50 and 100 year plan to recapture what they believe is their rightful role in the world, which is to be its most powerful country. And, you know, every nation has a right to aspire to whatever they want to achieve. I think where it becomes problematic is when they view it as a zero sum game, that it can only come at our expense. And where it becomes particularly problematic is when they intend to achieve it, not through out innovating us or outworking us, but by stealing intellectual property, denying American companies access to business there, because that directly harms Americans. So if we live in a where China dominates biomedicine and artificial intelligence and Quantum computing and 5G technology and telecom and aerospace, they're going to control not just what life is like in China, they're going to control a lot of what life is like in America.

[B]

Well, it's interesting, you're making a connection really between the economic argument about China, which is really where we've focused it. You could say the American conversation in the last decade has been really around the economics of it. And you're connecting that to a security conversation. Do you see China as the sort of long term great power competitor, the U.S. i think the national security strategy of, you know, the Trump administration links Russia and China there.

[D]

Yeah, but. But China and Russia are two very different stories.

[B]

Exactly. You are in fact, on the Senate Intelligence Committee. And before we go back to kind of where China fits in, I do want to ask you about that. It is amazing that we're still talking about this every single day. In fact, I earlier today, James Clapper, who was the Director of National Intelligence during that election, said he's reconsidered his views and he believes that in fact, those 80,000 votes would have been swayed by the Russians and therefore they did change the outcome of our election.

[D]

Well, that runs counter to the intelligence community report that he helped bring together an author which is inconclusive on that topic. Well, it's inconclusive and therefore he can't be going out and making that claim. Suffice it to say that I don't believe, I personally don't believe. I've seen no evidence that the outcome of the election would have been different as a result. But I don't believe.

[B]

But you do agree with the Senate Intelligence Committee's recent report saying that they do agree with the intelligence finding that Putin intervened in the election on Trump's behalf?

[D]

Well, a couple points. Number one, I believe they intervened in the election before the Intelligence Committee even began investigating. Back In October of 2016, I was a candidate for reelection and, and I believe I'm the only Republican in the country who refused to talk about WikiLeaks or the Clinton emails because I said then it was the work of a foreign intelligence agency. As far as here's where it's so difficult in American politics today, I'm going to try, but I know it's very difficult. But these long form interviews are probably the best place to do it.

[B]

Someone will take this quote.

[D]

But the fact that Putin had established a preference for Donald Trump does not mean that he ultimately was successful in impacting the outcome of the election, nor does it mean Trump did anything wrong. It means he hated Hillary Clinton a lot because he, he blamed her for the color revolutions and that he thought that during the era in which all those protests broke out in 2011 in Russia, he blamed her directly and so he wanted her to lose. But that doesn't mean that he has something on Donald Trump. Those are two very different things. And I'm trying to be fair. If I thought that there was a level of collusion or if we ever find it, I'll be the first one out there to say that. But that's not, so far, no one's seen any evidence of that. But his real goal, his ultimate goal, was to sow chaos in American democracy because that way he can turn around and say, you have no right to lecture us on our internal processes when your own process is corrupt, flawed and broken.

[B]

By that standard, you would judge it.

[D]

A Success what Putin did? Yeah, absolutely. I mean, we're still fighting about it.

[B]

Absolutely. So are you concerned about the escalation in rhetoric from President Trump in recent days on that? I mean, do you believe there's a deep state?

[D]

No, I believe that there are certainly. But this is not new, that there are people in America's bureaucracy who undermine the decision of policymakers, and they do it to administrations in both parties. I don't think it's a vast organized conspiracy, but I do think we have an enormous government of career bureaucrats who've been there through multiple administrations, and if there's not a clear direction, they're gonna step in.

[B]

Right, but just Trump election, though, I mean, the idea that there was some conspiracy by the FBI, but then withhold the information, but then somehow undermine him.

[D]

I mean, I think that if there is evidence of that, I'd like to know about it, and maybe they will uncover evidence of that, but I haven't seen it yet. What I have seen is the FBI was presented with a number of individuals who operated within the orbit of the Trump campaign. But let's be frank. I mean, the Trump campaign was an unconventional campaign. I witnessed it up close for a while, and a lot of people, because he wasn't a traditional politician, a lot of people came forward and said, I'll be your advisor. And some of these people at least claimed openly that they had links. The FBI sees that they have an obligation.

[B]

So since that presidential election, that if we're not looking backwards and we're looking forwards. Tell us a little bit about your own process of thinking about what the Republican Party is going to be in the wake of this surprising effort.

[D]

Well, the first thing I would say is, if you spend a year of your life traveling the country, meeting with people far from home, interacting with people with different views and ideas, and it doesn't impact your thinking in any way, then you're not alive. And so one of the things that I think emerges from that campaign and from everything that happened is the realization that I have no hope of reforming the left. I'm not in the left, so I'm talking about the right now for a moment. Our instincts are right. The free enterprise, limited government is the right approach, but that has to be melded with reality of everyday life. So, as an example, I have always supported the idea of free and fair trade, and I still do. What perhaps people like me have not done enough of in the past is recognize that even if free trade creates 50 new jobs, it destroyed 30. And the 30 it destroyed are not machines or statistics. They're human beings with families. And a lot of those 30 live in the same community, working in the same industry, far from where the 50 new jobs were created. And we don't talk about them. We didn't talk about them enough. And to the extent that we did, the argument sometimes is the market will take care of might, but it might take 15 years to take care of it. And by that time that 55 year old worker is 70.

[B]

Do you think the Trump disruption might have the effect of causing some of your Republican colleagues to question some of those limited government at all cost orthodoxies? Do you see any sign of that?

[D]

And I just want to say it's not about walking away from limited government because we still that it's more along the lines of how do we analyze our role? What is the purpose of our policies? The purpose of our policies are not just solely to drive economic growth, but to ensure that human beings, Americans, are benefiting from that. It starts with a proposition that the economy should serve people, not people serve the economy. And so our policies need to be geared towards that. So the child tax credit is a perfect example, and that is we had the opportunity to make a substantial reduction in the corporate tax and yet deliver more assistance to working families through their own money. And we did it, but we didn't go all the way. And we should have gone all the way.

[B]

Do you think it's a fair label to call what you're up to kind of creating a new reform conservative movement? How would you characterize?

[D]

I would say we're modernizing and trying to, you know, just like every couple weeks I get an update that there's a software update on my phone that I should download. I think we have to update it because there's new ideas.

[B]

Do you always update those, though?

[D]

Yeah, generally it depends what the fix is.

[B]

Well, it's interesting you point out, right, like there's the laboratory version of politics and then there's the real world. And here in Washington, you know, it's been pretty disruptive the last couple years. I gotta ask you, what's it like for you working with President Trump, who you ran against, who is a tough guy to run against? He uses tough words, but by all accounts, you talk to him that. Right? He calls you on the phone.

[D]

Well, we never really, even in the height of that campaign, ever had a personal problem. I always tell people I'm a fan of boxing.

[B]

Well, I'm not even like the little Marco thing very much.

[D]

No, but listen. Okay, well, let me Tell you, I'm a big fan of boxing. It's probably not politically correct, but I like boxing. I think it's one of the purest, you know, sports. I've never heard a boxer after a match asked, hey, were you upset when he punched you in the face in the third round? Because he would sound stupid. Of course he punched me in the face. It was a boxing match. So when you're in a competitive environment in this day and age, people are gonna say things about each other. But my view of it at the end is if Donald Trump was a Democrat and he got elected, everyone would be demanding that the election was over. And I needed to work with him because he won and. But because he's a Republican, apparently I'm supposed to hold a grudge. The bottom line is that he got elected. The voters chose him to be our nominee and chose him to be our president. My job is to serve in the Senate and to work with him to achieve good things for Florida and for the country. And that's what I've tried to do. And when I disagree with him, I've spoken about why I disagree and I've tried to change his mind, but I tell him himself, I don't.

[B]

Right. Cuz he calls you up.

[D]

Well, we talk, but he talks. Look, let me tell you one thing about Donald Trump.

[B]

He talks a lot to your colleagues too, right?

[D]

If you call Donald Trump, you're gonna get a call back. Maybe not the same day, but he'll call you back. He's very good about that, has been with me for sure. And you can tell him I disagree with you on it and he'll listen to people. Now, whether he does it or not, maybe somebody else comes in and changes his mind. But the point being that at the end of the day, when I disagree with him, I'm going to say it. And if I still can't convince him, I'll vote against it. I'm in the middle of it now.

[B]

On the China thing, right.

[D]

But in the same week that I'm not happy about what I think the direction potentially is of the administration, we were also able to work very closely with them on Venezuela and achieving what I think were important measures there. So that's just the way this is supposed to be. And I get it in today's political culture, where politics is covered as a sport, people want us to fight all the time. But you are capable on this process, both with Democrats and people in your own party, of working together on one thing while disagreeing on something else.

[B]

Let Me just ask you. I know it's hard for any of us to see into the future. We can hardly predict the past, never mind the future. But some of your friends, some of your associates think that you might run for president again. What do you say?

[D]

If you would have asked me that three years ago or two years ago, the right answer is no. Even though you're thinking about potentially running. And it's different now. I've ran once before, so I know both what it entails, but I also understand what you can achieve here in the U.S. senate. And so I would just say that I'm in a different place now in my life to make an answer to answer that question. My daughter graduates high school this week. A couple years, another one will graduate. So my family's entering a different phase. I'm just not in a position to honestly tell you how I'm going to feel in four and a half years. I don't know. I mean, who knows? I don't say no. But it's certainly not something I'm building towards because right now we have a lot of work to do here. The president's going to run for reelection. He's going to be our nominee. He's going to get reelected.

[B]

You think he's going to run again in 2022?

[D]

I do. And I think he'll be reelected. And so we have an opportunity to continue to get things done no matter what. I will be a two term U.S. senator and I want to have something to show for that. But anything's possible, but we're not. It's way too early to think about that.

[B]

For the record, that's not a no. You know, Senator Rubio, your colleague Jeff Flake, who's leaving the Senate today, gave the address up at Harvard.

[D]

I know. He told me today he was headed to Harvard.

[B]

Yeah. He had some tough words, though, for you guys. He said Congress has been, quote, utterly supine in dealing with the challenge of President Trump. I know he's leaving the Senate. Right. So he's not engaging in the way that you feel is necessary. Is there anything to his critique that worries you that keeps you up at night about President Trump?

[D]

I don't know. I mean, I like and respect Jeff a lot. He's a friend and we're sorry to see him leave. And I believe that for some people like Jeff, they believe that their job is just to be a consistent critic of the things the president's doing wrong. And I respect that decision. And, you know, some people that might be their role for other People, they don't want to live in this outrage cycle, which is what we live in now. You wake up every morning and the news is always about what can people be outraged by today? And the president understands that, by the way, which is why he dominates every news cycle. Living in New York all his life, he's mastered how to do that to great advantage.

[B]

Not everybody in New York knows how to do that.

[D]

Well, but my point. But he knows that, and so the president knows that. And by the way, I also think he has allowed the media, in many ways, their reaction to some of the things he does proves his point about them. And they sometimes turn themselves into who he accuses them of being because they're so outraged by what he's doing. And so my point is, we reach over to.

[B]

That's also true of his political opponents.

[D]

Yeah, I was one of them.

[B]

I know.

[D]

And sometimes it's overreach. Okay. I heard the tape of what he said about MS.13. And in any other era of somebody else, they probably would have gotten the benefit of the doubt because of his history, because of everything that's happened, he doesn't get that anymore. I heard it reported today that he said the 2018 elections are not that important. When you watch it, it was a joke. There are other things that are legitimate and that need to be called out. And we have. Whether it was what happened in Virginia last summer with Charlottesville, whether it's the attack on the judge during the campaign, whether it's policy. The point being is in the middle of all this, I'm not. Yes, there are issues that will cross the line and you gotta speak out, but you also have a job to do on a regular basis. And it's just that if we spend all day just responding to the daily outrage cycle, we don't have time to do the rest of our job. And so everyone's found a different way forward. I found there are lines that are crossed. I'm going to speak out strongly.

[B]

So you're not going to be supine when you think it matters?

[D]

Well, I think even now we've proven that that's not the case. For example, I think it was a terrible mistake to cancel TPS for Haiti and Honduras. And hopefully there's still time to reverse some of that. So if there's something that's wrong, we're going to step out and we're going to say it's wrong.

[B]

So your point is you are trying to work with them where you can, but disagree with them.

[D]

Yeah. So my point is, when we can get things done together. I want to do that because that's what would be expected of me if a Democrat president was in office. When I disagree what the president's doing, I'm going to try to change his mind. And if I can't change his mind, then I'm going to vote against it or stand up against it. And I think all three are valid. If we agree, let's work together and get things done. If we don't agree, let me try to influence it, and if you still go forward, then I'll oppose it.

[B]

And.

[D]

And I think you can do that and still be true to yourself. This system of government does not work if people who have different views cannot figure out how to at least talk to each other and find out what they do agree on. And we tried and continue to try to lead by example. And I hope it has an influence on people, but it may or may not. We'll see.

[B]

Well, at least. Senator Rubio, you are talking to the listeners of the New Yorker Radio Hour, and for that, we are very grateful.

[D]

Thank you.

[B]

Thank you. Thank you. That was Susan Glaser talking with Marco Rubio. I'm Katie Drummond. I'm Wired's Global Editorial director.

[D]

I'm Michael Colory, Wired's Director of Consumer Tech and Culture.

[B]

And 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. 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.

[D]

Right. So whether we're talking about Trump, Coin Doge, or Elon Musk, we will always explain how these Silicon Valley forces are.

[B]

Affecting Washington and how they affect you. Make sure you're following Uncanny Valley in your podcast app of choice so you don't miss an episode from prx.