Loading summary
Transcript95 lines
- [00:00]
Stamps.com Advertiser
Still waiting in line. Again, that's time you will never get back. Save time and money with stamps.com over 4 million businesses have skipped the line with stamps.com join them to save up to 90% off carrier rates from your computer or phone right now. Print postage for certified mail, registered mail and packages in seconds. Then schedule a pickup right from your home or office for a limited time. Go to stamps.com and use code podcast for a free welcome gift. Taxes and fees apply.
- [00:30]
AWS Advertiser
Most AI projects never make it past the demo. They show real promise in a controlled environment, then stall somewhere between proof of concept and real world deployment. The bottleneck isn't imagination. It isn't budget. It's the path from pilot to production. AWS helps you walk that path. Not someday now. Don't just build AI, run it. Visit aws.com AI AI that's ready when you are.
- [00:55]
Zocdoc Advertiser
This episode is sponsored by zocdoc. Have you been putting off a doctor's appointment or need a dentist and you don't know where to start? We've definitely been there and that's why we use ZocDoc. Actually over the holidays Michael had a dental emergency and seemingly every office was closed. But we hopped onto zocdoc, found an in network dentist, had great reviews, saw real time appointments available, which was key. It was on New Year's Day and booked an appointment in just minutes. It took so, so much of the stress out of the already stressful situation. ZocDoc makes it easy to search and compare over 250,000 local in network providers across more than 200 specialties so you can find the right doctor or dentist and book instantly. Taking care of your health just got easier. Download the ZOC Doc app today and book that appointment on your to do list. That's Z Doc zocdoc.
- [01:56]
Charlie Sykes
I'm Charlie Sykes. Welcome back to the to the Contrary podcast While we survived the Trumpified 4th of July. So welcome to the next 250 years of the American experiment. How's it going so far? Meanwhile, a sleepy Donald Trump is off to the NATO summit in Turkey and he's saying that he's really, really close to settling the war in Ukraine. But I don't know. Just me or I think I've heard that before. And back home we're still assessing the fallout from last week's BL Supreme Court cases. Some big wins for Donald Trump, some big losses, and we're trying to get our heads around the size and the scope of the President's corruption. Keep in mind that that report, that was a 900 page report about the $2.4 billion that he'd stuffed in his pockets. That's just year one. That is just the down payment on the Trump 2.0 presidency. And meanwhile, some of us are asking, do the Democrats really want to stop any of this or do they really want to win elections? Or more interested in chasing bright shiny objects? And to dive into all of this, our first show in the second 250 years of the American experiment, our good friend Harry Littman from Talking Feds podcast and substack. Harry, welcome back. How are you?
- [03:17]
Harry Littman
I'm okay, Charlie. That's a pretty deep pool that you have described and ready to get going on year. I guess we're in our 251st year now, right? Yeah, let's dive.
- [03:29]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah, well, you know, I wanna get back to that. But you know, I've said and I've written about this, you know, I really went out of my way over the weekend to have a de Trumpified weekend. And as the vast, vast majority of most Americans, you know, were not fixated on this fiasco of the 250th anniversary. So I was up in Door County, Wisconsin, you know, pure Americana, watching the fireworks up and looking around and going, you know, just keep in mind that, you know, this is our country, it's not his country, it's our flag. It's not his flag, you know, and there are freaking fireworks, not his fireworks. But I hope you enjoyed the weekend. I hope you had a good time.
- [04:11]
Harry Littman
Pretty similar story. I was in your part of the country anyway, in the Midwest and the same thing, walking around homegrown fireworks, real sort of exultation. And couldn't be farther from the sort of phony Trumpified. And I think very the gods seem to be against them in D.C. with the, between the weather and the thunder and the time delays. I'm very glad I wasn't anywhere near there. And as you say, I was at a place where regular people were having cookouts and doing fireworks and having some flags and having some fun and it was a much better place to be. I agree.
- [04:51]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah, I wish I had a clearer takeaway from all of this, but I have to confess, obviously having mixed feelings, as many of the people listening to this or watching this are going to have. On the one hand, I thought what we needed to do was put out more flags, take this back from him, not let him define the country. And yet at the same time as you're watching that fiasco in Washington, which felt like one Metaphor. On another metaphor. On another metaphor. But also where we're at on this 250th birthday of the United States. You know, you wrote a very thoughtful piece about the American experiment. And we, you know, we use that word, American experiment, like kind of a cliche, and I think we kind of become background noise, white noise. But it was an experiment. And the, you know, despite my. We need to take it all back from Donald Trump. There is that other aspect where you go, okay, on 250th anniversary, has the experiment failed? Are we watching the end of that experiment? Because I'm watching Donald Trump, his view of America, what he's done to America, what America's done to itself. What do you think? Where do you come down on this? We're starting with the big questions here, Harry. I'm sorry, cosmic.
- [06:07]
Harry Littman
No, no, no. Look, it's very fitting, Charlie, that we are, and you're right, some of these partake of cliches. But 250th anniversary, not to mention where we are in the country, that it's a sort of time, as I said in that piece, you know, not to don a national hair shirt, but to really reflect on the gap between the Declaration, which is the document we're celebrating, the aspirational ideals there, and the actual workaday government. There are ways in which we see some of the problems from today having kind of spasmodically come back and forth over the course of, of the 250 years. So one thing I tried to write about was how this is not, I think we are in a period of retrenchment, but it's not the only one. Often you think about the reconstruction period where the initial promise post 14th amendment was really squelched, et cetera, et cetera. I did find that, you know, to my mind, I, we, you and I have talked and I think maybe you agree it's all in all an occasion both for reflection but sort of sanguine views. I do think we're kind of, we've gone down pretty low. But between the courts and the independent media channels like your own, and especially the popular pushback, it seems to me, for starters, something that wasn't clear a year ago, we're going to get out of this in 29. Donald Trump is not going to be president. It'll be a huge reclamation project. But the basic, you know, yin and yang of the American ideals come face up against the kinds of including inbred in the Constitution, possibilities for fracture and problems are, you know, there's an occasion for both reflection here, but. But also for overall pride or optimism and a rededication to the aspirations of the Declaration and the like. So that was my. It's a bit of a complicated message, but, you know, by and large, I think.
- [08:21]
Charlie Sykes
Well, it's a complicated situation.
- [08:23]
Harry Littman
It's a complicated situation.
- [08:25]
Charlie Sykes
Well, I mean, the big question is, you know, what is America's capacity for renewal? I mean, in the past it has been great. It has been the genius of America. In fact, you know, to the extent that America is exceptional, it has been that ability to renew itself. But you look at the public mood, the ambivalence about the American idea and whether, you know, where we're going and the will of the American people to push back. I mean, I hope you're right about this. I really hope that there is that the pendulum swings back and forth, but also there's two analogies in my head. The pendulum swings back and forth or there's a ratchet. And once the ratchet, you know, goes down or goes up, it becomes much, much more difficult and that maybe we are in a multi, multi decade pattern of the inshittification of our culture and of our politics. Because many of the things that have been unleashed by Donald Trump, many of the vulnerabilities that he has exposed, will be there when and if he is gone in, you know, in 2029, I assume that he will be, but I, but I want to have, you know, and I guess that's the question, the resilience of America. But also, you know, I remember watching a documentary about civilizations and one of the points was civilizations fall when they lose confidence in themselves, when they lose confidence in their own existence. And you do wonder whether, as the American empire declines, if America just loses that sense of confidence. Because history is full of empires that fall and republics that fall and the democracies fall. And we have thought that we were immune from history. And I think on this 250th anniversary, we go, you know, this was an experiment and there's not a straight line.
- [10:17]
Harry Littman
Totally true. And let me just make a couple points really important, but there is this kind of city on a hill trope. And I take what you think about the pendulum, Charlie, and I wouldn't say it's always a one way ratchet. We certainly have had times of retrenchment. I think the reconstruction was that. I think the last 10 years have been that. But I do see it overall as, you know, going a little bit the arc, you know, bending toward justice. And it's not simply the confidence of the country, but also the sort of rededication of, you know, this is a time for sort of hackney thoughts. But I believe them. You believe them. I think of the greater purpose and kind of moral and, you know, and civic ideals of the country.
- [11:12]
Charlie Sykes
I'm hoping that's the case.
- [11:14]
Harry Littman
I see the possibility that we, that even after 29, we're in a dark, we're still struggling. And an important lesson I think for over the weekend is this is not stuff that originated with Trump. In some ways, he is exploiting what were original flaws in the overall design have come and, you know, back. Stephen Levitsky has been very good at this. We've always had from the start these kinds of cracks in the foundation. But each time when we, when I think, each of us sort of think about the history of America and the experiment and what we love about is the times of reclaiming those greater city on a hill ideals. So I see it as, I wouldn't say a one way ratchet, but nevertheless an overall pointing upwards. I take your point. This may. It's not as if when I thought about the reconstruction for this piece, it seems to me it dates from around the 60s when the pushback of the Congress up to say, Plessy versus Ferguson and then for a lot of freed slaves and families thereafter in the Jim Crow era. But, you know, we reached a through line. That is what I think we'd embrace. Think about in school, think about when we're saying the Pledge of Allegiance. That will happen, I believe, but I totally see the point that not.
- [12:48]
Charlie Sykes
I would hope so. Yeah.
- [12:51]
Harry Littman
It won't be like Trump's gone.
- [12:53]
Charlie Sykes
Well, I mean, that's the difference between optimism and hope. Right? This is the difference between optimism and hope. You know, optimism is the belief things are just going to get better. Hope is there if you work and you struggle. You know, I was thinking about the last big celebration, the bicentennial in 1976 and realized that we were coming out of some terrible times and we were coming out of Watergate, the resignation of the president, the Vietnam War. And nobody looks back on the 70s as like a really fun time, Really a great, great, great time. And yet in 1976 we did have that moment where maybe you did feel the American renewal. Richard Nixon's corruption had tested the country, but the had held. We had gone through the war and we're looking at perhaps healing from it. And I do wonder though whether we have, you know, again the institutional robustness and the cultural robustness and the ability not to be numb. So, for example, so Richard Nixon's corruption, which now seems quaint compared to what we have right now, I think, you know, he was forced into resignation. But last week we're getting, and we get some sense of, and I don't want to use the word numb too much here, but you know, we learned how much cash Donald Trump has put into his own pocket. $2.4 billion just in his first year. And the quote that is really kind of haunting is when he basically said, you know, basically he tested what he could get away with and he found that nobody cared. And when he realized nobody cared, it was Katie bar the door. He and his family were going to stuff as much boodle into their pocket as. That's an insight though, that he had, that there was a time when if you had this kind of corruption, whether it was Teapot Dome or Watergate, that there would be an institutional and cultural pushback against it. And right now it's like everybody's sort of sitting back and going, the President is a crook. This is the most corrupt administration ever. And yet is anything ever going to be done about it? Is anyone ever going to be held accountable given his immunity, given his pardon power, given his complete destruction of independent agencies? So Harry, this is my big question is 1976, we had a sense that maybe there was going to be some renewal. Now I wonder whether those elements are there. Let's just talk about the corruption. What was your reaction to that?
- [15:21]
Harry Littman
Well, can I, can I make a couple comments on that?
- [15:24]
Podcast Host / Advertiser Voice
Sure, yeah.
- [15:25]
Harry Littman
And I don't want to be Panglossian. You're really right. We should see it in a clear eyed way. But I want to make one historical just on the piece you've just made, nobody cares. They're letting it happen.
- [15:35]
Charlie Sykes
Yes.
- [15:35]
Harry Littman
We've now learned that actually people, real people, American people, who of course are on the other side of those trades themselves lost billions of dollars from this bilking. And what they're going to try to say is they're a little codicil in there. You're buying this John Q. Sucker to give tribute to Donald Trump and that's actually in this little contract they're going to rely on. It is the height of just, you know, fleecing of the American people. But again, back to 76 until Vance, the vice President re raised the topic and started to extol Richard Nixon. When we think about that period, nobody thinks proudly of 1973. And maybe then they were saying what's ever going to happen? Remember you had the Biggest landslide almost of all time. And within two years, it was a long two years, everything came tumbling down. But what we really do think about with pride is the center holding the Saturday Night Massacre, the reforms thereafter and the like. I mean, that'. Sand. I don't mean blue versus red America. That is the history that we extol. That is the resurgence of the Declaration of Independence and its aspirations as against the really sort of genetic damage that Nixon was able to actually erect on the piece itself. So I just want to say I see it, but we're in 73 now, maybe, or early 74 if we're analogizing to Watergate. And I, again, my sense from really looking panoramically is not that we go back, we go forth. I think we go a little farther, we get closer to the ideals and that's the part of history that we embrace. And then, yeah, shit happens and big time. But to your.
- [17:41]
Charlie Sykes
Well, no, maybe. You know, I'm hoping that you're right about this, by the way. I'm very, very much hoping. And of course, you know, taking some solace from what happened in Hungary, the opposition parties coalesced around that anti corruption message. And Viktor Orban had done way more than Donald Trump has been able to do in rigging the elections, rigging civil society, doing all of that. And yet the corruption issue was what brought him down. And this, by the way, does feel like an alignment of the stars. I've used this phrase before, the alignment of the stars, where you have the Marie Antoinette moments, Donald Trump's tone deafness about the problems of average Americans, clearly in this circle of oligarchs and billionaires and trillionaires who are making money while American families are suffering. Democrats ought to be able to figure out a way to weaponize that, to say, is Donald Trump really for you remember when he claimed that he was the voice of the forgotten man? Now he's the voice of the Jeff Bezos and the Peter Thiels and the Elon Musk and himself and his own family dealings. So the, the corruption message, you know, ought to be front and center. I worry the Democrats, this is to be obvious. I worry they're going to muddle the message by chasing what I described as the bright, shiny objects. You know, Donald Trump does have the issue that he wants right now. He wants to run against, you know, radicals and communists.
- [19:15]
Harry Littman
And communists have crept back into American life from the 50s. So, look, I think I'm just taking a focus a little bit broader. You are, I think, 100% correct. The things that I just mentioned. Will those injustices be righted? Will his many, you know, impeachable offense, serial violation, the emoluments clause. Will there really be. You remember back to 74, there were people who were rabid, wanted to see Nixon impeached and torn limb from limb. I think it is very possible that justice in the broad sense, in terms of the restoration or pushback against the injustices we are seeing week by week not occur. And by the way, to the extent we're really focused on the Democratic cohesion and message, the Democrats oy a whole nother problem. But I think the really impressive pushback in the last six months or year has been at the level of the American people. He is now, you know, Orban came in and consolidated power and even popularity and then made all his moves. You could argue Hitler did the same. Trump is now gone below. You know, he's at a subterranean level where there's only so much he can do. That's a lot. And that is like a lot of ruinous impact to people's lives. I do not deny it.
- [20:42]
Vanta Advertiser
But.
- [20:42]
Harry Littman
But I take that to be the $32,000 question. On the $64,000 question, are we out of this mess and in another period like post reconstruction, where, you know, the broader ideals of the country abide and re establish themselves. Because you're right, there's no reason every other democracy has died. Why shouldn't we? But my sense is especially the disconnect between his growing unpopularity and people's increasing understanding of the corrupt, completely out for himself guy that he is is taking purchase.
- [21:27]
Charlie Sykes
Look, if you're like me, you're thinking a lot more about what you wear day to day and are looking for pieces that feel easy, comfortable, and still look put together. It just makes getting dressed simple, simpler. Quince has been my go to. Their fabrics feel elevated, their fits are clean, and everything just works without needing to overthink it. And I definitely do not want to overthink what I wear every day. Well, I have to tell you that Quince has really changed how I get dressed this summer. I mean, they're gorgeous linen shirts that I frankly just, you know, keep grabbing without thinking. And. And the T shirt that I end up wearing more than pretty much everything else or look, a lot of their stuff just works with everything.
- [22:03]
Podcast Host / Advertiser Voice
Hang, stop over complicating your wardrobe.
- [22:05]
Charlie Sykes
You don't need a closet full of options. You need a few pieces that actually work. So right now, make your summer wardrobe easier. Go to quinns.com contrary for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E.com contrary for free shipping and 365 day returns.
- [22:27]
Podcast Host / Advertiser Voice
Quince.com/contrary
- [22:34]
Charlie Sykes
I want to talk to you
- [22:35]
Podcast Host / Advertiser Voice
about the US deal with Iran and the coverage of that story.
- [22:38]
Charlie Sykes
Look, obviously everyone, including me, has lots of opinions about this deal. But if you also want to get down to the facts of the story rather than getting lost in the hype of the headlines, there's an app and a website that can help you do that.
- [22:50]
Podcast Host / Advertiser Voice
It's called Ground News, and they have great tools to help you avoid getting caught in a bias bubble and avoid blind spots. For each story, they'll show you how the left, right, and the center covered it. The Nobel Peace center even called Ground News an excellent way to stay informed, avoid echo chambers, and expand your worldview. Take for example this story, a judge denied Joe Biden's bid to block release of transcripts linked to a special counsel inquiry. On the left, you'll see headlines like US Judge rejects Joe Biden's lawsuit asking to withhold memoir recordings. And on the right, you'll see headlines like what is the former President trying to hide? But then you can go to each source and see who's funding them and their factuality rating that shows how subjective or objective the source is. Ground News also has a blind spot feed that shows stories disproportionately covered by either side of the media. So if you want access to stories you may otherwise never see and the necessary context to make up your own mind, visit groundnews.com tc to get 40% off their unlimited access. That's groundnews.com tc so they know that I sent you.
- [24:01]
Charlie Sykes
I believe that if you like this
- [24:02]
Podcast Host / Advertiser Voice
podcast and what we do here, you'll like their mission, visit groundnews.com tc today.
- [24:09]
Charlie Sykes
So, actually, Harry, at the risk of a massive digression here, I want to tell you what I've been reading and watching. Just a little bit of a tease. One of the reasons why I sort of have this dark sense of the waves of history. It's a book by journalist Michael Tomasky from the New Republic. It's called Killing Baby Hitler. And. Okay, so just you might think you know what it's about, but I do,
- [24:39]
Harry Littman
because I've read it and I'm interviewing him tomorrow. But it's a surprise.
- [24:42]
Charlie Sykes
Oh my God.
- [24:44]
Podcast Host / Advertiser Voice
Okay.
- [24:45]
Charlie Sykes
Isn't it an amazing book? But also this view of what American Society will be like a world. Society will be like 150 years from now or 100 years from now. That's kind of the thing is like, you realize that we, you know, elections come and go, but, you know, we're on a dangerous trajectory. So I don't want, I don't want to spoil anybody.
- [25:05]
Harry Littman
Nobody stick with it for a minute, if you don't mind.
- [25:07]
Charlie Sykes
It's really got me thinking about things. I have to admit.
- [25:09]
Harry Littman
I thought it was so ingenious. You know, you have killing baby Hitler tells people a little bit about what it's about, but people go back to Bavaria, turn of the century and little Adolf, that was a name that had a little more popularity at the time. But anyway, there were many things that interested me. I'll just say two quick ones because you're right, it's a detour. But we are talking to him. I have a one on one with him just about it tomorrow. The first is this whole kind of invention of a language in a world. It reminded me a little, I don't know if you've read it or your listeners have of A Clockwork Orange, but you almost need a glossary because he's made up different words and ways of talking in the near future. That's, that's point one. And point two is there are a lot of stories you've read of like somebody goes back in the past and steps on a leaf, as a result of which the world changes and everything, the whole Ice age comes again, or where they actually protect the archduke. But you come back and you find out history was too strong and it stayed the same. And Tomaski, I think, in a really interesting way, takes this middle ground where the interventions of the people from the future have an impact. On the other hand, history does by and large assert itself in its broader themes. And it. And it is a very. This is first novel after like eight nonfiction books. And it's very sort of imaginative page.
- [26:48]
Charlie Sykes
It really is.
- [26:50]
Harry Littman
My wife is reading it now. She doesn't read any of this Trump stuff and she's, you know, it's fun.
- [26:56]
Charlie Sykes
It's very, it's. It is very clever. It is, you know, deeply disturbing, but it's hilarious as the world of the future is divided up basically into these. No, the United States ceases to exist. But it's. I don't want to give away too much, but, you know, divided up into zones whose names have been purchased by various billionaires and trillionaires. You know, so you live in Bezos 1 or Bezos 2. Or, you know, Barron, Trump, whatever it's. Anyway, so that's one to recommend also, and just very, very briefly, because we have a lot to get into. I just rewatched the new World War II movie last night called Pressure. The topics.
- [27:35]
Harry Littman
Oh, no, no, no.
- [27:36]
Charlie Sykes
Pressure, which is basically. It's so unlikely, where the hero is the chief meteorologist for the run up to D day, and you would think you made a movie about a weatherman. It is absolutely riveting, but also, what a celebration of the power and importance of science, but also of just the firmness of character. The word pressure has multiple meanings, obviously, weather pressure, but also the intense pressure of very, very powerful individuals on one individual who has to stand his ground. And so it's really kind of a morality play about integrity, but also just the. If you know that the decisions that are made by people like Dwight Eisenhower based on the actual scientific data and you think about the way decisions are made right now, it's actually one of the better World War II movies that I've seen, so I strongly recommend it. You can see it on streaming. Okay. Okay. So let's get back to the business.
- [28:43]
Harry Littman
Another quick comment, because. No, I can't.
- [28:45]
Charlie Sykes
Ignore.
- [28:45]
Harry Littman
Ignore a detour.
- [28:46]
Charlie Sykes
Okay.
- [28:47]
Harry Littman
You're gonna make. You're gonna make me seem like a goony optimist, which I'm not. But you can tell the same story. And it has been told about the total nerd scientist, the machine that was a. The. And the. And the decoding function. And I just want to point out people like that, like your meteorologist, maybe like Dr. Fauci, who are just people of integrity, grew up that way, and they really, operationally can have a huge. It's that story as well that makes it, you know, and a thousand like them that reasserts at the operational level, pushes back against the rank corruption in, you know, the center of Washington.
- [29:32]
Charlie Sykes
Yes, exactly. Okay, well, speaking of the rank corruption at the center of Washington, let's talk about doer now.
- [29:39]
Harry Littman
Let's get really deep.
- [29:41]
Charlie Sykes
Let's talk about the Supreme Court, because, I mean, this is one of those choose your own adventures. Okay, so lots of decisions. You wrote up a piece at the end of June. Yes. The Supreme Court rebuked Trump on birthright citizenship. That is not the real story. So, Harry Lippman, what was the real story of the Supreme Court session, do you think?
- [30:02]
Harry Littman
Yeah, and I don't think it's a big mystery, Charlie. It was a predictable thing. Oh, they, you know, on the one hand. On the other hand. But this was A conservative juggernaut even on the birthright citizenship. This was in legal terms, interpretation terms, an incredibly elementary, easy case. And the real story is that four justices, including one that basically Justice Kavanaugh issued an invitation to Trump to continue to pursue this not only cockamamie, but, but deeply un American idea that you can be born here and not a citizen. That was the story of just that case, but the story of the term of the week, but also of the term, you know, let's go back to the American experiment and I pledge allegiance, et cetera. We had a government five, six years ago where so much of what happened and it was driven by, by expertise, non partisanship, what's best for the people in, you know, food and drugs and safety and environment and the whole, the whole gamut was this administrative state that came of age in the New Deal and for complicated reasons we can discuss, but we don't really have to now. Well, it's been a sort of bugaboo of the conservative legal movement for a while as somehow getting in, interfering with the unitary executive and the decision to administer the sort of coup de grace which meant overruling a 90 opinion that had stood the test of time and been real. It's frustrating for nerds like me because it sounds like sort of this Alphabet soup hard to understand, but this is so seminal to the daily lives of Americans and they have now. John Roberts in the 1980s, as a young pup in the White House said we should, you know, really think about trying to get at this. And fast forward 40 years and his court has demolished an entire realm of government and made it subject to the completely to quasim and the political corruption of a guy like Donald Trump who won't simply say you're fire to certain people that he doesn't like, but will cow and chill everybody else who's thinking, if I do the right thing, if I don't recommend bleach for Covid, am I out of here and have lost my job, et cetera. It's a really fundamental reconstruction of the American system, I think. And the actual, the other case that people said in the predictable storyline, oh, he got, he won some, lost some, which was that they didn't give him this same result with the Fed. To me, Charlie just put the lie to the whole enterprise because there was no reason, in fact, it's incoherent on legal terms to try to say you don't have the same power with the Fed, but there was just a recognition in the.
- [33:19]
Charlie Sykes
That's the money they're not going to mess with the money.
- [33:21]
Harry Littman
Right. And so, and so the whole thing is really radical. Long standing culmination. A total 6, 4, I mean 6, 3. We have just today, speaking of books and clever titles, Slaughterhouse Six, the YouTube, the Talking Feds podcast on the court dropped and some very good observations about the difference between a 6, 3 and 54 court. But this was an absolute juggernaut for not just conservatives, but a certain kind of conservative doctrine and empowerment of the executive that just blows out of the water. Even the couple cases that people say were on the other side actually just reinforce that.
- [34:10]
Charlie Sykes
Well, let me, let me, let's talk about this because, you know, I mean, there's actually a legal and intellectual case for, you know, having these agencies be part of the executive branch and the President should have the ability to choose the people. I don't necessarily buy it. What struck me as the non lawyer here is the timing is that looking at what Donald Trump is doing with his power, watching the corruption unfold, watching the lawlessness, that the court decided that this was the moment to dramatically increase the power of the presidency. I mean, Trump was actually right when he said this is the greatest increase in presidential power in close to a century. So the fcc, the ftc, all of these agencies now basically become completely Trumpified or reflect who's ever in the office. The boards that control civil service, the merit boards will all be, you know, again, political instruments of the White House. And if anyone votes wrong, they will be fired. So, but let me just ask you this. Wasn't it always something of a myth that we had quasi independent agencies out there? Wasn't that one of those comforting myths that we told ourselves, that we basically had created another branch of government that was not accountable in the same way that elected officials are? I mean, you can make the case, right? By the way, I'm not making it. I'm just playing devil's advocate here that if these agencies are part of the federal government and if Congress is so feckless as to give away so much of its power to the executive branch, don't pretend that you are not vastly increasing the power of the executive branch and the President.
- [36:01]
Harry Littman
Okay, I'm really glad you asked that because I sometimes feel with, you know, I feel so simpatico with you, Charlie, that it's just a kind of an amen chorus. Isn't it a myth? No is my answer. It had real practical day to day impact on everybody's lives. And what's the, what's the myth, as you might call it that I would call accurate, that decisions were made on the basis of expertise and political insulation. As a fact. Now it is true we could have a long legally nerdy conversation about where the hell do these come in in the overall tripartite scheme. It's also true that Congress has been more and more that one theme of the court is disempowering Congress again and again. It's also true that Congress has been an accomplice to its own disempowerment, but the fact of what it's meant for the American system. Kagan, who was administrative law probably better than anyone in the court, has been very eloquent about this. As I say, it's been a multi year project. I believe that the true practical impact is huge and that it's not the idea. There's really good reason, even if it's constitutionally ungainly, to have expertise in our complicated society, to have expertise and political nonpartisanship carry the day. And I believe that no, in fact that was real and it's now much less real. And again, not simply the few people who are fired, but the bureaucrats who are there. That's their career and they have to be, you know, sitting in their chairs wondering if they make what they think is the right decision, are they going to get sacked? I think it's really big.
- [37:50]
Charlie Sykes
Well, that's no, practical implications are tremendous, but also another practical implication. And I'm really, maybe it's just naive to even think this, that you would think that conservatives and Republicans would recognize the inherent danger of radically expanding the power of the presidency if they think that they will not always control the presidency. So now if there is a Democratic president, that person will have sweeping powers. And so I mean every, every bit of authority that Donald Trump arrogates to himself will go to a president AOC or a President Gavin Newsom. And didn't people in politics used to think that way? It's like, okay, we could do the nuclear option, but then the other side might do this to us. This is why we have mutually assured destruction. This is why we don't abuse our power. And it's like this group is like, screw it. We're just. If the next president rules by decree, that's fine as long as this president gets to rule by decree.
- [38:57]
Podcast Host / Advertiser Voice
Decree.
- [38:58]
Harry Littman
There are two things going on simultaneously. And there are I have colleagues whom I respect who are very jaundiced about people like Roberts and think when there are cases that really concern the good fortunes and prosperity of the Republican Party, that's the litmus test. There are others who think, no, there's a certain ideological notion that they brought to the table usually in the 80s when the. They came of age and thought that the liberal legacy they inherited was wrong for certain reasons and just for these sort of pure abstract reasons. They liked the President, they disliked the Congress. They certainly have aggrandized the courts. You could see it either way. And the sort of pivot point is the very point you made. I think the latter group would say something like, like, well, yeah, but we just want a powerful executive, and that's all up to the people. And the former group would say something like, yep, that sucks, but we'll, we'll figure out a way to fix it. Then we're large and in charge for a generation. And that's what some people, some people think.
- [40:07]
Charlie Sykes
Well, they, they might be. Which, which is why I might be.
- [40:10]
Harry Littman
They. I mean, they are. That's why if you get to Supreme Court reform, the things that seem the most, like, toxic and how can we do it, but are the only ones that are effective. And I feel really on the fence about do you just pack the cord, et cetera, because these other suggestions are band aids. What we're looking at a monolithic super conservative majority, especially if Alito or Thomas retires now, that is going to outlive us, my young friend. They're really there for a while.
- [40:44]
Charlie Sykes
Well, this is one of the reasons why I just want a footnote for all of you who are very unhappy with me because I keep raising the alarms about Democrats blowing the midterm elections when it comes to the Senate. I mean, the odds right now are about. The odds makers are putting the odds of Republicans keeping control of the Senate at like 58%, 60%, mainly because Democrats might blow Maine in Michigan and those states. This is the key thing is if you want to stop Donald Trump, you must win elections as opposed to. I know a lot of you just want to scratch your ideological aid who believe that because MAGA has become extreme that you can become extreme, even if it means losing elections. No, this is really crucial. And the Senate is about the Supreme Court. And Harry is absolutely right. You could be looking at a generation of leadership. Let me give your sense of win
- [41:33]
Harry Littman
elections and govern cohesively, which does seem right now outside the ken of the Democrats. I'm not, you know, this is not part.
- [41:40]
Charlie Sykes
Well, that's right.
- [41:41]
Harry Littman
Yeah.
- [41:42]
Charlie Sykes
That's the other thing is don't together.
- [41:44]
Harry Littman
Yeah.
- [41:45]
Charlie Sykes
Well, don't assume. And I'm sorry, I get all kinds of blowback on all of this. I wish people would actually read the platforms of the DSA and stuff. These are not team players. This is a hostile takeover. And if you care about things like Ukraine and a variety of other things, you ought to actually see what these folks are saying about all that. But let's go back to the Supreme Court. Talk to me a little bit about Amy Coney Barrett, who is now being just filleted by maga. They feel that she has, you know, that she is a traitor because she has become, you know, in that conservative bloc, correct me if I'm wrong, the most unpredictable member of that group. And there's a lot of anger, you know, you know, focused on her for her ruling, for example, on, you know, upholding mail in ballots and on birthright citizenship. So talk to me about what we're seeing there because she, she has come as a surprise, I think, to some of, of, of Trump world because she seems to actually have a certain amount of independence that a guy like Alito or Thomas do not display. What do you think?
- [42:57]
Harry Littman
I think it's true and it fits in with what I was saying about the court in the 80s. This is when of age, too. I had a lot of friends. They were conservative and they were like, you know, marginalized, but they were cohesive in a way. This is the Federalist Society story and my actual indictment of the court or what I read. It's not conservative liberal. It's my feeling that there's a home team there. And it's the home team that first started as a glint in the eye of certain scholars in the mid-80s, et cetera. Amy Comey Barrett really isn't of that home team. She comes by her conservative views differently. First. You know, she, she is very much. I don't, I think she's not, she doesn't apply. She's very fair in establishment clause stuff, but she is of the sort of Notre Dame Catholic. And I just say that, you know, objectively different tradition. My God, her and her family and the 10 kids, etc. She, in other words, I believe, is not of the same silo. And I think those things really matter when you people get into. But you know, where these people go for their dinner parties and their conventions and their lion eyes and the culture that they had through which they came of age and her.
- [44:19]
Charlie Sykes
This was, this was an intentional, by the way, that was an intentional strategy. I mean, this is something that's important. If people think that's irrelevant, which was to create this infrastructure around the justices that would support them. Because one of the great fears of conservatives was this long pattern of conservative justices getting on the court and then growing there because they were suddenly in a different milieu. And so there was this very conscious, intentional desire to create a milieu that would keep conservatives conservative. So, I mean, this is a very important point, 100%.
- [44:55]
Harry Littman
Clarence Thomas said, The liberals made me miserable for 43 years. I'm gonna make them miserable for 43 years. It's a subculture. She's not quite of that culture. Moreover, she's particularly interesting. This is getting really down in the weeds. I apologize to the contrary reader. But in her approach to interpretation, you know, by now there's so many kinds of important questions where they basically resort. They've coined these not very persuasive historical tests and not even necessarily the founding in the Second Amendment. It's what was going on 100 years ago? Why does that matter? And she's much more likely to be supple and thoughtful. But the number one thing that I think about her is she is of a conservative mindset and came of age, but not. Not the sort of canonical silo where these guys live their lives.
- [45:54]
Charlie Sykes
No, I think that is an excellent point. So what else are you keeping your eye on this week? I feel like we've sort of just come out of this obsession with
- [46:06]
Vanta Advertiser
the
- [46:06]
Charlie Sykes
250th birthday, and people have been focusing on that. And by the way, there's been so much material to chew over. So we're going into the summer months. But it does feel as if this is going to be a long, hot summer leading up to the midterm elections. Courts have made their decisions. What are you gonna be keeping an eye on? What should be top of your list? I think I know what you're gonna say, but what's at the top of the agenda?
- [46:33]
Harry Littman
I do already feel. Just a very quick Postscript about the 250th. I really tried very hard to get my thoughts together. It had so happened that it was only available to paid subscribers because it was third that week. And we've now opened it up. So my general feelings are there. Now, look, the number one thing, I'm a former prosecutor. That's why I got into this game. For me, it's, you know, I'm always at pains to try to explain why what the DOJ is doing. These reprisal political prosecutions are as bad as it gets. Todd Blanch's confirmation hearing began a week from Wednesday. It poses the question to all the Republicans. Are you going to ratify this most corrupt, basic, fundamental, un American derogation of equal justice under law, where what everybody knows is as bad as it gets. You just pick the person and make up some charges. That's what is on your plate. You saw probably, Charlie, a Wall Street Journal endorsement of them by former AG Bill Barr, who basically said, well, others will be worse. But everything else to me is secondary to the incredible kind of violation of the very bone marrow of the doj. Will the Republicans endorse that they had at first with the slush fund. The other thing I watching very closely now, had some separation between themselves and Trump, but then they seem to tiptoe back on some votes. So if we're really as they do over and over again, what happens with Thom Tillis, what happens with John Cornyn? I think he comes in with a real case against him to be made. And, man, this strikes me as important not just for who's at the helm, but what the country and the Senate think about, about equal justice under law. That's the issue that is posed by his confirmation that begins on the 15th.
- [48:37]
Charlie Sykes
Well, I agree completely. And this is a real challenge by Donald Trump where at the moment, I mean, think about when he made that appointment. It was during the blowback to the slush fund, to the IRS immunization. Todd Blanche's fingerprints are all over the place. Epstein cover up, you know, his meeting with Ghislaine Maxwell. So those confirmation hearings are a real opportunity to highlight all of the corruption, the entire campaign of retribution, as well as the Epstein files, which. And again, this was kind of a little bit puzzling. Well, it's definitely coming back because of that. But this is the real test. I agree with you. This is the real test for all of these Republican senators who talk a big deal. So, you know, I'm looking at this and thinking, okay, so they have 53 votes. I think they're going to lose Susan Collins. I think they're going to lose Lisa Murkowski. I think they're going to lose Thom Tillis. That's not enough. They need one more. Cornyn. I don't think he's got it in him. I don't know.
- [49:37]
Harry Littman
Rand Paul, as shabbily as he's been treated, he has come back to the fold, hasn't he? Even they all do decapitated him. Right. Well, what's your take on that? Is that because Cassidy. Yeah. Now, what's your take on why they come back to the fold? They just don't want to live their Senate lives As apostates.
- [49:54]
Charlie Sykes
Yes, yes. Oh, yeah, absolutely. I mean, we focus on you could lose your seat. But the reality is that your entire political social universe going back to that is in play, that a Republican, obviously speaking from some personal experience, you break with Trump decisively and that entire world goes away. You go into exile. Your ability to lobby, your ability to, to even socialize, to be part of that world, I mean, imagine you spend decades and decades as part of that political party. Do you want it to go away? But this, maybe this is, I think ought to be one of those moments of choosing. And I forgot Senator Cassidy there as well. So my gut sense tells me that Blanche will probably be reconfirmed like 50, 50 with Vance casting the vote. But, but if these Republicans in the Senate are serious and, you know, big askers there about checking the abuses of power, this is the one. I also think that this is an opportunity for Democrats and Republicans. If you actually care about those Epstein
- [51:07]
Podcast Host / Advertiser Voice
files, this is, these hearings are going
- [51:10]
Charlie Sykes
to be the ones that are going to highlight it. So I agree with you absolutely on all of that. And that's going to be the main event. That's going to be the main event of the summer and kind of a test and we'll of course see whether Mitch McConnell, you know, I don't want to spend time on the health and so whether Mitch McConnell is going to make it there. You know, the story that another health cover up. I mean, it's one thing to have these ancient Supreme Court justices and presidents and senators, but the lying about their conditions. So we find out that Mitch McConnell, the day he was hospitalized, that you had EMTs at his house performing CPR on him. I mean, the guy. So, you know, it doesn't seem too much to ask that if you want to be in public life past, you know, 80 years old, at least be straight with us about your capacity to do the freaking job. Is that unreasonable on my part?
- [52:08]
Harry Littman
Can I just say one very quick thing about this big thing on the landscape, which is 90% of what the Republicans do are to sort of keep things from coming up or deflect or whatever. This confirmation the Dems will have the chance to, it will be front and center. What the issue is, they can't deny it. They can't. So that really is a litmus test. That is, I think, a historic vote for them.
- [52:36]
Charlie Sykes
I totally agree. That is going to be the main event. Harry Littman, thank you so much for all of your time and your insight.
- [52:42]
Harry Littman
It's always so great being with you, Charlie.
- [52:44]
Charlie Sykes
And thank you all for listening to this episode of to the Contrary Podcast. I'm Charlie Sykes. You know why we do this even after that July 4th fiasco? Because we need to constantly remind ourselves that we we are not the crazy ones.
- [53:00]
Podcast Host / Advertiser Voice
Thank you.
- [53:15]
Stamps.com Advertiser (Repeat)
Still waiting in line again. That's time you'll never get back. Save time and money with stamps.com over 4 million businesses have have skipped the line with stamps.com join them to save up to 90% off carrier rates from your computer or phone right now. Print postage for certified mail, registered mail and packages in seconds. Then schedule a pickup right from your home or office for a limited time. Go to stamps.com and use code podcast for a free welcome gift. Taxes and fees apply.
- [53:45]
Vanta Advertiser
Your team just added its 67th AI tool and also your 67th security blind spot. The good news? The Vanta Agent works like a GRC engineer in the background, finding every app your team uses, scoring the risk and drafting fixes for you. Vanta is the platform used by over 16,000 fast moving companies like Ramp, Cursor and Harvey who are shaping the future with AI and staying ahead of AI risk.
- [54:09]
AWS Advertiser
Get started@vanta.com Most AI projects never make it past the demo. They show real promise in a controlled environment, then stall somewhere between proof of concept and real world deployment. The bottleneck isn't imagination. It isn't budget. It's the path from pilot to production. AWS helps you walk that path. Not someday now. Don't just build AI, run it. Visit aws.com AI AI that's ready when you are.