Loading summary
Transcript63 lines
- [00:00]
Samantha
Hi neighbor. Welcome to Birch Lane where you'll find timeless furniture and decor for your fall refresh. To help you celebrate it all, from big holiday gatherings to everyday moments at home, Shop Classic style for Joyful Living@birchlane.com.
- [00:15]
Charlie Sykes
Businesses that are selling through the roof like Untuck it make selling and for shoppers buying simple with Shopify, home of the number one checkout on the planet, and with Shop Pay, you can boost conversions up to 50%. Businesses that sell more sell on Shopify. Upgrade your business and get the same checkout Untuck it uses. Sign up for your $1 per month trial period at shopify.com podcastfree all lowercase go to shopify.com podcastfree to upgrade your.
- [00:42]
Julian Zelizer
Selling Today I finally committed to getting back in shape. Hit the gym, ate clean, did everything right. But after two days, I felt drained. My body just couldn't keep up. That's when I found Stem Regen. It supports the release of my own stem cells to repair, recover, and actually rebuild from the inside out. Now I'm not just working out, I'm bouncing back. I feel stronger, more energized, and more like myself every single day. Stem Regen didn't just change my routine, it changed my recovery. Empower your body to recover from within. Whether you are focused on recovery, longevity or just overall wellness, Stem Regen helps your body feel the best. It can release the best version of you. Try Stem Regen today at stemregen. Use code pod25 for 25% off your first order. Again, that's stem regen code pod25.
- [01:46]
Charlie Sykes
I'm Charlie Sykes. Welcome to this episode of to the Contrary podcast. I can guarantee you that among the many, many topics we're going to touch on this morning, we will not be talking about Sydney Sweeney's ad or whether or not her statement that she has good genes is racist. In fact, I would recommend that anyone who actually talks about that you should immediately unfollow, unsubscribe, because we are just not going down that rabbit hole. Welcome back to Julian Zelizer. Appreciate you joining me again. We have a lot, we have a lot to talk about, including the question, where is the outrage? Where is the resistance? And when is the Epstein thing ever going to go away? So should we just start with that one? Because are we in week three of this particular story, which is pretty amazing, isn't it? I mean, given the way the news cycle has been trending lately, the fact that it is the end of July and we're still talking about it and Donald Trump has not yet managed to distract our attention.
- [02:45]
Julian Zelizer
True. I mean, in another era, three weeks would not be very. A long time, and it would just be the beginning. But for anything to last in our current media environment this long gives it significance, whether one agrees with it or not. And he has not been able to clamp down on it, even with some big policy developments that I'm sure he considers a major success. And I don't know when this goes away. I mean, if we've learned something about the MAGA ecosystem, if there is an issue they care about, they can keep this thing going for years. I mean, we've seen this through the President himself, and now he's just the subject of the attack. So it's really, in the end, if he can distract the country with something else, as opposed to this naturally coming to an end.
- [03:38]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah, no, I'm sorry. As you point out, the more that Trump pushes back against some of his followers who are clamoring for the files, the bigger the story seems to become. His approval rating among independents has plummeted to just 29%, according to Gallup. And most surprisingly, and this is the Quinnipiac poll, 36% disapprove of how the President is handling the Epstein issue, which, according of Republicans, which, according to the New York Times, is perhaps the most intraparty dissent discontent Mr. Trump has experienced as president. So, I mean, this is. This is the. This is very different. It feels very different than the other controversies, mainly because, as you point out, this comes from the MAGA base. This has been cooked up in the MAGA base. They have marinated in this. He raised it during the campaign. He promised to release the files, and amazingly, some of his supporters seem to have taken him at his word. Who knew?
- [04:36]
Julian Zelizer
Yeah, I mean, look, I think two things are going on. One, he himself is the person who said there's a there there. So he can't undo that. I think it's very hard for him. And the more he says he won't release something, the more he looks like he's covering something up, certainly to the MAGA base and to many, many others, otherwise he'd release it. Even in the course of defending himself, he keeps suggesting he knows what's in this material. So I. I think it's very hard to undo it. I think it's a kind of story because it's. I mean, look, it. It's based on horrific crimes. Yes, Jeffrey Epstein, but the story itself is. It's almost like a fiction story. So there's a certain amount of Drama and intrigue, which President Trump knows more than anyone else, is very hard to stop. And finally, it is a little like President Biden with Afghanistan. It just touches on a character element that President Trump has touted meaning with. With Biden, you know, he really kind of promoted his ability to govern, his ability to handle foreign policy, and that weakened him on that issue. This kind of makes him look like the very establishment that he has spent so much time railing against. So, putting just aside the issue, I think that's what this is tapping into as well.
- [06:02]
Charlie Sykes
You touched on something also that I think is really important, is that Donald Trump sees everything through the lens of television and television stories. He's the executive producer of America these days, and this is a juicy television story. We are in season two of this story, and it's got the drama, it's got the characters, it's got the mystery, it's got the strange plot twist. And so, you know, among his strengths, the understanding what is dramatic, and he understands that this drama is not breaking his particular way. I also think it's interesting that. And we're going to get to the dangerous part of this, the distractions, you know, accusing Obama of treason, but his go to exoneration play, which is to send one of his personal lawyers who now works for the doj, down to interview Ghislaine Maxwell, give her immunity, and float the possibility of a pardon if she will say what Donald Trump wants her to say. Now, he apparently seems to think that this is going to be the key to, you know, get him out of all this. It strikes me that whatever he does, his play almost guarantees that this extends for several months, because if he were to pardon Ghislaine Maxwell, one of the most notorious sex traffickers in the world, not only would it rile up his MAGA base, but it guarantees that we'll be talking about this in August, September, maybe even in October.
- [07:31]
Julian Zelizer
I think that's right. And a bit of an irony is that he himself is the one who has eroded the separation, the Watergate era separation between the Department of Justice and, and the Oval Office, which was put into place after Nixon and really intended to not only protect the nation and the law, but in some ways to protect the President from doing things they shouldn't do. And so this, in addition to what you said, it continues to add to a story that he is using his power to protect himself. And so I think even on that level as well, this only continues to fuel the fire.
- [08:12]
Charlie Sykes
There's also the dangerous element to all of this. That, you know, as he's desperate to throw something up against the wall there, actually the President of the United States. And again, you know, we struggle against being numbed and we say this over and over and over again, but still the scene of the President of the United States sitting in the Oval Office accusing one of his predecessors of treason and then having, you know, this evidence rolled out of Russiagate relitigating all of that. I mean, the danger here is that Donald Trump has immense power to destroy. And we have to ask ourselves, how far would he go? What would he do if he really becomes desperate to distract attention from these Epstein files?
- [08:55]
Julian Zelizer
And we should assume he'll go very far. I mean, it's the ongoing lesson of January 6th is he will go very far to protect himself and to protect his power. And on this particular issue, he feels and looks desperate. And when he accused Obama of that, it was, it should be stunning. And it's a problem if more of us are not kind of shocked by that. But it's also dangerous. I mean, he is there wielding his power. He is wielding a threat against a former president, again, based on nothing. Here he's engaging in the very politics that he's kind of obviously trapped in with, with the Epstein files.
- [09:37]
Charlie Sykes
Well, the projection is really something, isn't it? I mean, it is amazing. You know, yesterday I came, tried to come up with a list of all of the, of all the people that he has threatened. Let me see if I can, if I can, if I can pull this up, all the folks that he has threatened to charge. When you think about, you know, the President of the United States who now wields this power over the doj, the number of figures that he has threatened with prosecution. And at this point, I think you have to take it seriously, don't you? I mean, if you're, if you're one of the targets, you have to lawyer up. You just have to assume that he might do something about it. So we're talking many over the weekend. It was what he's going to, he's going to charge Kamala Harris. They're going to have investigations into Oprah, into Springsteen, into Bono, in, you know, Reverend Al. He's gone after, you know, members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He's going to go after the January. I mean, it is a remarkable moment that we're in. I mean, Richard Nixon may have had an enemies list, but he didn't come out in public and every day say that he is going to arrest and throw into prison his political opponents. Did he?
- [10:46]
Julian Zelizer
No, he didn't. And he didn't act on most of it. And this is much more unwieldy in many ways in terms of it's just going after everyone. But I think the lesson of what we've seen in the first six months of the second term is people should take him seriously.
- [11:04]
Charlie Sykes
He.
- [11:05]
Julian Zelizer
He isn't playing around. And if you take any of the issue areas he ran on, whether it's kind of significantly ramping up the immigration enforcement and ice, whether it's going after law firms or universities, take your pick, or tariffs. Yeah, he's serious. And so I think when these figures hear this, and I assume people in the circles of Obama and Harris are taking it seriously. Yes, and that's the point. They have to get lawyers, they have to feel intimidated. And there is a very real risk he'll try to act on it. And that's the danger of a president who is imperial. The whole reason we have tried to impose constraints, whether it's the Constitution or post Watergate constraints, is so that the individual in the office can't do whatever they want. There has to be some grounding there. There has to be some process. There has to be some justification. Otherwise we get to the moment we are right now.
- [12:03]
Charlie Sykes
Well, as you point out, I wanna get to the piece that you wrote yesterday. Where is, you know, where's the rest of the outrage? What the Republican Party silence beyond the Epstein file says about the gop. And you walk through, okay, so this has triggered Republicans going, hey, what's going on with Donald Trump? And yet the entire story of his presidency has been that it's taken this. There was no pushback. So let's just walk through some of this. When you talk about the imperial presidential power, you know, I was just making some. Some notes. You know, where was the. Where was the outrage about his, you know, his interference in the private sector, his, you know, imposition of socialist policies, his unilateral, you know, declaration of billions of dollars in tariffs on the, on the private sector, his pardons of the January 6 protesters, his appointment of known. I mean, there's been so many things. And what's really striking about the Epstein story is that there is outrage. But as you point out. Let's shift the camera a little bit and think of all the things that they have not been outraged about.
- [13:11]
Julian Zelizer
Yeah, I mean, it is rather stunning. I mean, the one area I talk about that I imagine many Republicans would say, yes, we disagree, or we stand by the president. The cuts in kind of the social safety Net, although those are quite dramatic, what he did. And even Republicans who understand their own constituents are getting hurt in the end, did very little to stop it. But with presidential power, it's fundamentally antithetical to the arguments of the conservative movement. He is using government authority not just aggressively and in a strong way, but in an ad hoc way, in a way where there's really no process that citizens can rely on so that they don't feel the arm of government used against them. So I quote, you know, Reagan at his famous inaugural address about government being the problem. Well, Trump is the government, and we have heard very little outcry on any of the areas you discussed or I discussed about him using a really pretty ruthless form of presidential power. The only thing that seems to matter is the Epstein files, which I think says a lot in terms of what they haven't complained about.
- [14:26]
Charlie Sykes
Well, no, and even, even on the, you you mentioned, there would probably, you know, would have been a consensus on dismantling the social safety net. But, but as I was reading this, I was thinking, so let's imagine that we had a President Mitt Romney and a Vice President Paul Ryan, and they proposed these kinds of cuts in the social safety net. They would have done it. I good deal. More deafness, but they might have been deep. You know, what I would have expected, though, is that they would have had a heavy lift getting all Republicans to line up behind it. Even on something like that, there would have been resistance. When President George W. Bush, for example, tried to reform Social Security by privatizing it, it was Republicans who said, we are not going there. So he has had this absolute grip on everything. And, and, you know, with all of the outrages we think about it, how many Republicans have had, you know, have said anything about the illegal rendition of migrants to foreign countries, the defiance of court rulings, the threats against, against judges, you know, time and time again, these guys are elsewhere. Right. There's incredible quietude about all of that. And that's. And that's really the story, isn't it?
- [15:37]
Julian Zelizer
Yeah. And I mean, the way our political system works is if you have power and you're quiet, you are then supporting that. I mean, it's not a passive act to say nothing if you're the majority in the House and Senate. So on all of these matters, it's not only they're not saying anything, but they're going along with it. And I think your point on Social Security in 2005, when Bush pushed privatization and there was a huge, huge revolt, is very revealing. I Mean, it's not as if everyone, you know, says yes to everything. And now we're in a party where, meaning, the coalition has changed. So these are benefits that matter to Republican constituents. Little like the elderly and Social Security. But the silence is deafening, so to speak. And I think that says a lot about what the party's willing to accept. This is the first issue the Epstein files where you hear a significant number of people on the Hill complaining, no.
- [16:37]
Charlie Sykes
And for people who think that this is just the same old, same old, I mean, going back to the Bush presidency, not only was there tremendous Republican resistance to Social Security reform, but remember when he tried to put Harriet Myers on the Supreme Court, Republicans revolted against that. So there is a tradition. There once were independents. And the thing is that the Republican majority in the Senate and the House is incredibly small, so it would only take a handful of Republicans to exercise tremendous leverage. And yet they have given up their leverage, which I also think is extraordinary, that they have done that. So as I read your piece, where's the rest of the outrage? The parallel question is, where's the rest of the resistance? And I want to just shift the focus to the resistance from law firms, the resistance from universities, the resistance from the news media. And let's start with the news media, because of course, we've had ABC cave in. We've seen what's happened with the Washington Post, and then, of course, most recently with Paramount and cbs, the FCC approving the merger, the takeover, and the FCC chair, Carr pretty blatantly just says, yeah, we're going to be monitoring CBS now, or Paramount's going to be monitoring CBS for its bias, and there's going to be a watchdog who's going to report to the president of Paramount. And, you know, I guess in all of these, there's a mixed record. There are law firms that have resisted. There are universities that have resisted. There are people in the media who have resisted. But that's also part of the story. Where is the rest of the resistance? Because Trump, if Trump was encountering more pushback from. From any of these institutions, he would not be on the role that he's on.
- [18:32]
Julian Zelizer
I think you're right. I mean, he does not like pushback. And at a certain point, he gets tired when he has to deal with an issue that's not resolvable. And at a minimum, it's important to have resistance from our institutions so that there's a voice saying, this should not be normal. They should essentially put the President in the position of forcing these kind of Outcomes and it's on his shoulders because there will be costs to what, what he is doing. But I think, look, with the media separating the different institutions, I think one of the developments that has now become clear of the last 10, 15 years is just this mixed ownership where media outlets are part of a much bigger company in corporate infrastructure. And so they're vulnerable because if you need regulatory approval of anything, the administration essentially has them. And that's what we're seeing again and again. This has always been an issue. Nixon threatened during Watergate, the Washington Post, Katherine Graham wanted to buy some, I think, radio stations and there were threats, she resisted, she didn't care. But now it's a whole other level. And the media is really almost insignificant for these companies. It's a kind of vanity project or a public interest service. And so I think he figured that out. And those interests are triumphing over others, including the need to provide information. And they are not kind of fighting back. And so it's a very dangerous. And now it's reaching comedians. I mean, again, it's not what the company said, but boy, if we're going into satires, feeling pressure, we gotta, we have a problem on our hands.
- [20:23]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah, the Stephen Colbert story. I want to get your take on all of that. I mean, there are two different perspectives on all this. I mean, the show was losing $40 million a year. I've read reports, you know, so late night television was perhaps, you know, an economically challenged institution. And yet it seems incredibly naive not to think that the firing of Stephen Colbert, moments after he ripped his corporate bosses, was not part of their appeasement of Donald Trump. So once again, Trump can sit in the Oval Office. He actually did take a victory lap about Stephen Colbert. And CBS caved in again. You don't have to fire every single person, you just have to fire a few high profile people. And everybody else thinks, am I next? Right, because fear is the point. If you can engender that fear, if he can show that he can bring CBS down, then who's safe?
- [21:17]
Julian Zelizer
No, I mean, I think that's right. You don't have to do it to everyone. And I'm sure many performers or newscasters have in their mind, I need to be careful or I will be the next focus. Some might decide, I don't care and I'm going to still say what I want, although they might end up off the air, but others are going to check themselves. And look, it's the same principle that he's using with the kind of enforcement the ICE program Where the point is to essentially scare people into leaving or not coming. And I think it's the same model with the media, it's the same model with the universities. And that's why what you're talking about, if no one says no, if no one resists, it basically normalizes that acquiescence. And that's where we are right now. Not all of the media, and not just independent media such as the stuff that you and I are doing. There's reporters at the Washington Post. We're still uncovering stories. The Wall Street Journal has certainly caused a lot of problems. But if you look and step back, this is not a moment, I think, where most news outlets are sitting very comfortably in terms of their freedom to report what they need to report.
- [22:36]
Charlie Sykes
No, I think that's true. Which also makes the south park incident actually kind of interesting. When I first heard that, I thought, okay, we're not gonna spend time talking about a South park cartoon. And yet the fact that you had the South Parkers ink this $1.5 billion deal with Paramount and then immediately turn around and give this gigantic middle finger to their sniveling corporate overlords. What I thought was interesting because it showed that you can resist this, you can push back. And I have to say that it was a little bit bracing to see the guts of those guys, of all the people out there. When you have Jeff Bezos and ABC and CBS all sort of groveling and south park basically says, fuck you, it was kind of glorious.
- [23:25]
Julian Zelizer
No, I mean, that's what it takes. And I think what again, newscasters and performers should realize is the very weakness of the kind of formats they've been on means it probably isn't going to last indefinitely. And it probably means there's other ways to get things out in this day and age that are better. So I think, you know, at a, at a self interest level beyond doing the right thing, I think some of these people who don't say just, you know, yes, yes, yes to the President's pressure could actually benefit and be very important voices right now. Voices that have a long term impact. And I include cartoons and satire because frankly, with this President, that's one of the most effective ways to get at him. That's the way he engages. So why shouldn't opponents use the same thing? But, but they can't be kind of wedded to old fashioned formats that are anyway going away because it's a technological change.
- [24:26]
Charlie Sykes
What a great point. And also I think that there's a long, long, long, long history of satire being used effectively against autocrats, authoritarians and tyrants. I mean, going back into the Roman era. And so there's a rich tradition, and there's a reason why someone like a Donald Trump hates to be laughed at more than anything else. And this is really important to kind of remember how thin, skinny he is. He may right now be this avatar of power, but once people start snickering at him, things change. Okay, so speaking of the media, the most recent development, the most recent development in Trump's campaign against the media is his lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch suing them for $10 billion for the story about the birthday card. I mean, it's. Look, I'm sorry, this is a completely bogus lawsuit, but he's pushing for an expedited, expedited deposition from Rupert Murdoch, who's 94 years old. So he's really trying to push this. My guess is he's not going to get that. But the overhanging question is, what's Murdoch gonna do? I mean, everybody else is. I mean, Trump is betting that he can bully Rupert Murdoch. And I'm wondering, I don't know. I mean, he's done it in the past, but Rupert Murdoch is 94 years old. You know, he allowed that story to be published in the first. But what do you think? I mean, is Murdoch going to stand up against him or is he just going to join the line? What do you think?
- [25:57]
Julian Zelizer
I mean, I don't know. He has all the money in the world. He is older, and he commands a very formidable empire of information that also can be turned against the president. I mean, we saw. I was thinking back when Elon Musk and Trump had their spat the first time around. The X or whatever that Elon Musk put out was about the Epstein files. And in some ways at the time, it didn't make sense, but he knew exactly what he was unleashing. And I think Rupert Murdoch has that power as well. As, you know, the Wall Street Journal story showed. And so he doesn't have. He certainly doesn't have to fold. Meaning this is not someone who's young and just starting and could be crushed. That won't happen to him. He will be comfortable for the rest of his life. And so here's an opportunity for a conservative to use his. His safety and stature and his comfort to do something for the Republican, for democracy. So we will see if.
- [27:03]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah, I don't have a lot of confidence. I don't have a lot of confidence, but I think at some point he's figuring, you know, I am way too old and way too rich to be bullied by this guy. I, I don't want to give in. And the fact that the Wall Street Journal continues to do aggressive reporting, I think is rather extraordinary. I mean, Fox News is still Fox News, but he has not muzzled the Wall Street Journal. And as you point out, in fairness, the Washington Post is also doing very, very aggressive reporting, as are the New York Times. So we're not like in a post journalism moment here, but it is really something watching the president. Okay. Did you. I was, I was out of town over the weekend. I think I confessed I was doing a lot of grandkids stuff. So I decided I made a life choice not to immerse myself deeply in the tariff negotiations with the eu. But did you watch Trump with the British prime Minister and with the EU executives? Did you, did you watch his performance?
- [28:04]
Julian Zelizer
I read about it. I did not actually see it. I read about it.
- [28:07]
Charlie Sykes
Okay, well, that's, I read it. And part of it is that sometimes reading about it does not fully capture how bizarre it is. But I mean, in the history, I mean, you're an historian, but in the history of presidential batshitary, I mean, it ranked right up there. Yeah, he has this big wind and wind.
- [28:27]
Julian Zelizer
No, it's exactly. It's what we were talking about earlier. This is a huge victory for him. He basically was able to get the EU to concede to terms that most in the EU did not think was going to happen. They're not favorable. Many, many countries are upset that essentially they caved. And he did it through intimidation, threat, same tactics. And so this should be a moment. You know, there's people saying, well, his tariff policies are cutting deals, but he can't control himself. It's not in his nature. And I think that kind of bizarre moment is not a unique moment. We see it again and again at moments of victory. He can also distract the country from his victory, just like he can distract people from other issues. And he can't help himself. And especially when he feels under fire for something like the Epstein files, I think there is an element with him that he loses control. And so for me reading about that, and I'm sure seeing it is yet another moment where he kind of, you know, snatches victory from himself.
- [29:37]
Charlie Sykes
You know. Yeah, he has just managed to distract himself from himself. You know, in terms of whether it's a victory, we ought to at least note that it's not a victory for American consumers who are going to be paying the tariffs. And they're still in denial about the fact that this is a massive set sales tax on Americans. We'll leave that aside. But again, going back to, and I'm not trying to go back to the Epstein files necessarily, but in terms of the distraction, is your point about get away from them?
- [30:04]
Julian Zelizer
That's the point.
- [30:04]
Charlie Sykes
Well, no, I mean, it's these steps on his own victory. So this was the period of time where they were supposed to sell all the good things in the big beautiful bill. You know, all the tax cuts, no tax on tip. It's interesting, they said it sort of sent JD Vance out to do the work for him. And it's like, you know, every once.
- [30:19]
Julian Zelizer
In a while, J.D.
- [30:20]
Charlie Sykes
You, you go sell this. So every month, every week, we're talking about the Epstein files instead of the big beautiful bill, again, steps on what they thought was going to be their message. So this is a problem. It also occurs to me I was listening to JD Vance tick through the various goodies in this bill. And there are, and I don't think that critics ought to just gloss over the fact that there's going to be constituency for no tax on overtime, no tax on tips, the Trump savings accounts for babies. But in some ways, they also have smothered their own good news, what they think of as their good news by pushing it into the big beautiful bill. If they would have passed all the goodies in a separate bill, they could talk about that. But they crammed it together with the big tax cuts for the wealthy, the shredding of the safety net, all the other sort of horribles in there. So it's kind of like, it's like picking through the pile of manure and saying, there is a pony in here. There really is a pony in here.
- [31:23]
Julian Zelizer
I think that's right. I mean, part of it is just the challenge of using this reconciliation process, which has become more frequently the way budgets and policy is formed, because there's no filibuster. And so one thing it does, even in the best bill, it varies a lot of the items that you're trying to pass. And presidents have struggled with this. But in his case, there's just so much damage in the bill that I think many constituencies are going to feel it's more difficult to sell the particular items that would be politically appealing. And I don't think Vice President Vance, frankly, is going to have the same effect as the president. And the president finally is consumed with other issues. President Johnson, Lyndon Johnson used to talk a lot about time being really the most valuable commodity in politics because it moves quickly. And I think they're seeing that. I mean, we're almost in August, and he's not talking about any of this, and we're not far from midterm. So all of this kind of matters, and it does create vulnerabilities for the president, and he is not able to highlight right now those items that might be more appealing to his constituents.
- [32:43]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah, no, I. Exactly right. And of course, when we, you know, when Congress comes back and everybody re. Engages in September, I don't. I think we'll still be talking about the same stuff. Okay, so I have a confession to make here. I wrote a piece yesterday about Israel that was actually one of the most unpleasant things I've ever had to write. And I just wanted to sort of bounce it off you because I am a lifelong supporter of Israel. My father was Jewish. My family on that side is Jewish. I have always. That's like a part of my identity that I think of Israel as this bastion of democracy in the Middle East, a symbol of courage and decency. And yet watching what's happening right now. And what I wrote was, you know, we can have several thoughts in our head at the same time that Israel has the right to exist and to defend itself, that it. That, you know, Hamas is evil and the. The terrorist attack deserved a robust military response. A lot of the criticism of Israel, I think, has been anti Semitic. Some of it's been morally depraved, the defense of Hamas. But having said all that, what's happening right now is so horrific that I wrote that Bibi Netanyahu is going to be remembered as one of the monsters of history for being the architect of these unspeakable atrocities. And it just. I'm trying to remember when a nation has squandered international goodwill as recklessly as Israel is right now. Just give me your thoughts on all of that. And I'm speaking from a point of view of a strong supporter of Israel who is appalled at the scenes that are coming out of Gaza right now.
- [34:26]
Julian Zelizer
Well, I think, Charlie, many people are feeling the same way. This feels a bit of a pivot point. And a genuine humanitarian crisis is unfolding, and we're seeing it. And you could kind of make a million arguments, but it's hard to unsee the reality there. And at the time we're recording this, I think the UK Just announced that they would recognize a Palestinian state. I didn't see the news. I just saw the news flash. France did the same. So I do think this kind of phase of the conflict. Just watching the politics, even President Trump is talking now about starvation in Gaza is extraordinarily damaging to, to the standing of Israel. But, but more important right now, it's just someone has to do something. It's a horrendous crisis. And I think that feeling just, you know, I don't have a perfect gauge, but it definitely seems to be expanding in different political realms, not just kind of predictable realms. But look, we've had humanitarian crises like this and it can have a huge effect on how people see a part of the world.
- [35:45]
Charlie Sykes
Well, I've always thought, you know, we think back on the terrible atrocities of history and what were people thinking when they were going on if they knew about them? And this is, I think, one of the dangers of, you know, the ideological moral relativism of, you know, you know, choosing sides. And whatever my side does, I'm either going to ignore or I'm going to tolerate or I'm going to support. And here we are watching this happening in real time in front of the whole world from a country that I think, you know, had, has a moral basis to it. And the reality is, is that Benjamin Netanyahu is in the. Look, everything about this is complex. We could spend the entire time talking about the role of Hamas. I'm not letting them off the hook, you know, their role in all of this. But the right wing government of Benjamin Netanyahu, I think for some time he's been trying to convince people, well, okay, I am not as right wing as these really, really extreme members of my cabinet. But the reality is that he has been appeasing them and, you know, trying to, you know, you know, put lipstick on many of the policies that are disastrous. And by the way, Donald Trump has been very much complicit in the policies, including the food aid policies pursued by Netanyahu. But you just sense the political support draining away, you know, among young people. The support that, that, you know, people of my generation just assumed was always going to be there is, is gone on the left. And if the, if the, you know, America first writer, you know, right. Turns against Israel as well, we will have a sea change in terms of America's relationship with Israel. And yeah, I mean, what, you know, what did he accomplish?
- [37:32]
Julian Zelizer
No, I think you're right. And I think in politics, on foreign policy, whatever the issue, you have to look not just at the moment, but where will things be in a generation? And that support, at least in the current configuration, is very important to Israel. The, the support from the U.S. but what we're seeing in polls, and again, whatever you're standing the polls are the polls, there is a serious erosion of, of support also just distancing from the 1948 period or even from the late 1960s and 70s. And so this will be part of public policy in, in the coming generations. And I think this moment, I mean, I, I never know, just because we have this political culture that moves from one thing to the next, no matter how horrific it is or no matter how dramatic it is, but it could have big consequences in electoral politics. It's not just in the Democratic Party or even seeing it with some young Republicans as well. So it could be a real bipartisan shift in coming years that I think we're going to have to watch how that plays out.
- [38:43]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah, I mean, you know, in part, some of these things, you know, can be over complexified. But also people ask, you know, who are the good guys? And for a long time you go, here are the good guys. We are the good guys. And now the pictures coming out of Gaza make it much more complicated. Okay, speaking of pivots, and I'm always skeptical of any Trumpian pivot, but at the same time that he broke with Benjamin Netanyahu and said, yeah, it looked like these people are starving. And by the way, can we just remind people also that Donald Trump has been in favor of ethnically cleansing the Palestinians who live in Gaza and turning it into the Riviera of the Mediterranean with Trump hotels and stuff. I mean, so we're not talking about, you know, Donald Trump has suddenly seen the light and become a humanitarian. I mean, no, but at the same time, he also said that he's not going to give Vladimir Putin 50 days to clean up his act with Ukraine. He's, he's, he's very, very, very unhappy with his good friend Vlad, and he's going to give him 10 to 12 days. So what's going on there? I mean, this is actually really also rather significant that Trump, it's taken him this long to realize that Vladimir Putin is not his buddy.
- [39:51]
Julian Zelizer
No, you're right. And in some ways, that's one of the biggest reversals. Part of it is, look, he's a transactional politician, and I think he views a lot of foreign policy through the lens of the people he deals with rather than the geopolitical questions. And that's his willingness to say anything. And I do think at some level, especially from the first term, he believed that he and Putin kind of had a friendship or relationship. And he's learning as every other president does. Not true. He will not listen Putin to kind of what he doesn't want to listen to. I think he's also dealing. You know, there's a lot of interesting reporting now on how drone warfare is really changing military operations, particularly in Ukraine, where cheap, you know, handmade, essentially weaponry can really cause damage to a bigger entity like Russia. And so part of this is also Trump. It's transactional realizing, you know, his original side might not win easily. So not only is he mad at Putin, feeling almost personally betrayed, like a high school friend who turns on you, but also realizing that he was just really wrong in the ease with which this will. He doesn't control Ukraine. So I think he's just going to join them at some level at this point. But it's just, I mean, it's such a messy, chaotic, disjointed way to approach foreign policy from one minute to the next. It doesn't create any kind of vision or roadmap. So we don't know, like, he could turn back in a month, and that leaves everyone in the world, major countries, unsettled.
- [41:39]
Charlie Sykes
Well, that's the key thing. That's why I'm skeptical about any of the pivots, because he could change his mind. You know, Vladimir Putin could call him up and tell him, you know, by the way, what a magnificent game of golf you played over the weekend, you know, and if you lost, you know, weight, you're just looking so. And Trump will be back. But the thing that I thought was interesting was that Vladimir Putin, I think, had a better read on the vulnerabilities of Donald Trump than a lot of other folks. But he was also humiliating Trump. And the question was, does Trump understand that he's being played this way? And at some level, I think he figured that out. And as we know, the one thing that Donald Trump cannot tolerate is being mocked. And Vladimir Putin was mocking him in pretty graphic terms. And the message did get through.
- [42:28]
Julian Zelizer
It gets back to your thin skin point. And this is obviously different because this includes involves warfare, not a comedy show.
- [42:35]
Charlie Sykes
Right.
- [42:36]
Julian Zelizer
But there is an element of him as a person, President Trump, where he has very thin skin. He can dish it out all the time, but he can't really take it very easily. And so I think that explains a lot of the rupture that we're seeing.
- [42:50]
Charlie Sykes
Well, in the Trump show, he realized that he was not being treated seriously, that he was not being treated as a co equal, and he could not take it. Julian Zelizer, thank you so much. For joining me on the podcast and you and I are doing a live stream Friday afternoon.
- [43:06]
Julian Zelizer
We are.
- [43:06]
Charlie Sykes
Right. So we're going to do this again. The world will be a completely different place and we'll have so many more insights.
- [43:12]
Julian Zelizer
But thanks for joining me. Thank you so much.
- [43:15]
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, why we're going to continue to do this? Because it is so important that we continually remind ourselves that we are not the crazy ones.
- [43:29]
Julian Zelizer
Thank you.
- [43:43]
Say hello to Samantha.
- [43:44]
Samantha
Hi there.
- [43:45]
Julian Zelizer
Samantha built a SaaS platform that helps small businesses manage their workflow, but she needed a smarter way to reach decision makers.
- [43:52]
Samantha
That's where Acast came in. They helped me produce a professional audio ad which played to business owners and ops leads using their audience attributes targeting tools. Suddenly my platform was showing up in the ears of the exact people I needed to reach.
- [44:04]
Julian Zelizer
Now that's streamlined marketing. Samantha, what's your tip for scaling smart?
- [44:08]
Samantha
Solve a real problem and make sure the right people hear about it.
- [44:12]
Julian Zelizer
Promote your business with podcast ads on Acast get started@go.acast.com advertise.
- [44:24]
Charlie Sykes
Businesses that are selling through the roof like Untuckit Make Selling and for shoppers buying simple with Shopify home of the number one checkout on the planet and with Shop Pay you can boost conversions up to 50%. Businesses that sell more sell on Shopify, upgrade your business and get the same checkout Untucket uses. Sign up for your $1 per month trial period at shopify.com podcast free. All lowercase go to shopify.com podcastfree to upgrade your selling today.
- [44:52]
That is a gamble. Money Exponent your podcast okay, what is.
- [44:56]
Samantha
And Desmond Finding the perfect podcast audience for your brand can feel overwhelming. But with Acast Smart recommendations, finding the right podcast to sponsor takes seconds. Powered by AI, it curates the ideal podcast list based on your target audience. From millennial men into fitness or tech savvy women in business. Just type in who you want to reach and get instant data driven recommendations. Start reaching the right listeners today at go.acast.com ads.