Ron Fournier: The End of Big, Beautiful Friendships

Summary

Podcast Summary: "Ron Fournier: The End of Big, Beautiful Friendships"

Podcast Information:

• Title: To The Contrary with Charlie Sykes
• Host: Charlie Sykes
• Guest: Ron Fournier
• Episode: Ron Fournier: The End of Big, Beautiful Friendships
• Release Date: May 29, 2025
• Description: Exploring the dissolution of influential alliances surrounding Donald Trump, examining corruption, political dynamics, and the future of American governance.

---

1. Introduction

Charlie Sykes welcomes Ron Fournier, a renowned reporter now active on Substack, to discuss the crumbling alliances between Donald Trump and key global figures such as Elon Musk, Vladimir Putin, and Bibi Netanyahu. The episode sets the stage for an in-depth analysis of the shifting political landscape and the implications for future American politics.

2. The End of Big, Beautiful Friendships

Key Discussion Points:

• Elon Musk's Shift: Elon Musk, once an ally of Donald Trump, is now distancing himself due to deteriorating business relations and public persona. Musk's disillusionment is highlighted by recent interviews where he criticizes Trump’s policies and actions.

  Notable Quote:

  Ron Fournier (00:55): “None of those men have friends. None of those men have true partnerships. All four of those men are the four most transactional human beings on the face of the earth.”

• Vladimir Putin's Relationship with Trump: The once cordial relationship is strained as Putin asserts his dominance, challenging Trump in ways that undermine their alliance.

• Bibi Netanyahu's Divergence: Netanyahu and Trump, who previously shared mutual interests, are now at odds over policy decisions, especially regarding Iran.

Analysis: Fournier emphasizes the transactional nature of these relationships, arguing that the alliances were never based on genuine friendship but on mutual benefits. As Trump’s influence wanes, these figures are redefining their alliances to better serve their interests.

3. Corruption in Trump's Administration

Key Discussion Points:

• Unprecedented Corruption Levels: Fournier asserts that the level of corruption under Trump surpasses any previous administration, both in scale and brazenness.

  Notable Quote:

  Ron Fournier (07:53): “We’ve never, I mean, and this isn’t an opinion, Charlie, this is a fact that we've never seen a president make this much money off of the presidency.”

• Public Perception and Accountability: Unlike past presidents who may have engaged in corruption discreetly, Trump’s actions are overt and openly justify personal gain under the guise of transparency.

  Notable Quote:

  Ron Fournier (07:53): “Is it okay to break the law when you do it openly and unapologetically? And bragging, because that's his M.O.”

• Comparisons to Past Scandals: The discussion draws parallels between Trump’s administration and historical scandals like the Teapot Dome, highlighting the severity and uniqueness of current events.

4. The Duopoly and the Need for Political Reform

Key Discussion Points:

• Two-Party System Critique: Both Sykes and Fournier argue that the Democratic and Republican parties are entrenched in a duopoly that stifles genuine political reform and innovation.

• Reform Proposals: Fournier suggests dismantling the two-party system by enabling multi-party participation and reforming election laws to foster a more representative democracy.

  Notable Quote:

  Ron Fournier (24:45): “We should have election laws that allow more than two parties. We should have primary campaigns that… allow you have a majority of the vote.”

• Public Disillusionment: There is widespread voter fatigue with the status quo, as evidenced by the rise of independent candidates and increasing support for non-traditional political movements.

5. The Potential for Independent Candidates: Case Study of Mike Duggan

Key Discussion Points:

• Mike Duggan’s Candidacy: As the three-term mayor of Detroit, Duggan is exploring a gubernatorial run as an independent, challenging the two-party system by attracting voters from both sides dissatisfied with their respective parties.

• Polling and Viability: Current polls indicate that Duggan has significant support, nearly leading in a three-way race, reflecting a broader desire for change beyond the traditional party lines.

• Barriers to Success: Despite his success in local politics, Duggan faces skepticism about overcoming the entrenched two-party system at the national level.

  Notable Quote:

  Ron Fournier (28:50): “People are not. People don’t vote based on a checklist of policies. They vote based on who identifies most with them… and is most likely to change it.”

Analysis: Duggan’s independent run symbolizes the growing movement to disrupt the political duopoly, illustrating the potential for effective governance outside traditional party structures.

6. The Future of MAGA and Political Movements

Key Discussion Points:

• MAGA Base Resilience: Despite political setbacks and scandals, the MAGA base remains a potent force, likely to persist and influence future elections through similar tactics as Trump’s.

• Need for a New Movement: Fournier advocates for a transformative political movement akin to the New Deal coalition, one that can unite a majority of Americans behind comprehensive reforms and a new social contract.

  Notable Quote:

  Ron Fournier (19:44): “The way you eradicate MAGA is the way we eradicated the red scare of McCarthyism… A new form of government, reforming government, radically changing government for a new century.”

• Strategic Long-Term Goals: The focus should shift from short-term electoral victories to sustainable, multi-election campaigns aimed at enacting broad-based reforms.

7. Conclusion

Charlie Sykes and Ron Fournier wrap up the discussion by reinforcing the need for significant political reforms to dismantle the two-party system and build a more inclusive and representative political landscape. They underscore the importance of independent movements and candidates in overcoming the entrenched interests that perpetuate the current duopoly.

Final Thoughts: Fournier posits that overcoming the challenges posed by MAGA and the two-party system requires a broad, transformative approach that goes beyond traditional political strategies. It involves redefining the political narrative and building a coalition capable of enacting substantial systemic changes.

Notable Quote:

Ron Fournier (28:50): “He has gotten shit done in Detroit. And even folks up here in Northern Michigan… say, hey, he's making that city… I'm speaking for a lot of people up here. And… it's not what America needs.”

---

Listeners can stay updated on Ron Fournier’s insights by subscribing to his Substack newsletter, "Convulsions: Politics, Culture, Communications and Life," where he provides daily analyses of current events.

---

This summary captures the essence of the podcast episode, highlighting the critical discussions between Charlie Sykes and Ron Fournier about the disintegration of key political alliances, the pervasive corruption within Trump’s administration, and the urgent need for political reform to transcend the limitations of the two-party system.

Transcript

[Ron Fournier]

Foreign.

[Sykes]

Sykes. Welcome to the to the Contrary podcast. And I am joined today. This is the first time Ron Fournier, legendary reporter who is now on substack. Legendary. I mean, the, you know, at least you don't get people saying, you know, I listened to you when I was in grade school because I get that kind of shit. I have to tell you, you, oh.

[Ron Fournier]

No, I, I, I get that. I had somebody the other day tell me how 9, 11 was history. And I, I cried softly to myself.

[Sykes]

Oh, man, it gets worse. Well, anyway, Ron has a new substack. Convulsions, politics, culture, communications and life, which keeps you busy. So on any given day, you and I were talking about this and you've been covering, like, how many presidents presidencies have you covered over?

[Ron Fournier]

I did. Clinton through. Clinton threw Obama.

[Sykes]

Clinton through Obama. So on any given day, we could talk about the unprecedented corruption of the Trump regime. We could talk about his war on Harvard, which is extraordinary. The war on international students, which is escalating. The legal fight involving the law firms, which the court decisions are not going well for Donald Trump, which, by the way, is a reminder that all those quizzling big law firms could have won if they had just bothered to fight. Yeah, they probably would have, but, But I have a theme for you today, Ron, which is the end of, the end of big, beautiful friendships. And let's just talk about this. We have Vladimir Putin, we have Elon Musk, and we have Bibi Netanyahu, who up until five minutes ago were Donald Trump's best buddies. And now it seems as if these big, beautiful friendships are at least going through a rocky period. You know, they're, you know, maybe just starting to see other people. So let's start with Elon Musk, because this is actually rather extraordinary. You're familiar with the interviews he's given. He's apparently given a whole bunch of interviews. Here's the headline in the New York Times. Musk disappointed with major Trump policy bill, saying it will increase deficit. Daily Mail reports. Musk, who spoke to multiple outlets about the White House betrayal, went on to decry the treatment he and his baby face, Doge Henchman, had received. Doge is just becoming the whipping boy for everything. He told the Washington Post. Something bad would happen and we would get blamed for it, even if we had nothing to do with it, which is sad. So give me your take on what's going on. Why Elon Musk has chosen now to give interviews to everybody. Basically kneecapping Donald Trump's signature legislative not.

[Ron Fournier]

Yet accomplishment let's look at what Elon Musk, Bibi Netanyahu, Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump have in common. None of those men have friends. None of those men have true partnerships. All four of those men are the four most transactional human beings on the face of the earth. They're in it for themselves. There is, it's very binary. There is no, I'll give you half if you give me half. It's, I'll take it all or F you. So when the interests of Musk and Trump aligned for a few chaotic, cataclysmic weeks at the beginning of this year, they seemed, you use that word, they seemed to be friends. But now that Musk Co. Is on the brink of collapse, his reputation has been destroyed. He now only has the support of less than half the country where he came into this year being seen as somewhat of a genius and trailblazer and whose company was serving the most liberal auto consumers in the country. Now that he's his reputation and his business at his tatters, it's in his best interest to go after Trump. So he's going after Trump right now. Go ahead.

[Sykes]

I mean, it is interesting when you think about the collapse of people's reputations. You know, Rick Wilson has the, you know, the phrase, you know, everything Trump touches dies. You know, in the case of Rudy Giuliani, well, you know, case proven. But Elon Musk, you talk about what his image was just a couple of years ago, you know, when Time magazine was describing him as this world be striding genius. And there were these lavish biographies and profiles. And now he's basically a punchline and a joke, and his reputation is in tatters. The turning point for Elon Musk is unfortunately, is pretty clear. He thought he was going to be not just the President's best buddy, but that he was going to be a kingmaker in maga world. And the Republican Party comes here to my home state of Wisconsin, spends tens of millions of dollars and gets handed, you know, all he, you know, has to show for it is that stupid cheesehead, which, by the way, I also have a cheese head. I'm not, I'm not saying that they're stupid, but. And from that moment on, he seems to have been in, in decline, moving, you know, away from the circles of power. And you could tell that there was a break on the issue of tariffs, that he clearly was not on board. Whatever Donald Trump is doing with these trade wars, but breaking with Trump on this bill strikes me as really interesting because his entire brand in Trump world was to cut the budget. Now, this turned out to be a complete fraud. He wasn't able to cut the, you know, cut the budget, but, you know, that was the image. And now for him to basically call bullshit on the big, beautiful bill that it's not going to cut the deficit.

[Ron Fournier]

Well, it's. Yeah, it's all bullshit. The brand was bullshit. He's not a budget cutter. He's not a great systems innovator. He. He placed a couple of lucky bets and became a multibillionaire, one of the richest men in the world. But doesn't mean that he also. He has all the answers, especially in government. So, again, it was just a very brief mutual alignment of interest. It was really predictable. I know you predicted it. I predicted, others predicted that the partnership wouldn't last. What happened in Wisconsin just opened Trump's eyes to the fact that, okay, I no longer need him, but if it wasn't that, it would have been something else. And also opened Elon Musk doesn't need Trump anymore. Matter of fact, Musk needs to push off of Trump. So that's what he's doing. Six months from now, they'll need each other again, and they'll get in bed again, and it'll all be bullshit.

[Sykes]

Well, I mean, you know, Musk does, you know, cannot break totally with Trump because he needs Trump's protection. He needs the largess. He knows that if there's a Democratic president, that things break very, very badly for him. So, you know, like a lot of these oligarchs, you know, at the trough, they may not be close, but this is an administration that basically says, look, you're either with us or you're against us, and you don't want to be against us. I mean, you know, let's just move on. I want to come back to the big, beautiful friendships. But the level of corruption in this administration is breathtaking, and it's really based on the. You have to kiss the ring, otherwise the president will destroy you. And if you do kiss the ring, if you write out massive checks, you get benefits and favors, and none of it's hidden. It's all right out there in the open.

[Ron Fournier]

Yeah, that's the two things that that's really astonished me is, first of all, the level of corruption is far greater than anything we've seen. We saw a president in the 60s and early 70s try to steal an election that he didn't. That he didn't need to, and then lying about it. We saw a president in the late 90s reward donors with White House perks, like being able to stay in the Lincoln Bedroom. You know, the Teapot Dome scandal. You know, there's all kinds of examples of corruption in our past, but not to this extent. We've never, I mean, and this isn't an opinion, Charlie, this is a fact that we've never seen a president make this much money off of the presidency. Billions of dollars that are going directly into his pocket, into pockets of his families based on deals that he's making where he's leveraging our office. We've never seen it to this extent. And then two, like you say, it's the brazenness of it. It's how open it is. And you keep hearing his people defending him by saying, well, he's doing this out in the open. He's the most transparent president ever. And I think to myself, is it okay if I rob a bank? If I go before I do, I announce on substack that I'm going to rob a bank, and then when I walk in, I shoot myself live, you know, with a selfie, live video frame, saying, I'm robbing a bank. Is it okay to break the law when you do it openly and unapologetically? And Bragdos Lee, because that's his M.O. to do it worse than anybody else has ever done it, and to do it more openly and more brazenly than anybody else has done it. It's astonishing. And I say to my MAGA friends and neighbors, guys, you know, he's setting a precedence. Do you not think there's ever going to be a Democrat elected president again? And do you not think that she or he will be as brazen and as. As corrupting as Donald Trump? This is a horrible precedent that we're allowing to let happen.

[Sykes]

Well, I mean, and also, I mean this, by the way, the, the fact that he's doing it in the open is what, you know, Speaker Mike Johnson is saying when he's asked about it. You know, you guys were all worked up about Hunter Biden and Joe Biden, and by the way, the Hunter Biden stuff was very, very. There's no question about it. But, but his answer is essentially, well, look, you know, how bad can it be if you're doing it, you know, in broad daylight? And that. And that is kind of these, the stunning element of all of this, that there's, there's, there's no pretense at all, and it's hard to keep up with it. I mean, that's. I. And in my newsletter, I posted a link to the big New York Times wrap up piece from some, that from Sunday on, all of the ways in which he's enriching himself. And the New Yorker has done a piece about all of this, but it is hard to keep up because there are just so many ways. You look at the plane, do you look at the crypto scam, do you look at, you know, the deals that he's cutting in Vietnam and elsewhere. I mean, it's really, it is kind of amazing.

[Ron Fournier]

So, yeah, I mean, just take two. Let's compare Hunter Biden, where the President's son made tens of thousands of dollars, maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars with his closest by leveraging his close association with the President. That is a fact. And that as far as the factual record goes, that he leveraged his father's office to make several hundred thousand dollars for foreign companies. Bad, terrible, should not happen. Okay, just take one of Trump scandals. He's making tens of millions of dollars, approaching billions of dollars just off the meme coins, just off of people being able to secretly give him tens of millions of dollars to buy something of that's really of not much value, a meme coin. And they know in exchange for that, they're getting access to the President. Literally. The President had a big party the other day where his top private donor, who will never be disclosed, had access to him. And you know, we've had at least one pardon that's come after that where he's given a very bad guy who pleaded guilty to bad things a pardon. It's, it's far worse than anything we've seen, including the Biden scandal and far more. Oh, not even.

[Sykes]

What about ism is kind of the superpower of the trumpets. Because, because there's always something you can cite. But what they figured out, I think, or at least they believe, is that, is that as long as you have a what about is a what about thing to point to, it doesn't matter what the scope of the scale is. There's no comparativeness. So, so, so this guy stole $10,000 or $100,000. Okay, so we're going to steal 10 billion. Same thing. Right?

[Ron Fournier]

I mean, it's even, even if it was worse in the past or the same to me, the scale doesn't matter as much as weren't we all taught, especially those of us raised in a Christian tradition, were we not all taught from the, from, from, you know, toddlerhood, that two wrongs don't make a right?

[Sykes]

Yeah.

[Ron Fournier]

But we now have two parties and the Democrats do this as well, who? As soon as they get in trouble, they say, yeah, what about the other guy? Well, I am so tired of that and so are a lot of voters, by the way.

[Sykes]

What feels different about this, of course, is also the sense that Donald Trump can engage in this kind of corruption with absolute impunity because the Supreme Court not only gave him immunity, but also who's going to enforce it? What are the guardrails? What are the checks and balances? And at the moment, there are no checks and balances on him. And he can sit in the Oval Office and go on one issue after another, say, well, why not? Who's gonna stop us? And when it comes to the corruption, the answer is no one. Okay, so back to the big, beautiful friendships. Elon Musk feels he needs to distance himself for whatever reason. And by the way, that I think that Musk would like it to be a friendly disagreement. We disagree on policy because as I mentioned before, I don't think he can afford to break. But the problem with Donald Trump is you're either at his feet or at his throat. I mean, so we'll see how Trump reacts. I mean, he could lash out at Elon. I don't know what's going to happen here, but. But let's talk about Vladimir Putin, because over the weekend, Trump tweeted out, bleed it out, whatever you want to call it. The. You know what, something's gone wrong with what's happened to Vladimir Putin. He's gone completely crazy. Why is he killing all these people? And there were some people who said, well, now he's finally realizing, you know, his eyes are open with Vladimir Putin. I'm a little skeptical that Donald Trump will ever distance himself from Vladimir Putin. What do you think?

[Ron Fournier]

So am I. I think two things are happening that seem to be contradictory. One, yes, a very muddled, non strategic, not incredibly bright man has finally realized that Putin wants the war to go on. He probably doesn't understand why. He probably still doesn't understand that Putin invaded a free country and that Putin has no incentive to get to give back that land. But I think he has woken up and realizing that Putin's not buying his bs. But at the same time, I can't see Trump pushing back on Putin. He's complaining now, I think, just to give himself cover so he can walk away from Ukraine, stop giving them weapons, stop trying to mediate and leave in Ukraine at the. At the mercy of Russia and Putin getting what he wants. At the end of the day, my guess is that's what happens all that's happening now is Donald Trump is setting up Putin to be the bad guy. And surprise, we all knew Putin was a bad guy.

[Sykes]

Well, but there's also a sense that he is realizing that he's being humiliated. You know, I mean, I've argued that Vladimir Putin seems, seems to be the one guy in the world who gets Donald Trump. Everybody else is quaking in fear of Donald Trump. And Putin says, no, Donald Trump's a sensitive, needy man, baby, and I'm gonna show him who's boss here. I mean, it's not just that he's not going along with Trump, he just seems to be giving him this gigantic middle finger. I mean, they have this two hour conversation last Monday, Donald Trump comes out and says it's excellent. And then over the weekend, what does Vladimir Putin do? He launches the biggest drone missile attack ever on Ukraine, which seems like a constant way of not just defying Trump, humiliating him. And the fact that he's doing it, he's completely unafraid that there'll be any negative consequences. So, I mean, it's all, at some level, Trump, he doesn't mind the killing, but he minds the humiliation.

[Ron Fournier]

Yeah, he's all. He's the most feral politician I've ever seen. He doesn't act strategically. He acts in the moment, reactively, like a cornered rat. So Putin is doing what Putin's always done, which is grabbing power and territory wherever he can. And you're right, playing Trump like a man, baby. He'll continue doing that. Putin's going to get what he wants out of Trump. And Trump is doing what he does, which is now that he sees that he's not going to be able to solve this, that Putin isn't listening to him, now he's going to try to make Putin out to be the bad guy and rewrite the narrative, pretend that he hasn't been suckered for the last three years or more than that, actually, and pretend that he didn't promise to end it on day one. It's all Kabuki. And at the end of the day, my guess is Putin gets what he wants, which is Ukraine. And Trump finds a way to convince 30% of America that he didn't lose Ukraine.

[Sykes]

Well, he may get 30%, but see, that is the reality check here, that if in fact you're right, and I'm not disagreeing with that, that you have the defeat of Ukraine, the disaster of Ukraine, that's not going to make Donald Trump look strong. That's not going to make Donald Trump look like the world be striding statesman that he's been portraying himself as. I mean, one of the real turning points for Joe Biden, of course, was the fiasco in Afghanistan. I don't think he ever recovered from that. I'm not sure that losing Ukraine is going to be something that Donald Trump's going to be able to brush off.

[Ron Fournier]

Well, he's not going to run for president again. So it really doesn't, you know, he.

[Sykes]

Doesn'T give a shit.

[Ron Fournier]

This could, yes, Ukraine could be his Covid. He could, because of this, he could leave office at, you know, 40%, 35%. But at the end of the day, he's going to have his base. He'll fool 30, 35, 40% of the public to still be behind him. And that base is not going to go away. You know, Donald Trump to me has always been a symptom of the problem, not the problem. And so the tactics that he's used to get himself elected twice and to sustain his popularity with a strong plurality of the country, someone else is going to pick up that mantle. Losing Ukraine is not going to destroy maga. That's what I'm all about. What do we do to eradicate, not beat Trump? What do we do to create a new system in this country, a new movement in this country that eradicates MAGA once and for all?

[Sykes]

Okay, I'll buy. All right. What will be? Is there anything, I mean, I read somebody, you know, arguing that after Trump leaves, there'll be a return to the mean. I don't think so. I don't think it's gonna happen anytime soon. So you have some thoughts. What is it gonna take? You're sitting in Trump country right now, right up there in Michigan.

[Ron Fournier]

I live in Detroit. I spend my May through September up here in northeast Michigan and one of the Trumpiest counties around. So I have a good idea, very good idea about both halves of this two party monopoly, this duopoly. Think, and I can tell you I'm convinced that the answer isn't going to come from either party. The Democratic Party is too out of touch, too dependent on maga. The Democratic Party needs, wants MAGA to survive. They like the fact that they're the least worst party. They're comfortable defending the status quo against a guy who, for all his faults, at least Trump realizes the status quo isn't acceptable. So I think what's going to take is a movement outside of our political system, a movement outside of this duopoly that makes his organizational goal not winning the next election that's not enough. The organizational goal has got to be to win the next several elections by landslides. The way you eradicate Mag is the way we eradicated the red scare of McCarthyism several elections by a landslide, where a new form of government, reforming government, radically changing government for a new century occurred. And I'm not saying it's got to be as ultra liberal as the FDR coalition, but it does have to be as disruptive as the FDR coalition, and it's got to be as reformational in an affirmation way as the FDR coalition was. Say what you want about the New deal, it did get 60, 65% of the American public united back behind a new American story. That's what's got to happen. And it did completely change the way we. We run campaigns and govern after we win. That's what's got to happen in this century. I can't see the Democrats doing that. Democrats just want to defend the status quo.

[Sykes]

So what does that look like? Does it look like economic populism? Being socially moderate? What does it look like?

[Ron Fournier]

Yeah, I don't think it's our traditional left or right or center. I do think it is populist, the one thing that unites 80% of Americans. As we all know, the current system sucks. And by system, I don't just mean the political system, although it does suck to high heaven. But all of our institutions have been letting us down and have been destroying our faith in them since the 70s. So what? We all know that we need a new social contract and a new governing, a new way to campaign and govern in this country. That's 80% of the public. So that's the one thing Trump has done, is recognize the problems. He's got the exact more solutions to him, but he's recognizing that all of our institutions need to be destroyed and rebuilt. So the way it's going to look like is, yes, is having a populist movement, much like Trump in the sense of identifying the problems and much like Obama did as well. We can change. The problem is, when Obama got in office, he didn't change anything. He became a typical Democrat. And when Trump got in office, he changed everything the wrong way. But why can't we have a positive populist movement, a movement that changes politics and business and our culture in a positive way that gets 60% of US United behind.

[Sykes]

But what are we talking about here, though? So, I mean, destroy the institutions. What institutions do you envision destroying?

[Ron Fournier]

For one thing, what changes in politics? I would start with the fact that right now it is almost impossible for anything other than a maggot infused totalitarian party or a status quo outdated party like a Democratic Party to win. We should have election laws that allow more than two parties. We should have primary campaigns that right now are rigged to create extreme candidates to win. That all you have to worry about if you're a Republican is to be as far right as you possibly can so you don't get primaried. And if you're a Democrat, you got to be as far left as you can be. So you have to be primary. It would be very easy to change our election laws so that our primaries are open. That any American taxpayer should be able to vote in any taxpayer funded election, which includes all of our political primaries. And you should not be able to win one of those primaries unless you have a majority of the vote. Most of our Congress right now is elected by 10% of the people in their districts. That's obscene. We can change that. That's just two examples.

[Sykes]

Well, you can change it and it makes sense to change it. It's not easy to change it. You have the establishment invested in the status quo. I mean, there's a reason why it exists. And people generally don't vote to give away their political edge because it obviously complicates lives to actually democratize the system, doesn't it?

[Ron Fournier]

Yeah, but, but they did in 2016 and, and no, no. Yeah, 2016 and I'm getting my. They did twice for Trump and they did for Obama. People voted for change. They just didn't get it in the way that they want it under Trump, in the way that's responsible. And they didn't get it at all under Obama. I'm not saying it's easy. I'm saying it's very, very hard. And it may be impossible, but we've gotta do it.

[Sykes]

Okay. I am extremely skeptical of. And by the way, I agree that we need to. We'd be better off without the duopoly. I'm just extremely skeptical that there's any way in our system to move past the entrenched two party system. But there's something going on in Michigan that you mentioned before we started talking. Can you just tell me a little bit of background? Because if there's a formula, we might be seeing it playing out in your home state. So what's happening there?

[Ron Fournier]

Yeah, it's a test. We've had independent governors in other states, but it would be remarkable in a swing state like Michigan, following two terms of a Republican governor and then two terms of a Democratic governor. Now with Governor Whitmer, if an independent candidate defeated the duopoly. And there's a guy named Mike Duggan. He's the three term mayor of Detroit. The man who working with with both parties, working with the business community, working with the philanthropic community, help lead Detroit out of a bankruptcy to a real credible revival. He's got a real serious record in Detroit as a reformer. He's also a longtime Democrat, came right out of the Democratic machine. But there's no way a can do practical politician can win the Democratic primary. So he's running as an independent. There is a poll that came out.

[Sykes]

He's, he's a Democrat. He's a Democrat who's running as an independent. So there will be three candidates, at.

[Ron Fournier]

Least three candidates right now of course he's being mocked and scorned and ostracized by the Democratic Party because it's a Democratic Party only with a capital D, not with a small D. And he's being taken lightly by the Republican Party. So there's a poll that came out this week that shows he's sitting at about a quarter of the vote. He's within striking distance of being in the lead in a three way primary, three way election and he's drawing equally from Republicans and Democrats. There are people up here in this county that I'm in who have supported Donald Trump twice who agree with Donald Trump that we have to change our political system. We have to modify things like dei, our DOJ has gone too far, our government's too big, the new World order needs to be changed. Our trade policies need to be more American focus. They agree with Trump that those institute the media is out of touch and too elitist. They agree with the president on those things, but they don't like how he's executing them. They don't like his style and his policies. They're open to a guy like Duggan. And then there's a lot of Democrats who are walking away from the Democratic Party but don't want to walk to MAGA who are looking at Duggan. So can it happen? It's going to be awfully hard. He's got the deck stacked against him, but he could, he's got a voter base.

[Sykes]

So what is his.

[Ron Fournier]

Yeah, well, I'm just going to say what could Happen Then in 2028 is maybe there's a, a Democrat with some brass like Mike Duggan who does it on the national level. Why couldn't a guy like Pete Buttigieg or AOC run as an independent, why run as a Democrat? Why run with that crummy brand next to your name?

[Sykes]

Well, I can't see either one of those breaking with the Democratic Party. But so what is, I don't know anything about this. The mayor of Detroit. What is his critique of the Democratic Party? What is his rationale for saying, I am running for governor but not as a Democrat, and this is how I am different? What does he say?

[Ron Fournier]

He says that neither, neither party welcomes Democrats like myself. The Democratic Party has chased too many, too many people like myself out of the party. It's out of touch, it's stale, it's not focused.

[Sykes]

So what does that mean, chasing people like me? What is he talking about?

[Ron Fournier]

He's talking about voters who are tired of being promised change and not getting it. He's talking about voters in his city, which is 80% African American. Mike Duggan, by the way, is a white man from the suburbs. He's talking about voters in his city who stopped voting Democratic. A lot of them stopped voting, period. And some of them went and voted for Donald Trump. He's talking about voters who are sick of the duopoly and are looking for something different. It's that simple. We don't have to over analyze it. People are not. People don't vote based on a check list of policies. They vote based on who identifies most with them, who, who understands what they're going through and. And is most likely to change it. Somebody with a D or R next to the name isn't that person.

[Sykes]

So, see, he is. He is. He kind of a. I, I am different because I get shit stuff done. Candidate is, is that, is that part of it?

[Ron Fournier]

Yeah, that's a big part of his appeal because he has gotten shit done in Detroit. And even folks up here in Northern Michigan who hate Detroit partly for racial issues do have a nostalgia about Detroit when it was a vital, important city, and do look at a man like Doug and say, hey, he's making that city. That was ashamed of something I can be a proud of, even though I haven't been there in 20 years. I'm speaking for a lot of people up here. And two, he's gotten shit done in politics and he's done it with Republicans. So, yes, that is, that is a big appeal that he has. And he can't run like that as a Democrat. As you know, to run as a Democrat, you got to appeal to different constituencies and you have to pander them and try to knit together a coalition of pandered coalitions that's not what he needs to do to win. And I argue it's not what most Americans want, and it's certainly not what America needs.

[Sykes]

Well, but Gretchen Whitmer has done that and has become a national figure. So give me your take on her.

[Ron Fournier]

I just saw some internal polling where her numbers in Michigan are higher than they've ever been. Coming off a period in which she was criticized harshly by the left because she cozied up too much of Donald Trump. And she was in the Oval Office with him once. Oh, son of a gun. She got a new a promise anyhow, commitment from Trump. We'll see how valuable that is. But to bring a new fighter squadron into Salford Jeffers Base, a really important jobs and status symbol for Macomb County, Michigan, an important county in the state. And she got some breaks for the auto industry on the tariffs. So she's covering like a guy like Mike Duggan does. What can I do that put points on the board for the people I represent? Here's the problem. Can someone like her get the Democratic nomination for presidency? I don't think so. I mean, she's already gotten beaten up for trying to govern. Again, not from the middle. She's not a centrist. Duggan's not a center. They're just practical politicians who get shit done and aren't afraid to reach across the aisle to do so. Aren't afraid. And then now he's just across the aisle. Mike Duggan, you know, as a liberal liberal his whole life, works with the business community in Detroit. He gets all kinds of crap from liberals for that, but he gets shit done. It's hard to win a Democratic primary that way.

[Sykes]

So one of the great things about podcasts is that if you forget to bring something up, you can go back and do it and, like, you know, nothing bad happens. You know, you can't do that on broadcast media necessarily. But I want to go back to the big, beautiful friendships and the expiration date on Donald Trump's loyalty. And we started off with Elon Musk and Vladimir Putin. There's also, and I'm really intrigued by what's going on between Donald Trump and Bibi Netanyahu, because as you point out, it's always they come in threes. So we talked about Musk, we talked about Putin.

[Ron Fournier]

What.

[Sykes]

What's happening to the big, beautiful friendship between Donald Trump and Bibi Netanyahu. Those guys were so close up until, I don't know, like, last month.

[Ron Fournier]

Yeah, they were. They were close when their interests aligned. But now Donald Trump thinks that what he needs is a deal, because he thinks he's a deal maker. He's not a good one. Yeah, but he thinks he needs a deal with Iran, even though there's so many problems with the possibility of a deal with Iran. You know, for one thing, he. He undid the deal that Barack Obama had with Iran to limit their nuclear capabilities. But now, for whatever reasons, he thinks he needs that for his brand. Well, the last thing Bibi wants is the United States getting in bed with Iran. He wants to bomb Iran. He wants to bomb their nuclear facilities. And. And Trump has said, hold off. Let me get my deal. Well, here's the case where two men who are very transactional, who, when their interests align, will crawl in bed with each other now have jumped out of bed with each other, and it'll be interesting to see what happens. I would put my money on Bibi. Bibi, like Putin, knows how to play Trump. He knows how pliable Trump is. Trump is one of the most pliable men I've ever seen in professional life.

[Sykes]

Right.

[Ron Fournier]

Bibi knows how to flatter him, he knows how to bully him. He knows how to stand up to him. But. But right now, Bibi's going to have to play all those cards because Trump wants something different than what Bibi wants.

[Sykes]

Well, and he's got a better card. He's got a pretty good card. Because the one thing that Donald Trump does not want to do is walk away from Israel. I mean, that. That. That has some real political ramifications that, that perhaps walking away from Ukraine, he, in his world, in his mind, he doesn't think will will happen. But Netanyahu is stranger.

[Ron Fournier]

Here's where Trump is different than so many other people like you and me and most politicians.

[Sykes]

Yeah.

[Ron Fournier]

Most people can look around the corner strategically and say, hey, I don't want to do this because I can't lose. I can't walk away from Israel. Just like with the terrorists, we all knew what was going to happen if he raised the tariffs too high. Trump couldn't see that until he forced bad consequences to happen and then he reacted. It's going to be the same thing here. He can't see what's going to happen around the corner. But as soon as he starts losing, soon as donors who find Israel very important to their calls start blaming Trump and start pulling money away from Trump's family and Trump's party, that's when he'll get strategic. That's when he'll start bowing back to Bibi. If I had a Guess.

[Sykes]

Well, I mean, you know, the Saudis and the government of Qatar have really figured out exactly how to play Donald Trump. I mean, the joke, I mean, it was a joke when the South African president met in the Oval Office with Donald Trump and they said, well, maybe I should have given you a plane. And Trump said, yeah, you should have. And basically it's a joke, but it's real. It's like everybody's sitting around going, okay, what do we want from Donald Trump and how do we get it? Will we bribe him or we flatter him or we praise him? I mean, he is so pliable. And this is the extraordinary thing. And as you point out, if he in fact is not running for reelection, then everything is retirement planning, right? Everything is as opposed to some sort of geopolitical grand strategy or scheme. So I think that one's going to be interesting to play out. The other thing with Bibi Netanyahu though is, and I am pro Israel, I support their war against Hamas, but Bibi Netanyahu is a, in many ways a Trump like character in the sense that he seems to be pro. Okay, let me just ask you this. Is there part of you that thinks that he's prolonging the war because he knows that when the war ends, he's out as prime minister and if he's out as prime minister, he's probably going to go to jail? I mean, I can't get that thought out of my head, which is that that's what, you know, you think.

[Ron Fournier]

So I'm sorry. Yeah, I agree completely. And what would prolong the war more than, than him ordering as commander in chief an attack on inside of Iran? It would. It's a job extension strategy for Bibi. 100%.

[Sykes]

Yeah. And that's, and that's ugly, no matter what you think about the particular conflict. Ron Fournier, thank you so much for joining me. You can find Ron's work at Convulsions, Politics, Culture, Communications and Life on Substack. And you do this every morning. You get up like at 4:30 in the morning and you put out the top headlines of the day, which I always read. Do you get up at 4:30 in the morning? Really?

[Ron Fournier]

For my paid subscribers, I do call it the morning read in where I give you my take on the most interesting stories in those four categories. And then like you do. I do the free newsletters three or four times a week.

[Sykes]

Well, listen, it is, it is definitely worth a subscription. Ron, thank you so much for joining me. I appreciate it very, very much. Thank you. All for tuning in. Okay, well, thank you. And thank you all for tuning into this episode of to the Contrary podcast. We do this. You know why we do this? Because more than ever, we need to remind ourselves that we are not the craziest.

[Ron Fournier]

Thanks.