← To The Contrary with Charlie Sykes
To The Contrary with Charlie Sykes
We Are Not as Bloodthirsty as Stephen Miller Wants Us to Be
00:46:40
Loading summary
Transcript71 lines
- [00:01]
David French
Mic check 12 Are we recording? Hi, I'm Michelle Bernstein, an award winning chef, restaurateur and mom. I have a lot on my plate, including my psoriatic arthritis symptoms. That's why I was prescribed Cosentyx. It helps me move better.
- [00:19]
Cosentyx Advertisement Voice
Cosentyx Secukenumab is prescribed for people 2 years of age and older with active psoriatic arthritis. Don't use if you're allergic to Cosentyx, but before starting, get checked for tuberculosis. An increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur. Like tuberculosis or other serious bacterial, fungal or viral infections. Some were fatal. Tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms like fevers, sweats, chills, muscle aches or cough had a vaccine or plan to or if inflammatory bowel disease symptoms develop or worsen, serious allergic reactions and severe eczema like skin reactions may occur. Learn more at 1844cosentyx or cosentix.com Ask.
- [00:56]
David French
Your rheumatologist about Cosentyx.
- [01:00]
Charlie Sykes
Here's how to stay alive longer so you can enjoy Boost Mobile's Unlimited plan with a price that never goes up. Do not mistake a wasp nest for a pinata. Stay alive and switch now at boost mobile. After 30 gigs, customers may experience lower speeds. Customers will pay $25 a month as long as they remain active on the Boost Mobile Unlimited plan.
- [01:15]
David French
Dog Owners we love to spoil our pups and more than anything, we want them to live long, healthy, comfortable lives. But here's the thing. A lot of us don't realize when our dogs are trying to tell us something's wrong. Constant paw licking, rubbing on the couch or obsessively eating grass can all be signs of allergies. Because 90% of a dog's immune system lives in the gut, supporting digestion is key. That's where Better Wild Allergy Relief soft chews come in. These veterinarian approved chews use an ancestral blend of wolf probiotics called Ancestral Advantage to strengthen your dog's natural defenses. Better Wild even offers chews for joint support, dental health and a digestive meal Topper all science backed solutions to help your dog feel their best. Right now, Better Wild is offering our listeners up to 40% off of your order@betterwild.com podcast that's betterwild.com podcast for up to 40% off your order. Betterwild.com podcast.
- [02:17]
Charlie Sykes
I'm Charlie Sykes and welcome to the to the Contrary podcast. And what an extraordinary week. Donald Trump, the winner of the inaugural FIFA Peace Prize and Then he handed out this golden Visa. Have you seen the golden Visa? The fact that you pay a million dollars and you get the. And you get the trump gold card. Meanwhile, we have more questions about war crimes and whether or not we're going to go to war with Venezuela. The Supreme Court appears poised to dramatically expand presidential powers. Donald Trump went to Pennsylvania pivot on the affordability issue, but ended up lecturing the unwashed about dolls and pencils. He gets the Golden Ballroom. You only get a couple of dolls and, like, what do you need pencils for? But, you know, this was not a great week for Donald Trump. You know, as I wrote in my newsletter, there's not enough spray tan in the world to cover up how lousy his Thursday was. House of Representatives rejects one of his executive orders. Very rarely happens. Another grand jury refuses to indict Letitia James. A judge frees Abrego Garcia and really calls bullshit on the Trump administration. Kristi Noem had a terrible, terrible day testifying before Congress. The Republican concept of a plan to have a plan on healthcare crashed in the Senate. His poll numbers continue to crater. And quite frankly, that was just merely prologue to the ultimate humiliation that Donald Trump experienced in the of Indiana, of all places, where something extraordinarily rare happened. Republicans stood up to him. So today's going to be pretty interesting. So joining us to break down another extraordinary week is our good friend David French. David, thanks for coming on. I appreciate it very much. Good to see you.
- [04:14]
David French
Great to be here, Charlie. Great to see you.
- [04:16]
Charlie Sykes
You know, I didn't even mention in the rundown, didn't even mention some of the other things, you know, the, the, the new national security document that puts America first, you know, in writing, the sale of the AI chips to China. I mean, it's, it is hard. It is hard to keep up. So I don't know, do you have a preference where you want to start today?
- [04:38]
David French
You know, I'm most interested at least in the immediate, immediate breaking news of the Indiana Senate, that I think this is a more important moment than people realize. So what you have is this one of these, you know, presidential directives to do a snap gerrymander to try to keep the House, which, by the way, Charlie, just if the current trends continue, which is a giant, if, you know, things can change at any moment. But if current trends continue, the GOP could gerrymander every single state that it controls, and they're losing the House big. This is, and in fact, the gerrymandering may actually make them lose worse because you have to. It's not like this country wasn't gerrymandered already. I mean, we were a very gerrymandered country. And so to really try to stretch it, you have to make some of your red districts more pink to try to extend their reach. Right. And so that decreases your margin for error. And when we've seen a swing of from a low of 13 points to like a high of around 28 points against Republicans, there's a certain point at which you cannot gerrymander your way out of that kind of political collapse.
- [05:51]
Charlie Sykes
This is a point a lot of people have not made this point. I think it's important. So, for example, a little quick math here. So let's say that you're a 60% Republican district, very safe Republican district. You have a super Republican district next to a super Democratic district. Right. If you redraw the lines, that that 60% district might go down to 54 or 53% Republican district. You water it down. And given the swings that you're talking about, the 13 point swings, that super safe Republican seat suddenly becomes a swing seat. And in a wave election, you lose it.
- [06:28]
David French
Yeah, and there's also, it's pretty.
- [06:30]
Charlie Sykes
Apologize for the arithmetic.
- [06:32]
David French
No, it's necessary. Math is sometimes necessary. But it's also, when you look at some of the reasons that are being used to, or some of the justification for the new districts is sort of based on an idea that this red shift that happened in 2024, this big and broad red shift, especially with Hispanic voters, is continuing. And it's not. It's receding. The red tide is receding right now. And so especially if you drew a district counting on 2024 levels of, say, Hispanic support, you've just made a terrible, terrible mistake because Hispanic support is swinging against Trump especially hard right now. So that's sort of some background to the hubris and risk of this gerrymandering. But we're very familiar, Charlie. I mean, you and I know for 10 years that if you defy Trump for 10 years, you're out. If you defy Trump. It's not that people who defied Trump went away. You know, obviously we're here talking is that you were pushed out of the Republican coalition. You were pushed out of the Republican.
- [07:38]
Charlie Sykes
Into outer darkness.
- [07:39]
David French
Exactly.
- [07:40]
Charlie Sykes
Into exile. Excommunicated. Onto this desert island.
- [07:44]
David French
Yeah, exactly. Elba, you know, Napoleon and Elba, whatever it is. So you, you're pushed out. And so what that has resulted in is a sense that when Trump says something, you have to do it. It's sort of this existential crisis. As a Republican, if Trump makes a demand against you, then you have this kind of existential choice, comply or lose your career, lose your position. And really, the only exceptions to this have been Brian Kemp in Georgia and Brad Raffensperger in Georgia, where they defied Trump in 2020 in a particularly fraught and unique moment. And they live to tell the tale. But very few other people have had that experience at all. And so to see not one Indiana senator, not two Indiana senators, but a whole collection of Indiana Republican senators say no. And you know what? Here's, I think, what makes this particularly notable. They did it together. They did it as a pretty decently sized.
- [08:47]
Charlie Sykes
That's how they have to do it, right?
- [08:49]
David French
It has to happen like that.
- [08:50]
Charlie Sykes
You have to have that collective action. And that's what's generally been been missing, completely missing.
- [08:55]
David French
And now they're still going through hell. They're still going through hell. They're getting swatted. They're getting insult, not insults. They're getting threats. Insults, of course, but nobody cares about those. It's the threats, the intimidation, the swatting. They're going through hell right now. And again, what's completely unique about this moment is they're still standing. And in fact, in fact, the acts of intimidation are only strengthening their resolve. And that's a big shift. That's a huge shift.
- [09:23]
Charlie Sykes
It's remarkable. So just for people to know a little bit of the background, I mean, it is hard to overstate the level of intimidation and threats, the pressure that was put on these Indiana Republicans. I mean, Russell Berman in the Atlantic reported, you know, over the past several weeks, Republican legislators have faced wave of swatting incidents, bomb threats, other anonymous acts of intimidation. The current climate of fear in Indiana, lawmakers in both parties told me, is without modern precedent in the state. Did you see the post from Heritage Action? I mean, this is sort of the, it's kind of the brute squad of the Heritage foundation, which, you know, Project 2025. This, you actually have to, you actually have to like, see this to believe it. It's one of those things that they put this in writing.
- [10:08]
David French
Amazing.
- [10:09]
Charlie Sykes
Let me just read it to you. President Trump has made it right before the vote yesterday morning. I mean, so Thursday morning, President Trump has made it clear to Indiana leaders if the Indiana Senate fails to pass the map, all federal funding will be stripped from the state. Not just the Republicans who did the entire state. Roads will not be paved. Guard bases will close. Major projects will stop. These are the stakes. And every no vote will be to blame. And that was posted yesterday morning. And I mean, first of all, I've never seen a threat like that. And there's nothing conservative about that. I mean, it's like, you know, we in the federal government will crush, you know, any state that shows any independence, but the willingness to punish the entire state because of this vote was really. I mean, honestly, we get a little numbed at the, at the thuggery. But this, this strikes me as crossing. I mean, like, off the charts.
- [11:10]
David French
It is Heritage action. Absolutely off the. Yeah, it's absolutely off the charts. And then it makes it. What makes it more off the charts is this is coming from the political branch of a think tank, of what's supposed to be a think tank. In other words, a place that generates policy ideas, hosts policy debates, and now it's just turned into basically a gang of online thugs trying to bully and intimidate, you know, the heritage action portion of it, parts of the foundation portion of. It's just. It's absurd to see what's happened. And, and look, I. It's fascinating to me. You know, we. There was this term that was used a lot around 2024 when Trump won, vibe shift. In other words, that what you had was this decisive vibe shift against wokeness, for example, or against the far left. And I think, yes, I think that is true. I think there was a very decisive. And it didn't just happen in 2024. I think it unfolded over the course of Biden's term, this real cultural shift against the cancel culture of the left. It is now a fraction of what it was. Just a. It's not even. It's basically non existent. Well, guess what? There's another vibe shift underway, Charlie, because what happened is that the cancel culture intolerance and thuggery of like, the far left was then replaced by cancel culture intolerance and thuggery from the Oval Office on down. This wasn't a situation where you had, like, angry staffers in a museum or young professors at a college creating social media shame storms, which are bad. They shouldn't happen. That should not happen. But when you're talking about a wave of intimidation emanating from the Oval Office itself, a wave of punitive prosecution, unconstitutional action emanating from the White House, and then also supplemented and egged on by an army of online trolls who are every bit more vicious than a lot of the trolling that happened and the mobbing on social media that happen from the left.
- [13:15]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah, yeah.
- [13:15]
David French
And so it is not the case, Charlie. That in 2024, Americans went to the polls and said, you know, we're tired of far left intolerance, and what we really want is far right intolerance. Like that. That wasn't the, the deal at all, but it was for some people. For some people, the core Trump base, It was absolutely the case. And. But for the large majority of people who voted for Trump, that's not what they wanted. You know, I've talked about this distinction between two numbers, 17 million and 77 million. 17 million are the number of people who voted for Trump in the primary. And these are what you're going to call your Trump ride or dies. These are your people who are all in. They're all in on the maga, extended universe of grievances, et cetera. These are your rally Trumpists. These are the people that have been just with him for 10 years. These are the people put him back in with the Republican nomination. And yeah, a bunch of them, Charlie did vote for all this. They won. Wanted. These are like, if you, if you watch the campaign through the prism of just Trump's rallies, you would know all this was coming. If you watched the presidential campaign through Trump's commercials, this is a shock to you. It's a shock to you, really.
- [14:29]
Charlie Sykes
It's an interesting distinction. You're right, because a lot of voters, you know, aren't. When they're not online like we are, they're not following all of this stuff. And the, and the ads presented a completely different image. Although, again, if you actually listen to what he was saying on the stump, you kind of knew where we were going. I mean, there was no secret. I mean, he kept telling us over and over and over again.
- [14:50]
David French
Yeah, you totally do. But your average American doesn't watch one second of a Trump rally. And so, you know, you get these commercials that are about inflation and the border and the price of eggs and the price of milk and the border and just. And the exit polls bore this out. The 77 million, the people who voted for him in the general election, 77 or so million, whatever the final total ended up at, is they. Most of those people were voting about inflation, border, et cetera. And so in comes Trump. And one of the big questions, and a lot of us highlighted this on the front end, is he going to govern as rally Trump or is he going to govern as commercial Trump? And it was very quickly apparent he was going to govern as rally Trump and then some.
- [15:33]
Charlie Sykes
There was never any chance he was going to. Not.
- [15:36]
David French
No, no, there was never a slightest chance of self restraint. And so. And it's beginning to sink in. And it's not sinking in all at once, it's slowly sinking in. You just see this gradual decline of his approval rating that what they got was not what they wanted. And the shift here has been pretty remarkable. Now, it's not, you know, there was, you know, if you had an adroit politician in which nobody should underestimate Trump's political shrewdness, I mean, he's won twice. But if you had a more adroit politician and if you had a movement that was more nimble and flexible, you might be able to recover some of this. Or if you had solid policies that were put in place that you were just sort of waiting to pay off, then you might have a lot of reason to think optimistically about the future. But if you, you know, this is not Ronald Reagan and the transition from the 82 wipeout in the midterms to his own triumph in 84. This is not a situation where smart policies have been put into place.
- [16:37]
Charlie Sykes
Bill Clinton.
- [16:37]
David French
Yeah, or Bill Clinton. This is not a thing where smart policies have been put into place that are going to bear fruit, that then the GOP will enjoy the fruit of that, you know, prudence and good governance. No, a lot of the reason why people are upset is because of the policies that have been put in place which are making things worse. And so in a weird way, Charlie, one of the things that might help save Trump is if he loses the tariff case.
- [17:04]
Charlie Sykes
Do you think he's going to?
- [17:05]
David French
Oh, I think he's going to.
- [17:06]
Charlie Sykes
You think he will?
- [17:07]
David French
Oh, yeah. And if he loses the tariff case, then one of the big drags on the economy gets lifted against his will. And, you know, he might end up enjoying some of that, weirdly enough, enjoying some of the benefit of an improved economy by the Supreme Court striking down his signature policy. So it's. We live in an interesting time, Charlie, but. But one thing is certain is that a majority of Americans are not. This is not what they want.
- [17:35]
Charlie Sykes
This is very interesting, this whole idea of a vibe shift. And as you point out, a better politician would be able to pivot. Now, again, I've given him credit for this reptilian instinct that he, that he has and that he's played that. But I do think that there's now kind of a tone deafness, hubris that's creeping in. So, for example, you know, you would think that you might, you know, you have to pivot on affordability. Right. You know, I mean, obviously the polls Said that. Say that is staff says it. He goes to Pennsylvania, and I just thought that was really remarkable. He goes to Pennsylvania and he's supposed to show that he actually feels people's pain. And what does he do? What does he do? He does that Marie Antoinette thing where he tells, lectures people about, you don't need more dolls, you don't need more pencils. I get the Golden Ballroom and everything. And he mo affordability. So this is tough, I think, for him, because he is increasingly living in a bubble where he doesn't get that. And then, of course, then there's the whole issue of healthcare, where I don't know that anybody should have been surprised by the fact that the Senate crashed and burned in trying to find some fix for the massive increase in Obamacare premiums that's coming. That's not going to help him because he doesn't really have a plan. And he's not going to pivot on things like, you know, immigration enforcement, because he's just pumped $150 billion more into. 150 billion into ICE. They're hiring 10,000 more agents. And frankly, he likes that stuff. Right? I mean, he gets off on the masked ICE agents throwing people to the ground. So there's a lot of these things that are contributing to this vibe shift that he's not. I don't see him pivoting off of like a normal politician would.
- [19:16]
David French
Yeah, I, I really don't either, you know, that the, the reality is a lot of the reasons why he's in trouble are because of the policies that are his core signature policies. So, you know, we've noted for a very long time that it's, you know, Donald Trump does not have a consistent ideology. That's an understatement. However, there are elements that are consistent. Element number one, tariffs. The man loves him some tariffs. I mean, he's been talking about them since day one, term one. You know, then the other thing is immigration. So here you have, you know, and the weird thing about immigration, Charlie, is if he had sealed the border the way he's done and then just implemented normal enforcement mechanisms, because it's the case that previous presidents, Biden, Obama, Bush, they deported people by the hundreds of thousands and millions through normal processes without repelling from Black Hawk helicopters and sweeping people out of their homes in the middle of the night and separating them and, you know, without, like the masked agents raiding, you know, raiding neighborhoods, like these kinds of. This, this kind of incredibly punitive, violent interior enforcement. You don't have to do that. You don't have to do that to enforce immigration laws. So had he sealed the border and implemented normal deportation measures with normal deportation processes, he would be right now absolute. Because people were rightly frustrated with Biden because of the border. Rightly. And he would be in a much different position.
- [21:03]
Charlie Sykes
No, I agree with you. But the problem is that you have people like Stephen Miller who are whispering in his ear. And quite frankly, this is someone who has a. He's got a taste for the cruelty, he has a kink for the brutality. He really likes this. And he has the voices in his ears who are, let's say they are not the better angels. There's no one around him who's giving him this kind of advice. Speaking of which, I mean, let's talk about a little bit. I mean, again, I agree with you completely on the Indiana thing. It is extraordinary, the fact that you had Republicans who stood up. I'm not gonna go so far as to say that they're going to be role models for Republicans all around the country, but when you see something we haven't really seen in half a decade, it is extraordinary. But let's go back to this. You know where we're at here. Your thoughts on the issue of war crimes and the fact that in the week after winning the prestigious and much sought after FIFA Peace Prize, Donald Trump seems to be moving us closer to Venezuela, a war with Venezuela. What do you make though, of these? What I think of as incredibly tortured rationalizations in defense of the so called double tap on the boat and, you know, Pete Hegseth just not backing off at all and Donald Trump apparently having his back. What do you think, David?
- [22:31]
David French
I mean, Pete Hexseth not backing down and Donald Trump having his back is the least surprising development in the world. But look, it's hard to explain to people how bad this is, but one of the best ways to explain it is to say, look, if you want to know how bad this is, all you have to know is that the Army's Law of War Manual provides an example of when it is obviously correct to defy an order. Okay? And you know what that example it provides on one page, on page 1088 of the Law of War Manual, blowing up shipwreck survivors. Like this is so black and white in the Law of War that in our Law of War Manual it says, you know, you have a duty to, to violate a manifestly unlawful order, an order that's unlawful on its face. And then it provides an examp, for example, and then it's that Example. And so that's how black and white this is. And the rationalizations to excuse blowing up people, that by all accounts that we now have heard, because we've not been allowed to see the video, which is by itself quite telling. Charlie, by all accounts, what happens is this motorboat is blown up, two people cling, try to climb onto the back, the bottom of a capsized segment of the boat. And they do this for like 30, 40 minutes. And they try to climb up and they slide down. There's no evidence that they call for anybody. They don't seem to have a radio. There's no visual evidence of anyone coming to rescue them. There's even allegedly they wave at whatever is flying above them. There's no indication that they even knew they were under any kind of attack. Because all you're knowing is you're. You're on a boat ride and you know, you. And then next thing you know, your boat blows up. Your next thought is not, oh, I'm at war and now it's my duty to find a white flag and surrender. You're in shock and confusion. You're completely helpless. And look, even if they are drug runners, they're still human beings. Yes, it would be a war crime if we machine gun Nazis in the water or imperial Japanese sailors in the water. You know, that would be a war crime. So here you're. And so this is so black and white. This is so very basic. But look, it's very black and white and basic that the president doesn't have the authority to just unilaterally decide to turn crime into acts of war and then declare war on criminals. Because if you have that capability, what's the limit of presidential power? What's to stop a president from essentially saying, well, I've designated Ms. 13 or trendo agua as a international, global, you know, a terrorist entity. We're at war with them. And so, you know, what I'm going to do is instead of sending the FBI to raid a building where I think there is a MS.13 meeting, I'm going to hit it with a drone strike. You know, I'm going to blow people up in their cars. I mean, this kind of thing, that's what you do in wars, Charlie. And this idea that, well, I'm declaring a war under my inherent authority and can then do whatever I want within that war, that is just so fundamentally wrong, it's hard to even know where to begin.
- [25:59]
Charlie Sykes
Okay, so let me ask you this edgy question. So what, who's going to do anything about it. We talk about the law of war. Who's going to enforce it, who's going to be held accountable, if anyone, and how.
- [26:12]
David French
Well, this is where we got a problem, Charlie, because the good answer to that question is, even if this administration doesn't do it, now, let's be clear about one thing. Don't look to the Supreme Court to stop a foreign conflict. The Supreme Court has not ever exercised judicial power to, for example, declare a war unconstitutional. That is generally considered to be a political question that's not justiciable by the court. So don't look to the Supreme Court. You have to look to Congress. And traditionally, what you would say is if one administration goes rogue, then the next administration would prosecute the criminals. But what we have seen is that Trump will grant sweeping pardons. So we are now in a situation where, if you are a member of the Trump team, I. And this, this might sound shocking to some people, it's an open question as to whether federal law applies to you at all. Because what Trump will do is he will pardon everybody in his administration of any key, any who had any key role of his administration of any conceivable crime related to their service in the Trump administration. I would shock me if he didn't do that. So essentially what that does is unless there is a parallel state crime that you can be prosecuted for, which doesn't exist in this context, then you, if you're in the member of the Trump administration because of the sweeping pardon power and because Trump has no character, no ethics, you are literally operating in all likelihood in a law free zone right now. Which is why I've written, a number of other people have written that we got to of amend the Constitution to change the pardon power. I mean, if I was, you know, running for president, that would be part of my platform, would be when I come into office, I'm gonna submit it in an amendment to get rid of the pardon power and not get rid of it, but to provide checks and balances.
- [28:15]
Charlie Sykes
So let's just fantasize for a moment. Can you imagine sitting down with James Madison and the other drafts of the Constitution explaining this particular moment? Now, gentlemen, just so you know, we might actually have a time when, in fact, the President is deemed to be immune from legal accountability. And if you do give him this sweeping pardon power that George Mason is telling you is a bad idea, if you give him this power, you actually can come to a moment in which the entire administration is above the law, is in fact lawless, either immune or subject to sweeping Pardons, I'm guessing that James Madison would go, okay, I never really thought we'd ever get to that point. Right. I mean, I just assumed that Congress would do something about it or the voters would do something about it. But it would be an interesting conversation, wouldn't it, David? Not to mention the fact they've been dead for 200 years.
- [29:05]
David French
But I mean, I mean, it's a conversation we don't even have to speculate much about because, you know, as you referenced, George Mason stood up in the ratifying convention in Virginia and objected to the pardon power, among other things. And Madison responded and he responded in a way that is, in historical hindsight, it's such a damning indictment of our present day generation because Madison stands up and says, yeah, if a president abuses the power, impeach him. That's your check right there. If a president is abusing a pardon power, you can impeach him and convict him. And I'm sure in the moment, and it was actually in the moment quite persuasive because, you know, the Constitution gave the power of impeachment and conviction to Congress. And, you know, Parliament couldn't expel the king. I mean, to expel the king, you had to have a war, you know, and that, that's, that's the way it happened before in English history. And so granting this impeachment power was, at least on paper, a really powerful concept. But what we have seen is in reality, think about this, Charlie. It took, so The Constitution drafted 1787, moving. Was it January or so of 2020 when we had the first impeachment vote of Trump on his first impeachment? So you go from 1787 to 2020, that's 233 years with a, with until a senator from the president's party votes to convict a president. That's remarkable. And even after January 6th, you had what, seven Republicans vote to impeach, I mean, to convict. So at this point, it's. Impeachment is essentially a dead letter. You know, it's even. You raise the concept like, hey, someone should file articles of impeachment against Trump related to any number of things. And it's just like, ha, ha, funny, joke. And so the number one check for the most dangerous presidential power, and I think the pardon power is the most dangerous because it's the one power he has that is absolutely in his discretion and control. So in many ways, the only real check to the president's, let's just say arguably most dangerous power, or one of his most dangerous powers is Just done. It's ineffective. And so that. That means that an unscrupulous person can exploit that ruthlessly. And that's exactly what's happening.
- [31:46]
Charlie Sykes
Okay, I want to come back to this in just a second. I mean, get your take on the way Congress is dealing with this right now. They did pass the defense bill that seemed to have, like, just a tiny little glimmer of oversight that, you know, pressing the Department of Defense to release the full video and the written orders involved in that, in the killing, the September 2nd killing. And if they don't do it, they're gonna cut Pete Hegseth's travel budget by a quarter. That feels like, okay, it's something, but it feels like just like a tap on the wrist, barely. And then Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, says, yeah, we don't need to investigate anymore.
- [32:26]
David French
We're done.
- [32:26]
Charlie Sykes
We know everything, so don't look to Congress.
- [32:29]
David French
I mean, yeah, it's pathetic. I mean, it's pathetic. I was. I was talking on Advisory Opinions, my legal podcast, with Sarah Isger the other day, and we were talking about this problem of congressional. Just impotence. And I was saying, look, okay, there are members of Congress, I have spoken to them who are trying to do the right thing. They're trying to get Congress back on its feet. They're trying. They are trying. So this message is not for you if you're one of those people who are really trying and sticking your neck out to try to get Congress be more effective. But for the most of you, have you no self respect? Like what? I mean, you know, at some point, you look at it and you say, what are you doing here? I'm reminded of the, you know, remember that show Office Space where, yeah, the guy comes in, it's just hilarious office comedy from what, the 90s? And it's timeless, classic. And these consultants. Classic. These consultants come in, and they're a caricature of the consultants, and they will ask each employee, what is it you say you do here? And, you know, the answers are often hilarious. And that's my message to Congress. What are you doing? What is your job? Because for an awful lot of them, it's just whatever the President says, you salute and do it. That's their job. Or, you know, on the conversely, whatever the President says, if you're on the opposing party, you reject it, because that's your job. Rather than exercising independent judgment, rather than considering yourself as part of a branch with independent power, as part of a branch with the most power. The most power. Granted by the Constitution, they're just loyal foot soldiers or reflexive opposition, you know, just depending on who's in the Oval Office, where the Oval Office, the President is the sun and Congress is, you know, mercury just rotating around, getting scorched by the heat of the sun into irrelevance. And so, you know, at some point, some people who are running for Congress need to decide that I'm running for Congress to actually make an impact as a distinct human person rather than as just a party apparatchik or a, you know, or a serf of the President. And so, guys, get some self respect here, get some independent will here.
- [35:13]
Charlie Sykes
For the last 10 years, that, that question has been the one that keeps coming back. Like, don't you have any pride? Just, I mean, just a sense of dignity. And, you know, we're seeing a lot of people retiring now, you know, who realizing that, look, you know, I'm part of a body where I have no influence. I can't do anything. I just, you know, get beat up. So you are seeing that, you know, that, that self deportation, unfortunately, that was preceded by the self deportation of the kinds of people who were standing up. I mean, the problem is in Trump 1.0 and afterwards, if you said the things you just said, you were done. You weren't going to win a Republican primary. Okay, so I'm going to take this in a slightly different way now because, you know, obviously things like the extrajudicial killings in the Caribbean are a big test for Congress, but I think they're also a test for the conscience of the American people. And you probably haven't seen it yet, but I was peered on. You know, your name was invoked several times on a podcast I did for Christianity Today, the Bulletin podcast. Your name comes up like three or four times. But when we started talking about this and you know, what I said was, obviously this is a test for the American conscience, because there's always that possibility. And I think Donald Trump has cultivated this appetite for cruelty and brutality. You can see it on social media when they put out a lot of these videos. The response from a lot of the MAGA hardcore folks is, this is what I voted for. This is what I like. There is a taste for that kind of snuff porn that's out there now. You know, I'm hoping you're right about the vibe shift. But there's also that fear that they'll put out the whole video showing these unarmed shipwrecked sailors being murdered and that a sizable portion of the American public will go, yeah, Dirty Harry, kill them all. Let God sort them out. Because there has been a coarsening. So I. I mean, I think that the reaction is going to be very, very telling. Has Trump, what has he done to our culture? Has he tapped into something ugly? Or is our, you know, to your point, are the American people looking at that and finding, you know, no, this is not what we want? There is this innate sense of fairness and decency that's offended by this.
- [37:29]
David French
Yes, to both. So I don't. I don't think there's much question at all that there is a bloodthirsty element of American culture. I don't think there's much question at all that there is a part of American culture that thrills to violence directed against people that they consider to be, you know, criminals, et cetera. I don't think there. And I also think there's a big part of American culture that's as so partisan that they just kind of blindly trust that their side, that the accusations against Trump are not credible, so they're just not going to believe it. So if maybe in theory, they would be repulsed by this, but in reality, they just deny, deny. They deny the facts. So. But I do think there is a strain of America, and that is often quite bloodthirsty. I mean, goodness, Charlie, this shouldn't be news to anybody. I mean, one of the awful, awful, horrible things about, like, the Jim Crow south is that, like, lynchings were popular, people would go and bring their families to these affairs, these things. It was horrible, just beyond words horrible. And so there is that strain in America, and a ruthless politician can exploit that strain to do terrible things. At the same time, there is also a conscience in America, and you can awaken the conscience. It does happen. And so how did Jim Crow finally end? It finally ended when, you know, Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement awakened this sleeping conscience of America. And so I think the bottom line is we're actually not as bad as a country as somebody like Stephen Miller is counting on.
- [39:12]
Charlie Sykes
Yes.
- [39:13]
David French
But we're not as good of a country as we thought we were before the Trump era, and that's why we were vulnerable to him, and that's why we're also able to hopefully escape him. And so, you know, the Stephen Millers of the world want us to be as bloodthirsty as he imagines Americans to be. But I think he's miscalculating. But there are enough people who are either bloodthirsty or willing to just sort of deny what's the, you know, six inches in front of their face. That. That you can do enormous damage, that ruthless politicians can do just enormous damage.
- [39:53]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah. And I think it's going to take a long time to fix that damage. Okay. So in the time we have left there, there's so many things. I was planning on talking to you more about the court, but. But, you know, once again, I mean, let's talk about where we're at with Ukraine, because what I wrote earlier this week was that I was. I was actually grateful that the Trump administration put down in writing its new national security strategy. That makes it clear that we are abandoning the entire architecture and set of values that we've had since the end of World War II. This basically changing sides, which, again, feels like it's not necessarily a new story. We've seen this again, but at least it's now tangible. It's part of a document. But where are we right now? Where is Ukraine? It feels like it's on the bubble. They can no longer count on the United States. Will Europe be able to step up and stop the complete betrayal of Ukraine?
- [40:52]
David French
So where are we? It's grim, Charlie, but it's not as grim as some of the doomsayers you see online. Let's put it this way. The bottom line is that Russia has the battlefield momentum, but also it is advancing incredibly slowly and at incredibly high cost. And that even if Ukraine loses American support, Ukraine will stay in the fight and will have the capacity to continue to inflict serious losses on Russia for a long time. You know, at the present rate of advance, there's some. There's some calculations that Russia won't get to conquer the entirety of the Donbas for more than a year, maybe two years. It may be a million more losses. So can Russia sustain a million more losses? We don't know. Can Ukraine sustain the fight even though it's being steadily ground down and pushed back? We don't know. But I think that it's completely wrong to say that we can, with confidence predict or with confidence, say that Ukraine is on. On the brink of disaster. I think Ukraine is on the back foot, but Russia is taking incredibly horrific losses now. At the same time, there's this terrible reality that Europe is still not ramped up as much as it should have. Its production capacities. It is ramping up its defense budgets. It is doing a lot. It's not doing as much as it could. And the American abandonment, we are no longer providing aid to Ukraine at anything like the scale that we did. If you look at the at the numbers, the money numbers. For example, the European Union is, is now almost exclusively providing concrete aid to Ukraine. And now we are selling weapons that, that Europe buys to provide Ukraine. Thankfully, we're at least still doing that. But the level of aid that we are giving as far as, like, concrete financial aid has really, really, really dropped. And so what I would say is the lack of strong American support means that there's virtually no prospect for Europe reversing the battlefield momentum. But the lack of strong American support doesn't mean that Ukraine will collapse. And so it just kind of puts us in this really miserable position where you've got this grinding war of attrition, where Ukraine is slowly giving ground inch by inch, hoping and praying that the losses it inflicts on Russia are so great that Russia will have to stop. And that's a horrific position to be in.
- [43:36]
Charlie Sykes
It is horrific. And the other story that haunts me from the last week that I don't fully understand and I know that you've commented on it, and also one of those stories that I think might prove to be historically decisive, this, and it feels like it's below the radar screen for a lot of listeners and readers. Donald Trump's administration, Donald Trump himself greenlights the sale of extremely powerful AI chips to China, despite the concerns from the national security community that, you know, this might actually facilitate China's military and might let China overtake us in the biggest struggle of the next century. You know, dominance in AI. What did you make of that? That? Here's, here's, here's Donald Trump, America first. And what does he do? He says that Nvidia can sell these incredibly powerful chips as long as the United States basically, you know, gets a 25% kickback cut. But, but I think we're going to look back on this as one of the biggest mistakes that this country has made in a very long time. What do you think?
- [44:50]
David French
I mean, it's mind boggling, Charlie. I mean, it's mind boggling. We have a giant challenge in our competition with China that in some ways we did not have with the Soviet Union. Especially by the 80s, it was pretty clear that the United States had made some technological and qualitative leaps over the Soviet Union in our weaponry and our technology. And the Soviet Union was decidedly backwards. And this was, this was a real factor in our victory in the Cold War. Our technological edge really put the Soviets under strain. Well, we have less of a technological edge and economic edge over China than we did with the Soviet Union. China is a, is the Soviet Union was a military superpower with a rickety economy. China turned into a economic superpower before it became a military superpower. And so what we're dealing with is an economic superpower with an incredibly strong economy, a tech superpower that is innovative, that has a tech sector that can be in certain areas as innovative, if not more than ours. And we have a few areas of advantage. And one of those areas was our AI chip making. And that's hugely important. And here Trump, who seems to be thinking, well, I'm a deal maker. I like to wheel and deal. I like to, I'm going to get, you know, we're going to get a slice out of this deal, you know, with zero real strategic vision here, maybe potentially giving away one of our few remaining technological edges to our chief military and economic rival. And could you imagine, Charlie, you and I are both Cold War kids. Could you Even imagine in 1986, say something along the lines of the most powerful chips that we are creating that are allowing us to create the, the next advanced layer of, of American weaponry. Yeah, I just cut a deal. We're selling that to the Soviet Union. We're going to allow that to go to the. So people would have lost their minds over that.
- [47:16]
Charlie Sykes
Right.
- [47:16]
David French
And, and here it's just, you know, I know it was in the media, but it's just one item out of 100 items that is swirling in our mind at any given day. It's no wonder that people check out, Charlie. It's no wonder because it just can feel so overwhel.
- [47:34]
Charlie Sykes
No, it can be overwhelming, actually. You know, you play that game. Imagine what Republicans would say if Obama had done at this would be one where you have the head exploding or if Obama had was, you know, green lighting the takeover of American News Network like CNN by, you know, Saudi Arabia or, you know, other Arabs. Can you imagine what the reaction would have been? And as you know, the reaction now from Republicans is absolute crickets. And most people are just overwhelmed. David French, thank you so for, for joining me. People can find your work at the New York Times, New York Times editorial page. You have a weekly newsletter. What should we look for this weekend? What are you working on?
- [48:15]
David French
I'm working on a. I'm working on a column for this weekend about why are we teaching especially young conservatives to despair about their country and how that is rad. We're radicalizing young people by, through false nostalgia. So it's going to be a fun one.
- [48:36]
Charlie Sykes
Excellent. Reid. Thank you so much. And thank you all for listening to this episode of to the Contrary podcast. You know why we do this? Because every single day I think in order not to lose your mind, not to be overwhelmed, you have to remind yourself that you are not the crazy ones.
- [48:51]
David French
Thank you. Mic check 12 Are we recording? Hi, I'm Michelle Bernstein, an award winning chef, restaurateur and mom. I have a lot on my plate, including my psoriatic arthritis symptoms. That's why I was prescribed Cosentyx. It helps me move better.
- [49:22]
Cosentyx Advertisement Voice
Cosentyx Secukenumab is prescribed for people who 2 years of age and older with active psoriatic arthritis. Don't use if you're allergic to Cosentyx before starting, get checked for tuberculosis. An increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur. Like tuberculosis or other serious bacterial, fungal or viral infections. Some were fatal. Tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms like fevers, sweats, chills, muscle aches or cough had a vaccine or planned to, or if inflammatory bowel disease symptoms develop or worsen serious allergic reactions, that and severe eczema like skin reactions may occur. Learn more at 1-844-cosentyx or cosentyx.com Ask.
- [49:59]
David French
Your rheumatologist about Cosentyx.
- [50:03]
Charlie Sykes
We all remember the choices that shaped the course of our lives in business. World renowned venture capital firm Sequoia Capital calls them Crucible Moments. Their podcast brings you inside the pivotal decisions that define some of today's most influential companies. Hosted by Sequoia's Roelof Botha, Crucible Moments Season three pulls back the cur on the untold stories behind companies like Stripe, Zipline, Palo Alto Networks, Klarna Supercell and more. Hear about the make or break decisions, early stumbles and leaps of faith that turn scrappy startups into market defining forces. Once you're caught up on season three, check out some of the episodes from seasons one and two with guests like Steven Chen of YouTube, Tony Xu of Doordash, Steve Huffman of Reddit, Brian Chetzky of airbnb, and more. Tune in to Sequoia's new season of Crucible Moments to discover how some of the most transformational of the modern era were built. Crucible Moments is available everywhere you get your podcasts and@CrucibleMoments.com go listen to Crucible Moments today.
- [51:08]
David French
Psoriatic arthritis symptoms can be unpredictable.
- [51:12]
Charlie Sykes
I had joint pain and I couldn't move like I used to. I needed relief. I got Cosentyx.
- [51:20]
David French
It helped me move better.
- [51:22]
Cosentyx Advertisement Voice
Cosentix Secukenumab is prescribed for people 2 years of age and older with active psoriatic arthritis. Don't use if you're allergic to Cosentix before starting, get checked for tuberculosis. An increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur. Like tuberculosis or other serious bacterial, fungal or viral infections. Some were fatal. Tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms like fevers, sweats, chills, muscle aches or cough had a vaccine or plan to or if inflammatory bowel disease symptoms develop or worsen, serious allergic reactions and severe eczema like skin reactions may occur. Learn more at 1844cosentics or cosentix.com.
- [52:03]
Charlie Sykes
Ask your dermatologist about Cosentix if you're a smoker or vaper ready to make a change, you really only need one good reason. But with Zyn Nicotine Pouches, you'll discover many good reasons. Zynn is America's number one nicotine pouch brand, plus Zynn offers a robust rewards program. There are lots of options when it comes to nicotine satisfaction, but there's only one Zyn. Check out zyn.com find to find Zyn at a store near you. This product contains nicotine. Nicotine is an addictive chemical. Hi, this is Joe from Vanta. In today's digital world, compliance regulations are changing constantly, and earning customer trust has never mattered more. Vanta helps companies get compliant fast and stay secure with the most advanced AI, automation and continuous monitoring out there. So whether you're a startup going for your first SoC2 or ISO 27001 or a growing enterprise managing vendor risk, Vanta makes it quick, easy and scalable. And I'm not just saying that because I work here. Get started@vanta.com.