Significant Others - Jake Tapper on the Significant Relationship Between Political Parties

Episode Date: January 12, 2023

CNN anchor Jake Tapper joins Liza in another special bonus episode to discuss how a 2-party system can look a little bit like a long-term marriage… that neither partner actually signed up for. How has this relationship evolved over the years and in what ways do the parties rely on each other? Liza and Jake discuss all this and more. We’re working hard on Season 2! Until then, we will be releasing special bonus episodes from time to time. Want to support the show? Rate and review wherever you listen to your podcasts and keep sending suggestions of Significant Others you’d like to hear about our way at [e-mail]!

Hey, this is Liza. Just a quick note, we recorded this episode before Congress officially opened, so all that drama about electing a Speaker of the House hadn't happened yet. Welcome back to Significant Others. I'm Liza Powell O'Brien, and this is another bonus conversation to tide you over while I'm putting together season two. Last time, we spoke with Dana Schwartz from the podcast Noble Blood about the intensely skewed power imbalance that is inherent to royal marriages. And today, as we witness the start of the 118th Congress, I thought it would be interesting to talk a little bit about politics, specifically how a two-party system can look a little bit like a long-term marriage that neither partner actually signed up for. And who better to do that

with than a man who is not only an award-winning journalist and author of historical fiction, but perhaps the premier observer of national politics, CNN anchor and chief Washington correspondent Jake Tapper. Jake, this is so exciting. Thank you for being here. Sure, of course. You know, this podcast focuses on intimate, long-term relationships and how influential they can be. Like, if one person's always worried about being late, their partner might become more laissez-faire as a reaction to try and balance things out. And then all of a sudden, that person becomes defined as the one who doesn't care about time or whatever. This is totally hypothetical, of course. terms, this past fall, it seemed to me that our two political parties were exhibiting a very similar dynamic. One side would take a stand on an issue and the other side would respond by going farther in the opposite direction. And it felt like they were sort of locked in this path to

extremism where each party was being increasingly defined by existing mostly in opposition to the other. So you pay a lot more attention to this stuff than most people, certainly more than I do. Is this something you would say you have observed? I would say in our recent history, things have gotten more extreme, which is not to say that it hasn't happened before. I mean, obviously, the Civil War is a huge example of, you know, the worst it can be. But generally speaking, yeah, I think it's I think things are pretty polarized in a way that they haven't been.

And one of the there are lots of reasons for it, including gerrymandering congressional districts, so there are fewer battleground seats, fewer swing seats, so fewer people who have an incentive to govern from the center and work across the aisle. There's also obviously the polarization of news media, where for both philosophical and financial reasons, certain media outlets have made decisions to make the echo chamber even worse than maybe it was 10, 15, 20 years ago. So, yeah, I mean, I think there is a lot of polarization that's getting worse. I think, I do think that, that a lot of it is in terms of what people actually think very caricatured. Like most people, I think have a much more reasonable position and, and, and there's

a lot more bipartisan work on Capitol Hill than you would think just judging from headlines and news coverage in general. I'm thinking psychologically about the individual voter and thinking about, you know, I grew up in the 70s and it was a very sort of staid era this whole time up until very recently. Aren't you and I the exact same age? Or maybe you're a little younger. 1970. I was born in 1970. I was born in 69. Yeah. But yeah, so I have this very set understanding of our political system as these two somewhat balanced halves. You know, my parents would always cancel each other out with their votes. And, you know, it felt very like we all understood what the parameters were that, you know,

very, like, we all understood what the parameters were that, you know, we can argue and have differences, but it all kind of stays in the same zone. And I just wonder about, like, my children, I think are a little older than your children, but generally the same generation, they're growing up with this idea of our political system as being something that's got these wild swings. Maybe this is a, I don't know if you think this is a blip or if you think this is sort of a chart for the course to go forward in terms of things being more extreme always. But I wonder, the sense of trust has been so eroded, just even for us, you know, hearing you talk about how you're making it sound much more reasonable than it has felt to me even in the last six years, just being a, you know, again, a very regular voter, not someone who's hyper-trained on politics at all. But do you think there is any kind of shift in the, I mean, it's obviously a huge

speculation and, you know, who really knows it's going to have to play out, but do you think there's a shift generationally in terms of what the American voters of, you know, the next 50, 60 years expect and understand about how our democracy works because of the last six years of things being so insane? Well, I don't want to convey that I think the last five or six years have been reasonable politically because I don't think they have. Right. I think they've been wild, largely because of Donald Trump and his enablers. But I do think that's kind of like an overlay. And underneath it, there is this swinging back and forth of the parties, both in terms of control of the White House and control

of the House and Senate. And it does just, I mean, in the last 20 years, swing back and forth. You know, we, you and I are, for most of our, I don't know, most of our lives, but until 1994, Democrats generally controlled the House and Senate like there were exceptions here and there two years here whatever but and and since world war ii democrats generally controlled the house and senate uh and then the reagan and then the gingrich revolution came in 1994 the republican revolution and since then the house and senate have been much more in play. And that has had the kind of influence on, like when you talk about the intimate relationship of a couple being a yin and a yang and keeping each other's worst impulses in check and that sort of thing. There hasn't been as much of that recently as you might

think, although very recently there has been a lot of bipartisan accomplishment. But there has been a lot of the pendulum swinging back and forth, and with a number of key moderates in the center of both the House and Senate kind of cooling things, keeping their own party in check. And Sinema and Manchin did that for the Democrats in the Senate by standing in the way of big sweeping spending bills. And that's what you're talking about in a way, because it's not just one extreme here and one extreme here. It's the way that these parties work together is there's like some sort of paste in the middle or, you know, the moderates, what Nancy Pelosi called her majority makers when she became the first woman speaker in 2006. The majority makers were these moderates that won all these swing districts.

And a lot of those moderates lost in 2010 when the Republicans recaptured the House in the midterms, first midterm for Obama. But those people are the ones that usually get the deals done. And they also, by the way, are the ones who get the most ire, whether it is Sinema and Manchin or in the Republican Party, Susan Collins gets so much ire from the left and the right. But she is the one that gets stuff done like the Marriage Act that just became law. That's because Susan Collins was able to get people like Mitt Romney on board by compromising. And that's where the moderating influence is. And that's where the legislation actually gets done.

And I know Kyrsten Sinema is not popular among progressives, but she has enabled Democrats to have a lot of victories on things like, you know, infrastructure or whatever. I was going to bring her up because in this, you know, in this mode where we're talking about two halves being locked into a hole, she's stepping outside of that, which is rare. I don't really understand exactly what that means other than she's not beholden to either party anymore. But what else does it obviously allows for some flexibility and some freedom, but what did she sacrifice by stepping outside like that? Right. So I interviewed her for that. We got the big TV exclusive. And I came to the same conclusion that you did, which is basically since she's going to continue to work with Democrats, even though she's not going to she doesn't attend caucus meetings, but she basically says she never did. And she's not going to vote for Chuck Schumer, but she's for a majority leader, but she's not going to vote for McConnell either.

So what? And she wants to keep her committee assignments and her subcommittee chairmanships. So what does it mean? I think it's what you're saying. and her subcommittee chairmanships. So what does it mean? I think it's what you're saying. Like she now feels she doesn't have a sense of obligation that she has to vote one way or another, or she has to do one thing or another. It prevents her from being defeated in a primary. And though she said that that was not on her mind, a cynic might say, well, of course it's on your mind. If you're running for reelection in two years, you've been raising money for that reelection for quite some time, which she has. And Congressman Ruben Gallego, who's more progressive than her and is from Arizona, has been talking about giving her a primary challenge. And this way,

she will not be defeated in a primary and she will not have to spend giving her a primary challenge. And this way, she will not be defeated in a primary and she will not have to spend money on a primary. So the question is, is the Democratic Party going to support a challenge to her from the left? Or are they going to basically just say, as they do with Bernie Sanders in Vermont and Angus King in Maine. This person does what we want them to do 95% of the time and is probably the best, the better match for that state. So now the ball's in the Democrats' court. They're going to have to figure that out. But I do think it has to do with a whole bunch of issues, including her own comfort level and having to deal with democratic and progressive activists who are, I think, rather, on occasion, they can be rather self-defeating.

In what way? I mean, I'm just generally speaking of the you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar school. And I mean, Kyrsten Sinema is pretty progressive on a ton of things. Where she deviates from the party is stuff like she doesn't want to get rid of the filibuster. And she is not in favor of increasing taxes on businesses. That's not really so out of step for a state that is still fairly red. Or reddish purple, at least. So, I don't know.

I just tend to look at these things. I'm not ideological. I'm not a member of either of these parties. I don't come to it thinking, well, I want this. and you have a senator who votes the way you like them to 90, 95% of the time in a district that is not 90, 95% Democratic, should you be happy with that? I don't know. It's not for me to say, but you're never going to have anybody. Right. How much better can it get at a certain point?

In Arizona? Yeah. I mean, it's a pretty conservative state. Yeah, sure. Do you think that there will ever be a third party in America? You mean like an effective one that can actually win elections? I guess a legitimate, you know, a real contender. It's really tough to see it. And as an independent, you know, I wish as an unaffiliated voter, I wish that weren't so. But if Teddy Roosevelt couldn't do it. Right.

Doesn't Conan have a Teddy Roosevelt autograph in your kitchen? He does. Not in the kitchen, but right around the corner. Yep. So if Teddy Roosevelt couldn't do it and Ross Perot, with all his millions, couldn't do it, I have a tough time envisioning who could do it. And pollsters will tell you that every time there's talk of it, whether it's Michael Bloomberg or whatever, and it's always this idea of like, well, the person will have, will be conservative on fiscal issues and foreign policy, but liberal on social issues.

Holsters will tell you that's actually not where the sweet spot is when it comes to a third party where the sweet spot would be more conservative on social issues and more, you know, progressive on fiscal issues. That's fascinating. Which is basically Trumpism, if you think about it. Shit. Because he never cared about spending or budget cuts. That was never an issue for him. He never understood why Paul Ryan cared about that.

But, you know, so he kind of remade his party into that third party that pollsters would talk about. And now you have the other Republicans trying to figure out, well, this party is no longer me. Where am I supposed to go? Do you think there are going to be more people following Sinema's lead and doing what you do as voters? Do you think that independent affiliation is becoming or has become or will become more appealing? I think so. I interviewed the former governor of Massachusetts, Charlie Baker, a Republican who was a two-term, very successful governor, the most popular governor in the state. Basically, the kind of Republican I was just talking about, that not the Trump Republican, but the social, moderate, conservative on fiscal issues and maybe more on foreign policy. And he noted to me several times in the interview that the largest, fastest growing party in the United States is unaffiliated or independent voters who are increasingly disillusioned with Republicans and Democrats.

So maybe. Does it feel as if, you know, there was this expectation, at least from where an average citizen was sitting, in the midterms that the seesaw was going to tip entirely in one direction and it didn't? And that felt a little bit maybe reassuring that it was, that there is some accountability, that there is some stopgap measure to just saying whatever the heck you want. Yeah. From where you sit, what do you think explains that balance that we found? Well, so Biden's pollster said to me that the election was going to be the headwinds versus the head cases, meaning the headwinds were, you know, Biden's unpopular high inflation, economic fears of a recession, et cetera, et cetera. Those are the headwinds that the Democrats faced. Very serious issues, all of them. And then the head cases, meaning not Republicans in general, but individual specific Republicans who had presented a version of themselves to voters that made them unelectable to a state audience or to a district audience.

And that's exactly what played out. You had headwinds helping Republicans recapture the House. helping Republicans recapture the House. But then you had the head cases in his coinage keeping a lot of the wackier Republicans from winning in congressional districts that were battleground districts and keeping them from winning in races in, you know, Arizona or Georgia or Michigan and on and on.

So that if you were a relatively normal Republican, a normie, you would win. And then if you in these battlegrounds in states that are pretty much one party or districts that are pretty much one party. I'm not talking about that. pretty much one party or districts that are pretty much one party. I'm not talking about that. But in the battlegrounds when when could where control the House and Senate are fought, that enabled Republicans to add a Senate seat and it and it kept the Republican majority in the House from being significant. I think it's an eight. He has an eight seat majority, which is not a lot. So it was interesting to me because it meant that a lot of voters were paying attention. Right. In closing, you don't have to answer this if you don't want to, but

we have been asking people who come on if they have a significant other in their, not necessarily a spouse, but in the terms of your life's work, is there someone who is profoundly influential? I mean, there have been a lot of people that have been influential, but there's nobody that's influenced my life more than my wife, Jennifer, whom you know, who has been, can I use her as my example? Of course, absolutely. Yeah, I mean, I just can't imagine, I mean, one of the things that I think works well

in our relationship, and I think yours and Conan's too, is like, we're not the same person. We disagree. She feels free to judge me. I recognize the look on the face that's saying that, by the way. Well, I think, I mean, I've talked to Conan about how both of us married strong women and like, how that's definitely made us better. And it was definitely us knowing I'll just speak for myself. I don't speak for him, but I think he feels the same way, which is I'm really glad that I had the wherewithal to marry somebody who would challenge me and wouldn't and didn't just think

like everything I did was amazing and never questioned it or because I, I definitely need it. And if I did not have, I'm like, I'm really happy where i am and very content at work and and very i'm a pretty happy person um in terms of like my life satisfaction and which is not to say i wake up you know happy and like think i'm perfect or anything but just like my life is pretty good and like i don't know that i would have gotten here without her i don't think i would have and that doesn't mean that she thinks every single thing I do is awesome or that she's the first one to read. If I write a novel, she's the first one to read the first draft. She's not. I wait until I've gone through a few drafts before I show it to her. I think the last time you and she came up in conversation between Conan and me,

it had to do with your heading into the battle in Ukraine and she not loving that idea. And I thought, yep, I can relate to that. Yeah. And that was in Ukraine in April. But what you probably didn't know was I was supposed to go to Afghanistan the previous August when the country was collapsing. Not because that was the, we were supposed to go because that's when the US was pulling out and I was doing a documentary about Afghanistan. And I kind of tried to hide it from her. I was going to just tell her like the day before.

Oh my God. And, but somebody CC'd her. Ah, oh no. Because she could CC'd in all my stuff. And so my assistant, like I think, went on vacation and like a substitute assistant came in and CC'd her. And then she's reading this. Oh, my God.

And she couldn't even believe it. And I had to cancel it. I had to cancel the trip just because it was just like, she was so unhappy with it. She was so afraid for me. And by the way, all the security experts were saying everything's going to be fine. You know, the Taliban. I mean, she was right. Ultimately, her security assessment of Kabul was the correct one.

And the security experts were wrong. But anyway, yeah. So I canceled that trip. Wow. But she did not do that for Ukraine. Right. She didn't put her foot down the same way. Yeah. She put like two toes down, but you know. Yeah. Oh yeah. You know when it's dire. Yeah. Well, you're both very lucky to have each other. Yeah. I think we are just as you and Coco are fortunate. He's luckier than you are, but you make it work.

I do. I suffer along. Thank you so much for talking with me about all of this. Is there anything else you want to say before we wrap up? The only thing I would say is like, I think there is,

and this sounds like so cliche, but I just do think that there is more in this country that unites us than divides us. And it's been a rough few years in that respect. But ultimately, I think the less, there's a concept in Judaism called Dan Lakof Zichud, which is basically give the other person the benefit of the doubt. And I'm not saying everybody always deserves the benefit of the doubt, but there's also the opposite, which is anytime you see anything, not you, but anytime one sees anything on Twitter or whatever, and one automatically assumes that that person meant it in the worst possible way it could be meant. And look, sometimes people deserve it. But, you know, for most Americans,

I think it would be better if we, you know, tried to not automatically assume the worst in everyone, especially perhaps in political opponents. Well, from your lips to everyone else's hearts, I hope that that is the way that we proceed. Thank you so much for listening. And thanks again to Jake Tapper for sharing his perspective and his optimism with us today. We'll be releasing bonus episodes every month while we work on season two. So be sure to hit the subscribe button. And as always, we welcome

any and all suggestions for upcoming episodes. You can email us at significantpod at gmail.com.