The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Is the United States Still The Leader of the Free World?

Episode Date: April 13, 2026

It's a great question and it comes from one of our listeners for our regular Monday conversation with Dr Janice Stein from the Munk School at the University of Toronto. That and a lot more, including how the Pope has entered the discussion about Trump. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You're just moments away from the latest episode of the bridge. It's Monday. That means Dr. Janice Stein. She'll be with us coming right up. And hello there. More evidence of our changing world over the weekend. The situation as a result of the Iran war just gets more confusing, more dangerous, more risky with each passing hour.

And that's why Mondays are so important. us because it means Dr. Janice Stein and her comments on our changing world. And it's changing. We'll get to Dr. Stein in just a moment, but we want to give you our question of the week. So you can prepare for Thursday's your turn. We're going to sort of go off topic, off the daily topic these days and try something different. You know, a lot of us travel by air. The airline business has been rocked just as everything else has by the situation in the Middle East.

Cost of jet fuel has skyrocketed. Eventually, that's going to affect airfares as well, as we all know. So if you bought your tickets early, that's probably a good thing. I don't think they can do anything with those pay. four tickets already. But that's not our question. Our question is more general of nature in terms of the airline industry.

I think we're framing it kind of this way. Are you satisfied or unsatisfied with your experiences traveling on Canadian airlines? Has it gotten better or worse in recent years? Now, I know not all of you travel by air, but many of you do, whether it's just occasionally to visit relatives or friends,

or whether it's business. And I know some of you are actually in the airline business, so don't be shy. You can answer this question as well. Are you satisfied or unsatisfied with your experiences traveling on Canadian airlines? Is it gotten better or worse in recent years? So let me hear what you have to say on that topic. Here's the rules to follow.

Rules is probably too hard. Harsher word. It's like here are the conditions for taking part in your turn. You have to have your answer in by 6 p.m. Eastern time on Wednesday, no later than that, and preferably much earlier than that. some of you will write today because you'll be spurred immediately onto coming up with your answer

that's condition number one 6 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday include your name, your full name and the location you're writing from in other words the city or town or community that you're writing from those are conditions keep it under 75 words. 75 words or fewer

is apparently the proper grammatical way of saying that also. Although lately some people have been arguing that point. However, 75 words are fewer. And finally, where do you write? Well, you write to the Mansbridge Podcast at gmail.com. The Mansbridge Podcast at gmail.com. I'm looking forward to seeing your answers on that question. I'll just repeat it one more time.

Are you satisfied or unsatisfied with your experiences traveling on Canadian airlines? Has it gotten better or worse in recent years? All right, there you go. All right. Time to bring in Dr. Stein. I know this is an important day for so many of you. Dr. Stein's comments, and she's had a busy week. She's been across the pond meeting with various similar experts from different countries.

And so she has some real insight into the current goings-on. So let's bring her in, Dr. Janice Stein from the Munk School at the University of Toronto. Well, Janice, there's lots to talk about this week because lots has happened just in the last couple of days. Let me start with the much talked about peace talks or ceasefire talks or whatever they wanted to call them that were taking place in Pakistan. It didn't last very long. And it's left me wondering at this point now, what's happening? We're in the middle of this so-called two-week ceasefire. Aside from being roughly halfway through it, where are we on this?

This is a very shaky ceasefire right now. You know, Pasevsky and the president of Iran left the door open. He says something like we were inches away. The United States failed to gain our trust. Trump also said that the Iranians will come back to the table. So if you listen to those two comments, Peter, there's still time. We still have another week in the ceasefire for another. another go with this.

But events have moved on since the talks broke down, a blockade of running ports. That makes it really difficult for Iran to come back to the table. Why do you think that Vance was involved? I mean, up until that time, it was always just Whitkoff and Jared Kushner. Good. So I think there are multiple reasons here. First of all, let me set the scene this way. There was a story in the New York Times that came out about the decision-making that led Trump to go to war.

Well, that was a Vance leak. Yeah, it seemed it was the only person that looked good in it was Vance, so then you draw your conclusions where you think that leak might have. come from. That's right. So this is now the force, the political force within the MAGA movement, who opposed this war. So when it came time to set up the delegation, there was consensus on both sides. The Iranian signal that they had lost confidence in Steve Wilcoff and Jared Kushner, because they had been involved in two rounds of negotiation. And both times, Trump went to war in the middle of the negotiation.

So they wanted somebody different. For Trump, who better as a signal, then Vance here he's sending the person who opposed the war would be most anxious to make a deal. And the Iranians signaled that they were happy to have that on the other side of the table. You know, there will be people who listen to our discussion who will say, it's one thing to think that Vance was the leak

to the New York Times in that story. It's another thing to know that Vance was the leak to that story. So what can I say except that I was at a conference in London? It's called the London Defense Conference. Just came back on Saturday. night and their at that conference among many others were some

Trump officials. Now, so that's different right from the normal. So more than one, Peter. Right, okay. All right, that's good. It's not perfect.

Yeah, but it's you know what I mean. Yeah, I know what you're. It's far different from a journalist to yeah, speculating. What was, you know, in London, what were you hearing? I mean, what are the Europeans saying? I assume that we're not just the Brits,

but Europeans at this conference. What are they saying? Europeans, many, many Brits. And our own Chief of the Defense staff, Jenny Carignon, with her team. And there were, you know, I think it's fair to say there were, it was an overwhelming mood.

frankly fury that about the fact that the straits had been located like this and that the Trump administration

had not planned for this and not taking seriously. They were shaking your head tall and they literally were up and down

and you know you had you had members of the House of Lords there a long time sophisticated people

who around the world from your perspective. You know that kind of conversation. Peter, you've had them, I'm sure. And they're just appalled at how inept Donald Trump is. But backing that up

is the feeling that they're done with Trump. That the comments he made about their own prime minister, the comments he made about NATO, being cowards. They were done that they are no longer going to try to flatter, to get along. They're very critical of the Secretary General of NATO, for being as polite as he was when he went to see Trump.

And they're digging in for really two things, two and a half more years of this. and the conversation about re-arming. Britain was an early go on that. They are doubling down on this. And their view is there is no choice. There is a five-year-runway to get this done, and they're doubling down.

Does anybody speak in positive terms about what the Americans have done on the whole Iran question? Not a word. not a single word. And again, you know, if you, and the majority were British, obviously, although there were Europeans there. But if you look at Britain's historic relationships,

where are they? They're in the Gulf. And so there were also people from the Gulf, by Oman, Bahrain, at the meeting. And the, you know, is the Gulf states who are left really, exposed to you.

Caught in the middle of this, especially the smaller ones. Not so much Saudi Arabia and the Emirates, but all the others, online, my brain, Dubai. They're not big enough geographically

to really be able to defend themselves, and their whole model of the last 20 years is put at risk, but this and what's going to them, frankly, Peter, is that they don't feel their voices were heard by the White House at all and that they were given no consideration.

And the British are sympathetic to that, obviously. Right. Is the situation recoverable in any way? I mean, set aside the ceasefire and the attempt to find some kind of, kind of way out of this. The damage that's being done to those kind of relationships, you know, it's really over the last year,

but especially so over the last five or six weeks. Is that recoverable? You know, someone asked or is this the United States's sweat? Right.

Right? And that refers to the Suez crisis in 1956 when Britain and France, together with Israel, invaded Egypt after President Nasser had nationalized the Suez Canal, which the British went up around the world had built in Egypt. It was the imperial power. And Dwight Eisenhower forced them back. And so it was visible to the world that Britain's role as the leading power. power in the Middle East was over if the president could force.

You know, England back in Sir Anthony Eden, it was the Prime Minister, resigned over it. And so people were saying, is this war against Iran, that kind of moment for the United States? And I don't think it is. And here's the reason. Representatives of the Gulf states were so angry. But when you, I ask each one of them, you know, what kind of security guarantee are we getting from the United States? What did it mean? You know, we host American bases.

You know, I was hit with a lot of anger. And let's, well, what's next? Is, do you have another option? And the voices would become very quiet. And they say, no, not really. And who is that option, Peter? It's not Russia. Right.

It's not China. And frankly, it's not the British, given how little investment they've made over the last decade. In the kind of assets, they would need to really provide a meaningful security guarantee. I look, Keir Starmer said, you know, he, These can be in the conference on how the strait would be reopened. But he's very clear, once the war stops. That's not, that's cold comfort to the members of the Gulf.

We should, just a detour for a second, we should, whenever Suez is mentioned, we have to remind ourselves as Canadians that it was Suez that opened the door to Luster Pearson's idea of peacekeeping. And eventually he won as a result the Nobel Peace Prize for that. The only Canadian who's ever won the Nobel Peace Prize, a legitimate awarding of that prize. And I take one more minute on that one. Yeah, sure. Because at the time, he was a public servant, right?

He was a civil servant in the Foreign Affairs Department. He was what we would call today, the deputy minister. Right. in external affairs as it was then called. But, you know, this is one of the most interesting stories that I think Canadian don't really understand. And why am I really saying this, Peter? You're absolutely right.

He invented peacekeeping. He said we need some kind of force to put in because that's the only way that Britain would withdraw. And it became the foundation of peacekeeping in the United Nations. But that's the way I did it. And that's for the story where Canadians have to dig a little deeper here. He had no commitment to the idea of peacekeeping more broadly. Lester Pearson looked at this and said,

oh, my God, our two closest allies, the United States and Britain are in the middle of a terrible fight. That is not a good thing, and it certainly doesn't serve our interests. He was focused on managing a conflict between Canada's two most important allies. And subsequently, he himself was surprised how the rest of the world looked at this and what became of the concept of peacekeeping. So, you know, as Canadians, we tell ourselves we're peacekeepers. And I say, well, that's not what he thought when he started this. That's a good point.

I want to get to a question that a viewer or a listener sent in to us in the last couple of days, specifically for you to try and answer. But to get there, I want to ask this first. At a time like this, when there are, clearly there are tensions between us and the Americans, there are tensions between the British and the Americans, there are tensions between the Europeans and the Americans, there are tensions between the Australians and the Australians. and the Americans.

A lot of those places, a couple of others, are members of five eyes, the intelligence community that warn each other of things that are happening. Yeah, five of us. United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand.

Right. So how does that, you know, I mean, the people who are in these intelligence fields are all friends with each other, they know each other, but the countries right now, many of them in that group of five, are not getting along, not by any stretch of the imagination.

So how does that operation work, given that? Well, boy, it's, and you put your finger on a really dicey problem, frankly, Peter. You know, let me just say that for us, the intelligence that we, United States is the biggest provider of intelligence to the other four eyes. Because it, you know, it has access to intelligence that nobody else has because it, it has a capacity to give only one reason, never mind it's people on the ground,

but it has the capacity through the investments it's made in space to look at the world nonstop 24. And, you know, that's the intelligence, so valuable, for instance, the Ukrainians. So we are takers in the Five Eyes. And so Britain is by far after the United States the most important, but we're takers. Now, we have one agency in our community, which is exceptional, the Canadian Security Establishment, CSC, which is world-class, which monitors electronic signals and is very highly regarded in Washington. So it's not that we don't hold our own. But for us to cut ourselves off, for the professionals to cut themselves off from U.S.

intelligence would be a serious problem for us, really serious problem. So I say that to set the seat. There have been. Here, let me come back to what I call the formers. The formers are very powerful. powerful group because the farmers are tired from their official positions, but they have friends in the other three eyes, written in Australia and New Zealand. There's always conversations that are going on amongst them.

And to some degree, they have a common problem now, which it's not only, it's that the countries are not getting along at the political level, but the agencies in the United States were decapitated. Because Trump fired when he came back. He went three levels down, for example, in the CIA, anybody

that he thought was involved in the Ukraine story, which was leaked about inappropriate behavior by him. So there's a real worry that they don't

trust in the same way. They don't know to what use, a far more politicized agency is going to put information that they share. That's a really sobering kind of concern. In addition, Trump wants her twice has publicly said enough so that anybody in the know can figure out who the source and the information was that is a crime among this group of people frankly when you betray a source it's you know it's like you're betraying a source or just closing a source that you promised um you would keep off the record it just violates the most fundamental color so my senses everybody is very cautious about what they share

very careful. Certainly, if there is, if any one of the fore got information that there was any kind of plot against the United States in any way, they would share it immediately. They would. But there is an additional screen on the information that's being shared. and I suspect at times that some of the information that they're most worried about in terms of protecting their sources might go from a former to a farmer. You know, I find this so depressing, really.

I was going to say frustrating, but it's worse than frustrating. It's depressing because what we're talking about here or professionals who understand their job, they understand the information they're dealing with, and the intelligence they're getting. And especially, you know, for those in the U.S., in that category, for these last six weeks to two months, it must be just so hard to watch what's happening

because they would have provided the intelligence that was needed to avoid a lot of the problems of the last, six weeks. They did. Well, we know they did. I mean, that's what's amazing. We know they did. Assuming this is a Vance leak, okay, that went to. And assuming, therefore, that there

are other versions of this story that will come out. But from what we know, Rockcliffe, the director of intelligence, the CIA director, right? The CIA director told Trump that the expectation

that the regime would collapse was farcical. Absolutely farcical. And that, so, and you know, that word stated in my mind. And that has the ring of authenticity to it. Nobody's going to make up that word. Somebody said that for that to make it into Maggie Haberman's story. And so they did.

They did, but they, Trump did not pay attention, frankly. He didn't pay attention when they told them that it was likely that the Strait of Hormuz, that they could close the Strait of Hormuz? And no, they won't do that. And he left it off. So, of course, it's fresh. And of all people, he should have believed Ratcliffe. Ratcliffe is, he's a loyalist, you know.

That's right. He's a Trump toady. He's a Trump out pointee. Yeah. But he didn't believe him, which really tells you, um, Trump was determined to do this. Yeah. Okay. Well, given all of that, here's the question that we're being asked by one of our loyal listeners. We have this phrase that we've used comfortably for decades. The U.S. is the leader of the free world.

So the question is, like, who says so now? Like, why would we still use that term? Why is he the boss of us? so to speak. You know, like really? Is he really the leader of the free world anymore? I never hear that term used about him, right? Never. I never hear that term. Nobody describes him that way anymore.

And I think especially after these last five to six weeks, nobody has any illusions. But the listeners question raises a very, very, very interesting question. If he's not, who is? Right. Right. And so when you think about that, well, it's not tear stormer.

No. It's not. And he is in political difficulty at home. It's not Macron, who is, you know, in the declining year of its presidency with a really unstable, domestic situation at home. and barely gets a budget through.

So it's not heat. It's not Chancellor Merits of Germany. Because, you know, NATO, the purpose of NATO, as I think we said last week, was to keep the Russians out of Europe, the Germans down and the U.S. in. There's apprehension in Europe. Again, the German question is sneaking its way back

into European discussions. The Germans are. are going to be the most heavily armed among the bigger powers in Europe based on current trends. There would be a lot of elective staff, a German chancellor, any German chancellor. So that knocks out the Europeans. I know where you're going with this list. So we can only go to places, right, with this list, because it's clearly known. the Australian Prime Minister, you know, and it's not the Prime Minister of Japan.

So, you know, it could be Prime Minister Carney who got the attention. Really? No, no. It could be. I say, you know, and the reason we can't, it could, it won't be. He clearly, again, you know, that speech in Davos is still rippling. through the conversation. They feel that he was the first one

to say there's a rupture. He called it out and there's a lot of admiration and respect for him. For that, it wasn't so much of his prescriptions about what to do, but he called it out. But frankly, we can't be

because if we think that the British cut back on military preparedness, we are the laggard of the group. and we have a long way to go and a tough road given the order of magnitude spend that we're going to have to

spend Peter de Gaulle to become credible in any way and we live next door in the United States so it's no house so we only have two places to go here the free world is leaderless right or it could be

or my colleague from Oman said we have no choice in the United States. And wait for the next president. And wait two half years. And, you know, that's why I know we're going to come to this later, but that's why it would happen in Hungary. We'll be so encouraging to so many Europeans.

Because this is, that was, we'll come to that, but that was the first defeat of a serious right wing, ultra right wing politician. So waiting may not be that bad stretch. But that's exactly what, just for the record, that's what Prime Minister Carney fold us not to do. No wishful thinking, no waiting around, no fairy tales about believing that we're going back, that we can restore things. that is and I agree with him that world is not coming back all right you've hinted at hungry and we're going to talk about that next

but we'll take our break now and come straight back and talk about Victor or Ben and what happened to him this weekend we'll be back right after this and welcome back you're listening to the bridge the Monday episode that means Dr. Janice Stein from the Mug School, the University of Toronto on her look at our changing world

which is sure changing by the week. You're listening on Sirius XM, Channel 167, Canada Talks, or on your favorite podcast platform. Glad to have you with us, wherever you're joining us from. Okay. Hungary. We've talked about this,

and you've brought it up a couple of times in the last few months. The things did not look good for Victor Orban, who had been in power for, what, 16 or 17 years, in through, you know, legitimate elections. I mean, it was... Every one of them. Yeah. And big majorities he won in some cases.

But he was an authoritarian guy. There's no doubt about that. Very right of center. Big fan was Donald Trump of Victor Orban. And the MAGA crowd, they all treated him, brought him to the U.S., had them speak at their, you know, conventions, and all kinds of stuff like that. But it became clear in the last couple of months that he was in trouble in his home country.

And it certainly proved that way to the point where he conceded. No, no fight, no attempt to try and say it was all rigged. I'm not accepting the results. He conceded defeat. And which must come as a, you know, in spite of the warning signs that he was in trouble, it must come as a shock to the right-wing contingent in other countries in Europe that this has happened to the guy who was looked at as

you know the classic right-wing politician authoritarian figure who had made good and was winning it's a huge story and if you hear some relief in my voice and a tinge of celebration is there It's a huge, huge story. You know, Victor Orb fashioned the right-wing populist movement

with its really dark tones of anti-immigrant feeling that swept through Europe. You know, I don't want to put a label on it, but frankly, it has its really ugly qualities to it. and he was the one who gave the first voice to that and there are such movements all over Europe today. He provided literally, he provided scholarships, fellowships, training institutes for the populist rights, all over Europe.

Hungary was the epicenter for this. I think Canadians probably first connected to that story when Michael Ignatjev, who was the Chancellor of the Central European University, when he forced it out

because it was too liberal. He's taken over, Victoruban has taken over control of the whole public education system as well as the universities dictates the curriculum. This goes, this is not right wing in the way we in Canada would use that word.

It is far, far darker. And it's no surprise that Steve Bannon, who was an early supporter of Donald Trump, a long time supporter, regarded Victor Orban as the leading light, worked very closely with him. And J.D. Dance, on his way to Pakistan for those crucially important talks spent two days campaigning for Victor Orbat just this last week.

So how did they defeat him? Because I think this isn't quite everybody needs to look at it. So the person who defeated him, Peter Magdor, was a member of his party, left in disgust, at the corruption. There's no better motivator I think for voters

than obvious open corruption finally. It actually discussed voters when it becomes transparent that way and he campaigned that's his issue. He campaigned on corruption

and the destruction of core Hungarian institutions. institutions. Victor Orban was Russia's door into Europe. He vetoed the big package inside the European Union of financial aid to Ukraine. They operate on the basis of consensus. One vote.

That aid has been solved inside the European Union because of Victor Orban. So for people looking at this, what's the magic mix here, right? and the streets of Budapest on Sunday night and I'm really filled with people celebrating this because people had given up they thought this regime could last 30 years, frankly,

and that the Hungarian experimented in democracy which is not old given the fact that it was part of the Soviet Empire was finished. So I've made this work somebody from the center somebody who

had credibility because he was a part of what had happened but stood out and rejected it took personal risk to do it and explicitly called out the craft

I think people And then to me that absolutely astonishing thing, oh, they had gerrymandering, one other thing, which we've got in the United States right now, where they're gerrymanding the districts. That happened in Hungary, too. But the majority is so big in Budapest, remember. The final vote in Hungary is not in yet,

that she literally, within a few hours, conceded defeat Victor Orban and said he would be a member of the loyal opposition. Now, why do I think this is so big? The midterms are coming in the United States. We just talked about whether, you know, strategies to wait Donald Trump out. There's rampant speculation. And that's what it is because nobody knows about what the principal gerrymandering make. Will about boxes gets east in the United States?

Who will do the county? how many officials have the mega people put in in key races and the race you know in the United States elections are controlled by the states it's anomaly of their system but this example of somebody who thought he was in power for life conceding defeat has to has to encourage people who believe that democracies can resist these kinds of leaderships and people in Europe and the United States, I think we'll double down as a result of us. You know, we should, you mentioned Michael Ignatio earlier because he was the head of the university, one of the universities in Hungary.

He showed incredible braveness too. through some of the most difficult times for him. Yeah, yeah. You know, I remember being in Budapest and interviewing him who were in a park in downtown Budapest. And, you know, you couldn't help but be constantly sort of looking around as he was watching and listening. But, you know, he was very careful about how he acted through that period

because he had a lot to be concerned about not only his own, a situation, but the staff and the students of the university. But he was, he was remarkable through that. And now he's right. Yeah. Now he's writing some great pieces. He is. Yes.

And, you know, I mean, for Canadians, he knew him quite well. His wife is Hungarian. Budapest is her hometown, right? Her family was so there. and he resisted right to the end and in order to save the institutions move the university to Vienna, where it is today,

but would not bent to Victor Orban. Right. There is, you know, these are, these are very, very important stories to tell, given what we're all up against in the developed democracies. You know, his political career, career was not good. It didn't work.

He wasn't cut out for it. But that's a minor play compared with what he's been through. Yeah. In the last few years and has every right to have his head held high. Okay, one more thing. We've got to squeeze in here. And one more after you squeeze in you one more really quickly. Okay, you go first.

But we've only got a couple of minutes. You know, it's Monday. and I just want to say this blockade starts at 10 a.m. This is not without risk, Peter, just to say to everybody. You know, there will be American ships. What happens, by the way, if a Chinese tanker that loads oil at an Iranian port, what does the United States do? Does it stop that tanker?

What happens if the Iranians fire? and the American ship. And then within missile range of Iran is the Baba among up to the east, in which the Saudis and the Emirates are exporting law through a pipeline. So it sounds easy. It's really complicated. It's risky. But if you heard the Europeans, the thought of leaving.

of abandoning the principle of freedom of navigation, which Britain fought for and the United States fought for for 200 years and more, was so offensive that I think, and I'm sure the person was hearing from there was little choice. Well, I'm glad you put all that on the table because for any of us who thought that the dangers and the risks were over with a ceasefire, they're not. It's still just as dangerous and still just as risky and perhaps even more so in the current situation. Okay, this is related to the last point and we only have a minute or so for it. The Pope, the Pope, Pope Leo has become this, I mean, he was already a world figure, but now he's a world figure that people are watching.

Guys from Chicago, he's an American, first American Pope. but he's taking on Trump directly. Yeah. Does that make a difference in today's world? You know, I think it does, Peter. We just talked about the role of Michael McNach of play, right, at times of crisis. I think when the leader of the Catholic Church speaks out in this very directly,

an American, the first American poll, and speaks out. The Catholic population of this world is large and listens. And I think a voice that speaks, a voice that speaks with a conscience about what is not acceptable matters. I can only say this. In the 1930s, when there were dark times, the popes did not speak out

and they didn't speak out about the Holocaust and when that began even though they had information that it was happening and the church has struggled with that for years and years and years to deal with that legacy

in this poll is turning the page Well it's it's a heck of a story watching him and the things he's saying and the confidence in which he says them and the fact he speaks the language.

Yes. Right. So comfortably, obviously, he's from Chicago. He talks like a Chicago guy. Yes, he does. And you know, again, who's the face of America, Peter? Is it Donald Trump or is it Pope Leo? Well, we'll leave people with that question to ponder for seven days.

Thanks for this, as always, a great conversation. We'll talk to you again next month. Thanks, Janice. Dear. Dr. Janice Stein from the Munk School to University of Toronto. And as always, more than happy to talk to Dr. Stein because it always leaves us with lots to think about. I should give credit for that question, which I really, you know, I really liked. The question about is the U.S. still the leader of the free world?

What comes with that now? That question came from Andrea Burke-Solnier, who is a professor at the University of Sant'an in Nova Scotia. She sent it in, asked me to talk about it with Dr. Stein and that we have done. It's an interesting one. And, you know, one day we may make it the question of the week, but it's not this week.

You heard the question of the week at the beginning of the program today. All right, that's going to do it for this day. We're a busy week ahead. A really good Moore-Butz conversation tomorrow. And it's, you know, in light of what's likely to happen tonight in those by-elections. The question is that we ask James Moore and Jerry Butz

is, what's the real difference between a minority and a majority government. They've both been there. They've both seen it. That change. You know, James Moore saw it go from a minority to a majority. Jerry Butts saw it go from a majority to a minority. What's the real difference?

I think you'll find it interesting. And a few other things as well in our discussion with Moore Butts. Wednesday, it's an N-Bit special, and there's some good ones in this. weeks, which has really turned out to be an interesting program that a lot of you really like. Thursday, it's your turn. You've heard the question of the week and Friday, of course, Chantelle returns after her Easter break, and good talk. We'll be back with Chantel, Bruce Anderson and myself. That's going to do it for today. I'm Peter Mansbridge. Thanks so much for

listening. We'll talk to you again in less than 24 hours.