The Bulwark Podcast - Will Saletan: Political Delusion

Episode Date: December 11, 2023

Kevin swears that Trump will stop with the retribution talk. Meanwhile, the aspiring dictator says it's a hoax that Democrats call him a threat to democracy. Plus, the Arab Americans who claim they won't back Biden, and the Texas abortion case. Will Saletan joins Charlie Sykes for Charlie and Will Monday.

This is an ad by BetterHelp Online Therapy. October is the season for wearing masks and costumes, but some of us feel like we wear a mask and hide more often than we want to, at work, in social settings, around our family. Therapy can help you learn to accept all parts of yourself, so you can stop hiding and take off the mask. Because masks should be for Halloween fun, not for your emotions. Therapy is a great tool for facing your fears and finding ways to overcome them.

If you're thinking of starting therapy but you're afraid of what you might uncover, give BetterHelp a try. It's entirely online, designed to be convenient, flexible, and suited to your schedule. Just fill out a brief questionnaire to get matched with a licensed therapist and switch therapists at any time for no additional charge. Take off the mask with BetterHelp. Visit BetterHelp.com today to get 10% off your first month. That's BetterHelp, H-E-L-P dot com. This is an ad by BetterHelp Online Therapy.

October is the season for wearing masks and costumes, but some of us feel like we wear a mask and hide more often than we want to. At work, in social settings, around our family. Therapy can help you learn to accept all parts of yourself, so you can stop hiding and take off the mask. Because masks should be for Halloween fun, not for your emotions. Whether you're navigating workplace stresses, complex relationships, or family dynamics, therapy is a great tool for facing your fears and finding

a way to overcome them. If you're thinking of starting therapy but you're afraid of what you might uncover, give BetterHelp a try. It's entirely online, designed to be convenient, flexible, and suited to your schedule. Just fill out a brief questionnaire to get matched with a licensed therapist, and switch therapists at any time for no additional charge. Take off the mask with BetterHelp. Visit BetterHelp.com today to get 10% off your first month. That's BetterHelp, H. We start off the week with my colleague, Will Salatan. How are you, Will? Great, Charlie. We have something new in Washington today. It is called snow. Everyone's very excited. Weirdly enough, we don't have any snow on the ground right now in Wisconsin, but it's really not a matter of excitement here because it's like nine months out of the year. So, hey, congratulations. Enjoy. We have all the

equipment though. I mean, we're ready. I have a giant snowblower in the garage. We have salters, we have sanders, we have, you know, every municipality has, you know, these huge snow plows. So it's no big deal. I understand that in Washington, there's a little snow and everybody goes, what do we do? Does anybody know anyone who has a shovel? So Washington, to me, is an upgrade from where I grew up in Texas. Literally in Texas, it snowed a quarter of an inch. Charlie, they closed the schools.

They had no idea what to do. In Washington, what happens is there will be members of Congress who will be showing up with little jars of snow to show that global warming is fake. That's wonderful. Okay, so let's start off the week this way. I want to confess that my Morning Shots newsletter is perhaps a little more depressing than usual. But I woke up this morning and I thought, okay, so how do we start the week? And there's just so many things to keep track of over the weekend as there is every Monday, right? But it did feel like the planets are aligning. And so I did a series of alignments. So on the website, formerly known as Twitter, now known as, I believe, Shitter. Is that how

you pronounce it? I'm not sure. So you have Alex Jones, Elon Musk, Andrew Tate, Vivek Ramaswamy together in one thing. I had a tweet here that somebody wrote saying, nothing to see here, just the owner of this site and a presidential candidate chatting it up with a man indicted for rape human trafficking, that's Andrew Tate, and another who lied about dead kids to harass their grieving parents. So happy Alex Jones is back on Twitter Monday. So that felt like an alignment of the planets. Meanwhile, in think tank world, you probably saw this story. Viktor Orban, the Heritage Foundation, and the pro-Putin wing of the GOP are having a party. They all walk into a bar together. That's actually not a joke. Allies

of Hungary's far-right Prime Minister Viktor Orban will hold a closed-door meeting with Republicans in Washington to push for an end to U.S. military support for Ukraine. This is from The Guardian. Members of the Hungarian Institute for International Affairs, blah, blah, blah, will be meeting on Monday at a two-day event hosted by the Conservative Heritage Foundation think tank. Now, for those people who kind of remember, Heritage was kind of the think tank for the Reagan years, and it's like rolling over in his grave. Meanwhile, in Congress, it's going to be a hell of a week. They have four days to go through. They're going to adjourn at the end of the year. Vladimir Zelensky is in town

trying to make an appeal. Do not abandon us. They're going to have to pass the national defense bill. They're also going to be voting on, of course, beginning the impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden. They may not pass the defense bill. They may leave Israel and Ukraine high and dry. They may fail to do these most basic functions of national security, but they're probably going to have a vote by the end of the week to begin the impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden. Do you think they're going to do it? Do they have enough votes? They're right on the edge. The impeachment vote is this game where they're trying to downgrade what this means for the purposes of persuading the last few Republicans to join. Oh, this is just an inquiry. We're just literally, we're just asking questions.

We have no evidence, but we're looking for evidence because it's probably under that rock over there. Right. And so the game is to sell that message that it's not a big deal to the last few Republicans while selling to the public the idea that, oh, we have an impeachment decree because Joe Biden needs to be impeached. All right. So we've already gone through Alex Jones, Elon Musk, Andrew Tate, Vivek Ramaswamy getting together, Victor Orban, the Republicans, and the Heritage Foundation getting together. And meanwhile, in New York, there was a gathering of the deplorables. This is the lead from Politico's report. The chairman of an Austrian political party founded by an ex-Nazi, the conservative Twitter star behind the anti-trans

Bud Light backlash, and former President Donald Trump all walked into a bar. Seriously, because it actually happened. And Trump is in New York bragging about why he wants to be a dictator. He's not backing away from it. He's basically saying, you know why I wanted to be a dictator? For one day. Because I want a wall, I want to drill, drill, drill. Adding the Democrats' newest hoax is to label him a threat to democracy. The former president was preaching to his base Saturday as a mix of firebrand conservative media icons siloed far right lawmakers and wealthy MAGA loving donors chanted his name and cheered pro Trump speeches from carefully plated banquet tables. OK, I feel like I should have spent the weekend going to the Hunger Games movie instead of this stuff, but okay. We have the Hungary Games instead of the Hungary Games. Yes. I do want to be a dictator, and this is why I want to be a dictator, but it's a hoax when the Democrats say I want to be a dictator.

Right. Well, you know, can I just say in Trump's, well, a couple of things. First of all, we got the Hungarians, we got the Austrian far right. This is like a Steve Bannon wet dream, right? We've got all of the nationalists from all of the nations. So it's really, as we've said before, it's a globalist movement of nationalists, right? It's the far right from their countries and ours. But in Trump's defense, Charlie, he has reiterated at this thing in Manhattan, what he said to Sean Hannity, it's only for a day. Queen for a day.

I only want to be dictator for one. And remember, also, just to be clear, a lot of people, Trump gets a bad rap about suspending the Constitution. But again, he only said that we should suspend it just to put him back in power, despite having lost the election. Right. So just one thing. And, you know, a lot of Republicans are sort of like, yeah, that's not that bad. One day. Yeah, just one day, because there's a long and rich history of dictators being a dictator for one day and then surrendering their power the next day, right? I mean, it's like, yes,

it's fascism on Tuesday. Wednesday, it's back to what? Business as usual, congressional votes, things like that. And of course, this Wall Street Journal poll over the weekend, it feels like every single Monday we have one of these dystopian polls. This is the Wall Street Journal poll showing Biden lagging behind Trump by four points, 47 to 43. Unhappiness with Biden is persuasive in the new survey. So I look, I don't want to get bogged down in the polls, but it's one of those Mondays where you wake up and go,

we could really use some better news. But can we start with our moment of political delusion? Which one? Trick question, right? Okay, so Kevinccarthy who is outgoing who is leaving shall we say headed to uh greener pastures in the private sector very green oh very green yes the word green is a little understated here uh bob cost he's sitting down with bob costa and cbs uh talking about his predictions for the future talking about donald trump he's endorsing donald trump he finally got around to endorsing this is is such a classic moment. Donald Trump completely humiliates him by letting him be thrown out as speaker, does not lift a finger. Apparently, they had a very tense phone call in which the F-bomb was thrown back and forth.

Well, of course, knowing Kevin McCarthy, the next day after being humiliated and screaming F-bombs, of course, he tugs the forelock and, you know, get down on one knee and kisses Donald Trump's ring. I think when the F word comes from Kevin McCarthy to Donald Trump, it is fawn. It's fawn, just to be clear. Fawn. He fawns. Yes. Fluff. Oh, fluff. Even better. Yeah. There's a lot of F words here. Okay. So let's play this, I think, kind of revealing back and forth. Bob Cost asks, I think, some pretty good questions here. Let's play this. But many Americans, they look at his language, they listen to his speeches.

Trump. And they hear an authoritarian. Some say even a fascist on the horizon in this country. There's an F mark. What do you say to those people who have those real concerns? Look, I don't see that in... This is what I tell President Trump to. What President Trump needs to do in this campaign,

it needs to be about rebuilding, restoring, renewing America. Three R's. It can't be about revenge. He's talking about retribution, day in, day out. He needs to stop that. He needs to stop that. You think he's going to listen to you saying stop that, stop that? Listen to you, Kevin? He hasn't listened to anybody before. That's not true. He would adapt when he gets all the facts. He's not backing away from his calls for retribution. Yeah, but remember you have a

check and balance system and I think at the end of the day, Where's the check and balance on him and the Republican Party? America doesn't want to see the idea of retribution. If it's rebuild, restore, and renew, I think you'll see that. Well, and by the way, let's add in a fourth R, the retire, because Kevin McCarthy is just about to make himself completely irrelevant post-humiliation. And he's basically confidently saying, no, no, no, no, he'll listen to me because what I tell him is he needs to go with those three R's. And Bob Costas is going, what the hell do you think he's going to listen to you? Do you listen to him? Every single speech is revenge, retribution,

what we're going to do, day one dictator.vin's like no no no he'll once he gets the information there'll be all these checks and balances cost is okay what what planet is is this the headspace that kevin mccarthy has to occupy or is he just completely full of shit both so when i was writing about lindsey graham this is a pattern that I saw in Graham, McCarthy, and some others. I call it coaching. So Donald Trump signals, this is way back, 2015, Donald Trump is signaling to everybody, hey, I'm an authoritarian. I want to do authoritarian things. And they're all like, well, we don't know if we should nominate this guy. Then he's getting close to the nomination. And suddenly they start putting out this line, oh, we're not going to stop him from getting the nomination. In fact, we're going to support him for president, but we're going to

tell him, please, please don't say these things. Please don't do these things. Then for eight years, he ignores them and says, and does those things. And they still peddle this line. What's McCarthy said here? He needs to stop that. I'm'm going to tell him don't do retribution like that's really you know of course the other thing mccarthy is saying here is about the checks and balances now here we're not talking about the failure of donald trump to listen to anyone else we're talking about the failure of republicans you had two impeachments you could have removed this guy from office you could have prevented him from being president again by supporting the impeachment after he tried a coup

to overthrow the government. And you, Kevin McCarthy, actually said at the time that he was responsible for that, right? So there won't be any checks and balances because people like Kevin McCarthy were supposed to be the checks and balances and they failed and they will fail again and again and again. So you read Jonathan Martin's piece in Politico. Which one? The Stop Trump Effort Has Been Abysmal. And by the way, I don't think he's talking about the Never Trump movement, but we could actually do that as well. But he's talking about this pattern in the Republican Party. We know the fluffers like Lindsey Graham and Kevin McCarthy, but he sort of walks through how did all of the efforts, you know,

to stop Donald Trump, how have they come up so short? And he kind of does this impressionistic portrayal of the pattern. Let me just read you. The senior officials who worked in Trump's administration would mute themselves, disagree on whether to go public with their fears about a restoration or just not work on the strategic, and relentless fashion that's needed to go through voters. Apologies to John Kelly, who is willing to speak out. Republican officials who have little appetite for Trump's return would stay mum and enable Trump's comeback, each of them finding a rationale for their silence, some more compelling than others. Those Republican lawmakers who did step up to try to block Trump's path would not coordinate their efforts, would disagree on who the best alternative is, and thereby muddy their effort and undermine their mission. And the

lackluster field would, in the last full measure of their timidity, prove unable to rally to a single alternative because they were unwilling to sum the capaciousness necessary for the cause of stopping Trump. Oh, and Trump's top alternatives would bicker with one another in almost every debate and spend their negative advertising dollars on attacking one another rather than on targeting the former president. Disagree if you want, Martin writes, but as the kids say, where's the lie? And this does feel as if that's what we're seeing. Agree? Disagree? I want to agree with Jonathan Martin here. And I think this underscores a very serious problem that we have, which is there are ways, Charlie, in which democracy is stronger than authoritarianism, more resilient, more flexible, able to bounce back. But there are also ways in which authoritarianism is stronger

than democracy. And that's what we're seeing, right? Democracy is people disagreeing. It's pluralistic. So what he's describing among the never Trumpers are not even never Trumpers, people who worked for Trump. He's describing timidity. He's describing dissension. We can't all agree on something. They urge to compromise with the authoritarian to like, but we're not sure what we want to do. We don't always agree with each other. We don't want to make a fuss. We don't want to, that is the way people function. A lot of people in a democracy, well, you have a different point of view from me. So who am I to, or the authoritarian doesn't have any of these problems. The authoritarian is like, this is what I want. This is what I'm going to do. Anyone who gets in my way, I'll bulldoze them. And there is one

authority. It's me. It's the cult of Donald Trump. Right. And so I think what Jonathan Martin is describing there are some of the weaknesses of people who are used to functioning in a democracy and who are by their nature pluralistic and democratic. They're up against somebody who doesn't play by those rules. I think you're right about this, that the one thing that is really striking is, you know, we keep saying things like, you know, don't be numb or, you know, nothing about this is normal.

And yet most of the political players outside of MAGA world seem to, at least on some level, think that they are playing in a recognizable political universe. They're playing by a different set of political rules. That's part of this asymmetry, different standards, different rules, different norms. They look at the poll numbers and they think, okay, so in 1988, it was like this. It's like, OK, none of that applies here. Now, one of the people, obviously, who is an exception to this rule, who has been very, very, very forcefully speaking out against Donald Trump and I think is prepared to do absolutely everything to stop him and has no illusions about this whatsoever, is, of course, Liz Cheney, who was on the podcast last week here. She was on with Jonathan Karl yesterday morning, and they were talking about, and Jonathan had interviewed Donald Trump.

Listen to this exchange about what Donald Trump told Jonathan Karl about January 6, 2021, and what Liz Cheney has to say about this. Let's play that one. I want to play an audio clip from you from a conversation I had with Donald Trump just less than three months after January 6th, where I asked him if he really wanted to go to the Capitol, as he said in that speech. I was thinking about going back during the problem to stop the problem, doing it myself. Secret Service didn't like that idea too much. So what?

I could have done that. And you know what? I would have been very well received. Don't forget, the people that went to Washington that day, in my opinion, they went because they thought the election was rigged. Isn't that right there an admission by Trump himself of his own culpability? Yes, and it also tells you that he was fully aware that the crowd would follow his instructions and that had he stood up and told people to leave at any moment,

they would have done so, as we know they did when he finally did tell people to leave. Yeah. And yet the thing about it is that Trump continues to lean into, yeah, I did it and I will do it again. And people are going, you know, OK, well, you know, that's one data point. But, you know, can we talk about inflation or something? I mean, it is remarkable. I mean, he keeps saying, yeah, I wanted to go there. They were my people. He's not even pretending that's Antifa or anything like that.

These were my people. And I would have been well received because the people who are beating up the cops. I mean, these are the people who came there because I said they were going to be there. Problematic. So Jack Smith, the current prosecution of Trump for January 6th is going to be about fraud and electors and that sort of thing. As far as I understand, Charlie, it's not going to be about the 187 minutes that he's sitting there in the White House. But that was a focus of Liz Cheney's during the January 6th committee investigation. And to me, it's still focal because Trump has never answered the question of,

you know, who are all the people who came to him? What did he say to them? Here, he's claiming that the Secret Service didn't want him to go back. First of all, it's very clear that Mark Meadows and Ivanka, a bunch of people came to Trump and said, will you please stop this visible, physical, violent assault on the Capitol and on the Capitol police? And he didn't do anything. And we still, to this day, do not know exactly what he said back to those people. Now, maybe we'll get Mark Meadows' testimony about this, but I'm betting, Charlie, given that Meadows' testimony was apparently going to be limited to what's in the charges from Jack Smith, that we're not going to get that in this trial.

And I don't know if we'll ever find out, but that was a fundamental thing. Donald Trump knew, and this statement to Jonathan Karl proves it, he knew that he could have stopped it. He knew the violence was going on because we know he was watching it on TV. He knew he could have stopped it. That's clear. And he didn't. He allowed a violent assault on the United States and on our Capitol. This is an ad by BetterHelp Online Therapy. October is the season for wearing masks and costumes. But some of us feel like we wear a mask and hide more often than we want to. At work, in social settings, around our family.

Therapy can help you learn to accept all parts of yourself so you can stop hiding and take off the mask. Because masks should be for Halloween fun, not for your emotions. Therapy is a great tool for facing your fears and finding ways to overcome them. If you're thinking of starting therapy but you're afraid of what you might uncover, give BetterHelp a try. It's entirely online, designed to be convenient, flexible, and suited to your schedule. Just fill out a brief questionnaire to get matched with a licensed therapist and switch therapists at any time for no additional charge. Take off the mask with BetterHelp. Visit BetterHelp.com today to get 10% off your first

month. That's BetterHelpHELP.com. We don't have enough time to really dive into what Jack Smith is doing in that case. There have been some very, very important rulings, including the appeals court ruling, basically reinstating some of the gag order, acknowledging how dangerous Donald Trump can be. But I think the big thing to focus on, and this is like the most important thing that's happening right now and maybe the most important thing in all of this litigation, it is the question of whether or not Judge Shutkin's trial will go ahead on March 4th. Donald Trump, as we know, because this is his argument that he should be immune from prosecution because he was president. It's a big issue because if the courts would ever rule this, they basically are saying, yeah, you know, that whole thing about the president, nothing above the law. Yeah. He's above the law.

I mean, you know, the whole, we elect presidents, not a King. No, no, we have a monarchy. But in any case, the big question is, during that appeal, the pendency of that appeal, is the trial put on hold? Will it be delayed? Now, Judge Shutkin's not going to delay it. The question is, will the appeals court delay it? They've sent signals that they will not delay it, which leaves the U.S. Supreme Court. And the U.S. Supreme Court can save Donald Trump's bacon, not by ruling in his favor, but by stopping the trial while they hear the appeal. So this is like, it feels like the whole ballgame right here. It may sound kind of technical, but it is the appeal is going up. It's not the merits of the appeal, but I think it's very, very unlikely he will win on the merits. It's whether or not he will succeed in getting a delay. Right. But I don't even know

which way this cuts, Charlie, because we've seen such a love of Trump has obviously gained in the Republican polls. The more he's indicted, the more he's isolated, the more he's, you know, can claim to be the victim of a two-tiered system of justice. So I saw this weekend, Rick Klein, ABC political director, did a really good breakdown of how the Republican primary schedule goes. So you have the early four states going from January through February 28th, South Carolina's February 28th. At that point, you're hoping that somebody, Nikki Haley or whoever, has risen up to challenge Trump. But even in the scenario where that happens, which I think is very unlikely,

February 28th is South Carolina. Then you have Super Tuesday, March 5th, the day after this trial is supposed to start, right? That's one week, one week in which whoever has risen up is supposed to be able to fight Trump all over the country. By the end of Super Tuesday, almost 50% of the delegates will be allotted. And Charlie, I think if that trial actually starts

the day before Super Tuesday, that helps Trump. So the delay would actually help anyone else. That is not wrong. That is not wrong. So is there anything else about Trump that we need to talk about? So there's the new Des Moines Register polls out, and this is a real body blow to anyone who hoped for Haley Mentum, which is sort of where I was. And

I'm feeling now ashamed that I morally abandoned Chris Christie to hope for Nikki Haley. Anyway, we don't know what's going to happen, but Nikki Haley had surged into a tie with Ron DeSantis for a distant second. It was Trump 43, DeSantis and Haley at 16. What's happened in the last couple of months is, first of all, DeSantis has risen a little, Haley hasn't. That's bad news because DeSantis is a stiff and him occupying the second place makes sure no one else can rise up. But the other thing that happened, Charlie, is Donald Trump went from 43% in Iowa to 51%. He went up. The guy at the top, his lead increased. And the reason why, it's not entirely clear, but one thing that changed was in October, 65% of the likely caucus goers in Iowa said that Donald Trump could beat Joe Biden.

Now it's 73%. So what's happened is there's a feedback loop going between these bad national polls and Republican voters who are like, oh, Trump is electable, so we're going to stay with him. It is interesting how much, you know, when, you know, a lot of the anti-Trump Republicans pushed all of their chips into the, you know, well, Trump is not electable pile, as opposed to the maybe you should make an argument about his fitness and how dangerous he is. No, no, no. This is the one. This is the, you know, Paul Ryan assured me, Charlie, you don't understand. This is the argument that will work with Republican voters that he cannot win the election. Well, this is just blown up in their face. Okay. Each one of these states has their own unique, you know, factor. In Iowa, DeSantis has this tremendous infrastructure that theoretically

he can tap into. The Vander Plaats, Governor Reynolds endorsement and things like that. So it was always more plausible that DeSantis would be number two. Haley is there, but now let's shift to New Hampshire. New Hampshire is completely different. Christie has done very well there. There has to be some sort of a choice between Christie and Haley. I just don't know how that plays out. DeSantis is going to be a complete, you know, nothing up in New Hampshire. So if I wanted to look for the unicorn, it would be DeSantis does surprisingly well in Iowa and people go, hmm. And then Haley does surprisingly well in New Hampshire and people go, hmm. And then of course you roll into South Carolina and everyone's souls will be crushed again. So could we just anticipate that?

Okay. So let's talk about some of the problems that Joe Biden is facing. These poll numbers are just horrific. They're not getting better. They are not turning around. And one of the problems has been the split in the progressive coalition caused by the Israel-Hamas war, which I think has taken some people by surprise how deep it is, how enduring it is. sound bite that you flagged for me, Will, from ABC News, where a Palestinian American activist talks about how they're not going to vote for Joe Biden because of this. Let's play this from ABC News. The president has been ramping up the pressure on Israel to do more to protect civilians and address the humanitarian crisis. And he's tweaking his tone. Biden recently writing in an op-ed, every innocent Palestinian life lost is a tragedy that rips apart families and communities. But for advocates like Lexi Zidane, who supported Biden in the past, it's too little too late. Is there anything the president could do at this point

that would regain your support? Nothing. We understand that no vote to a Democratic candidate is going to be a vote to a Republican candidate. And we are we are willing to take that risk. She says it's worth it to send a strong message to Democrats. Maybe Trump will win. Maybe Trump will get an office. And that's to open the eyes and the ears of the rest of the public to say, listen, it's going to be short term pain for these next four years. But Democrats will not win Michigan until Democrats are ready to back Palisade. Okay, Will. So I normally on Sunday would post things from politicians talking on the Sunday shows. This time I was like, well, this is an interesting statement. She's saying Trump, you know, for four years, not so bad. What could happen? What could go wrong? Okay, a little short term pain. So I posted this to

threads and people went nuts, just nuts, just bombarding her. And I don't know this person at all, but they all said, are you crazy? It's just going to be a short-term pain just for four years. So what I was surprised at is, first of all, I can understand where this woman is coming from. If you believe that your people are being just massacred, right? And the party that you thought was going to defend you isn't there for you. I mean, that's your single issue. I mean, Jews would do the same thing for Israel, right? But the response overwhelmingly was, it's what you and I have talked about, Charlie, there's one job in 2024, and that is to defeat Donald Trump. And you rally around whoever else can stop him.

And currently, that is Joe Biden. And the idea that in a swing state like Michigan, you, a progressive, are going to vote for somebody other than Biden, and that you're openly willing to get the result of a Donald Trump presidency, and that you naively think that that would just be four years or that the pain would be minimal. The realism, the political realism kind of shocked me here. And it made me wonder, I mean, I feel bad for her. But I have some hope based on this, that progressive people are going to make the smart choice, they're going to suck it up, and they're going to vote for

whoever will stop Trump. And that's President Biden. Two little sidebars here. I think we talked about this last week, the way that John Fetterman, who's quite progressive, has stepped up and has really become one of the most interesting members of the Senate on this issue of Hamas. But over the weekend, Bernie Sanders took a very strong position against a permanent ceasefire, basically saying you can't have a ceasefire with Hamas. I have to admit, I did not see Bernie Sanders on my bingo card as pushing back against his fellow progressives as hard as he has been. Well, first of all, Sanders internationally, he's a human rights guy, but he's equal opportunity about that. He's, you know, if the Russians are attacking Ukraine, Sanders doesn't go into some old sort of Leninist garbage.

He's like, this is a human rights situation, right? We're going to defend the innocent party. Yeah. In Israel, Sanders is, you know, serious about like the Hamas attack on Israelis was also the deliberate attack on civilians, right? That's a human rights situation. But he's also acknowledging the human rights aspects of what's going on in Gaza, right? And protecting civilians as far as possible. His distinction here is between the humanitarian pause, which is temporary and is about protecting civilians, and a ceasefire, which is first of

all, between Israel and Hamas, right? That's like letting Hamas off the hook. And the idea that it's permanent. And look, it is a fact that Hamas has said, we are going to do October 7th again. Exactly. They're not subtle about this at all. Right. And so Bernie is not naive about that. It's very explicit, and he's not going to accept a permanent ceasefire.

But he does want a humanitarian pause, as do many other progressives. This is an ad by BetterHelp Online Therapy. October is the season for wearing masks and costumes, but some of us feel like we wear a mask and hide more often than we want to. At work, in social settings, around our family. Therapy can help you learn to accept all parts of yourself so you can stop hiding and take off the mask. Because masks should be for Halloween fun, not for your emotions. Therapy is a great tool for facing your fears and finding ways to overcome them. If you're thinking of starting therapy but you're afraid of what you might uncover,

give BetterHelp a try. It's entirely online, designed to be convenient, flexible, and suited to your schedule. Just fill out a brief questionnaire to get matched with a licensed therapist and switch therapists at any time for no additional charge. Take off the mask with BetterHelp. Visit BetterHelp.com today to get 10% off your first month. That's BetterHelp, H-E-L-P.com. You want to talk about these university presidents? I do. This has become fascinating just watching the free speech debate. And I think it's more complex than some of the reaction. There was a rather shambolic congressional hearing, particularly shambolic because the questioner was Elise

Stefanik, who is asking the presidents of the University of Pennsylvania, Harvard, and MIT, should people be able to advocate for genocide against Jews on your campus? And I think it's safe to say that they gave rather kind of bloodless, tone-deaf, very legalistic defenses of free speech, even when she was very explicitly asking, I'm talking about, you know, the advocacy of genocide, is that acceptable? And they were like, yeah. So on one level, you could say they were taking a pretty absolutist free speech level. On the other hand, it was like, or they could have pushed back and saying, well, could you give me an example of what you are talking about?

They could have been a little bit more precise than Lange. But your thoughts about this, Will, and then I'll give you my take on it. Okay. So there are actual anti-Semites. There are people like Nick Fuentes and Kanye West and what are like, who say anti-Semitic things. You're basically Nazis. Those are generally on the right or they're, you know, dining with Donald Trump or whatever. Okay.

And there are some people demonstrating on college campuses and saying stupid things about Hamas, not understanding, recognizing the terrorism. Granted, very bad. What these college presidents did is none of that, right? They didn't advocate any antisemitism. They didn't condone antisemitism. What they did was answer the way that professors answer questions, okay? These people are nerds. Claudine Gay, the president of Harvard, is a nerd, right? Liz McGill, the departing president of Penn, a nerd. These are professors. They're being asked in a congressional

hearing to issue a yes or no denunciation, and they're responding with, well, it depends on the context, right? And that explodes the political universe. We don't talk about context. People, this is what academics do. They talk about context. They want to know the exact details. They have policies. We want to be very careful about this. They were giving these university presidents what they thought were careful, cautious answers. And that was their political mistake, because apparently in this situation, you're not supposed to. The idea that Claudine Gay is anti-Semitic is nuts. First of all, I recommend to anyone, watch the interrogation of Claudine Gay by Elise Stefanik. Elise Stefanik does not open with anti-Semitism. She opens with someone,

what if someone on your campus calls for the mass murder of African-Americans? Claudine Gay is a black woman. And she says about the murder of African-Americans, well, it depends on whether it crosses the line. So she is not responding with, it's not any animus about Jews. She's being asked about her own people. And she's saying, we're going to be very careful. This is the way nerds talk. Well, okay. Okay. I see. I'm going to make a stronger defense that in many ways, I think they believe they were making a very powerful free speech defense that they were arguing about academic freedom, the first amendment, et cetera. And that they believe they were making a principal defense of free speech, number one. They were also making a legitimate distinction

between speech and action. So, for example, saying something is very different than acting on it, when it moves to an assault or vandalism. So, and again, maybe that was part of the context. And these are legitimate distinctions. It is good to hear university presidents defend free speech. It is good to hear them make those distinctions, which are not nerdy. I think that they're fundamental between, you know, actions and thoughts. But the problem was not that they were anti-Semitic. It's that also there was just this screaming hypocrisy here. Can I read you what Andrew Sullivan wrote about this? Go for it.

Because he was much more critical. He says, the day the Empress's clothes fell off. In the hearings, Harvard President Gay actually said with a straight face, quote, we embrace a commitment to free expression, even in views that are objectionable, offensive, hateful. Now, by the way, I would agree with that, and I would hope that that would be true. But then, as Sullivan and many others have pointed out, this is the president whose university mandates that all students attend a Title IX training session where they are told that fatphobia and c cis heterosexism are forms of violence and using the wrong pronouns constitutes abuse. Okay, so these are university campuses that have spent years now saying you're a safe space. And if you say these words or if you utter these things, you have offended someone and we are going to take action against you.

And then suddenly it's like, no, no, no. When it comes to Jews, it's all about context. I think that's what offended people. And Sullivan says, the critics who keep pointing out double standards when it comes to the inflammatory speech of pro-Palestinian students misses the point. These are not double standards. There is a single standard. It is fine to malign, abuse, and denigrate oppressors and forbidden to do so against the oppressed. Freedom of speech in the Ivy League extends exclusively to the voices of the oppressed. They are permitted to disrupt classes, de-platform, or shout down controversial speakers,

hurl obscenities, force members of oppressor groups, i.e. Jewish students and teachers, in the latest case, into locked libraries and offices during classroom protests and blocked from classrooms. Jewish students have been assaulted at Harvard, at Columbia, at Hamherst, and at Tulane. Assaults by woke students used to be rare, such as the 2017 mob at Middlebury that put Alison Stanger in a neck brace. But since 10-7, they're intensifying. If a member of an oppressor class says something edgy, it's a form of violence. If a member of an oppressed class commits actual violence, it's speech. So you get that? So suddenly the whole people who have been pushing this, these words are violence. Then now we're like, when the violence takes place, well, maybe that's speech and we need to do it. So it

goes on to say, that is why many Harvard students instantly supported a fundamentalist terror cult that killed, tortured, systematically raped, and kidnapped Jews just for being Jews in their own country. Because they have been taught it is the only moral position to take, they've diligently read their friend's fanon and must be puzzled over what the problem is because Palestinians are victims of a colonial white settler state and any violence they commit is thereby justified. Okay, so Jonathan Haidt makes the same point. He says, look, I actually am totally in favor of this nuanced approach of the president. What offends me is that those same people have been so quick to punish microaggressions, including statements intended to be kind, even if one person from a favorite group

took offense so he says look this double standard seems to be almost institutionalized anti-semitism which is we're going to tell you all the things you cannot say and do except if it involves jews and i think that was where the outrage came right come on on, man. Harvard is not the bastion of free speech. It's only the bastion of free speech when it comes to ripping on Jews. That I think is the case. So first of all, I agree with Andrew here, and I very much agree with Jonathan Haidt and his larger points about safetyism on campus and elsewhere. But I want to clarify something here. I'm hearing in that two different versions of their argument. One is that this is specifically about Jews, that the Jews are being

accepted from this general principle of protecting the safety of people and all that. But the other is the much larger point that Andrew's making there about the oppressor mentality. Here are the oppressors and here are the oppressed, and the Jews are colonists and the Palestinians are the oppressors and here are the oppressed and the Jews are colonists and the Palestinians are the, you know, native people and blah. So I think the latter is more accurate. It's the hierarchy. And we talked about this before in terms of punching up, right? In the worldview of a lot of people on the left, there are oppressors and there are oppressed and the rules are different. And so you can say things about Jews that you wouldn't say about African Americans or Latinos or Muslims or whatever. That is a general thing. And that applies to white people, to men. And so a lot of the wars between the left and the right are about whether it's okay to punch

up in a way that's not okay to punch down. In other words, whether there should be a double standard. But I think my point is it's bigger than Jews. It's not just about Jews. But this is exposed this. Yeah. I mean, and dramatized it. Yeah. In other words, the problem is worse than this. It's not just this, it's actually broader. Is that what you're saying? But that fundamentally, it's a different point. And it's, I think it goes to the question of how serious the antisemitism is. I think I'm less concerned than other people are about that. And just to remind everybody, I'm Jewish. So when I talk about this, I'm talking about my own people. Either way, Charlie, I agree that there is a

kind of hypocrisy, a double standards being practiced either about Jews or about the so-called oppressors versus oppressed. But what I want to do is not leverage this to say, well, we should protect the safety of everyone. We should fire university presidents who don't say that the university should expel anyone who says, you know, from the river to the sea or something about intifada. I want to go the other way. I want to go at what Andrew's talking about. And I want to reduce the degree of hysteria on college campuses.

And I want to loosen up the conversation about things that have been described as too, you know, fat shaming, too Islamophobic, too sexist, whatever. That is a major problem to me. I think that college campuses have discouraged conversation about anything, and they have canceled people, right? I think that's absolutely right. So I want to loosen the discussion all around, and I want to start with anti-Semitism because I'm Jewish. So I'm not talking about somebody else. I'm saying I am open to hearing someone talk about intifada. When Elise Stefanik says in that hearing that anyone who uses the word intifada is calling for the extermination of Jews, I'm here to say, no, that's not true. Intifada means different

things to different people, and we can have a conversation about that. I want to have the conversation. Yeah, I think we'll continue this particular conversation because I think it just involves so many different issues, including this ongoing fight over diversity, equity, inclusion programs, and the kinds of things that they have been pushing for, almost as, again, slight digression. I am sensing a massive backlash among young people to what I think that the left thought was sort of the inevitable progression. I think that they thought that the arc of history was bending in a certain way and that they kind of had a free fire that the universities were their place and that all of their doctrines were going to be well

received. I think there's an entire generation of young people who are kind of rolling their eyes, that things became too much. But I do think that this has been the flashpoint. And I think it's opened up a lot of people's eyes to this. And I don't know where it's going. I mean, there are dangerous areas it could go. If, in fact, it did lead universities, in fact, to backtrack even further on their commitment to free speech, that would be negative. On the other hand, if you follow the Jonathan Haidt approach, which is to say, okay, let's have a reevaluation of all of these things that have happened since 2015, 2016 involving free speech, it could be positive. But I think right now, people's passions are just too hot. Have you

noticed, Will, that when people are emotionally engaged and really, really angry, they are generally not open to nuanced arguments or to the kinds of compromises and conversations that are necessary. Have you noticed that? Right. Charlie, I'll be more confident that history is turning in a more libertarian direction when university presidents stop being fired over this stuff. The idea that the president of Penn lost her job over this says to me that the safetyists, not even the students, but the donors are getting their way. One last topic in the time we have left, because I know you've written very, very extensively on the abortion issue, and that's going to be a huge issue in 2024.

Rather dramatic case down in Texas involving a woman who has gone to court to say, I need to have permission to have an emergency abortion because of a particular medical condition I have. Mitt Romney was on Meet the Press with Kristen Welker talking about this, and they go through it. And let's just play this because it's a very, very difficult issue. Mitt Romney obviously is struggling with this like a lot of other pro-life politicians, but I want to get your take on the entire discussion and issue on the other side. So this is Mitt Romney on Meet the Press yesterday morning. The state Supreme Court, as you know, put a hold on a lower court's decision

to allow Kate Cox to have what her doctors say would be a medically necessary and potentially life-saving abortion. Now, her fetus has been diagnosed with a fatal condition, and if she carries it to term, doctors say it could jeopardize her ability to have more children in the future, something that she says she very much wants. What is your reaction, and should Kate Cox have the ability to terminate her pregnancy? Well, I'm not going to stand in for the courts. They're going to evaluate the evidence. I am pro-life, but people like me that are pro-life also believe that when a woman's life is in danger, the opportunity for an abortion should be apparent for her. So we'll see what the court ultimately gets to. But recognize, after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade

and the decision went back to the elected officials in the various states, there are a lot of parameters and nuances that haven't been sorted through yet. That's going to happen in Texas and other places. And ultimately, we're going to find a settled understanding. And as you're indicating, you did support overturning Roe v. Wade. But was this what you imagined when you supported Roe v. Wade being overturned, that a woman who'd been told by her doctors that she needs an abortion potentially to save her own life would be denied one? Well, I think the question here will be whether or not, in fact, her life is at risk. And if it is at risk, then I think under Texas law,

although I'm not an expert in Texas law, under Texas law, she'll be allowed to have an abortion. But each state's going to have to make this decision. All right, Will, this is a tangled web here. This conversation just drove home to me something that I really want pro-life people to understand. I am pro-choice. I don't think there's a contradiction between the two things. You can be morally opposed to abortion. You can believe most elective abortions shouldn't happen, that things should be done to make it possible for women not to have to get the abortion, starting with contraception. Setting that aside, it's one thing to say that you are morally opposed to abortion, but when you do what has been done in Texas and other states, this is what happens. When you ban abortions, you end up with women in these marginal and often very scary situations. By marginal,

I mean rare, but this is the situation where she's not going to be able to have a baby. Her health is at risk. Charlie, she is in the courts. This is the Supreme Court's talking with some other court. What the hell is going on that this is in the courts? When you put this kind of issue into criminal law, this is the world you're dealing with. And I would encourage everyone who is pro-life, find something better than the criminal law to try to do what you can to reduce the number of abortions in this country, because you're going to get police, you're going to get judges, prosecutors, you're going to get the state Supreme Court involved in this woman.

And she's in a medical situation. This should not be in the courts. This should not be in the legislature. That's my appeal. Well, I am pro-life and I agree with you completely. This is exactly where you do not want to be using the criminal law. You do not want this kind of a case being decided in this particular way. I don't understand why in Texas they are fighting against this. So what is the principle that Ken Paxton and the justices of the Texas Supreme Court are trying to uphold? Are they trying to say that under our law, we really can force this woman to go ahead and give birth to this child, even though there are the medical circumstances? I think Mitt Romney answered that question. You could tell it was

uncomfortable and painfully answered that question about as well as he could, which is, look, we have been saying that the life of the mother is an exception. And now we have a pretty clear case where the evidence suggests that, yes, this is one of those cases that we've been saying for 40 years we would exempt. And she's having to go on bended knee to a judge to get permission to do this and has put her name on this lawsuit. The cost that women have to go through to go through something like this, to have the publicity, to have the notoriety, to have the, I mean, this is not easy stuff, Will. And if you're at all concerned about any medical right of privacy or parental rights or the rights of an individual, you want to talk about libertarian principles,

this is like the worst possible case. And so a smart pro-life movement would not draw the line here at all. Right. But to me, it's a more fundamental problem. It's the attempt to draw lines at all. Now, I think it's fine for the more fundamental problem. It's the attempt to draw lines at all. Now, I think it's fine for the law to say in general, you know, in late term abortions should be in relatively rare circumstances. But for decades, the pro-life movement said, you know, the pro-choice people have these health exceptions and they're so loosey goosey, you know, any woman can go in. We need to have some strict rule. Well, this Texas case is an example of what happens when you have a strict rule. So you're arguing about whether is her life really at risk,

except instead of that conversation happening among doctors, which is where it should be happening, it's happening in courts. And that's what happens when you write this stuff into law. You are making a very, very, very compelling case because I think there was the belief that somehow you could use the law to make those distinctions. And what you're saying is, here's why the law is just a blunt instrument. And this should be decided by a group of consulting physicians in the privacy of the consulting with this woman. What are the risks? What are the options? And now it will be decided by non-doctors, non-family members, people in black robes,

which again, as part of the conservatives saying, these fundamental decisions should not be made by people in black robes. Well, this is where we have it. These kinds of cases, I think, are kind of nightmarish. And I keep coming back to this point that the pro-life movement had 50 years to prepare for post-Roe and clearly did nothing to really prepare for it. And I mean, not just dealing with these problems like, okay, how are we going to handle this? How are we going to game this sort of thing out? How do we prevent this kind of scenario from taking place? But then the whole infrastructure, which is not even part of the debate much now, which is that if you're going to be a pro-life movement post-Roe, you better have some rather robust programs to help change hearts and minds and persuade young women that it is in

their interest or that it is okay to go ahead and have babies, to have more pro-family, more pro-child legislation and programs. The notion that the pro-life movement could watch Roe go down at the same time they are trying to stop the expansion of Medicaid. Guys, do you understand how those dots don't connect? And to be fair, there have been a lot of people in the pro-life movement who've been saying this for a very, very long time, that we cannot be just pro-life up until the moment of birth and then lose interest in the child and the mother after that. But that's the practical reality. And in all the time since Roe went down, have you seen any major effort at the state or the federal level to say, okay, now we live in pro-life America,

right? In theory, what are we doing for those born babies and their moms? No, I'm not seeing anything. No. A few white papers here and there, a couple of op-ed pieces, nothing. Again, be careful what you wish for. And I think the pro-life movement really should have thought about that more deeply. This is a real nightmare, nightmare scenario. Will, thank you so much for joining me on a very, very busy Monday. I think this is going to be the last Monday that you and I are going to be together in 2023. So we have to take a deep breath, gird our loins, see you on the other side. See you in 2024, Will. See you then, charlie and thank you all for listening to today's bulwark podcast i'm charlie sykes we will be back tomorrow and we'll do this all over again the bulwark podcast is produced by katie cooper and engineered and edited by jason

brown and edited by Jason Brown.