The Dispatch Podcast - Is the Republican Party Worth It? | Interview: Rep. Dan Crenshaw

Episode Date: February 19, 2024

Jamie is joined by Rep. Dan Crenshaw to discuss the state of U.S. foreign policy and why he isn't overly concerned by a second Trump term. The Agenda: —Israel's move into southern Gaza —How we should view Qatar —Bipartisan support for Ukraine aid —Has Ukraine achieved a strategic victory? —The death of Alexei Navalny —The state of the GOP and Tucker Carlson —Concerns over a second Trump term Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to the Dispatch podcast. This is Jamie Weinstein. My guest today is Congressman Crenshaw. Congressman Crenshaw is a former Navy seal, has wide experience on foreign policy. So we get into a lot of topics of foreign policy, including the current zeitgeist within the Republican Party on Russia, the war between Russia and Ukraine, what is going on in the Middle East, but with Israel and Gaza and beyond. We also talk a little bit about the state of the GOP, Donald Trump, what the foreign policy zeitgeist is within the GOP, and even surprisingly, not intentionally, a little conversation about January 6th and what a future Trump presidency might entail. So I think you're going to enjoy this, this conversation, and particularly the end. So stay until the end. Without

further ado, I give you Congressman Dan Crenshaw. Congressman Dan Crenshaw, welcome to the Dispatch podcast. Thank you, Valde. I want to start Congressman with foreign affairs. List four hot spots in the world. You have flashpoints in some of them like China and Taiwan, North Korea, obviously, at the DMZ, Ukraine, Russia, and several hot spots in the Middle East. Which of those conflicts, how would you rank those conflicts in terms of what concerns you, A, for the potential for a more global international world war type of conflict

and threats to the American homeland. They're also different. I wouldn't rank them. You know, the world is too complex to start ranking things and everybody wants simple answers in foreign policy, black and white answers. I mean, is it going to hurt me or not? You know, and it's like, it's not that simple.

None of this is that simple. Is it in our interests or is it not, you know, define your interests? Do you have an interest in maintaining your way of life? and, you know, having running water and iPhones and us having conversations and podcasts, Zoom's, I mean, it's quite a way of life and it was very different than before the World War II era. So I think people appreciate that very much. And that's what connects all of those things, right? It's chaos.

It's either chaos or stability. So all of those hotspots represent chaos. And the question Americans have wrestled with forever pretty much is, do we have an interest in stopping chaos? Why is it our job? and we really didn't want to stop the chaos in World War II and eventually we just had to because we were attacked it was going to come to our shores eventually and we maintained that doctrine ever since

and many on the right or the left like to deride it as the world policing but that world policing gives you the way of life that you have now that you should be a little bit more appreciative for so all of those just represent chaos we could get a detail on like exactly what kind of chaos. There's different types of chaos, I suppose.

Are there threats to the homeland in any of these scenarios? I'm not so sure. But, you know, adversaries like Russia and China, if they really, really want to, they could absolutely hurt the homeland. I mean, we lived through the Cold War, so we already know that. The tools are more advanced now,

but they're there. You know, and so our question that we're always answering, we're trying to answer, is at what point can we stand up for ourselves and for our allies about escalating to that point and that there's massive disagreement there, right? Even some people believe that even giving Ukrainians money and weapons

is World War III. You know, they're still claiming that two years later, which is an odd thing to claim after it's that entire idea has been discredited for multiple years now. And they'll say the same thing if you want to defend Taiwan. Defending Taiwan can mean a lot of things too.

It can be giving that weapons. It can be literally defending it. I'm not sure. So I'll leave it there. Let's delve into each of those a little bit if I can. And let's start with Israel. You've experienced war. You've obviously seen it.

How from your vantage point, you're obviously not on the ground, do you judge how Israel is conducting the conflict? And do you believe the ultimate goal of eliminating Hamas is an achievable objective? Yeah, I mean, look, we didn't entirely eliminate al-Qaeda. We didn't entirely eliminate ISIS, but we basically did. So it's an achievable thing. You know, you never dismantle this radical ideology, and they're all the same kind of ideology in the end,

but you operationally dismantle them. That is an objective possibility. So these Israelis are not crazy to think that that's a possibility. You know, do they want to armchair quarterback their tactics and how they've been doing things? I don't really want to, no. I wasn't to those leaving there. There is a potential that Israel turns to the north with Hezbollah.

I mean, there already have been conflict there, but to a maybe a revisiting what happened in 2006 in that war. Would you support as a congressman if Israel felt its need to turn to the north and start another front in the conflict or fight against or defend itself against another front in the conflict? That's an impossible question to answer, right? You know, do you support a war that the context of which is not apparent to us yet? You know, I don't know.

That's a total hypothetical. So, and there's a lot of it then statements to be made. Now, if this, then, yeah, I would say this. But if that, then I would say something different. So I'm not so sure that it's that close. And it's never very simple as starting war with Hezbo. I mean, Hezbollah is Leviton, but not quite. There's always constant sort of fighting and, you know,

stirmishes, if you will, between the two. I'm not clear on how close of a real conflict is and how do we define real conflict. Like, I have trouble believing the Israelis want to open up another front like that, to be honest. I don't think it's in their interest. I don't think they're, I don't think they'd be itching for that. But I haven't spoken to them recently. Let me ask you, I asked Governor Christie when he was a candidate and came on the show,

there are American hostages in Gaza. You were in the special forces. Do you think if there is a role for American special forces to play, given that there are American hostages in Gaza? Yeah, and now it's just worth noting, though, and people should understand what kind of situation you're dealing with in Gaza. You know, why didn't these really see this big attack

coming on October 7th? Why is it so hard to find these hostages? You know, our American indulgence apparatus and national security apparatus to be able to find anyone anywhere and kill them with a drone strike or go rescue a hostage, why can we find these?

And the answer is because Gaza is, is a very unique place. It's denied territories. It's a denied area, as we would call it, meaning we have no access to it. We have very little human intelligence there. I mean, and just, I don't actually know how many sources in Israelis have, okay?

But I do know how to do human intelligence, and it's really, really armed. You have to have a source that has access and the right placement and access to the right information and that source has to be willing to talk to you and take enormous risk in talking to and that's to be something that that motivates that person.

That's a really difficult thing to find in a place like Gaza, nearly impossible. So that's, I say that to help explain to people why it wasn't so obvious that this attack was happening and also why it's hard to find hostages because on top of that, you know, all the dead terrorists or all the dumb terrorists are dead. the smart ones are still around.

They've been doing this for decades. They know how to avoid. They know what Israeli capabilities are. What our capabilities are, more or less. I mean, they have, you know, they have an idea. And so they go off communications completely. They can, because it's a denied area, because it's their area that they control,

they don't have to talk on them. They don't have to talk on radios. They can just go talk to each other in person. And in a dense servant environment like that, It's just very, very difficult to find hostages. Now, if we had an exact location, for sure, we were 100% on it, and it was American hostage, and the target area looked like an achievable goal, yeah, we might go for that.

But it's very hard to imagine that scenario. Even if you knew exactly where they were, you know, it's very easy to imagine a bunch of military commanders honestly looking at that and saying there's a way higher likelihood that we all die and all the hostages die if we go in, then if not. I mean, that's just the reality of a situation like this. Let me ask you one more question about this region. Qatar, in one way, it funds a lot of our enemies.

And another way, we seem to use it as a negotiating place. We came to the Taliban deal there. I don't know if you probably don't think that was a good deal. The host negotiations are occurring there, military, U.S. military base there. How should Americans view Qatar? Is it a friend or a foe? That's exactly what it is.

It plays both sides. and it openly plays both sides. For Americans who just don't understand the Middle East, this is like their first time they've looked at the Middle East. They're like, what is this deal with Qatar? I'm like, it's just cutter. And so those of us who have been doing this for a long time, it's like, yeah, they play both sides.

They're a 20-minute flight from Iran. Do you think they're not playing both sides? They have to. By matter of their own, just to exist, like just to exist, they have to play both sides. And we take advantage of that. So we don't view them as friends or foes. We view them as partners when we need them.

And frankly, that's the way to view of pretty much all relationships in the Middle East, except Israelis, there's more of a moral bond between us and Israel, but that's not the case with Saudi Arabia or Qatar. It's just, it is, look, we're our partners out of necessity where our interests align. And so we use you, like, we need a base.

And so we have a base in Qatar. It's a very important base to us. So they give us that. And we know that they talk to others. And because they talk to others that we don't like talking to, we can use Qatar as sort of at that neutral place. I don't like that they fund these things. But I think it's, I think people think it's some big conspiracy when it's actually just

completely out in the open. And that's Middle East politics. Let's turn to Ukraine, Congressman, just legislatively and logistically, do you believe there's a chance that Congress will authorize the funding for Ukraine? Yeah, I think, I mean, I think something gets authorized. The question is what and what's attached to? to it. You know, I don't, um, I'm not willing to, you know, to, to sign on to the Senate supplemental. It can be vastly improved with bipartisan support. Um, uh, I'm working some

efforts on that, uh, I'm rewriting and I can give a quick out what I'm thinking, but there's, there was already some efforts done for Republicans, for Democrats got together. I've gotten to see the text of that. I just saw sort of a summary, um, you know, very, very moderate Republicans, very, very moderate Democrats got together, and they put something out. There was certainly an improvement to the Senate deal. And so that's going to be how this is played, because our leadership isn't really doing it. But here's how it should make.

Whether it's Ukraine or Israel aid, it needs to be the exquisite weaponry that only we can provide. It needs to be the weaponry they need to win the war. And now winning has a lot of definitions. We can get into that. It doesn't mean taking back every ancient territory, but it means making the Russians regret it. It doesn't need to be a bunch of humanitarian aid.

And I know that bill that the moderates just came out with, stripped all humanitarian aid out, which is, yeah, that's a good step number one. Step number two, you actually have to re-label it. It is not accurate to say that there's $60 billion going to Ukraine. It's just never been accurate. It's never been accurate to say $113 billion going to Ukraine. It's more than half of that is,

all spent in the United States. So it's spent on our troops. It's spent on our industries. It's meant to pay back us. So we dust off old artillery rounds that are probably expired. We give them to Ukrainians and then we buy new ones for ourselves

that are better. And it's woken up our industrial base in a way that was deeply, deeply necessary. There's a lot of benefits to this. So those are the first things there. You strip out humanitarian aid, let others pay for that. Same with Gaza, Israel is an humanitarian aid.

Gaza wants humanitarian aid, there's plenty of really rich Arab nations that I think should be providing that like Qatar. So it strips that out. And then you get to the other part, though, which the Senate supplemental left out because they didn't want to get to a border deal, I'm not ready to give up on a border deal.

You need to have something on the border in that bill, period. That's a must have. The bill of the moderates came up with had some of that. It's really unclear to me just based on the summaries I read what exactly it is. and how much leeway it gives the administration. You know, I think you can go harder. I think some things to keep in mind that are really important.

You just need to change out a few words in current immigration law to make that parole that vast paroling that the Biden administration is doing to make that completely, clearly illegal. You do have to change a few words. Not that hard. Asylum laws need to be different, just upping the standard.

and there's a lot of ways to increase the standard so that just not everybody's just let their role they do as the time, well, I'm scared and okay, we'll put them in the process and let them come to court 10 years later. That has to stop. There's very clear ways to do that. I like an emergency provision.

That's what I'd like to see, an emergency provision that just shuts down the border. You know, in the Langford Cinema Bill, that provision was triggered by a number of encounters. Everyone misread that. Maybe, I don't think anyone read it, but everyone misread that to read entry. There was never that.

But maybe just strike that entire part and just make it an actual shutdown because we already know that the levels are too high. And so it can be a temporary shutdown and be six months, something like that. These are the kind of things, these are the kind of conversations we should be having, you know,

to actually get a handle on the border as it is right now. But there has to be, one more thing, remain in Mexico policy that was in their, in their write-up as well, and what the moderates came out with.

That's basically a bill that comes out of foreign affairs committee from Chairman McCall. Really just codifies or made in Mexico policy. But, you know, the thing about that, and I like that, it should be in there. The thing about it is that will always rely on a foreign partner. I need some reforms that are, that rely on our laws that we can enforce. I can't, you know, in the end, I can't make Mexico. to go do something. We can try. We can leverage and we can. And, you know, what it codifies is that the administration has to at least try. But in the end, you have to have a willing partner.

Do we have a willing partner at my scope? Probably. But I think we need more than that. Not long ago, I saw someone go through a sudden loss and it was a stark reminder of how quickly life can change and why protecting the people you love is so important. Knowing you can take steps to help protect your loved ones and give them that extra layer of security. brings real peace of mind. The truth is, the consequences of not having life insurance can be serious. That kind of financial strain on top of everything else is why life insurance indeed matters. Ethos is an online platform that makes getting life insurance fast and easy to protect your family's future in minutes, not months. Ethos keeps it simple. It's 100% online, no medical

exam, just a few health questions. You can get a quote in as little as 10 minutes, same-day coverage, and policies starting at about two bucks a day, build monthly, with options. up to $3 million in coverage, with a 4.8 out of 5-star rating on trust pilot and thousands of families already applying through Ethos. It builds trust. Protect your family with life insurance from ethos. Get your free quote at ethos.com slash dispatch. That's eth-h-o-s-com slash dispatch. Application times may vary. Rates may vary. This episode is brought to you by Squarespace. SquareSpace is the platform that helps you create a polished professional home online. Whether you're building a site for your business, your writing, or a new project, Squarespace brings everything together in one place.

With Squarespace's cutting-edge design tools, you can launch a website that looks sharp from day one. Use one of their award-winning templates or try the new Blueprint AI, which tailors a site for you based on your goals and style. It's quick, intuitive, and requires zero coding experience. You can also tap into built-in analytics and see who's engaging with your site and email campaigns to stay connected with subscribers. or clients. And Squarespace goes beyond design. You can offer services, book appointments, and receive payments directly through your site. It's a single hub for managing your work and reaching your audience without having to piece together a bunch of different tools. All seamlessly integrated. Go to Squarespace.com slash dispatch for a free trial. And when you're ready to launch,

use offer code dispatch to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain. Congress, we can't go back just to the beginning of that, where you said you're optimistic that you'll get a package that is a border bill and an aid bill through the House and Senate. So you believe that the Republicans are open to supporting a bill even in this election season, despite the narrative that they turned against the bill in the Senate because Donald Trump didn't want an immigration deal before the 2024 election? I don't know. Optimistic's the right word.

I think there's a narrow path to victory. I'm not sure I would say optimistic. You know, what we need is we don't need all Republicans. We need half of the good Republicans that actually want border security and don't think just want it as a political issue. You know, I ran on getting the border secure. So if I'm, so if I can,

so I have the chance to vote on something for something through that reduces illegal immigration massively, bet you're asking me to vote for that. and any Republican who doesn't has really lost their way. But we don't have that to vote on yet. So we need to create it. We need to get some buy-in for Democrats because you're going to need Democrat support anyway.

And so you've got to have a much better negotiation. I think what, like, for instance, I'm negotiated. I think what they negotiated was far too complicated. And if you're looking at it objectively, it reached too closely to the definition of what we might call comprehensive immigration reform, which is a really dirty word in conservative politics. Because it did go into a lot of immigration reform

on legal immigration, things like that. And some might say it was very sensible, but in the end it just drove people crazy. It was there was a process was too secretive. It was too open to whatever interpretation people wanted to give it. It was way too complicated. And so you need a reset, you need very simple, simple border reforms

that you can explain to people. Would you support a bill that would, is only supported by a minority of the GOP caucus that you needed Democrats to, you know, a majority of Democrats to support you on to pass? If the state of we're reaching is that we're going to get a massive reduction in illegal immigration and beat Russia,

then, you know, it's hard to be against that kind of plan. But I don't like the answer hypotheticals either, you know, about like what we would support, that it doesn't exist yet. So, we'll stay. What would you say to part of the Republican Party, maybe a large part of the Republican Party, maybe a majority of the Republican Party at this point, that is unsure or opposes aid to Ukraine, why it is important for America to provide the funds, provide the military equipment, as you said, to help Ukraine in this fight against Russia? Yeah, like, I've been saying this for a long time. The reason we support Ukraine, military aid, and their fight or their sovereignty against Russia.

It's nothing special about Ukraine. It's, I mean, it's not enough. It's not exactly nobody either. I mean, it pulls its weight economically. There'll be some pretty dramatic effects of the entire Ukrainian economy to shut down, which it never really did. We get a lot of more iron ore from Ukraine.

A lot of the world's neon comes from Ukraine. That's used to make semiconductors. 13% of agriculture grain comes from Ukraine. Not for us, but for the developing world. that are developing world collapses and that has a domino effect to us. But again, it goes back to what we initially talked about. It's do you want chaos or stability?

And chaos can be described as a world where bigger countries with more weapons just take other countries stuff by force because they can. And that was basically human existence pre-World War II. That was always what happened all the time. And it might be worth just thinking about what we had three World War II, just as a society.

I mean, you know, basic comforts, quality of life, all of that versus what we have now. Quite a bit of progress since that time period. And, you know, what accounts for that? Well, I think what accounts for it is an American-led world where the shipping lanes are projected. If you want to do trade with another country, you can have some confidence that whatever you order from them

is coming to you and they can have some confidence that the payment system in dollars is, going to work and that they'll get paid for it. That's really basic stuff, but it's also pretty new. And I don't think people realize how fragile that that system actually is and how quickly it can capitulate. You know, you just look at some of the effects that just the Houthis and Iran have had on targeting cargo ships in the Arabian Gulf and, you know, Straits of Moos, things like that, what happens? Well, insurance rates skyrocket. The cost to ship something doubles. And so that affects you way faster than you think. So some goods might just increase a little

bit. And in a place we already have inflation, that's not a great thing. Some goods just won't be made anymore because the price point just won't fit what the demand is. And so it's, the other point to make is you have to imagine counterfactual when you're analyzing foreign policy. And the counterfactual here is, okay, so you never sported Ukraine, you never cared, never gave them any singers, ever gave many javelins, never gave many training, nothing, no intelligence support, none of it. And Russia would have won really fast. They would have, they would have come through pretty easily. They were stopped just outside, yeah, because of our weaponry that the Ukrainians used to great effect against Russian tanks. They would have come

through and they wouldn't have the massive, massive losses that the Russians have had. And they have been massive. And now they'd be on the border of four more NATO countries. And of course, the populists in our party think, well, and Russia's not going to just invade. I mean, you know, Ukraine asked for it, right? I mean, they have some kind of strange, like, version of history that they tell that it's basically the same, ironically, as Marxist-loving Oliver Stone's history of Ukraine. So they tell that story and like they deserved it. And they just don't think that maybe Russia also believes that, you know, Estonia and Latvia are, you know, with Russian-speaking populations, are also theirs. And this is what Putin believes. Anybody who looks at his past

comments and writing over the years, he bashes the Marxists, he bashes the Soviet Union Marxists a lot because he views himself as a czar and a czar that, that deserves in his, and has earned the right to have this old Russian empire, which includes a lot of European countries. And then you just got yourself into a real war because those are NATO countries. And you're in a really dangerous situation because you could have miscalculations really quickly

because Russia might believe that they could invade Latvia and NATO wouldn't respond. And so they might do it. And then we would respond, and then we'd actually be in a war. So having somebody else do the fighting for you and all you have to do is spend 10% maybe of our annual defense spending on it,

is a massive strategic land for the United States. It also, the last thing that people need to understand is everyone's watching and China's watching. And so if you think Ukrainian economy doesn't matter, you definitely can't think that about the Taiwanese economy. It definitely matters,

and it will definitely affect your life in a massive way. You do not want to take it over by China. And yet that's what China eventually wants to do. They believe just like Russia believes Ukraine is theirs, they believe Taiwan is there. And so they're definitely watching this and thinking, maybe this wouldn't as easy as we thought it would be. And also, they're also looking at the clock and saying,

well, how long does Western support really last and can we outlast them, which is the constant calculation that Putin has also asked. So there's just so many bigger things to think about than just, oh, you know, what about our, you know, we could spend that money here. And I'm like, the conservatives say that. And I'm like, On what?

Well, I don't know, like bridges and stuff. And I'm like, well, did you want me to vote for that massive infrastructure built? No. Well, okay. What are you talking about them? You know, we do spend the money here, guys. So we'll stop there. We can go on forever, honestly.

I want to touch, actually, on your last point. The point about the other countries watching what's happening in Ukraine, and you said there's different ways to define victory, has some of that strategic victory already been achieved in the sense that Russia thought it had this wonderful army that was going to. going to steamroll through Ukraine. And here we are two years later, as you mentioned, massive losses. Is China looking at that and wondering whether their armies as good as they think it is? Has that deterrent already been achieved in the sense that all these countries now maybe wonder, A, especially dictatorial countries that might have generals putting their money in London as

opposed to the equipment they were supposed to purchase, A, whether their army is as capable as they think it is, and that a conflict might be more messy than they imagined as they're seeing already in Ukraine. Yeah, no, I mean, I would certainly argue that massive strategic victory has already been achieved, but the problem is it can be lost. For multiple reasons, you know, if we just stop supporting Ukraine, it's not as if we just were just leaving a stalemate. They do get support to even maintain a stalemate, which is still our strategic interest. We want more than a stalemate. We want to break of the stalemates. I mean, this is kind of the argument. This is kind of the argument that a lot of Republicans have. Is victory possible? I mean, victory by our definition.

So victory by American definition would mean the Russians basically want to negotiate a deal because they're now of the opinion that they really can't advance anymore because too many things have been broke. That's victory for us. Ukrainians might define victory as getting back every inch. I don't define victory that way. Let me just raise one more thing with you. We had Tim Mack on, he's a journalist from the U.S. who is living in Kiev covering the war. And do we read for that. I mean, it was somewhat stunning. I think the average age of the Ukrainian soldier now is above 40. You know, recruiting is not so easy. Sometimes you have to, you know, recruit at gunpoint in Ukraine. I mean, how if strategic, if we already achieve somewhat of strategic victory by

making dictators around the world think twice, at this point, isn't, is there a point at which we have to go to Ukraine and say there has to be some sort of settlement because your country cannot and stay in this war any longer? Yeah, but they're not the only ones at the table. The Russians are also at that table. And so you have to get the Russians to a point where they believe that it's in their interest to actually do that.

And to do that, you need to have a few more battlefield wins. And to do that, well, it's not just endless aid, right? I don't want, not just endless artillery shells because right now it's basically an artillery war. You know, we've been pushing the administration, they're always too little too late. This has been a big problem with their strategy during this war because they're so scared of this of this boogeyman of escalation.

And it was an irrational fear. It was a rational fear for like a month into the war. But after that, it was a completely irrational fear. World War III, World War, I mean, I'll offer this Tucker Carlson skirm about World War III. I'm just, you know, maybe one day he's going to be right that sticking up for ourselves and our allies results in a fight, but that day is not today. Maybe in 500 years. I don't know.

In any case, that has caused this annoying stalemate. That is, I think, making voters, patience weary, to say the least. So the weapon we were talking about, though, is simply longer-range stuff that can reach into the places we need it to reach and hit the right places within Russian supply chains, production lines, command centers, whatever it is. that really disable their ability to really continue to fight the war and force that negotiation at the table. And then it is up to us to say, yeah, Ukrainians, you're going to do the same thing, okay? I want to turn in closing to a couple broader questions

about the state of the GOP. And I think you alluded to one of the people I was going to mention in this broader question. We just had Tucker Carlson, who is apparently a vice presidential potential for Donald Trump in 2024 over in Russia, making videos comparing Russia favorably to the United States. We speak today, and you put out a statement on the news of Alexi Nalvaney's death. There was a statement by Lee Zeldin, a former colleague of you, I don't know if you saw this on Twitter, where he said, as the world reflects on the murder of

Alexi Navalny at the hands of Putin, it's worth remembering that Democrats are actively doing Biden's bidding as they also try to imprison his chief political opponent, Donald Trump, and remove him from the ballot, and ensure he dies in prison. So, you know, we either have many big figures in the GOP either outright saying Russia is better than the United States or comparing the political environment in Russia to the United States. How did we get to this place? And is there a way out of this place that the Republican Party currently finds itself in? Yeah, I mean, like I'm reading Lee Zeldon's tweet. I mean, I think it's kind of, it's a, it's a weird tweet, but I'm not sure there's much more meaning than that. I think it's just looking for clickbait.

I talk to his comments and his videos are obviously way weirder. You know, he's a lot of always had an infinity for Russia. I wouldn't call him a Republican by any stretch. He would deride Reagan. You know, I mean, he's on economic policies. He's often apt to agree more with Elizabeth Warren than Republicans. I mean, they use the coercive. He is a potential vice presidential pick in 2024. Okay, I'm just saying what I'm just telling you what I think of him. That doesn't affect my opinion. So, obviously, I have a personal distaste. I have a personal distaste for Tucker Carlson. Right. And I'm not saying that it should affect your opinion, but I'm just saying he's not

so far outside of today's Republican Party because he has been, I mean, he is not some fringe figure I'm picking out of nowhere. He is apparently being considered as a vice president to show candidate on the Republican ticket. That's all I'm saying. I'm not trying to change your opinion. I'm just saying he does seem to be a mainstream figure. I don't know. I don't know, I don't know how serious that is. I, you know, Trump is actually one of the more skilled politicians I've ever witnessed and it's really good at making people believe things, just to keep them closer. So it would be a terrible tank. And I think Trump knows that, anybody around him knows that. Just for the sake of winning, like, you know, somebody I would rather see Trump with than

Biden to win. So I would recommend not picking Tucker Carlson, I think it would be a very bad idea. You're not going to grow your base by doing that. So just politically, I don't think it's realistic. You know, he's fired from Fox News. He makes his Twitter videos now or whatever. And, you know, he makes news by going to Russia. And that's a pretty big deal to go to Russia and interview about it. And Putin, he's put a lot of work into that over the years, you know, by basically he repeating whatever propaganda Putin puts out constantly to make him like him so that he can get an interview. Hey, good for you.

I do think it was really strange to be in like Russian subways and supermarkets and you're like, this is just amazing. Like, are you stupid or you can't be that stupid, right? Because you can go to North Korea and find some really beautiful places that they only take tourists and foreigners to. You know, the subway, by the way, I read an interesting article, this is kind of hilarious, like the subway that he was so excited about. And Moscow has always been famous for its beautiful subway.

But, you know, the irony of that is, I was built in the Soviet era. Because look, communism, if they decide to all put all of their effort into one thing, they can figure it out. But even they actually couldn't figure it out, they had to bring in British engineers to build it. So they had to bring in engineers from a capitalist society to actually build that thing. And I think they imprisoned them for a while. It was the whole story behind it.

So it's just such blatant ignorance. And, you know, I never know if those are lies or if it's just, it doesn't know. I don't know. I don't care. I obviously hate the guy just because he's personally insulted me just for disagreeing on policy issues. And so I just have no respect for somebody like that. But I guess on the broader point, I mean, do you disagree that this view of Russia seems, if not a majority view right now in the zeitgeist of the Republican Party?

it has many more adherence than it had, you know, a decade ago. And is that a concern? I mean, what does that say about the state of the GOP and your efforts to reform it? I mean, you obviously want to get things done in Congress. You just laid out your border bill that you would like. You say you're not entirely optimistic that something like that will pass. You have views of foreign policy that do seem out of touch necessarily with maybe where the current Republican Party is.

Is it worth it sometimes, do you think? No. Well, of course, it's worth it. It's my Republican Party. It's not theirs. What we're talking about is a group of populists that have nothing to do with any kind of conservatism or Republican Party not tethered in principles. And so there's a lot less of them than I think you might think. You're in media.

So, and I'm in politics. So, but we both just see the loudest people all the time. But what you don't do and what I do do is talk to normal people because I have to do events and I have to go talk to, I just, that's what I have to do, right, on the campaign trail or just just part of my normal job is just talking to regular people who don't necessarily show up at like GOB conventions. And so no, I'm not out of touch in a huge way. And there's not a, there's a difference between being against Ukraine. And there is a weird, like, anti-Ukraine like bent that does, that does fit a larger majority. That doesn't mean it's pro-Russia.

To be honest, if you really want to explain it, it's oftentimes, it's in politics, you know, we're looking for deeper reasons and, like, deeper movements within the party, like these these well-thought-out ideologies that are captivating the public. No, look, Democrats wore the Ukraine flag on their lapelton and, like, wove it around a lot, and so Republicans hated it. Okay? I mean, I'm not so sure that it's a lot more complicated than that. I can't, you know, how many times can we count that during Trump's presidency, he was so skilled that making the Democrats believe something that didn't believe five minutes ago just because now he believed it. It was astonishing. And everybody's guilty of that to some extent, I think,

because he was very supportive of Ukraine when he was president. And to be his credit, he hasn't really wavered a whole lot on that. He says things like, well, we should have a loan and something like that. And he's always giving space. He's giving space. When you say he was supportive of it, a lot of that support, at least from reports, were people within the administration and sometimes you'd get angry when he would learn that the administration did something. Do you believe he is personally supportive of Ukraine and, you know, not supportive of Russia? I mean, I just, I don't know what he, I can't read his mind, but I can look at his actions and his actions, or do definitively more supportive than the above administration was, aid given to Ukraine as far as weapons versus blankets, kind of, you know, remember that all argument. The reporting that he's never denied that he said,

like, you ever even date Ukraine will bomb the shit out of Moscow. I mean, that's deterrence. You know, sometimes a little bit of crazy talk is deterrence. When we say peace through strength, you've got to do the strength part, and sometimes strength is just talking tough. And Trump had his own version of that, of course. but it seems to have worked. So you make somebody, somebody's a little unpredictable.

He had shown willingness to massively increase our true presence and war fighting capabilities against ISIS. You know, so he wasn't as dove. What's weird about the current, you know, America First movement is like they're just against all foreign policy. Like if they have their way, like there would be no troops abroad. Very strange idea of what national security is. but that was never Trump's doctrine at all.

So, you know, I liked his doctrine for the most part. Can I press you on that? I mean, rhetorically, it was in part his doctrine. Remove NATO troops, remove bases from around the world. That's certainly, I don't think, Dan Crenshaw's position. Right, but he didn't do it. I mean, again, like, we can try and read his mind and literally rhetoric, but actions simply speak louder.

So let me, let's close on this question. Congressman. It sounded like you answered my final question earlier that in a choice between Biden and Trump, you would support Trump. And just from this back and forth, I guess your view is you're not concerned, like some people that were in his administration, the John Bolton's, that he will do some of the things that he says he will do. For instance, Bolton's afraid that he will actually withdraw from NATO. That was his inclination. He wanted to do that. In some other the foreign policy positions that you're advocating against, kind of this neo-isolationism, you, why are you so confident that that is not how he will govern in a second four years

when he might have fewer of the people around him, preventing him from doing maybe what a lot of people think is his instinctual desire? I can't be super optimistic. I'm just more optimistic about him than Biden. There's a lot more to running the administration. also than just their foreign policy. And again, like, I'm just looking at his action that he didn't do it before. I'm not sure why he would, he would about face so much. He hasn't even, again, like, if you just look at Ukraine as a specific example, despite the massive swings and public, depending on the Republican Party that they've

indicated, he hasn't done that as, like, nearly as much. He hasn't followed that nearly as much. And even recently, effectively said, yeah, we should give them Ukraine aid, but it should be alone. You know, so, okay, a lone bit with no interest rates and no time limits. It's actually a great idea and something that we're looking at writing. So it's, I just, I'm not, I don't, look, the doomsdayers about Trump, I don't think they were right in the beginning.

You know, I was very upset about what happened on January 6th, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, doesn't that make them right? Doesn't that make, but doesn't, doesn't, trying to stay in power kind of make them right? I mean, even some of the doomsayers didn't predict that. And the fact that he tried to maintain power, doesn't that kind of justify their doomsaying? Kind of. I mean, didn't try.

I'm sure how hard he tried. He tried with a lot of words and mean things. And that, you know, in the end, we'd go into this forever, I guess. But in the end, it was a peaceful transfer of power. And that was it, you know. It was, I mean, like, I was there and I was pissed about it. I was, I was, you know, pissed about how that mob got whipped up. But in the end, you know, I don't call it an insurrection.

It's just by definition, that's not what it is. It was an angry mob that got really out of control. And, like, they were lied to. They were lied to in the sense that they were told that they could affect change. And when people think that they can affect change, well, they'll get really passionate about it. They'll go. And they thought that that day was. the day to affect change because they thought that that process you were engaging in in Congress

could actually change the presidential election. Of course, it can't. Constitutionally, it can't. It's a bogus procedure to begin with. I hate it. I think it should be abolished. It's deeply against the Constitution. Democrats did it. They've been doing it for years. There were multiple elections. And the Republicans like really did it. So it's just that there's, that whole situation, I think, deserves a lot more explanation than just on each other. try to stay in power. I mean, look, he had multiple court challenges. He uses, he used procedures to stay in power. That's a very different thing than, like, trying to raise an army to stay in power. It's a very, very different thing. And not at the end. I mean, I don't think January 6th with

procedures. I mean, he filed court cases that he lost. And then when those failed, I mean, he failed, but he attempted to, I mean, it wasn't procedural. I don't think of the end. I think you'll agree on that congressman well well no i don't because it's what's the what did he do he tweeted at mike pence like you know did it did it did it instigate like did it kind of make all these people crazy and make them do crazy shit yeah but in the end he tweeted at mike pence um now i think that's wrong and he stayed inside and didn't didn't call for help it didn't initiate help mike pence and do all sorts of things yeah no but you you know you've been criticized you can criticize the morality of it all day long, but you can't call it this, this sort of,

this sort of South American style coup, even. Um, it's just, you know, and I, and I, and I, and I think that conversation goes out the rails way too often. Um, you know, somebody's like, I try to be objective about criticisms on the right and the left. And, you know, I would just, I think that's why I've never used the word insurrection because it just, it doesn't, um, and I would say, you know, if he was trying to stay in, hour. I don't mean he tried harder than most, but in the end, he tried through procedures through his bully pulpit. There was ability to speak, but it ended there. Well, Congressman, I think I would just add that I think perhaps it didn't work because maybe there was enough

institutions and people around him that wouldn't follow through on what he hoped. But I didn't mean to get into a January 6th conversation. Yeah, but let's imagine though. Let's imagine Mike Pence does do what he wants. I mean, I was kind of laugh at that because, you know, I got asked, like, Stefanik said she would, she would have done something different. I'm like, you literally can't. There's, that was Mike Pence's all argument. Like, there is no procedure for you to follow. It doesn't exist. It's not constitutional. It would be, it would be laughed out of the room right away. Um, and so you are right about that one thing. I mean, our institutions are strong. Our constitution is very strong. That's why we're, we have the oldest one, even though we're

one of the youngest countries. So I think there's a bit more optimism. I'm just, I'm just, no matter who's in power, I'm never really a doomsayer. And because, you know, you just got to take a step back and still recognize like the still the greatest place in the world, despite a bunch of idiots trying to screw it up the last 250 years. And so, yeah, there's some remarkably stable aspects of the United States. With that, Congressman, thank you for joining the Dispatch podcast. Sure. I would be on. You know, Thank you.