The Dispatch Podcast - The Dispatch and The Bulwark Walk Into a Bar... | Interview: Tim Miller

Episode Date: April 22, 2024

Jamie is joined by Tim Miller, host of The Bulwark Podcast, for a debate on the impact of social justice principles in the American education system. Jamie invites The Bulwark Podcast host Tim Miller to debate the impact of social justice principles in the American education system. The Agenda: —Younger people's support of Palestine —Woke curriculums in elementary and middle schools —Debate on sexual education —Why Miller thinks Donald Trump's second term would be worse than the first —The difference between The Bulwark and The Dispatch Show Notes: —Steve Hayes on The Bulwark Podcast —Jamie Weinstein on The Bulwark Podcast —The Bulwark Podcast featuring Ross Douthat Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

During the Volvo Fall Experience event, discover exceptional offers and thoughtful design that leaves plenty of room for autumn adventures. And see for yourself how Volvo's legendary safety brings peace of mind to every crisp morning commute. This September, leased a 2026 XC90 plug-in hybrid from $599 bi-weekly at 3.99% during the Volvo Fall Experience event.

Conditions apply, visit your local Volvo retailer or go to explorevolvo.com. Welcome to the dispatch. I'm Jamie Weinstein. My guest today is Tim Miller. He is a former Republican operative. Most famously, he was comms director for Jeb Bush's 2016 presidential campaign. He has become a very prominent political commentator. He is host of the bulwark podcast and a common figure on pundit panels on television everywhere. We get into the dispatchian versus bulwarkian. divide what that means, what is the difference, what is the threat of Donald Trump running for president? Can he see a positive scenario with the Trump presidency? And a lot of other issues. I think you're going to find this podcast interesting. I think these conversations are very important. They host us sometimes on the bulwark. And I love hosting Tim Miller here at the dispatch. I hosted them previously on my former podcast from a couple years ago. So I encourage you to listen

Nevada if you enjoy this conversation as well. But without further ado, I give you Tim Miller. It is a thrill to be back, I guess. I was with Stephen Hayes last time, so a little bit of a downgrade, but I was glad to be invited back. I didn't. scare people off too much, I guess. Well, I was on your show at the bulwark recently, and many years ago, a few years ago, you were on my old podcast, the Jamie Weinstein show. I encourage listeners to go to listen to that one. I think that was a very long, but very interesting, very interesting conversation.

If this one goes as long as that, we're going to, you know, people are going to start to doze off, I think. But it was good. The back half was good. It's worth the whole two hours. If you finish this podcast, you're like, I need two more hours of Tim and Jamie. You can find that online. I like the framing of these. I think they're being framed based on you and Steve as the dispatch bulwark conversations of some sort. So here's another edition of it. And let's just begin by talking about what's in the news. Maybe not exactly what's going on today. Today is Friday when we're recording this. But last night, there was a lot of news. Israel attacked. Seems like some military installations in Iran. I thought at the time it might be an attack on their nuclear.

program, but it appears to be not an attack on the nuclear program, maybe bases next to where their nuclear program is. We, in our conversation at the bulwark, talked a little bit about the Israel-Gaza War and some of the reservations you're having about it, but I'm just interested in what your take is on kind of this expanded conflict now that seems to be drawing in more regional action. Yeah, I don't love it. I think that it is expanded. It is expanded. it obviously in that it is official state actions, right? You know, it's not expanded really, right, in the sense that Iran was backing, you know, Hamas and has been backing many of these other attacks on Israel.

And so at some level, this is a, I guess, escalation of the existing conflict, maybe a better way to frame it. And no, I don't think it's good. I think this relates to kind of my broader, if reservations is the right word, reservations about some of Israel's action in Gaza. I have a very dark view of, I think, the near-term events to be expected around Israel and the Middle East. And I was listening to, I want to get her name right, I was listening to the remnant the other day. I not Wilf, am I pronouncing that right, Dr. Wilf? I thought, yeah, she was, she expressed some very deep

reservations about kind of projecting the next couple decades, about just the sense of the onslaught that Israel is going to be under. And I kind of look at this and maybe have a slightly contrarian view because it's like when I see the situation that we're in as being so grave and the fact that it is just hard for me to see a clean end game for Israel, that leaves me to start to say maybe that there needs to be a little bit of a rethink of the strategy and figuring out how to you know, gain ally, make sure to maintain and gain allies, butchrist themselves from an inevitable period of attacks coming. And I think that's what worries me about the Gaza situation is

that when, you know, I hear from anyone that is, and this includes people with the bulwark, by the way, we have intra-bull-work disagreement on this, you know, who shares the view that that Israel should totally eradicate Hamas, it's the only solution. Like, my problem with that is like the next, then I feel like you get to a lot of yada, yada, yada after that. Okay, so we eradicate Hamas and then what, right? And then it's the Arab allies occupy Gaza. Israel occupies Gaza as a one state solution. To eradicate Hamas is going to create, you know, Gaza will be totally leveled. Anyone that is left remaining in Gaza that was not affiliated with Hamas is going to have family, friends, kids, parents that have been killed. They're going to coexist in a state

that is occupied by some outside force, they're going to elect some government that's going to be friendly to Israel. All of those options seem to be very unlikely to me. And then you throw the Iran into all of that. I don't think anybody wants a full state. I guess some people do. I think very few people want state-on-state war with Iran right now.

And so I think it's a very fraught situation, and there's some arguments for figuring out the best way for Israel to respond and respond forcefully, but also while making sure not to alienate allies, both in the region and abroad. Well, it's interesting. Let me give you my dark take and what I see an optimistic take, because they're very slightly different and get you to respond. My dark take, and I didn't know if you were going to go there and you didn't, is my fear of the younger generation in America, who seemed to be less pro-Israel. We had a guest on, Houston Head, the Christian United for Israel,

and he sees even that concern in the Imagelical community. I listen to that episode, yeah. Yeah. So that is my like long-term concern is for some reason the younger generation at this point seems less pro-Israel in America. I guess I would just say, but just to interrupt their brief, I think that Israel should be a little bit more concerned about the younger generation among its neighbors than among the kids at Columbia. But we can expand on that. But I think that should be the main concern for Israel. Well, that's where I was going to have you kind of comment because my optimistic take would have been, I actually. think, if Israel believes it can, this would have been an opportunity to take out its nuclear program, because if Iran's firing missiles at them, I mean, it's exponentially worse if they

have a nuclear weapon and what they can do. And if Israel can get in that territory and bomb them, actually, it was surprising, it seemed to how easily they were navigating there from what we know and we'll learn more. I mean, I see a future if they take out a nuclear program, the Arab Ali allies there or those who are trying to be allies in the last several years will be extremely happy. Even Jordan helped shoot down the missiles that were coming against Israel. And if they were able to defeat Hamas, again, I think there's a lot of leaders in the Arab world. I don't know about the street, but the leaders in the Arab world who would be very happy about that. And yes, as you said, you know, what's going to happen on the ground there will people in that region

in Gaza ever be able to coexist with Israel. I don't know the answer to that specific area, but there have been places all around the world where great conflict existed. The worst type of conflict you can imagine, Germany and Japan, and come to mind. And it seems like we have pretty good relations with Germany and Japan today and not too long after. So I don't know that kind of concept that after a war, you can never have peaceful relations with the enemy or I think this is a little different situation in Germany. I'm glad that you started. We're just digging right in with Gaza.

You just want to alienate as many of the dispatch listeners from my POV as possible, which I appreciate. But no, I don't think that this is really analogous to the Germany situation. Just kind of going through those issues one of time. The one area I think we agree, the Iran situation, I've had no at all concerns about the way Israel's handled it today. Obviously, it's a very scary situation. There's a lot of concerns about escalation there. I don't think anybody wants this to evolve into a regional war right now. I think that Israel's response was totally appropriate.

And I do think it kind of showed Iran's weakness. I reject the notion. I think I say you tweet about this. I think we agree on this, that this was that they wanted to fail in their attack. I don't think there's any real evidence of that. I spoke to David Sanger on the podcast reason. I've spoken to some other experts about that who are more better suited than me. And then it seemed like, no, they really were trying to create damage.

They failed. Israel's counterattack more successful. So, you know, the Iran situation is going to be dicey for a while. But I'm supportive of the way Israel's handled that so far. The Gaza thing, like, again, the kids in America, I have many concerns. We can talk about campus life. There's plenty of stuff to be unhappy about. If you look at the numbers, you know, there's that Harvard plot this week.

you can kind of look at it two ways, right? Like, there's one way that's like, boy, it's pretty concerning that one in three or one in four young people are almost Hamas sympathetic, frankly, are so hostile to Israel, right? That's bad, right? Then the other hand, three, you know, it's like about half of young people said that they weren't really sure, and then about an equal amount were defensive of Israel, right?

And so, again, not good. You know, you'd want that number to be like 90-10, but it may be not quite as dire, is some commentators want to paint it as. And I think that some of that is childish things and a childish look at what is happening in the world and that maybe changes over time a little bit. I think that a lot of work needs to go into that.

And I think that there are a lot of associated problems related to the young people in America. But I don't think that is really their issue. I guess my point is I'm not trying to do the every terrorist you kill, you create another terrorist thing. I don't believe that. We saw what happened with ISIS in the Middle East,

that there are ways to eradicate terrorist groups. You said that Israel's situation is so unique. The hatred, the deep-seated, the anti-Semitism, like the deep-seated religious conflict, the nature of how, of God, the long-term fights over the settlements, the nature of how Gaza had been governed. There's just so many unique elements to this,

and the disdain and the propaganda, frankly, against Israel is so great that you get into the situation where I think that they you know, I think you're right, there's some Arab countries whose leadership and we saw this with the Iran attack would be happy to, and we saw this with the normalization

of relations under Trump, would be happy to deal with Israel. But they're going to have to worry about their own people and there's going to be a bottom up issue and I think that the sentiment about Israel and the way that Israel has conducted this counter attack

which was, you know, deserved and correct that they had to engage, that had to, you know, attack the, you know, Hamas after the worst attack in the history of Israel, so they're the worst attack on Jews since the Holocaust. But the way, the sentiment in the region about the way they've conducted it, you know, Israel can't conduct foreign policy based on what random people in Lebanon think. I get that. But I just, I've, I've deep reservations. I think Israel needs allies. Israel needs allies in the West. They need allies in the region. and should be, I think, a little bit mindful of, A, the human rights toll that's being

in a devastated Gaza, but also in what, like, that means for short and medium-term ramifications for their relationship with allies. Well, I encourage listeners to listen to our back and forth on the Bulwark podcast, because I didn't want to really bring it up to delve into that. One of the reasons I did want to bring it up, though, is I know you've been critical of Biden on this one issue about Afghanistan withdrawal and some foreign policy elements while arguing that he is probably the best president of the 20th century. And I will use one of your questions later on you.

Low bar, I will say. But yes, I stand by that statement. What do you make of, I mean, to me, you know, they would ask him, what do you say to Iran who's threatening to attack Israel? And he's done this many times he whispers, don't, don't do it, don't, don't. And then they do it. And he's like, well, don't, you know, we're not going to do anything about it, really. and Israel don't do anything about it.

It seems to me that's like a consequential thing. If you keep telling people don't do something and they do it and then you do nothing and encourage other people to do nothing, that could have big ramifications. But I'm just interested in what your thoughts on that. Yeah, sure. Again, one of my big critiques of like some on the right that we disagree with on this is like there's this view of the president is that this president is omniscient and controls all the actions of everyone of everyone all over the globe and the conflict.

You know, I had a running gag that was like, I think that foreign policy experts in both parties should just have their own Twitter where they discuss how the other side has been wrong over the past 50 years because everybody's been wrong. Like, you know, you can't, you can't look at Ben Rhodes's record and say, you nailed it. You can't look at Condi's record and say, oh, you nailed it. You can't look at, you know, since the fall of the, you know, since the fall of the Berlin Wall, basically. So, sure, I can critique the Afghanistan poet was a disaster. the don't thing but what do you want Biden to do I don't think I think that Biden has

depthfully navigated this is my opinion a situation in Israel that is extremely complex for him extremely complex he has a voters that he's going to need that are you know

very sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinian people he has a counterparty in Israel that has like done a terrible job leading the country that does not share his politics that they have a bad personal relationship with that he's got to deal with. He's got counterparties in Europe who are much less sympathetic to Israel than the United States is, much less than Biden, much less stalwart in wanting to

support Israel that have their own issue right now with Russia that they're dealing with, that are not interested in expanded conflict with Iran. Those are key allies that we're dealing with in another theater. And, you know, so he's taking it from all sides. He gets no credit. Like, he gets no credit from the right. Like, there's nobody on Fox that's ever like, man, pretty good that Joe Biden has been sticking with Israel, like, despite the fact that he has massive protests, his convention

is going to be protested. Everywhere he goes, he gets protested by the left. And yet, he has stuck with Israel. You know, he's had private conversations where he's, I think, smartly. at times, chided Beebe and said, hey, you know, we should, like, let's make sure we're, we're getting, letting aid get in. It is a very dicey situation where he's got snakes on all side of him, and, you know, he's got entrenched interests in the Middle East that are, that are ancient, like, that are in the midst of an ancient conflict. It's like, oh,

well, Joe Biden hasn't perfectly navigated this terrorist attack that Hamas committed on Israel. I don't know. I think that he's handled it pretty well. Well, I just want to anticipate some listeners saying, I think some would see that there might be a little bit of a turn that he's made in recent weeks, especially chiding Israel for not coming to a ceasefire when it's Hamas who's rejecting a ceasefire. I totally disagree with that. So sure, rhetorically, he's chided Israel. I think rightly, by the way, in certain ways that it's not good for Israel for there to be a massive humanitarian crisis where people are starving in Gaza. I don't think that's good for Israel. So I think that's right that he's done that. But the other thing is, I don't, I just, I don't know what these people are talking about. We're about to pass, we're taking this Friday morning, we're about to pass over the weekend because of a deal that the Democrats cut with, with Mike Johnson. We're about to pass additional military support for Israel.

Now, it's not just the far left people. It's like the Pod Save Bros don't want to give military assistance to Israel, okay? Like, it's mainline Democrats that don't want to give military assistance to Israel. But many, a vast majority of elected Democrats are doing it. Joe Biden is doing it. There is outrage throughout the world about Israel's actions. Some of it related to anti-Semitism and overstated, of course. But these are all people that he's got to deal with.

And they're about to sign a new aid package for Israel to give more support to our ally. There's no breaks put on BB. Sure, on the ground invasion part. But everything that BB has done has not met with any consequences from this administration. what Reagan did in Lebanon in 82 was far less supportive than what Joe Biden has done this time and yet all of the Reagan-era neocons

can't even say one nice thing about Joe Biden so I don't know, I think it's been fine maybe it's not been the perfect policy that everybody would have wanted but I think that's pretty good you can imagine a Democratic president that would have been way, way, way worse in support of Israel than Joe Biden.

I suspect his vice president would have been worse if she was president. I don't know about that. actually. We can talk about Kamala. I don't know about that. But I actually, and I do think there has been a turn, but I think what I really wanted to drill is not the don't thing relation to Israel, really. But the consequences that that could have more global. I mean, if... Well, what do you want them to do? You want us to bomb Iran? To be honest. Do you want to not say anything to Iran? What do you want to do? Jamie,

your president and Iran says, and Iran signals that we're about to attack Israel. What do you want you to Biden to do? Say nothing? You want it to threaten to bomb them? Should we bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, around? Is that where you're at? I actually think that if there's an opportunity to take out the nuclear weapons showing what they just did, I think that would, that would have, that would lead to a piece down the road. We have a disagreement on that. I don't think that Joe Biden should bomb Iran. But short of that, but what does he mean by don't then? Like, what does don't mean? If you're, if China is going to do something in the South China Sea and Joe Biden says, don't, don't, don't, what do people take from that from now on? I hear you. I mean, I think that

Biden has demonstrated, again, I'm just going back to this bill. We had, who was it? Garrett Graves, was the House member from Louisiana, Republican, who was like, what are we getting out of this? It's Joe Biden that wants aid for, it's the Democrats that want military aid. We're providing military aid to Israel amidst their conflict with Iran. He's providing it to Ukraine amidst people in his counterparty in America. Like on the Ukraine issue, it's the other party that doesn't want to fund it on Israel. It's people within his own party that doesn't want to fund it. It's people within his own party that doesn't want to fund. it. We're sending support to Taiwan. But, you know, he's not going to just go around like a cowboy getting into wars. I think that's where most of the American people are. I hear what you're saying. It puts you in a bad rhetorical position to be saying don't do something and then have there not be a real response. But again, Israel responded with our support, with our weapons. It was our support that blocked the Iranian missiles and drones that targeted Israel. So I don't know. I think that it's a very challenging situation that he's in and that he's handling it pretty deftly in a region where everybody's failed for a half century and where there's no real

good, nobody's presented a good answer. And I think where the worst answer was presented was probably by the person that both of us considered to be our favorite president of the 20th century on a personal level. And he offered the worst solution that has had a lot of terrible downstream consequences that I think we should probably avoid. Well, I think you're referring to George W. Bush. And that is one of your favorite questions to ask people like me when rank the four. But as I mentioned, I have a one to add to that a little bit later. Okay. All right. 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 five-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 ethos.com slash dispatch. Application times may vary. Rates may vary. TD Bank knows that running a small business is a journey,

from startup to growing and managing your business. That's why they have a dedicated small business advice hub on their website to provide tips and insights on business banking to entrepreneurs. No matter the business. stage of business you're in. Visit td.com slash small business advice to find out more or to match with a TD small business banking account manager. Well, you anticipated a question that I was going to bring up earlier. And that is, and actually, I thought you might push back in the way I framing it, but you kind of gave me the framing is how do we get a generation of kids on college campuses

that are either like openly pro homas or effectively pro homas doing pro homas rallies. How does it, how does America get a generation of kids that, you know, 25% is the number that you cited. How does that happen? Oh boy. We're going deep here. You know, I want to answer your question, but if you don't mind, can I, you indulge me? And just, I would like to say one thing before I answer it, which is one of the big frustrating

things I have talking to fellow conservatives who are less comfortable with Joe Biden than me is that it's like the Joe Biden and the Democratic body, the main body, the Democrats are to blame for this. And I really, so I'm going to start with who's not to blame. I really just don't see it. I don't understand what the government is supposed to do about the fact that there are young people on campus that really hate the Democratic Party and Joe Biden. But that's a situation. We're in these, the kids that are very Hamas sympathetic, are not big fans of the current administration, of course, or the main body of the Democratic Party, the governing body.

How did it happen? I think that we, I think that there's a very simplistic view of the world that a lot of the Generation Z has adopted with regards to race and social justice issues. And I think that some of that is due to some of the more extreme elements of identity politics that are pushed from the left that I don't really like. There's some of the woke stuff I like quite a bit, actually, but some of the more extreme parts of the left's identity identity identity agenda, I think has seeped down in a way that's very corrosive. And I also think, again, going back to the Iraq War, that they have grown up at a time where U.S. and really, Western, up until Ukraine, up until Ukraine, Western power has not been used for good.

And so, sure, they have, they are, it is obligated on all of us to learn about what happened in the past. Can you clarify that? Western power hasn't, what do you think where Western power hasn't been used for good? Yeah, I mean, so if you're in college right now, it's 2024, you were born during 9-11, like you're after, right? So what have you, what has happened as you've grown up. You've watched just an absolute cluster fuck in Iraq, in Afghanistan, where America sent people to die for like really no positive end, where the Middle East was completely destabilized, where we showed no ability to influence it, influence the events in the region positively. But, wait, but Tim, isn't that a negative, I mean, I agree with you what you're saying

or at least I can see the argument you know you think George W was the worst president because what happened I don't think you's the worst I think Donald Trump was the worst okay second was I think that single worst decision probably made was probably Iraq because the Iraq war but that wasn't in my mind

even if you take that position Western power used for ill I mean the goal there was to you know A eliminate a threat to America but B eliminate a threat to the Iraqi people So, I mean, I don't, this was not like to grab territory or oil. Sure, I guess, I look, we can guess whether it was well-intentioned or not. I think George Vogueos was well-intentioned. I'm just talking, I'm saying if you're 20 right now, I don't think it is unreasonable for you to look at your formative experience and say, boy, I'm not so sure that I'm confident that the people that were in charge of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.

and the failed wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the failed efforts in Libya and I guess the quasi successful efforts eventually in Syria, but it led to massive refugee crisis that you've been told some unfairly but somewhat fairly about the way that Israel has expanded its settlements into this region. I think that if you are painting a picture for young people about Muslim Americans or not Muslim Americans Muslims and Arabs in the world who have

you know suffered obviously from their own leadership of course but not benefited at all from Western involvement now here's where you get to the problem Israel isn't really the West right like so now we get into a whole difference now we get back into the

the way that there's been some propaganda that has been pushed on them from the left so I what I'm saying is I think that there is a confluence of two things that are happening. I think that they have been taught some social justice principles that are extreme and wrong and maybe a little anti-Semitic, while also watching, you know, a pretty unsuccessful and devastating foreign policy choices being made by their leaders. Not great. That's my theory of the case. What's your theory? Well, I just want to press you a little bit on that

again. I mean, every generation has witnessed some failure of the United States in some way. They had Vietnam or Not really. Vietnam. Korea didn't live through Vietnam. We're living through the Cold War and saw, and his parents lived through World War II and saw successes. Yeah, they saw Korean fight to a

draw. But I also think you're like painting America as this villain to Arab and Muslim Americans, or not Americans, but Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East, when in reality, when in reality, you know, Joe Biden left and it was a failure to establish a new government there, but in Afghanistan, and that's not Joe Biden's fault, but, you know, everyone was trying to

create a good governance there, but they took out a terrible government, and unfortunately that government came back. America was the one hope there to try to transform a pretty negative region. Yeah, we can, I, you're asking, again, I'm not, you're asking me to explain to why I think young people are so hostile to what is happening of Israel and are, again, only a quarter of them, quasi-simpathetic to Hamas, or at least maybe if you really drilled down with them on that, they would say that they would try to wiggle out of that, but, you know, pretty

Hamas-friendly. And that's bad. And what I'm telling you is I think that our utter failures are part of that worldview. And I agree with you, in Afghanistan, it had been better for the U.S. if the U.S. has chosen government, which had its own problems and its own corruption said, by the way, you know, was in charge there than the Taliban.

But again, if you look at what's happened in the Middle East, since 9-11 and since Iraq, everybody can, everybody can point fingers at everybody. But just the reality is we've had a massive refugee crisis, you know, like massive displacement. Many people dead

that did not need to die. And, you know, a big part of that is also related to radical Islamic terrorists and extremism and some of the horrible leaders like Bashar Assad they have. I'm not over here saying George Bush is a great Satan. Like, I think George Bush was well intended. I said that several times. But what I'm saying is that if you're 18 and you see a world where the only thing that you've seen is that the American foreign policy establishment has just bungled, like dropped the bag time and again

and left a lot of suffering. that's wake, then I think you're susceptible to these kinds of arguments. And I think that they're, that again, they're being propagandized to. And I think that being susceptible to the arguments doesn't make it right. They all have agency themselves. But you asked, your question was, how did it happen? That's how I think it happened. Well, let me take it one step lower from college to what's going on in the schools. And correct me if you're wrong. I think that you think a lot of the stuff about conservatives arguing about education at the kindergarten and, you know, middle school is a lot of culture war.

Insane. And I, you know, I think I said on your podcast, my politics often these days are like pro-democracy, which is why I'm anti-Trump, but also like, don't teach my kids crazy things. You did. Some of the commenters didn't like that. Yeah. And I do wonder, I mean, you have, I have three children in D.C. right now, one of which we took out of the school because we thought it was insane already. And all the schools that are elite

schools in D.C. seem like absolute bonkers to me. Do you worry? I mean, you mentioned like that Oh, so this is your answer to the question at the schools that were propagandizing the kids against Judaism and the schools and against Israel. Well, not even like specifically against Judaism or Israel. I mean, it's not really a Israel specific question. How do you get a moral inverse situation where you get kids that go through a system, get to college campuses, and are effectively pro-Hamas. I mean, the famous, you know, women at New York University Law School, who was the president of New York, the Student Association, who wrote that email, hi, y'all, like, we're standing up for Hamas, like the day after October 7. How does that happen?

How do we get there? And I do, I wonder, do you see this in when you're looking at schools? I mean, yeah, look, I have a lot of thoughts about schools as anybody who has a kindergarten or does. But so there's certainly some insanity. I'll start by saying school has always been pretty liberal. I don't know. You know what I mean? I do think that maybe a healthy thing that I never sees from the right that I'd like to see more of is how can we have sane people decide that they want to go into pedagogy who decide to go out to schools? A lot of people in the right like really mock schooling and don't value it.

And there's some examples of this, I guess, Hillsdale, et cetera, but a lot of them have been pretty debased. So I worry about the types of people that do want to get involved in schools are like, you know, want us to just, you know, have very crazy views on what the, what should be in schools. I think I said when we discussed last on, it was on the Jamie Weinstein podcast, I was like, the person who has the craziest view in the Department of Education in both the Biden and Trump administration, I will find very repulsive. And I stand by that. I don't know that I have great options. The actual schools themselves. Yeah. I mean, I think that there is some elements of it that are overboard.

I think that there's some self-correcting. I think people like you are, you know, changing and moving kids out of school. I remember when I was, we moved to New Orleans. When I was in Oakland, we were touring schools. And there was one, and I was looking for a kindergarten. And, you know, the person was like, hey, yeah, we have a week where we learn about the Black Panthers. And it's like the actual Black Panthers, not the movie Black Panther.

And then they mentioned it again. Like, you know, in upstairs and like, and then in third grade, we have a whole black panthers. The black panthers came from Oakland, so there's something to be said for that. I don't know. Do kindergartners need to be doing Black Panther? I don't know. Probably back Panthers, probably not. But I don't, I guess I think that, you know, we need to make sure there's certain rules and limits on public schools for people that don't have choices. People that could go to elite schools have choices, like have the money and resources to go to other places. That's why their kids would be going to elite schools in the first place. So I don't have a lot of sympathy to them.

And the solutions that have been proposed, like if there was somebody out there, and I'm sure there's some dispatch people, there's somebody out there, they're saying, Tim, I've got a great solution. We're going to go, you know, back to, you know, Socratic methods. And it's going to be a classical liberal education. But we're also going to make sure we do better about getting black and brown voices. We have some recent, you know, we make sure that we're not going to go back to the old days where it's all old white men. We're going to have some diverse voices in the schools. And, and it's going to be very rigorous. I'll, like, great, great, this sounds great. You know, Jeb was very earnest and good on all the stuff. He's been run out of the party. Instead, the solution that you get from Ron DeSantis and these people is that teachers can't talk about sexuality all the way up to high school, apparently. I didn't even like it in kindergarten. This is a quick aside for people who don't know or haven't figured out by now. I'm gay.

I have a daughter. Creating a rule where a teacher, where a parent could sue a teacher. if they bring up my family in class. It wasn't really, like it was written so poorly. It's like conservatives are litigious now apparently. They're like, we don't actually create laws. We just create a law where a parent can sue the school if they do something illegal to try to silence people.

But I'll just tell you, when me and my husband walk into a kindergarten with our daughter, who's a different race and we're two guys, the other kids who are very precocious six-year-olds have questions. We leave the room and they say to the teacher, what's happened to this? Does Toulouse have a mom? Like, why is it? What's going on there? Are the teacher not supposed to talk about that?

Is the kid not supposed to be able to put, do a family tree? You know, like all of this stuff, like, you know, whenever talking about parents' rights and keeping sex stuff out of schools, it's like, okay, well, what about gay parents? Do we have rights? Can I do, are we, do we consider that at all? So I find a lot of homophobia in that discussion. And also, by the way, the kitty litter thing isn't happening. There's no kitty letter, but no kids.

Kids are not identifying as cats. There's no dog pails in schools. There are no kitty litter boxes. If you believe that, that is a myth. And if you think I'm wrong, I want you to identify the kitty litter box at the school and then call me. And I will fly to wherever you are in the country to come see it. But did I hear in that response, though, that you two think that, like, you shouldn't

have sexual teachings up to, I think you said, kidder garden. And I'm not an expert in the Ron DeSantis Bill, but I thought it was up. the third grade. It was initially created to three and then they expanded it to high school when you're in for president. So, no, I'm not. I don't look. On the library stuff, I think that DeSantis nearly is a point when it's like, what's the

book? There's some book that they always bring up gender queer or whatever and there's like a blowjob that happens in the book. I don't think an elementary school library needs to have a book that has fallatio in it. I concur with that. I think that school boards can probably

deal with that. Does, Do we need to create a statewide bill that puts limits on what teachers can say to their own students? I don't really think that that's necessary. And I think that a lot of this was basically just very thinly-guised homophobia and that there's really not a lot to be worried about. I think I hear something here, and I think we might agree on this, is that I think that if you went specific issue through issue, you'd probably get 90% agreement in this country. what you should be teaching kids. I mean, maybe you wouldn't agree. I think, like, if you said, like, okay, this book in particular and showed a book

and it was, like, graphic, I think most people would say, like, yeah. I guess my issue, I mean, they did this on, I think, Joy Reid Show on MSNBC. They paint this as, like, banning books, and they brought in, like, the head of whoever's pushing this in Florida. She's like, well, do you know what's in this book? And she started, like, reading the book and it's graphic. it does seem like there is in, you know, on the left

some like real desire to create this book banning image when I'm not sure it's actually happening. There's that books like writ large are being banned but specifically graphic books.

This was the flaw of the DeSantis bill at which, and it's like anytime you bring it up you're dismissed as oh, you're a lib or you're progressive or you're never Trump. You have Desantis derangement syndrome. It's like the DeSantis literally designed a bill that was the enforcement mechanism was parents could sue the school district if the school district was violating the, I don't know the exact language in front of me, but violating the law that said that it couldn't have

sexual contact, you know, there couldn't be instruction. They kept changing the words for a while it was that they couldn't talk about and then they changed it to instruction. There couldn't be instruction on sexual. But like, DeSanta's made this problem for himself because then what happened? Yeah, Jamie, there are 330 million people in this country. There are a lot of crazy people. There's some crazy libs. There's some real crazy mega people. And so there's some moms or dads that went to school and said, hey, I don't think that we should have.

And tango makes three in schools because it's a story about two gay penguins that Roy and Silo, Silas, Silas, I haven't read it in a while, that have a child tango. And I think that's inappropriate for kindergartners. And so we should take that out of the schools. That was happening. The Maya Angelou example in Virginia was real. That wasn't made up. They're like, we're going to take the Maya Angelou book out of schools because it had sexual themes.

So, you know, I think the Republicans brought this on themselves. And they do this so often. Like, had Ron DeSantis did a bill that was like, there should be no sexual education under fourth grade okay great no sex ed for people under fourth grade concur that there shouldn't be books that have sexual themes like sex

not not human not people's the fact that they're gay or whatever but that intercourse there should not be discussion or pictures of that sure that would joy read or some leftists still have called them book banners yeah but I think there would have been massive

at least I can only speak for myself I guess I would not have had any issues with that. That's not what he did? Let me ask you this. What do you consider your ideological orientation these days? I know. I need to kind of correct myself because I said fellow concertists. It's still old.

I still have old habits. Old habits die hard, you know? And I think that honestly, if you ask me that question, I'm pretty much a neoliberal. I mean, I think if you're really breaking it down, like I'm probably neoliberal. I still believe in free markets and free people. You know, somebody said that the bulwark is the capitalist, wing of Antifa. I don't know if I agree with all of Antifa's

methods, but sure, like, I'm still a capitalist. I still wish government would be smaller. I still have some, I still have some anti-abortion. I don't sentiments in certain ways, not in all the ways that it's been manifested.

There are a lot of elements of neoliberalism. There are things that Republicans used to believe. I still believe in free trade and free movement of people. And stuff that the Republicans have have given up on. So that's what I basically consider myself.

Though a lot of this stuff I've kind of reoriented in what my priorities are. Can you imagine once Trump is off the scene voting for Republicans again? Or even working for Republicans? Well, sure. I voted for a Republican in Louisiana

in the first round of the governor's race recently because it's a jungle primary and there was kind of a normie Republican and a dem and a MAGA freak and the MAGA is the governor now, not surprisingly. So, you know, life is long. I'm a young man.

We're young men, Jamie. I don't even see any grays on you. I've got a couple of grays. Yeah, you got a couple. So life is long. Who the hell knows what will happen and what the future holds? The Trump thing,

which I hope we are going to get into, you know, now that you've just, turned everyone, you know, that's potentially getable for my point of view on Trump off for me by picking up by, you know, making me sound like a woke pro-Gazel person. I hope we get to the Trump thing. But I am like, I am self-described as radicalized about Donald Trump. I feel like that the Donald Trump is, is so plainly unacceptable in such an extreme degree that was beyond any imagination that I ever had. He's so, he is so beyond the worst possible example of somebody that could ever be the president of these United States, that like, it's going to be very hard for me

to ever be for somebody that was foreign. So I think in the short term, like, if Trump dies for it's like, I, I, you know, okay, so Liz, I can be for Liz, but is Liz going to run as a Republican? Right. Like, so if somebody came to me and said, Tim, I was for Trump, but I screwed up. Okay. Sure. But so we got to the situation where we're with Bush. I mean, there's some Bush people now. There's some Magas that do that. Like, I was for Bush, but I apologize. Bush is terrible now. Okay, if somebody threw themselves on the mercy of the court and said, I f*** up, Tim, you were right. I was for Trump and I'm for small government and I don't want to, you know, put babies, you know, do child separation or, you know, do anything that attacks,

you know, gay families, then yeah, sure, I'd be for a Republican again. I don't really see that happening, though. I was actually going to ask this later, but it's kind of an interesting phenomenon and I wanted to ask you about it. I mean, you mentioned that it's hard for you to imagine ever voting for someone who was for Trump. But it does seem like some of the biggest stars of the anti-Trump movement these days are not like you and me, people who never voted for Donald Trump, but are like you mentioned, Liz Cheney and Adam Kissinger and Bullwark Phenom, George Conway. I was like, who is the Bullwark Pete? I was like, I thought, do we have any? I forgot about George. It is interesting that some of the most famous anti-Trumpers that like are on the scene and the

most dogmatic, perhaps, or the most forceful, are people who voted for him in 2016. And in some cases, I think in the case of Liz Cheney and Adam Gisinger, voted him, voted for him in 2016 and 2020. The all of a convert. Yeah, I hear you. It's tough for me. And I have to judge it on a case-by-case basis because, just to me, like you, it just was so obvious.

I never even contemplated voting for Donald Trump or supporting him. it never crossed my mind. It never, like, there was, you know, he was so plainly unfit from the second that I saw him,

even before 2015, really. I felt that way back in 2012 when he was dabbling. So, that's tough. And it's just, it shows just a horrible lack of judgment, is my opinion.

If you supported Donald Trump, it just shows an unbelievable lack of judgment, and that makes me question your judgment on things going forward. That said, I think it's part of the answer your question is, why are these people stars? because it's like seeing an oasis in the desert. It's like you feel like you are insane.

It's like you're parched, you're looking around, and you're like, this guy is so unacceptable. And his actions were so unimaginably irresponsible. We could not ever consider supporting him again. And yet you look around and all the people you worked with and that you're friends with and that you admire are all kind of like, well, you know, I don't know. It's kind of like playing Russian roulette, but we could give it a try.

And you're like, what? And then three people step forward, and they're like, no, you are not crazy. I will give you this glass of water. Donald Trump is unacceptable, and we must fight him. And you say, thank you. I will take, I will gulp from your glass. And I think that's basically what's happening with Liz Janie. 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, you're 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. Let me give you slightly different, different examples. I mean, these are politicians and they're running, but it does seem like and I think you're an expert in understanding anti-Trump media. You know, the most popular people, you know, Michael Cohn, who couldn't get lower than Michael Cohn, he becomes a podcast host and

is like an anti-Trump superstar. Is it Mary? I don't know about a superstar. I don't know my superstar. His numbers aren't doing as good as the Bullard podcast. That's true. You know, but you have like Mary Trump who, I mean, she wasn't necessarily pro-Trump. But it comes out of nowhere and all of a sudden there's a political commentator because her name is Trump and she writes a negative book against Trump. I guess my question, do you think that Mike Pence is now against Trump?

If he just decided to go full on, just focus on why he's against Trump, do you think he would have a very popular MSNBC show? I don't know how he'd do on MSNBC. You know, I mean, he's, his social conservatism probably would create problems. But, yeah, I look, people are looking for anyone to validate their anger and their rage.

And I get it. It's fine. I don't, this is my, I don't share your, I can, I sense the condescension about this in your tone. And it's fine. I just don't share it. Michael Cohen, like some of these people, I personally don't like that much, but I, look, for me, and I think this is, you know, one of our remaining topics, but I, I think the threat of Trump is so great that I just, I have a personal policy that occasionally I cheat on, because we're all weak and flawed, that I try not to attack anti-Trump. people. Because it's just like, look, we got to take who we can get. And I don't know. And there, and so we can go back to disagreeing after, but I don't, I don't listen to those

podcasts you mentioned. I think that, I think that if you're looking for somebody with Trump Arrangement Syndrome who hosts a podcast, I would, I would recommend you listen to mine instead, but, you know, whatever. How do you view the difference between, let's call it, Baworkian conservatism versus dispatching conservatism, both relatively anti-Trump, I think. But how, how do you define the difference. Yeah. I spent a lot of time thinking about this. I think that it's a lot based on negative attributes. We're in a time of negative partisanship, and I think our main disagreements are related to negative partisanship. I think that within the dispatch and the Bullock, there are plenty of agreements on disagreements on actual policy matters, right?

You know, I always said that like me, Amanda Carpenter has left the Bullock, but me and Amanda used to be on opposite sides of every primary. I was in EverTrump Squiss. She was a Ted Cruz, Jim DeMint Trucon. So I'm sure if you go down a list of topics right now, we would still find disagreements, right? But we're both on the bulwarking side because of the negative partisanship side of things. And I just find that as the people about what you see as the great threats facing the country and what you see is the great thing that needs to be opposed. And so I wanted to say before I say this, like sometimes, because we're both snarky, Jamie, sometimes when I criticize the other, the non-bullying view that I'm about to share, people sometimes blanche and they think that I'm being mean or rude or whatever. And I really, I really am not. And so I just want to say, I do not question the motives or intentions of anybody that falls on the dispatchian side of this line. I truly don't. There's some people a little further down the path than the dispatch guys that I question their intentions a little bit. But I do not question the dispatch folks' intentions or motives.

I just think that we have a disagreement. I think the conclusions are very different. And sometimes I can be a little, because my conclusion is so different, sometimes I can be a little snarky when talking about it. So with that big wind up, I see the world as the great threat facing this country is Donald Trump, who is a racist and an ignoramus, and he's unstable. And if he had his druthers, I'm not saying that he's capable of this, but if he had his brothers would turn the country into a Donald Trump autocracy. And he wouldn't really care who he

hurt while doing it. And he only cares about himself. And the threat to the country, the tail risk of Donald Trump being president ever again is incalculably great. Maybe it wouldn't come to pass the incalculably great tail risk, but the risk is too great to even consider taking. And that near threat is the biggest threat that faces us. I think that some of the things we've been discussing you in this podcast. Some of the left-wing threats, some of the left-wing statism, big government stuff, some of the stuff that isn't really in the main body of the Democratic Party, but exists further left, with regards to the campus stuff we've been talking about,

some of the progressive activist groups, some of the things they support, some of the backbench congresspeople, Ilhan Omar. I think that a lot I have disagreements with them. on a range of things. But I just, I don't see them as that great of a threat. And I think that the increasing wokeism, increasing social justice, campus left stuff, I just think it pales in comparison to Trump when it comes to what the threat is, to the point where it becomes hard to even care.

Like, I know I should care. And, but it takes hard to, it's hard to take seriously people for whom they look at those two threats and say, I don't know, even Stephen, it's hard for me. And so I think that's like really the main difference. I think a lot of people in dispatch world, you know, who maybe are more deeply rooted in conservative ideology than me as well, that's maybe another difference. You know, look at the threats from left-wing stateism and big government and the debt coming down are the path and the campus stuff and education and they grade it. And they're like, I don't know, I don't know. The Trump one is maybe a little bit worse, but it's pretty close. Both are really bad.

And I just, like, I think that's the main difference. I think it's pretty, I think it's pretty good. And I mean, I would agree almost at the end where I am, where I think the threat to democracy is sufficient not to probably vote for Biden to vote for Biden, but I think they're both pretty high. I guess my question there is almost a difference than in tonal. I mean, that's why you seem less concerned about like Mary Cheney or Michael Cohen, because they're all on the same side in terms of directionally against Trump. as opposed to like not, you know, you're not inclined to criticize those who might be on the same side fighting Trump if they have policy disagreements. But that brings me to this question, which is you had, you know, I always get his, I love Ross, but I always get his name last name

wrong, Ross. Dalfat. Yeah. He said on your show, you had him on the bulwark. He described, and it was a great conversation, I encouraged people to listen to it, the bulwark as, I might get this slightly wrong, but I think it was journalistic enterprise, sort of built around rallying a movement. Now, I guess my question is, do you agree with that? And two, if that is the case, once Donald Trump is away from the scene, can a publication like the bulwark survive when Trump is not the center of things? I know you're in charge of this podcast.

Are we going to get back to the sufficient to vote for Biden or not? Are we going to get back to that? Or can I feel that one first before I take the bulwark question on? Because you talked about how you think that big threats are such, that it makes it that sets of democracy or stuff such that it's sufficient to vote for Biden. Well, let's go after that. Yeah, yeah. I just don't want to miss it because you said a word that was very,

that triggered me. That's a sufficient word, which I think is very important. Okay. Do I think that we're a journalistic enterprise with a move that's doing a move? Built around a move. I would say a mission. I would say that we're mission oriented for sure at the bulwark. I think that the dispatches too, really. So could it survive after Trump? I don't think Trump's going anywhere. So, yeah, I mean, I think that, I think that let's say Trump gets the hamburger from heaven and he goes away.

I think the bulwark would have a lot of interesting things to say about where the Democratic Party goes from here. I think it would have a lot of interesting things to say about where the Republican Party goes from here. I'm not sure that everybody at the bulwark would agree on all those things. I think that me and Mona Sharon might have different agreement, different views, but I think directionally would be very similar. I think that we would be very hostile to a continued movement down the path of populist nationalism, anti-democratic populist nationalism, which I think it would still be in vogue in the right, maybe without the most dangerous figurehead. Can I put a finer point on it?

I'm not saying about the writers, would they still be together? I wonder about the readership. You know, if Jeb Bush was the nominee in 2028, and the bulwark said, you know, compared to Kamala Harris, we're pro-Jep Bush, do you think that the bulwark audience would be there for criticism of Kamala Harris compared to Jeb Bush? Well, I guess, I mean, I mean, if we're in this fantasy world, I mean, why don't I just win Powerball? And I would, the Bullock podcast wouldn't have an audience because I would have already, you know, moved to an island somewhere. And that's kind of fantasy land we're in. I don't think, again, I don't think if Jeb Bush and Kamala Harris were the nominees, I don't think that the Volark would be. attacking, like, Jeff Bush for Kamala Harris all the time.

Like, that's a total fantasy that I don't think is likely. You know, I think that the bulwark readership is largely never-Trumpers who fall on our side of the bulwarkian and dispatchian dispute, but some people that are on the dispatchian side and are interested in hearing our take. I think that we have a lot of center-left liberals who share the concern that we both have about some of the excesses of the far-left and are not getting those. complaints echoed very clearly on more progressive news outlets. They're hearing, you know, they're hearing it more from outlets where they don't really like them or trust their motives

on the right. And then I think we have some far lefties that we've picked up who just like being challenged. I know that like from certain people's world, it's like the board never attacks the left. That's not really true. Like we criticize the left from time to time. And I think that the far left folks listen to us like hearing that and like having good faith engagement with people that they don't think are going to turn the country over to an idiocracy. So I do think that the readership would want to continue. I've got to tell you, if we ended up in a world where Nikki Haley and Gretchen Whitmer were the nominees in 2028 and some of our readership on the left did not like the way

we were mealy-mouthed about that race and the bulwark subscriber base went down, I got to tell you, I would trade that. Could you offer, if you're, are you from the future? Would you offer me that trade right now? And I would go find something else to do with my life. I swear to God, Jamie, I would go find something else to do with my life. I don't think that's going to happen. I don't think it's going to be Gretchen Whitmer against Nikki Haley.

And so I think that our readership will be fine. But I think that the Republican Party is continuing, is moving inexorably towards a nationalist populist bent that I find very scary, but quite a bit less scary if Trump wasn't at the head of it. So I'll give you a chance now. to go off on me saying something about sufficient. Oh, no, I didn't want to go off in you. You said, because in my

head, I was like, what do I want? Because in Steve and I's discussion, most of the discussion was dedicated to whether somebody that is of a conservative temperament or ideological view has an obligation to vote for Biden next time. And one of the things I wanted to say to you on the podcast

and you said sufficient was I was going to use the, you know, there's, in math, you know, the if X then Y, right? Like, if something, then something. that, like, you either need, that something needs to be necessary and sufficient, necessary or sufficient. And, like, to me, like, that is the thing that I get the most frustrated with about some in the dispatchy and worldview, which is, like,

if Trump is an existential threat to society, then what? Then it's necessary to vote for Joe Biden. It is not sufficient to write in Jack Kemp. Like, that is just, like, the mathematical equation, right? And like, that is the thing that I, that is the thing that frustrates me about the dispatch sometimes. And I, and it's, again, it's in good, I think it comes from a place of good faith. But I just, I don't find this whole thing to be, like, this is not, like, voting in 2024 is not an exercise in self-actualization. And it's not an attempt to, like, make sure that

the other party does things that you want in order to earn your vote. It is, it is, it is an obligation that we all have to try to prevent an absolutely unprecedentedly catastrophic outcome, which is Donald Trump, becoming the president again. And so when you said, I think you said that it was, you know, the whatever, the threats of democracy is sufficient to make you want to vote for Biden. Like, that's what, that, I just, I wanted to follow that up, follow up and just put a finer point on that, because we do agree of that.

And that's something that I agree with you passionately about and that I hope that some of your listeners will come around well that that leads into uh exactly by uh near final set of questions uh i would use tail risk uh the term that you use and i have used it i think elsewhere but what can you paint an optimistic case a a positive case for not a case but a positive scenario for a trump second term what would a positive scenario look like you can't you can't survival no yeah i mean surviving it surviving it like having uh i think the best So positive now. What's the best case?

The best case scenario is that Donald Trump is, like, has this hole in his heart because Fred didn't love him and he just needs to be loved so badly that that, like, prevents him from acting on his very worst impulses. But isn't that the most likely, isn't that the most likely scenario that he wants to be seen as a winner? I don't think so, because I think that a lot of people around him will be, will be opposite of last time. I think they'll be agitating him his worst impulses rather than trying to constrain them.

and I think that no matter what happens our friend Rich Lowry over at National Review was writing was pushing back on I think Jonathan Chate writing about the end of democracy talk and how this is overstated and you know my world and never Trump world and it was like what's the worst case that's going to happen it's like you know Donald Trump decides he doesn't want to leave and then he's like the forces in Washington and the military leaders

will prevent that from happening that's a disastrous outcome, right? Like literally the best case scenario for the end of the Trump second term is the disastrous outcome where he like throws a tantrum and like tries to stay in Pat, what's the best case?

That he pardons himself? That he pardons himself and leaves? Well, you think the best case, but you know, this is interesting. You think that the best case scenario is Trump tries to remain in power again. The bullet has to remove it. Yeah, you think he's going to leave?

what makes you think he's going to leave like just leave on his own accord and be replaced by a Democrat I guess maybe the best case is that is that in 2028 he picks he picks Elise Stefanik for his VP and that

she like returns to back when she was a moderate center right Republican and wins re-election and he feels comfortable that she's not going to try to to do you know that she'll pardon any future crimes because he would have self-pardoned any past crimes

I mean, he's going to do more crimes. Like what? I just don't understand what, like, what is the leaving? What is the positive leaving? Like, Donald Trump is going to do more crimes. Like, you think he's going to get in there, not do any crimes? And then he's going to leave and no one's going to know there's not going to be any prosecutors anywhere.

They're going to try to charge him with anything. And that he's going to be happy to leave. And what? A Democrat is going to come in and he's going to be like, so your best case is that then he's replaced by a Republican, another Republican, that he feels comfortable enough will pardon him post-talk, or that he dies. I think what makes me most optimistic, again, I think the tail of risk is too great. And I said this in 2016, I said there's a 10% chance he tries to remain in power.

I didn't think that would be, maybe I should have said higher. Obviously he did. So like they hit the 10% chance. I think the positive scenario is that he is termed out in theory of running for president. So he seems no need to run for president and therefore can't be deemed a loser if he loses and tries to remain in power. He's happy to say that constitutionally, he... What happens in the four years?

You just don't think he does any more crimes? You don't think that he does anything extrajudicial, Donald Trump? You think he's four years, deteriorating Donald Trump with worse people around him? You don't think that he does anything that might worry him when he leaves? But why do you think he held down to power the first time? Because he did crimes or because he didn't want to be branded a loser? I think he didn't want to be branded a loser and he's, I don't... Well, I mean, I think probably because he didn't want to be branded a loser,

but I think one of the rationales for him running again is that he didn't want to be branded a loser and he didn't want to go to jail. But the only what he's being tried for is not what he did in office other than tried to remain in power, right? I mean, the crimes that he's being charged for now are trying to remain in power because he don't want to be branded a loser, not for trying to. That's true. Well, no, then there's the documents.

There's a classified document case. Yeah, but yeah. You know, so again, so your best case scenario is that we, okay, sure. Maybe we survived four years and Donald Trump just angry tweets and he doesn't try to enact any policies except for whatever the Hill does. That's not my best case. I mean, that's what I was trying to get. I mean, I think there is a best case scenario that is positive where he actually wants to win. Yeah, he points people who run the government. He might even, you know, go live in Mar-a-Lago and have the vice president. Remember that in 2016?

Don Jr. supposedly called Kasich and said, you know, he wants to see himself as king and where he doesn't really actually want to do any policy. He wants to have a vice president who does the work. I mean, you don't see any scenario that's not catastrophic. From a Trump second term? Sure. I mean, I get, sure, we can, I think that there's a bell curve. We did, we did a tail risk. Sure, there's a bell curve where he like doesn't, he doesn't do a lot. I mean, I think that it's a I guess I'll say this. I think it is absolutely catastrophic for, um, uh, migrants in this country, for people that are trying to get in this country for people that

are going to have to encounter at all the Stephen Miller immigration regime at any level. I think it will be catastrophic for them no matter what. I think it'll be catastrophic for the country because that will be another four years where we will now have Donald Trump had been in our lives

for 12 years and there will be an entire generation of people that do not know anything else besides Donald Trump's type of government. which I think has myriad negative consequences about the types of people that run for office that it's impact on impressionable folks

that are getting into that are coming of age during his time people that decide they don't want to get into politics because of Donald Trump, the types of people that he draws into politics. I think that there are myriad negative catastrophic consequences downstream of Donald Trump. I'm sure I think that would probably be pretty bad for trans. I could come up with a list of things

that I think it would be, certainly end of democracy there's a constitutional crisis at the end of his term, I guess not. I guess I could paint, but I couldn't paint a positive, but I could paint a tail risk where there's little harm to me. I think that there's

certainly a chance where I suffer zero consequences, really, from Donald Trump's next term, but I think that people will suffer consequences in the country will. I think you might actually. I mean, you and General Millie and certainly he's going to kill General Millie.

I don't think he's going to come after me. Not you, but I do think that some of the people that criticized him might find themselves, on the other hand, of an IRS. I mean, for them, I think it's not a positive. That is definitely not a positive situation. Would you encourage people, like a Jamie Diamond, if he wanted him to be treasurer's secretary? Would you encourage good people, competent people who, in the second term?

You wouldn't want like a Mattis there as opposed to General Flynn? I was right the first time. I don't know. This is what me and Steve argued. about on the last dispatch podcast, and I'm pretty sure I was right. I don't, would we be here if those people hadn't protected us from Donald Trump? I don't really think so. I don't really think so.

I think that if everyone who knew that Donald Trump was dangerous spoke out about it and did not do anything to protect him from his own worst impulses, I think that we would not be here. We probably wouldn't have, Donald Trump probably might not have been elected in 2016, and he certainly wouldn't be the nominee right now in 2024. I think there was a lot of terrible things that Donald Trump wanted to do that now allow, when you see these polls now where people are like, I look back on the Donald Trump era

and I think it seems great. And it's like, part of that was because that people protected the voters from their own mistake. And I think that that I think it's a close call, but I think that it is, I think that it caused

negative downstream effects that we're suffering from right now. And I don't, I don't, I don't think it makes sense to go try to shine Trump's turds. Let me, let me close on these two questions. One is just, one of curiosity. Have you met Joe Biden? Has he called you in because he likes your commentary at all, like, for the before the state of a union or anything like that? I've not met Joe Biden. I've met Joe Biden briefly for like a minute. And I have gone to the White House to talk to some other folks. It was off the record, so I guess I don't, I shouldn't say. But I have gone to the White House to talk with, to give my two cents to other people. My final question is a version

of your question. I mentioned Joe's going to do a version of, you ask, I've heard you ask it a couple times on your podcast. Usually to people like me, I heard it for Ross and then for Steve Hayes. It's only interesting for people on the right. It's not that, my question of what is the best president of the last four years is not that interesting to most people on the left because it's like they all will say Obama, Biden, Bush, Trump. So it's not that interesting. Yeah, and I understand why it can be difficult, and maybe you'll have me on again and I'll have to try to work my way through it.

But I want to do the same question to you, but I want to say, starting at Reagan, how would you rank the seven presidents? Okay, I will start by saying, just for people who haven't listened to my podcast, you're welcome to. I hope you enjoyed this hour. I do my best to not bullshit people. My ranking of the last four is Biden, Obama, Bush, Trump. I also asked people to rank and grade. I think Biden has been a B minus. Obama was

a C plus. I think Bush was a D. I think without Iraq, Bush was probably about a B for me, but Iraq is almost an F-rated choice. And Donald Trump obviously gets an F. So that's the four. If we're adding three more, I think I'd put all three of them on top of the last four. I want to caveat this, though. A very important reason why I ask this question of people is because we lived through it. I'm only asking people my age, 40s, or up, right? Like, we all lived through, like, I was a grown-up during all of the four administrations of this century. And so I'm, like, judging them based on my own eyes, my own experiences, knowing people, I know people that worked for all these people. So I feel better suited to judge that than I do things for

my childhood. That said, I would put HW first, of course, and not even really close. I think that the Clinton and Reagan one is interesting and tougher. I haven't really thought about this. JVL did his ranking. I think he had Reagan first. The Reagan and Clinton one is tougher because I think that Clinton's personal decadillos

created some downstream consequences like the ones I was talking about with Donald Trump earlier. And, you know, they're weird echoes of history. Like, in a lot of ways, I kind of hold Clinton somewhat responsible for Trump. Like, had he not been banging you know, women

outside the marital bed in the White House and lying about it I would Donald Trump have been able to troll Hillary with that in 2016 right like I feel like this weird connection as I'm talking myself through this I'm ranking Clinton fourth after Joe Biden now I've talked myself into moving Clinton down to fourth

but I do like that Clinton was bipartisan Clinton and was in a lot of ways did a lot of things that I would like I wish more presidents would do third way to act to the middle type stuff so in a lot of ways he itches my you know kind of desire for that type of politician

and obviously the 90s were the glory days so I guess I guess I put Reagan second we'll see what happens in a Biden first and second term I'd be open to having Biden beat Reagan the AIDS thing I just I do have to say as a gay person the AIDS I just it's it's really bad and it's not it's not really one of I've read a lot of books about it and talked to a lot of people around Reagan

and it's not really one of the things that it was like he didn't know or it was a miss people have misses like he knew like Reagan was from Hollywood like Reagan had gay friends Reagan had a lot of gay staffers like they knew and it was really late and a lot of people died

and so it's a little it colors the colors the whole ranking for me without that without that I would put him ahead of Biden but with that I think I'd be tempted to put Biden second depending on how things were going

Biden has had a very Tim like Biden has been very aligned with me. The Afghanistan thing has been bad and the student loan thing has been bad. There's been a lot of things that other Democrats have said and liberals have said during the five years that I feel like sometimes people like to impute on Joe Biden if he doesn't like denounce it or whatever.

But his Ukraine policy has been really good. I would have voted for every single bipartisan bill they put forth. I didn't like the second COVID bill, I guess. So I could nitpick Reagan like that, you know. Um, so I, I'd put them in the second and third slot. That's a good question, Jamie. Thank you. It's a good. You stole it from me, but it was, it's good. You challenged me by making me have to place Reagan somewhere. It would have been much easier just if I could start at my great law of George H. Bush and just put him first without any, without any problems. Tim Miller, thank you for joining the Dispatch

podcast. Jamie Weinstein. Thank you for having me. Thank you.