The New Yorker Radio Hour - Glenda Jackson Onstage, and Marco Rubio on “Modernizing” Conservatism

Episode Date: June 1, 2018

Glenda Jackson, who has played both Queen Elizabeth and King Lear, served as a humble member of Parliament for more than two decades in between those roles; she talks with David Remnick about performing at eighty-two and about the state of British politics. And Marco Rubio talks with Susan B. Glasser about the threat of China and how to be a conservative in Trump’s Washington.   New Yorker Radio Hour listeners, we want to hear from you.  We have a few questions about the show and how you listen to it. The survey takes about twenty minutes, and your feedback will help us make our podcast better.  Take the survey here.

From One World Trade Center in Manhattan, this is the New Yorker Radio Hour. I've never heard a boxer after a match asked, hey, were you upset when he punched you in the face in the third round? Because he would sound stupid. So, of course he punched me in the face. It was a boxing match. Marco Rubio of Florida was at one time the favored candidate for the presidential nomination on the Republican side. And he'll talk with our political columnist Susan Glasser about how to be a conservative Republican in the age dominated by Donald Trump.

That's later this hour. Now, if I say to you, name an actor who held political office, you'll immediately say Ronald Reagan and then probably Arnold Schwarzenegger. If you were English, though, a different name would come to mind, and that's Glenda Jackson. Well, in the past two days, you've been up in the rain, giving me tea, bought me lunch, and lured me to this hideaway with the intention, I presume,

of getting me into bed for what you Americans so charmingly call a quickie. Is that a fair raise you may so far? Why do women always think the worst? Why does sex always have to be the first thing that, yes. Jackson became a powerhouse actress in the early 70s, winning all kinds of awards for her stage roles, and she won Oscars for women in love and a touch of class. Then in 1992, reacting to the impact of Thatcherism on the United Kingdom,

Jackson stood for Parliament. She became an MP for the Labor Party, and after representing her district for more than 20 years, she finally stepped down, and now she's back on Broadway. I just saw Jackson in a production of Edward Albee's Three Tall Women, and she plays the character called A, an imperious 90-something who's, of course, diminished by age but still full of fight and wit. Jackson, who's only 82, remains at the very height of her powers,

and she's been nominated for a Tony Award. I have to tell you, this play and performances, they're extraordinary, and at the same time, you have to know that when your audience is sitting there, they don't know how you do it night after night. Emotionally, this play is wrenching. And for this to be your job to inhabit this role and do it, I don't know how many times a week. Well, we do it eight times a week, but there are only three of us in the play. It is remarkably, well, demanding in the right kind of way as a play,

because these characters have layers and the layers are revealed during the process of the evening. But within the play, as within all good plays, there is an energy. That is what gives you, in addition to your own energies, the capacity to find those characters, find them anew every performance. The play is about essential things. It's about aging. It's about the evolution of a person. It's about death. Are you worn out, wrenched out when the evening is over? No, partly because in a strange kind of way you should have nothing to take home. I mean, you should have put everything that has to be put on that stage. And left it in the theater.

And if it hasn't been there, you know, shame on you, if you have something to take home. So no. You have a history with Edward Alby. You were in Virginia Woolf many years ago, right? He directed Virginia Woolf when we did it in Los Angeles. I think it must have been 1990 or something like that. Now, am I wrong to think that you didn't get along 100%? It wasn't that we didn't get along.

I mean, he was like a man in a glass case. I mean, there seemed to be no capacity within him for ordinary human exchange. I can't remember him ever smiling. I can't remember him ever going, you know, for a drink with us or anything like that. And I think I got off on the wrong foot the very first day of rehearsal because George and Margaret come in and they're drunk. and they're coming into their house and he said to me now it's dark

and you know she should sort of stumble before she finds a place to put, I said doesn't she know where the light switch is? Doesn't she live here? And that was not the answer. That was not the response that he wanted. How did he react? He just froze even more.

I mean I've been very lucky in my career. I've worked with some great directors and they all share the same thing. They know what they don't want. They expect you to show them what they do. And they are as vulnerable as you are in one sense because not infrequently they will say, is there a production to be found here? Is there something in this? And I don't think that ever occurred to Albi. I think in a strange way, well, not a strange way, perfectly understandable way, Virginia

Wolf was both his greatest prize and his greatest curse. because all his work, post-Virginia Woolf, was compared to it. Now, you've returned from politics to do theater, and what is your goal in selecting projects to do? You've done King Lear as Lear, and now you're doing Three Tall Women on Broadway. How do you select? Well, I mean, I didn't leave politics to return to theater.

I mean, I'd been in my constituency for 23 years. I thought it was about time somebody else had a go. and the old Vic which is a theatre that I've worked in before approached me. Now the play they wanted me to do I didn't particularly want to do. What was there?

I can't remember it now but anyway one of my closest friends Nuri Esper who is a brilliant Spanish actress was doing Lear in Barcelona so I went to see her and it was a great production I mean she was fantastic

and I said to her you know this is marvellous she said well why don't you do it so I said come on I said, me. I said, Leah being played by woman in England, it would never be allowed. So anyway, I suggested to the Vic that I do Lear. And they said, yeah, okay, fine.

And so we did it. Yeah, okay, fine, that was it. Well, there were, I think, difficulties in the first instance, partly because they're not a million miles away from the Globe Theatre. And so they thought there might be that Shakespearean, you know. overkill. But then they said, yes, fine, we did it. And what really interested me, and this was a direct experience from having been an MP, actually, that as part of being an MP, obviously, I would visit old people's homes, day centres, things of that nature. One of the really

interesting things for me was that as we age, those gender barriers begin to crack, they begin to fray, they get misty, whether we are aware of it as a development. Because sex itself begins to recede a little bit? Oh, I don't think it's that. No, no. I mean, I've seen no reduction truly in that kind of libido in age itself. No, I think that's, you know, one of the things that possibly stays with us. But it was just that acceptance that there can be similarities on a human level,

mostly probably the emotional level, that are not risible or dismissable. simply because of age. The play, just to return to the all-by play that you're in now, is it's three women on stage, and in many ways it's the same woman at three different stages of life. We're meant to think that, certainly. And I wonder about how you think about the 26-year-old Glenn Jackson. Do you ever see yourself on television or films

and get interested, or do you turn the channel? No, I mean, I watch a film that I'm in, and my thoughts are why, in the name of all that totally, did you choose to do that? And there's absolutely nothing you can do to change it anymore. So it's a kind of you whip yourself. I think most actors are sadomasochists, actually. Why do we put ourselves through this torment?

Because it is torment. It is. Absolutely it is. I worked with the most wonderful actress called Mona Washbourne. She was a wonderful, wonderful actress, had an absolutely sterling reputation, was respected by everybody. And we did a play together.

And every night, before the curtain went up, she's sitting on the sofa, and I'm sitting here in an armchair, and she's saying, dear God, let me die. Dear God, let me die. And it wasn't some kind of mantra or something like that. She meant it. You are always, always afraid. And it's only when the curtain goes up, where the lights go on or whatever. You cannot afford that self-indulgence. Musicians describe this.

They said the easy part of the day is the two. hours on stage because you're out of yourself, you're giving of yourself. Absolutely. You're working with other people. You're not alone with a character. I mean, yes. I mean, let me give you, this is an apocryphal story, but I believe that it is absolutely true.

Olivier was doing Othello, and it was part of the repertoire. It wasn't a first night. It wasn't just the first night. But this particular night, he was being particularly brilliant, to such an extent that the other members of the cast didn't want to leave the stage. They stayed in the wings just to watch him. Of course, the house goes crazy at the end, blue, and dozens and dozens of marvelous night. Everybody goes after the dressing rooms.

He proceeds to smash his dressing room to pieces. I mean, they could hear, and this fury and the cursing that was going on in the dressing room. And so that heroic grouping of people known as a theatrical company sent the youngest stage manager to knock on the door to find out what was wrong. So eventually she was knocking on the door and he said, and she said, Sir Lawrence, you know, what's the matter? Because it was just absolutely marvelous. And he said, I know, but I don't know why. Now, you're here living in New York in the midst of what can only be described as a bizarre American political moment.

Well, no more bizarre than what's going on in my country. Why are we coming out the European Union? Well, I protest. I think ours is more bizarre. than yours, but I'll let you argue it. What's going on? In my country, your guess is as good as mine. I mean, clearly, the negotiations are going very slowly.

Talking about Brexit. Absolutely. And Parliament did manage to get the right to post the deal being signed off, to argue for or against it, examine it in detail. But we'll have to wait and see. I'm asking something broader. Even global, you'll forgive me. Oh, well.

You know, you're talking about a, an illiberalism that has swept from Hungary to the United States to Britain to almost everywhere. Absolutely. What has happened in your estimation? Immigration. You think that's the key to it? Absolutely. Absolutely.

And it's something that if I simply look at my own country, all the political parties in my view tap danced around that issue for a good decade. And what we were getting was concern about the lack of affordable housing, not being able to get your child into the school of your choice. The NHS, that's our National Health Service, fraying at the edges. And because there was this kind of politically correct thing that said that if you were questioning the number of people who were coming into your area from other parts of the world,

often fleeing death and destruction, but not exclusively, if you objected to that, then you were obviously some form of racist. people put down the issues that I've raised with you to one of the, well, three major supports of the European Union, namely the free movement of people. Now, the issues that they raised, which had to do with unaffordable housing, schools, NHS, none of those were issues which were the responsibility of or any interest in that sense to the European Union. They were all issues which were the duty and responsibility to handle of the British government, whichever political party was in power. Didn't do it. And so when the referendum came along, that seemed to me to afford an opportunity to blame it all on the European Union. What's a sane policy then for immigration?

Because even as someone, as a woman of the left, you are not denying that immigration causes it or at least to cultural destruction. in certain ways. Because it's not handled. I mean, and it is very difficult. I mean, you know, I'm sitting here pontificating. I mean, it is very, very difficult to try and convince people that the changes that are going to be inevitable in this planet that we're inhabiting can be handled only, only by us all talking to each other. We have to talk to each other. When I say we, I mean, the countries of the world as well as the individuals.

Teresa may not be your political or ideological cup of tea. She's the only adult in the room at the moment with this. And I think the way she's being treated by her own party and particularly by her cabinet is shameful and disgraceful. So you have some sympathy for her? I have a lot of sympathy for her because she is in an impossible situation. Who's the bad guy in the scenario, Boris Johnson? Oh, no. I mean, in essence, really, the person who made the biggest error was David Cameron, who called the referendum in the first instance.

Now, he called it to quiet his own backbenchers. There have always been this group of conservative, well, I can't think of harsh enough term for them, who have always wanted to come out of Europe and have this complete fantasy about what it will be like. I was shocked. I mean, I was shocked at the way some parts of the United Kingdom voted to come out. I didn't think they would. Three Tall Women closes at the somewhere in the late summer. The end of June, I think, yes.

Ah, sooner than that. What have you got planned for the near future? Well, nothing definite. I mean, there are things I'm looking up, but nothing specific at the moment. What's the principle of how you look from project to project? What is it that you want to do? I don't. As I've said to you, I have no preconceptions.

No, I've, you know, you're lucky to be given a job. I mean, that's the bottom line, as far as I'm concerned. So we should close by saying Glenda Jackson is open to offers. Well, yes, you can. But, you know, I'll know by the first page whether I want to do it or not. Thank you so much. Thank you. Glinda Jackson.

She's just been nominated for a Tony for her performance in three tall women on Broadway. You're listening to The New Yorker Radio Hour. Stick around. Welcome back to the New Yorker Radio Hour. I'm David Remnick. There was a time quite recently in the scheme of things when Marco Rubio was the shining future of the Republican Party. He was a conservative of a national security type, but young and charismatic. And he represents the crucial swing state of Florida.

Republicans had been saying that they really needed to capture the Latino vote, and Senator Rubio, whose Cuban Americans, seemed like the guy who could do it. Now, that was before he went up against Donald Trump, who indelibly dubbed him Little Marco. And we know how that story ended. Senator Rubio had said that he would quit politics if he didn't win the presidential election, but he had a sudden change of heart. And since the election of 2016, he's been weighing in on the Russian investigation

as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and pushing the president to get tougher with China, Venezuela, and other countries. The New Yorker Susan Glasser writes about politics from Washington, and she caught up recently with Senator Rubio in his office. We're here on Capitol Hill, and big events, as always, are happening as we are talking today. You know, in the news, China,

the president's negotiations with China with North Korea, and you have been particularly active. China has always been one of your foreign policy interests. And of course, back in the 2016 campaign, you really built your presidential campaign in many ways around national security issues and your profiled thinking about America's future role in the world. How does it fit in now in the Trump era?

I was always concerned about elements of China, in essence, their military expansion in the South China Sea, you know, the sort of their human rights record. But only in the last year and a half, and have I been able to kind of sit there and view it in its totality, you start putting all the pieces together. I mean, all the different elements,

what they do on their commercial practices, how they steal intellectual property, how they use the U.S. immigration system against us in many cases, how they buy up small companies on Silicon Valley to be able to get underneath a scrutiny of government but buy up these key components that are critical to future technologies. Their influence campaigns around the world, whether it's strong-arming Marriott

to the point where they fire an American worker for tweeting something that China didn't agree with. When you put it all together, suddenly the light bulb goes off and you realize this is much deeper than just a conflict with a country. This is an all-out effort to change the world order. And I think that's a dangerous development because any time you have these kinds of imbalances

in the world that leads to conflict. Well, it's really interesting because you would have expected in a way that President Trump, he campaigned on some of these themes. And yet, there's been sort of veering back and forth the extent to which China really is at the center of his view of the world. Do you think that he's putting China at the center of his view of... His instincts on China are right, and primarily those instincts are based on the idea that China has taken advantage of the United States.

But the other thing to understand about the president is there's nothing final yet. I mean, there isn't, this is I think the difference between this administration and others is that he encourages sort of a diversity of opinions and a vibrant debate publicly. And so he has people in the administration that agree with me and he has people that don't. And so that debate is going on internally and we are just one additional voice trying to weigh in on one side of that debate and hopefully influence the outcome. Well, exactly. You and many others are publicly lobbying, in effect, a still ongoing internal White House. process. But I want to talk about what this debate means and how you put the China evolving China negotiations in the context of your own thinking about politics and your own future. I think the economist, you give a fascinating interview to them recently. They

called it Marco's makeover. I don't know if that's overstating it or not. But clearly, you're thinking about what's different about politics in the Trump era than say when you thought about the presidential campaign and how to frame your message. Let me ask you that. What is different? How have you changed as a politician? And how do you think the country is? Well, first of all, I would challenge the idea that it's the Trump era. I think the era made Trump, not Trump made the era. How does China fit in? I think it's different from every other global challenge that we face. China has a very well-crafted plan, a 25, 50, and 100-year plan to recapture what they believe is their rightful role in the world, which is to be its most

powerful country. And, you know, every nation has a right to aspire to whatever they want to achieve. I think where it becomes problematic is when they view it as a zero-sum game, that it can only come at our expense. And where it becomes particularly problematic is when they intend to achieve it, not through out-innovating us or out-working us, but by stealing intellectual property, denying American companies' access to business there, because that directly harms American. So if we live in a world where China dominates biomedicine and artificial intelligence and quantum computing and 5G technology and telecom and aerospace, they're going to control not just what life is like in China. They're going to control a lot of what life is like in America.

Well, it's interesting. You're making a connection really between the economic argument about China, which is really where we've focused it. You could say the American conversation in the last decade has been really around the economics of it. And you're connecting that to a security conversation. Do you see China as the sort of long-term great power competitor to the U.S.? I think the national security strategy of, you know, the Trump administration links Russia and China there? Yeah, but China and Russia are two very different stories. Exactly. You are, in fact, on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and before we go back to kind of where China fits in, I do want to ask you about that. It is amazing that we're still talking about this every single day. In fact,

earlier today, James Clapper, who was the Director of National Intelligence during that election, said he's reconsidered his views and he believes that, in fact, those 80,000 votes would have been swayed by the Russians and therefore they did change the outcome of our election. Well, that runs counter to the Intelligent Community Report that he helped bring together an author. Which is inconclusive on that time. Well, it's inconclusive, and therefore he can't be going out and making that claim. Suffice it to say that I don't believe. I personally don't believe. I've seen no evidence

that the outcome of the election would have been different. Right. But I don't think. But you do agree with the Senate Intelligence Committee's recent report saying that they do agree with the intelligence finding that Putin intervened in the election on Trump's behalf. Well, a couple points. Number one, I believe they intervened in the election before the Intelligence Committee even began investigating. Back in October of 2016, I was a candidate for re-election. And I believe I'm the only Republican in the country who refused to talk about WikiLeaks or the Clinton emails, because I said then it was the work of a foreign intelligence agency. As far as, here's where it's so difficult in American politics today.

I'm going to try, but I know it's very difficult, but these long-form interviews are probably the best place to do it. It's our only hope. But the fact that Putin had established a preference for Donald Trump does not mean that he ultimately was successful in impacting the outcome of the election, nor does it mean Trump did anything wrong. It means he hated Hillary Clinton a lot because he blamed her for the color revolutions and that he thought that during the era in which all those protests broke out in 2011 and Russia, he blamed her directly. And so he wanted her to lose. But that doesn't mean that he has something on Donald Trump. Those are two very different things.

And I'm trying to be fair. If I thought that there was a level of collusion or if we ever find it, I'll be the first one out there to say that. But that's not so far, no one's seen any evidence of that. But his real goal, his ultimate goal, was to sow chaos an American democracy because that way he can turn around and say, you have no right to lecture us on our internal processes when your own process is corrupt and flawed and broken. By that standard, you would judge it as success. What Putin did?

Yeah. Absolutely. I mean, we're still fighting about it. Absolutely. So are you concerned about the escalation and rhetoric from President Trump in recent days on that? I mean, do you believe there's a deep state? No, I believe that there are certainly, but this is not new, that there are people in America's bureaucracy who undermine the decision of policymakers, and they do it to administrations in both

parties. I don't think it's a vast, organized conspiracy, but I do think we have an enormous government of career bureaucrats who have been there through multiple administrations, and if there's not a clear direction, they're going to step in. Right. But just on the Trump election, though, I mean, the idea that there was some conspiracy by the FBI to, but then withhold the information, but then somehow undermine him. I mean, I think that if there is evidence of that, I'd like to know about it. And maybe they will uncover evidence of that, but I haven't seen it yet. What I have seen is the FBI was presented with a number of individuals who operated within the orbit of the Trump campaign.

But let's be frank, I mean, the Trump campaign was an unconventional campaign. I witnessed it up close for a while. And a lot of people, because he wasn't a traditional politician, a lot of people came forward and said, I'll be your advisor. And some of these people at least claimed openly that they had links. The FBI sees that. They have an obligation. So since that presidential election, if we're not looking backwards and we're looking forwards, tell us a little bit about your own process of thinking about what the Republican Party is going to be.

in the wake of this surprising... Well, the first thing I would say is, if you spend a year of your life traveling the country, meeting with people far from home, interacting with people with different views and ideas, and it doesn't impact your thinking in any way, then you're not alive.

You're not... And so... And so one of the things that I think emerges from that campaign and from everything that happened is the realization that... I have no hope of reforming the left. I'm not in the left.

So I'm talking about the right now for a moment. Our instincts, are right. Free enterprise, limited government is the right approach. But that has to be melded with reality of everyday life. So as an example, I have always supported the idea of free and fair trade, and I still do. What perhaps people like me have not done enough of in the past is recognized that even if free trade creates 50 new jobs, it destroyed 30. And the 30 it destroyed are not machines or statistics. They're human beings with families. And a lot of those 30 live in the same community, working in the same industry, far from where the 50 new jobs were created.

And we don't talk about them. We didn't talk about them enough. And to the extent that we did, the argument sometimes is the market will take care of it. It might, but it might take 15 years to take care of it. And by that time, that 55-year-old worker is 70. Do you think the Trump disruption might have the effect of causing some of your Republican colleagues to question some of those limited government-in-all-cost orthodoxies? Do you see any sign of that? And I just want to say it's not about walking away from limited government because we still support that. It's more along the lines of how do we analyze our role. What is the purpose of our policies?

The purpose of our policies are not just solely to drive economic growth, but to ensure that human beings, Americans, are benefiting from that. It starts with a proposition that the economy should serve people, not people serve the economy. And so our policies need to be geared towards that. So the child tax credit is a perfect example. And that is we had the opportunity to make a substantial. reduction in the corporate tax and yet deliver more assistance to working families through their own money. And we did it, but we didn't go all the way. And we should have gone all the way. Do you think it's a fair label to call what you're up to kind of creating a new reform

conservative movement? How would you characterize it? I would say we're modernizing and trying to, you know, just like every couple weeks I get an update that there's a software update on my phone that I should download. I think we have to update it because there's new ideas. Do you always update those, though? Yeah, generally. It depends what the fixes. Well, it's interesting. You point out, right, like there's the laboratory version of politics, and then there's

the real world. And here in Washington, you know, it's been pretty disruptive the last couple years. I got to ask you, what's it like for you working with President Trump, who you ran against, who is a tough guy to run against? He uses tough words. But by all accounts, you talk to him loud, right? He calls you on the phone. Well, we never really, even in the height of that campaign,

ever had a personal problem. I always tell people, I'm a fan of boxing. Well, I imagine you didn't like the little Marco thing very good. No, but let's, okay, well, let me tell you, I'm a big fan of boxing. It's probably not politically correct, but I like boxing. I think it's one of the purest, you know, sports. I've never heard a boxer after a match asked, hey, were you upset when he punched you in the face in the third round? Because he would sound stupid. So, of course he punched me in the face. It was a boxing match. So when you're in a competitive environment in this day and age, people are going to say things about each other, you know, but my view of it at the end is, if Donald Trump was a Democrat and he got elected,

everyone would be demanding that the election was over and I needed to work with him because he won. But because he's a Republican, apparently I'm supposed to hold a grudge. The bottom line is that he got elected. The voters chose him to be our nominee and chose him to be our president. My job is to serve in the Senate and to work with him to achieve good things for Florida and for the country. And that's what I've tried to do.

And when I disagree with him, I've spoken about why I disagree. And I've tried to change his mind. But I tell him himself. Right. you up. Well, we talk, but he talks, look, let me tell you one thing about Donald Trump. He talks a lot to your colleagues, too, right? If you call Donald Trump, you're going to get a call back. Maybe not the same day, but he'll call you back. He's very good about that. It has been with me, for sure. And you can tell him, I disagree with you on it. And he'll listen to people, not whether he does it or not,

maybe somebody else comes in and changes his mind. But the point being that at the end of day, when I disagree with him, I'm going to say it. And if I still can't convince him, I'll vote against it. I'm in the middle of it now. On the China thing. Right. But in the same week that I'm not happy about what I think the direction potentially is of the administration. We were also able to work very closely with them on Venezuela and achieving what I think were important measures there. So that's just the way this is supposed to be. And I get it in today's political culture where politics is covered as a sport, people want us to fight all the time. But you are capable on this process, both with Democrats and people in your own party of working together on one

thing while disagreeing on something else. Let me just ask you, I know it's hard for any of us to see into the future. We can hardly predict the past, never mind the future. But some of your friends, some of your associates think that you might run for president again. What do you say? If you would have asked me that three years ago or two years ago, the right answer is no, even though you're thinking about potentially running. And it's different now. I've ran once before. So I know both what it entails, but I also understand, you know, what you can achieve here in the U.S. Senate. And so I would just say that I'm in a different place now in my life to answer to answer that question. My daughter graduates high school this

week. Congratulations. A couple years, another one will graduate. So my family's entering a different phase. I'm just not in a position to honestly tell you how I'm going to feel in four and a half years. I don't know. I mean, who knows? I don't say no, but it's certainly not something I'm building towards because right now we have a lot of work to do here. The president's going to run for reelection. He's going to be our nominee. He's going to get reelected. I believe. You think he's going to run again in 2020? I do. And I think he'll be reelected. And so we'll We have an opportunity to continue to get things done. No matter what, I will be a two-term U.S. Senator, and I want to have something to show for that.

But anything's possible, but it's way too early to think about that. For the record, that's not a no. Senator Rubio, your colleague, Jeff Flake, who's leaving the Senate today, gave the address up at Harvard. I know. He told me today he was headed to Harvard. Yeah, he had some tough words, though, for you guys. He said, Congress has been, quote, utterly supine in dealing with the challenge. of President Trump. I know he's leaving the Senate, right? So he's not engaging in the way that you feel

is necessary. Is there anything to his critique that worries you, that keeps you up at night about President Trump? I don't know. I mean, I like and respect Jeff a lot. He's a friend, and we're sorry to see him leave. And I believe that for some people like Jeff, they believe that their job is just to be a consistent, a critic of the things the president's doing wrong. And I respect that decision. And, you know, some people, that might be their role. For other people, they don't want to live in this outrage cycle, which is what we live in now. You wake up every morning, and the news is always about what can people be outraged by today. And the president understands that, by the way, which is why he dominates every news cycle.

Living in New York all his life, he's mastered how to do that to great advantage. Not everybody in New York knows how to do that. Well, but my point to, but he knows that. And so the president knows that. And by the way, I also think he has allowed the media in many ways. their reaction to some of the things he does proves his point about them. And they sometimes turn themselves into

who he accuses them of being because they're so outraged by what he's doing. And so my point is we reach outraged. That's also true of his political opponents. Yeah, I was one of them, right? And sometimes it's overreach, okay? I heard the tape of what he said about MS-13. And in any other era, somebody else,

they probably would have gotten the benefit of the doubt because of his history, because of everything that's happened, he doesn't get that anymore. I heard it reported today that he said the 2018 elections are not that important. When you watch it, it was a joke. There are other things that are legitimate, and that need to be called out. And we have, whether it was what happened in Virginia and last summer with Charlottesville, whether it's the attack on the judge during the campaign, whether it's policy. The point being is, in the middle of all this, I'm not, yes, there are issues that will cross the line and you've got to speak out, but you also have a job to do on a regular basis.

And it's just that if we spend all day just responding to the daily outrage cycle, we don't have time to do the rest of our job. And so everyone's found a different way forward. I found there are lines that are crossed. I'm going to speak out strongly. So you're not going to be supine when you think it matters. Well, I think even now we've proven that that's not the case. For example, I think it was a terrible mistake to cancel TPS for Haiti and Honduras. And hopefully there's still time to reverse some of that.

So if there's something that's wrong, we're going to step out and we're going to say it's wrong. So your point is you are trying to work with them where you can but disagree with them. Yeah. So my point is when we can get things done together, I want to do that because that's what would be expected of me of a Democrat president with an office. When I disagree what the president's doing, I'm going to try to change his mind. And if I can't change his mind, then I'm going to vote against it or stand up against it. And I think all three are valid. You know, if we agree, let's work together and get things done. If we don't agree, let me try to influence it. And if you still go forward, then I'll oppose it.

And I think you can do that and still be true to yourself. This system of government does not work if people who have different views cannot figure out how to at least talk to each other and find out what they do agree on. And we try and continue to try to lead by example. And I hope it has an influence on people, but it may or may not. We'll see. Well, at least Senator Rubio, you are talking to the listeners of the New Yorker Radio are. And for that, we are very grateful.

Thank you. Thank you. That was Senator Marco Rubio, talking with the New Yorker's Susan Glasser. Susan writes for us about Donald Trump's Washington every week, and you can find her at New Yorker.com. And that's it for this week. Keep in touch with us on Twitter at New Yorker Radio, and we'll see you next time. The New Yorker Radio Hour is a co-production of WNYC Studios and The New Yorker.

Our theme music was composed by Merrill Garbus of Tune Yards with additional music by Alexis Quadrato. The New Yorker Radio Hour is supported in part by the Chalkyce. Turinant Endowment Fund.