The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart - Trump 2024: The Patriotism Paradox

Episode Date: October 31, 2024

With less than a week until the election, Americans face a stark choice about their country's future. While Trump's supporters wave flags from the Revolutionary War — a war fought against a king —Trump seeks to expand presidential authority and claim immunity from wrongdoing. This week, we're joined by Mona Charen, Policy Editor at The Bulwark and host of "Beg to Differ" podcast, and Harvard Professor Emeritus Laurence H. Tribe, to explore Trump's shallow patriotism and his disregard for the very Constitution he could once again swear to preserve, protect and defend. Follow The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart on social media for more:  > YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@weeklyshowpodcast > Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/weeklyshowpodcast > TikTok: https://tiktok.com/@weeklyshowpodcast  > X: https://x.com/weeklyshowpod Host/Executive Producer – Jon Stewart Executive Producer – James Dixon Executive Producer – Chris McShane Executive Producer – Caity Gray Lead Producer – Lauren Walker Producer – Brittany Mehmedovic Video Editor & Engineer – Sam Reid Audio Editor & Engineer – Nicole Boyce Researcher & Associate Producer – Gillian Spear Music by Hansdle Hsu — This podcast is brought to you by: ZipRecruiter Try it for free at this exclusive web address: ziprecruiter.com/ZipWeekly Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

John Stewart is back in the host chair at The Daily Show, which means he's also back in our ears on The Daily Show Ears Edition podcast. The Daily Show podcast has everything you need to stay on top of today's news and pop culture. You get hilarious satirical takes on entertainment, politics, sports, and more from John and the team of correspondents and contributors. The podcast also has content you can't get anywhere else, like extended interviews and a roundup of the weekly headlines. Listen to The Daily

Show, Ears Edition, wherever you get your podcasts. When 60 Minutes premiered in September 1968, there was nothing like it. This is 60 Minutes. It's a kind of a magazine for television. Very few have been given access to the treasures in our archives. But that's all about to change. Like none of this stuff gets looked at. That's what's incredible. I'm Seth Doan of CBS News.

Listen to 60 Minutes, A Second Look, wherever you get your podcasts. Hey everybody. Welcome to the weekly show podcast. My name is Jon Stewart. We have less than one week to the election. And I think I speak for everybody when I say, ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh uh, I really hope that that did not kill you in the microphone. I tried very much not to do that close enough to the microphone that would cause any of you pain. I don't know what's going to happen.

I am doing the thing that I swore I was not going to do, which is neurotically clicking on every single possible, this is how this map could go on. This is how this map I'm looking up local news in Hazelton, Pennsylvania. I'm losing my fucking mind. You know what? I'm not going to fall into the trap. It's one day.

We have to work at this every day, no matter what happens. I'm just going to keep telling myself it's not, it's not just about one day and, uh, but everybody out there, I feel like the country is, is lit up. People are going to get out and vote. They're going to knock on doors. They're going to do all the things they can possibly to, to, uh, protect this thing and, uh, it's been, it's been a boy. It's, it's a wild closing moment.

And I, I gotta tell you, you know, seeing that rally that Trump did in Madison square garden, I've spent a lot of time in Madison square garden since I was a kid, you know, uh, seeing the Knicks, seeing the Rangers, and I got to be honest, I got to tell you, uh, almost every time I'm in that building, uh, somebody brings up the 1798 alien enemies act. I mean, it's just, it just always happens that way. You just know you're cheering for your team and then somebody will go,

Hey, what if we interned a giant group of people, many of them Americans, because I've ginned up fear about them. You know, so that's, so it wasn't unusual for me to see that on the floor of the garden. Man, I'm just going to get to wanted to get into a little bit today, this idea, it's just a strange thing to watch the flags flying and the don't tread on me and the patriotism. And then Trump gets up there and he just clearly shreds the idea that he has any love or understanding of the constitution of the United States of America.

And we're gonna have two guests that are gonna come on and discuss it. And actually, oddly enough, and we don't do this very often, at kind of a real dichotomy of political views, Mona Sharon, who was the policy editor of the Bullwark, and she's a conservative columnist, she's been that for a long time, and Lawrence Tribe, who was just a legal lion and as I'm sure you'll be able to tell, liberal. He's liberal.

But we're going to talk a little bit about just how in the hell we got to this place where the symbols and icons of the Revolutionary War are being used to prop up a guy who clearly, as he begged the Supreme Court to give him absolute immunity, would like to be king. And we'll get into that right now. So to get right to it, with less than a week to go to the election, we're delighted to have our guests with us.

Mona Charen, Policy Editor at The Bulwark, and host of Beg to Different Podcasts, and Lawrence H. Tribe, Harvard University professor emeritus. By the way, the H, and I didn't realize this, Larry, stands for Harvard. I didn't know that your middle name. My parents were very farsighted.

It's unbelievable, the premonition they must've had. I wanna thank you both for being here. The question that I wanna talk about is there's something that has somewhat baffled me about, well, a few things that have baffled me about this MAGA movement. But the main thing is it is steeped in the iconography of patriotism, of the revolution.

It's we the people, it's on the buses, it's all about fealty to the constitution and reverence for the founding fathers. And yet they are supporting an individual who seems to, if this were the revolution, I mean, they'd be Tories. He wants absolute immunity for the president. It seems to fly in the face of everything that they feel is the foundation of their movement.

And I'm not saying, Oh, don't support Donald Trump or don't support Maggard do whatever you want. That's America. You vote for who you're going to vote for, but don't couch it in constitutional admiration. So I want to get your, your thoughts on. And Larry, I'll start with you and then we'll go to Mona. Larry, what do you think? Well, it does seem to me kind of obviously hypocritical. The Constitution, to the extent it represented anything, represented a rejection of a petty tyrant, rejection of rule over the people rather than

rule by the people. But that's nothing new. I mean, throughout our history, the iconography of constitutionalism and the trappings of patriotism have always provided a kind of patina of legitimacy. We share a language in which we claim to have certain ideals. Each side, I think, believes the other side is abusing that language. I don't myself have any doubt which side is really guilty of the abuse but I don't expect people to believe me just because I say so. You're a professor emeritus. I think we have to believe,

I think the law is we have to believe you. The rules, and I'm always right. I think that's the rules-based order that we've been talking about. Mona, you famously, you know, on the conservative side, is this something that, as Larry said, you've seen before? Is this a new development on that side?

What do you think is going on? Okay, so first of all, I wanna thank you for inviting me on. There are only a few days until the election. My anxiety level is so high, and it is so good to be with someone who can make me laugh at this moment. Thank you for the invitation.

Oh, you mean me? I thought you were talking about Larry. Okay, yeah, no, I'm delighted to be with someone who can make me laugh at this moment. Thank you for the invitation. Oh, you mean me? I thought you were talking about Larry. Okay, yeah, no, I'm delighted to be able to do that. Mona, first of all, let me say, I so appreciate the anxiety that everybody is feeling. It's a constant, what's going to happen, we don't know. The thing that I always keep saying is, we are almost in a Pavlovian response to this one day as the day. And the

thing I always say to people is it could be a day that goes your way, a day that doesn't go your way, but it is not one day. The work that you do, the work that Larry does, the work that everybody tries to do is it's day to day. I try to tell people like, don't get so wrapped up in that day. Just remember, you got to keep fighting no matter what. That is absolutely true. It's also good life advice never to get too high or too low, no matter what fate sends your way. Right, the roller coaster. Exactly. Yes, exactly. All right. So let's talk, to answer your first question, I want to talk a little bit about the right and then I want to talk about the left. Please. Regarding the right, we just saw this vulgar festival at the Madison Square Garden, which

put some of us in mind of another rally at Madison Square Garden that happened in- 1939. In 1939, that was sponsored by the German-American Bund, which was an American Nazi organization. And it had a lot of Nazi iconography, there were swastikas, but the big portrait at the front of the hall was a two-story high image of George Washington. Right. Because if you're going to have American fascism, you're going to have to draw upon American iconography, American history, American symbols. Oh, that's interesting. And so that was the most glaring example of how you can distort American history for obviously

anti-patriotic ends, but claiming patriotism all the while. And that is, I think, what we're seeing also to, you know, these are not American Nazis, but they are certainly fascist adjacent, the MAGA movement. And they too invoke patriotism for something that is anti-patriotic, because, as you say, and as Professor Tribe said, they don't respect the constitution, they want to bury it. Trump himself has said that the constitution

should be shredded in order to put him back in office, this was in 2022, et cetera. I just wanna ask real quick, do you think is that then a cynical manipulation? Because I would say that there is a sincere belief amongst many of the people that follow it that they are following in the footsteps of George Washington. They don't see either the hypocrisy, they see it as foundational. I wonder, is it a cynical manipulation from those at the top designing this stuff?

Do they say for this movement to take place, we have to have it steeped in some kind of patriotic or constitutional hierarchy, even as we're saying, we're going to, as you said at the rally, 1798 Alien Enemies Act, we're just gonna intern people. Yeah. So whether they're cynical or not, with all due respect, I'd rather not get into that.

Then you have to go down the road of how much history does Trump really know? It doesn't matter. Yeah, I don't think it's a lot. Yeah, it doesn't matter. The fact is it is out there to be exploited, and now I wanna turn to the left. Yes.

Because I think the left has made a mistake in this country, which they are now in the business of correcting in my judgment, of being suspicious of patriotism, of finding patriotic talk cringe inducing, more comfortable as critics. I'm a big consumer of NPR. And every single day it is this NPR, and every single day it is this marginalized group or that marginalized group and this sin that was committed by the United States 50, 100 years ago and that crime against this or that group, almost never. In fact, one morning I was listening and they were talking about a program to help the Inuit people in Canada that was run by the federal government

and how successful it was. And I thought, is this NPR? I mean, this is a positive story about something that was done by the United States. I don't know what I'm listening to. So I think the left is figuring out, or at least the Kamau Harris campaign has very smartly recognized that it's a better bet to be patriotic, to say you are in favor of the American flag, not to let the right steal that from you, and to celebrate American exceptionalism, American virtues, as well as obviously recognizing our flaws. I'm not saying we should all be chauvinists or jingoistic, but I do think the left needs to recognize the importance and the power of patriotism in American politics.

That's such an interesting point because I think, and Larry, I'll ask you about it. Sure. My sense of patriotism, I guess, is so different from that. I actually view the criticism of the United States and its actions as the highest order of patriotism. So it's interesting to hear you say,

I don't view it as a repudiation, I guess, of the Constitution or of the founding. I view it as a repudiation, I guess, of the Constitution or of the founding. I view it as the struggle to live up to what is clearly something that we weren't able to live up to and that that criticism for those groups is crucial to the journey of being able to separate nationalism from patriotism or love of country from clear-eyed vision of its flaws and its benefits. But Larry, what's your thought on that,

the criticism of the left for that? Well, first of all, I agree very much with your way of describing patriotism, at least the way I have felt it. I feel that I love my country most when I am taking advantage of the freedom it provides to join in the enterprise of ever improving it. I came to this country when I was not quite six years old. My parents were Russian. Oh, so you can't be president. Well, we just broke some news. I didn't even know he was running. No, I'm not old enough. That's a good point. No, I think the country is a Russian Jewish immigrant. I have loved the country ever since

I got here. One of my favorite possessions is an American flag that my father, because he had become an American citizen before being interned by the Japanese in Shanghai where I was born, my father hid it in the false bottom of a trunk knowing that if it were discovered, he would be tortured, perhaps killed. When he died, my mom gave me that flag. It means a lot to me personally. It's a symbol of what I love. But when people started burning the flag and others, and I was as offended as anyone, when others said, oh, they should be punished for burning the flag. You guys have it backwards. What they are doing is expressing in the strongest way they can their opposition at the time to the Vietnam War. Let me say also that although I agree with Mona when she says it is a strategic mistake as well as a conceptual error

to equate genuine Americanism with some kind of chauvinism. That's a mistake, but it's also a mistake to talk about the left or the right. As a monolith. As a monolith. I mean, there are undoubtedly some people in the MAGA movement who are scheming and know perfectly well how they're manipulating symbols in order to sort of play to people's grievances. There are others who are taken in. There are people on the left across the spectrum, the less we lump people together, either by race, by ethnicity, by religion, by political party, by a particular point on the ideological spectrum, the more open we are to an ever improving union. And that's what I open we are to an ever improving union. And that's what I so love. I mean, I'm so grateful to the country for- It's not static. It's not static, the whole thing. When Barack Obama was a student of mine and I was so lucky

to have him- You taught him? Oh yeah. That's where he learned all those communist values. Tribe. Yeah, where they come from. But when he was in my class, he kept emphasizing a more perfect union. He was talking about that even back then. Even back then. He was really the only first year law student that I can remember who was so impressive to me at the time before he learned anything from me.

My research assistant, we wrote some articles together. And it was because of his belief that it was a project that was never finished, was very much like Lincoln, a more perfect union, the better angels of our nature. That's what I value. And I've got a nephew with whom I constantly argue, he's become an expatriate. He lives in Vietnam part of the time, most of the time, because he emphasized. He's abandoned the experiment. Yeah. He's done all these terrible things, Native Americans, slavery.

True, but that's not a reason to abandon this great human object. That's right. And not the whole story. but that's not a reason to abandon this great human project. That's right, and not the whole story. Mona, I want to ask you, because this actually really is, it's a fascinating discussion because it gets to kind of a visceral and emotional truth, right? Right.

As opposed to a, you know, kind of a constitutional truth, which is the thing that everybody tries to divide. So the emotional truth is, it really depends on who is doing the criticizing, how that criticism is viewed within the public. I could make the case that nobody has criticized America or been more angry at it than Donald Trump. Right.

You know, he is calling it a garbage can and his solution is, which by the way, again, seemingly against the constitutional principles is the only solution is, is he as the Lord and savior. But I want to ask you, when you hear the criticism on NPR from a group that might be described as, as marginalized, does that hit your ear differently than hearing a criticism from a group in a rust belt, a white blue collar town, and they're criticizing America for its policies. What would be the difference of that? And how does that hit differently? And I do agree that one of the almost unique strengths of this country is our capacity for self-criticism, our willingness to look honestly at our own history and our flaws and move toward a better future, constantly having the idea that we're improving things and more perfect union, right? And so, you know, I get what you're asking,

which is, you know, that, you know, people are much more tolerant of criticism from their own side. They don't see that as unpatriotic, whereas when it comes from the other side, they tend to. Well, what's interesting is criticism from the right is actually not like the left, I don't think, views the right's criticism as unpatriotic. I think it only.

I'm not so sure. Oh, really? Okay. I mean, I loved it, frankly, when Governor Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania said about Trump, he said, stop shit talking America. Right. So I do think there's been pushback to that. They've noticed that this is the kind of rhetoric that the MAGA people are using and they've responded very well. Okay, we'll be right back.

All right, folks, we've got people that are gonna help pay for the podcast through the art of advertising and this one is a necessity. Like for instance, do you have a sandwich business? And you're like, this is a ciabatta business and then you hire people and they're like, I only make wraps, man. It's just, it's a poor fit. But thankfully there's a place you can go to help you for this.

ZipRecruiter can make hiring fast and easy. You can try it for free, which is a rare treat at ziprecruiter.com slash zipweekly, their smart technology identifies the top talent, not the people that only want to make wraps. Four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the first day. Try it for free at this exclusive web address, ziprecruiter.com slash zipweekly. I'll say it again, because I was a poor hire. Ziprecruiter.com slash zipweekly. Do it now!

MTV's official challenge podcast is back for another season. That's right, the challenge is about to embark on its monumental 40th season, y'all, and we are coming along for the ride. Woohoo, that would be me Devon Simone. And then there's me Devon Rogers. And we're here to take you behind the scenes of the Challenge 40 Battle of the Eras.

Join us as we break down each episode, interview challengers, and take you behind the scenes of this iconic season. Listen to MTV's official challenge podcast wherever you get your podcasts. Okay, we are back in. But look, so while yes, it is a strength of ours to be able to be self-critical, I just think there does come a point where it goes too far. Now, of course,

the MAGA people, I reject their entire criticism of the United States because I think it's completely unfounded. Their view is that the United States is terrible because we are importing criminal immigrants and because our cities are hellholes and because our crime is through the roof. None of that is true. So I don't accept their criticisms. I do accept some criticisms from the left. Absolutely.

We have a history of slavery and discrimination. We haven't gotten over all of that. But I do think, to return to the earlier point, that the left can take it too far also. And so, you know, when you were saying you think it's the highest form of patriotism to criticize your country, I would just ask, you know, I don't know if you're married, but if you're- Wait, what? If your spouse-

Yes. If your spouse was constantly pointing out everything you do wrong, all your flaws every day, just a constant litany of the things you've done wrong today, the things you did wrong years ago, et cetera. And then you say, why are you always criticizing me? You must not love me. And the response is, this is the highest form of love. Okay.

Can I tell you something? What a great analogy because it's about a relationship, right? It's about building a relationship. And Mona, we're going to get into whatever relationship issues you're having because that analogy, I don't know where that came from. But all right, I'll accept it. It seems to me apart from the very good substantive points that Mora makes, there is an asymmetry of sorts and that is, I think it's fundamentally different when you are trying to erase the past and when you are trying to say something meaningful about it. Erasing history, erasing fact, moving into an unreal world of alternative fact. That feels to me to be

fundamentally wrong regardless of the purpose or orientation that it reflects. I mean, we're not ever going to make any kind of progress as a society if we don't have some shared reality, some shared conviction that some things are true and others are not limited to the truths of mathematics or something, we may not know how to prove that napalming babies is wrong or that splitting families apart cruelly is wrong, but we know it. We know it as deeply as we know that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. But then to Mona's point, you know,

criticism has to be leveled kind of fairly across the board, but I want to get back to quickly the relationship analogy and then move into what that idea is about our shared reality. In the relationship analogy, I think on the right, the difficulty that I have with the way you describe it, and I think, uh, you're right, it's exhausting at times, but one of the differences is in a relationship, if I were to get a criticism and immediately say, I've never done that and I'm going to make it so

that you don't love me unless you tell me I'm great and, and I'm going to make it so that you don't love me unless you tell me I'm great. And, and I'm going to deny that it ever happened. And I'm going to tell you that you're, uh, playing the victim and you're gasoline and I would suggest that on the right, that is kind of what has happened. I mean, you look at Florida and they say, you can't teach the 1619 curriculum, which hates America. It doesn't hate America. It's explaining how we got here with our relationship to the African-American community. So, so while the point is correct

about like, yeah, relationship would get tiresome. I'm just saying what plays into that is not just the left's criticism. It's the right's ability to gaslight, to say, to deflect and to never admit that there are communities who have suffered disproportionately. Yeah. So, so can I just respond to something Larry said? Please. I think it's important. So he made the point that we have to be able to have a shared reality, which I 100% agree with. But then the examples that he gave, that you gave Larry, those were moral arguments

about whether something is immoral or not immoral. And I think before we even get to that point, we have to deal with the problem of just complete gaslighting and disinformation. The fact is that the message of MAGA is things like immigrants are committing disproportionate amounts of crime in this country, you're not safe because of all these criminal immigrants. And it's just false, okay? There are immigrants who commit crimes, but all the data show that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans. And you can see why that would be. People who come here, especially if they're here illegally, for the most part want to keep their noses clean, stay out of trouble. And that is borne out by the data. But we, in our current polarized moment, one of the biggest problems we face as a society

is trying to break through these silos of misinformation and deal with reality so that then we can have a debate. After we've established what the facts are, then we can debate what the right thing to do is. But how do we go about establishing what the facts are? The trouble is when I talk to people and I try to find them who say, no, you're wrong, crime is at an all-time high. In fact, more crimes are committed, serious crimes by immigrants. And I say, where do you get that idea? And they say, well, and then they point

to some silo and I point to my silo and I say, mine has empirical evidence behind it and they say no. In the end, we are debating the sources of authority. We don't have direct first-hand knowledge ourselves of what's going on on the streets. And so, each of us starts with some assumptions about what is a trustworthy source of information. And it's very hard to crack beneath that surface when authority is questioned, when elites for good reason are regarded as sometimes suspect. Right, with skepticism, certainly. Yeah. Yeah.

All right. I'm going to broach both of your areas of expertise then, because I think together we have the solution. So Larry, obviously constitutional law, the profession of law, Mona, you've done fabulous journalism in these various areas. So here's maybe the answer. Who litigates the parameters of our shared reality? And I use the word litigate purposefully because to a large extent, our court system is the one place where reality has standards of evidence has, has things that, uh, hold to now you

can be cynical about, uh, the court system and the way that it functions and all that, but at its core is a series of principles that, uh, helps you litigate, not speculate, which is what our media tends to do, speculate into the future. What will this mean for 2028, blah, blah, blah? What if our media relentlessly litigated those parameters of our reality

and isn't that something that could earn the kind of authority and trust that you're talking about? Mona, what do you think of something like that? Well, this is the great challenge of the next several years, I think, because we are floundering at the moment in this new media environment where there are so many sources of information and there are so few

gatekeepers now that are trusted. And so people choose their own adventure and choose what to believe and getting people to agree on certain, you know, to trust certain authorities. One of the things that I think has been the most damaging thing about Trump, which is why one of the reasons that I opposed him right from the get-go is that one of his missions is to undermine faith in all institutions that could possibly damage him. So whether it's the intelligence agencies, the press, the military, the courts, and the election system. And so when people lose faith in those, look, those institutions are not perfect, obviously, and they make mistakes. But what we have to manage to have a conversation about in this country is people say, I don't trust institutions, but they do and they have to. They would not get up out of bed in the morning if they didn't, right?

You look at the letter grade on a restaurant, you walk in there and say, that thing's got a C, I'm not sitting and eating there, but if it's got an A, I believe that I won't get sick. They open the tap to drink their water first thing in the morning. They trust the institutions that those, the water is safe to drink.

They get on an airplane, you know, I mean, all of these things require trust and justifiably. But trust is built up for over experience. Larry, I'll ask you, so let's let's talk about election denial. Okay. 2020 was rigged. Anybody who represents Donald Trump can go on any cable news network or on Twitter or

on Facebook or whatever, and make the case it was rigged, it was this, the cyber ninjas say this, the, all the votes were taken. Where does it fall apart? Where does that reality fall apart in court? When they tried to litigate it, it fell apart. Aren't don't we have to set upon a project of litigating these realities? Mona made a great point, those institutions aren't perfect, but there are some institutions that earn your trust over time through your experience. Don't we have to undertake that project? I think we very much do. And because the courts have become so radically and conspicuously

politicized in many instances, we're having a much harder time doing that. I mean, there have been times throughout American history when the Supreme Court has veered very far to one direction or another, usually to the right. You know, the decision in Dred Scott and Plessy, Korematsu, Shelby County. All right. Now you're like, Plessy and Ferguson, I was with you. I went to Korematsu and Shelby County, I was lost. Well, the main point is voting rights have often fared badly in the Supreme Court. Equality has is fair badly. But the idea that the court at least

followed a method of it, looking at precedent, paying attention to facts, rule of evidence, that tended to hold even though people would often disagree with where the court came out. I think it came out much too often, much too repressively and regressively, but that's a matter of judgment. Now we have judges who basically say, yes, for 50 years we've agreed that a woman should have control over her own body, but now we say no. Why? What's changed? We have the votes. The idea and the dissenting justices in Dobs made it clear the idea that it's just a matter of counting up the votes and that there is no method to the madness. That undermines an important function of the judiciary. And it's a function that we have

to rebuild. It can't be rebuilt overnight. Court has lost its credibility for good reason. We will be right back. Okay, we are back in and Mona, in your mind, what are the guardrails anymore then? What are the things that tether us? Well, can I, before getting to the guardrails, can I respond to that because- Please, please. I think people can differ as to whether Dobbs

was rightly decided or Roe v. Wade was good law. But I think it's important to keep in mind, leaving that aside for a second, it's important to keep in mind, leaving that aside for a second, it's important to keep in mind that of all the institutions in our society, all of whom were stressed during the Trump presidency, the one institution that I think held up best was the courts. I agree. You had every single one of those cases, with the exception of half of one that went against Trump, judges that Trump had appointed wrote searing opinions

saying, you can't just come into this courtroom with nothing, facts matter here, and the law matters and arguments matter. And that was a reassuring moment for the strength of institutions. And frankly, when so many others had failed the test, certainly the entire Republican Party, with a few notable exceptions. And so I think that we need to build on that. We need to remind people that the courts actually performed very well when put to the test. I'm not sure how it would be if Trump is reelected, God forbid Trump is reelected. I think we may find ourselves with a lot of Eileen Canons

and judges will no longer feel emboldened to do the right thing. They will think, well, the voters chose this. I think Mona is exactly right. I think the judiciary for all its flaws held up better than other institutions in 2020. I'm hopeful, cautiously hopeful, cautiously optimistic that that will still be true, but it's not a given. Just this morning, the US Supreme Court in a crazy case from Virginia where Governor Youngkin asked the court to cooperate with the suppression of certain votes because of the so-called danger that now this is revolting. Wasn't that on, it's on a suspicion of a person not being documented. If you have a suspicion of it,

you can remove that person from the voter rolls. What I think the court did today indicates not that it's going to go badly this time necessarily, but if it won't, it will not be for want of trying. There are six justices on the US Supreme Court that given the flimsiest excuse might look to find another Bush v Gore opportunity. And I worry about that. I think the trajectory is not all encouraging. Things looked better in 2020 things looked better in 2020 than they look to me now with the Eileen Canons populating the country and feeling their oats more fully. Right. Well, I think Mona's point too, if they've got that victory, they might think, oh, this is the direction that we want to go. And I think my point was we take that positive part of how the courts had earned that authority and we try to apply that methodology into these other systems that we have to help rebuild that kind of trust.

And then getting back to our kind of original premise, if the guy at the top can pick and choose his constitutional pleasures, he loves the Fifth Amendment. We've seen that being used quite frequently. But I've seen the right fetishizing free speech. Free speech is under attack in this country, blah, blah, blah. Trump is the only one who's out there saying, I'm gonna remove licenses from news organizations that I don't like. DeSantis is the only one out there saying,

I'm gonna make sure that teachers don't get a chance to teach the way they like. A guy in Oklahoma on the right is saying, you gotta have Bibles in the school and you've gotta do it. It seems to me that- Trump Bibles. Trump, by the way, the $150 Trump Bible that's somehow like also a 3D hologram.

I don't even understand what any of it is. But the point being, it does seem to be a choose your own adventure. And the only underlying principle is, does this help Trump? But I still believe Trump is merely a symptom of a government that's having trouble being responsive to people's needs. Right, and a symptom of an undercurrent of hatred

and mistrust and misogyny and racism that has run throughout our history, which is not to say that we're not a great country. We are, because we can face those truths and help to overcome them. But it is to say that Trump is not a new phenomenon. He is simply a symptom. I think he's both cause and symptom because he's had a capacity to expand, it's an overuse phrase, but to widen the Overton window of what is acceptable. And he's given a permission structure for people's worst instincts to come out. And it's hard to picture somebody like Ron DeSantis, who has lots of terrible instincts, including shutting down free speech

or punishing a huge corporation that gets on the wrong side of him, right? That's by the way, the antithetical to the conservative values that I used to talk about for years as a conservative columnist, the whole point was you don't want an overweening state using state power against private parties, even a big private party like Disney. But anyway, but it is hard to imagine somebody like DeSantis, you know, creating a mob that would storm the Capitol on his behalf.

You said something earlier that I thought was really interesting, which is Trump has gone after and delegitimized any institution or organization that could hurt him. That strikes me as the genesis of Roger Ailes' project. You know, when he was in the Nixon White House and he said, I'm going to create a news network so that they can't ever do that to Nixon or any of us ever again. And it's been a 50 year project of delegitimizing any think tank, any university, any news organization that may ultimately. And the irony of Roger Ailes was was, his ethos was you cannot trust

editorial authority anywhere while exercising almost iron fisted editorial authority. So is this really though just a talented demagogue who came along when the field was seeded, I guess is my point. Yeah, I don't think it's either or. I think it is both. It's both. You're right. The ground was prepared. You had the Rush Limbaugh phenomenon. I mean, there were many things that were going on that prepared the ground for Trump, but he is, I think, uniquely poisonous. Larry, the courts are the slowest moving ships probably in the constitutional, executive, legislative, and judicial because those appointments are lifelong. It's the slowest moving one to shift around. Are we in a 50 to 60 year cycle now that is moving it in the deregulatory

and delegitimizing direction? Well, I think it's too early to say, obviously. The court has done things very recently that undermine the possibility of meaningful regulation by basically saying, unless Congress specifies in advance prophetically exactly what an agency can do, it's going to be up to us, the courts, to decide how to interpret the powers of the regulatory state. Whether that in the end makes the regulatory state more powerful, ironically, is impossible to say. But it does seem to me pretty clear that the courts, despite the slowness with which the wheels of justice supposedly move, are capable of moving at lightning speed when they want to. The Nixon tapes case was decided

almost overnight. The Pentagon Papers case was decided very quickly. By the way, those cases would be decided very differently today. I'm convinced. No doubt they would. Whereas the current court deliberately slow-walked the issues about whether Trump was guilty of violating all kinds of important criminal statutes and trying to overturn the election. They slow-walked that to the point where he'll never be held accountable unless he loses this election. So they can move at lightning speed if they want and not otherwise. That's the greatest and least visible power of the courts is the procedural power beneath the surface of the iceberg. And this gets us back to our original point, which is when the courts have a fealty to the constitution, when the Congress has a fealty to the constitution, as opposed to

one man or one party, we see a much healthier system. The system is checks and balances. The founders, they thought it's going to be a fight between the legislative, judicial, and executive, not between political parties. But as political parties control those areas, what are the checks and balances that we have left? What are they? John, they realized that for all the checks and balances, character was going to be determinative. They said that a demagogue might arise, charismatic demagogue, with no fealty to the Constitution, no fealty to principle, but a clear willingness to bend power to his own ends. It's almost as though they were describing Donald Trump in advance.

Right. Mona, what do you think in terms of, you know, on a more conservative viewpoint, where you might look at and have some sympathy towards lessening government regulation or moving some things, where do you see the checks and balances? I mean, the court has basically said now, corruption kind of doesn't exist unless it's an explicit quid pro quo. Money is free speech, corporations are people. What are the checks and balances now in this weather system? So I do agree with Larry that it does, that our system to some degree depends upon character

and that is something that has to be instilled from childhood and it has been slipping in our culture. Are we nostalgic though? Were the presidents that came before us, were they really men of great character? It strikes me that- Not all of them. Not all of them. That's what I was going to say. It strikes me that many of them were not, even the ones we revere. We had Andrew Johnson, who was a, I'm not going to use an epithet, but he was a horrible human being. But no, we've had our share of bad men. But so we're not, so I think you were referring

to this, John, when you mentioned that the way the founders thought the branches were going to check one another didn't turn out to be right. They thought that the Congress's institutional concerns would trump party and they didn't. So Madison got that wrong, oh well. But they also built in others, the federal system. The fact that we have distributed power to the states and the states and the federal government share power, it's sometimes been out of fashion. But when you look at how different states are protecting rights that other states refuse to protect. You have to say, you know, it's not ideal. So, for example, I mean, it's not ideal that a woman who lives in Alabama

has to travel to get an abortion because her state... And in many cases, it's not possible for that woman to travel. But that is certainly true. But it would be worse if there were one law for the whole country and she had no, and there were no states to go to. So the federal system does provide another set of checks and balances. But in the end, and what we've been discussing is, I think that none of this architecture can work. Institutions are just just people and none of this can work without an agreed set of facts. And that's our biggest challenge going forward is getting over this

siloing, this poisonous partisanship where people just choose not to believe things that they find uncongenial. And the more that we, and I have this with members of my own family, where I have arguments with them and I say, where are you getting your information? And it's, unfortunately, it's Fox and it's the Wall Street Journal editorial page, which I used to love. And those are the mainstream areas of misinformation. Correct. It's underneath that is a wild west of misinformation. Exactly.

Look, there were other periods in American history where we had really irresponsible journalism. We had yellow journalism at the turn between the 19th and the 20th century, responsible arguably for one of our wars. And yet, we did find a way to rise above that. I mean, there came a point where newspapers felt like they needed more prestige, and so they established prizes, the Pulitzer Prize. They established editorial boards that were going to be more responsible. They created the American Society of Newspaper Editors that was going to impose certain standards. These things, there are precedents. Maybe we'll get meaningful algorithmic reform

and maybe that will change the way that things go. Yeah. But Larry, you were going to jump in and I'll let you take us out on a hopeful note, a positive note, Larry Tribe. Come on, Larry, you can do this. AC Well, first of all, I think what's hopeful is that Mona and I, despite our very broad policy disagreements over the years, can agree that the country needs seriously to focus on finding a

shared set of factual premises that we can agree on. I'm hopeful that even though there is no algorithm for getting there, chat GPT or anything else, I'm hopeful that throughout our history we have overcome remarkable challenges. I mean, we did defeat Hitler and Mussolini. We did eliminate slavery, though not completely. We've made enormous progress. And when I look at the hopeful sounds that were struck in the ellipse by what I think is the next president of the United States the other night. I'm nothing other than hopeful. I think we're going to have some bumpy times ahead, but I look forward to being right there at the ramparts. And I agree with what Mona said at the very beginning, whatever happens, we can't give up. I mean, even in the horrific possibility that Trump comes back to power, and I just don't

believe it'll happen. Even then, for us to throw in the towel and say, well, it's all over, we'll never have another election, that would be a terrible mistake. Tim Snyder has made the powerful point, you don't obey the dictator in advance. It's the first of his 20 lessons from tyranny in the 20th century. You don't give up in advance. You fight as hard as you can. On the beaches, on the ramparts, on the landing grounds.

I so appreciate you guys being here. It's a reminder that the, you know, as they say, the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice. But it doesn't bend that way by itself. There are individuals out there who must on a day-to-day basis through great labor and great insight bend it towards justice.

And I thank you both for being a part of that. Mona Charon, Larry Tribe. Thank you. Thank you guys so much for joining. What a fantastic conversation. Thank you. Great pleasure. Thank you. Thank you. Look, look at that. Look at that. The elder statesmen of liberalism and conservatism standing together

in wretched disgust of the Republican candidate for president and the hopes that we as a nation, did you guys think it was like, I felt like what I was doing is like, we still have institutions that can stop this, right? There are still guardrails, like even if this happens, like I think I was almost begging them. You were begging to feel a little bit better.

Right? And they're like, fewer and fewer. What am I not seeing in the system that, cause I really did feel like I thought they'd be more bullish on the courts, to be honest with you. I thought I thought Larry was like, yeah, that's over. I think Mona was still a little with it. Well, there's been such like a partisan project to instill these partisan judges

at every step of the legal institution. So I don't know how much confidence we can have in anything anymore. How are you guys handling? Are you going through your towns counting signs? Yeah, I mean, Long Islander, so. Right, so there's nothing to count other than Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump.

Yeah, my town is, I've got a surprising amount of Harris Walls out here, which I am surprised about because I am in, you know, I'm in, I'm in Trump country and, and Tracy and I are still playing the Trump or insurrectionist game where we see going. Oh, it's you. Do you know, you don't play that game? What is this game? Oh, Trump or insurrectionist.

No, you, so we'll go by and you'll be like outside their house will be like Trump vans and like a little thing. Uh, and you'll be like Trump or, uh, and Trump vans and like a little thing and you'll be like Trump-er. And then it'll be, you know, F-150 with like giant Trump flags flying out the side of it and a don't tread on me Gadsden flag and like I have a gun and I vote and we're like insurrectionist. So you have to judge the level of commitment to the movement. That's fun.

Well, it's as you lead up to the election, there's not a whole lot else. You have to find joy somewhere. You have to find joy somewhere. Brittany, do the listeners have any thoughts on the, are they? Yeah, we have some good ones this week. All right, what do we got?

We have a theme, if you can tell. This listener said, this will be both the second time I'll be voting and the second time I've been told this will be the most important election of your life. How many of your voting experiences have felt this important, if at all? Boy, that's such a great question. I actually think now that the more we are inundated

in a media environment like Twitter, that it heightens it in theated in a media environment like Twitter, things like that, it heightens it in the way that, look, they have a stake in the urgency of this. And that is not to suggest that it's not important, but they're all pretty fucking important in truth. Think about Bush Gore and what a different world we might live in if that thing had gone a different way.

I mean, any of these, any, you can Monday morning quarterback the entire universe and, you know, we can always, oh, if it had only gone this way, we'd all have flying cars by now. But like, you really don't, you don't have it. The only people that really see the future are the writers of The Simpsons. So, I don't, but I have great sympathy for someone who is just starting on their voting journey and is already being told that the future of the world is in their hands in that booth. But yeah, hang in there, keep voting.

Well, actually this is kind of a follow-up, this question, because 20 years ago we were in the thick of George W's reelection campaign. This person wants to know, how would you compare that to the potential reelection of Trump in 2024? Well, I think at that time, so it's it's sort of at that time, we did think, oh, this is this is crazy. You know, we were coming off of, uh, I think, uh, eight years of, of Clinton and there was a certain, you know, that's when, when Clinton came in, although Reagan was controversial too, you know what? It's always been a part of it. There's always been a kind of apocalyptic undercurrent about everything that has gone on. It may be, I think Trump might be one of the first

people to really live up to it. Like, and I think, and I would say January 6 is the demarcation point for that feeling where you're just like, Oh, that was a line that I didn't think would ever get fucking crossed. And he just walked, he walked across it. So in the moment, I think you're always feeling the import of it, but you always thought these are people of a same piece that policies you don't agree with to right wing, maybe more interventionist less interventionist. He's the first guy I can remember who was like, oh, I'm going to do over certain guardrails of constitutional propriety that like means, yeah, we're not, we're not in the same ballpark anymore. So this one, yeah.

But January, for me, January 6th, other than the, you know, like, yeah, he's rough and, uh, like I care less about how he acts as a person, like as an asshole, I think he's just not competent as a person, like as an asshole. I think he's just not competent. I don't think he has the attention span to be competent. But January 6th changed even my calculation of the damage this cat can do. And it keeps changing, it feels like. Yes.

The goalposts will always be moving. That's right. I do believe that is correct. But hang in there viewers. I wonder if next week all the listener questions would be like, how do you order something where you can drink your own urine in the forest and survive on mushroom soup? What's your go-to survival pack?

What's your go-to go bag to get out of town? This one is, what are your election night self-care rituals? Hey, I'll be working. And I can tell you my, you know, I don't know if they're self-care rituals, but I'm assuming it's gonna be, if I'm being indulgent, pizza and iced mocha lattes. It's not so much self-care as I need caffeine, sugar, and then somethingcha lattes. It's not so much self care as I need caffeine, sugar,

and then something to absorb it. Comfort food is self care. Boom! It's actually not even comfort food. Like it makes me feel like shit. It feels like a treat though. It is a treat. Well, fabulous.

Listen guys, you've all done such a great job in putting this show together. I hope the listeners understand that I get to show up at Brittany will send me a text at 10 55 and go, we're ready for you. But what that means is that they've seeded the ground and made everything and made it foolproof, me being the fool.

And I just thank you guys for all the just ridiculously good work you've done leading up to the election. And we're keeping it going. We're gonna loosen it up, I'm sure, after the election and get into all those great juicy topics that we talked about. But thanks for getting us there

with such thorough preparation. Just fantastic. Well, thank you for making us laugh along the way. It's been very stressful. It's very stressful. Brittany, if they want to get a hold of us, how do they do it? Please. Twitter, We Are Weekly Show pod, Instagram threads and TikTok, We Are Weekly Show podcast. And please like and subscribe our YouTube channel, The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart. Boom, lead producer, Lauren Walker, producer, Brittany Mametovic, video editor and engineer, Sam Reed, audio editor and engineer, Nicole Boyce.

I don't want to forget Rob Vitola, who is off on paternity leave right now. He'll be running back. Research and associate producer, Gillian Spear. And the executive producers, Chris McShane, Katie Gray. Once again, thanks so much for your great work, guys. And we will see you. Oh God, that sounds so Hamilton.

I'll see you on the other side of the wall. All right, bye-bye. ["The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart"] The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart is a Comedy Central podcast. It's produced by Paramount Audio and Busboy Productions.