Will Cain Country - From the Vault: Michael Malice on Media Lies and MAGA's Future

Episode Date: December 31, 2025

In this New Years Eve “Best Of” edition of ‘Will Cain Country,’ Michael Malice, Author of ‘Not Sick Of Winning: A History Of President Trump’s First 100 Days’ and Host of “YOUR WELCOME” joins Will to discuss if President Donald Trump is the most consequential modern president, the shifting of the Right & the Republican Party's direction, rewriting the rules of political and media engagement, and much more. Subscribe to ‘Will Cain Country’ on YouTube here: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Watch Will Cain Country!⁠⁠⁠ Follow ‘Will Cain Country’ on X (⁠⁠⁠@willcainshow⁠⁠⁠), Instagram (⁠⁠⁠@willcainshow⁠⁠⁠), TikTok (⁠⁠⁠@willcainshow⁠⁠⁠), and Facebook (⁠⁠⁠@willcainnews⁠⁠⁠) Follow Will on X: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@WillCain⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This is Wilcane Country. I'm Will Kane, and we close out the year. We pulled together for you a New Year's Eve best up. Segments that actually stuck, not just headlines that came and went, conversations that captured the year as we saw it. Let's jump in. Michael Malice is a very successful podcast host. He's written several books, including one entitled The New Right. He's analyzed the movement of the last decade plus of not just the left, which has been moving fluidly and rapidly, but also the right around and under Donald Trump. So we wanted to have a conversation, yes, about this Israel and Iran situation, because it has divided the right. You've seen that. I'm sure you've seen it on your social media feeds.

I'm sure you've seen it as you scrolled out. It's divided the right with some very notable names going against other very notable names and a lot of very notable names going against Donald Trump, which I think blew up in their face with what he's pulled off in the last 24 hours. But it raises a deeper question about what is the future of MAGA? What is this position on foreign policy? What happens after Donald Trump? And we discussed that all with the author of a brand new book, not sick of winning about the first 100 days of the presidency of Donald Trump. Here is Michael Malice. Michael Malice, the author of a brand new book,

Not Sick of Winning About the First 100 Days of President Trump's Presidency. Welcome to Will Kane Country. Thank you so much. It's a pleasure to be here. We're excited to have you, man. So let's talk first about your book. Let's talk about Not Sick of Winning. What inspired you to write about the first 100 days of this presidency? Well, I think during the campaign, a lot of us were like a right.

Is this going to be more of the same? He got his butt-handed by Fauci. Remember how Trump went out. It wasn't exactly like what we would have wanted, I think, as Americans. And he's delivering all these promises, and I started Twitter thread. And then every day, it was like, holy crap, judges are getting arrested, flouting the law. None of us saw that coming. All the people that he wanted to be nominated got through, despite some even Republican opposition.

People did not see that coming. Him freeing Ross Ulbricht on day two. A lot of us were hopeful that ended up happening. So every single day, I was like, holy crap, can this guy keep it up? And after a hundred days, he did. I think this was the, I don't, you and I are no spring chickens. And I think it's fair to say, I think it's fair to say, I have never in my lifetime or in yours seen a president over-deliverer on their campaign promises like Trump two had.

So, you know, the book Not Sink of Winning just goes through those hundred days and just shows every single day, it was just win after win after win. And to this day, I don't think his opponents really know how to fight him. They're still scrambling. Let me ask you a question that I've started to bring up somewhat. trollishly, but also provocatively and definitely earnestly. I hate trolling. I hate tro.

With my friends at barbecues, to your point, do you think President Trump, based upon these first 100 days in the continuation, has really put himself in position to be a Mount Rushmore-level president? I contend that I think he's one of the most consequential presidents of at least the last half century, but I think you can expand that timeline much longer. And whether or not you hate President Trump or you love President. in Trump, he's consequential. And I think that puts him on pace for some very, very distinguished company.

Well, in all fairness, Jefferson didn't do crap as president, other than the Louisiana purchase. Teddy Roosevelt is someone I certainly would not want to have up there, if I had my druthers. And he's only up there because I think he was friends with the sculptor. He really didn't earn his place. And I think very few people would say of the important presidents, Teddy's Roosevelt being number four. In terms of consequentialism, during the campaign, if I sat down with you and I said, well,

I've got this crystal ball, and when Trump comes into office, not only is he going to pardon all the January 6 people, he's going to repealing Lyndon Johnson-era executive orders and eliminate DEI and a lot of these racialist programs in the government, you'd be like, okay, look, kid, like, it's nice that you think that, but let's be serious. That's how Washington works. There are so many things he did that weren't even on the table during the campaign.

And what I'm most shocked about is after he's done it, you would think that the Democrats, who for like eight years have been an uproar of white supremacy, very fine people all this nonsense, that they'd be like, holy crap, he's doing it, let's flip out. And they're kind of shrugging their shoulders. There's a huge disconnect between the first and second term, because the first term, he wasn't really doing much on these issues, and they're acting like the sky's falling. And the second term, he's repealing things of decades of destructive policies in America, and they're just kind of looking around being like, yeah, what are you going to do?

It's very baffling to me and kind of unprecedented. Well, I think they're trying, don't you think, Michael, but it's just all become so very impotent. It's as though they dulled that knife during Trump won. And probably even before Trump won, this all started, whatever happened here, I would say roughly towards the tail end of President Obama's presidency, the racialism of everything in America. The accusations that anybody that disagrees with you is something phobic. It all just became a dulled knife. And I think they're still trying to run out many of those same slurs. He's Hitlerian. He is a authoritarian. But it just doesn't cut. But I'm going to disagree with you a little bit, because

because if you're calling me Hitler one day and the next day I'm a king, that's really kind of a promotion. It's like kings are good often, so like talk about a retreat, but to your point, yeah, I made this point in 2016, I tweeted out to go, if you're calling someone to Hitler every day, where do you go from there?

Like super mega Hitler? I mean, if everything's always untended, it's like kind of this Greta Thunberg idea of politics, that everything has to be a calamity and it's an existential threat to the world, and it's happening right now, and if we don't stop it, blah, blah. And then at the same time, there's some kind of surprise that people try to take a shot at the guy.

Well, yeah, if you're saying someone's about bringing about the end of not only America, but the earth, it's incumbent on people to act on this. So there's chickens came home to roost, as we saw in Butler, Pennsylvania. And I think for some Democrats, especially in the leadership, they took a step back like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Like, this is going off the rails. And once violence starts getting introduced into the equation, no one's safe. It's not going to end up just being for Republicans at all. I don't see it as a promotion that they've moved from Hitler to King.

I think it's just an illustration of their incoherence. I think, to your point, the way that you have lathered up the public into this fearful state of psychosis, they're just grasping for any slur. Maybe they too feel that Hitler has been doled and they're tired of saying that. They've got to find something new, but it's all going to be incoherent. But I don't think being a king's a slur. If someone calls me go off king, I'm not going to take a swing at them. like if they call me Hitler.

No, but they think it is. To your point, you may not think it is, but they think it is. They think No Kings is the same thing as saying Hitler. Well, did you see that when Trump tweeted out? He goes, oh, congrats to everyone marching. I heard there was a movement to create a king, but thankfully you stopped it, and I'm still your president. So the fact that he could so humorously deflate their agenda and also to the No Kings thing,

and I think you and I agree, and ever at least this probably agrees, it seems very entirely astroturfed. This was not some kind of organic movement. This clearly seemed to be, if not Soros Money. something like that. It just seemed, just happened very quickly from my own taste. And it's also just bizarre to me because Democrats, like Joe Biden, in the 90s, were very big on campaigning on a strong border and protecting the workers. And now it's like, we don't have an open border, but it's a good thing that we do. That speaks to what you were talking about with incoherence.

And I think they're desperate to find a cudgel to hit the guy with. But after someone's been shot, it's really hard to follow that up with anything that's going to land. turn in a minute in a minute to President Trump, how consequential he is, where his place is in American history. But let's stay on this thread of the left for a moment. The incoherence seems to be its identifying trait at this point. Because the only tie that really binds the modern left is anti-Trumpism. That's right. So wherever he goes, they find themselves pivoting in the opposite direction. That's right. The point that you and I talked about a little bit earlier this week on television, waving Iranian flags. And we don't have to rewind the clock that long ago

that you could have at least described a coherent ideology or set of policies that define the left. Pro-Union, dovish on foreign policy. And today, none of those things apply. We'll also analyze together the right in a moment, but the only thing that binds the left is hatred of Donald Trump, and it makes you wonder, where then do you go after Donald Trump?

Well, I think the Democrats took a big hit to their leadership class. Pelosi stepped down. Biden was driven out of office. Officer Harris got her ass senator in the election. So it's like which way Western man, right? So you have the AOC Bernie Sanders wing with a Democratic socialist wing. And then you have that Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Wall Street, corporate Democratic hack wing. And they don't know which one is going to return them to power, which is the only thing they care about, obviously.

But I also think they're in a good position for the midterms, because they're going to have a lot of good data there because they're going to run AOC-type candidates in some races. They're going to run these so-called moderates in other races. They can see which ones get the wins, and they can run in that direction in 20. What do you take from the fact that a Democratic socialist is currently, and it is ranked choice voting, but currently leading in the Democratic primary for the male race in New York City? Yeah. I have lived in New York all my life in 2021. I still haven't learned how to drive to the amusement of everyone on social media.

And every time I go back to New York like to do Godfell or something like that, it's like the knife gets twisted a little bit more, watching something I love not only be destroyed, but basically peed on in front of my face. It's very heartbreaking for those of us who have such affection for that city. I am, I mean, in all fairness, Andrew Cuomo is not exactly a strong candidate. So they really don't, it's just like you can't be someone with no one. I'm not shocked because I think the New York left is particularly fervent, and they have this hatred for that Hillary Clinton wing, which Andrew Cuomo certainly represents,

that I think you and I can't really appreciate in the same way that it's like, I think how Mitt Romney, in certain conservative circles, would just be run out of the room and they'll just take anyone over him. I think this is the equivalent. And I mean, he's this kind of child of privilege as well. This isn't somebody who fought his way up through the streets. So what he would look like is mayor, I don't know. But I do know it would be very bad. I remember de Blasio, you know, who had been like literally a commie.

He'd been the mayor for obviously eight years. And he, speaking of trolling, he did something hilarious. On Central Park South, it's called Billioners Row. because it's like the most expensive real estate, either in New York and the world, and you have these super skyscrapers. And in the name of equality, which is the base of communism, he wanted to put a homeless shelter there. So even the billionaires had to equally share in the suffering that all that New Yorkers do, which you can appreciate on some level, but another level, it's like the amount of tax revenue from one of these high rises can pay for 50 homeless shelters. So, you know, this kind of idea of equalizing the suffering, if this guy gets in,

I think it would also be very good for Eric Adams, because I think a lot of people, in the same with Julianne, didn't win because everyone turned Republican. They just voted Republican. A lot of people would give Eric Adams another look. Quick break. More of our New Year's Eve best of coming up. This is Ainsley Earhart. Thank you for joining me for the 52 episode podcast series, The Life of Jesus. A listening experience that will provide hope, comfort, and understanding of the greatest story ever told. Listen and follow now at Fox Newspodcasts.com or wherever you listen to podcasts. Welcome back to this New Year's Eve best of edition of Will Kane country. I think it also gives us some indication, but only a slight, some indication about the future of the Democrat Party.

Oh, sure. To the point of whether or not they go the direction of the Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Rahmah Manuel direction for 2028, or they go the AOC, Rashida Talib, and this guy in New York City's direction. Right. Again, it's New York. It's not the United States, but it's at least a piece of evidence of the future for Democrats. And New York also has a huge blue-collar population. So this is very much as kind of college-efeet, you know, doctrinaire leftist. mindset, which is hard to sell to like white ethnics and other populations in New York.

I think this guy would have a lot of time than people think looking on the outside. Okay, now that is a perfect place to now return to the right, which you've written about extensively. Yes. You've helped popularize the term, the new right. Now, I said President Trump was consequential, and you talked about what he's been able to accomplish in office, notably during his second term. But I think his consequentialism is not just based upon these first 100 days of his presidency.

It's the way that over a decade now, he has completely. repositioned the Republican Party. That's correct, yes. And that in and of itself puts him in a discussion of only a handful of presidents. He has completely turned what it means to be a Republican. Has he turned what it means to be a conservative? Might be a deeper conversation. But one that is concerned with the middle class, one that is concerned with blue collars,

one that has trade barriers instead of NAFTA, one that, even though we're sitting here today with a burgeoning war between Israel and Iran, seeks less interventionist foreign policy. And that in and of itself is massive for President Trump. And to your point, I think the level of hatred by Trump, many Trump supporters towards the traditional Republican Party is worse than the hatred of many Democrats for the traditional Republican Party. The hatred towards people like Mitch McConnell, Lisa Makowski, Mitt Romney, and these types, who they regarded quite understandably as selling out both conservatism, republicanism,

and Americanism, it's just through the roof. And I think he, one of the things that got him the nomination, as you and I remember very well, was when in 2015, 2016, during those debates, he basically just slapped the heck out of all those other candidates who had decades of experience between them. And the audience just gave him standing ovations one after another because people had enough. There was a book by Phyllis Schlafly, which she wrote in 1964 when Goldwater got the nomination over the enormous opposition of the Republican establishment called The Choice Down an Echo. And she's like, every four years, someone pretends to be conservative, and then when they campaigned for the president to have to get the nomination, they say me too.

Thomas Dewey, Edison, Nixon, and 60. She's like, we need a choice as Americans. And no matter what you say about Donald Trump, you can't say that he's a big choice versus Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden. This is not like Mitt Romney and Obama having a big Venn diagram of overlap in many ways, like in 2012. And one more thing that he did remake. He may read politics in general because for decades, the Republicans went after Democratic politicians while allowing agencies like The Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, MSNBC to take shots at them with impunity. Those were the people moderating the debates and making sure that the Republican candidate looked like a fool or as if even lying.

And starting with New Gingrich when he ran for the presidency in 2012, and he took on the moderator in CNN, the first debate, John Carlett, I believe it was, Trump really made it normal. You see this JD Vance all the time with Ted Cruz now, Rand Paul, to realize Nancy Pelosi isn't anywhere near as much your enemy as the New York Times is, because as old as she is, she's not as old as the New York Times, and her career won't last as long as they do. And people understand, even leftist, Nancy Pelosi is a Democrat, she's a partisan, she's a politician, but they think of the New York Times as honest, objective, but they're far more radical in their thinking than she is, and far more pernicious in their influence.

To me, I think the difference is simply one between defense and offense. Sure, yes, yes. And so did George Bush think the New York Times was fair? No. Did you think the Washington Post covered him accurately? Of course he did not. But the difference between he and President Trump was that President Trump was willing to say it out loud and play offense. And I do think there was a defining characteristic of Republican candidates for decades to always be on defense.

Yes. Can I swear it? Can I say one bad word of the show? George W. Bush was caught on. referring to a New York Times reporter, I think he was Adam Clyburn, was his name, goes, there's Adam Clymer, Major League from New York Times, and he got caught, and then he apologized. If this was Trump, Trump would be like, well, here's why I called him that, and he would have a list of reasons, and Trump would be right.

So that is one great example how these people go on camera, call you Hitler, say you want to put trans people. Which they said about Bush. Sure, that's right. Yes, that's right, yes. Bush, they called him a devil. They called him Hitlerian. Why were Republicans so reluctant to ever play offense?

Because they're without social media, which didn't really exist that much during the Bush years, they had a monopoly on the mic. If I have all the medias, the hatred people had for Fox News was because you had one alternative to all the other networks that didn't regard conservatives as subhuman. And this was the end of the world because, oh, my God, Fox News is destroying everything. Yeah, because you don't need a majority. You need an alternative. If I have five people saying one thing, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC, and Fox saying something else, all of a sudden I have a choice, and all of a sudden, I don't have a monopoly on the narrative. So once social media spread, and just like myself, any idiot with a microphone can have his point of view,

all of a sudden you're looking at what is the person saying instead of who is saying it. And when you take away their gravitas of being New York Times reporter, and you look at how they tweet or how they post on Facebook, you realize these are not impressive people. decades, this idea that Walter Cronkite is a great example, oh, he was honest and a man of integrity, and he's just this hardcore lefty hack. And now people kind of look back and realize, wait a minute, like we were bamboozled for decades. You had the fairness doctrine, but their version of fairness between the left and the right is like the difference between like an AOC, and then you have like, Romney would be the furthest version of the right. It's just ridiculous. Oh, they painted Romney as

Oh, that's right. Romney too. Yeah, yes. They did that to Romney. Yes. And your point about Fox as well, taken, but Fox is only one in a linear line of progression of alternatives that were attacked, starting with really Rush Limbaugh in the 90s on talk radio, Fox, which still remains sort of in the center of the bullseye, starting in the mid-2000s, and then Elon Musk and X, most recently. Oh, yeah. And the thing is now there's so many targets. There's many right-of-center networks, both TV networks, podcast networks, things like that. They don't really know where to shoot their arrows, and they're kind of run out of them because at a certain point, if everyone's racist or everyone's this or that, the term

loses all coherence. Okay, but we talked about this divide on the left. I want to talk about the divide on the right. And I don't know how accurate it is. To the point of social media and X, I do think it paints an inaccurate picture of reality often. I think it's important, but I think it also

distorts reality. And there is a huge fight on X, on the right, over a lot of President Trump's policies, most noticeably, taking military action in Iran. With many on the right saying this divides MAGA. This is it. This is the dividing line. I voted for no new wars. I voted for no forever wars. I voted for nothing in the Middle East. I voted for America first, not something

that prioritizes Israel's interests. This is the debate raging on the right. You are someone who's always been right there at the center of MAGA. What do you think about that debate and where President Trump stands today? Well, there's a great book called the, I forget a mic in the title, but the point the book makes is people define themselves by opposition. So the author describes that If you have a group of kids and adults, the kids see themselves as kids. And as soon as the adults leave, they see themselves as boys and girls. They separate out, right? Because then they're not united anymore.

They have to be opposed to something. The MAGA coalition was united by the premise of my book, then you write, by opposition to progressivism. And on X and many of the other social media spaces, this kind of woke leftism is completely D.O.A. It's just a non-starter. But once you take away that enemy, it's like, who are we? Now you're going to have to start that infighting. And frankly, I'm glad it's infighting over issues as opposed to personalities or things like that. Because this is a big divide in the history of the right and the history of conservatism.

Are we going to be an internationalist robust foreign power? Or are we going to be more of reducing our forces elsewhere and bringing the boys back home? And both of those strengths have been very prominent in writing thought for over a century. Let's take a break, but continue this fascinating conversation with the author of a brand new book, Not Sick of Winning, Michael Malice, here on Wilcane Country. Welcome back. We're still hanging out with the author of Not Sick of Winning, Michael Malice. Tell me if you agree with this.

I do think that many have also turned this into an ideological debate because that's what a lot of us do. Sure. Those of us in the Commentariat, those of us who are journalists, we often think ideologically, a coherent set of ideas and principles that take us forward. And then we superimpose that on President Trump. So they were opposed to these wars or whatever military action because they internalized it ideologically. President Trump has always been, I think, consistently looking at things through the lens of America first.

Yes. But that is strategic. That's not ideological. That could be on one side of an issue at one moment and on the other side of the issue in another moment. And I think that's what has to be understood. And it's not about being a water carrier. And it's not about being a pom-pom waving cheerleader for President Trump. But have you elected a man, a leader, not an ideology, a man and a leader that you trust with that decision tree? Well, I hear your point.

And I think there's something dangerous about social media because we're taught that any military conflict worldwide is either World War II or World War III. And I retweeted a few tweets from 2020 when Soleimani was killed January 3, 2020, and everyone was saying, this is World War III, Iran's going to retaliate, this is going to be on the world. And they didn't do anything. So I think that speaks to a lot for those of concerned these days. like what's going to happen as a result of these strikes, are we going to get into this escalation, where this is going to end? I'm glad, and I'm sure you are,

that when Iran retaliated, they didn't go 100%. They kind of held back a little bit because no one in America, I'm sure, wants this kind of escalate and become out of control. It's something very scary, and I'm sure you agree. I do agree. But, you know, that's another thing. I agree, but I have to watch every single event

and fact play itself out. Sure. I'm not a pacifist. I'm not an isolationist. You know, and I do think some of the right has started to take on the trappings of pacifism. And my only calculation is, on anything, economically or militarily, is, does this serve America? That's what we elect representative for. I mean, the reason you got votes from Americans was to serve Americans, not illegal immigrants, not foreign nations, but to serve America.

And so, again, to this point of like, I also think it's gone beyond pacifism. Michael, I'm curious what you think, that there is a segment of the right that begins to see us as always the bad. bad guy. Yeah, the CIA does a lot of things, surreptitiously, and not all of them work out, and probably some of them don't satisfy the analysis of America first. But we're not always the bad guy, or we shouldn't be seen as always the bad guy if we have someone in charge who we trust to serve America first. Well, I don't trust the CIA, so I do not regard them as an us at all, especially after the stunts that they pulled before when Trump was a candidate and as president. But my biggest concern with what's going on in Iran is incentives, because a lot of

these dictators maybe, excuse me, not maybe, certainly are very evil people, but they're not stupid and they're crazy. And we can see how when Kim Jong-il, Kim Jong-un's father, nuclearized North Korea, and he said, we're going to become like a hedgehog, meaning a small animal with spines, nuclear missiles pointing every direction, and President Trump is shaking hands with his son in Singapore, calling him his friends, Gaddafi in Libya, reduces his weapons of destruction program, and ends up being brutalized to death. So I'm very concerned that this is going to encourage other dictators to want to get nuclear weapons, not in the sense of using them, but the sense of using them as leverage in terms of nuclear blackmail and getting respect

from other countries, because that is a big power up for any small nation. But in the same way that I view America first, I can't begrudge a North Korean thinking of North Korea first, or an Iranian thinking of Iran first. And so I have to live in a world of reality and play the chess game according to the way the table is set. And I do feel like the right for too long. Now I'm speaking of the old right, the one that saw everything through the lens of World War II, painted in always moral terms. Good guys, bad guys. Spread of democracy. Everyone wants freedom. That's utopia. That's a fairy tale land. Can I say something? Americans don't want freedom. This is something

that was scary for me to learn during COVID, because the number of people, if I right now, if a Democrat ran to return to those COVID restrictions, they would get a huge chunk of votes in the primary because there were a lot of people on the left who wanted the cage, who who were happier that way. And we see this in England right now, where people are getting arrested for Facebook posts and ex-posts, and British people are cheering this on many of them, not all of them. So this idea that everyone wants freedom. If that was true, if there was this freedom-loving majority, half of the stuff that they pulled off during the COVID years could never have happened. I totally agree. COVID was so revealing on what really motivates us.

Yes. I don't think it's freedom. I don't even think it's ambition. I think those are motivators. I'm not saying they're not. But in sort of the Maslow's hierarchy of needs or hierarchy of emotions that drive people forward, it's pretty clear that number one is fear. And also status. So there's a book called Staziland by Anna Funder, and she talked to an ex-secretary police operative from East Germany, and how he got people to be recruited. Because you think, okay, I get arrested, and they say, look, I'm going to torture you, Michael, unless you turn Will, I love you, buddy, but I'm turning you in two seconds because if they're going after me my family, it's not going to be much of a choice and vice versa. But what she learned talking to this

recruiter, he goes, we didn't have to threaten or bribe them. These people just wanted to turn their neighbors because they were bored, because they were lonely, or because they wanted to feel like they had something over somebody else. And how many times do we see during COVID that Facebook post, that Twitter post, I got this person fired, I got this person kicked out of the store. We saw it over and over. Jimmy Kimball was on his show laughing about someone not getting vaccinated and dying in the hospital. Sorry, buddy, you're at the end of the list. And the audience applauded. I mean, we saw this dehumanation. What was it?

40% of Democrats said unvaccinated kid. People should have their kids taken away, some huge percentage. So this whole us versus them thing happened on our shores. This isn't some weird foreign land where they've never had freedom. And I think people need to look back at that and realize those people have vanished. They vote just like you and me. We're just like you, at least. That is scary and shocking.

I didn't know that about status. It makes sense. Of course. Virtue signaling is. That's right. You know, but I certainly saw fear. And now that you describe it that way, I look back and I can see the quest for status. Can I give one example that happened to me?

I didn't, I was considered important, so I didn't have to quarantine. And I was on the subway, the New York City subway was deserted, which never happens. And there was an Asian guy in his 30s, you know, dressed in Western gear. He wasn't some kind of foreigner. And some older gentleman, his 50s, gets up, stands over him, screaming at him about not wearing a mask. And it's like, if you were really afraid, you'd go the other side of the subway car 20 feet away. You don't have to come close to him, but it wasn't fear. It gave you an opportunity to yell at him, to feel like you're the big shot in the morally righteous person and put this person in his place.

I filmed it. It was a very disturbing to watch. Quick break. More of our New Year's Eve, best of coming up. Canada can be a global leader in reducing the harm caused by smoking, but it requires actionable steps. Now is the time to modernize Canadian laws so that adult smokers have information and access to better alternatives. By doing so, we can create lasting change. If you don't smoke, don't start. If you smoke, quit. If you don't quit, change. Visit unsmoke.ca.

Welcome back to this New Year's Eve, best of edition of Will Cain Country. What was revealing about all this, Michael, is that this is stuff that is at the base of human nature. That's right. That's right. Now, I don't want to sound overly partisan here, because the right has its own base instincts that seem it can be inclined toward. But right now, those that you just laid out, it's like they fit hand and glove with the modern left. That's correct, yes. And it gives them power because then it gets to be like, I'm the one who's going to make sure that these awful people aren't killing grandma. Okay, if the left's Achilles heel, their base instincts, they have to avoid his fear and status.

What is the rights? I think there is a huge streak, and I know I'm going to hear crap for this, but I'll say anyway. There's a huge streak in right-wing thought about hating the outgroup and not caring. I remember, like, I'm not a big supporter of trans issues, to put it mildly, but the argument is I hear people say, oh, they can go pee in the bushes, or it doesn't matter what happens to them. It does matter, because these people have to exist. They have to eat food. We have to grapple with the situation. And you see a lot of this on Twitter, where it's like, I hope they kill everyone in Ukraine.

I hope they kill everyone in Israel, things like this. If I'm supposed to care about Ukraine and Israel, screw you, I'm going to be the opposite. that I'm going to tell you I don't care. And that might be fun to say in social media, and I wonder how much people being, and a lot of them do. But in practice, it's like these are human beings with desires and needs, and you can't just hand-wave them away from the face of the earth. I think that's right.

A lack of empathy. Yeah, that's right. Or sympathy even more. Yeah. Yes. Okay, so let's take this movement now that we both agree Donald Trump has totally refocused the Republican Party. That's right. And for that matter, the entire political landscape of America,

because it has repositioned the left as well. That's right. It repositioned first the Republican Party, then as a reaction, it repositioned the left. What does all this look like, though, after Donald Trump? The one thing, J.D. Vance is a very talented politician. Sure. Many other talented politicians.

Ron DeSantis is a very talented politician, or at least a very talented governor. Yes, sir. But where does all this go after Trump? Because his personality, his charm, his individual characteristics are singular. What does raise the question of what does this look like after Donald Trump? I think Trump has his antennae up about issues of loyalty during this campaign, during this presidency.

We saw during his first term how many people made millions by being in his office and then writing books and turning him, Omarosa, John Bolton, the list goes on and on. So he really staffed the White House this time with people who'd be loyal to him and his agenda. We saw what happened with Tulsi recently, where he made her basically walked the plank public and take back, which he had earlier said. And when Trump and Elon had that big falling out, which I'm shocked, like, vanished like 72 hours. I thought this was going to be like weeks of drama. I was waiting. What's J.D. Vance going to do?

J.D. Vance within minutes was on X saying, I support President Trump. I stand with the president. So I think he's going to be looking at who's going to have his back and who's going to try to create distance between himself and the administration. That tells us what may happen over the next four years. Sure. And perhaps who he would endorse to take on the mantle officially after him. But I wonder even as a movement, we already see. as we both described, some fracturing of the movement, at least online. And that's why I say,

I'm not sure how indicative online is of what's happening in the real world. Because I think President Trump's approval rating is still incredibly high. Especially by historic standards. By historic standards. And by the way, on the issues that are the most contentious online, meaning taking military action in Iran. But I'm wondering about the movement, the set of beliefs that he has forwarded, the way he's repositioned the right. What we know of is MAGA. What is that after President Trump? It's interesting because in the same way Obama was a blank slate and that allowed a lot of leftists to read what they liked into him,

there is this feud, this very fringe version of the right, where a lot of people were, like the left were saying he's a crypto-Nazi and a lot of people hoping he was. And then when he wasn't, they ended up being very disappointed. This is the most Zionist president we've ever had in American history. So I think what's going to end up happening, and it's going to be hilarious to watch, is two groups saying, you're not really MAGA, I am. You're not really MAGA, I am. Because

We're not seeing that today. Right. And MAGA is somewhat of a nebulous term. It can mean a top populist kind of Steve Bannon thing, or it can mean this kind of techno, Elon Bro, kind of thing, and who knows where it's going to shake out and which politician is going to take which side of divide. I'm shocked, and I bet you are to some extent, to what extent Rubio has fallen in line with Trump's vision. This is not the same person who was the senator who ran for president 2016, he's really become Trump number two. And I think he's positioned himself superbly going forward. Well, and I have worried, again, officially on the politics side, not on the movement side, that what would happen is that traditional republicanism would be what moves forward.

You knee-jerk back to the norm. Yes, right. Of the previous decades. And I don't know what Marco Rubio's true beliefs are, to be honest at this point. We don't know, yeah. And I think he's doing an incredible job right now. But I also know the way he was before he was in this position. So take a guy like Marco Rubio. Who is he after Trump? Right. Right. We don't No. We don't, we also don't know what's got on the midterms. Because in 20, the Biden midterms, there's supposed to be that red wave. And a lot of the people that Trump endorsed in those kind of swing races didn't win. And there was the whole thought that Trump's a loser. We got to get rid of him. He's going to, he can't possibly win in 2024. And then he was a kind of a juggernaut. So four years and two years are a very long time in politics. And if this, if this Middle East and a Ukrainian conflict go on, you're going to see, and you know this perfectly well, every day of the New York Times is going to be dogpiling, dogpiling. dogpiling to create as much damage as possible. They do this very well, George W. Bush. Trump is a much better counter-of-tacker than George W. Bush was, but it's going to move

a lot of people. Okay, I want to go a little higher in the clouds here for a moment, going back to the movement. I don't know how much you buy into this stuff, but I can scroll Instagram or X and see these posts, these graphs, which you've seen as well, I'm sure, the cycle of politics. Strongman, you know, to populist, populist to chaos, chaos to elites, elites to corruption, back to populism, and then the cycle keeps going around from strong man to democracy to elites and over and over again. On the movement side, I do wonder, I like, by the way, the populist repositioning of President Trump. I also think populism is a fire that can burn out of control.

That's right. Yeah, very much so. And I do wonder, the left's embrace of identity politics can infect the right. And so factionalism, which is what our founders were concerned with. That's right. They were concerned with factions, perhaps racial factions. We don't seem right now to be leaning into economic factions. That was sort of a communist-driven worldview.

Yeah, and progressivism. It's still there. Sure, of course. I do worry, though, about this entire project and where we are, like, late-stage, are we late-stage democracy? Are we late-stage constitutional republic? What does populism lead us to as much as I like it? What does factionalism look like in America? Yeah, I think we are more divided than ever, not in like a civil war sense, in the sense that it's very easy.

not to talk to someone who doesn't share your views. You can kind of create this silo of people who broadly speaking agree with you, maybe this agrees you on the edges. And that is kind of tricky when you're trying to create governing coalitions and get anything done. I mean, a lot of people going after Trump for his budget, things like that, he's got a two-seat majority in the house. I mean, you try to sit down with 220 people and get any kind of economic or social consensus. This is, I mean, talk about hurting cats. It's going to be a tricky situation. And they're acting like Mike Johnson as carte blanche to dictate to his caucus. It's crazy. But I think that's also a weakness that Hakeem Jeffries and the Democrats will be very excited to exploit come in the midterm.

So the thing is, this can fall out anyway. You and I both know enough about American history, where we can cite examples where it went towards like a Reagan kind of revolution and had 1994 when you had the Gingrich Revolution, or it could be some kind of Herbert Hoover thing where the Wright completely collapses and you have an FDR figure with supermajorities. But do you think it even could be deeper than that? Do you see the American experiment itself as fragile? Meaning not just who's elected president, not majorities on the left or the right, but this idea of a multi-ethnic, multi-diverse population that can coexist, which is a unique historical experience. In fact, I don't know that there is a parallel, right? We can't come up with another parallel of something this diverse being held this much together through the idea of democracy, constitutional republic. sure and you do you do wonder like does it have a lifespan like how fragile is the experiment of america i think it's more fragile than some people think but not as fragile as people online

would like to say i've all i've championed the idea of national divorce for a minute now and i've seen leftists have taken up this mantle in california in other places i think as both parties stand for something completely opposed to one another how do you move forward in policy it just ends up every four years, every eight years, some people are livid and feel completely voiceless, and then vice versa. And that's a prism, though, that sees it through the binary. That's right, right. And I'm worried about that becoming not a binary, but 10, five, 10 factions that can't coexist any longer. And we see this in some European countries where they have parliaments with like eight or nine people. In Germany, they had to cobble together government with three parties

for the first time in the election preceding this one. And yeah, because you have the like Rick Santorum types, then you have the Rand Paul types, and then you have the Mitt Romney types. There's still a few of them, Olympia Snow and Murkowski being two examples. How do you get them together to agree on anything when some of these policies, like, what's the compromise on like trans kids? Like there's no compromise. Either you're for it. You think it's a great idea, or you're engaging in child abuse and shut up, I'm not talking

to you. It's really not much of a Venn diagram and issues like that. Okay, so now let's turn full circle now. Not sick of winning. Yes, sir. First hundred days of President Trump. I started with, I think he is one of the most consequential presidents, and I think I undersold him 50 years. I actually think you can go back further.

I think Reagan is the most recent as consequential president, don't you agree? I think President Trump is more consequential than Ronald Reagan. Really? I do. Okay. I mean, I think the effect of ending the Cold War and the fall of the Soviet Union is massive. Right. But I think that we are entering a whole new stage of America.

I agree. And I think President Reagan repositioned the parties to some extent. extent. What looked like a permanent leftward lean was certainly reversed. That's right. But I do think that now we're not just talking about the traditional political spectrum of a left-right linear progression. I think that President Trump has scrambled everything. That's correct. Yeah. And that now we have to look things. I say things that a Democrat from 10 years ago would have agreed with. Right. That's right. And does that mean I'm inconsistent or it's a new America? Right. That you have to reimagine and re-examine where we are and what actually fits where we are.

And I think that's largely based upon what has been forced to the front by President Trump. And it's not just in terms of politicians, in terms of how people consume media and who they talk to. That is radically changed in the last 10 to 15 years. And it's also kind of funny because I think you and I remember when Obama was doing data mining and Facebook and that leveraged him to his reelection. And, you know, everyone in the left was cheering. Oh, my God, it's a genius. No Republican will ever win again.

And then when Trump tweets his way into the presidency 2016, we got to shut down social media. It's too dangerous. it's getting out of control. So it's really kind of funny, watch the message vacillate. So if I went back in time and tried to find the closest historical parallel, it would actually be to a time period that you dismissed a moment ago as someone not deserving to be on Mount Rushmore. And that would be during the early 1900s,

sort of the advent of ideology. Before the early 1900s, we didn't see a thing through an ideological prism. That's when progressivism begins. That's right. That's when you will eventually have a conservative counteraction. So Teddy Roosevelt, in a lot of ways, I do think, is reminiscent of President Trump. Don't say that off. That's awful. I don't think that makes them alike for like-oranges-to-orange's comparison.

But I think you were existing at a point in time in America when people are doing something very similar. Sure. What does this mean for who I am, who we are as a nation, how this all fits together? So I'll ask you then, who is the closest parallel historically to President Trump? I agree with you. Personality-wise, Teddy Roosevelt and Trump have a lot in common. A very easy example, people might know this story. Teddy Roosevelt was giving a shot, a speech.

He was shot, and he finished the speech. Glenn Beck actually has the papers with the bullet still in it. So in terms of that kind of sense of bravado, they're both New Yorkers. They both have that New York personality to them. Teddy Roosevelt was the one who introduced the idea, which is a complete lie, that if the Constitution doesn't explicitly forbid it, I, as president, permitted to do it, he introduced progressivism into the White House, into America. Woodrow Wilson, who was his arch enemy, obviously built in that very.

heavily attached to some extent in between. So personality-wise, also, Andrew Jackson, with the idea of, you know, he made this law, let him enforce it, that kind of thing. So that kind of, like, admiration of strength. Teddy Roosevelt's motto speaks softly, carry a big stick. Trump is more like speak loudly and carry a big stick, I think he would say. I don't think Teddy Roosevelt really spoke very softly either. I think that's kind of absurd to say in retrospect. But it's, and I also think, I'm curious to your thoughts, I don't know that Reagan would think very highly of President Trump. I think he'd have a little bit of thumbing up his nose at what he would regard as the vulgarity.

I think I agree. And you know what? I think Teddy Roosevelt would like President Trump. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Oh, he would love him. Because he was also a big nationalist. So he would love what he was doing with the border and things like this.

He would be a big, but it's also interesting in terms of you were saying how left-the-right changes. It was President Eisenhower, who had a program whose name I can't even mention on this podcast, who had massive deportation of hundreds of thousands of people to Mexico. And Eisenhower was so far in the left of the Republican Party that Barry Gold, referred to his presidency as a dime-store new deal, and he wasn't wrong. So it's kind of interesting, like, what left and right mean over the time. Well, until very recently, that was actually not a partisan divide.

That's right. Should we allow legal orders to infiltrate our country? That wasn't a big deal until what, the last 10, 15 years? And it was Bernie Sanders, who's on camera talking about open board. He's a crazy cook brother's proposal. Yeah, no, we need to close borders. All right, we'll end it with this. Not sick of winning.

Then do you agree with my initial question? Do you think that he is, at least in, consequence. When I say Mount Rushmore level president, I'm talking about top four, top five level president that really changes history. I think the jury is still out. I would definitely put Reagan ahead of him. But if you're going to have me choose between Roosevelt and Trump, I'm going to choose Trump any day. All right. Not sick of winning is the book by Michael Malice. Check it out. I appreciate you making the trip up from Austin. Oh, this is so much fun. Thank you so much. Thank you, Michael. That wraps up today's best of Wilcane country. Appreciate you being here.

We're going to see you next time. Listen to ad-free with a Fox News podcast plus subscription on Apple Podcasts. And Amazon Prime members, you can listen to this show, ad-free on the Amazon Music app.