Latest news with #NYTAudio
New York Times
30-04-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Maureen Dowd and Carlos Lozada on 100 Days of Trump's ‘Fake Reality'
In this episode of 'The Opinions,' the deputy Opinion editor Patrick Healy is joined by the columnists Maureen Dowd and Carlos Lozada to dissect the first 100 days of President Trump's second term and prepare for what's to come. Below is a transcript of an episode of 'The Opinions.' We recommend listening to it in its original form for the full effect. You can do so using the player above or on the NYT Audio app , Apple , Spotify , Amazon Music , YouTube , iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts. The transcript has been lightly edited for length and clarity. Patrick Healy: This is the First 100 Days, a weekly series examining President Trump's use of power and his drive to change America. On Tuesday we hit the milestone: President Trump has been in office 100 days. So what have we learned? He has used power chaotically — but for a purpose: to throw an entire country off balance, to gain maximum leverage while keeping friends and enemies alike on their back heel. He's ruled by executive order to an unprecedented degree, and he's trying to remake America in his image. He decides who matters and who is disposable. So tens of thousands of federal workers are gone. D.E.I. is gone. Transgender people are erased as a matter of government policy. Undocumented migrants are being rounded up, and deportations are also underway of people lawfully in the country, and even American citizens. The president is doing much of this in defiance of the courts and the Constitution. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. Already a subscriber? Log in. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
New York Times
24-04-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
A Francis Admirer and a Francis Skeptic Debate the Pope's Legacy
On this episode of 'Interesting Times,' Ross Douthat is joined by the Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit priest and the editor of America Magazine, to reflect on the legacy of Pope Francis and the challenges facing the next papacy. Below is an edited transcript of an episode of 'Interesting Times.' We recommend listening to it in its original form for the full effect. You can do so using the player above or on the NYT Audio app, Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube, iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts. Ross Douthat: The death of Pope Francis ends, or at least temporarily suspends, a tumultuous period in the life of the world's largest religious institution. A period where the pope was often pitted against his own bishops and cardinals in arguments about how much, and in what direction, Roman Catholicism should change. My guest today and I were often on the opposite side of those debates, and so I'm hoping that our conversation can help illuminate the stakes in Roman Catholicism's conflicts, the prospects for the church's continued unity and the implications of these debates for the future of religion in the modern world. Father James Martin is one of the most famous Catholic priests in the United States. I think the only Jesuit to ever appear on Stephen Colbert's late night TV program, and the author of many, many books. Most recently, a meditation on the New Testament story of Jesus' raising of Lazarus from the dead. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
New York Times
10-04-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
‘This Moment Is a Cataclysm,' but We Can Still Act
In this episode of 'The Opinions,' the New York Times Opinion columnist Lydia Polgreen speaks to the author and activist Sarah Schulman on resistance and solidarity during politically charged times. Below is a transcript of an episode of 'The Opinions.' We recommend listening to it in its original form for the full effect. You can do so using the player above or on the NYT Audio app, Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube, iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts. The transcript has been lightly edited for length and clarity. Lydia Polgreen: I'm Lydia Polgreen, and I'm a columnist for The New York Times. In my many years as a journalist, I've never seen anything quite like the swift and relentless attacks on our most fundamental rights and freedoms that we are witnessing under the second Trump administration. News clip: Immigration and Customs Enforcement admitted to an administrative error that resulted in the deportation of an undocumented man to El Salvador. News clip: This letter from the Trump administration and the Department of Education, it orders all colleges in K through 12 schools to end diversity, equity and inclusion programs and initiatives, or they run the risk of losing federal funding. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
New York Times
09-04-2025
- Business
- New York Times
‘We're Playing With Fire': The Risks of Trump's Tariffs on China
In this episode of 'The Opinions,' the deputy Opinion editor, Patrick Healy, talks to Binyamin Appelbaum about the goals of President Trump's tariffs and the risks they pose to America's place in the global order. Below is a transcript of an episode of 'The Opinions.' We recommend listening to it in its original form for the full effect. You can do so using the player above or on the NYT Audio app, Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube, iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts. The transcript has been lightly edited for length and clarity. Patrick Healy: I'm Patrick Healy, deputy editor of New York Times Opinion, and this is The First 100 Days, a weekly series examining President Trump's use of power and his drive to change America. And that drive has certainly been on display over the last week. Trump's tariffs have already cost the world trillions of dollars, and now America is in a trade war with China. We hit them with tariffs; they've hit us back. The European Union is starting to retaliate, too. To unpack all this, I asked my colleague Binyamin Appelbaum to join me today. He covers economics for Opinion. Binya, thanks for being here. Binyamin Appelbaum: Glad to be here. Healy: During the election season, you wrote editorials warning voters of the dangers of Trump's economic plans, including tariffs. When Trump announced the details of his tariffs last week, I think a lot of people were puzzled and even surprised by the scale, scope and approach. Did anything surprise you? Appelbaum: I think it was surprising to see him go forward with such a maximal version of tariff policy. Trump has always, or at least for the last half-century, taken the view that trade imbalances with other countries are a problem, that we need to do something about them. But it has always been the case that he had other priorities and objectives, too. He was a guy who believed in tax cuts and deregulation for the purpose of stimulating economic growth, who kept an eye on the stock market as an indicator of the well-being of the nation. And in his first term there was a sense that he was balancing those somewhat competing priorities. What's kind of fascinating is that this time around, we're not getting the full version of Trump; we're getting the full version of one part of what has always been important to Trump, and it seems to be coming at the expense of some of the other things that he traditionally has worried about. The question is: Why is he so focused on this? Even if it's coming at the expense of some of those other things. Healy: What is the problem that Trump is trying to solve? Is the escalation in tariffs that we're seeing going to solve it, or have a chance at solving it? Appelbaum: I think we've talked before about my view that Trump is an acute diagnostician. He is really good at putting his finger on things that are wrong with America. It's kind of his secret sauce. And in this case, I think it is absolutely true that an era of free trade in which the United States sought to maximize the amount of commerce it was doing with other nations, including China, did not deliver on the promises that politicians made. Some people profited enormously. Other people lost their jobs and saw their lives derailed. Economists had told us that trade was sort of an unmitigated good, that it would increase the size of the pie, and all we had to do was make sure everyone was getting a larger piece. It turns out that isn't so easy to do. The winners win, and they're not excited about sharing with the losers. But moreover, he saw that America wasn't winning in some fundamental sense, that we were undermining our ability to compete in the global economy, our ability to innovate, our ability to defend ourselves, our ability to take care of ourselves during a pandemic. That the hollowing out of our industrial base was causing a lot of problems that hadn't been anticipated by the wise men who put these policies into place. And when Trump stood up and said, 'We need to do something different,' I think it's fair to say that he had a point. Healy: I think he did have a point. I think Trump has always believed — and you can disagree with how he defines it — in an idea of American greatness. I think when Trump would spend time in parts of New Jersey, parts of New England, where we're both from, parts of, the middle of America, you would see these hollowed-out parts of the country that even a winner like him in the game of business and finance could see as a part of America that had been left behind — where there were no solutions for vast swaths of people, including people who weren't just in his base. Does Trump have a broader plan or strategy for how to execute these tariffs in a way that has the most benefit for America? Because it seems like right now he's going country by country to try to make deals, which is very Trumpian, but there's not this sense of all stakeholders together as presidents have traditionally done. Do you have confidence that he actually knows how to land the plane in a way that benefits all of those people? Appelbaum: To me, one of the most evocative encapsulations of this era of trade is that there was an amusement park on the outskirts of Youngstown, Ohio, which is a big industrial city historically. It had a lovely carved wooden carousel. As Youngstown broke down, that amusement park was forced out of business, and eventually the carousel was purchased and moved to New York. You can now visit it on the waterfront in Brooklyn, where it sits in this glass case. That's kind of the story of what happened in this country over the last 40 years. The folks in Youngstown obviously got left behind. Most of them were not able or willing to move to New York and pursue better lives there. And Trump's premise is that he can reverse that — that he can put the genie back into the bottle. But I think your question is very much to the point because it is not clear that he has any plan for doing that. It is not clear that anyone could have any plan for doing that. It is much easier to break things than to fix them. Healy: It feels like a big part of the plan, and I'm using air quotes, is about the rush, like he is a president who is running out of time. I find myself looking at companies — and you know how companies operate better than I do. How in the world can they bring manufacturing back to America in a swift enough and complete enough way where the global economy and the supply chain don't break down? I look at a company like Nike and I'm having trouble imagining them opening up all these factories that are going to offer the wages and the worker conditions and the standards that we would expect in America, where they're not going to either be losing money or running into incredible snags. Does Trump's goal of a massive, swift rushed reindustrialization have any kind of shot? Or is this just about putting a lot of things in action and sort of seeing what's able to come through? Appelbaum: I think there will be individual victories. There will be companies for whom it makes sense to reshore production and to open a factory in the United States to expand their work forces here. But in general, the answer is that rushing is the wrong way to do this. If you really wanted to shift the nature of the American economy, you would need consensus in the American political system because what we have right now is a president who will have essentially less than four years at this point to pursue this agenda. Then we'll have a national election, and it's quite possible that the other party will prevail. If you're an American corporation, or a corporation from anywhere in the world, and you're thinking about building a factory here, that process can take four to six years before it opens, and you could very easily be in a position where your new factory opens in a very different political environment where the tariffs have been rescinded. Then the reasons for which you opened the factory no longer pertain. So that's No. 1 — the timescale here is off. By immediately implementing the tariffs, Trump isn't paying attention to that time scale. If you wanted to encourage manufacturing to come back to the United States, there's no reason to implement the tariffs immediately. What you should do is announce that tariffs will be phased in over the period of time that it would actually take to build a new factory, avoiding the short-term pain while still maintaining the incentives to move production back here. This isn't just a rushed policy, it's a careless one. It's a thoughtless one, and it's a counterproductive one relative to Trump's own stated goals. As is often the case with him, even when he has a clear sense of what's wrong, even when he has some vision of how to fix it, the execution is terrible. Healy: I think about places like Youngstown that you mentioned and look at the rushed and careless nature of this policy and I wonder if Trump really believes, in the end, in the long-term goal of reindustrialization of America, or if this is more about that negotiation country by country, seeing what better deals he can get. He believes so deeply in leverage. I think he, like a lot of American presidents, has looked at China in particular and said, How do we get more leverage in this relationship? Are tariffs the answer, or an answer? Do we know, in terms of getting leverage in that U.S.-China relationship, in a way that could have a positive impact for this country? Appelbaum: I mean, it hasn't worked yet. We've now had tariffs on Chinese goods at a fairly high level for years. There's no evidence that these have made life sufficiently uncomfortable for China, that it is willing to make significant concessions on the kinds of issues that the United States cares about. I think the way to conceptualize China is there are nations with whom the United States has a relationship and who are invested in that relationship, not just economically but politically, in terms of national defense, in terms of their goals and values. And with those nations, Trump can effectively use tariffs as leverage to renegotiate at least some of the terms of those relationships. It is extremely plausible that Canada will make significant concessions to the Trump administration in order to maintain its economic relationship with the United States. But China is in a different category. It doesn't see itself as dependent on the United States or as necessarily interested in maintaining good relations with the United States. I think we're playing with fire. We're talking about a nation that already sees itself in many respects as being in a state of conflict with the United States. And if we exacerbate that and ratchet up tensions, the effect may be not to encourage them to draw us closer, but instead to push us further away. Healy: I want to talk a little bit more about China's response here, because it's so obvious that tariffs on China are different than they are in a lot of other countries, say, like Madagascar. They make a lot of stuff we need, and unlike their American counterparts, Chinese leaders don't have to worry about what the voters will think when they get hit with tariffs or reciprocal tariffs. Will China's retaliation, do you think, be the thing that finally forces Trump to back down on some of this kind of rushed, careless strategy that he's been pursuing? Or is it likely to be other forces? Appelbaum: For the same reasons that I don't think China's going to be especially responsive to us, I don't think we're going to be especially responsive to China. This is a political standoff, not an economic one, at a very fundamental level. I don't think either side is inclined to bend. And to the extent that there is a bipartisan consensus about trade policy, at this point, it essentially consists of the view, in both parties, that we ought to be in a more confrontational posture with respect to China. And I would say that even economically — to the extent that there's a justification for tariffs — it has more to do with China than anywhere else. There's no question that China aggressively subsidizes its industrial output, that it has built competence in areas where we could be competitive, and that things like electric vehicles or solar panels or other forms of emerging green technology are areas in which we are essentially allowing China to emerge and dominate the global market with long-term consequences that are not good for the United States. What's fascinating about that is, what Trump is doing is simultaneously raising tariff barriers on China and undermining our ability to compete in those kinds of areas. He's pulling back from exactly the kinds of industries that you would want to be sheltering from foreign competition and to encourage growth in. We've seen companies pulling back from investments in battery manufacturing here in the United States. Ostensibly, if you were running an industrial policy aimed at increasing manufacturing, that's exactly where you'd want to see growth. But Trump is simultaneously building the wall necessary to protect that industry and then destroying the industry himeself. Healy: If I'm Canada or Mexico or a European country, do I hope that this political standoff between China and Trump will be the thing that unravels or takes the wind out of the sails of what Trump is trying to do? Appelbaum: For Europe, this is a really interesting moment because I think it's increasingly clear that the United States and China are both pushing toward a world in which nations are going to have to choose. And they're going to have to choose whether they want to invest in their economic relationship with the United States or their economic relationship with China. I think what's happening in China is not going to make it easier for the E.U. to negotiate with the United States, but it forces them to make the choice of whether they want to pay the kind of price that Trump is demanding. Healy: Binya, I want to go back to your point that the trade war with China right now is political, not economic, because the costs of the war are going to be hitting consumers — the price of goods was so much of a driving force in the last election. What kind of political pain do you think the Republican Party can withstand? Appelbaum: I think around China there's a real danger that political justifications allow significant economic pain. There was a bipartisan consensus in Washington for decades that pursuing our economic advantages with China, trading with them, would further our political goals. The idea that, opening up China to the world would moderate the Chinese government over time. And that has turned out to be flatly wrong. There is now a bipartisan consensus that China is a political danger to the United States, that its national security goals, its economic goals, are antithetical to ours, and that they need to be treated as an enemy. The thing about that is that it moves it out of the space of rationally assessing how much economic damage are we doing and into the space of national defense, and the national interest, that we need to be willing to endure pain in order to push back against China. I think that points to the reality that there probably, at this point, is not a level of economic pain in terms of the tariffs on China that's going to be sufficient to reverse that aspect of the policy. I think our relationship with China has shifted fundamentally at this point in ways that I tend to regard as irreversible. Healy: Are there ways to tell whether the tariffs are worth it with regard to China? China is seen across party lines as an enemy, as an adversary that needs to be dealt with. But at the same time, are the tariffs the way to do it? Or is it just trying something? Appelbaum: I don't think they're the way to do it. Tariffs are having the effect, basically, of reducing trade with China, but not of drawing our allies closer to us. There was a moment a couple of weeks ago when the governments of South Korea, Japan and China got together to talk about what is the best way to push back against the Trump administration. That ought to have set off alarm bells across Washington. Any reasonable configuration of American foreign policy going forward clearly has to involve Japan and South Korea working with us to counterbalance China. The fact that we're now pursuing a tariff policy that is pushing those nations into talks with China is incredibly dangerous to our national interest. Healy: In Trump's first term, he seemed pretty attuned to what the markets were doing. He cared about that. He cared about what his friends were telling him when he was out golfing. Lately we've heard from the hedge fund billionaire Bill Ackman speaking out against the tariffs. Even Elon Musk has criticized Peter Navarro, Trump's top trade adviser. And as you told us the last time, Trump is so dedicated to the idea that countries who spend money to import goods are just losers. Do you think that the billionaires speaking out might change his mind, or are we just seeing a different Trump than we did the last time? Appelbaum: I would say a couple of things about that. The first is that I think one lesson he took from his first term is that some of the warnings about the consequences of his behavior were overstated, and that the downsides that people predicted, the economic calamities, they just didn't materialize. And in his view, the lesson there is that he should have gone harder. I also think he's hardened in his views. The way that he talks about trade, it's intensified. It's something we often see with older people: They sort of lose some of that nuance and become really hardened in their convictions. It's hard to listen to him and not get the sense that part of what we're listening to is a grumpy old man who thinks he knows the truth and is determined to impose it on everyone else. And then I wouldn't discount the possibility that someone succeeds in convincing him that this is not in his interest, or even perhaps in the nation's interest. But I think it's going to take a lot more pain to get there — that the threshold for him to change his mind about this just clearly seems higher than it used to be. Healy: So much of what we're talking about, and so many of my questions for you, have been oriented around the view, what will it take to change Trump's mind? I'm listening to myself and thinking I'm asking the wrong question in that regard. This is a guy who thinks that at this stage of the game, big and bold is what's needed. The Americans need Greenland. The Americans need an entirely new industrial policy. It's as if the scale of the change or the scale of the ideas is the point. I'm wondering what you think the right question ultimately is to ask about Trump, if it's not really about what will it take to change his mind. Is it something different? Appelbaum: I think the right question to ask is: What will it take to change his party's mind? Congress has the power to check this tariff policy. The Constitution is very clear that the power over commerce rests with Congress. Congress has delegated that power to the president. I think if this gets worse, to me, it is much less likely that Trump himself decides to change his mind than that congressional Republicans reach a point where their own political fortunes are dimming and they say, basically, 'You know what? We need to impose some limits on this tariff policy. We need to intervene.' Healy: Do you see an end game with these tariffs? Do you see it as a country by country negotiation, that by summer we'll have all of these very specific and narrow deals in place, or something different? Appelbaum: We do seem to see that the Trump administration is making a big point of highlighting the fact that it's talking to some of these other countries about deals. But there's this war inside the administration about how to use those negotiations and what the goals of those negotiations should be. And to this point, at least, Trump appears to be siding with the maximalists and that doesn't give me a lot of confidence that we're headed to a quick resolution. Healy: Binya, thanks for being here. Appelbaum: My pleasure.
New York Times
31-03-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Obama's Not Going to Save Democrats, but This Might
The Opinion writer Michelle Cottle and the contributing Opinion writer Ben Rhodes discuss why the Democratic Party hasn't begun an effective opposition and whom they see as the future of the party. Below is a lightly edited transcript of this episode of 'The Opinions.' We recommend listening to it in its original form for the full effect. You can do so using the player above or on the NYT Audio app, Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube, iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts. Michelle Cottle: I'm Michelle Cottle, and I cover national politics for Times Opinion. I've been watching the political scene for nearly three decades, and the question I'm getting these days more than any other is: What the heck are the Democrats doing? And related to that: What can the opposition do to fight back against the Trump administration to win back voters, to build a new movement? These are great questions and here to help me answer them is Ben Rhodes. Ben is probably best known for his work as a speechwriter and deputy national security adviser to President Obama. More recently, he and I have both been reporting and interviewing a host of Democrats, and we've written pieces to try to understand the current state of the party and what it needs to do to survive and maybe even thrive in these turbulent times. Ben, thank you so much for joining me. Ben Rhodes: Good to see you, Michelle. Cottle: Before we really dig into the question of what Democrats should do, let me get your take on the mood here in D.C., particularly among Democratic leaders. What is it like? What are you seeing? Rhodes: I don't really think I've ever seen anything quite like it, to tell you the truth, in terms of the mixture of despair and gloom and even desperation, really. You felt a little bit like this as a Democrat after the 2004 election, to roll the clock way back. But after the 2004 election, there wasn't the world's richest man coming in and trying to dismantle huge swaths of the U.S. government, you know? I think that the combination for Democrats that is so paralyzing is that sense of not just being despairing of what's happening but really kind of flailing about and not having any kind of coherent, agreed-upon approach for how to deal with this emergency that is taking place around us. Cottle: Even going a bit further afield than the Democratic Party leaders, in my world, I've been talking to a bunch of people, including federal workers and academics, and many of these folks have never experienced anything like this instability in their professional lives. When you think about it, what are the most stable professions that you think of? Academia. Nobody ever loses their job in academia. The federal government is supposed to be really steady, and this has taken people and left them speechless. I think that both of us think that the Democrats should not just be sitting back in the middle of all this, hoping that Republicans drive themselves completely into a ditch. But at the same time, I'm really mindful of something that a veteran Democratic strategist once told me, which is that when your opponent is digging their own grave, you don't fight him for the shovel. So how do we find a balance for the Democrats to go forward? What should they be doing to make progress while at the same time letting Republicans own what they're doing? Rhodes: I think there are two problems that the Democrats have to confront. The first, which kind of counteracts the stand-back-and-let-them-destroy-themselves theory, which by the way, I think in normal political times would be absolutely right. Just do very little, they'll crash the economy, and we'll win some midterm elections in two years, and we'll be back in the game. And I think Democrats underestimate just how profoundly loathed they are right now. I say that as a Democrat. If you are under 30, the only national Democrats you've really known are Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden and then maybe a hundred days of Kamala Harris. [Cottle laughs.] And I like those people, but they are definitely not tomorrow, and they kind of represent Washington and they represent certain ways of doing things that people think have failed. And I think Democrats would make a big mistake if they assume: Oh, we came pretty close in this election, and therefore it's not as profound a rebuke of us as it might be. The rebuke to Democrats is that Donald Trump is more popular today than he was eight years ago, and I do not think that's because he is some singular — I mean, he is a singular figure — but I don't think he has that degree of depth of appeal in the country. I think part of it is the loathing of Democrats. And then on the other side, I think that you make a mistake in thinking that these people are going to kind of go quietly into the night. You know, if there's a recession, they'll just take their electoral beating and go home. People like this don't give up power voluntarily. They really don't. And whatever that looks like, whether that's Trump trying to run for another term or whether it's just a kind of total governmental capture, it could be too late for Democrats in four years. So I think they need to show people just what they care about. They need generational change in terms of who the faces of this party are, and they need to get back out in the country where people are actually experiencing the things that the Trump administration is doing. They need to reinvent themselves not as this kind of party of governing in Washington, but, once again, as kind of a movement party on behalf of primarily working people, but anybody frankly, that is being harmed by Trump, which is going to be a lot of people. Cottle: So you touched on something that I was talking about recently with Congressman Jason Crow, which is the way back for the party. He did speak to the idea that the Democratic Party has become this kind of kneejerk defender of institutions that a majority of the country doesn't see as working. You can't defend the federal government while also looking like a force of change or somebody who's even really in touch with what's going on. It sounds like you think that they need to not necessarily keep the government defense at arms' lengths, but that they need to change their approach to that? Just like their entire shtick on government? Rhodes: Well, yeah. To be very specific about this, in recent days you've seen Democrats protesting outside of U.S.A.I.D., when it was shuttered. That shouldn't happen — and I say that as someone who's profoundly concerned about shuttering those agencies. They should protest at a Veterans Affairs center in somebody's congressional district out in the country. They should be protesting where the services that are being removed hit people's lives. If people see a bunch of people in front of a government building in Washington, they don't even think about necessarily what's going on in there. But if people see the local V.A. is getting cut, that is something that's tangible to them. And I think it's both the defending of the status quo and also the sense that Democrats are entirely the party of Washington. We used to laugh and scoff at Trump and rallies. I was watching that as someone involved in the Obama campaign and I was like, well, that kind of looked like our approach to politics — to get out with big crowds and do stuff. I think that there's a mentality not just among Democratic electeds, but sometimes among your more engaged Democrats, shall we say, your online Democrats, that these people are going to emerge from a room in Washington with a formula, like a set of talking points. That's not how it works. You have to get out in the country and actually do things. Cottle: I do think there's a misconception about what the federal government is. I do think that it's not even just people who don't pay attention to government and politics. There's this sense that all of these people that Trump is firing are in Washington, that he's letting go of huge hordes just inside the Beltway, so to speak. Whereas in reality, a huge percentage of federal workers are in Colorado, Alabama. And I think it speaks to your point that Democrats do need to be out in the country showing where the rubber meets the road on these things. It's my sense that there's a lot of schadenfreude in certain parts of the nation about it finally being Washington workers' turn to feel the sting of the economic downturn. And that's just not really what the federal government is all about. Rhodes: That's exactly right. I was talking to a woman for this piece who's run a bunch of movements successfully in Europe, and she's like, just make it about an issue, too. You have a movement around health care, and you're at V.A. facilities. Or you're at places that are being hit by the removal of Medicaid or something like that. You could do that around any number of issues. You could do it around protecting Social Security. You could do it around some of the cuts to food safety. Anything that people care about that hits them in their lives. And the good thing about doing that is if you're trying to build momentum in places like that, you don't need to make sure that everybody who shows up at your rally or your protest or your town hall — you don't need to quiz them on the way in. Chris Murphy, the senator from Connecticut, said to me: We ask people to agree with us on 12 things and if you only agree with 11, you're not invited here — particularly if that extra thing is a cultural issue or an identity politics issue. If you're making this about issues that people care about in their lives, you don't need these across-the-board purity tests. There could be someone who thinks they hate Democrats but is really mad that their V.A. health care is being taken away. Invite that person in. Cottle: So who do you think would be the good face of the opposition, who you think has what it takes? Rhodes: Obviously you see Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; she has that extra thing. People are just interested in what she is saying and doing, and she's drawing big crowds with Bernie Sanders. Then I think if you look in Washington, you've got people like Chris Murphy, Brian Schatz and Andy Kim, who are in the Senate. Elissa Slotkin, who they obviously put out for the response to Trump's address to Congress. And I look in the House at a guy like Jason Crow who has a service record. A guy like Ro Khanna who's trying to stir things up a bit. Then you look at governors and you've got Gretchen Whitmer in Michigan. You've got —— Cottle: Oh, I love me some governors. Rhodes: Well, that's the thing. I don't think the next president is likely to be a Washington Democrat, you know? So then you look at —— Cottle: I'm right there with you. I am very pro Team Governor. Rhodes: It's just a different look for the party, and part of what I think distressed people about last time is if we'd had an open primary, Wes Moore of Maryland, Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, there are plenty of pretty capable people who would have been in —— Cottle: Such fabulous choices. Rhodes: Middle-aged people, at least. And then the last thing I'd say is that they should be open to somebody else, too. Somebody who's not from politics. Let's see who finds some credibility and authenticity with the electorate in the next couple of years. I think there's a great opportunity for the party, I really do, to regenerate. If some of the older generation steps aside, there's going to be some energy building. You've already got some pretty talented people in these different places, and let's just look like a different party in two or three years. Cottle: So you touched on the authenticity word, which I heard about when talking to Jason Crow and when I was talking to A.O.C. about where to go with the party. Audio clip of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: I think sometimes people fret over the words that we're using and it's so much more than words. This is about not just talking about it, it's about being about it. And, um, people can just smell from a mile away if you're one of them. Cottle: So with the Democrats, my sense is that yes, you talk about issues, yes, you make clear what your core values are. But a lot of it comes down to the fact that they don't know how to talk to normal people and not sound like they're running some kind of freshman seminar at some pointy-headed college. How much of this is a style question that needs to be addressed? Rhodes: It's a style question that goes deeper. As someone who was a speechwriter, if you do not sound like a human, you're not going to be effective as a messenger. There's this saying that Biden, and then Harris, both repeated — I don't blame this on them — this is the kind of consultant brain that the Democratic Party gets. How many times do we hear them talk about 'building a middle class from the bottom up and the middle out?' What the hell does that mean? You know? So the first thing is there's this kind of consultant language that just needs to go away. That was always annoying to people. But when your opponent, Donald Trump, is clearly not on any consultant-speak, it just makes it more glaring that you seem like the typical politicians. And then there's a second piece of this, which is, Democrats have these public debates that astound me where it's like, 'Maybe we need to go on TikTok' or 'We need to go on that manosphere podcast.' If you can do that, if you can make a cool TikTok video and whatever your thing is that allows you to do that, that's great. If you can't, then please don't. Please don't go there. If you can go on 'Joe Rogan' because you are up to speed on the conspiracy theories or you have a background in standup comedy or you know something about ultimate fighting, that's great. But don't go on 'Joe Rogan' to talk about building an economy from the bottom up to the middle out. That will make his audience hate Democrats more. And so I think what Democrats miss about authenticity — it's not like what platform I'm on. The point is that authenticity is about being yourself. It's not about being what you think this demographic wants a politician to be. Cottle: That suggests that they just need to also expand their stable to include people who can do these different things. So, like Crow, Pete Buttigieg, Carville — these guys go on conservative shows and they do a really good job. Rhodes: Yeah. Cottle: So if you also find people who want to talk to Joe Rogan about Ultimate Fighting or all of the manosphere podcasters, that's who you send out. You don't send out your policy wonks to talk about that. Rhodes: Yeah. And look, Obama was one of the first politicians that did this kind of stuff. But you know what he did? He went on ESPN to talk about basketball because he knew something about basketball. So he would look super authentic if he was having that conversation. It's a very simple point, but it's really one that is missed. To Crow's point, he's right; if you're not reaching certain audiences, well then go find some people that have an authentic connection to those audiences. Cottle: How much of a problem is it that the party doesn't have obvious leaders, obvious faces for this? It's always a problem when you're out of power because you can't compete with the presidency. I mean, every time Trump belches or forgets somebody's name, it's saturation coverage. And at this point, Chuck Schumer's not really the face of the future of the party. To what degree is it just a question of, how do you elevate people above the white noise? Rhodes: I hear you and I get asked every day: 'Where's Obama? Why isn't he out there?' And I always say to people, like, 'OK, maybe Obama could go out and do some big rally, but he's not going to run in two or four years.' Like we should want other people and we're this party —— Cottle: To be clear, I don't want them looking backward. They need to be looking forward. Rhodes: I think the problem for this party is our nominees. Our leaders tend to be the people who've been around forever, and people are sick of people that have been around forever right now. A catastrophic mistake was putting Gerry Connolly in charge of the Oversight Committee for the Democrats in the House instead of A.O.C. Not because the Oversight Committee's the most important thing in the world, but just because of the message it sent. This is the only Democrat in Washington who people — people who don't follow politics closely — are kind of interested in what she has to say, if they're under 35 and have a pulse. We are on a sinking ship here, people. So what needs to happen is, the party, through its resources, through whatever platform it has, just needs to be elevating the next generation of people and having them come forward. So I think we have to be open to anything and then everybody in this kind of emergency that we're in. In the more medium term, at some point, I would like the Democratic Party to be attractive enough to have those people not be embarrassed to put 'Democrat' next to their name. I mean, not to sound like the old guy, but like in 2008, people wanted to be a Democrat, and it was like that at the time in the '90s with Clinton. You get a sense now like 'Democrat' is not something people are that excited about. And you have to change that by changing who you are. And I say this in the piece, Michelle, like I hate what Trump's done, but he destroyed his party and rebuilt it. This can be done. And part of Trump's credibility with the electorate is that he broke his own party. And what voters know is that if Trump will fight his own party, he'll fight anybody. When Democrats look afraid to even fight, tell Joe Biden he's too old or tell Chuck Schumer he shouldn't capitulate, it just makes it seem like: These guys are weak. They can't even stand up to each other. How are they going to stand up for me? Cottle: Now, I wanted to take a step back and talk about the international scene, because I think one of the things that you touched on early is that this is not a normal political time. I think, in part, the American electorate doesn't have any kind of context for what to do. You know, how would you even work on being the opposition in a situation like this? But you've taken this question global and you've talked to some folks who have been in countries where there was a slide toward autocracy. What did you hear in those conversations? Rhodes: I heard a lot of concern that Americans don't seem to understand what's happening here and just how bad it is. That is evident to people around the world in the absence of pushback, the absence of protests, the corporate total capitulation to Trump, the capitulation of different sectors. Now we're in academia, law firms, we've seen some capitulation from media — not the outlet we're currently speaking on. The point of the authoritarian playbook that Trump is running, which has been run in many countries around the world, is initially to make the opposition feel so demoralized that they don't push back. But then by the time that they do push back, they can't, because there's been a sufficient capture and intimidation of civil society and of the private sector, and a capture of the instruments of government. We're in the phase where people still could push back, but they're not, and capitulation is not a strategy. For every law firm and university that gives Trump a pound of flesh, he's going to come back for more. Not just from them, from others. Cottle: Always. Always. Rhodes: This is obvious, but it's somehow lost on people to some extent and also to see what this is setting up. That was the main message, that you need to shake off the kind of self-censorship that takes hold in these circumstances and shake off the waiting for somebody else to charge up the hill and start coalition-building and doing things right away. Cottle: I wanted to read a comment that somebody had sent in. It's from Jonathan and he notes: 'It's exceedingly frustrating to hear plans and strategies for the regaining of political power by the Democratic Party. Why? Because we're in the middle of a takeover of our government by a lawless and violent faction. Discussing ways in which this can be successfully opposed by a properly considered political strategy is simply fatuous. In fact, many supporters of that faction are muddying the waters by suggesting democratic political strategies. But these are distractions.' So I think if I am reading Jonathan correctly, he feels like extraordinary measures are called for. We're in an extraordinary time and he wants to see something transformational. And what can the Democratic Party do to channel that kind of rage where it just feels like the moment is so dire? Rhodes: So, I totally agree with Jonathan, and he can feel free to lump me in with the political strategists. But my point is essentially, Democrats love to, for instance, sit around and be like, 'What's the policy agenda that will win back America?' I — nobody cares. There's great ideas out there — the abundance agenda and all the rest of it — but nobody is going to read that right now. That's a great idea for Democrats if they actually win back power or maybe if they're in power now. But where Jonathan's right is, we're in quicksand and we're going underneath, and we're sitting here debating policy ideas for some hypothetical future when we're in charge or we're debating what podcasts to go on. To me, you just need to show energy, whether it's in moral outrage or determination. My point in the piece was don't wait for a Democrat to save Washington. People just need to get in the streets, or businesses need to start binding together. Institutions need to stop capitulating. I mean, the way you get out of things like that is you grab one another's hand. And I think what the Democrats need to do is flood the zone out in the country; just start doing things. It's actually not a strategy. Well, it is a strategy in the sense of it's saying stop doing what you're currently doing in Washington and just go out and essentially collectively protest. I don't think Bernie and A.O.C. checked with Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries about whether they could go do some rallies. They just went and did them because that's what they're good at and that's what people need to do more of. Cottle: OK, skip the consultants and poll testing. Get up, get out there. And with that call to the ramparts, Ben, thank you so much for joining me. Rhodes: Always great talking to you, Michelle.
