Trump threatens Greenland… then pulls back

Welcome to Left, Right, and Center. I'm McKay Coffin, staff writer at The Atlantic, filling in for David Green. President Trump was willing to go all out for Greenland until he wasn't. Earlier this week, Trump doubled down on his by any means necessary pursuit of Greenland in a White House press briefing. How far are you willing to go to acquire?

You'll find out. The President backed off the threat of military action once he arrived in Switzerland for the World Economic Forum. We probably won't get anything unless I decide to use excessive strength and force. where we would be, frankly, unstoppable. But I won't do that. That's probably the biggest statement I made,'cause people thought I would use force. Uh I don't have to use force. I don't want to use force.

Now even the threat of an economic battle seems to have dissipated following a meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Russian. And Trump's reversal came after leaders of several US Allied countries took a more confrontational approach than usual toward Trump's form. First, there was French President Emmanuel Macron who warned about a changing world order. where international law is trampled underfoot and where the only law that seems to matter is that of the strongest

And imperial ambitions are resurfacing. Then you had Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney speaking about economic manipulation by great powers. Let me be direct. We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition. Over the past two decades, a series of crises in finance, health, energy, and geopolitics have laid bare the risks of extreme global integration. But more recently. Great powers have begun using economic integration as weapons.

Trump's unpredictable nature and recent incursion into Venezuela had alarmed NATO allies, who worried that he might try to seize Greenland by force, effectively blowing up international norms and upending the alliance.

But now Trump seems to have pulled back from the brink, and the world is left wondering what changed and what it means for the future. I want to bring in our left, right, and center panel to process this whirlwind week between the US and NATO. On the left we have Moa Lathy, Executive Director at Georgetown University's Institute of Policy. service. He was also communications director for the Democratic National Committee and an advisor to Democrats.

Clinton. And Sarah Isger, senior editor at The Dispatch. Sarah is an ABC News analyst, host of the Advisory Opinions podcast, and author of the forthcoming book Last Branch Standing. She was also spokesperson at the Department of Justice during President Trump's first. Hey guys, thanks for having me back. Welcome back, McKay. Always love you, McKay. Oh I I feel warmly welcomed. Sarah

Taco, Taco Trump, right? I think it started in the investor community, but has made its way into political and diplomatic circles too. It stands for Trump Always Chicken Speed. Um and I am curious what you think caused this one hundred eighty ones. You know, we did see a unified show of resistance from European leaders this week. Uh it's a much different approach than we had seen throughout the president's first term in office. Do you think that made a difference here?

So it's interesting because Taco I think started around the tariff, really, or at least became During the tariffs. So how funny that at the end of the day, the Greenland talk really tacoed out once it included tariffs. Um uh and maybe that's not a coincidence. It seems that Taco Trump is most likely to happen. When there's um an economic reaction of some kind. Like that's that's the advisor that Trump listens to most closely, if you will.

But of course, Trump wouldn't be able to be Trump if he were truly Trump. the A and taco, if it were always in all things, because then everyone would just assume none of it was real, there would be no economic reverberations, because the market would bake taco into itself, if you will. And certainly we've seen in plenty of other areas where it's not Taco Trump, interior immigration enforcement.

Would be one of those areas. Um, his sort of retribution ideas through the Department of Justice, no tacoing there. But yet, in this sort of foreign policy economic realm and where they overlap. Um, it's definitely the case. So why did it happen here? I would say for the same reasons that it happened previously on on uh some of the previous tariffs as well.

So many economic indicators showing that it wasn't gonna work out the way that he wanted. That being said, I I guess, and maybe I'm Lucy in the football here. I'll tell you, McKay, I was actually a little surprised at how quickly this happened that we have what like the framework for a deal, or as lawyers call it, not a deal. Um similar to the TikTok. not deal that we've had for a year now that has allowed him to ignore that.

Um I'm sure we'll learn more in the coming days and weeks about what was going on behind the scenes, but I guess For me, what I always ask when I read those, I the facts may be reported correctly, but it doesn't really tell you why this. When in almost all of Trump's endeavors there's someone saying this is a bad idea, but most of the time he ignores the truth. Um and I don't have a great answer to why this, aside from the fact, again, taco generally happens when it's involved.

I remember talking to somebody in Trump's orbit um last year who said that one of the the most underappreciated uh Prisms through which you can understand Trump's behavior is literally just the Dow Jones, the stock market. When the stock market starts to tank. Uh seemingly as a result of an action he takes, it it applies a kind of pressure uh to him that almost nothing else can. He does not like to see the stock market go.

So that that might have had something to do with it. Mo, you've spoken on this show about how Trump utilizes, weaponizes perceptions that he's an unpredictable.

But I'm wondering if you, when you look at what happened with Greenland See kind of a point of diminishing returns on the so-called badman theory of international relations, right? Trump has never been the most popular figure in Europe, but is it possible that?

this this kind of pushback, this united front from from Allied leaders changed things here? Is it possible he's lost even more credibility with world leaders from this whole ordeal? What what do you make about this? Yeah, I think this was the worst of all situations. Um now w why I mean I agree with you both that I think the market was a leading reason why he I do think that the swift European push

And not just swift. I mean forceful. Right? This wasn't like the first round of tariffs when they were all kind of dancing around and ca and yeah, complaining a little bit, but then bending over backwards. No, they this was Macron. uh carney not european but but the canadian like just saying we are done enough of this we're just not gonna play the EU suspending talks on a trade deal saying as long as you guys are talking about this

We're out. We're just not gonna play. I think that may have had something to do with this. I think this was one of the few times in his first year that you saw Republicans in Congress. Stand up and say we're not okay with this. And you saw public opinion, even among Trump supporters, take a huge nosedive on this issue.

I mean it was sort of four major things. Now maybe the the market was the leading one, maybe that was the one that pushed him over the edge, but you had four things. The fact that the European leader Set stood up and said, We are done. We are going to shove the bully back. reflects that uh they may actually be done and they may start shopping around for other parts.

And I think that is s absolutely significant. Now, what's the end result of all of this? We'll see when they announce the details of this framework, but from what we have n learned so far. We got nothing. We got nothing. We got essentially Trump putting his name on the status quo, on the 1950s deal that Harry Truman negotiated.

Because all of the things he claims to have gotten out of this are things that we already had, things that we already could do, or things that Denmark and Greenland have been asking for. Including the US paying for more of a military presence in the Arctic region. So this was the worst of all situations. We lost a lot of capital. We lost a lot of credibility. And we got nothing in return that we didn't already have. I I just this was Donald Trump.

Okay, by and large, actually Mo, I don't disagree with a word of that. But let me push back on one idea at least that I'm not sure that you'll disagree. Donald Trump can lose a lot of credibility and yada yada yada. But at the end of the day, the next time he has a thing like this.

Do you really think they're not gonna take him seriously?'Cause I think they'll have to take him seriously again because you don't know when he's gonna join with Israel to run a bombing attack on Iran or when he's gonna go into Venezuela. And take, you know, Maduro and bring him back to the United States. And so while um I think there was real damage done here, I don't know that it's damage to Trump's future threat credit.

No, I think it is damaging to a s a sense and spirit of partnership with our allies abroad. Look, I I'm with you, right? The market kinda reacted before Greenland, the market was kind of beginning the whole point of Trump always chickens out, was the market saying, you know what, he's just gonna say boneheaded things, or we're just not gonna react to all of it because it's good he's gonna back off. Not always, as we saw in this case, they did react.

Um eventually. But eventually. But our foreign le our foreign partners, our international partners, the global the Western Alliance that um we have led, I'm I I I think they are always gonna take him seriously. I think what they're done I think what they're saying though is we are done playing. We are done capitulating. We are done bending over backwards to placate you. Because when you as a bully shove your friends, we're gonna start shoving back.

And you know what? Like the EU shoving back on trade, that's not insignificant. That's the largest trading partnership in the world is the EU and the United States. If they start shoving back, then both sides are gonna are gonna have a problem. And Donald Trump has now shown uh that our partners don't ha i can't just implicitly trust uh the United

And maybe more to the point of what you're saying, Mo, is um if you're going to be a bully when, you know, you want to be mean, then when you want to play nice, we're not coming like we're not gonna sit with you at lunch.

Um, if that makes sense. So like you want to use a stick, that's fine. Then we're on stick terms from now on. So like yeah, the next time you threaten to use a stick, we're gonna take you seriously. But like the five eyes And the like things that are behind the scenes that help the United States from these countries. Permanently broken. Right. So let's not sit together at lunchtime anymore. Um and now you're open seat, like, hey China, why don't you come join us for a little bit? Which of course

Uh Sarah, there's one moment in all of this that I want to zero in on for a second. President Trump wrote this letter to The Norwegian Prime Minister, where he said that after the failure by the Nobel Committee to award him the Nobel Peace Prize, he quote no longer feels an obligation to

Now, his pursuit of Greenland seems to have ended for now, but do you think we will see a more emboldened Trump abroad in the You know, keeping in mind that we are just slightly less than three weeks removed from the incursion into Venezuela and the cap I think that we were already seeing that Trump.

So I think the letter's sort of a irrelevant and or backdated uh explanation. I think he had a really good time sending that letter though. Right? Like there's so many buckets to put Trump's actions into, but one of the buckets is trolling. Um, and he loves sending letters like that because it trolls the left, it trolls the international community. Uh and I I think this falls into that category. But as you pointed out, before that letter was sent, we were already seeing an emboldened Trump or

I don't even know if that's the right term. We were seeing Trump pursuing Trump's foreign. Um, I really am annoyed with the term Donro Doctrine, but like fine, whatever you wanna call it. He was doing that regardless of the Nobel Peace Prize. I think we will see more of it, but again, I think it has nothing to do with that letter and nothing to do with the Nobel Peace Prize. I think Donald Trump has a worldview that we've talked about on the show a little bit.

That is just at odds with the post World War II global order. And either Trump is wants to change that global order. Or he thinks that global order already ended, and he thinks he is the one simply recognizing the new global order in which America is not the sort of swaggering cowboy, good guy, hero that runs everything.

And that China has already become uh an equal, an adversary, and it's not gonna be like the Cold War, it's gonna be something different, uh, and that Russia's, you know, over there and the world gets divided up into three parts, so you better shore up your fence. Um, whether that fencing is Greenland or Venezuela or anywhere else, because this ain't, you know, nineteen ninety four's foreign policy. I think one thing we can all agree on here is that we can do better than Don Rose.

I I I I think I I just as a community, as a country as a country, let's put our heads together. Let's get our best minds off. If you have something to say about the week's topic, you can join Left, Right, and Center's community of discussion on Substack. Sign up for a weekly inbox reminder to find some great articles that inform our conversation and talk about what you heard on the show with each other. We may even pluck a comment or question there to discuss on the show.

Again, that's K C R W L R C dot.

I'll be back with Moa Lathe and Sarah Izger to look back at the first year of Trump 2.0. You're listening to Left Right. Back again with Left, Right, and Center. I'm your host, McKay Coppins, filling in for David Green. We're joined by Moa Lathey, Executive Director at Georgetown University's Institute of Politics and Public Service. And Sarah Izger, ABC News Legal Analyst and host of the Advisory Opinions Podcast. This week marked the first year of Trump 2.0, and what a year it was.

Uh the President attempted to recount some of it in a long uh winding speech during that pre Switzerland White House press briefing. There was a visual aid he showed to the room, uh which is a printed list of accomplishments from his first year back in office. I could stand here and read it for a week and we wouldn't be finished. But we've done more than any other administration has done by far in in terms of military, in terms of ending wars, in terms of completing wars.

Nobody's really seen very much like it. The president played the hits during the nearly two hour appearance, a total reversal on immigration at the southern border, his long list of executive orders, and unprecedented economic growth. But others uh may remember this past year as a disruption of longstanding economic partnerships, a never-ending line of court appearances by the administration.

and the sight of National Guard troops and Federal agents deployed throughout major American cities, or extraordinary authorizations of military force in Iran and Venezuela, the negotiation of a fragile ceasefire in Gaza, Or the longest federal government shutdown in US history. Sarah, let's start with you. The president came into office claiming a mandate that prioritized lowering prices and fixing immigration. How do you think he's delivered on those issues in the first twelve years?

I think anyone who is honestly assessing Trump's first year in office has to acknowledge That I think he succeeded beyond most people's wildest dreams of what he could do with immigration in the first year. You look at the border crossing numbers uh in the Biden administration versus now, and it's Particularly stark when you consider the fact that he didn't even bother to go to Congress.

To get new authorities. He really did this based on word of mouth, largely alone. Um, you know, enforcing the laws as they existed, sure. But remember, there were so many people. Crossing the border during the Biden administration, they could not even hope to detain everyone. This was a lawsuit that went to the Supreme Court, in fact.

where the Biden administration said, Look, it says shall detain, but we literally don't have the space for that. So we can't comply with the law. And the Supreme Court was like, Yeah You know, Congress needs to provide more money if they expect you to actually shall detain everyone by Donald Trump. Rhetoric and reputation.

The number of people who thought they could get into the country dropped so much that now the small trickle of people coming to the southern border are easily detained and are um, you know, there is space for them. And so it has just made a huge difference.

When you look at interior enforcement and his promises of mass deportations and stuff, again, I think a lot of people during the election said, Yeah, but he can't actually do it. He's promising things he can't deliver on. Um You know, sure looks like he's delivering pretty well on that all things considered.

Now, compare that to affordability, which McKay, you said he ran on both. I would argue he ran more on affordability than he did on immigration. We're not talking about it. We're not doing anything about it. I can't point to some real thing that the administration has done. That has actually lowered the cost for Americans. And I think it will be a huge problem for the Republican Party heading into the midterms, which they know.

In the meantime, to the extent the administration has done anything on affordability, it has been drowned out by all of the other things Donald Trump has been spending his time on. Uh, and again, I'll bring up sort of the retribution tour stuff.

He starting at the beginning of his administration went after law firms, then he went after universities. Then of course individuals, Jim Comey, Lisa Cook, now Jay Powell, etc. I think for a lot of people, again, maybe it doesn't take up much of Donald Trump's time. But if you base it on what he spends his time talking about, he sure seems more focused on things other than affordability. And again, that will be a hurdle for Republicans who are on the ballot.

Sarah, are there levers that this administration could be pulling? to address affordability issues bracketing questions of legislation which are always, you know You can't bracket that well my my point is I think okay so go make your case. You really can't because you look at uh Barack Obama, Joe Biden, even Donald Trump's first term.

All three of them had con their party's control of both houses of Congress when they came in, and all three had some signature legislation that they got passed. Where is Donald Trump's signature legislation? Question mark. Where is even Donald Trump's thought of going to Congress about anything non-existent And so he touts all these things that he's accomplished. And I know I've made this point over and over again. Every single one of them can be undone on day one.

Of a democratic administration. So there's no legacy building here. There's no actual changing of policy. So you're asking what he can do on affordability. Endless things, but you have to go to Congress. And instead, what I'm seeing are true socials about Changing credit card interest rates, uh, who can, you know, buy housing in the country, all sorts of ideas through executive orders that he probably can't constitutionally execute. But none of that. Are going to Congress. Why?

Because Donald Trump doesn't want to because that takes time, because he has to negotiate, because he has to use sort of those soft levers of power. And he is bad at soft levers of power. Yeah. But I think it's a huge, huge mistake. The more you like Donald Trump and his policies,

the more you should hate the way he's going about this stuff because it is ephemeral to the nth degree. No, I I I I totally agree with you on uh on the need f to to work with Congress on this stuff. I mean, the the reason I said to bracket it was just because It's so clear that Donald Trump and and people in his administration are so bad at legislating. And that, you know, that that's not a normative statement about, you know, what whatever you think of the legislation they would want to pass.

We have a pretty good sample size at this point that they are not good at at working with Congress, at getting their policy passed as legislation. Instead, the this uh second term has been defined by novel and innovative expansions of presidential power, executive power, right?

And and Mo, so I'm I'm curious, what stands out to you the most about this this past twelve months? Yeah. I mean, I'm just gonna piggyback on what we've been talking about, right? I mean, he ran on affordability, huge fail. We've life is more expensive today than it was a year ago, uh almost across the board. And anybody, you know, the president seems frustrated that his team isn't communicating it, as we saw in that ridiculous show.

Of a press conference on the one year uh anniversary where he all but blamed his entire communications team. I'm sorry when I'm walking down the grocery aisle. Uh that's not a messaging problem. It's just uh a a huge fail. Immigration, he said he was going to secure the border. He said he was going to go after the most violent criminals. first. Instead, every day there's more imagery of them kind of going after nonviolent criminals and going after American citizens.

And he's going after legal immigration, something he said he was not going to do. He's been going after legal immigration and that has had a chilling effect. Tech companies are pleading with him to reverse course. Universities are pleading with him to reverse course. Across the board, um uh people are seeing the negative effects, which is why. He is underwater in approval rating on the two issues he has always led on. For the past decade, he has always had net positive.

on immigration and on the economy. And right now he is down by double digits in polling on both of those issues.

Beyond that, this notion of executive power, he really is testing all of our limits. He's testing all of our guardrails. I mean, Uh uh this is something I think Sarah would agree with me on. If a conservative had seen images under a democratic president. of federal law enforcement bursting into people's homes without a warrant? They would have screamed at the top of their lungs. That is antithetical to everything conservatives stand for.

And yet just this week we learned that it is essentially ICE practice to do that now, to break down people's doors and go into their homes without a warrant. I'm sorry for a a a a a party and an ideological movement that has always claimed and taken pride in being strictly adherent to the constitution. That seems like a pretty blatant violation of the Constitution. Why? Because this president does not feel like he is bound by. The constitution.

by the law, by Congress, he feels like he can just do what he wants. It is his worldview, is that he has the power and he will exercise it. Uh we're seeing it Time after time after time. We're seeing it in terms of his executive actions, we're seeing it in the way as Sarah talked about, his revenge and retribution tour. We're seeing it in his foreign policy, we're seeing it all

emergency declarations he's claiming to justify something like you know tariffs. This is a president who is just does not believe the guardrails applied. And he is going out of his way to approve it, except on the one issue that swept him into office, which is affordability, where he is failing. You're listening to left, right, and center from KCRW. We're talking about the first year of Trump two point oh with Moa Lathey and Sarah Isger.

Sarah, the Trump administration was mired in lawsuits over tariffs, firings, funding cuts, citizenship. Uh, what do you think was the most consequential legal battle of this first year? There is no question. There's like a number one. And then there's not anything until like number fifty seven, nothing in And the answer is the tariffs lawsuit, which we still obviously do not have a decision on. Um, but no matter which way that goes, it will be consequential, more frankly, for this Supreme Court.

and for sort of future executive power, then it will be for terrorist. That's not to say it won't be consequential on tariffs, but the president does have other tariff authorities slash I think the importance of tariffs has uh receded somewhat. I mean, again, Greenland, but this is really a pivot point, I think, for the Supreme Court about the role that they are going to play policing the line between the two branches and separation of power.

Are we going to say that presidents are incredibly powerful within the executive branch? You know, when it comes to doling out the money or hiring and firing, but all they can do is execute the powers given to them from Congress or Are we going to say that presidents can take these sort of vague statutes from Congress? And enlarge them to address current problems because frankly Congress isn't doing anything.

And we simply cannot sort of live in a country where we don't have an energetic executive and, you know, someone who's actually minding the store. And whether it's the Supreme Court's job to actually police that or whether Congress has to fight its own battles. Those questions are all wrapped up in the tariff case. Plus Donald Trump's threats to the court, threats about what would happen if they don't uphold the tariffs. It's a perfect storm of a case. I cannot tell you.

how important it is, how much I think it is anticipated by the legal left and right, because I think it will tell us everything about the future of this Supreme Court. I want to ask you both the this question to wrap Has anything about this first year surprised you? I wanna stipulate that it has to be something that genuinely caught you off guard or subverted your expectations in some way. It can't just be

I was even more right than I thought, which is how I think a lot of pundits answer these questions. So Mo, you first. Has anything about this first year of Trump's second term surprised you? And what was it? I'm gonna kinda do what you just asked us not to do, which is say I was more right. But the extent to which I I think well, he he this. I I we knew that Donald Trump was going to challenge other institutions.

That he was going to assert a tremendous amount he would claim a tremendous amount of authority that he doesn't I've been surprised at how little pushback he's gotten from a number of those that Congress has just rolled over and played dead that so many institutions in the early days of the first the first year law firms.

And it seems like now as we begin year two, we're starting to see some more of that pushback. It I'm just I'm surprised at how little there was, granting him more authority than I think a lot of people were. What about you, Sarah? My list is so long that I probably won't be able to get through it all, but let me try to to give some highlights. I believed that this would look a lot more like the first term.

I knew it wouldn't look exactly like the first term, but I thought it would have echoes ringing. In terms of the internal chaos and the inability to staff Donald Trump. And so there would be a real competence gap at two things. Uh Susie Wiles has been Trump's most competent chief of staff for Donald Trump by a mile. That is shocking to me. And then look at his cabinet, right? We're not having cabinet squabbles, people getting fired by tweet, like none of that's happening.

uh at least from the outside, it looks a whole lot more smooth sailing in the inside, you know, less of the backbiting leaks and all of that nonsense from the first administration. Very surprised. Uh similarly the competence level. You know, in the first term you had sort of highly competent, not loyal, not people loyal to Donald Trump in particular.

In the administration. This time around, we knew they wouldn't get the people who had lots of experience in these jobs. And so there should have been a competence gap. Uh, we really haven't seen a competence gap. They have been able to execute on the things that Donald Trump has asked them to execute on. Now again, you can hate those things, but they've gotten a lot more done on that, you know, his bucket list than I think. I I expected the retribution stuff.

Obviously he talked about it during the campaign. I Am on Cash Patel's enemies list? Uh so it's not like I wasn't aware of this. I wrote an entire op-be in the New York Times about how Joe Biden shouldn't pardon people because frankly people like us. um should be willing to sort of stand up for the rule of law. When Donald Trump so quickly started going after law firms, which are kind of the way the whole system works, right? That's uh that is worse than going after individuals. I found that

Shocking. And again, I I think lots of listeners are gonna be like, oh, you shouldn't have found that shocking. Fair enough, but I did. I think this foreign policy that we're seeing is such a break from the first administration. I don't know that anyone in particular saw that coming. I mean The point is, McKay, I think it would be a shorter list of things that I'm not surprised by. Things that I correctly predicted from this administration, then the reverse.

Because I think this has been a much different administration than uh pundits predicted it would be. And this is the important part. I think it's a much different administration than voters. I've been talking with Sarah Izger and Moa Lathey. We'll be back to dissect the social media messaging of the federal government. You're listening to Left, Right, and Center.

Back again with Left, Right, and Center. I'm your host, McKay Coppins. We're here with Sarah Isger, Senior Editor at The Dispatch, and we're joined by Moa Lathey, Executive Director at Georgetown University's Institute of Politics and Public Service.

Social media posts from official government accounts have been raising quite a few eyebrows. In one post calling for new recruits to ICE, The official Department of Homeland Security account featured the quote We'll have our home again, a lyric to a popular unattributed nationality. In another the agency used an AI photo of ICE agents covered in Christmas lights preparing for a raid with the caption you're going ho ho ho.

A post from the labor department contained the phrase one homeland, one people, one heritage. paired with an image of George Washington and included images depicting idyllic scenes of the Western frontier, the Revolutionary War, and an all white families in the nineteen fifties. The phrase was reminiscent to some of the Nazi era slogan one people, one night. There's also been the use of the phrase, which way American Man? A call to a text written by neo-Nazi author William Gail Simmons.

Critics of these posts and the administration's general approach to social media say they are meant to signal solidarity with far-right white nationalists. Uh experts say they are often reminiscent in tone, style, and substance of posts found in chat rooms and online spaces. The White House has generally deflected when journalists ask about the posts. Um so Mo, I'll start with you. Is it outlandish to think that these posts are meant to be a dog whistle?

You asked at the end of the last segment what about This doesn't even make like the top fifty for me that the that this administration would use social media. who uh they've always been. No, I don't think it is outlandish to think that this is dog whistling. I think the White House does not use communications tools to communicate. to organize and to mobilize. That's not unique to them. It's just what they're mobilizing behind and who they're mobilizing. It certainly has white nationalists.

I was gonna say under the other. And it also, you know, has this element of What some people call sort of combat sensationalism, right? It is designed to push imagery of conflict and sometimes physical conflict. They use it for as a recruiting tool. I mean, some of uh ICE's recruitment efforts, for example, has been targeting um combat veterans. Now there's nothing wrong.

Great when the federal government wants to take care of combat veterans. But the way they're doing it by uh using imagery and messaging that insinuates that they can continue the fight. that they um uh that they started overseas at home and in reality sometimes against fellow American citizens. That is where it begins to become even more dangerous, right? They are sensationalized. They are uh mobilizing behind these oftentimes violent and oftentimes uh racist overtones. That's new, but it's not.

Sarah, back when you worked at the RF. Uh I was a reporter and we would we would have off the record chats over milkshakes where we would uh sometimes debate things including, you know, the use of Twitter and And uh by both reporters and politicians. And I remember you being very kind of out. You you felt like it had kind of a corrosive effect on politics, and maybe you were a little prophetic uh in retrospect.

What what is interesting to me about this second term, because this this does surprise me. Maybe you know Unlike Mo, I have been surprised by the extent to which the entire like federal government messaging bureaucracy has adopted the tone of like Donald Trump's Twitter feed circa twenty. Right. In the first term, there was a difference between what the president would do on social media and what the rest of his administration would do, which was much more kind of traditional and stayed.

uh a decision has been made or maybe it's just happened organically that every you know official account for you know a a branch of the the executive branch under Trump needs to talk like Don And I wonder what you think is driving that as somebody who has worked in First of all, R.I.P. Bullfeathers, because some of my happiest memories from that time are meeting you. McKay Coppins, the BuzzFeed reporter.

for milkshakes and complaining about the buzz feetification of politics and how bad it would be uh when everything becomes a social media esque conversation and what would grow into the small dollar donor fundraising ethos that then permeated that you make these little clips to you raise money, that they're all about attention and anger and outrage. Uh this is

Very small example, but we got this wonderful letter from a nine-year-old girl who wants to be a lawyer someday over at my legal podcast advisory opinions. Here's someone on Twitter. Um, if this is the single best letter you have ever received at AO, it speaks very poorly of the quality of the letters you receive and the correspondence who write them. Also, the green, blue, and red coloring is off putting. It's sort of makes it. Dude, she's nine. What?

Like you came to Twitter to have a bad day and to bring everyone else down with

Um, so yeah, I just I wanna stand by uh all the things that twenty thirteen Sarah thought about the effects social media would have on our politics. But McKay, there's another thing that we I think talked about back then that has also wildly come to fruition because it was accelerated so much by Donald Trump and Mo I think We have very much changed the types of people who want to become political operatives, campaign staffers.

comms, uh, you know, people on the hill or in the administration, et cetera, because we've changed what your competitive advantage is and what type of person gets those jobs and is rewarded by those jobs. And so to answer your question of why this is happening, it's because we changed who was doing it. The types of people who became a campaign operative because they watched the West Wing and the Bush administration no longer become political operatives.

They wouldn't get hired. They wouldn't have a good time. They don't match the vibe. And so the types of people who want these jobs and who are getting hired into these jobs are edgelords. And so what you are seeing is the product of hiring and rewarding edgelord behavior, and that's all that's left. You know, we killed off an entire generation, I would say, of sort of old school field work political operatives. Or legislative staff, I mean you talk to members of the house, they don't

What's the point? They're not drafting legislation. They're hiring more com staff, more social media, more bookers to get them onto, you know, cable news or talk radio. This is the result of that, of having too many com staffers who came up through meme edification, looks maxing chat. Before we wrap things up here, uh I do want to go Hey left, right and center.

As a voter, I try to put principle ahead of ideology. I believe character matters, and I'm willing to support a candidate whose views I agree with less, or one I think is unlikely to win, if I believe they're the more principle. So my question for the three of you is this Where do you draw the line? Would you vote for a candidate who's shown serious moral flaws if the alternatives don't align with your political views? Or does ideological alignment ultimately outweigh concerns about character?

And if principle and character are part of the calculus for how you vote, under what circumstances would you support a candidate whose ideology doesn't match your own? Thank you. Yeah, I'm fascinated by Mo's answer too. Actually And can I add a question for Mo, which like I want to hear your answer to that? It's all about me. I because I think we can guess my answer. How many times have you ever voted for? Um I can think of maybe two

Uh that's not zero. Uh yeah, no, it's not zero. I think I can think of two in my life. The reality is that for me both Um and yeah, the question becomes when are they in conflict? Principle does matter. Now everybody I mean we are all human, we are We all have things in our past. And so, you know, how we define principle matters. But I you know, if there was someone I've truly found morally repugnant, I would have a hard time voting for them, even if we were aligned on every single issue.

Having said that, I have a hard time seeing myself vote for someone who I am not aligned with in terms of a world. And so if I'm in a situation where I have a flawed candidate, uh when it comes to morality and principles who I'm aligned with ideologically. versus someone I'm aligned with, um, who I who I respect as a person, but who I'm completely and totally unaligned with, that's a that's a hard call. And I think my default, if I'm being totally honest.

Would be to move to the next line on the ballot. So McKay, I think the best predictor of my voting behavior is whether if it's a guy, he's a good dad. So to answer the question, like in terms of my actual voting behavior. uh character matters more than anything else by maybe a lot. Now the more interesting question is what happens when I think both people are good or both people are really bad? 'Cause then you sort of have to fall back on either Moe's point that you just move on to the

line maybe. Um, but I don't. I vote in every election. So then I do try to be like overly strategic. You know, I try to see where the wind is blowing and like which party I can sort of punish or like Instill some sort of greater lesson with my single vote. Basically, I'm a terrible voter. I'm like the nightmare for. Uh I'll just throw in my answer really quickly. Uh and this isn't a direct answer to Nick's question, but I will say that I think one of the most poisonous ideas that his life

woven its way into our politics in the last decade especially is that all politicians are bad people. They're all snakes. Uh we shouldn't expect uh integrity or character from them. We should just vote our self interest and who whoever, you know, agrees with us on the issue.

And I just think that the I I understand where the cynicism comes from in uh you know in in this moment. I also think it's profoundly self-defeating. And I think we should hold our political leaders to a certain standard of character and moral behavior. And if they don't meet that, we should demand that they they be better. And we should look for politicians who are at least trying to be good people. And I think it's it's very frustrating that So many people think that that's an unsist.

Let's thank Nick for this uh question, which prompted obviously very interesting conversation. For any other listeners out there with a question for us, we want to hear from you, you can write us an email or record a voice memo around thirty. And send it to us at LRC at K Crw.

Drop your first name, where you're calling from, and your question to potentially hear it on the show. We have reached that time once again for our famed left, right, and center rants and raves. Sarah, let's start with you. As y'all know, I have a book coming out in April. It's a myth busting walk through the Supreme Court showing how it is somehow both the Founding Fathers Third Wheel.

And the only branch of government they would be likely to recognize today. And I've got this cool thing that we're doing. So if you pre-order a copy of Last Branch standing before February 9th, I will send you a signed book. the book when it shows up in April. So if you go to prh.com/slash last branch bookplate and fill out the form, there I will send What a great problem to have.

Um Mo? Since we're talking about books, I'm gonna uh rave about two books that I had not read yet, but I'm excited uh to read. So I hope neither one lets me down. One is a new biography coming out about former Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid. It's right the dean of the Nevada press corps and uh understood Harry Reid probably better than anybody other than Harry Reid's uh family.

Depending on where you sit on the ideological spectrum, you either see Harry Reid uh as the perfect example of how to stand up to the other side and fight for. democratic ideals or you see him as the catalyst who who started the cascading erosion of democratic norms in the United States Senate. I'm fascinated to see where uh you know, how Ralston talks about him.

uh learn more about Harry Reed's backstory. It should be a good read. Fun fact by the way, Mo, the opening to one of my chapters is how important that Harry Reid might be the most important outside actor for the Supreme Court, maybe in the history of the United States.

You know, there are so many people looking right now to the legacy of Harry Reid for for guidance on how to navigate this moment in our politics. And I'm just excited to read it. And then the other book I'm excited to read and I hope doesn't let And I will be I I will be expecting my uh my nameplate. How nerdy of a brag is it to say that I have advanced copies of both the books that Moe just mentioned sitting in my home office.

Uh, it's good to be in the K, you know. Very quickly I'll I'll do my rave about my beloved New England Patriots who are playing in the AFC. You know, I grew up in Massachusetts, rooted for the Patriots throughout a historically dominant twenty-year run that included the greatest quarterback of all time, Tom Brady, greatest coach.

Nine Super Bowl appearances, six Super Bowl wins. But I just want to say, as a long-suffering Patriots fan, it has been seven long years since the Patriots were in the Super Bowl. And there are eight-year-old kids. Which is just tragic, I have to say, as a New England sports fan. So I just want to give a you know shout out to Drake May and Mike Frabel and the whole the whole crew bringing the Patriots back to where they belong, which is deep in the Super Bowl can

That is all the time we have for today, thanks to Sarah Isger and Moa Lathe. Left, right, and center is produced by Marquet Green. Our executive producer is Arnie Seipel. The show is recorded and mixed by Nick Lamponi. Todd M. Simon composed our theme music. Left, Right, and Center is a co-production of KCRW and Fearless Media. We are distributed by PRX. I'm McKay Coppins. David Green will be back next week. Thanks for joining us. Tune in next week for more Left Right and Center.

Download and subscribe at kcrw.com slash lrc, the KCRW app, or wherever you find podcasts. Left, right, and center is produced and distributed by KCRW. From PRX.