When Caring Becomes Counterculture

Hello, and welcome to the David Fromm Show. I'm David Fromm, a staff writer at The Atlantic. My guest this week will be Tim Miller, host of the Ball Works Daily Podcast. My literary topic this week won't be a book. It will be a discussion of the ritual and performance of the State of the Union address. And I will get to that after the interview with Tim Miller. But first, some opening thoughts on the dramatic recent event. There so many that one can hardly begin to tally them all.

Um, I record this podcast the day before the president is to g deliver the State of the Union address. You will see it or hear it at the earliest, the morning after the president gives the day the State of the Union address.

So you will know more than I do about what happens. I have no idea, although I can make some guesses. I'm going to guess there's going to be a lot of ranting and raving in in the State of the Union address about the Supreme Court and the tariff recent tariff decision. And one of the questions

should spring to mind is why is the president so very, very upset that the Supreme Court struck down the uh tariffs he's been announcing over the past year? I mean, I get it, no one likes to lose. This is an important issue for him, but it's not like he doesn't have recourse. He continues to hold a majority in both House and Senate. The Supreme Court has said your tariff measures would be fine if they came from Congress. You just can't do them alone.

Why not announce in a st in the State of the Union? I am I've drafted a tariff bill. I'm sending it to Congress tomorrow. I look forward to you enacting it at your earliest convenience. There are enough Republicans, enough in this House and Senate, and there's there's some anti trade Democrats, you might get a majority. Why why not just pass the bill and do it the way that the legal way that the Supreme Court pointed out to him?

Why is he falling back instead on all these convoluted other schemes for using imaginary balance of payments crises which don't really exist anymore in a day of floating exchange rates or false claims of unfair trade practices, why not just write a tariff bill and send it to Congress and have them pass? Well, once I say it that way, you know why he's so upset, because for Trump, the appeal of the tariffs was not just his primitive mercantilist view of international economics.

He loved the feeling of raw, arbitrary, discretionary power he got from a tariff mechanism that he insisted and the Supreme Court justice. corrected him on, but that he insisted he could apply to anyone at any time for any reason, without permission from anybody, Congress leased devolved. What he is mad about is not that he's lost his tariffs. He could enact them. What he is mad about is that he has lost his power.

And that I think will be a real theme of the State of the Union address, the president's desire to insert personal, arbitrary, whimsical if need be power, unlimited by anybody or or anything. That power comes to its sharpest point when the issue is one of war and peace. Congress has not had a chance to debate, but we are very apparently on the edge of a major war in the Middle East against Iran.

The president has assembled an enormous amount of air and naval resources within striking range of Iran. He has made threats. Uh people around them have made threats. They they say s they say they want a negotiation, but they point to the revolver on the table and warn that the revolver will go off. And war seems to be

imminent. And it may be even an unintended war. It may be a war that Trump thinks he can sort of bully the Iranians into acceding to what he wants to do. They don't, and then he's trapped. He has to go to war, even though he thought he could intimidate them. And when when and if that hope or expectation turns out wrong, he's backed into a position where force is his only remaining recourse. This again is arbitrary power.

Congress is supposed to vote on these things. There's no figment or tissue of any kind of authority that the president has uh to initiate this kind of major regime change conflict that he has in mind with Iran uh without the the approval of Congress. So what we're going to see is a drama of the tension between a president who wants personal power and a constitutional system that is designed to deny the president personal power.

That is why I think these alternative tariff regimens that are being discussed by the administration are ultimately going to collapse and may well be rejected by the court. Because the alternative forms of presidential tariff power all require a lot of process, all require a lot of explanations, all have rules.

They have preconditions that must be met, time limits that must be met. Uh there there are opportunities to uh they must be taken some of them must go to court where there are opportunities for the uh terrifying.

party to make itself heard and to say, I did not engage in the unfair trade practice alleged by the president. And under this trade power, Section 301 as it's known, you don't just take the president's word for it. There is a process and a hearing. And the accused party gets to make itself heard. So we are going to see a drama of the individual will meeting institutional limits.

And that may be the theme of the rest of this political year and the rest of the Trump presidency. The Trump drive to individual unchecked power has met some rebuff. But with war in the offing, he may have his greatest opportunity yet to remake the United States as the kind of one man system that he wants it to be. And now my dialogue with you.

Tim Miller is known to all, or should by now be known to all, as the uh star host of the Bulwarks Daily Podcast. He is also the author of the 2022 New York Times Bestseller, Why We Did It, A Travelog from the Republican Road to Hell. Tim is a veteran of Republican presidential campaigns. McCain oh eight, Hansman twenty twelve, Jeb Bush twenty sixteen. He built a consulting business before switching to full time journalism for the Never Trump fight.

I've been privileged to be his guest on many, many occasions on the bulwark, and it's a pleasure to be able to return the hospitality at last. Tim, thank you so much for joining me today. Let's do this. My gold jacket guest, David Fromm. It is my honor to be in the other seat. Uh, I wanna ask you a a just a brief question because it's not impossible that there is someone who is unaware of the bulwark. Can you take us through the rich and varied bulwark cinematic universe?

What is the bulwark? Where did it come from? How did you join this this group? Sure. Um yeah, it is the unofficial. Before you started your podcast, it was the unofficial podcast of the Atlantic. I had so many Atlantic guests, so I assume most people do know us, but uh so I'll keep it brief. But

Um the bulwark was the shorthand version of it starting was it was b built out of the destruction of the weekly standard. My old friend Sarah Longwell uh had a terrible idea, which was to start a Never Trump aggregator website. Uh, I told her as much. Um, but she just wanted to do something. She was so mad about Trump. She has uh like me had a past in uh conservative PR and communications work.

And um, you know, the site had been around for a couple of months or whatever when the owner of the weekly standard, the old neocon magazine, shut it down. And so a bunch of people were out in the wilderness.

Um, Sarah had met uh Bill Kristol in particular at a lot of meetings of sad Republicans uh in the basements, uh some of which you've attended. Uh I've attended some of those sad meetings. One was called the Meeting of the Concerned. I love that name, the meeting of the concerned. We were all very concerned.

And as she was, and they were just talking. They're like, what can we do? And it's like, hey, maybe this little aggregator thing I had, we can start something else and see how it goes. And that's how the bulwark was born. It was basically a side hustle for a lot of people. My colleague Jonathan lasts.

you know, took over the editorship and it was a real hustle for him, but for a lot of folks it was something that they were doing'cause it it felt good to have a place for Never Trump Republicans to gather and To write and to give their opinions and to vent and lament. And um I had been friends with Sarah, so she ha asked me to do it. As you mentioned in the intro, I was still doing PR work full-time. And um

you know, uh it's it took off beyond our wildest imaginations. Uh like Charlie Sykes of the Daily Show at that time and um you know, he brought over his audience from the Weekly Standard and JVL's newsletter um writing, you know, enraptured a lot of people. And, you know, we brought in a lot of guests um from the universe and and I just would hear from people.

that the audience wasn't just never Trump Republicans. It was that was kind of the core base. A lot of people that had used to be Republicans were turned off by Trump. But it was also a lot of liberals, I'm sure you hear this, David, who like were like I have this uncle or best friend or son or mom or whatever who I like I used to argue with and I can't argue with them anymore because they've gone so insane. And now you guys are like the

Oh, this is what it would be like if my beloved family member who is a conservative had not totally lost their mind and we can have legitimate disagreements about this issue or that issue. And that was kind of the genesis of it. Uh it went from being everybody's side hustle to a real deal. Really, I think during that crazy summer, summer and a half ago where, you know, with the Biden debate and then Trump getting shot and you know, we had got onto YouTube and you know kind of

Uh I g it really just took off. Um can can we sum up the politics of the ball work as pro market anti polio? Pro market anti polio. Yes. I my favorite summation that anyone ever gave us was um uh the capitalist wing of Antifa. Maybe not quite right, but I did like it. I d I it's it has a nice ring to it. So yeah, look, we're pro markets, anti polio, um, anti illiberalism.

And and I think a lot of folks now come to us because we're no bullshit. Honestly. And that was the point I was trying to make about YouTube. There are a lot of people who don't know this backstory. who just saw our c material on social media now and are like we like the cut of their jib and uh they don't have to know about, you know, Hayek or Buckley or the, you know, history of conservatism to to appreciate the content. So you had a a big outing last week. Um you took the

much of the staff, maybe all of the staff of the bulwark, uh, to Minneapolis to do uh a live performance there, but also to do some on the ground observation of a situation you have spoken so much about. What did you you see? I uh I other other than I see'em a lot of snow and ice. Yeah. I did get a cold. I was not built for Minneapolis. And so it gave me even more respect for the folks who've been in the streets protesting, exercising their rights.

Yeah, we ended up having to do two shows. We planned to do one. We wanted to do it in support of the people of Minneapolis. It sold out in like two minutes. And so we did a second one where we it was more of an interview show. We brought in Tim Walls and Tina Smith. We appreciate them for coming. And um And so I look, my main takeaway is that I just had to I was a little bit humbled about something. I was wrong about something. I sit here in my room.

You know, and um it is important to leave my hole and and not just talk to the camera because you can learn things. And I was really seeing Minnesota through a political prism. Right. Like obviously, like I was just deeply mo angered and saddened by what happened to Alex Freddie and Renee Good. And so there was a human element to it. But just my analysis of it was very political. And the political analysis was that it was a win.

that the people of Minneapolis won. They defeated Trump and they made him do something he doesn't like to do, which is back up, back down. And he does it a fair amount, but he doesn't like And so I went there in this mindset that it was almost not celebratory, but almost there was a little bit of a waving of the shirt, you know, that was like, thank yeah, congratulations to the people of Minneapolis.

And when I went to the Whipple building and talked to people that showed up to the events and and you know, had and meals with activists, what I found out was um That yeah, they had had a political victory, and that's not nothing. It's meaningful. But like they've s the occupation is ongoing and the only difference is the tactics with which the government is using, right? Like and and they've dispersed, you know. And so I was talking to one woman, for example.

She lives across the border in Wisconsin. She said about a forty-five minute drive. She drives to the Whipple building, which is the main headquarters of where ICE has been staging. She protests every day for three hours. And uh I uh and she as she I s was talking to her and she was like, Look, my neighborhood in Wisconsin You know, we had seen I think she said four ICER C V P agents.

You know, in our little community text. We'd heard about four, you know, in the past couple months. In the past week, there'd been 10. You know, and this that I was just one anecdote, but there was more of that, like it going out into North Minneapolis and even into South Dakota. And so, you know, where I think the government feels like the the thing that has worked with the resistance, which is uh monitoring and videoing and documenting their action.

that is easy to do in Minneapolis where there's these built in network It's harder to monitor and document if they go out. into other regions of the country, other other areas. Are the toxics of the uh authorities less confrontational and one hopes less violent than we've seen in the recent past. Well, it's and so there again, this is all anecdotal, but there's some elements of demonstrating that that's craftier.

You know, like the ICE agents have been putting on their cars, you know, it's just like point counterpoint, you know, it's like any sort of battle, right? The tactics shift. One thing that uh they've done is they start putting like gay pride stickers on the cars.

and other things to try to trick people into not r you know, seeing that it was a nice vehicle. Uh and so, you know, I I I I think that the violence towards the protesters has dissipated, but is that because their tactics have dissipated or because the manner in which they're doing this you know, puts them in you know, means that they're encountering organized protest less. You know what I mean? I think that still remains to be seen. I I think that we can say meaningfully, like Greg Bovino was

was trying to instigate fights. Right. Like when he was walking around town he was literally tr he wanted violence. And so God God loved the people of Minneapolis that this did not turn into anything that looked like you know, twenty twenty, that there was not really any of that. So I so I think in you know, some ways the tactics have modified a little bit, but

You know, and the idea that people in Minneapolis are still and around in the surrounding areas are still having to like deliver food to families under cover of darkness and there's a network of doulas. Tim Walls was telling us about this network of doulas that is giving helping give birth you know, people give birth because they don't want to go to hospitals. Does it still feel you you said you described it as an occupation. Does Minneapolis still feel like a city under

uh the hand of an unwanted m police presence or does that does it feel like the hand is hidden and therefore it's not such an unwanted police presence? Um I I would not say that it felt like they were still under the hand, as if things were everywhere. As if as if these, you know, secret police were everywhere. I will say this though. Here's the way in which it still felt like an unwanted occupation. When you talk to people,

Everyone had a story, you know? Like everyone had an example of So you know. someone they know at the school, you know, that their kids go to or at you know, at work or in the community. Right. So in that way and and and I think that they were all still very conscious of the fact that this is ongoing. Like business as usual is not like it's not back to normal. And in that sense, I think it's still ongoing. This leads me to a

more challenging question that you and I have talked about in the past and I want to hear your views and I think many people want to hear your views on. Actually I I've got a couple of them a little more challenging. But the first is I'm not at the cutting edge of the latest in internet culture by any means. Okay. Um I'm not So you don't know about bone smashing? I unfortunately I do know about big meshing, but that's only was people tell me. Sometimes the internet culture gets to a point where

I'm not even sure it exists. I think it mostly exists in order to upset and shock people like me, not because there's any actual consumer of it. And uh why? I I'm reading here in the New York Times about this very distressing thing that the young folks are doing right now. Folding the sound of newsprint shuffling. Um now I want to ask you about something that that I don't know how real this is, but people who keep up with this more than I do tell me that there is a mood among the young.

There's something lame about the project that you're engaged in, and I guess I'm engaged in too, of um standing up for what they would call resistance liberalism. And this is somehow unfashionable, uncool. And is is this like a a perception of something that actually exists or is this a chat?

And let me if it's to the extent it exists, let me ask you about two different strains that I can see for what's motivating it. One is and there's just nothing to be done about this, is real leftists who say, Look, you're s you're standing up here for the Constitution, the rule of law, for international free trade, for You you don't want to say uh open borders. You just wanna say orderly police procedures without abuses and without violence.

So you're not you're not a real leftist. You're not smashing the system. You're not overturning the hierarchy. You're not socializing the means of production. You're not globalizing the divada. You it's it's just lame. So okay, real leftists, I get why they would have a B. But the other kind of Thing that it seems to be going on to the extent that this is a real phenomenon I'm describing is a feeling that simply having beliefs is in itself a sign of lameness.

And the the cool thing is not to have any. Am I talking about anything real? Do you you're you're at the center of of this business. Do you see this? Am I describing something you recognize? You are describing something real, unfortunately, and this stuff's all evolving and changing, but I I think that there is

A sense among resist libs or a sense among some, you know, particularly younger folks in the public that that resist libs are corny and cringe. And I think that what is underlying this, like you said, for some people there's ideological elements to it. But to me, what is underlying it is that like the most visible elements of resist liberalism are Like people that seem like they are in the establishment or in positions of power, right? Like that they are protecting

an existing order, right? And, you know, if you're just putting yourself in the in this open a stereotype for a second, an imaginary 23 year old, you know, whether they're a Joe Rogan 23 year old or a, you know, leftist Hassan Piker 23 year old. You know, who are the who are they seeing when they s as the avatars of resist liberalism? It's like their parents.

Right? Probably. You know, or, you know, people that seem like they are part of like an established older culture that they're trying to be a counter culture to. Right? Like the a lot of in a lot of this this is eight stories all this time, right? It's like thesis, antithesis, synthesis, right? Um like that that they're ha they have to rebel against something. And and the resist liberals got in this weird way, w weird position.

something I think about a lot, where we have no power, basically, right? But we're also seen as the establishment. And so how then can you know people that have these views

like start to change that and start to appeal to a broader audience. And and and I think that Trump is doing a lot of favors right now in that sense. Right. And I think that Trump by you know, engaging in such obvious corruption, but also by in like use it, you know, in sidling up to the richest people in the world, you know, and having all the trillionaires at his inauguration and

caring about what Jamie Diamond thinks and also using the spy state of Palantir to go after people. I think there's like a combination of different things where you're starting to see cracks in And you are starting less so on the left because they have an ideological incentive to continue to position resist liberalism as cringe, but more on like in like the center, in like the pot in like the comedian podcast world.

where they now who can they kind of went along with Trump because it was counterculture to whatever extent. You're seeing now elements of them start to say, wait a minute, you know? May maybe MSNBC had a few things right, you know, like maybe that So I do think that there's a little bit of that cracking. But it but it is a problem and it exists. Do you think there's any element of this two of the three presidential candidates running against Donald Trump?

were women. And when when people mock the resist libs, they often feminize what they have in mind. Wine moms. Yes. I don't imagine Hassan Pi Piker's audience is very female. And is there something that there's a kind of leftism or nihilism that is especially attractive to young men? And that fun that is sort of uncomfortable with the idea, you know, the anti Trump movement is in many ways a female led movement, Sarah Longwell. And

They're on the city. Look, I just said MSNBC, look who are the big faces, Nicole Wallace and Rachel Maddow, right? Like yeah. There's a little bit of alienated young men being alienated not against their parents, but against their mother.

I absolutely it's funny that you say that because I don't even actually remember what I said when I said that when they see the resistance, they did I say their parents? Because in my mind I was thinking their mothers. I swear to God. I don't know if I said parents, but in my mind I was thinking their mothers.

And I yeah, I think absolutely there is something to do that to do do with that. And I think that a lot of these young men I look, Scott Galloway is good on this. I think that there are some legitimate issues that young men have in this country and like ways in which they're left behind and ways in which I r I rail a Democrat all the time about this what I'm saying, look you care about representation

And making sure people feel seen in every instance for every group, except for young men. Like that's the one group that you don't think needs to feel seen. And and if you understand the value of quote feeling seen and of representation, you should understand it. So Like there's some legitimate element to this, but I think that those legitimate grievances are being preyed on, and that there are a lot of influences.

you know, uh, folks that are either trying to ideal ideologically prey on young men by turning them into right wing nationalists or You know, far left uh agitators like Piker, or to the other thing that you mentioned, just blackpailing them, nihilism, right? Like this idea that.

uh that nothing matters, right? That like that there are these powerful institutions out there that are gonna prevent you from having the success that your parents had or having the the glory that your that your father or grandfather had. And so why care about this? And that's a powerful

You know, I like that uh uh that's that's a powerful message, right? Like I can understand why it's persuasive. And so I think that we can recognize that there is misogyny that is maybe, if not at the heart of this, a big element of it. While also saying that, okay, that doesn't mean that that there isn't potentially counter powerful counter messages that could be delivered to these young men if if an effort was put.

So y y your background is in the world of messaging and political communication. And so it is not your nature ever to say to any substantial group of people, you're just wrong. Right. But I can't I my business has always been a much less popular one. So I'm prepared sometimes to say to people you're you're just right. Isn't the job of saying, you know what, the United States in the summer of twenty fifteen. It hadn't recovered fast enough from the Great Recession.

many of its foreign policy commitments were not working as advertised and and people were frustrated with them. Got it. And there does seem to be a slowdown in the rate of growth compared to what previous generations had. And obviously there are the Chronic problems of climate change and how all all true. Nevertheless,

All of that calls for reform, not revolution. The system is basically good and fair and worth defending. And not only that, but individual action matters, and you shouldn't just tune out and and defect from the political process. Sometimes you have to say to people, you're you're wrong. You're wrong about um and and and cynicism Cynicism doesn't make you smart, cynicism makes you vulnerable. Yeah.

I had a whole project about centered around this with Cameron Kaske, uh, before he decided to run for Congress as a young young guy that started March for our Lives, where we did a show we interviewed young people. And so it wasn't entirely about this, but but this topic came up Right. Um uh particularly with young men.

And I found myself in your in the shoe in the shoes of you, like making that case a lot. Right, which is like, okay, I hear you. Like your complaints are legitimate, but in the grand scheme of things, you know, somebody that was a young man that was born in nineteen ninety nine, you know, or whatever, two thousand and two. what you know, has had some challenges, but they are a lot better off

than young men and women who were born in a lot in bas almost all of the years of the past, frankly. Um and so at some level you wanna say like, Oh, poor baby, right? Welcome. Congratulations on your high school diploma, class of nineteen thirty two. Yeah. Right. Yeah. Or like class of nineteen forty one. Yeah, I'm trying to think about the class that went through or like that graduated into, you know, World War One and then the first plague and you know, like that that uh

Uh, you had the depression. Yeah. So there there are a lot of bad uh years out there. That said, like, okay, great, like we're right. Sn but Donald Trump is the president and the most like the head of the FBI is a podcaster who is a total buffoon who preyed on these fears and did so successfully. So I I guess my response to what you said is like, yes, it is true that the it is overstated.

like the grievances and the complaints of young men um in the year twenty twenty six. Um but some of their complaints are real. And the job of people who are political practitioners is to win people over. And I think that there was insufficient effort in winning people over, in part because a lot of people on the left got into a bubble of their own.

Where they were made to believe that these young men were something that they weren't, right? That they were like deeply, irredeemably racist, misogynist. um problematic whatever followers of Joe Rogan. And it's kind of like, I d now, actually, when you talk to most of them, They're like a lot of young men. They're reckless and dumb.

and have some strong views on things and have some un uh unformed views on other things and like that they were and Barack Obama appealed to that group very easily and I kind of feel like had Barack Obama been the candidate in twenty sixteen, he would have appealed to them very easily. Again. Adapt to this. I mean you have a a style that is very contemporary, uh very humorous, very demonic, and y you're trying to bring people in. Does that very demonic?

Demotic, not demonic. I I knew, I was just making a joke. Anyway, but is that is that calculated as a way to overcome this problem, or is that just who you are and you couldn't be any other way? It's mostly the latter. Uh, and I think that one of the things that has worked for the bulwark is that uh uh all of us were cast out.

And we're just able to kind of be ourselves and say what we really thought. And, you know, I had a democratic strategist once tell me after I got off T V and they're like, I'm so jealous of you I was like, Why? And they said, Well

You know, even even if I don't think I wanna be White House press secretary ever again, like there's this little person in the back of my head that's saying, Maybe I will be, you know, and so I I should I should soften the edges of whatever I'm gonna say. And I I just don't think any of us ever I I don't know. I think we all we all felt like, okay, that part of our life is over. Now we can just say what we think and that's freeing. So part of that is is I I think natural and um

But there is a calculated effort to try to reach different demographics. And I saw a pretty concerning Poll of Lincoln about the Michigan setter right. And I like Mallory McMora the best of those candidates. Um, and Candor, it's uh she is, you know, sort of uh like me, she's about my age and, you know, is very online and casual in the way that she speaks. And uh, you know, there's more establishment kind of Paley Stevens who's perfectly fine. And there's like a lefty candidate, Abdullah Saeed.

And if you looked at the polls, McMora was doing the best among like sixty plus. And like there's something re I and I feel and I feel this, right? Like there's something about I think a a a generation older than me, like my parents' generation, who who enjoy like consuming material who are like, oh, that's a young person that does that talks like a young person and I like that. Like it's a little different than me and it gets me out of my bubble. I learn some new things.

But then you get to the ma then you get to the main race where you see Um the same process sort of in play and likely to cost Democrats the the Senate seat. Right. Yeah, with Graham Platinum, right? And because he's M I don't know about likely to cost, but potentially. It could cost them. It's a risk. It's a it's a risk to have somebody like Graham Platiner in that rate.

race, right? Actually we should pause probably pause hit the pause button to explain who Graham Platinum is and what's going on in Maine. Yeah, yeah. So the main race is uh Janet Mills. It's funny, this race is for me such a microcosm of of the problems of the Democratic Party, of like the two different factions. Jan Janet Mills seems like a perfectly competent person, present governor in her late seventies.

She kind of represents a lot of what Biden represented, like has been a very competent governor, but seem is not exactly inspiring, seems out of touch with what people want. Then you have the Graham Platiner who is this kind of left populist, younger candidate, oyster fisherman, tattoos, and uh speaks more more normal and casually. And so there's an appeal there. I think there's more excitement around him, but has a lot of the baggage that

left populists have, whether with with their online past, like saying saying crazy shit, saying far left stuff. So now you get into a situation where it's like, well Okay. There are these two groups that the Democrats need to do well with, right? It's like our people, right? Like centrist college educated folks. Democrats have gained a lot of ground with them. And so Janet Mills will do fine with that group, right? But

Then there's this other group of like working class folks that the Obama to Trump voter to be to just use a shorthand, right? Working class voters that a traditionally voted Democrat that started to move more to the right. And there's the theory of the case that Graham Platiner types might appeal more to them. And so who can appeal to both? Right? Like and that this becomes a fundamental problem because you imagine there's this college educated group that has moved more toward the Democrats.

maybe some percentage of them look at Grant Platner and Susan Collins and say, Susan Collins, not my cup of tea exactly, but I know what I'm getting with her, responsible, blah, blah, blah. It's not my point of view, but just you know, political analysis. And and that cost Democrats a center race. You can imagine that. You can imagine on the other side Janet Mills uh eking it out against Graham Platner.

And the types of people that Platiner appeals to don't turn out to vote in a midterm election. They're just like, I'm not the type of person to vote in a midterm election when Susan Collins wins. So it is It's a conundrum. It's a pickle. Hopefully Donald Trump screws things up enough that uh there's a big enough wave to carry either of them through. But I I do think that it's a problem with the party. And and just like one last thing, just circling it back to what how I think about my role.

It's like I do think about like how can I talk to the people that Platner's appealing to because maybe s particularly in the younger men's side of things,'cause maybe I'm a the type of person as a former Republican who like watches football and talks casually that they would listen to when they might not listen to because of misogyny or whatever, you know, some of the other voices.

Uh a last thought before we ch close this subject. On the rare occasions when anyone asks me for political advice, I would say I say it when you get to the final round, there are two candidates, you have a one in two chance of winning, a one in two chance of losing. So there's a reasonable statistical probability that you're going to lose. You should think in advance if you lose, how and why would you like to lose?

Because it's a terrible thing to lose for things you didn't believe in, to lose because of positioning, uh, to lose because you weren't yourself. Um, if you lose because you were yourself, you can live with that. If you lose over issues that you feel are important, you can live with that. And so

I sometimes think as I as I listen to this detraction, you know what? If democracy loses because the defenders of democracy were too serious about it, too earnest, too believed in it too much, then uh at least we we lost the fight the way we wanted to fight the fight.

Can I just say one thing about this? I we totally agree at the candidate level. And having worked for a lot of losing candidates, particularly in primaries, I've given this same speech to uh probably four or five people, you know, and said, Hey, there's you don't y go down with integrity. I c you know, go down with dignity. At a macro level though, at a scale.

I I think I guess I have a slight disagreement. I I do think it is incumbent upon the people who see the threat to to our country, to our democracy seriously, to try to grapple seriously with how to thwart it. And um and I guess my point is I I just I don't want people to not do things because they're high on their own supply about, you know, their norms and their values and be true to yourself, be true to your values, but also

You know, look, like we only have two parties, okay? So you're getting 60 million votes, right? Like the country is big and diverse. Every successful winning coalition in the history of this country has had cranks in it, has had racists in it, has had stupid people in it. Right. Like that's just

how you have to win and that you know, this is not like uh, you know, what a European country where there's seven parties and you only need to win twenty two percent of the vote to get a plurality, right? Like I w w this is that's part of the deal. And so I just don't want to write people off. And I think sometimes my critique of people in our movement is that they write people off because they don't have the right thought.

or the right views on everything. And so then they're problematic and they're not worth appealing to. And I guess that's that's all I'm arguing, is that it's just it's it's worth not it's worth at least trying to appeal to

So that was since you raised coalition politics, let me ask you and this is the last challenge I wanna put to you. As you said, the bulwark began as a extension of the weekly standard of certain kind of subsection of conservative politics. And that's that's the life story of the core group that runs the bulwark. Um, but you have discovered this extraordinary new appeal in a much wider set of viewers and listeners who tilt more to the liberal side and even to the left.

probably the median bulwark fan in twenty twenty-six was not voting for George W. Bush in twenty twenty three if they 2003 if they were active in 2003. How do you find a stopping place? And I when you and I were talking about this in advance, I mentioned, you know, that there was a kind of very favorable treatment of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez by by you and by Bill Crystal.

that you've had you had Zoran Mamdani on uh and you asked you gave him a tough question and indeed you asked the question that has caused him the single m greatest difficulty of anybody. So uh I don't wanna slight that. But how how do you say This is who we are and this is this is who we used to be, this is who we are not going to become, and this is where we don't go. How how do you think about those questions? Um

I appreciate this because it is like it's complicated and I and I'm evolving my views about it all the time. And I want and I and I say that because You know, one of the benefits of having a daily podcast is getting to bring smart people on is I get to hear smart people's opinions. And sometimes people say things I was like and you know, that makes me think about things in a different way.

And so I I want to frame this up in that sense where I'm trying to think about the best way to solve the last question, right? Like how do we protect the country? And sometimes the answer to that it does not necessarily align with what my particular policy priors are, right? And um and so how do you

How do you think about that? How do you integrate that like information and and how do I talk about, you know, those types of politicians or those types of issues without being untrue to myself or without doing audience capture, et cetera. The audience capture problem is easy'cause like once a month I do my best to just piss everybody off as much as possible about a topic. Like if so I find a topic that I know that the left part of the audience does not agree with me on and I

I'm like, you know what? I'm gonna do a l I'm gonna do two more segments on this than I should, just uh just so we can clean out any any uh any false uh uh false assessments that I'm gonna go along with every crazy thing that the left wants me to go along with. But what the red lines are, the best way to answer this question I think about, and and we've all talked about this and thought about it, is around the word illiberalism.

Right, like what what is our core mission right now? And to me it is in defense of liberal democracy, not necessarily limousine liberalism, not li liberalism in that sense, but in the sense of the the under the values that undergird liberal democracy that have made our society work, and which which is not too dissimilar to the constitutional values, right? To our old conservative um points of views, like the values that are in the in the decoration.

And so to the extent that there is a liberalism that spouts off on the left Um I think that It's important for us to oppose it or call it out. I I think it's also important for us to think about like just because you are in favor of liberal values and American traditions doesn't mean that there can't be reforms. In order to defend liberal democracy, you have to defend every institution

That has become sclerotic and that has, you know, developed in our liberal democracy. And I don't think that, but I just mean like the underlying value. And so, you know, the threat from a liberalism to me, very clearly at this point comes from the right.

And one line I like to use is like if somebody pulled like came up to me with a gun and said, You get to be the one that decides the future of the country, do you want it to look like Orban's Hungary or do you want it to look like a Scandinavian social democracy? Like they wouldn't have to even

like put their hand to their holster before I'd say a Scandinavian social democracy. Like they it doesn't have all my preferred economic views or any other views, but it's just not close. Like the threat is to from the liberalism. And so when I look at a person like Zoran or AOC, I think what we see is Uh there are definitely some illiberal left views that they've held in the past. I think also that both of them have demonstrated that they are trying to appeal.

to folks outside of that whatever, that DSA cul-de-sac. Uh they're trying. So I think it's important to talk about that. I wanna I wanna put a pause button there because um I I think you're com combining two things that in my mind at least are are different things. Okay. So let's bracket Zoran Mamdani, who I regard as a more sinister figure than maybe you do. But let's talk about AOC.

I I agree. I think AOC is absolutely a normal American politician. And I have no doubt that if she were to somehow become president, if she's got a Supreme Court order saying don't do this, she wouldn't do it. Um and I don't think she would run a meme coin business while being president. So i if the question is, is this person an acceptable, an unalarming, and uh an unthreatening participant in American democracy?

Yeah, absolutely she is. Um I can imagine that the scope of unthreatening American politics extends to her and then and then uh extends, you know, Marco Rubio to AFC, that's sort of the universe. If, however, you say, I, David Frum, at this microphone, or you, Tim Miller, at your microphone, do I support her? I I can draw a line by saying I don't find her threatening. But no, no, I don't.

And I'm not the master I'm not determining the outcomes of American politics. I'm just speaking for myself. And I I can both say I find her and if the choice were AOC or Trump, I would very unhappily And with very with a lot of foot dragging and grumbling and complaining to my loved ones, have to put up with AOC. But if the choice is AOC or somebody else, I choose somebody else and I remember that in when I talk and write about her.

Again, sorry Mam Dani, I want a bracket because I I think that's a different kettle of fish. But let's Can so you and your work, I think when uh one of the things that got I think that got led to the favorable treatment she got was a mis a misstatement she made and I don't wanna mock her for it, it's a natural one. She said Trans Pacific, when she meant transatlantic.

Which is not such a big mistake, except the Trans Pacific Partnership was a very specific piece of legislation that the left destroyed and that we I that I for one lament. And the Transatlantic Partnership is a much vaguer, more notional idea. Okay. I want to talk first about like the question of whether we support her and then we'll get to the I l the favorable treatment that me and Bill gave her on the podcast about a week ago.

I I wouldn't say that I support her. No. I I also think it uh for me Look, Donald Trump got elected twice in this country. Like Donald Trump, who I regard to be totally unacceptable and moronic and unappealing, and for whom Like there was never even a moment for me where I was like, I get it. Like I see what people like in this person. Like I find him repulsive and I've have all the way since twenty twelve. And so if Donald Trump gets elected first time

makes you think about some things. If then he tries to overturn our democracy and instigates a riot at the Capitol that that that causes the death of police officers and then people elect him again. That makes me think, okay, well look, I I mean sure, the easy thing to do is say, well, it was bad luck'cause of inflation. But to me, I I I think that there should be have been no type of inflationary environment.

that should have led to Donald Trump getting elected again after January sixth. And so he but and yet he did. And so I...

I guess an analyst of our politics and as somebody who cares deeply of trying to get us out of this, have to look at that and say, Okay, well d Democrats have to do something differently. Like doing the same thing over and over again and putting up somebody else in the Hillary to Harris you know, kind of wing of the party or with those with their similar positions and with their similar affects. Like that would be a mistake.

And so and I as I look ahead to twenty twenty eight, I feel like what my job is as a podcast host is to try to encourage Democrats to look at different options. Now, AOC is not gonna be my kettle of fish, as you said. I think that there would be there would God willing, there'll be multiple candidates that I prefer a lot more.

But I think that there's things that she's doing that's very interesting and important that other Democrats that I like better should learn from. Like for starters, she has a differentiated brand from an unpopular Democratic Party. Uh number two, she talks like herself on social media. She's very relatable and authentic. You know, number three, she has some again, these are all towards the left, but she has heterodox views that differentiate herself.

I think that for a Democrat to be successful, barring luck, like sometimes you can get successful luckily, as you mentioned, if you there are only two candidates, it's like, you know, you have a coin flips chance. But for them to be actually successful, Democrats should learn from Obama and Trump. And the successful politicians. And differentiate themselves from an unpopular establishment of their party. And and AOC is doing that. I have not seen a lot of that from the center left.

I hope to encourage some of them to l to learn from the good parts of AOC and not take some of her more troubling positions. And so to now getting back to Bill Kristol, to the extent that I give her plaudits for anything, it's usually one for doing that thing I think Democrats need to do. And two, it's, you know, when she shows some glimmers of saying, Hey, I plan to be more responsible than some others on the left.

I I think it's okay to note that. I think it's okay to note that AOC, while she flubbed it and fucked up, we got a grader on a curve, but so did George W. Bush flubbed and fucked up his first appearances on the world stage and we graded him on a curve, but like We can both say she flubbed.

And also I thought her speech was more responsible than Marcos. That's my final sentence. I thought her speech was more responsible. I prefer the flu I love the flub. I I got excited about the flu. The Trans Pacific part, be still my heart. Trans Pacific free trade that you're talking my language. Yeah.

But anyway, but that my final point was just I thought her speech was more responsible than Marco's. Period. End of story. That d does that mean that I'm gonna agree with all of her foreign policy better than you know what I mean. Like there are a lot of other things, but like that's just just speaking about that.

Let me move the camera a little bit from AOC and back more directly upon you. So in in politics we have both red line we as individuals, we have red lines, things we cannot accept, and green flags, things we believe in and are excited about. Mine would include US global leadership of democratic nations, free trade abroad, free commerce at home, constitutional restraints on the government. Uh but also fiscal responsibility, uh generally preferring

A government that taxes less than that. That's a red line for you? No, that's my green line. Oh that's my green line. I was gonna say that's a red line you've had not had anyone to support for four years. No, the red the red lines are the things where uh you say I I will fight against this in the company of anybody. And uh sometimes when you're battling the red lines, it can be har you can forget what your green flags were.

or should be or used to be. In fact, this is the story of the first neoconservatives. So they began by being upset about disorder in the cities of the industrial uh northeast and midwest in the nineteen sixties, and pretty soon they become completely different people.

with a kind of Andrew Sullivan calls it the neocon slide. And that's just natural, but it's also something that maybe you want to make sure I'm making my own decisions about where I go. I'm not being pushed by the force of events. Yeah. Uh no, I I understand that. I'm very conscious of it. I always think about like my the thing I I most took from Jeb, speaking of my losing campaigns, is he had uh

Um, he had a phrase that he liked to use that, you know, what was his North Star was that making sure that people had an opportunity to live a chance of purpose and meaning. Or had a had an opportunity to live a life of purpose and meaning. And that's what the government's job. It doesn't mean you had to give people purpose, right? Like if people didn't want to find purpose in their life, they could go and, you know, make fools of themselves and we'd have a

a a kind of a minimum safety net to make sure that they could enjoy the life part of having a life of purpose and meaning. But like we couldn't give people purpose and meaning. We had to give them opportunities to And um and that the government should do what was possible to nourish that and that the government shouldn't do anything that would infringe on it. And you can think about any policy kind of through that that prism.

And so when I see things on the left that I think are dehumanizing, are preventing people from being able to to do that. I I wanna speak out about it. I I mean I'm trying like I know you wanna speak more in the policy space, but like just one thing that just jumped straight to mind that was a red line for me that I said very clearly in the podcast was there were a lot I had a lot I had a pretty disturbing amount of people that came up to me.

and said that they um were basically okay with Charlie Kirk's assassination. Like that that that somewhere between didn't bother them and they celebrated it. And to I was just horrified by that. I was like, no. I I just I believe in humans ability.

to to grow and change and be redeemed. That's why when Hillary's Deplorables line when she called the Mag of the Basco deplorables. I didn't mind deplorables'cause they are, but I didn't like that the next thing she used was irredeemable. A lot of these people are deplorable and irredeemable. No, everyone is Almost everyone. I don't know if Stephen Knows redeemable. Almost everyone is redeemable in the eyes of God. And so I like my view is

I I had to speak out. I had to say no. Like I will not actually be side by side with somebody who believes that. political violence is uh is either appropriate or allowed or encouraged in service of some broader democratic goal. I won't. Like even if it's rhetorical, I won't give any aid and comfort to that. That seems like a very low bar.

Unfortunately, we live in a society where the bar is pretty low. You know, we saw a similar thing with Luigi Mangioni and others. And so, you know, look, I I think that it's important to like have a North Star to know where the guardrails are. I just also think in the context of AOC. We live in a world where the old way of thinking led us to two Donald Trump terms and led us really to the brink of potentially losing our democracy. I'm more open to

creative solutions to that and other solutions that are outside of what my green flags are of fiscal responsibility. You know, like I'm more op I I want fiscal responsibility. I want cutting red tape. I would love for those to be elements of a broad coalition that allows us to get our society back on track, I'm also open to the possibility that there might be other more effective ways of reaching the types of people that Donald Trump reached.

And so when I analyze AOC and Zoron, I just try to be mindful of that. I sometimes think I and I I hope is this is an accurate quote or that it f that it's an authentic quote and that I'm reproducing it accurately. But I r I I recall Friedrich Hayek once saying that when he was a young man of twenty, he the only people who could speak to

uh with mutual understanding were old men of eighty. And now that he's an old man of eighty, the only people he could speak to were people of uh twenty. I feel that really hard. But what he specifically meant. was gr he had been twenty at the beginning of an era of authoritarianism and war and statism and control.

And that was the that's the was the common stuff of Paul. And you had to be kind of a screwy oddball at age twenty in nineteen seventeen when I think he was twenty, uh, to believe I still believe in freedom and limited government and a world with in which goods and people move. And only at the end were those things rediscovered. And so we say the old ideas have failed.

Well, there th there were the old ideas and there was failure. Have the old ideas failed, or is liberty an idea that's eternally new? Liberty is an idea that is eternal in me, for sure. And I think that I do believe that over the long arc of history, I get will continue to bear itself out. And I think that the basic ideas of why I became a Republican of free markets and free people will bear themselves out.

And I think that my pushback to a lot of what Trump is doing is in that spirit. Like there um i his administration is a direct assault on liberty and free markets and free people. And so I I I guess my caveat, not caveat, because I I don't I would not be for someone that was anti liberty. Uh I would not be for someone that wanted to subjugate a certain group of people, um, even if they were MAGA people I don't like. But I also think that like the speci I I I just the specific recognizing the um

uh the trends. Uh you know, recognize like the the patterns is s is the word I was looking for. Well this is not the first time we've been through this. to your point with Hayek, right? And if in order to get out of it, we need to have an intermediating period. where there are people that do not share like my poor my total ideology, but who I can stand side by side with in protection of liberty and in opposition to the fascist creep.

I think that it is important to do that in ways that are strategic and smart. And I think that there are limits on that, but also I you know, I I think that being an old man shouting the clouds going, If only we had stuck to our guns on Simpson bowls and on whatever, like while, you know, Baron Trump like reigns supreme over the land. Like I don't want to be that person either. And so I think that these are, you know, it's a complicated

uh topic and it's a challenge I'm gonna appreciate the challenge, but like that's kinda how I look at it. I hope that this makes sense. Uh the Atlantic ed editors advised me to footnote things that need to be footnoted, but you know what? I'm just gonna let Simpson bulls pass into the dust of history without without elaboration. Those who remember, they remember. And those who never knew, they're not missing anything.

Um Tim Miller, thank you so much. Those are beautiful and wise last words. I'm so grateful you joined. McDonald's är stolt sponsor av Melodifestivalten så tillåt oss att presentera ett av våra bidrag- Festivalmenyn Sour Krim Onion Company, 4 Pepper Chicken Strips och en Apple Pie för 99 kronor. Festivalmaten finns på McDonald's. Thanks so much to Tim Miller for joining me today on the David Frump. As I mentioned at the top of the program.

My literary discussion this week will be an evaluation, an assessment, of the State of the Union address as a ritual. Now As you know, the Constitution requires that the President from time to time give information to Congress on the State of the Union and make recommendations to Congress about the State of the Union.

That constitutional injunction has become the basis of a ritual that commands the attention of the world. The President of the United States standing in front of two houses of Congress, House and Senate. with the Supreme Court in attendance, the chair the the Joint Chiefs of Staff, uh other distinguished people, senior representatives of his administration, the cabinet,

It's a statement that whatever partisan divisions Americans may have on this day for this ritual, Americans are united. Now, not everybody claps at the same thing. Where there's an expectation of decorum. Even people who are strongly opposed to the president's pro programs or policies are supposed to sit quietly and listen to what the president has to say. And it's considered quite shocking.

If there's an outburst of dissent or or interruption or heckling from anybody in in the room, it's happened before and has always been regarded as a grave scandal. You're supposed to sit there and listen politely as the president speaks. As I said before, I'm recording this before we know what President Trump did on his twenty twenty six State of the Union.

But there's a pretty high likelihood he's going to do something untoward. I mean, the Supreme Court is supposed to be there. Trump has called them all kinds of names for the tariff decision and said they are should be ashamed of themselves and their family should be ashamed of them. has even suggested that they might be in some kind of thrall to a foreign power.

The House and Senate will be there. President Trump recently tried to indict four members of the House and two senators for things they said, in violation not only of the First Amendment, but of the speech and debate and debate rights of members of Congress, House, and Senate.

President Trump has formally opened an investigation into one Federal Reserve governor, Lisa Cook, and is making a lot of noises about investigating and indicting an the other, the chairman, the outgoing chairman, Jay Powell. And who hasn't he insulted in that room? If you were a potential guest at the Trump State of the Union 2026, you'd want to think twice. I'm going to have to sit in my seat. I'm going to have to behave in a respectful way. And the president might say or do anything.

One of the destructive features of the Trump presidency has been the way his inability to control himself, his inability to respect the rules of the game, has actually changed the game. It isn't just Donald Trump who behaves worse. And people in response to Donald Trump are put into a position where they either look like they either match his behavior or they look like suckers and fools, or they look like victims who are bullied by him and intimidated by him.

And so you've begun to hear talk of a number of members of the House and Senate saying they do not want to attend the State of the Union, and maybe they will not. Some people have suggested there might be a lot of visible empty seats or seats where Donald Trump and his people will have to hastily scurry to put extra bodies where the senators and house members of the House should go.

It's a hard thing to think about because Even those of us who most want to retain the great traditions of the American Republic, there's the symbolic demonstrations of unity, have to say, if somebody asked me, if a member of the House of Senate asked me, should they attend, I'd have a hard time telling them that it's a good idea.

I think we are being pushed toward an evaluation of whether this tradition may have outlived its usefulness, at least so long as Donald Trump is present. Remember, while the president is obliged and required to make a report to Congress, There's no requirement that he do so in person.

From Thomas Jefferson's time to Woodrow Wilson, the State of the Union was submitted in writing. Thomas Jefferson broke with the precedent of his predecessors, Washington and Adams, he thought, that the State of the Union Address reminded him too much of a British speech from the throne, plus he hated public speaking, so he submitted his reports in writing.

And so it continued until Woodrow Wilson returned to the spoken form. In nineteen seventy three, Richard Nixon went back to the speech in writing, or he sent six statements in writing to Congress. He did not speak that year. There's no reason that the couldn't the that this can't be done in writing. It's just a tradition. It's just a practice. And it may be time as long as Donald Trump is president to rethink.

And for the next Congress, rem remember the president is there as a the President is before the two houses as a guest. Uh that's why the Speaker of the House begins by saying it is my high uh my honor and privilege, I forget the exact phrase.

Um the the the Congress invites the President to enter its chamber and to speak to both House and Senate. That invitation doesn't have to be extended. Congress could say, you know what, President Trump If you're going to insult the Supreme Court, If you're going to abuse members of the House and Senate, if you're going to try to arrest us for things we've said or indict us for things we said, Why don't you put your thoughts in writing? Send it to them to us in writing.

Uh if it was good enough for William Howard Taft, it should be good enough for you. So put it in writing. We'll read it, we'll debate it. But we don't want you on our platform insulting and abusing the people here, people whom you've tried to arrest and are opening bogus criminal investigations into. Put it in writing. You stay home. We'll read it. We'll get back to you at our earliest convenience.

Thanks so much for joining me today. Thanks to Tim Miller uh for being my guest. Remember to uh the best way to support the work of this podcast, if you're so minded, is by subscribing to The Atlantic. That's the best way to support me and all of my colleagues. Thanks so much for Show. See you next week. Bye bye. This episode of the David Frum Show was produced by Nathaniel Frum and edited by Andrea Valdez. It was engineered by Dave Grine. Our theme is by Andrew M. Edwards.

Faudin Abed is the executive producer of Atlantic Audio, and Andrea Valdez is our managing editor. I'm David Frum. Thank you for listening.