This isn't just a guy who's a little out of control, this is a direct rise of an authoritarian regime. The middle ground has been eroded in America, and you add on top of that the fact that 75% of Republicans thought the 2020 election was indeed stolen or then you have a massive problem. He's renamed the Department of Defence. The Department of War seems a strange thing to do for the
peace president. The most chilling part of that, Donald Trump essentially said we've got a war going on at home. Public opinion is the last barrier to authoritarianism. You've written before that democracy and America are inextricable. If it has changed, is there a way to put it back in the box? Hello, and welcome to this week's episode of Trump World. I'm Anushka Astana and I'm in Washington DC. And I'm Matt Fry and I'm in London, UK.
And today we're going to be talking about Donald Trump abroad and at home Abroad, Matt, he's painting himself as the president of peace. 8 wars ticked off his list, A 9th war coming. Let's talk about the ninth war,
Ukraine in a minute. But I just wanna later in this episode, contrast that with exactly what's happening here in the US, where he has renamed the Department of Defence, the Department of War, and made totally clear that that's so that he can go to war with states inside the USA, states largely run by Democratic governors and cities largely run by Democratic mayors. And it is quite a contrast, isn't it? But should we start with what's
happening overseas? Both in Gaza, where JD Vance has rushed out to try and deal with things, and also what we've seen overnight in Ukraine. I mean, let's start with Gaza first of all. I went to a gathering last night of UN types and many pro Palestinian kind of think tank types and a very senior member of the government was there as well who wanted to remain nameless.
But basically, they all came to the conclusion that the best hope of this very fragile ceasefire surviving at all is once again the weaponization of Trump's massive ego and his vanity. He really needs the ceasefire to work. If it collapses, whoever's to blame, you know, and both sides will blame each other. It looks bad for Trump, not just because he might not get his Nobel Prize next year, but it's he owns this ceasefire, he owns this deal. It bears his name.
It is a geopolitical, diplomatic branding exercise of Trumpian proportions. It's got to work. So I think there is some hope here that even though Hamas has not disarmed, in fact, more than not disarming, they're kind of showing off their arms in their uniforms by deploying on the streets of Gaza and, as we said before, you know, shooting, executing alleged collaborators and doing all sorts of things that are really deeply unpleasant.
At the same time, you know, the ceasefire has been broken by Israel as well, with 80 Palestinians dead so far. That's a lot of dead people, you know, in a, in a ceasefire breakage. I mean, more people have been killed by Israel breaking the ceasefire than have been killed in Ukraine in the last week and the really, really heavy bombardment. But to get back to the point, I think he, I don't think we should give up on Trump, you
know, the ceasefire maker. Let's not call him the peacemaker because as we know, there are lots of details that haven't been discussed yet. I think that let's just think, let's just hope that that's going to survive. The more alarming thing is what he's been doing domestically, but we'll get on to that in a minute. And of course, that is the situation in the Middle East where hostages are out. My my concerned with all of it.
And we've talked about this before, is whether he wants to see it through to the end or whether his motivation was all about getting the hostages out. I mean, you joke about the Nobel Peace Prize. I do think still having it on the table for next year. Well. Very helpful, no? Useful motivation. But but then he's got this idea that, you know, suddenly he can deal with Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
And it, I mean, it is such a cliche, but it is so true that the last person who's spoken to him is the the kind of view that he brings out. So he has a call with Vladimir Putin. Suddenly he's getting angrier with Ukraine again. Suddenly there was the meeting with President Zelensky on Friday in the White House. It's sort of really interesting behind the scenes reporting from the FT on all of that. Trump apparently getting really
angry in that meeting they keep. Putting the map on the floor by Trump, Yeah. Really, Apparently, he said. I've seen, I've seen this frontline enough, the map basically showing just how much of Ukraine, Russia has invaded. I mean, we have a situation now which I guess could lead us to a position where at some point you'd hope that there would be a ceasefire where Zelensky is saying it's a sensible compromise to freeze things as they are now.
But a big meeting that was supposed to take place between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin in Budapest now looks like it's often. We've had a situation overnight where there's been a lot of attacks in both directions, including Ukraine using British sent Storm Shadow missiles into Russian territory and a number of children even being killed in Ukraine from Russian strikes. How, how hopeful are you that there can be any progress here, Matt?
Well, I think just to be fair to Donald Trump for a second, it's not often that we say this words, but I think it's important that we should on this occasion. So I do think that he is absolutely authentic and genuine when he comes to his wish to see peace in Ukraine, you know, or indeed to see a lasting ceasefire in Gaza. I don't think he likes war, certainly not abroad.
I do think he wants that prize. I don't think he ever wants to deploy American troops in any numbers in a foreign adventure unless it's absolutely necessary.
And I think again, to be fair to him, what happened from what I gather talking to to diplomats here who I think are fairly well sourced, to be honest, in this conversation that took place last week was that yes, Donald Trump had a 2 1/2 hour conversation with Putin. That's a very long conversation, even if you allow for the duplication of, of translation
and stuff like that. And in that conversation, basically Putin made the mistake that he made in Alaska, is that he essentially preached to Donald Trump his vision of Russian and Ukrainian history, which is basically there's no such thing as an independent Ukraine. They're all basically Russians or little Russians as they used to call them, you know, in the, you know, in Russian history. So fine. I mean, Trump may not care about Ukraine's independent history. I don't know.
I've not had that conversation with him. But I think what he does care about is that he doesn't want to be made a fool of by Putin. And Putin did insisted on claiming the whole of the Donbass region, not just the bits that Russia has occupied in, you know, 3 1/2 years of war. Which we should say is most of, we should say is most of that region, but the bit that's left is really important to Ukraine. But he wants all of it, right?
He wants all of it because he's already declared that all of it is already an integral part of Russia. It's a Russian province now and and it looks a bit weird when not all of it is actually in your hands. And it it kind of, I would say to Vladimir Putin, if I could forget about the last 15% of Donbass that you don't control. But he clearly wants that. And for Trump, he says, hang on a minute. You have, I'm imagining this. I'm channelling Donald Trump in my mind.
You have barely moved the front line in the last three years of war. Right now you want to win that battle that you have failed to win on the battlefield. In my head, by getting me to agree to something, which I know because I have spoken to Zelensky quite a lot, I know that they will never accept. So I think Trump in his own mind has realized that there is a red line here for Ukraine that he
has to respect. And the Ukrainians have moved quite a long distance towards accommodating Trump and his particular vision. But Putin is not prepared to do that. He doesn't want a ceasefire, not at the moment. He wants to claim all of the stuff that, you know, on paper he already owns, even if he doesn't. And ultimately, he does not want to see Ukraine as an independent, viable nation
state. And I think even Donald Trump has understood, despite his lack of historical context, that that is something that that's not going to work. But of course, he's also impatient. And he's impatient with that annoying President Zelensky, who keeps saying no to, you know, to, to some of the stuff that he comes up with. Yeah, and some of the language you hear from Donald Trump does make me question what he actually understands and wants from the outcome of this.
I mean, I noticed he he says quite a few times this should have been over in a week, but he basically says Russia should have won in a week. So it's not like he's saying Russia should never have invaded. It's like he thinks Russia should have just done this and done it quickly. There was some interesting points where so there's, you know, for a blast, the areas on the eastern side of Ukraine where Russia has made really big
inroads. Two of those a blast make up the Donbass, which obviously is what Putin would like to see the whole of. But they've moved quite far, you know, across that southern part of eastern Ukraine as well. There was a suggestion that perhaps in return for getting the extra bit of the Donbass, which partly for security reasons, Ukraine is really, really anti getting that up because they've got a big defensive that area. Could could Russia move back in the other two?
A blast. And I thought it was an interesting thing because at the time of the Alaska summit that you of course were at, some people were saying maybe a compromise like that would be acceptable. But that wasn't what Putin was talking about. He was talking about freezing the line where it already was. I don't think Russia have confirmed in any way that Putin suggested to Trump on that call that he would move back in those other two areas. But that was one thing I did
think sounded interesting. Very briefly, have you you heard any more about whether Russia have actually suggested they could move back in? Those, no, I, I can't confirm that in any shape or form. And it's possible that it's one of those compromises that has come up. I think the, the point here is also, and this is something that Fiona Hill, remember Fiona Hill, you know, originally from, from County Durham, had been, has been living in the States for a
long time. She said to me on several occasions, the big problem in this new White House is that there are no Russia experts, at least no Russia experts that he trusts as much as he trusts Steve Witkoff, you know who you know is, at least as I heard this again, you know, from someone last night who knows him quite well. You know, he is able to admit when he doesn't know something, he'll say, here's a blank piece of paper, tell me what I need to know. But he's not a Russia expert.
He doesn't know how to deal with the Russians. You need people have been in the room with the Russians a lot to understand. They're very well honed, very effective tactics of talking you into the ground, of waterboarding you with history and all the rest of it. And there's no one like that to tell Donald Trump where he's wrong or where he needs to spend a bit more time or be a bit more reflective and to choose Budapest right as a venue for a summit. It was so provocative in itself.
Not any. Is it a reminder of the Budapest memorandum in which Ukraine gave up its nukes after the fall of the Soviet Union in return for security guarantees, which, frankly, haven't been working out too well. And for them to have that summit in Budapest without Zelensky present would have been totally unacceptable from a diplomatic point of view. So at least that one has been kicked into the long grass. Yeah.
So in the meantime, on the basis of wanting to be the last person in Donald Trump's here, Mark Rutter, the general secretary of NATO, is coming over to the White House to meet. Man who called him Daddy, right? So the sun is coming back to Daddy. That's good. Many think credit with having really shifted Donald Trump's position on NATO and on Russia, Ukraine, can he shift it again?
So that will be happening. But look, while Donald Trump is trying to be the peace president abroad, let's talk a bit about what's happening here in the US As I said, he's renamed the Department of Defense. The Department of War seems a strange thing to do for the peace president.
Why does he do it? Well, you've heard it many, many times, I thought, most remarkably, when he was speaking to all those generals, American generals from the military that he brought to Virginia to address, partly, as we've discussed before, telling them to Pete Hagseth, the secretary of war, was telling them to lose weight.
But what I thought was the most chilling part of that was where Donald Trump essentially said to them, we've got a war going on at home in cities in the US. That's war as well. It's the enemy within. That's what he's talked about and we need to go and sort it out. So just just to lay out what's actually happening in these
cities. And we've seen it in Los Angeles, we've seen it in Chicago, we've seen it in Portland. Very big legal ruling has just happened on Portland. And there are protests that have been taking place outside ICE facilities.
That's Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities because as as part of, you know, a big push to try and deport illegal aliens, as Donald Trump called them, undocumented migrants, ICE officers are, are literally in some cases snatching people off the street in order to try to deport them. So we've seen these protests. Donald Trump says these cities are on fire. It's really clear, You know, it's really clear that that is not the case.
If you take Portland as an example, there have been protests on and off since June. They were particularly large in June, 1 night, I think they were actually described as a riot. There have been one or two fires in that time that have been very, very quickly put out. Donald Trump's argument is that he is allowed to federalize the National Guard and send it into American cities on the basis this is how legally you're allowed to do it, either in the case of a foreign invasion.
Clearly, you can't argue that at the moment. Or a rebellion. So he's essentially arguing that these cities are rebelling and also that in order for him to bring law and order to these cities, he has to federalize the National Guard. I mean, it is, it is quite extraordinary. They've brought what they call independent journalists to the White House to try and say that Portland is on fire. Apparently, he's being shown pictures of Portland on fire for most of the evenings.
I think there's been 200 protesters outside these ICE facilities. As I say, no, no, real. I mean, I think there's been a slight increase in Portland in garden fires. I've been looking through the data a reduction in building. Fires gone wrong. Barbecue's gone wrong exactly, but that is his argument. He's basically saying anyone who says anything other than that is
wrong. There was a big protest in Portland over the weekend, 40,000 I think marched but again, largely peaceful but but a huge response from from the government on that. What do you, what do you make of it all? I mean, you obviously spent eleven years here. Well, let's look. There's never been anything like it. And I would broaden it out from, you know, the ICE raids, which are very upsetting. And I witnessed quite a few.
And I was in Washington, you know, before you arrived at the end of the summer, you know, literally ICE guys with their masks parked outside Catholic schools, which means schools where Hispanic kids go waiting to pick them up, you know, or pick up the parents while the kids are in class. I mean, this is just terrible stuff, right? The National Guard is also really weird. Deploying the National Guard in these big cities when they haven't been invited by the governors is potentially A
constitutional crisis. It's not really happened for a very, very long time. And then it was abandoned because it's so it's so inflammatory and abrasive. But I think the bigger picture, you know, and we'll, we'll talk to our guest about this in a minute. I think it's really alarming. It's alarming for me, certainly. And it it may not be alarming for many Americans. And that's also in itself quite interesting.
And the bigger picture is that you have a president who at home has been trying to bend the Constitution, bend the laws or ignore the laws or ignore Congress to channel executive power. Like perhaps no president, including, you know, Andrew Jackson in the middle of the 19th century has done before that, not in the history of the Republic. And so, you know, it's the deployment of the National Guard.
It's what ICE has allowed to do, you know, with an enormous budget, bigger than the budget of most federal armies in most countries that I know of what the Supreme Court has allowed him to get away with. Because whenever there's a ruling on, on, you know, an, an emergency order that he's issued, a presidential order, it's challenged in the lower courts. It goes to the Supreme Court on
what they call a shadow docket. So, you know, hurry up and and rule on something that might not be long term. It may only last for a year or two. They've always ruled in his favour, taking on the Free Press, getting the Free Press to to pay, sometimes many cases in order to carry on making money, taking on the judges, taking on the universities. I mean, across the board. We used to joke, Anushka, that you have to take him seriously
and not literally. It turns out you have to take him really seriously and literally. So the question is this for me, I honestly believe, and I think lots of Americans do, especially the ones who turned up at the No Kings demonstration of the weekends. We'll talk about that as well. That American democracy is being eroded, that Lady Liberty is being cut off at the legs. You know, that the Constitution is being trampled on. Why does only half the country care about that?
And I think we'll put a lot of that to our guests. The journalist George Packer, who's a staff writer at The Atlantic, written loads of books, and we'll be able to talk to a lot of that. Just one final thing, and this is a history point. One thing I find quite a bit extraordinary is this big row that's taking place over whether or not the president has the power to send the National Guard into cities is based on something that happened in 1812.
You're going to have to stick with me here for a moment. And it's a supreme, it's a Supreme Court judgement that took place in 1827 and I hadn't quite clocked, but this is what they're using as their justification for it.
And basically, and it involves a horse always like a story that that involves a horse, which was that basically Jacob Mott, who was called up along with everyone else to be part of the New York militia by by President James Madison at the time and was court martialed and fined because he refused to take part in it. And they took his horse away and he sued because he wanted his horse back.
And in 1827, the Supreme Court basically ruled the that the president had the power to make the decision for the New York militia to go into, you know, into cities and to to deal with
this and not this individual. And that was what they kept referencing in a recent court ruling as to why the president now has the power to go into Chicago, Portland, LA, Washington, DC and so on. And, and just at the moment, and this is going back and forward in the courts and lower courts have tried to block President Trump.
At the moment, a very major appeals court, the 9th Circuit, which covers Oregon, but it also covers the whole of California and a number of other states has said, but he does have the right to do this. There was 1 dissenting judge. The legal, the legal argument won't stop there. But just to just put this in context quickly before we go to our guests, you can't really compare what's happening in the US now to what was happening in 1812.
I mean, it's a completely different situation and where there very much was a foreign invasion in the eyes of the Americans and one individual's decision not to take part in that compared to governors of major states saying we don't want you here. Well, you're right. And also the thing, the thing about American history is that there's not that much of it. I mean, 250 years, but boys, it raided by both sides, you know, to suit their purposes. I mean the, you know, the right to bear arms.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution, you know, was was written at a time when you couldn't buy an, you know, an M16 and an AR15, which are basically weapons of war, modern weapons of war for the battlefield. You know, at at your local gun shop in wherever you were living in the then United States. Just one of his one other since we're on history in Russia. One other tiny little point. I was really struck yesterday by pictures of the East.
West Wing of the White House. Not The West Wing that we all know about, but the East Wing. East Wing, which is where the First Lady traditionally has her offices being munched away by massive diggers and jackhammers, right? This is in order to make room for Trump's big beautiful ballroom now. Fine, right? He's a builder. He likes big beautiful ballrooms. Let him build his big beautiful ballroom. Maybe future presidents would
appreciate that. But the fact that he has the cojones to use, you know, a Native American term to tear down bits of the White House, which has, you know, even if it's for a good reason or I'm not sure whether the ballroom is a good enough reason. It's, it's it's, you know, it's causing for very sharp intakes of breath. And it kind of sums up Trump's attitude towards all of American history and the Constitution. You know, tear it down and tear
it up if it suits you. Well, let's talk to our guest, George Packer, staff writer at The Atlantic, author of 10 books, about to Be 11, including The Unwinding and In the History of the New America. And George, next month, a new novel called The Emergency, a political novel, one that you'll have to tell us maybe doesn't in doesn't involve President Trump himself, but certainly has a sense of it.
And you've obviously written loads about the impact that this Trump presidency is having on democracy. Congrats on the new book. Can I just start by asking you something? I've very recently moved to Washington, DC from the UK. And of course, everywhere I look, I sort of almost can't believe some of the things that the administration are talking about or doing.
But I've, I've heard you talk and I think it's really interesting about the fact that you don't necessarily feel what's going on as an individual living in this country. It's not like the impact of democracy being eroded in the way that many feel it is, is part of our everyday lives. Tell, tell me a bit about that. And also, does that make a difference to how everyone's reacting to it? Thanks Anoushka. This is not 1933. You know, we, we don't suddenly have a a dark curtain falling
over our lives. Life goes on. I can criticize the Trump administration every day and not get a knock at the door because I don't look Latino. I can walk down the street without fear of being grabbed and pulled into a van by masked men. So unless you are in a small group of people who are maybe federal officials who've fallen afoul of Trump, or, or if you're a migrant who might have some legal issue or even no legal issue, you don't feel that you personally are affected.
And that's a problem. It's a huge problem because that means the vast majority of Americans can go about their lives and sort of say this isn't really a big deal. It's not happening to me. It's not happening to anyone I know. I don't know what an Inspector General is. I don't know what the Eastern District of Virginia is and why it matters. So why should we imagine that something as as huge as a threat to democracy is even happening? But it is happening.
It's just not happening to to you, to us. And that means you have to have an imagination. You have to be able to sift through all the information we all get in order to figure out what's true. And you also have to care. You still have to believe in democracy in order for this to matter to you. But there are a lot of other Americans who may have voted for him, who watching what he's doing, including the brutal way in which immigration is being enforced.
It just happened in downtown New York, in lower Manhattan yesterday. It's going to keep happening in New York will be a big target for ICE. They don't. They're not easy. With that. There is a residual sense that maybe there is something called due process. Maybe there is something called common decency. Maybe we don't want to see our president airing AI videos of himself piloting a fighter jet and dumping an immense load of excrement on people in Times Square.
You know it it. We don't know exactly where the people are because we haven't had an election since last year. And we will find a lot more out next year. But I think we, I was at the no pings rally on Saturday, the nationwide rallies. I was at one in a little town in upstate New York. There were hundreds, maybe thousands of people in a very small town and across the country, possibly 7 million. That's a lot of people to come out on a Saturday to demonstrate.
I think there is still a a kind of archaic attachment to this thing called the Constitution and democracy that may get woken up because Trump knows no limits. But do you? But, you know, that resistance that you're talking about? I, I see it all the time. I see in terms of the disagreement on this, the divide is more stark than anything I've ever seen. People will either tell you how much they love him or they, they are so upset about his presidency.
It's, you know, unreal. The reality is that, you know, 70 million people can feel the way you feel, but 77 million could still vote for him. And I guess my question is, I think you've written before that democracy and America are inextricable. Has that changed? And if it has changed, is there a way to put it back in the box
at the end of this? I fear that the the idea of America about our national identity as based on the first words of the Declaration of Independence, which to me is the the foundation of the country, that those words have lost some of their hold on people, especially young people who don't think they're true, who don't think they mean anything. They don't think the country stands for that. And that's on the right and the left.
Both sides have weakened that hold of those universal democratic values of equality, self government, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. And so how do you restore it? I I don't have an answer for that, that that's an enormous question. One way is for government to
work on behalf of people. If people feel that their government is this far away thing that is either choking a life out of them or indifferent to their problems, why would they think democracy is the only system that that's worth supporting? They may think it isn't working for me. So maybe we should try a little authoritarianism and see if Trump can lower the price of eggs and and raise the stock market. So, yeah, it's it worries me a great deal.
And of course, this isn't new. We've always had this vexed attachment to those ideals. We've often betrayed them. But we've always returned to a notion of who we are as a people and that we are a democratic people. I don't know how you get back to that, but because I've never lived through a period in my life that in which it was so at
risk, but it is at risk. I guess one thing also is that this sort of idea of democracy, although it is, you know, we both understand what it means, is what does it actually look like for a democracy to be eroded? What are the specific things that are happening at the moment
that worry you the most? I mean, the most dramatic has been the president using the Department of Justice to prosecute his his enemies quite nakedly ordering prosecutors to go after a list of people he considers his enemies, his persecutors, regardless of whether career prosecutors or even political appointees found that there was no 'cause. Which is what's happened again and again.
He's just gone through one after another till he finds one corrupt hack who's willing to use the tools of the law, the immense power of the state to go after a political enemy for for no legal reason. And that to me is maybe the single most vivid example of how we're seeing the abuse of power in the most dramatic way. Once you use the state, which is so powerful to settle scores, there's really, I mean, where's the limit then? Who won't you go after?
I think he will continue to do it because he's gotten away with it. He's found people to do it. He's found people in civil society, whether university presidents, corporate CE OS or law firm executives to cooperate with extortion schemes, essentially with him demanding certain ideological conformity in exchange for federal money. So again, if you if if you find that there's no push back, there's no resistance, you push harder and push harder again.
And that's what he's been doing all year. Because I think a good deal of the country is sort of in shock, is not doesn't know how to respond. And he has been on the offensive from the moment he got back into the White House. And so it it, it requires an understanding of what's happening, of a lucid sense that this isn't just a guy who's a little out of control.
This isn't a direct rise of an authoritarian regime that needs to be resisted if it is not going to permanently really for a generation or more, as Orban has done in Hungary. You mentioned him, Anouska or Matt, I can't remember which. As Orban has done as Erdogan has done. Once you go down that road, it's extremely hard to reverse
course. Can I ask you, George, why, Why you think the Republican Party, you know, the Grand Old Party, the party of Abraham Lincoln, of Teddy Roosevelt, who's put up with this? Yeah, well, there's a long list of Republican former office holders who are now in other lines of work because they stood up to Trump. And it seems that for a politician losing office, losing
an election is death. And so they'll do anything, including betray their oath, betray their commitment to their constituents and betray everything that's decent about being in politics in order to stay in office. And that means doing whatever Trump wants because he made the price so high. And so, yeah, the party has become it's, it's a bunch of cowards, I'm sorry to say. It's a bunch of cowards who have become his sycophants and his. Yes. And it's, we see it over and
over. And that is the other half of our constitutional problem. Congress is no longer acting like a separate branch of government.
So there's only an executive. And I just wonder to what extent this is exacerbated by the way, you know, American elections take place that you have, you know, most, the vast majority of congressional seats aren't even competitive between Democrats and Republicans. They're competitive within the Democratic Party, as we we saw in New York or within the Republican Party, which is when you can mobilize that Trumpian threat to not get someone, you know, nominated.
So the combination of the primary cycle, which really favours the kind of people who shout loudest in the party, the algorithm of social media and the way cable television works where you're either with one side or the other side. And if you look at Fox TV and MSNBC on each day, you might as well be living in different galaxies, let alone countries. All that conspires to make it more divided and more tribal.
You're right, when you have a two party system and a first past the post electoral system and politics has become absolutely tribal and in which there really is no independence allowed for politicians, they have to be party men or party women. You're going to have a system in which nothing can get done because the two sides only see victory in the others defeat not just in the election but in governing. If there were to be a compromise bill of any kind, Trump would hate it.
He doesn't want to compromise. He wants to exert power. And and the Democrats now are in a position where they have very little power, which makes it seem as if there's no opposition to Trump at all, except for these rather dignified and earnest rallies every few months called No King. Joe, just a a final question for me. Are you hopeful at all? It doesn't sound like it.
I mean, if the American people wake up to what's happening and there is still a broad middle, what we're describing are the extremes. They're the people you hear on social media. They're the people who make primary campaigns A misery for anyone who wants to think independently. But there is still a middle that can be persuaded and that swings between elections. We've seen that over and over in the past 20 years.
If those Americans understand the gravity of the situation, that this isn't just one more cycle with one party in power, then I think in the next election, in the midterms, if it's free and fair. And that's a big if right now. And then again in 28 with the presidential election. Public opinion is the last barrier to authoritarianism in this country. And we haven't really heard from the public. But the pendulum swings wider every time, doesn't it? And isn't that the danger?
You go to the further to the left, which means a reaction from the right, and the middle ground actually gets squeezed in all this. Well, Joe Biden was actually the middle ground. He was the most centrist Democrat running for president in 2020. You remember there was a whole array of other candidates to his left, and they all lost, which shows that at that point, the Democratic Party was sane enough to understand that to beat Trump, they couldn't go to their fringe.
They had to occupy the center. But Biden was a failed president for a lot of reasons that we know. And Trump came back with an even more vengeful retributive politics than before and with a more extreme base than before because social media cable news had made turned everyone into into an extreme partisan. So how do you undo that? You know, this is a much longer conversation. I wish I had the answer and I would put it into practice immediately because I'm really worried the.
Extreme centre. The extreme centre, George. That's what we need. Old. Centre, the radical centre. The radical centre. Exactly. George, thank you so much. George Packer, author of Many Books of The Atlantic, thank you very much for joining us. Thanks for having me. So that was George Packer, Matt, I would say not loads of hope there. Are you hopeful?
I don't know, the jury's out. I do think that, you know, the centre ground, the, the, the numbers of people are kind of willing to engage in that very boring but rather important concept of consensus is dwindling. And remember, this is a country that, you know, had a civil war. America lost more people in the civil war in percentage and real terms than it did in any other conflict it ever fought. And that that civil war still haunts the country.
When I first got to America, the beginning of the noughties, everyone said to me, oh, you know, this is a bipartisan effort. It was all about Democrats and Republicans working together, even though they were frictions at the time. But I think that's all gone. I think there's more political capital to be gained out of division, and that includes the left.
And let's you know this, this race in New York between Zoran Mandami and Andrew Cuomo, who's going to run as an independent, that's so fascinating because that's about the same issue playing out inside the Democratic Party. And I don't know. So I'd say, is America going to be a democracy in 20 years time from now? Maybe, but probably somewhat diminished to what it should be. What a depressing thing to end on.
We will. We will certainly be talking about that New York race over the next couple of weeks. I'm already planning when we're going to go up and cover it. So there'll be lots on that to come. But that is it for this week from Trump World. We will see you next Wednesday. We'll see you next Wednesday, as we always do from Anushka in Washington and me in London. Have a fabulous week.