April 15, 2025 • 8 mins
Mendte in the Morning talks to Rich Lowry about the momentum of current politics, what the midterms could look like, and the leadership in the Democratic party.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Let's go to Rich Lowry, who is chief of the
National Review. Appreciate you being here as always, Rich. Before
we get to your latest story about Donald Trump and
the tariffs, let me ask you about Corey Booker and
the Democratic Party. They are desperately looking for a leader.
I know it's early, but they really kind of need
one right now because they seem rudderless and they have
(00:23):
approval ratings down in the twenties. Isn't Corey Booker.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
It's Corey Booker. They are in big trouble. It's there
in a worse shape that I thought. You know, it's
so early, so he got that worked for his purposes.
He got a lot of media attention and it brought
home the message in Democrats. He's a fire because he'll
stand there and talk without peeing for twenty five hours.
But it's so early. I'd be shocked if Corey Booker
(00:51):
is a Democratic nominee in twenty twenty eight. But I've
been shocked before.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
I'll be shocked if anybody from Washington is the Democratic nominee.
It sounds like it's going to be a governor. But
they need somebody right now. They really do need somebody.
Forget about running in three and a half years. They
need someone to lead the party, you know, if you're
gonna take on Donald Trump and to come up with
some new ideas. They seem to just be running against Trump.
Speaker 2 (01:16):
Yeah. Well the leader at the moment is now new
ideas aside, because all his ideas are very old. He's
very old. But the leader is Bernie Sanders. But I
don't think they really need a leader now. You know.
The typical dynamic is there's some exceptions like New Gingriton
nineteen ninety four, but otherwise you just win Congress regardless
of what happens when the other side has has all
(01:38):
both houses and the presidency, because there's always a reaction, right,
things always get complicated or go wrong. People always the
other side. When you're out of power, it gets worked up,
you know, and people are fearful and hateful, so they
go out and vote. So I'd be shocked if they
didn't take the House next year, and probably by a
pretty comfortable margin. And then you really need a leader
to win the presidency. And that's the question.
Speaker 1 (02:00):
Mark, Wow, you think they're going to take the House
by a comfortable margin. Is that because of the tariffs?
Speaker 2 (02:07):
It's just it's just a natural reaction. You know, it's
very rare. Some unusual things occasionally happened. Clinton minimized as
losses in a second term in nineteen ninety eight, and
that mid term. Bush minimized the losses because the eractibate
in two thousand in the what was it two thousand
and two midterms. But otherwise you just lose and they
(02:29):
you know, they have a couple seat majority. I can't
see them holding out.
Speaker 1 (02:33):
Yeah, but there's you said by a lot. That's that's
what got me, because you.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
Know, like ten or fifteen seats. Okay, don't take this
to the bank. This is just what I expect. Don't
bring this up a year and a half from now
if I'm totally wrong.
Speaker 1 (02:47):
So so rich. I was on a trip to Italy
and I just got back, and a lot of people
over there wanted to talk about the tariffs, and not
all of them from Italy. I talked to several people
from Great Britain who wanted to talk about it, and
I was surprised because many of them, and a slight
majority of them, understood why the tariff war is happening
(03:09):
and thought their country should do the exact same thing.
But you have a new column out in the Post.
Trump will destroy a world economy that had us at
our apex and only getting stronger. So you I from
the headline alone, I would say that you're against these tariffs.
Speaker 2 (03:30):
Yeah, I'm not a tariff guy. But we were twenty
one percent of global GDP and twenty twelve've gone down
a little that we're twenty six percent. Now, that's what
we were in nineteen eighty. That's what we were in
nineteen ninety. So we've kept our share of the global
economy and we've left the G seven in the dust.
We've doubled our advantage over them, and the output per
(03:53):
person in the last fifteen or twenty years, the average
income in the poor state and the United States Mississippi
is higher than Canada and Britain and I believe Germany.
So we're in a real good shape now. It doesn't
mean that there aren't unfair trade practices, doesn't mean that
we shouldn't really be concerned with China and come up
with a different arrangement here. But sometimes he listened to
(04:15):
Trump and his folks, and it's like all has been
woe and poverty in the United States so we need
a revolution to totally overturn it, and I just I
think that's a wrong analysis.
Speaker 1 (04:27):
Well, I think the revolution though, However, wouldn't it be
the federal deficit that everybody claimed they were going to do.
Everybody claims they were going to try to reduce the
size of government. He's finally doing it. And there have
been several presidents that brought up this tariff unfairness and
that they were going to tackle it. He's tackling those
two things. So you're saying that those two things, trying
(04:50):
to reset the American economy is a bad thing.
Speaker 2 (04:54):
I think there are two things. One, yeah, we should
absolutely tried to reset the federal deficit unless debt. We
wouldn't have other countries like China buying some of the
tea bills if we didn't have so much debt in
the first place. But they're just they're not going to
deal with that. I love Doge, but in the scheme
of things, it's going to be relatively minor savings. And
(05:14):
then the trade death that I don't think is inherently
a problem, and Trump kind of counts it just by goods,
but a lot of these countries, if you include services
were really excelled over the last thirty years. We're running
a surplus with them now again, all that said, you know,
Germany has what a ten percent tariff on our cars
and we have a two percent tariff on ours. That's
not fair. We should talk to them about that. But
(05:34):
I think you would have been able to get them
to the table. Trump would have had deterrent power and
would have been able to make them scared by just
saying I'm going to do these massive tariffs. Let's you
come and talk without this disruption. It may be, who knows,
It may be that there's a slight recession just totally
based on the uncertainty that's been created with the back
and forth on the terraff and if nothing else, I
think that that would have been unnecessary.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
Right the fear and the coverage of the tariff speeds
on itself, and we just saw a poll out that
people are upset, they're worried about the economy, and they're
worried about losing their jobs right now, which of course
that affects interest rates. So I get I get exactly
what you were saying, and I also understand that maybe
he didn't have to go in with a sledgehammer on this.
(06:16):
Maybe he didn't have to make such a big deal
and he could have he could have negotiated with each
country rather than saying, blanket, we're going to take on
the rest of the world. Would you have accepted that.
Speaker 2 (06:27):
Yeah, I think that would have been a better approach.
And I just think at the end of the day,
if we have what we currently have in place, we'll
lose manufacturing jobs net net. There'll be some plants that
move back to the US and that'll be great, but
manufacturers being hurt by this because they use steel, aluminum, copper,
all these inputs from overseas to make things here. So
(06:48):
the experience with the steel and aluminum tariffs the first
time around the first Trump term is the best studies
suggested that we lost net net manufacturing jobs, and I
think the same thing would happen here. So, you know,
if you want to tariff like big finished goods, that's
one thing. But if you're tariffing all the stuff that
our manufacturers use to build things, then you're hurting yourself.
(07:10):
Which is why the National Alliance of Manufacturers, you know,
they apparently I assume they know more about manufacturing than
I do. And care about manufacturing more than I do
oppose the tariffs. The automakers who know more about making
autos than I do, oppose the tariffs. So I think
it's just a mistaken approach.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
So you don't buy it when he's saying all these
car manufacturers are moving here, all these little lined steel
manufacturers are moving here to build. I think that he
has proof of some of that, but you're not buying that.
That's enough.
Speaker 2 (07:40):
I think he'll get he'll get big announcements and we'll
get some people re sure. But I think, net net,
it's going to hurt manufacturers more than more than than
help them. So another thing that's kind of perverse here
is so Apple gets an exemption, right because people really
feel it if the price of an iPhone went up
three time so whatever it would have been under the
(08:01):
initial terrorists. But then there's some company. Let's say you
have a nice little family business making T shirts and
you manufacture them in China. You're hit with one hundred
and forty five percent tariff that may put you out
of business, whereas Tim Cook is not because Tim Cook
has a product everyone knows about and he can call
the president on the phone. So that's another downside of
this approach of my view.
Speaker 1 (08:21):
Yeah, it'll be interesting to see how it plays out,
because if there is some negotiation and they can bring
down tariffs, if any is a success for him. If
it's not, it's a failure for him. So I think
we have to wait to see. The proof is in
the putting down the line. Rich Lowry, editor in chief
of the National Review, Thanks so much. You can read
his column by the way today You're mad post well, Oh,
absolutely all the time, anytime.
Let's go to Rich Lowry, who is chief of the
National Review. Appreciate you being here as always, Rich. Before
we get to your latest story about Donald Trump and
the tariffs, let me ask you about Corey Booker and
the Democratic Party. They are desperately looking for a leader.
I know it's early, but they really kind of need
one right now because they seem rudderless and they have
(00:23):
approval ratings down in the twenties. Isn't Corey Booker.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
It's Corey Booker. They are in big trouble. It's there
in a worse shape that I thought. You know, it's
so early, so he got that worked for his purposes.
He got a lot of media attention and it brought
home the message in Democrats. He's a fire because he'll
stand there and talk without peeing for twenty five hours.
But it's so early. I'd be shocked if Corey Booker
(00:51):
is a Democratic nominee in twenty twenty eight. But I've
been shocked before.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
I'll be shocked if anybody from Washington is the Democratic nominee.
It sounds like it's going to be a governor. But
they need somebody right now. They really do need somebody.
Forget about running in three and a half years. They
need someone to lead the party, you know, if you're
gonna take on Donald Trump and to come up with
some new ideas. They seem to just be running against Trump.
Speaker 2 (01:16):
Yeah. Well the leader at the moment is now new
ideas aside, because all his ideas are very old. He's
very old. But the leader is Bernie Sanders. But I
don't think they really need a leader now. You know.
The typical dynamic is there's some exceptions like New Gingriton
nineteen ninety four, but otherwise you just win Congress regardless
of what happens when the other side has has all
(01:38):
both houses and the presidency, because there's always a reaction, right,
things always get complicated or go wrong. People always the
other side. When you're out of power, it gets worked up,
you know, and people are fearful and hateful, so they
go out and vote. So I'd be shocked if they
didn't take the House next year, and probably by a
pretty comfortable margin. And then you really need a leader
to win the presidency. And that's the question.
Speaker 1 (02:00):
Mark, Wow, you think they're going to take the House
by a comfortable margin. Is that because of the tariffs?
Speaker 2 (02:07):
It's just it's just a natural reaction. You know, it's
very rare. Some unusual things occasionally happened. Clinton minimized as
losses in a second term in nineteen ninety eight, and
that mid term. Bush minimized the losses because the eractibate
in two thousand in the what was it two thousand
and two midterms. But otherwise you just lose and they
(02:29):
you know, they have a couple seat majority. I can't
see them holding out.
Speaker 1 (02:33):
Yeah, but there's you said by a lot. That's that's
what got me, because you.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
Know, like ten or fifteen seats. Okay, don't take this
to the bank. This is just what I expect. Don't
bring this up a year and a half from now
if I'm totally wrong.
Speaker 1 (02:47):
So so rich. I was on a trip to Italy
and I just got back, and a lot of people
over there wanted to talk about the tariffs, and not
all of them from Italy. I talked to several people
from Great Britain who wanted to talk about it, and
I was surprised because many of them, and a slight
majority of them, understood why the tariff war is happening
(03:09):
and thought their country should do the exact same thing.
But you have a new column out in the Post.
Trump will destroy a world economy that had us at
our apex and only getting stronger. So you I from
the headline alone, I would say that you're against these tariffs.
Speaker 2 (03:30):
Yeah, I'm not a tariff guy. But we were twenty
one percent of global GDP and twenty twelve've gone down
a little that we're twenty six percent. Now, that's what
we were in nineteen eighty. That's what we were in
nineteen ninety. So we've kept our share of the global
economy and we've left the G seven in the dust.
We've doubled our advantage over them, and the output per
(03:53):
person in the last fifteen or twenty years, the average
income in the poor state and the United States Mississippi
is higher than Canada and Britain and I believe Germany.
So we're in a real good shape now. It doesn't
mean that there aren't unfair trade practices, doesn't mean that
we shouldn't really be concerned with China and come up
with a different arrangement here. But sometimes he listened to
(04:15):
Trump and his folks, and it's like all has been
woe and poverty in the United States so we need
a revolution to totally overturn it, and I just I
think that's a wrong analysis.
Speaker 1 (04:27):
Well, I think the revolution though, However, wouldn't it be
the federal deficit that everybody claimed they were going to do.
Everybody claims they were going to try to reduce the
size of government. He's finally doing it. And there have
been several presidents that brought up this tariff unfairness and
that they were going to tackle it. He's tackling those
two things. So you're saying that those two things, trying
(04:50):
to reset the American economy is a bad thing.
Speaker 2 (04:54):
I think there are two things. One, yeah, we should
absolutely tried to reset the federal deficit unless debt. We
wouldn't have other countries like China buying some of the
tea bills if we didn't have so much debt in
the first place. But they're just they're not going to
deal with that. I love Doge, but in the scheme
of things, it's going to be relatively minor savings. And
(05:14):
then the trade death that I don't think is inherently
a problem, and Trump kind of counts it just by goods,
but a lot of these countries, if you include services
were really excelled over the last thirty years. We're running
a surplus with them now again, all that said, you know,
Germany has what a ten percent tariff on our cars
and we have a two percent tariff on ours. That's
not fair. We should talk to them about that. But
(05:34):
I think you would have been able to get them
to the table. Trump would have had deterrent power and
would have been able to make them scared by just
saying I'm going to do these massive tariffs. Let's you
come and talk without this disruption. It may be, who knows,
It may be that there's a slight recession just totally
based on the uncertainty that's been created with the back
and forth on the terraff and if nothing else, I
think that that would have been unnecessary.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
Right the fear and the coverage of the tariff speeds
on itself, and we just saw a poll out that
people are upset, they're worried about the economy, and they're
worried about losing their jobs right now, which of course
that affects interest rates. So I get I get exactly
what you were saying, and I also understand that maybe
he didn't have to go in with a sledgehammer on this.
(06:16):
Maybe he didn't have to make such a big deal
and he could have he could have negotiated with each
country rather than saying, blanket, we're going to take on
the rest of the world. Would you have accepted that.
Speaker 2 (06:27):
Yeah, I think that would have been a better approach.
And I just think at the end of the day,
if we have what we currently have in place, we'll
lose manufacturing jobs net net. There'll be some plants that
move back to the US and that'll be great, but
manufacturers being hurt by this because they use steel, aluminum, copper,
all these inputs from overseas to make things here. So
(06:48):
the experience with the steel and aluminum tariffs the first
time around the first Trump term is the best studies
suggested that we lost net net manufacturing jobs, and I
think the same thing would happen here. So, you know,
if you want to tariff like big finished goods, that's
one thing. But if you're tariffing all the stuff that
our manufacturers use to build things, then you're hurting yourself.
(07:10):
Which is why the National Alliance of Manufacturers, you know,
they apparently I assume they know more about manufacturing than
I do. And care about manufacturing more than I do
oppose the tariffs. The automakers who know more about making
autos than I do, oppose the tariffs. So I think
it's just a mistaken approach.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
So you don't buy it when he's saying all these
car manufacturers are moving here, all these little lined steel
manufacturers are moving here to build. I think that he
has proof of some of that, but you're not buying that.
That's enough.
Speaker 2 (07:40):
I think he'll get he'll get big announcements and we'll
get some people re sure. But I think, net net,
it's going to hurt manufacturers more than more than than
help them. So another thing that's kind of perverse here
is so Apple gets an exemption, right because people really
feel it if the price of an iPhone went up
three time so whatever it would have been under the
(08:01):
initial terrorists. But then there's some company. Let's say you
have a nice little family business making T shirts and
you manufacture them in China. You're hit with one hundred
and forty five percent tariff that may put you out
of business, whereas Tim Cook is not because Tim Cook
has a product everyone knows about and he can call
the president on the phone. So that's another downside of
this approach of my view.
Speaker 1 (08:21):
Yeah, it'll be interesting to see how it plays out,
because if there is some negotiation and they can bring
down tariffs, if any is a success for him. If
it's not, it's a failure for him. So I think
we have to wait to see. The proof is in
the putting down the line. Rich Lowry, editor in chief
of the National Review, Thanks so much. You can read
his column by the way today You're mad post well, Oh,
absolutely all the time, anytime.
Popular Podcasts
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com