November 7, 2024 • 42 mins
DAN PROFT COUNTERCULTURE PODCAST: Watch the latest podcast with John Hinderacker discuss Trump's historical presidential victory!
Ep. 61: John Hinderaker, President of the Center of the American Experiment and contributor to the Powerline blog at PowerlineBlog.com.
Presented by AMERICAN GREATNESS and RESTORATION NEWS
https://amgreatness.com/ | https://www.restorationofamerica.com/restoration-news/
Listen to full episodes below: YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_krhVq2VPaLA7Bc3b6REhg
Apple - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/dan-proft-counterculture-presented-by-american-greatness/id1709598248
Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/6FdQYNEHskImobHpiH8Fxb?si=bf27ca3439814c05 Rumble - https://rumble.com/c/AmericanGreatness
-------------------------------------------
Election, Donald Trump, Trump, JD Vance, Melania Trump, Elon Musk, Blue Wall, Electoral College, Dan Proft, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Arizona, GOTV, Hispanic, Latino, Economy, Inflation
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Hinderaker (00:03):
The record of the Biden Harris administration was terrible. It was terrible on
the economy. It was terrible on the cost ofliving. It was terrible on the border. You had
fiascos like the botched withdrawal fromAfghanistan, and they didn't even try to run on
that record. They knew it was bad. They, theydidn't even attempt to defend it. So the first
(00:26):
problem is they're, they're running forreelection and they don't have a record to run
on. And the second fundamental problem is thatKamala Harris was a lousy candidate. And again,
this is not a big surprise. She ran forpresident in 2020. She never got a vote.
PROFT (00:46):
Welcome to another episode of Counterculture, the show that stands, that the
intersection of reason and faith in the battleagainst sentimentality. As I argued on this
podcast for weeks, the combination of the crosstabs in the polling and the distribution of
early voting seeming to confirm the polling wasdirectionally correct. It looked like Trump was
headed for the electoral landslide that indeedcame to be in between the weeping and the
(01:12):
shrieking. The most prominent voices on the leftare offering one of three explanations. Number
one, it was all Biden's fault, and Kamala didthe best she could under the circumstances.
Number two, as former White House spokes, humanJeny said everything just somehow broke Trump's
(01:35):
way. And he is just, I'm quoting an incrediblylucky bastard. Or number three, by far the most
popular offering. The majority of Americans areafflicted by various phobias and burdened by
myriad isms. As, for example, the views SonnyHoston explained.
THE VIEW (01:57):
I'm surprised at the results, but I'm not surprised as a woman of color, I was so
hopeful that a mixed race woman married to aJewish guy, could be elected president of this
country. And I think that it had nothing to dowith policy. I think this was a referendum of
cultural resentment in this country. Well,
PROFT (02:19):
MSNBC's Joe Scarborough took it a step further, adding height to the usual suspects of
racism and transphobia.
MORNING JOE (02:26):
If she were a six foot four white man from, from Arkansas or from, you know,
Florida, and she ran a good middle of the roadcampaign talking about reaching out, do you
think she would be losing by that much? I, Ithink if she, if she could like chew tobacco and
carry a shotgun and talk about football and,and, and be a guy's guy. I mean, you tell me
PROFT (02:49):
What Hasan Scarborough and the other leftist professional pontificators know for sure
is that the GOP sweep had nothing to do withKamala and the policies of the Biden Harris
administration, knee-jerk identitarianism, notthoughtful reflection is the order of the day.
Because by all indications, the left remains arevolutionary movement for Trump. Tuesday marked
(03:11):
a restart of the counter-revolution begun in2016. Trump and Republicans have federal gov,
have the federal government and majority of thegovernors and state legislatures, the new
Bolsheviks retained control of Americans, civicand cultural institutions. So what now? It's a
big question, and to help us think about how toanswer it, we're please be joined by John
Hendrick, or President of the Center of theAmerican Experiment, and a contributor to the
(03:35):
Power Line blog, which youfind@powerlineblog.com. John, welcome. Thanks
for joining us. Appreciate it.
Hinderaker (03:42):
Glad to be with you, Dan.
PROFT (03:44):
So let's start with your summation of what you think happened on Tuesday. Why, why
Trump and Republicans were able to take controlof the presidency and the Congress?
Hinderaker (03:58):
Dan, I don't think it's hard to explain at all. The record of the Biden Harris
administration was terrible. It was terrible onthe economy. It was terrible on the cost of
living. It was terrible on the border. You hadfiasco as like the botched withdrawal from
Afghanistan, and they didn't even try to run onthat record. They knew it was bad. They, they
(04:20):
didn't even attempt to defend it. So the firstproblem is they're, they're running for
reelection and they don't have a record to runon. And the second fundamental problem is that
Kamala Harris was a lousy candidate. And again,this is not a big surprise. She ran for
president in 2020. She never got a vote. She wasoutta the race before the Iowa caucuses. You
(04:41):
know, the voters just didn't much like her. Andso I don't think it's hard to explain why Trump
won.
I think the only thing the Democrats had goingfor them, thought they had going for them was
hatred of Donald Trump. And so they devoted theentire campaign to trying to stimulate hatred
and fear of Donald Trump because it was the onlyway that they thought they could win the
(05:03):
election. And at the end of the day, a majorityof American voters rejected that attempt. They
liked Trump's policies. Some of them lovedTrump. You know, Trump's a very popular guy in
some quarters. But I think the reason why he hadthe record support from Latinos, for example,
from blacks, especially black men, increasingsupport from Asian Americans and, and record
(05:29):
support from, from Jewish Americans, is hispolicies. These are people who suffered under
the, the Biden Harris administration. And theywere looking for an alternative. And while
Kamala Harris was talking about abortion andabout, you know, joy or whatever, it's, she was
running on, Trump was talking about the issues.And so I don't think it's at all hard to explain
(05:53):
why Trump won. I think the, the Democrats triedto implement what was inherently a long shot
strategy and they couldn't make it work.
PROFT (06:01):
Well, and you know, it's interesting too 'cause we, we've talked a lot about Trump's
coalition and the improvements he made amongblack and Latino voters among Arab American
voters in Michigan as well. But there wassomething else too that runs counter to the
argument they're making now that, you know, theproblem is she was a black female and America's
(06:24):
not ready for it. Typical argument, just likeAmerica wasn't ready for a female when it
Hillary Clinton was running. And so that's theonly thing that could possibly explain her loss.
But what happened actually, when she entered therace, and there was this enthusiasm, is Donald
Trump, his, his support among older voters andwhite voters shrank. And this is why she had
(06:48):
developed a little bit of a lead in the earlydays, but then after about five or six weeks
going into late October, that had reversed.
So, you know, on the one hand you hear the SonnyHostage and the Joe Scarboroughs and all of the
other mouthpieces talking about racism andsexism. Wait a second. Those same people that
(07:08):
knew she was a black female in early Septemberwhen she got in, knew she was a black female in
late October when things started to move againsther. And so there has to be something else that
explains it. And it seems pretty obvious thatwhat explains it is the lousy candidate part, is
that, you know, her, her the turn the page, turnthe page and then interview after interview. She
(07:32):
can't answer the simple question, how would youhave done anything differently than Biden? And
how is a Kamala Harris presidency gonna be anydifferent than by g? She didn't have an answer
to the simplest of questions. That just is sortof basic. And I just think there's clearly a lot
of willful blindness on the, on, on the side of,of Kamala supporters and, and Trump haters that
(07:53):
sort of overlooks that six week interregnumbetween her entrance and election day.
Hinderaker (08:00):
Dan, you make a great point from the Democrats standpoint, of course, Kamala Harris
was a DEI candidate. Their message in large partwas vote for Kamala because she's a black woman.
So when people didn't vote for Kamala, they say,well, it must be because she was a black woman.
Right? But the reality is that they, that theysimply can't seem to acknowledge is that the
(08:22):
large majority of Americans didn't care that shewas a black woman. That's not what's important
to them. They're not racist. They're notmisogynist. They care about policies and they
care about how politicians' policies are goingto impact their lives. And what they saw of
Kamala Harris, it was not a race and sex is, yousay she started out fine, you know, when that
(08:44):
was what they knew about her. But the, the morethat Americans saw of Kamala Harris, the more
they concluded that her policies, whatever theyare, were not gonna help them.
PROFT (08:53):
Well, the other thing too is going back to the, you know, the other excuse one of the
other excuses, Biden, it's all Biden's fault.You know, the finger pointing is going on, as
you would expect. So he's being scapegoated.But, but again, so what about the enablers,
including Kamala Harris that propagated this liethat he was exacting and probing and completely
(09:15):
in command of his faculties in theadministration right up until that June debate?
So I mean, it, you know, they're, they're sortof like the enablers of an alcoholic that keep
feeding the alcoholic, you know, a alcohol andthen come and say, you know, this guy's an
alcoholic. I can't believe it. So I, that whole,that whole it's biden's fault thing. So you
wouldn't do anything different. You covered forhim for all this time, and now it's all his
(09:39):
fault that you lost.
Hinderaker (09:42):
Well, you know, the Democrats were in an impossible position. They, they ran the
risk. They knew Biden was senile, incompetentand so forth, but they thought their best shot
was to run him out there one more time. And thenwhen he virtually collapsed on the stage in
that, in that presidential debate, and if youlook at the betting odds, the betting odds went
(10:03):
to like 75% Trump. They, they realized that theyhad to make a change. But, but that put them in
this bizarre position where, where Kamala Harrisis up there saying, turn the page, turn the
page, well turn the page on what on theadministration where she served for four years
as the vice president never made any sense. Andso I think blaming Joe Biden in one sense is
(10:26):
kind of silly, but on the other hand, blamingthe fact that the Biden Harris administration
had a lousy record that she couldn't run on. Butat the same time, she couldn't run against
'cause she was the vice president. I mean, itwas kind of a hopeless situation from the
beginning, I think.
PROFT (10:44):
Yeah, I mean, I think, I think one of the things that comes across is that the campaign
was predicated on a fraud, the covering forBiden. Yeah. And, and, and, you know, and the
entire presentation of it in terms of what thevalue prop was, that was a fraud too. I mean,
it's just, you know, we're not getting anythingstraight from this person. She is just, you
know, every, every utterance is a prevaricationof one form or another.
Hinderaker (11:08):
Well, that's exactly right. And to make it worse, somebody, I think it was somebody
at Axios actually who referred to her as the nocomment candidate, you know, time after time.
She wouldn't even say what her position on anissue was. It was like, it was a secret. And,
and, and, and if there was any hope of hermarking out an identity that was different from
(11:31):
Joe Biden's different from the failures of the,of the Biden Aires administration, she had to
articulate positions that in some ways weregonna be different, we're going to be new. And
she was either unable or unwilling to do that.
PROFT (11:46):
Well, and the great irony is, of course, you mentioned the betting markets after the June
debate going to 75% for Trump, you know, by, byby Tuesday they were pretty close, some of them
to 75% for Trump too. I mean, this was, yeah,not un this was not unforeseen. And they ended
up sort of being hoist by their own patar, notjust the covering for Biden compounding the
(12:08):
mistake by installing Kamala and then runningthe kind of campaign they did. I, I wonder if
you think, you know, as some are saying perhaps,hopefully that not Trump has dispatched all of
these political dyna of both parties, Clinton,Bush, Obama, Biden, they're all yesterday's news
(12:31):
now.
Hinderaker (12:34):
Well, I think that's right. And fortunately Trump is in a position where he is
gonna be able to get some things done. I thinkwe're gonna see a whirlwind of activity in the
first two or three months of the, of thisadministration. He's gonna have a working
majority in the house. I think that's whateverybody is predicting. He's gonna have 53 or
54 votes in the Senate. All of his appointmentsare gonna sail through. And I think we're gonna
(12:59):
see some very serious legislation coming in inthe first couple of months. And I think we're
gonna see some rapid action on things likeimmigration voters wanna see the border closed.
Well, there are things that Trump can do in hisfirst week in office to move toward closing the
border. And so I think we're gonna see some,some very strong activity. And I think we're
(13:20):
gonna be in a situation where the Democrats arenot gonna be able to block most of what Trump
and the Republicans wanna do. And, and so we'llsee what happens. I think most voters are gonna
like what they see. I I think most voters aregonna like the consequences of the policies the
Republicans are gonna put into effect. And we'llsee what happens
PROFT (13:42):
On the issue of what they will call retribution, what you or I might call
accountability. What do you think Trump'sposture should be going with respect to the Jack
Smiths of the world with Res and well, let's bespecific with respect to Jack Smith and Alvin
Bragg and, and, and, and Judge Merchant in theManhattan Business Records case and Letitia
(14:06):
James and Judge Erwan in the Trump organizationcase and Fanny Willis and the I and, and the IRS
and the FBI per the IRS investigation of HunterBiden. And the, what the whistleblowers IRS
whistleblowers have said, how, how should Trumpdeal with that? Does he just move quickly to get
an Attorney general in charge and leave thatperson to his own devices, sort of knowing what
(14:29):
they will do, wash his hands of it, and focus onthe border and focus on Elon Musk's Efficiency
Commission and so forth to reduce federalspending? You know, how, how, how, you know,
what's your recommendation or feel for how he'sgoing to sort of manage these competing
interests that all have to be dealt withessentially simultaneously?
Hinderaker (14:51):
I think he should move on. It's already being reported that Jack Smith is gonna
go out of business, that he is gonna dismissthose two absurd criminal prosecutions, which
are on life support anyway. There isn't reallymuch that Trump can do about state prosecutions,
and I don't think there's much that he shoulddo. There are news reports that the judge, I
forget his name, that that presided over theridiculous, you know, stormy Daniels
(15:13):
prosecution, which is
PROFT (15:15):
Merchant. Yeah.
Hinderaker (15:16):
He, he's the guy that in my opinion, should, should go to prison. Well, Alvin Bragg,
you know, the DA that brought it, I mean, ifthere was real accountability, Alvin Brag ought
to be wearing an orange jumpsuit, you know, inmy view. But, but Trump can't really make those
things happen. And, and, and I think that, thatthose das law enforcement people are gonna be
backing off. They can't do anything while Trumpis in office. You know, four years are gonna go
(15:40):
by, he'll be 82 years old. There's gonna be noappetite to try to resurrect those cases in four
years. But I do think where, where, wherefederal agencies are involved, I mean, Trump
needs to reform the leadership of the FBI andthe CIA and the IRS and he should make no bones
about that. You know, he should appoint a newFBI director, he should appoint an Attorney
(16:03):
General. Obviously he should appoint a new CIAdirector and they should have a clear mandate to
clean up the leadership of those agencies. Idon't think there's a big problem with the rank
and file agents of the FBI or the rank and fileagents in the ccia A but there's a huge problem
in the leadership of, of both of those agencies.And Trump has gotta clean it up.
PROFT (16:25):
And, and, and with respect to some of the personnel you'd like to see around Trump,
because this is gonna be the leading indicatorthat Trump has, as has been sort of suggested
that he's learned the lessons he suggestedhimself. Some of the appointments I made weren't
so good. That's about as much of a, an admissionof a mistake as you'll get from Trump. Yeah. And
so, so I, I wonder, I wonder when you're talkingabout these sensitive positions, attorney
(16:50):
general, FBI, director, CIA director, DHS,Homeland Security Director, you know, what, who
are you, who are the types of people, secretaryof State, who are the types of people you're
looking for that, you know, some of whom arebeing rumored right now to indicate that Trump
really has learned the lessons and this is goingto be, you know, basically an ass kicking
(17:12):
administration when it comes to the way thingshave always been done in Washington?
Hinderaker (17:17):
Well, I, I have not seen extensive lists of names. I've seen some on the list that
I've seen have been very good. You know, we'llsee who he actually appoints. But I like the
fact that he surrounded himself with people likeElon Musk and Tulsi Gabbard, you know, and some
of the others. I'm not so crazy about RFK Jr.But in general, I think he surrounded himself
(17:38):
with very good, very strong people from, fromdifferent elements of the Republican party, not
always from the Republican party at all. And,and, you know, we'll just have to see who he
pick for some of these positions. For example,I've heard no speculation at all about FBI
director, have you?
PROFT (17:56):
Not, not much. No. It's been, you know, it's, it's, I've heard Rubio for Secretary of
State and people like Mike Lee for ag, JohnRadcliff for ag, but, but FBI director, it has
been sort of quiet who that person may be. Butyou're, but I mean, I'm in complete agreement. I
mean, Christopher Ray has to be one of thosegone day one. Don't make the same mistake you
(18:17):
made with Comey.
Hinderaker (18:19):
Yeah, right, exactly. I'm a huge fan of Marco Rubio. I'd love to see him as Secretary
of State. I also love to see him in the Senate.And so I have mixed feelings about pulling
people out of those important positions to put'em into the administration. Tom Cotton, who's a
friend of mine, I noticed has publicly said thathe's not looking for a position in the
administration. I know some people havespeculated about Tom as a possible CIA director.
(18:42):
I think there are people inside the CIA whowould love to see that, but I think he's taken
himself out of, out of that contention and wantsto stay in the Senate instead. So we'll see us
sorting out over the next month or two of, of,of where people come to rest. But the big
difference, I think, Dan, is that this timearound Trump is really prepared what he wanted
(19:02):
in 2016.
I don't think he expected to win. He, you know,he did not have a good transition in place. He
did not have a lot of ideas about, aboutnominations. What he did know was that he didn't
want to do what usually happens that is recycleall the old Bush people. Right? That would be
the normal thing is you'd staff youradministration with the leftovers from the last
(19:24):
Republican or the last DemocraticAdministration. He didn't wanna do that. And of
course, not having been a, a lifetimepolitician, he didn't have a big band of
followers, you know, ready to plug into thesepositions. I think the second time around, he's
much better prepared. He expected to win. Heunderstands what it takes to staff, an
(19:44):
administration. He, he just knows a lot morepeople now. And I think we are gonna be
pleasantly surprised. I think we're gonna likewhat we see as he fills out the, as he fills out
the, the administration.
PROFT (19:56):
Well, one of the lessons learned from the first term is, you know, he didn't wanna do the
bush holdovers, the bush holdovers. You didn'thave to bring 'em in. They were already there.
You know, they, they never left. I mean, that,that was part of the problem, an understanding
of the layers of bureaucracy and connectionsthat persist regardless of who, who's present.
And I think, you know, it seems to me, and andHoward Lutnick has that from Cantor Fitzgerald,
(20:18):
who's chaired his transition team seems tounderstand that too. No, we're no corporate
lobbyists are on the transition team. You know,you, you, he's bringing people that, that either
share or are gaining his understanding of howyou have to look at these federal agencies,
almost like layer by layer and perhaps, and Ihope conceiving about how to greatly reduce the
(20:42):
footprint of most of those agencies.
Hinderaker (20:44):
Well, Dan, one of the big problems that Republican presidents have is that, is
that, well, theoretically they run the executivebranch constitutionally. They are the executive
branch. The reality is that they can onlyappoint, what is it, the first three levels of
every, every cabinet department, of everyagency. And everything below that is civil
service. But what that means realistically, andyou just see, by the way, I think, I think
(21:09):
District of Columbia voted what, 92%, 93% forKamala Harris. This is enemy territory. And so
realistically, these agencies are staffed byliberal democrats. That's the vast majority of
the civil service component of the body of allof these agencies. And so for a Republican
(21:29):
president to actually be able to run theexecutive branch is a, is a big challenge. And
it's not one that I'm sure any recent Republicanpresident has really managed to overcome.
So, so for example, how does Donald Trump reallyget his policies implemented by the
Environmental Protection Agency when everymember of that agency below the, the, the high
(21:54):
level of his appointees is aligned in theopposite direction. The Department of Justice,
the Civil Rights Division of the Department ofJustice, by Rights, they ought to just fire the
entire division. Right? They, they ought to justclean house and start over from scratch. But he
can't do that. He, he, he can only replace the,the, the top levels of the, of the bureaucracy.
So I think one of the, the, the things that,that will play out kind of beneath the surface
(22:19):
over the next four years of the Trumpadministration is this internal warfare against
the bureaucrats against the deep state. Youknow, call it what you will, is Trump really
going to be able to get the policies out of theexecutive branch that he, that he wants,
PROFT (22:34):
Right? I mean, well, I mean, the Chevron decision last term from the Supreme Court helps
in terms of defanging, some of these agenciesoperating sort of independently of any
accountability. That's number one. Number two,the one of the tests it seems to me will be if
he and Musk or whoever else can Paulson, maybecan figure a way to just reduce the size of the
(22:57):
agencies by reducing headcount. I mean doessentially what must did at Twitter is do a
reduction in force of 20, 30, 40% across theboard in particular agencies or maybe
synchronize it so it doesn't become, you know,something you have to spend a ton of political
capital on. And that's one of the otherquestions too. I mean, these are the judgment
calls he has to make is where do I wanna spendpolitical capital knowing that everything I do
(23:20):
is gonna come with the hysteria of the left,right?
So I can't let that drive my decision making.But all these appointments we're talking about
and the policies that need to be advanced posthaste, like border security. But at the same
time, he's made promises about, for example,January 6th, people convicted of crimes on
January 6th, nonviolent crimes that are servingprison time. He's basically called them
(23:44):
political prisoners, basically set 'em in acommute of their sentences at minimum, if not
pardon them. You know, is that something you,you do out of the gate too and risk getting
sidetracked? I mean, I think it's the rightthing to do because these people are, are in
jail and they shouldn't be. But, but, but, butyou know, there's a political cost to pay to do
that when you're also trying to do a massdeportation and you're trying to extend the tax
(24:07):
cuts and you're trying to reduce the size ofgovernment.
Hinderaker (24:10):
Well, Dan, I agree with you that a lot of the, the J six protesters don't belong in
jail. A lot of 'em were held in jail for a longtime before trial. How'd that happen? You know,
but I would not make that an early priority. TheDemocrats have made hay out of the January 6th
protest for going on four years now. They'vegiven it way more attention than it deserves. I
(24:36):
I keep asking when are people gonna be upsetabout the fact that the Democrats occupied the
state capital of Wisconsin for six months? Wehear all this nonsense about the sacred capital
and the attack on the capitol. The Democratsliterally occupied the capital of, of Wisconsin
for six months. And as far as I could tell, theypaid zero political price. But I think that for
(25:01):
political reasons, he should let that one goearly in his administration at some point. I
don't think it's a pardon, I think it's acommutation or maybe a very selective pardon,
you know, but I don't think he should prioritizethat, because I do think that that feeds the
flames without any real payoff for himpolitically
PROFT (25:20):
Be because of the, the nature of the victory, you know, the electoral landslide and
bringing, helping to bring some senators acrossthe finish line too, in addition to house
members and, and just the popular revolt thathis reelection represents. I mean, do you see
him having problems in his own party the waythat he had when he took office in 2017,
(25:42):
including with the speaker at the time, PaulRyan, which is why they couldn't move and didn't
move as fast on border security as theyotherwise could have? I mean, do you see any,
any stumbling blocks for him? I mean, not theone off two, you know, one or two off Senator
like Collins or Murkowski, but like a leadershipproblem with whoever the Senate majority leader
is or, or any problems with leadership in thehouse?
Hinderaker (26:03):
I see no problems at all. The Republican party has been transformed. Obviously
we got Mike Johnson in the house. I think he'sdoing a terrific job. A hundred percent aligned
with Trump. I think John Thune is probably gonnabe the majority leader in the senate. Thune is a
very conservative guy. He, you know, he predatesTrump. You don't think of him as a, as a big
Trump acolyte certainly. But he is gonna becompletely aligned, I think, with the policy
(26:27):
agenda. And I think they're gonna have at least53 votes that might have 54. So the, the Lisa
Murkowski, you know, is not gonna be able todemand to get her way at, at, at, at critical
points. I'm very optimistic, Dan. I mean, knockon wood, I, I've been wrong before, but I'm very
optimistic that we are gonna see a coordinatedapproach that the, that that the Trump
(26:51):
administration, the Republican House, theRepublican Senate are gonna be closely aligned.
They're gonna understand the importance ofgetting important and popular things done in the
first 90 days. I think we're gonna see somereally productive activity in Washington, and I
think the voters are gonna like it.
PROFT (27:09):
What do you expect from the other side? When we started talking about the, the excuses
that they're making, I mean, they continue tosort of alternatively patronize Americans or
excoriate them. That's the only way they seem toknow how to interact with other human beings.
They're either pandering to you or they'retelling you how disappointing you are to them.
(27:30):
But I, and, and some people have suggested,well, this is gonna be, you know, hearkening
back to, to, to to to, to the bush years after88. This is gonna be like A-A-A-D-L-C redux
that, that brought Clinton to the fore. You'regonna have to find whatever moderates exist in
that party, and you're gonna have to put themforward. You're gonna have to sort of represent
(27:54):
your brand and your case to the American people.And that, that's an easy thing to say. But you
look around that party, old guard, new guard,and you just don't see who those voices exactly
are and how you would move the, where thecritical masses, which is Bolshevik, is how you
just move these people out of the way,particularly when they're out continuing to
(28:20):
prosecute the Identitarian case.
As you've heard the last 48 hours,
Hinderaker (28:25):
Dan, the Democratic party has a huge identity problem. They, they've gotta decide
what does it mean to be a Democrat. And inrecent years, the predominant answer has been
neo Marxism. It's been a Marxism based on racialand sexual identity as opposed to a class
identity. And it's failed. DEI is unpopular withthe American people. The American people believe
(28:48):
in merit. They don't like race discrimination,they don't like sex discrimination. That
neo-Marxist approach is, is unpopular. It is notgoing to succeed. Well, if you put that to the
side, what else does the Democratic party standfor? Well, it stands for abortion. And that's
almost the only issue that in the last twocycles the Democrats have really wanted to talk
(29:09):
about. There's a reason why Kamala Harriscouldn't answer simple questions about what is
your position on issue X? Issue y, issue Z thedemocrats are, are kinda left without a clear
policy agenda.
Socialism, you know, they have generally, theygot a socialist wing, a OC, and some of these
(29:30):
people will admit the Democratic Socialists ofAmerica socialism has failed and been repudiated
all across the world. And as the Democrats haveevolved toward being an upper class party,
instead of a working class party or, you know,traditional socialism, socialism has got zero
appeal. Right? And so what exactly does theDemocratic party stand for at the moment? It
(29:53):
basically stands for two things. Number one,abortion and number two not being Republicans.
Right? And so, and so their, their campaign in2024 basically was all about trying to stimulate
hatred of Republicans. Republicans are fascists,you know, they're Hitler, you know, they're
dictators. Well, that's ridiculous. You know,these false accusations are not the substance of
(30:17):
a major political party. So I think theDemocrats are in a very tough corner, and
they've got to come up with a way to define anew identity, which is not neo-Marxist, which is
not merely identitarian. And and to the extentthat there are populist economic themes that
they could seize on Trump has kind of beatenthem to those themes. Right. I i, I really am
(30:42):
not sure where the Democrats go at this point.
PROFT (30:46):
It'll be really interesting to see if you have some aspirant to the White House on the
Democrat side, you know, some governor or, orbig city mayor, maybe Eric Adams. Although, I
mean, not that he's necessarily aspirant intothe White House when he is under indictment at
present, but, but, but some, somewheresomebody's gonna say, you know what? I need to
(31:06):
break from even perhaps the positions I've heldup until this point, the way that Kamala did out
of necessity. And they're gonna say, we need toend our sanctuary city designation or our
sanctuary state designation. 'cause I, I just, Ineed to find some room here to separate myself
from the gaggle. And, and, and, and this iswhere the market opportunity lies. I mean, you
(31:29):
know, or, or maybe something with on, on trans,like men in girls sports, but it just seems
there's that there's this open space for someDemocrat to occupy if they have the political
courage to suffer the slings and arrows of theirbase.
Hinderaker (31:46):
Well, we've seen some of that, Dan, we've seen it especially on crime, right. And
California, they passed the new proposition thatbasically repeals the old proposition. Yeah. And
politicians like Gavin Newsom are now saying,yeah, we have to arrest criminals after all.
And, and they're all denying that they eversupported the defund the police movement. Right?
So we've seen that kind of walking back on, oncrime, but that, that is probably necessary for
(32:13):
the Democrats, but it certainly is not enough.They're never gonna be more ProLaw enforcement
than the Republicans. Right? Right. And, andit's the same thing with immigration. They are
never gonna be defined as the anti-illegalimmigration party. And, and they really can't
come out and say, you know what? The Republicanswere right all along on crime, or the
Republicans were right all along on illegalimmigration. These are gonna be more sort of
(32:36):
quiet walk backs, but I don't see how they canever become really the, the definition of the
Democratic party,
PROFT (32:44):
Or they have to find a way to get some sort of compromise legislation that they can
live with and be a part of that, that may, thatRepublicans may initiate. Right. And so they
say, look, we're, we're, you know, beingconstructive and we're not the open borders
crazies that you think we are or that we used tobe, however you wanna describe it, they need
some sort of right cover story to cover theirretreat. But, but I mean, I, I don't see how
(33:07):
they make this, they continue to make this sameplay they've made for the last eight years, in
part because Trump will be leaving the scene. Sothey got, they gotta come up with somebody else
other than Trump. And there's no singular personthat they've, that they've done anything near
what they've done to Trump in terms of the hugebet they made on the demonization of him. So it
(33:28):
just seems like they're in a, they're, they're,you know, even though the, the races were
relatively close, despite the sweep, it, it justseems like they're far afield.
Hinderaker (33:40):
I think that ideological confusion, you, you don't immediately pay a price for
ideological confusion. You know, there are a lotof factors, a lot of moving parts, a lot of
historic attachment that people have to partiesand so on. But over time, I think you pay a huge
price for ideological confusion. And I thinkthat the ideological clarity that Ronald Reagan,
(34:01):
for example, brought to the Republican party,fueled the Republican party for the next, you
know, 30 or 40 years. Yeah. And I think that theideological, the, you know, not totally
different, but somewhat different ideologicalcore that Donald Trump has brought to the
Republican party is gonna fuel the Republicanparty for quite a few years to come. I, I think
at the moment, the Democrats don't really havean ideological core that is solid and that they
(34:27):
can run on, you know, not just today, but for,for cycles to come. And, but to go back to your
point about, well, what do they call it? TheDLC, the Democratic Leadership Council, right?
That got behind, that got behind Bill Clintonand so forth. I agree with you. I don't see that
moderate element anywhere in the DemocraticParty.
PROFT (34:50):
Yeah. I mean, right. I, you, you, you think about people in high profile positions,
governors and senators, and you know, they,they, they are, they've all been in lockstep
with this. I mean, I I, maybe there's somerelatively new faces like a West Moore in
Maryland, black gentlemen, military experienceunder 50. If he doesn't, you know, completely
(35:10):
behave like a Maryland Democrat, maybe somebodylike that could emerge. But, you know, you
always wanna to have an understanding of thelandscape and what your political opponents are
doing. And what they're doing right now iscompletely melting down before us.
Hinderaker (35:24):
There's a related problem they have too, Dan, which is the, the predictions they've
made and, and, and the characterizations they'vemade, right? Donald Trump, he's gonna set up
internment camps. Right, right. As if thepresident had the power to do that. I mean, it's
absurd. It's absolutely absurd. The governor ofNew York, Trump is a fascist, he's a Nazi, he's
(35:45):
a Hitler. Well, you know, it's gonna beblindingly obvious over the coming four years
that Trump is not a Nazi. He is not a Hitler,there are no internment camps. He's not
arresting journalists. I mean, all
PROFT (35:58):
These things, 20, 20, 24 wasn't gonna, is not gonna be our last election.
Hinderaker (36:03):
No. Right. Exactly. Exactly. So they're gonna be sitting there with egg on their
face looking really stupid. Well, at the sametime, in substantive policy terms, they,
they're, they're covered is really empty, youknow, other than, other than yammering endlessly
about abortion, what have they got? It's, Ithink they're, I think they, they are facing a
(36:24):
real problem.
PROFT (36:25):
What do you think about the DC Press Corps? They, their comm shop, basically because
you read the responses from the gang of 500,the, the, the New York Times and the Amazon
Post, and just like M-S-N-B-C-M-S-N-B-C-C-N-N, Imean, the responses, it is like they cut and
pasted the responses they had to trump's victoryin 2016 and reusing them in 2024.
Hinderaker (36:50):
Well, one of the things that we've seen this year, it's, it's, and it's a process,
it's been going on for the last 20 years, the,the diminution in power of what used to be
called the mainstream media, I don't call 'emthat anymore. We've had a total fragmentation of
information sources of, of, of, of mediasources. And I think one of the, one of the
takeaways from this election is that the powerof the liberal, what I call the Democratic party
(37:14):
media, was whether it's the New York Times, theWashington Post, CNN, the Associated Press, CBS
news, NBC news, the the power is gone. And thereason the power is gone is that no one takes
them seriously anymore as arbiters. No onethinks that they are neutral and objective. No
one thinks they have superior expertise. No onethinks that they have got some kind of
(37:37):
authority, right?
They are viewed as what they are advocates forthe Democratic Party and for and for liberalism,
and they're treated as such. And so, I think oneof the great things that we saw on this
election, but again, it's building on somethingthat's been going on for a long time. And you
may remember, Dan, back in 2004, my website gotkind of famous because of the role that we
(38:00):
played with respect to exposing 60 Minutes andCBS news for the lies they were propagating
about then President George W. Bush. And thatwas one of the seminal events 20 years ago that
really led to the eroding of respect for what atthat time was still regarded as, as an important
institution, you know, the mainstream media.Well now, Donald Trump could go on the Joe Rogan
(38:24):
podcast and, and actually have a conversationfor three hours where they really talk about
things and, and it turns out that that is a lotmore effective than the 15 second sentence
fragment snippets that they wanna put on CNN tomake Trump look bad. So I think this is another
area where the Democrats are just facing a, amajor, major problem. The capital that those
(38:48):
press institution institutions once had, has allbeen spent at Capital is Oli. God,
PROFT (38:56):
I I I, before I let you go, I, I, I know you're up in Minnesota, so Tuesday night was a
twofer for you. You got President Trump andRepublicans, but you're fortunate now that Tim
Walls will return and be your governor. Soyou've got that good news coming your way. Tim
Walls, what you know, as somebody who knows himintimately, because you're up there and you pay
(39:19):
attention to these things locally as well. Wereyou surprised how Tim Walls performed on the
trail? What in retrospect do you think Kamalaregrets that pick?
Hinderaker (39:29):
I have no idea what she thinks. In retrospect, she should regret it. I was a little
bit surprised. I mean, my organization has beenfollowing walls closely for six years now,
almost six years, writing extensively about his,his policies, his actions. And it was really
interesting to see how the, the, the MinnesotaPress is unbelievably quiescent. I mean, it's
(39:53):
like the national press only worse, only moreso. And it was interesting to see how when Tim
Walls got in the glare of the nationalspotlight, some things started getting attention
that had not gotten much attention in the yearshe is been in politics here in Minnesota. Things
like his military record, but, but other thingsas well. And some of the policy failures that my
(40:16):
organization has been writing about for yearsstarted getting national attention, which they
had not gotten in the past. You know, Minnesotais one of the states that people are leaving.
It's like California, it's like your state ofIllinois. It's like New York. People are not
moving into Minnesota. They're moving out ofMinnesota. And it's for the same reasons that
they're moving outta California and Illinois andNew York. Our taxes are too high, our economy is
(40:39):
more abundant. Our regulatory regime is, isunproductive. And instead of trying to make this
a better state, our government is going down theDEI route, it's going down the, the gender, you
know, route and tampon.
PROFT (40:54):
Tim, right?
Hinderaker (40:55):
Tampon Tim. Yeah, tampon Tim and Tim Walls is going to, you know, after that
performance in the vice presidential debate. Imean, it was terrible. There were moments in the
first half hour of that debate when I wasseriously starting to wonder whether Tim Walls
might flee the stage.
PROFT (41:14):
I mean, he,
Hinderaker (41:15):
He was absolutely terrified. And he's going to return to Minnesota, a wounded
politician. There had been talk about himrunning for a third term. My guess is, which you
can do in Minnesota, my guess is that's gonna beoff the table. I think he's gonna serve out the
two years he has remaining on this term, and heis gonna be departing the, the scene.
PROFT (41:38):
Well, maybe Tim and Gretchen and Kamala and Doug can spend some quality time at Lake
Wobegon in their, in their political, in theirpolitical retirement. And John Hendra, he is the
president center of the American Experimentcontributor powerline blog, powerline blog.com.
John, thank you as always for your time andinsights. Appreciate it. Good talking with you.
Hinderaker (41:59):
Great to be with you. Dan.
Please like this video and subscribe to thischannel if you haven't already. And please leave
a comment in the comment section. We'd love tohear your thoughts.
Hinderaker (00:03):
The record of the Biden Harris administration was terrible. It was terrible on
the economy. It was terrible on the cost ofliving. It was terrible on the border. You had
fiascos like the botched withdrawal fromAfghanistan, and they didn't even try to run on
that record. They knew it was bad. They, theydidn't even attempt to defend it. So the first
(00:26):
problem is they're, they're running forreelection and they don't have a record to run
on. And the second fundamental problem is thatKamala Harris was a lousy candidate. And again,
this is not a big surprise. She ran forpresident in 2020. She never got a vote.
PROFT (00:46):
Welcome to another episode of Counterculture, the show that stands, that the
intersection of reason and faith in the battleagainst sentimentality. As I argued on this
podcast for weeks, the combination of the crosstabs in the polling and the distribution of
early voting seeming to confirm the polling wasdirectionally correct. It looked like Trump was
headed for the electoral landslide that indeedcame to be in between the weeping and the
(01:12):
shrieking. The most prominent voices on the leftare offering one of three explanations. Number
one, it was all Biden's fault, and Kamala didthe best she could under the circumstances.
Number two, as former White House spokes, humanJeny said everything just somehow broke Trump's
(01:35):
way. And he is just, I'm quoting an incrediblylucky bastard. Or number three, by far the most
popular offering. The majority of Americans areafflicted by various phobias and burdened by
myriad isms. As, for example, the views SonnyHoston explained.
THE VIEW (01:57):
I'm surprised at the results, but I'm not surprised as a woman of color, I was so
hopeful that a mixed race woman married to aJewish guy, could be elected president of this
country. And I think that it had nothing to dowith policy. I think this was a referendum of
cultural resentment in this country. Well,
PROFT (02:19):
MSNBC's Joe Scarborough took it a step further, adding height to the usual suspects of
racism and transphobia.
MORNING JOE (02:26):
If she were a six foot four white man from, from Arkansas or from, you know,
Florida, and she ran a good middle of the roadcampaign talking about reaching out, do you
think she would be losing by that much? I, Ithink if she, if she could like chew tobacco and
carry a shotgun and talk about football and,and, and be a guy's guy. I mean, you tell me
PROFT (02:49):
What Hasan Scarborough and the other leftist professional pontificators know for sure
is that the GOP sweep had nothing to do withKamala and the policies of the Biden Harris
administration, knee-jerk identitarianism, notthoughtful reflection is the order of the day.
Because by all indications, the left remains arevolutionary movement for Trump. Tuesday marked
(03:11):
a restart of the counter-revolution begun in2016. Trump and Republicans have federal gov,
have the federal government and majority of thegovernors and state legislatures, the new
Bolsheviks retained control of Americans, civicand cultural institutions. So what now? It's a
big question, and to help us think about how toanswer it, we're please be joined by John
Hendrick, or President of the Center of theAmerican Experiment, and a contributor to the
(03:35):
Power Line blog, which youfind@powerlineblog.com. John, welcome. Thanks
for joining us. Appreciate it.
Hinderaker (03:42):
Glad to be with you, Dan.
PROFT (03:44):
So let's start with your summation of what you think happened on Tuesday. Why, why
Trump and Republicans were able to take controlof the presidency and the Congress?
Hinderaker (03:58):
Dan, I don't think it's hard to explain at all. The record of the Biden Harris
administration was terrible. It was terrible onthe economy. It was terrible on the cost of
living. It was terrible on the border. You hadfiasco as like the botched withdrawal from
Afghanistan, and they didn't even try to run onthat record. They knew it was bad. They, they
(04:20):
didn't even attempt to defend it. So the firstproblem is they're, they're running for
reelection and they don't have a record to runon. And the second fundamental problem is that
Kamala Harris was a lousy candidate. And again,this is not a big surprise. She ran for
president in 2020. She never got a vote. She wasoutta the race before the Iowa caucuses. You
(04:41):
know, the voters just didn't much like her. Andso I don't think it's hard to explain why Trump
won.
I think the only thing the Democrats had goingfor them, thought they had going for them was
hatred of Donald Trump. And so they devoted theentire campaign to trying to stimulate hatred
and fear of Donald Trump because it was the onlyway that they thought they could win the
(05:03):
election. And at the end of the day, a majorityof American voters rejected that attempt. They
liked Trump's policies. Some of them lovedTrump. You know, Trump's a very popular guy in
some quarters. But I think the reason why he hadthe record support from Latinos, for example,
from blacks, especially black men, increasingsupport from Asian Americans and, and record
(05:29):
support from, from Jewish Americans, is hispolicies. These are people who suffered under
the, the Biden Harris administration. And theywere looking for an alternative. And while
Kamala Harris was talking about abortion andabout, you know, joy or whatever, it's, she was
running on, Trump was talking about the issues.And so I don't think it's at all hard to explain
(05:53):
why Trump won. I think the, the Democrats triedto implement what was inherently a long shot
strategy and they couldn't make it work.
PROFT (06:01):
Well, and you know, it's interesting too 'cause we, we've talked a lot about Trump's
coalition and the improvements he made amongblack and Latino voters among Arab American
voters in Michigan as well. But there wassomething else too that runs counter to the
argument they're making now that, you know, theproblem is she was a black female and America's
(06:24):
not ready for it. Typical argument, just likeAmerica wasn't ready for a female when it
Hillary Clinton was running. And so that's theonly thing that could possibly explain her loss.
But what happened actually, when she entered therace, and there was this enthusiasm, is Donald
Trump, his, his support among older voters andwhite voters shrank. And this is why she had
(06:48):
developed a little bit of a lead in the earlydays, but then after about five or six weeks
going into late October, that had reversed.
So, you know, on the one hand you hear the SonnyHostage and the Joe Scarboroughs and all of the
other mouthpieces talking about racism andsexism. Wait a second. Those same people that
(07:08):
knew she was a black female in early Septemberwhen she got in, knew she was a black female in
late October when things started to move againsther. And so there has to be something else that
explains it. And it seems pretty obvious thatwhat explains it is the lousy candidate part, is
that, you know, her, her the turn the page, turnthe page and then interview after interview. She
(07:32):
can't answer the simple question, how would youhave done anything differently than Biden? And
how is a Kamala Harris presidency gonna be anydifferent than by g? She didn't have an answer
to the simplest of questions. That just is sortof basic. And I just think there's clearly a lot
of willful blindness on the, on, on the side of,of Kamala supporters and, and Trump haters that
(07:53):
sort of overlooks that six week interregnumbetween her entrance and election day.
Hinderaker (08:00):
Dan, you make a great point from the Democrats standpoint, of course, Kamala Harris
was a DEI candidate. Their message in large partwas vote for Kamala because she's a black woman.
So when people didn't vote for Kamala, they say,well, it must be because she was a black woman.
Right? But the reality is that they, that theysimply can't seem to acknowledge is that the
(08:22):
large majority of Americans didn't care that shewas a black woman. That's not what's important
to them. They're not racist. They're notmisogynist. They care about policies and they
care about how politicians' policies are goingto impact their lives. And what they saw of
Kamala Harris, it was not a race and sex is, yousay she started out fine, you know, when that
(08:44):
was what they knew about her. But the, the morethat Americans saw of Kamala Harris, the more
they concluded that her policies, whatever theyare, were not gonna help them.
PROFT (08:53):
Well, the other thing too is going back to the, you know, the other excuse one of the
other excuses, Biden, it's all Biden's fault.You know, the finger pointing is going on, as
you would expect. So he's being scapegoated.But, but again, so what about the enablers,
including Kamala Harris that propagated this liethat he was exacting and probing and completely
(09:15):
in command of his faculties in theadministration right up until that June debate?
So I mean, it, you know, they're, they're sortof like the enablers of an alcoholic that keep
feeding the alcoholic, you know, a alcohol andthen come and say, you know, this guy's an
alcoholic. I can't believe it. So I, that whole,that whole it's biden's fault thing. So you
wouldn't do anything different. You covered forhim for all this time, and now it's all his
(09:39):
fault that you lost.
Hinderaker (09:42):
Well, you know, the Democrats were in an impossible position. They, they ran the
risk. They knew Biden was senile, incompetentand so forth, but they thought their best shot
was to run him out there one more time. And thenwhen he virtually collapsed on the stage in
that, in that presidential debate, and if youlook at the betting odds, the betting odds went
(10:03):
to like 75% Trump. They, they realized that theyhad to make a change. But, but that put them in
this bizarre position where, where Kamala Harrisis up there saying, turn the page, turn the
page, well turn the page on what on theadministration where she served for four years
as the vice president never made any sense. Andso I think blaming Joe Biden in one sense is
(10:26):
kind of silly, but on the other hand, blamingthe fact that the Biden Harris administration
had a lousy record that she couldn't run on. Butat the same time, she couldn't run against
'cause she was the vice president. I mean, itwas kind of a hopeless situation from the
beginning, I think.
PROFT (10:44):
Yeah, I mean, I think, I think one of the things that comes across is that the campaign
was predicated on a fraud, the covering forBiden. Yeah. And, and, and, you know, and the
entire presentation of it in terms of what thevalue prop was, that was a fraud too. I mean,
it's just, you know, we're not getting anythingstraight from this person. She is just, you
know, every, every utterance is a prevaricationof one form or another.
Hinderaker (11:08):
Well, that's exactly right. And to make it worse, somebody, I think it was somebody
at Axios actually who referred to her as the nocomment candidate, you know, time after time.
She wouldn't even say what her position on anissue was. It was like, it was a secret. And,
and, and, and if there was any hope of hermarking out an identity that was different from
(11:31):
Joe Biden's different from the failures of the,of the Biden Aires administration, she had to
articulate positions that in some ways weregonna be different, we're going to be new. And
she was either unable or unwilling to do that.
PROFT (11:46):
Well, and the great irony is, of course, you mentioned the betting markets after the June
debate going to 75% for Trump, you know, by, byby Tuesday they were pretty close, some of them
to 75% for Trump too. I mean, this was, yeah,not un this was not unforeseen. And they ended
up sort of being hoist by their own patar, notjust the covering for Biden compounding the
(12:08):
mistake by installing Kamala and then runningthe kind of campaign they did. I, I wonder if
you think, you know, as some are saying perhaps,hopefully that not Trump has dispatched all of
these political dyna of both parties, Clinton,Bush, Obama, Biden, they're all yesterday's news
(12:31):
now.
Hinderaker (12:34):
Well, I think that's right. And fortunately Trump is in a position where he is
gonna be able to get some things done. I thinkwe're gonna see a whirlwind of activity in the
first two or three months of the, of thisadministration. He's gonna have a working
majority in the house. I think that's whateverybody is predicting. He's gonna have 53 or
54 votes in the Senate. All of his appointmentsare gonna sail through. And I think we're gonna
(12:59):
see some very serious legislation coming in inthe first couple of months. And I think we're
gonna see some rapid action on things likeimmigration voters wanna see the border closed.
Well, there are things that Trump can do in hisfirst week in office to move toward closing the
border. And so I think we're gonna see some,some very strong activity. And I think we're
(13:20):
gonna be in a situation where the Democrats arenot gonna be able to block most of what Trump
and the Republicans wanna do. And, and so we'llsee what happens. I think most voters are gonna
like what they see. I I think most voters aregonna like the consequences of the policies the
Republicans are gonna put into effect. And we'llsee what happens
PROFT (13:42):
On the issue of what they will call retribution, what you or I might call
accountability. What do you think Trump'sposture should be going with respect to the Jack
Smiths of the world with Res and well, let's bespecific with respect to Jack Smith and Alvin
Bragg and, and, and, and Judge Merchant in theManhattan Business Records case and Letitia
(14:06):
James and Judge Erwan in the Trump organizationcase and Fanny Willis and the I and, and the IRS
and the FBI per the IRS investigation of HunterBiden. And the, what the whistleblowers IRS
whistleblowers have said, how, how should Trumpdeal with that? Does he just move quickly to get
an Attorney general in charge and leave thatperson to his own devices, sort of knowing what
(14:29):
they will do, wash his hands of it, and focus onthe border and focus on Elon Musk's Efficiency
Commission and so forth to reduce federalspending? You know, how, how, how, you know,
what's your recommendation or feel for how he'sgoing to sort of manage these competing
interests that all have to be dealt withessentially simultaneously?
Hinderaker (14:51):
I think he should move on. It's already being reported that Jack Smith is gonna
go out of business, that he is gonna dismissthose two absurd criminal prosecutions, which
are on life support anyway. There isn't reallymuch that Trump can do about state prosecutions,
and I don't think there's much that he shoulddo. There are news reports that the judge, I
forget his name, that that presided over theridiculous, you know, stormy Daniels
(15:13):
prosecution, which is
PROFT (15:15):
Merchant. Yeah.
Hinderaker (15:16):
He, he's the guy that in my opinion, should, should go to prison. Well, Alvin Bragg,
you know, the DA that brought it, I mean, ifthere was real accountability, Alvin Brag ought
to be wearing an orange jumpsuit, you know, inmy view. But, but Trump can't really make those
things happen. And, and, and I think that, thatthose das law enforcement people are gonna be
backing off. They can't do anything while Trumpis in office. You know, four years are gonna go
(15:40):
by, he'll be 82 years old. There's gonna be noappetite to try to resurrect those cases in four
years. But I do think where, where, wherefederal agencies are involved, I mean, Trump
needs to reform the leadership of the FBI andthe CIA and the IRS and he should make no bones
about that. You know, he should appoint a newFBI director, he should appoint an Attorney
(16:03):
General. Obviously he should appoint a new CIAdirector and they should have a clear mandate to
clean up the leadership of those agencies. Idon't think there's a big problem with the rank
and file agents of the FBI or the rank and fileagents in the ccia A but there's a huge problem
in the leadership of, of both of those agencies.And Trump has gotta clean it up.
PROFT (16:25):
And, and, and with respect to some of the personnel you'd like to see around Trump,
because this is gonna be the leading indicatorthat Trump has, as has been sort of suggested
that he's learned the lessons he suggestedhimself. Some of the appointments I made weren't
so good. That's about as much of a, an admissionof a mistake as you'll get from Trump. Yeah. And
so, so I, I wonder, I wonder when you're talkingabout these sensitive positions, attorney
(16:50):
general, FBI, director, CIA director, DHS,Homeland Security Director, you know, what, who
are you, who are the types of people, secretaryof State, who are the types of people you're
looking for that, you know, some of whom arebeing rumored right now to indicate that Trump
really has learned the lessons and this is goingto be, you know, basically an ass kicking
(17:12):
administration when it comes to the way thingshave always been done in Washington?
Hinderaker (17:17):
Well, I, I have not seen extensive lists of names. I've seen some on the list that
I've seen have been very good. You know, we'llsee who he actually appoints. But I like the
fact that he surrounded himself with people likeElon Musk and Tulsi Gabbard, you know, and some
of the others. I'm not so crazy about RFK Jr.But in general, I think he surrounded himself
(17:38):
with very good, very strong people from, fromdifferent elements of the Republican party, not
always from the Republican party at all. And,and, you know, we'll just have to see who he
pick for some of these positions. For example,I've heard no speculation at all about FBI
director, have you?
PROFT (17:56):
Not, not much. No. It's been, you know, it's, it's, I've heard Rubio for Secretary of
State and people like Mike Lee for ag, JohnRadcliff for ag, but, but FBI director, it has
been sort of quiet who that person may be. Butyou're, but I mean, I'm in complete agreement. I
mean, Christopher Ray has to be one of thosegone day one. Don't make the same mistake you
(18:17):
made with Comey.
Hinderaker (18:19):
Yeah, right, exactly. I'm a huge fan of Marco Rubio. I'd love to see him as Secretary
of State. I also love to see him in the Senate.And so I have mixed feelings about pulling
people out of those important positions to put'em into the administration. Tom Cotton, who's a
friend of mine, I noticed has publicly said thathe's not looking for a position in the
administration. I know some people havespeculated about Tom as a possible CIA director.
(18:42):
I think there are people inside the CIA whowould love to see that, but I think he's taken
himself out of, out of that contention and wantsto stay in the Senate instead. So we'll see us
sorting out over the next month or two of, of,of where people come to rest. But the big
difference, I think, Dan, is that this timearound Trump is really prepared what he wanted
(19:02):
in 2016.
I don't think he expected to win. He, you know,he did not have a good transition in place. He
did not have a lot of ideas about, aboutnominations. What he did know was that he didn't
want to do what usually happens that is recycleall the old Bush people. Right? That would be
the normal thing is you'd staff youradministration with the leftovers from the last
(19:24):
Republican or the last DemocraticAdministration. He didn't wanna do that. And of
course, not having been a, a lifetimepolitician, he didn't have a big band of
followers, you know, ready to plug into thesepositions. I think the second time around, he's
much better prepared. He expected to win. Heunderstands what it takes to staff, an
(19:44):
administration. He, he just knows a lot morepeople now. And I think we are gonna be
pleasantly surprised. I think we're gonna likewhat we see as he fills out the, as he fills out
the, the administration.
PROFT (19:56):
Well, one of the lessons learned from the first term is, you know, he didn't wanna do the
bush holdovers, the bush holdovers. You didn'thave to bring 'em in. They were already there.
You know, they, they never left. I mean, that,that was part of the problem, an understanding
of the layers of bureaucracy and connectionsthat persist regardless of who, who's present.
And I think, you know, it seems to me, and andHoward Lutnick has that from Cantor Fitzgerald,
(20:18):
who's chaired his transition team seems tounderstand that too. No, we're no corporate
lobbyists are on the transition team. You know,you, you, he's bringing people that, that either
share or are gaining his understanding of howyou have to look at these federal agencies,
almost like layer by layer and perhaps, and Ihope conceiving about how to greatly reduce the
(20:42):
footprint of most of those agencies.
Hinderaker (20:44):
Well, Dan, one of the big problems that Republican presidents have is that, is
that, well, theoretically they run the executivebranch constitutionally. They are the executive
branch. The reality is that they can onlyappoint, what is it, the first three levels of
every, every cabinet department, of everyagency. And everything below that is civil
service. But what that means realistically, andyou just see, by the way, I think, I think
(21:09):
District of Columbia voted what, 92%, 93% forKamala Harris. This is enemy territory. And so
realistically, these agencies are staffed byliberal democrats. That's the vast majority of
the civil service component of the body of allof these agencies. And so for a Republican
(21:29):
president to actually be able to run theexecutive branch is a, is a big challenge. And
it's not one that I'm sure any recent Republicanpresident has really managed to overcome.
So, so for example, how does Donald Trump reallyget his policies implemented by the
Environmental Protection Agency when everymember of that agency below the, the, the high
(21:54):
level of his appointees is aligned in theopposite direction. The Department of Justice,
the Civil Rights Division of the Department ofJustice, by Rights, they ought to just fire the
entire division. Right? They, they ought to justclean house and start over from scratch. But he
can't do that. He, he, he can only replace the,the, the top levels of the, of the bureaucracy.
So I think one of the, the, the things that,that will play out kind of beneath the surface
(22:19):
over the next four years of the Trumpadministration is this internal warfare against
the bureaucrats against the deep state. Youknow, call it what you will, is Trump really
going to be able to get the policies out of theexecutive branch that he, that he wants,
PROFT (22:34):
Right? I mean, well, I mean, the Chevron decision last term from the Supreme Court helps
in terms of defanging, some of these agenciesoperating sort of independently of any
accountability. That's number one. Number two,the one of the tests it seems to me will be if
he and Musk or whoever else can Paulson, maybecan figure a way to just reduce the size of the
(22:57):
agencies by reducing headcount. I mean doessentially what must did at Twitter is do a
reduction in force of 20, 30, 40% across theboard in particular agencies or maybe
synchronize it so it doesn't become, you know,something you have to spend a ton of political
capital on. And that's one of the otherquestions too. I mean, these are the judgment
calls he has to make is where do I wanna spendpolitical capital knowing that everything I do
(23:20):
is gonna come with the hysteria of the left,right?
So I can't let that drive my decision making.But all these appointments we're talking about
and the policies that need to be advanced posthaste, like border security. But at the same
time, he's made promises about, for example,January 6th, people convicted of crimes on
January 6th, nonviolent crimes that are servingprison time. He's basically called them
(23:44):
political prisoners, basically set 'em in acommute of their sentences at minimum, if not
pardon them. You know, is that something you,you do out of the gate too and risk getting
sidetracked? I mean, I think it's the rightthing to do because these people are, are in
jail and they shouldn't be. But, but, but, butyou know, there's a political cost to pay to do
that when you're also trying to do a massdeportation and you're trying to extend the tax
(24:07):
cuts and you're trying to reduce the size ofgovernment.
Hinderaker (24:10):
Well, Dan, I agree with you that a lot of the, the J six protesters don't belong in
jail. A lot of 'em were held in jail for a longtime before trial. How'd that happen? You know,
but I would not make that an early priority. TheDemocrats have made hay out of the January 6th
protest for going on four years now. They'vegiven it way more attention than it deserves. I
(24:36):
I keep asking when are people gonna be upsetabout the fact that the Democrats occupied the
state capital of Wisconsin for six months? Wehear all this nonsense about the sacred capital
and the attack on the capitol. The Democratsliterally occupied the capital of, of Wisconsin
for six months. And as far as I could tell, theypaid zero political price. But I think that for
(25:01):
political reasons, he should let that one goearly in his administration at some point. I
don't think it's a pardon, I think it's acommutation or maybe a very selective pardon,
you know, but I don't think he should prioritizethat, because I do think that that feeds the
flames without any real payoff for himpolitically
PROFT (25:20):
Be because of the, the nature of the victory, you know, the electoral landslide and
bringing, helping to bring some senators acrossthe finish line too, in addition to house
members and, and just the popular revolt thathis reelection represents. I mean, do you see
him having problems in his own party the waythat he had when he took office in 2017,
(25:42):
including with the speaker at the time, PaulRyan, which is why they couldn't move and didn't
move as fast on border security as theyotherwise could have? I mean, do you see any,
any stumbling blocks for him? I mean, not theone off two, you know, one or two off Senator
like Collins or Murkowski, but like a leadershipproblem with whoever the Senate majority leader
is or, or any problems with leadership in thehouse?
Hinderaker (26:03):
I see no problems at all. The Republican party has been transformed. Obviously
we got Mike Johnson in the house. I think he'sdoing a terrific job. A hundred percent aligned
with Trump. I think John Thune is probably gonnabe the majority leader in the senate. Thune is a
very conservative guy. He, you know, he predatesTrump. You don't think of him as a, as a big
Trump acolyte certainly. But he is gonna becompletely aligned, I think, with the policy
(26:27):
agenda. And I think they're gonna have at least53 votes that might have 54. So the, the Lisa
Murkowski, you know, is not gonna be able todemand to get her way at, at, at, at critical
points. I'm very optimistic, Dan. I mean, knockon wood, I, I've been wrong before, but I'm very
optimistic that we are gonna see a coordinatedapproach that the, that that the Trump
(26:51):
administration, the Republican House, theRepublican Senate are gonna be closely aligned.
They're gonna understand the importance ofgetting important and popular things done in the
first 90 days. I think we're gonna see somereally productive activity in Washington, and I
think the voters are gonna like it.
PROFT (27:09):
What do you expect from the other side? When we started talking about the, the excuses
that they're making, I mean, they continue tosort of alternatively patronize Americans or
excoriate them. That's the only way they seem toknow how to interact with other human beings.
They're either pandering to you or they'retelling you how disappointing you are to them.
(27:30):
But I, and, and some people have suggested,well, this is gonna be, you know, hearkening
back to, to, to to to, to the bush years after88. This is gonna be like A-A-A-D-L-C redux
that, that brought Clinton to the fore. You'regonna have to find whatever moderates exist in
that party, and you're gonna have to put themforward. You're gonna have to sort of represent
(27:54):
your brand and your case to the American people.And that, that's an easy thing to say. But you
look around that party, old guard, new guard,and you just don't see who those voices exactly
are and how you would move the, where thecritical masses, which is Bolshevik, is how you
just move these people out of the way,particularly when they're out continuing to
(28:20):
prosecute the Identitarian case.
As you've heard the last 48 hours,
Hinderaker (28:25):
Dan, the Democratic party has a huge identity problem. They, they've gotta decide
what does it mean to be a Democrat. And inrecent years, the predominant answer has been
neo Marxism. It's been a Marxism based on racialand sexual identity as opposed to a class
identity. And it's failed. DEI is unpopular withthe American people. The American people believe
(28:48):
in merit. They don't like race discrimination,they don't like sex discrimination. That
neo-Marxist approach is, is unpopular. It is notgoing to succeed. Well, if you put that to the
side, what else does the Democratic party standfor? Well, it stands for abortion. And that's
almost the only issue that in the last twocycles the Democrats have really wanted to talk
(29:09):
about. There's a reason why Kamala Harriscouldn't answer simple questions about what is
your position on issue X? Issue y, issue Z thedemocrats are, are kinda left without a clear
policy agenda.
Socialism, you know, they have generally, theygot a socialist wing, a OC, and some of these
(29:30):
people will admit the Democratic Socialists ofAmerica socialism has failed and been repudiated
all across the world. And as the Democrats haveevolved toward being an upper class party,
instead of a working class party or, you know,traditional socialism, socialism has got zero
appeal. Right? And so what exactly does theDemocratic party stand for at the moment? It
(29:53):
basically stands for two things. Number one,abortion and number two not being Republicans.
Right? And so, and so their, their campaign in2024 basically was all about trying to stimulate
hatred of Republicans. Republicans are fascists,you know, they're Hitler, you know, they're
dictators. Well, that's ridiculous. You know,these false accusations are not the substance of
(30:17):
a major political party. So I think theDemocrats are in a very tough corner, and
they've got to come up with a way to define anew identity, which is not neo-Marxist, which is
not merely identitarian. And and to the extentthat there are populist economic themes that
they could seize on Trump has kind of beatenthem to those themes. Right. I i, I really am
(30:42):
not sure where the Democrats go at this point.
PROFT (30:46):
It'll be really interesting to see if you have some aspirant to the White House on the
Democrat side, you know, some governor or, orbig city mayor, maybe Eric Adams. Although, I
mean, not that he's necessarily aspirant intothe White House when he is under indictment at
present, but, but, but some, somewheresomebody's gonna say, you know what? I need to
(31:06):
break from even perhaps the positions I've heldup until this point, the way that Kamala did out
of necessity. And they're gonna say, we need toend our sanctuary city designation or our
sanctuary state designation. 'cause I, I just, Ineed to find some room here to separate myself
from the gaggle. And, and, and, and this iswhere the market opportunity lies. I mean, you
(31:29):
know, or, or maybe something with on, on trans,like men in girls sports, but it just seems
there's that there's this open space for someDemocrat to occupy if they have the political
courage to suffer the slings and arrows of theirbase.
Hinderaker (31:46):
Well, we've seen some of that, Dan, we've seen it especially on crime, right. And
California, they passed the new proposition thatbasically repeals the old proposition. Yeah. And
politicians like Gavin Newsom are now saying,yeah, we have to arrest criminals after all.
And, and they're all denying that they eversupported the defund the police movement. Right?
So we've seen that kind of walking back on, oncrime, but that, that is probably necessary for
(32:13):
the Democrats, but it certainly is not enough.They're never gonna be more ProLaw enforcement
than the Republicans. Right? Right. And, andit's the same thing with immigration. They are
never gonna be defined as the anti-illegalimmigration party. And, and they really can't
come out and say, you know what? The Republicanswere right all along on crime, or the
Republicans were right all along on illegalimmigration. These are gonna be more sort of
(32:36):
quiet walk backs, but I don't see how they canever become really the, the definition of the
Democratic party,
PROFT (32:44):
Or they have to find a way to get some sort of compromise legislation that they can
live with and be a part of that, that may, thatRepublicans may initiate. Right. And so they
say, look, we're, we're, you know, beingconstructive and we're not the open borders
crazies that you think we are or that we used tobe, however you wanna describe it, they need
some sort of right cover story to cover theirretreat. But, but I mean, I, I don't see how
(33:07):
they make this, they continue to make this sameplay they've made for the last eight years, in
part because Trump will be leaving the scene. Sothey got, they gotta come up with somebody else
other than Trump. And there's no singular personthat they've, that they've done anything near
what they've done to Trump in terms of the hugebet they made on the demonization of him. So it
(33:28):
just seems like they're in a, they're, they're,you know, even though the, the races were
relatively close, despite the sweep, it, it justseems like they're far afield.
Hinderaker (33:40):
I think that ideological confusion, you, you don't immediately pay a price for
ideological confusion. You know, there are a lotof factors, a lot of moving parts, a lot of
historic attachment that people have to partiesand so on. But over time, I think you pay a huge
price for ideological confusion. And I thinkthat the ideological clarity that Ronald Reagan,
(34:01):
for example, brought to the Republican party,fueled the Republican party for the next, you
know, 30 or 40 years. Yeah. And I think that theideological, the, you know, not totally
different, but somewhat different ideologicalcore that Donald Trump has brought to the
Republican party is gonna fuel the Republicanparty for quite a few years to come. I, I think
at the moment, the Democrats don't really havean ideological core that is solid and that they
(34:27):
can run on, you know, not just today, but for,for cycles to come. And, but to go back to your
point about, well, what do they call it? TheDLC, the Democratic Leadership Council, right?
That got behind, that got behind Bill Clintonand so forth. I agree with you. I don't see that
moderate element anywhere in the DemocraticParty.
PROFT (34:50):
Yeah. I mean, right. I, you, you, you think about people in high profile positions,
governors and senators, and you know, they,they, they are, they've all been in lockstep
with this. I mean, I I, maybe there's somerelatively new faces like a West Moore in
Maryland, black gentlemen, military experienceunder 50. If he doesn't, you know, completely
(35:10):
behave like a Maryland Democrat, maybe somebodylike that could emerge. But, you know, you
always wanna to have an understanding of thelandscape and what your political opponents are
doing. And what they're doing right now iscompletely melting down before us.
Hinderaker (35:24):
There's a related problem they have too, Dan, which is the, the predictions they've
made and, and, and the characterizations they'vemade, right? Donald Trump, he's gonna set up
internment camps. Right, right. As if thepresident had the power to do that. I mean, it's
absurd. It's absolutely absurd. The governor ofNew York, Trump is a fascist, he's a Nazi, he's
(35:45):
a Hitler. Well, you know, it's gonna beblindingly obvious over the coming four years
that Trump is not a Nazi. He is not a Hitler,there are no internment camps. He's not
arresting journalists. I mean, all
PROFT (35:58):
These things, 20, 20, 24 wasn't gonna, is not gonna be our last election.
Hinderaker (36:03):
No. Right. Exactly. Exactly. So they're gonna be sitting there with egg on their
face looking really stupid. Well, at the sametime, in substantive policy terms, they,
they're, they're covered is really empty, youknow, other than, other than yammering endlessly
about abortion, what have they got? It's, Ithink they're, I think they, they are facing a
(36:24):
real problem.
PROFT (36:25):
What do you think about the DC Press Corps? They, their comm shop, basically because
you read the responses from the gang of 500,the, the, the New York Times and the Amazon
Post, and just like M-S-N-B-C-M-S-N-B-C-C-N-N, Imean, the responses, it is like they cut and
pasted the responses they had to trump's victoryin 2016 and reusing them in 2024.
Hinderaker (36:50):
Well, one of the things that we've seen this year, it's, it's, and it's a process,
it's been going on for the last 20 years, the,the diminution in power of what used to be
called the mainstream media, I don't call 'emthat anymore. We've had a total fragmentation of
information sources of, of, of, of mediasources. And I think one of the, one of the
takeaways from this election is that the powerof the liberal, what I call the Democratic party
(37:14):
media, was whether it's the New York Times, theWashington Post, CNN, the Associated Press, CBS
news, NBC news, the the power is gone. And thereason the power is gone is that no one takes
them seriously anymore as arbiters. No onethinks that they are neutral and objective. No
one thinks they have superior expertise. No onethinks that they have got some kind of
(37:37):
authority, right?
They are viewed as what they are advocates forthe Democratic Party and for and for liberalism,
and they're treated as such. And so, I think oneof the great things that we saw on this
election, but again, it's building on somethingthat's been going on for a long time. And you
may remember, Dan, back in 2004, my website gotkind of famous because of the role that we
(38:00):
played with respect to exposing 60 Minutes andCBS news for the lies they were propagating
about then President George W. Bush. And thatwas one of the seminal events 20 years ago that
really led to the eroding of respect for what atthat time was still regarded as, as an important
institution, you know, the mainstream media.Well now, Donald Trump could go on the Joe Rogan
(38:24):
podcast and, and actually have a conversationfor three hours where they really talk about
things and, and it turns out that that is a lotmore effective than the 15 second sentence
fragment snippets that they wanna put on CNN tomake Trump look bad. So I think this is another
area where the Democrats are just facing a, amajor, major problem. The capital that those
(38:48):
press institution institutions once had, has allbeen spent at Capital is Oli. God,
PROFT (38:56):
I I I, before I let you go, I, I, I know you're up in Minnesota, so Tuesday night was a
twofer for you. You got President Trump andRepublicans, but you're fortunate now that Tim
Walls will return and be your governor. Soyou've got that good news coming your way. Tim
Walls, what you know, as somebody who knows himintimately, because you're up there and you pay
(39:19):
attention to these things locally as well. Wereyou surprised how Tim Walls performed on the
trail? What in retrospect do you think Kamalaregrets that pick?
Hinderaker (39:29):
I have no idea what she thinks. In retrospect, she should regret it. I was a little
bit surprised. I mean, my organization has beenfollowing walls closely for six years now,
almost six years, writing extensively about his,his policies, his actions. And it was really
interesting to see how the, the, the MinnesotaPress is unbelievably quiescent. I mean, it's
(39:53):
like the national press only worse, only moreso. And it was interesting to see how when Tim
Walls got in the glare of the nationalspotlight, some things started getting attention
that had not gotten much attention in the yearshe is been in politics here in Minnesota. Things
like his military record, but, but other thingsas well. And some of the policy failures that my
(40:16):
organization has been writing about for yearsstarted getting national attention, which they
had not gotten in the past. You know, Minnesotais one of the states that people are leaving.
It's like California, it's like your state ofIllinois. It's like New York. People are not
moving into Minnesota. They're moving out ofMinnesota. And it's for the same reasons that
they're moving outta California and Illinois andNew York. Our taxes are too high, our economy is
(40:39):
more abundant. Our regulatory regime is, isunproductive. And instead of trying to make this
a better state, our government is going down theDEI route, it's going down the, the gender, you
know, route and tampon.
PROFT (40:54):
Tim, right?
Hinderaker (40:55):
Tampon Tim. Yeah, tampon Tim and Tim Walls is going to, you know, after that
performance in the vice presidential debate. Imean, it was terrible. There were moments in the
first half hour of that debate when I wasseriously starting to wonder whether Tim Walls
might flee the stage.
PROFT (41:14):
I mean, he,
Hinderaker (41:15):
He was absolutely terrified. And he's going to return to Minnesota, a wounded
politician. There had been talk about himrunning for a third term. My guess is, which you
can do in Minnesota, my guess is that's gonna beoff the table. I think he's gonna serve out the
two years he has remaining on this term, and heis gonna be departing the, the scene.
PROFT (41:38):
Well, maybe Tim and Gretchen and Kamala and Doug can spend some quality time at Lake
Wobegon in their, in their political, in theirpolitical retirement. And John Hendra, he is the
president center of the American Experimentcontributor powerline blog, powerline blog.com.
John, thank you as always for your time andinsights. Appreciate it. Good talking with you.
Hinderaker (41:59):
Great to be with you. Dan.
Please like this video and subscribe to thischannel if you haven't already. And please leave
a comment in the comment section. We'd love tohear your thoughts.
Popular Podcasts
Boysober
Have you ever wondered what life might be like if you stopped worrying about being wanted, and focused on understanding what you actually want? That was the question Hope Woodard asked herself after a string of situationships inspired her to take a break from sex and dating. She went "boysober," a personal concept that sparked a global movement among women looking to prioritize themselves over men. Now, Hope is looking to expand the ways we explore our relationship to relationships. Taking a bold, unfiltered look into modern love, romance, and self-discovery, Boysober will dive into messy stories about dating, sex, love, friendship, and breaking generational patterns—all with humor, vulnerability, and a fresh perspective.
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