July 1, 2025 • 40 mins
Former Ambassador John Gunderson shares his unique perspective on American foreign policy and the upcoming 2024 presidential election based on his service across eleven presidential administrations. Drawing from his experiences in Vietnam, as a federal air marshal, and as Ambassador to Ukraine, he offers a candid assessment of leadership, patriotism, and America's role in the world.
• Gunderson's background includes military service in Vietnam, counterterrorism work, and diplomatic posts including Ambassador to Ukraine
• How his time in Vietnam shaped his understanding of when America should and shouldn't intervene militarily abroad
• The clear distinction between supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression versus more ambiguous conflicts like Vietnam and Iraq
• Why maintaining international norms against unprovoked invasions matters to American interests
• Concerns about Donald Trump's leadership style and fitness for office from a lifelong Republican perspective
• The importance of leaders who build alliances, demonstrate loyalty, and appeal to "the better angels of our nature"
• Why voters should consider character, competence, and consistency when evaluating presidential candidates
Everyone should vote based on what represents the best of America: rule of law, caring for neighbors, maintaining alliances, and recognizing we're all Americans even when we disagree.
Spotify
Apple podcasts
Amazon Music
all other streaming services
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:08):
you're tuned in to another episode of tales from
the first tee.
I'm rich easton telling talesfrom beautiful charleston, south
carolina.
Welcome back.
(00:29):
This is episode 125.
Over the past three years,tales has been downloaded in 73
countries over six continentsand 1,320 different cities
worldwide.
Most of the episodes, with theexception of this one, pertain
to golf, golfer stories andcelebrity fitness.
(00:52):
With my college buddy, joshSalzman, I like to deviate at
times when I find someoneinteresting or a story that
catches my attention, as farfrom golf as climbing Mount
Everest.
Over the years I've beeninvited to join a diverse group
(01:13):
of men that share cocktailswhile embellishing on personal
anecdotes at the storied COVIDcabana.
Most every time I attend I seethis gentleman, john Gunderson,
a next-door neighbor to theThatched Hut and a mixologist of
the famous Long Island iced tea.
(01:35):
The more I spoke to John, themore I wanted to air his various
points of view on serving theUnited States on this podcast.
I knew it was a departure fromgolf, but I like the discussions
.
John served in Vietnam, workedas a federal air marshal and
(01:56):
served in the Foreign Serviceunder multiple presidents
Republican and Democrats,republican and Democrats.
He was an ambassador to Ukraineand has been a local source of
information and intelligence fornews sources and local schools
teaching our future leaders onthe history of Ukraine and
(02:18):
Russia.
He's informed world leaders onhis points of view and was
gracious enough to allow me thetime to pick his brain.
Over the last several months,john and I encountered each
other while walking our dogs onone of the local beaches in
(02:38):
Charleston and he shared hisinterest in getting his voice
out to voters before the 2024presidential election.
So we sat down the other nightand well, the following 40
minutes cover most of what wespoke about.
If you love, hate or areindifferent to any of the
(03:02):
presidential candidates, youmight find John's point of view
aligned with yours or counter.
His years of service in thearmed forces and foreign service
legitimize his point of viewand gives him permission to
voice an experienced point ofview.
We should all have permissionto voice our point of view.
(03:25):
I mean remember a time when welistened to the points of views
of those that didn't align withour own, but had the dignity to
respect the sacrifices of thosewho went before us and respected
their points of view, becausemaybe the history that they had
(03:45):
gave them more information onwhat would be best for the
country.
So I say, hear them out andformulate your own opinion, but
whatever you do, vote.
It's a right that we enjoy inthe United States.
(04:18):
Okay, first of all, thisconversation at least for the
podcast, is a long time coming.
You and I have talked aboutdoing this several times.
We've met on the beach, we'vetalked to each other at your
house and I kind of liked youridea.
Before I get into kind of amessage that you have that you'd
like to speak to and it has todo with the upcoming election,
(04:41):
I'd like to at least ask you afew questions so that the
listeners kind of understandyour background, how you got
things that you did in yourcareer, things like that.
You're raised in SouthHempstead, long Island, not to
be confused with South Hampton.
Speaker 2 (04:55):
Actually, if I could correct, it's West Hempstead.
Oh West Hempstead right, whichis more or less the same.
Speaker 1 (05:01):
More or less the same , but not the home of the rich
and famous.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
No, we're the aspiring working middle class
Okay great, that's how youstarted.
Speaker 1 (05:12):
You lifeguarded at Jones Beach.
Speaker 2 (05:15):
Yes, jones Beach was a place where lifeguards had a
good thing.
It was very tough training wehave to pass tests and using
whale boats and swimming andmost of the lifeguards were
probably in their late 20s.
A lot of them were teachers andpeople who worked regular jobs
and then in the summer theyworked at Jones Beach.
And I think those are the yearsyou remember because you were
(05:40):
carefree.
You're on the beach, you'reliving the lifestyle and I had
made some good friends there.
Speaker 1 (05:46):
But now you're a family man with a lovely wife
and three very self-sufficientadult boys.
I want you to talk a little bitabout how you met Ike, your
wife, and how do you raise afamily to be curious about
experience in the world andtraveling the world, because I
know everybody in your familytravels the world.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
Well, first of all I was a long-time bachelor.
I waited until my 40s and I wastraveling the world.
I worked with the Army StateDepartment.
I was a counterterrorism, soyou know I had a lot of nice
female companionship, but Iwould always move.
But at a certain time in yourlife you realize there's more to
(06:29):
life than just being a bachelorand working hard.
So I was in Frankfurt, germany,and I was working, actually in
a classified job.
I was the head of acounterterrorism unit that
operated in Europe and theMiddle East.
So I was head of an interagencygroup which included
(06:49):
intelligence, military, and wewould fly into places and advise
governments on counterterrorism.
And Eike, my wife, who's German,was working at the US consulate
in Frankfurt and we had ourplane there in Frankfurt.
So the only one I could informwas the council general, the
(07:10):
head of the mission, and I wouldgo in there once or twice a
week and go by this veryattractive young lady who was
sitting outside the consulate'soffice.
Her name was Eike Rautzus and Iwould find excuses to brief the
Counsel General and I wastrying to make myself known.
She sort of ignored my advancesfor a while, but I'm very
(07:31):
persistent and so we startedgoing out.
This was a fascinating timebecause it was 1990, the Berlin
Wall had fallen apart, eastGermany was opening up.
So what we did every day, everytime we'd go on a weekend, we'd
go to East Germany, we'd go toCzechoslovakia it was known as
(07:53):
Czechoslovakia then, so it was agood time.
And well, we fell in love and Iwas going and they wanted me to
go to Kiev or Kyiv to open upour mission in Ukraine.
And you know, I invited her tocome to visit me there.
And anyone stupid enough to goto Ukraine was a keeper and
(08:13):
smart enough, and that was Ike.
Speaker 1 (08:16):
How did the US government feel about you dating
her?
Were there any restrictionsthere, any conflicts of interest
?
Speaker 2 (08:22):
Interesting.
Yes, because she was a foreignnational, which is okay,
especially a NATO member, butshe had a lot of relatives, east
German.
So it was just in the cusp atthe end of the Cold War, but you
still had the suspicions aboutthe East Germans.
And when I was about to getmarried but you still have the
(08:43):
suspicions about the EastGermans.
And when I was about to getmarried, I was in Ukraine and we
were building up our missionthere.
Ukraine was moving towardsindependence and a real key time
was when the President of theUnited States, bush, sr HW Bush,
was going to go to Ukraine todetermine what we were going to
do and I was his host as CounselGeneral and I wanted to marry
(09:06):
Ike beforehand and they told meit would take six months to
marry her before all theclearances.
This is the security people.
And I said in a cable, in amessage I said well, if you want
me to meet the President of theUnited States with my
girlfriend at the time, notmarried you'll just hold up the
(09:31):
clearance, but I would adviseyou to keep clearance.
So I have an honest woman nextto me when I meet the President
of the United States.
That's a good play, and theyrelented reluctantly.
Speaker 1 (09:42):
Yeah.
So then we're going to get backa little bit to some of the
things you did for the UnitedStates with Ukraine.
But I just want to skip to yourboys.
Did you raise them out of theUnited States or in the Virginia
area?
Speaker 2 (09:58):
Well, we lived in various places.
One was born in well I wouldsay conceived in Ukraine, born
in Germany because you didn'twant to have a baby in Ukraine
at the time in its medicalfacilities.
And another one was born inVirginia.
One was born in Florida when Iwas advisor to the Special
(10:19):
Operations Command.
So we traveled and as we wereyoung they traveled with us and
you know I traveled to Iceland,estonia, ukraine and then Norway
, and all three of them went toschool as kids in Norway, to a
German school actually, and sothey were used to that.
And then when we came to theStates, when they were eight,
(10:43):
nine, ten years old, we wanted astable life because we had
moved so much and we owed thatto the kids.
So I stayed in the States, butwe went to a very international
public school in NorthernVirginia.
They had friends from all overthe world, so that was part of
their DNA.
Speaker 1 (11:00):
And so they got a taste of traveling the world.
I think I met one of your boysthat I was here for Thanksgiving
, and I think the next day hehad a one-way ticket to Thailand
.
Speaker 2 (11:13):
Yeah, right.
Speaker 1 (11:14):
So my nephew did the same thing.
I'm glad the generation gets todo that now.
Speaker 2 (11:20):
When COVID happened, they all had to come back to the
States.
One was in Argentina, one wasin Morocco and one was in
Scotland.
Speaker 1 (11:32):
Nice.
So let's go back to you.
After high school, you servedin Vietnam.
Speaker 2 (11:37):
After college.
Speaker 1 (11:38):
After college.
How did that come about?
You served in Vietnam Aftercollege.
Speaker 2 (11:41):
After college.
How did that come about?
Well, I graduated in 66, andthe draft was blown hard and I
was going to be drafted.
So I decided to enlist.
And I enlisted first with theArmy Security Agency.
Then I went through basictraining and I did okay on my
(12:02):
physical tests and mental andsaid do you want to do something
really stupid?
I said, sure, I'd like to dothat.
And so how do you like to dosome special operations?
So that's what I did.
I went to OCS Officer CannaeSchool.
I was trained in Vietnamese foralmost a year to work with the
Vietnamese and went through allthe normal things jump school
(12:22):
and betting in jungle school inPanama.
Went to Vietnam and worked withthe mobile advisory team, which
is a five-person unit attachedto local forces.
Speaker 1 (12:36):
So how did your work in Vietnam shape you for a life
of service for the US government, for the rest of your career?
Speaker 2 (12:46):
Well, I think one thing happens.
I'm sort of a little againstthe way oftentimes Vietnam vets
are portrayed.
Certainly they're eitherphysically or mentally unstable
or they're gung-ho, and hundredsand thousands have gone through
that experience and they'vegrown from it and it hasn't
(13:07):
affected.
It affected their life.
That, in the sense that theycan appreciate some of the
things we have and they can alsoappreciate the concept of
service, and I think that Ithink that's what happens is
that Vietnam makes you realizeyou can handle almost any
situation and you can givecommands, you can take commands,
(13:32):
you can work in dangeroussituations and as long as you do
your job, you'll come out okay.
So I think a lot of people havegrown in Vietnam and those who
have experienced that sort ofgood part of it, they don't talk
about it very much, yeah.
Speaker 1 (13:50):
You did a recent interview with the SIP magazine
and asked about US involvementin the second Iraq war.
You said sometimes you have toknow when not to get involved.
That in itself has to be one ofthe hardest decisions for a
president to make.
Second to when to get involvedand what are the risks.
(14:10):
What can we learn from Russia'saggression in Ukraine and why
should we support Ukraine?
Yeah, there's a lot of things.
Speaker 2 (14:20):
Yeah, there's a lot to unpack there.
Well, firstly, I think it'simportant to know the situation
on the ground.
You have to define your missionand the mission has to be
clear-cut and defensible, likeWorld War II clearly clear-cut.
(14:41):
We were attacked by a foreignforce that was trying to conquer
the world, so it's an easy call.
Vietnam, iraq, afghanistan area little more gray areas.
We weren't directly attackedthere, the sitting government
was not democratic or clearly onour side, and we're in areas we
(15:04):
didn't understand very much.
So then you have to look at doyou have authorization to do
that, both internationally andby the Congress?
Have all the stakeholders beendiscussed in defense and state
and NGOs and the people?
And what about the people onthe ground?
You have to listen to what theyare saying in Iraq and
(15:27):
Afghanistan and Vietnam and inVietnam.
When I started I was verypro-Vietnam War because I was
sort of a traditionalconservative background and
people don't realize that in1965, 1966, 1967, the vast
majority of the American peoplesupported the war in Vietnam.
That was what we did.
(15:47):
We supported the Korea andWorld War II and that was the
same generation.
But the more I found out aboutthe Vietnamese, it was a very
murky situation.
The leadership there was, youknow, not democratic it was.
There was a large support forHo Chi Minh.
(16:09):
There was differences betweenCatholics and Buddhists
something a young GI you know,lieutenant, didn't know, but you
realize and they didn't want todo their fighting so much.
And so, if they're not willingto do the fighting, why should
we do that fighting?
Speaker 1 (16:26):
How long did it take you to have that epiphany?
Or was it just by death througha thousand cuts?
Speaker 2 (16:32):
That's a good way of saying it.
I read a lot.
I talked to people I talked toin Vietnam.
I talked to the local villagechiefs.
I talked to everyone and I geta sense.
I also had a sense that therewas ethnic differences between
the Vietnamese and the mountainpeople and the Vietnamese looked
down on the mountain peopleeven though they were
(16:53):
anti-communists.
They were considered not….
Speaker 1 (16:58):
Was it a different class?
A different class?
Speaker 2 (17:00):
and they were not Vietnamese.
They spoke different languagesand they were a little more
primitive, but they were veryloyal.
So they didn't even get thebest equipment.
So all these things togethermake me realize why should
American boys be fighting forsomething that is a little murky
Now?
That's different than Ukraine.
(17:21):
Ukraine, like World War II,it's clear act of aggression,
unprovoked by Russia, onto asovereign country trying to
maintain its independence andsovereignty.
So there was a clear violationof a very cardinal principle of
international law.
And they didn't ask us to fightfor them, unlike in Vietnam.
(17:42):
They said we'll do the fighting, you just give us, help us with
the equipment and we'll defendand they're defending our
interests when they defend theirinterests.
Speaker 1 (17:50):
So what interests are they defending of ours by
defending their?
Speaker 2 (17:54):
own.
Well, they're defending theirfreedom and independence and
they are right on the forefrontin Europe.
Now Russia has taken overCrimea, donbass, and that's one
of the core principles ofinternational affairs is you
don't take over your neighbor.
(18:15):
If you can do that, what's next?
What does China think if Russiacan take Ukraine?
Take over Taiwan, Take overTaiwan.
What are the Baltics?
What are Moldova?
What about Poland?
Why should they stop if theycan do that?
Putin thinks that Russia is anempire and that that empire had
(18:38):
been destroyed in the Cold Warand he's going to resurrect it.
Speaker 1 (18:43):
So I think you're very astute at analyzing people
that have the opposite opinionof yours.
Right, I think you have to bein intelligence.
Why do you think so manysenators and Congress people
believe we shouldn't bedefending Ukraine?
(19:03):
Is it just the divisiveness ofour House and our Senate, or do
you think they have a point ofview that is just different from
yours about that?
Speaker 2 (19:15):
Well, firstly, I believe in civil discussion,
civil discussion and we shouldhave this discussion.
I think in the post-war periodmost people have seen Russia
through the eyes of Moscow andthis has been not only post-war.
Since 50, 60, 80 years, almostall the journalists, the
(19:37):
senators, the tourists, they'vegone to Moscow and Moscow says
that we are a great empire, theRussian soul and these other
messy little countries, placeslike Ukraine and Tajikistan and
Georgia and Armenia and Estonia,they're part of Russia and even
(19:59):
the dissidents say that they'repart of Russia and even the
dissidents say that.
So there was no sense.
And when I was a young diplomatin Moscow in 79, 81, nobody
thought the Soviet Union wouldbreak apart.
Everyone thought this was onesolid mass and that they agreed
with it.
But the more you knew and Itravel a lot in the Soviet Union
as a young diplomat and youtalk to people on the ground,
(20:20):
not the leaders they arefollowing Moscow's line but the
cab drivers, the local workers.
They felt they were Armenianand not Soviet or Russian.
They felt they were Estonian,they felt they were Muslim, so
they didn't identify with thecenter.
Speaker 1 (20:36):
Do you think they were fearful of talking to you
about a position that's not thesame as Moscow's position?
Speaker 2 (20:43):
Yeah, that's where you have to sort of sneak around
and avoid the KGB tales, andthat's what we did a lot.
So there was a sense and Ithink a lot of Americans who
followed that had aMoscow-centric point of view not
realizing that there are allthese nationalities.
And also we have a sense thatand this has changed a bit that
(21:06):
union was good.
We fought as a union against,you know, in our own
revolutionary war and we wereUnited States.
So we had a sense, well, allthese small little countries,
that's the devil we don UnitedStates.
So we had a sense, all thesesmall little countries, that's
the devil, we don't know.
We knew Russia and we coulddeal with them.
(21:26):
So it was very difficult for usto accept that you're going to
have 15 different countriesthere.
And if you accept that andaccept their right to be
sovereign countries, you accepttheir right to protect
themselves and make their owndecisions.
Like a lot of the argument iswell, we pushed russia because
(21:46):
we expanded nato.
One, we didn't expand nato andthey weren't.
Ukraine was not going to go in.
Two, it's not up to moscow,it's not up to washington, to
Washington or Brussels todetermine what people want.
If the Poles want to be part ofNATO because they've been
attacked for generations byRussia and Germany, that's their
(22:06):
right.
It's not Moscow to decide orWashington to decide.
So if they have that right,then they have the right to seek
alliances too.
And to me the fact that Ukrainehas done as well lately as it
has in the wars because theybelieve in what they're fighting
for, unlike in Afghanistan andIraq or Vietnam, where there
(22:31):
were so many different factionsand there was no common sense
that we've got to do certainthings.
In Ukraine they want to fightand they want to keep their
freedom sense that we've got todo certain things In Ukraine.
Speaker 1 (22:40):
They want to fight and they want to keep their
freedom.
Do you think there's an endgame, or do you think this just
goes prolonged until another setof power, a power vacuum,
happens in that part?
Speaker 2 (22:55):
of the world.
Yeah, well, that's what PetraeusGeneral Petraeus, who was our
commander in Iraq, said to thepresident Tell me how it ends.
As a military guy In Ukraine.
It shouldn't be for us todetermine how it ends.
It's for them, and if theybelieve that they need to have
(23:19):
the united Ukraine with alltheir territory and they're
willing to fight for it, weshould help them.
Now I don't think that.
I don't know the exact end game.
I know that the end game is notRussia taking over, because I
think there's so many unintendednegative consequences to Europe
(23:40):
, to our own defense.
We'll have to be spending moreon military.
What happened to China, whatthey do, what Iraq and what Iran
does.
It will be a bad signal to theworld if, on this most basic
European continent, that wecannot defend Ukraine.
I see that if we are steadfastwe being NATO and democratic
(24:04):
countries in support of Ukraine,they will ultimate triumph.
Now it may be they agree to ademilitarized Crimea or a
long-term neutral part.
Those things are beyond usright now, but it's not for us
to tell the Ukrainians.
Speaker 1 (24:22):
So their triumph might be in what they believe
the end is Right, a fair ending.
This might be a long-windedquestion.
You might have a sip of yourbeer while I'm asking.
Let's finish it up.
I think you and I might agreethat actions around the world
impact the United States in somedegree, depending on what those
(24:44):
actions are Internationalalliances, oil and energy
production, food sourcing,pandemic oversight, stewards of
the environment, stewards ofhuman rights and election world
leaders that influence all theabove.
Am I missing anything else inhere that would be an action
(25:05):
that would affect us, certainlywars.
It leads me to the business ofmanaging and running.
The United States has asignificant effect on the world
stage.
In five months, us citizens getto elect or reelect the
influencer in charge.
Some would say the presidentshould have the most informed
(25:27):
viewpoint of the world stage,domestically and internationally
, the power to influence anddeclare war if necessary to
protect US interests.
It leads me to this nextquestion of why do you feel so
passionate about sharing yourthoughts and feelings about who
(25:48):
should or shouldn't be theleader of the free world for the
next four years?
Speaker 2 (25:55):
Okay, where do you start?
I think we all should.
We are stewards of our futureand if you believe strongly I
believe strongly in the UnitedStates of America that we play a
special role and I believe wehave certain ideals to uphold
and I think we've done a decentjob certainly we've done that in
(26:18):
post-war war Europe and thosebeliefs and liberal democracy,
rule of law, accountability,decency, civility are things we
should defend and I think thatif you are an engaged person,
you do the little things you can, even though you realize you're
(26:39):
just one person.
So my view is and I think Iknow where we're going with this
is that Donald Trump is adanger to the United States, and
I say that as somebody who'svoted Republican oftentimes.
Speaker 1 (26:59):
As I have.
Speaker 2 (27:00):
I've been a young Republican in college, come from
a conservative family and veryproudly served 11
administrations since Linda.
I was an officer in the Armyunder Linda Johnson.
That's 11 administrations and Ian officer in the Army under
Lyndon Johnson.
That's 11 administrations andI've never had a difficulty
serving.
And for example, let's take 12,14, 16 years ago, when you had
(27:22):
Obama versus McCain, obamaversus Romney I would have
happily and loyally served anyof those people, even though I
didn't agree with all thepolicies of any of them, because
I thought they were decenthuman beings who believed in
this country.
And I don't think Donald Trumpis that person.
I think he is transactional.
(27:43):
I think he doesn't understandwhat patriotism is.
I mean, daddy got him out ofthe draft.
Everyone who's worked closelywith him his closest
conservative advisors, secretaryof Defense, state National
Security Advisors all have quitor left office.
(28:03):
He's had more turnover in hiscabinet than any person in
American history.
Speaker 1 (28:09):
So let me talk to that while you're on that
subject, I think there are twoways to evaluate a leader.
One is did they do what theysay they were going to do and
certainly there are alwaysforces against them, right?
And the other is what arepeople that have worked for them
?
How did they feel about them?
And would they follow him intowar again?
(28:30):
As I say, so as I know it today, 11 senior people that have
worked for him have beensentenced to jail, right.
So Bannon, navarro, cohn,manafort, papadopoulos, stone,
gates, weisselberg, broidy,underswan, pinedo and Flynn.
After the insurrection ofJanuary 6th, 1,000 people were
(28:55):
charged, 500 pleaded guilty, 78were found guilty at trial.
They're still working on somepeople.
There were 18 people that hehired, that he either fired or
quit national security advisors,chief of staff, so all these
things kind of underscore whatyou're saying.
And then he had those 18 hefired, 36 quit.
(29:21):
And these are loyal Republicans,so they're not some liberal
Democrat that he's getting ridof Right and some he hired in
the first week, where these arethe greatest people, but it all
comes down to there's somethingin common with every single
person that he's fired or quitand that when they didn't agree
on a certain subject matter orthey wouldn't follow him on a
(29:43):
policy that he thought wasdetrimental to the United States
, he became an enemy because hewasn't loyal anymore.
So I agree.
So this is something whenyou're looking for good
leadership.
In everything I've read aboutany president or any leader, I
don't think I've seen thisamount of people that have
(30:05):
either are serving time infederal prison or that have been
fired or quit.
So there's a common theme here,and so my question is you and I
see it, we read it why does hemaintain his popularity with all
of these facts that we'retalking about?
Speaker 2 (30:25):
Good question and the Democrats are asking that
question themselves.
I think there is a certainamount of tribalism that you are
if you have this messianicleader who tells you this is
simple, I'm going to solveeverything.
Just believe in me.
We've had that through history.
I'm just reading or watching athing about the Nuremberg trials
(30:49):
and the lead up to the trialsand how a smart you know
intelligent people with a lot ofentrepreneurship have followed
this guy, hitler, because theybelieve that one, he would leave
this to destiny easily.
(31:10):
Two fear of the other he wouldleave this to destiny easily.
Two fear of the other.
And when you have a fear of theother, whether it was Jews in
Nazi Germany or immigrants tothis country, you appeal to the
dark side of human nature.
And we all have a little bit ofthe dark side and the good
presidents appeal to the brightside, like Lincoln and the
better angels.
(31:30):
The bad ones are appealing tothe dark side and it's us versus
them and making fun of peopleand it makes you then part of a
tribe to do that.
Whatever the leader says, youfollow and there's a little bit
of that psychology and I'm not abeliever and I think it's wrong
for the Democrats to have saidthese are a basket of
(31:53):
deplorables or that they are allracist.
You have to treat peopleindividually and the Democrats
have to go out and talk topeople as smart voters and not
to say they're deplorable.
The ideas that Donald Trumptalks are not conservative
(32:13):
principles, conservative valuesor principle liberal values.
They are the values of atransactional narcissist and a
con man with no loyalty to hisown people, and you cannot vote
for somebody like that.
Speaker 1 (32:29):
Since he was convicted of 34 counts.
His base, I think, is strongerthan ever.
Now this is alleged the Trumpcampaign raised $141 million
days after his conviction.
I'm not sure how verifiablethat is, because it's coming
from their camp, but it's safeto say that his conviction
(32:54):
didn't scare away his ardentsupporters.
That being said, in thisconversation we're having, who
do we hope to sway with thispodcast, or are we just weighing
in ourselves?
Speaker 2 (33:09):
Yeah, well, we, probably we are weighing in
ourselves.
But if you look at the pollsand again, polling is just a
little snapshot the numbers havenot gone up for Trump.
Of the true believers, they say, well, this is just a bad guy's
idea to get me, it proves thatit's a witch hunt.
(33:30):
But the numbers went down oneor two percentage points after
that and it's that 4% to 10% inthe middle, many former
Republicans, independents, youth, who will not vote that you
want to talk to and you want totalk to them as intelligent
people and talk about DonaldTrump as he really is.
Talk about Donald Trump as hereally is, and my view is that
(33:54):
he a lot of people will say,well, I don't know, he's not the
best guy in the world, he foolsaround.
Speaker 1 (34:00):
I've heard that so much.
Speaker 2 (34:01):
But he's a tough guy.
Speaker 1 (34:02):
Right.
Speaker 2 (34:03):
He gets things done.
Speaker 1 (34:03):
You think?
Speaker 2 (34:04):
he's a tough guy.
I think he's a coward, I thinkhe's weak and you have to go to
his masculinity.
That's something we stay awayfrom.
You have to go to hismasculinity.
That's something we stay awayfrom.
But I've said this I think areal man is loyal to the people
around him.
If you've ever been in basictraining or military training or
(34:24):
you've been on a sports team,you take care of your buddies.
And what did he do with hisbuddies?
Speaker 1 (34:29):
The minute they disagree, he's up there yeah,
and not only the way he firedthem too.
He did it with a tweet, yeah,and in many cases, they might
have known it was coming.
Other times they're reading iton twitter and he's not calling
him into his office and say look, we don't agree with these,
which?
Speaker 2 (34:44):
is a cowardly way of doing these things.
Another thing is what I thinkyou know.
I think there are certaintraits.
Individuals of male and femalehave many traits and you can't
define it, but I would think areal man takes care of those who
cannot take care of themselvesand I bring up, like the
(35:04):
Beatitudes they don't talk about.
Blessed are the tough guys, thebullies, the war makers.
It's blessed are the poor andthe meek and the peacemakers.
Now, that doesn't mean you haveto follow the poor, the meek,
the peacemakers, but it doesmean that if you're a real man,
you take care of those who areleast able to take care of
(35:26):
themselves in society and youdon't call them vermin, you
don't make fun of people.
That's a cowardly, unmanly actand that's how I think we should
portray him, and portray him tothose followers who think he's
a tough guy.
Speaker 1 (35:40):
The wokeness, the overcorrection to real problems
that we've had have made it easyfor him to point his finger at
that overcorrection and say he'sgoing to do all these bring us
back to the way things used tobe.
And I think his soundbite, Ithink he appeals to a lot of
people that are either fed upwith the direction.
(36:02):
You know, the pendulum hasswung probably farther than it
should have and he's pointingthat out to everybody and his,
his position is he is going tobe the savior of that and while
some points are valid, I don'tthink he's.
I don't think he could fulfillany promise because I don't
(36:23):
think he has the wherewithal tocreate alliances.
I think great leaders cancreate alliances and that's how
they build their strength.
I I don't think that's histhing.
Speaker 2 (36:39):
And I think that there's always a longing for a
past that probably wasn't thereany, but there is this Camelot
idea that there was this.
That's well said, and I thinkthat Trump appeals to people who
think they're going to findthis past.
He, however, the nextadministration, if he's
reelected, he's not going tohave the guardrail of all these
people who said you can't leaveNATO, you can't bomb Mexican
(37:02):
cartels which you wanted to do,you can't bomb Iran.
They're consequented.
Those people are all gone,everybody who said those things
he has denounced.
He's going to have a bunch ofsycophants and lackeys around
him and all these things that hewants to do.
It's all transactional for him.
(37:23):
You know, when he seeks to gowith Saudi Arabia, how many
planes can I sell you?
None of those sounds prettygood.
You make Boeing and Lockheedmade some money out of it, but
those planes are bombing Yemenand that's creating all these
other unintended consequencesand hatred of the United States.
You have to think through thesethings.
It's not talking to the NorthKorean leader about having
(37:47):
hotels on the beach.
That's what he's talking about.
He has no sense of whatAmerican interests are and no
sense about what the long-termprospects.
He just looks at it for himself, for his family.
Speaker 1 (38:00):
Certainly, your service to the United States
suggests that you have servedthe United States in a lot of
different countries threepresidents right, Both Bushes
and Clinton, if I remembercorrectly and so I think you've
got some credibility to speak tothe cause and effect of
leadership and how the effectthat it has worldwide.
(38:24):
Any last words for thelisteners on something to think
about for them.
Speaker 2 (38:32):
Well, I think we should vote, and I think we
should vote based on what thebetter angels of our soul are
the good America, the Americathat is the rule of law, that we
take care of our neighbors,that we have alliances, that we
work with other people and thatwe don't look at that this
(38:56):
country is us versus them.
We're all Americans and that wecan do that.
And even though we may disagreewith, let's say, biden.
I think he's too old, honestly,but you're going to have these
discussions.
We can discuss what's the bestimmigration reform, what do we
do about crime.
We can discuss all these issues, but I worry, if you're in a
(39:18):
tribal sense, that you hate theother.
We're not going to have thatchance.
That's why everyone should vote.
Speaker 1 (39:25):
Okay, well, thanks for your time.
Speaker 2 (39:27):
Thank you very much.
Speaker 1 (39:30):
I hope this reaches somebody's ears that hasn't
decided yet.
Speaker 2 (39:35):
Good Well, thank you for giving a free platform.
Sure, there's life afterretirement.
Speaker 1 (39:42):
Yeah, there, sure is For both of us, thank you.
you're tuned in to another episode of tales from
the first tee.
I'm rich easton telling talesfrom beautiful charleston, south
carolina.
Welcome back.
(00:29):
This is episode 125.
Over the past three years,tales has been downloaded in 73
countries over six continentsand 1,320 different cities
worldwide.
Most of the episodes, with theexception of this one, pertain
to golf, golfer stories andcelebrity fitness.
(00:52):
With my college buddy, joshSalzman, I like to deviate at
times when I find someoneinteresting or a story that
catches my attention, as farfrom golf as climbing Mount
Everest.
Over the years I've beeninvited to join a diverse group
(01:13):
of men that share cocktailswhile embellishing on personal
anecdotes at the storied COVIDcabana.
Most every time I attend I seethis gentleman, john Gunderson,
a next-door neighbor to theThatched Hut and a mixologist of
the famous Long Island iced tea.
(01:35):
The more I spoke to John, themore I wanted to air his various
points of view on serving theUnited States on this podcast.
I knew it was a departure fromgolf, but I like the discussions
.
John served in Vietnam, workedas a federal air marshal and
(01:56):
served in the Foreign Serviceunder multiple presidents
Republican and Democrats,republican and Democrats.
He was an ambassador to Ukraineand has been a local source of
information and intelligence fornews sources and local schools
teaching our future leaders onthe history of Ukraine and
(02:18):
Russia.
He's informed world leaders onhis points of view and was
gracious enough to allow me thetime to pick his brain.
Over the last several months,john and I encountered each
other while walking our dogs onone of the local beaches in
(02:38):
Charleston and he shared hisinterest in getting his voice
out to voters before the 2024presidential election.
So we sat down the other nightand well, the following 40
minutes cover most of what wespoke about.
If you love, hate or areindifferent to any of the
(03:02):
presidential candidates, youmight find John's point of view
aligned with yours or counter.
His years of service in thearmed forces and foreign service
legitimize his point of viewand gives him permission to
voice an experienced point ofview.
We should all have permissionto voice our point of view.
(03:25):
I mean remember a time when welistened to the points of views
of those that didn't align withour own, but had the dignity to
respect the sacrifices of thosewho went before us and respected
their points of view, becausemaybe the history that they had
(03:45):
gave them more information onwhat would be best for the
country.
So I say, hear them out andformulate your own opinion, but
whatever you do, vote.
It's a right that we enjoy inthe United States.
(04:18):
Okay, first of all, thisconversation at least for the
podcast, is a long time coming.
You and I have talked aboutdoing this several times.
We've met on the beach, we'vetalked to each other at your
house and I kind of liked youridea.
Before I get into kind of amessage that you have that you'd
like to speak to and it has todo with the upcoming election,
(04:41):
I'd like to at least ask you afew questions so that the
listeners kind of understandyour background, how you got
things that you did in yourcareer, things like that.
You're raised in SouthHempstead, long Island, not to
be confused with South Hampton.
Speaker 2 (04:55):
Actually, if I could correct, it's West Hempstead.
Oh West Hempstead right, whichis more or less the same.
Speaker 1 (05:01):
More or less the same , but not the home of the rich
and famous.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
No, we're the aspiring working middle class
Okay great, that's how youstarted.
Speaker 1 (05:12):
You lifeguarded at Jones Beach.
Speaker 2 (05:15):
Yes, jones Beach was a place where lifeguards had a
good thing.
It was very tough training wehave to pass tests and using
whale boats and swimming andmost of the lifeguards were
probably in their late 20s.
A lot of them were teachers andpeople who worked regular jobs
and then in the summer theyworked at Jones Beach.
And I think those are the yearsyou remember because you were
(05:40):
carefree.
You're on the beach, you'reliving the lifestyle and I had
made some good friends there.
Speaker 1 (05:46):
But now you're a family man with a lovely wife
and three very self-sufficientadult boys.
I want you to talk a little bitabout how you met Ike, your
wife, and how do you raise afamily to be curious about
experience in the world andtraveling the world, because I
know everybody in your familytravels the world.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
Well, first of all I was a long-time bachelor.
I waited until my 40s and I wastraveling the world.
I worked with the Army StateDepartment.
I was a counterterrorism, soyou know I had a lot of nice
female companionship, but Iwould always move.
But at a certain time in yourlife you realize there's more to
(06:29):
life than just being a bachelorand working hard.
So I was in Frankfurt, germany,and I was working, actually in
a classified job.
I was the head of acounterterrorism unit that
operated in Europe and theMiddle East.
So I was head of an interagencygroup which included
(06:49):
intelligence, military, and wewould fly into places and advise
governments on counterterrorism.
And Eike, my wife, who's German,was working at the US consulate
in Frankfurt and we had ourplane there in Frankfurt.
So the only one I could informwas the council general, the
(07:10):
head of the mission, and I wouldgo in there once or twice a
week and go by this veryattractive young lady who was
sitting outside the consulate'soffice.
Her name was Eike Rautzus and Iwould find excuses to brief the
Counsel General and I wastrying to make myself known.
She sort of ignored my advancesfor a while, but I'm very
(07:31):
persistent and so we startedgoing out.
This was a fascinating timebecause it was 1990, the Berlin
Wall had fallen apart, eastGermany was opening up.
So what we did every day, everytime we'd go on a weekend, we'd
go to East Germany, we'd go toCzechoslovakia it was known as
(07:53):
Czechoslovakia then, so it was agood time.
And well, we fell in love and Iwas going and they wanted me to
go to Kiev or Kyiv to open upour mission in Ukraine.
And you know, I invited her tocome to visit me there.
And anyone stupid enough to goto Ukraine was a keeper and
(08:13):
smart enough, and that was Ike.
Speaker 1 (08:16):
How did the US government feel about you dating
her?
Were there any restrictionsthere, any conflicts of interest
?
Speaker 2 (08:22):
Interesting.
Yes, because she was a foreignnational, which is okay,
especially a NATO member, butshe had a lot of relatives, east
German.
So it was just in the cusp atthe end of the Cold War, but you
still had the suspicions aboutthe East Germans.
And when I was about to getmarried but you still have the
(08:43):
suspicions about the EastGermans.
And when I was about to getmarried, I was in Ukraine and we
were building up our missionthere.
Ukraine was moving towardsindependence and a real key time
was when the President of theUnited States, bush, sr HW Bush,
was going to go to Ukraine todetermine what we were going to
do and I was his host as CounselGeneral and I wanted to marry
(09:06):
Ike beforehand and they told meit would take six months to
marry her before all theclearances.
This is the security people.
And I said in a cable, in amessage I said well, if you want
me to meet the President of theUnited States with my
girlfriend at the time, notmarried you'll just hold up the
(09:31):
clearance, but I would adviseyou to keep clearance.
So I have an honest woman nextto me when I meet the President
of the United States.
That's a good play, and theyrelented reluctantly.
Speaker 1 (09:42):
Yeah.
So then we're going to get backa little bit to some of the
things you did for the UnitedStates with Ukraine.
But I just want to skip to yourboys.
Did you raise them out of theUnited States or in the Virginia
area?
Speaker 2 (09:58):
Well, we lived in various places.
One was born in well I wouldsay conceived in Ukraine, born
in Germany because you didn'twant to have a baby in Ukraine
at the time in its medicalfacilities.
And another one was born inVirginia.
One was born in Florida when Iwas advisor to the Special
(10:19):
Operations Command.
So we traveled and as we wereyoung they traveled with us and
you know I traveled to Iceland,estonia, ukraine and then Norway
, and all three of them went toschool as kids in Norway, to a
German school actually, and sothey were used to that.
And then when we came to theStates, when they were eight,
(10:43):
nine, ten years old, we wanted astable life because we had
moved so much and we owed thatto the kids.
So I stayed in the States, butwe went to a very international
public school in NorthernVirginia.
They had friends from all overthe world, so that was part of
their DNA.
Speaker 1 (11:00):
And so they got a taste of traveling the world.
I think I met one of your boysthat I was here for Thanksgiving
, and I think the next day hehad a one-way ticket to Thailand
.
Speaker 2 (11:13):
Yeah, right.
Speaker 1 (11:14):
So my nephew did the same thing.
I'm glad the generation gets todo that now.
Speaker 2 (11:20):
When COVID happened, they all had to come back to the
States.
One was in Argentina, one wasin Morocco and one was in
Scotland.
Speaker 1 (11:32):
Nice.
So let's go back to you.
After high school, you servedin Vietnam.
Speaker 2 (11:37):
After college.
Speaker 1 (11:38):
After college.
How did that come about?
You served in Vietnam Aftercollege.
Speaker 2 (11:41):
After college.
How did that come about?
Well, I graduated in 66, andthe draft was blown hard and I
was going to be drafted.
So I decided to enlist.
And I enlisted first with theArmy Security Agency.
Then I went through basictraining and I did okay on my
(12:02):
physical tests and mental andsaid do you want to do something
really stupid?
I said, sure, I'd like to dothat.
And so how do you like to dosome special operations?
So that's what I did.
I went to OCS Officer CannaeSchool.
I was trained in Vietnamese foralmost a year to work with the
Vietnamese and went through allthe normal things jump school
(12:22):
and betting in jungle school inPanama.
Went to Vietnam and worked withthe mobile advisory team, which
is a five-person unit attachedto local forces.
Speaker 1 (12:36):
So how did your work in Vietnam shape you for a life
of service for the US government, for the rest of your career?
Speaker 2 (12:46):
Well, I think one thing happens.
I'm sort of a little againstthe way oftentimes Vietnam vets
are portrayed.
Certainly they're eitherphysically or mentally unstable
or they're gung-ho, and hundredsand thousands have gone through
that experience and they'vegrown from it and it hasn't
(13:07):
affected.
It affected their life.
That, in the sense that theycan appreciate some of the
things we have and they can alsoappreciate the concept of
service, and I think that Ithink that's what happens is
that Vietnam makes you realizeyou can handle almost any
situation and you can givecommands, you can take commands,
(13:32):
you can work in dangeroussituations and as long as you do
your job, you'll come out okay.
So I think a lot of people havegrown in Vietnam and those who
have experienced that sort ofgood part of it, they don't talk
about it very much, yeah.
Speaker 1 (13:50):
You did a recent interview with the SIP magazine
and asked about US involvementin the second Iraq war.
You said sometimes you have toknow when not to get involved.
That in itself has to be one ofthe hardest decisions for a
president to make.
Second to when to get involvedand what are the risks.
(14:10):
What can we learn from Russia'saggression in Ukraine and why
should we support Ukraine?
Yeah, there's a lot of things.
Speaker 2 (14:20):
Yeah, there's a lot to unpack there.
Well, firstly, I think it'simportant to know the situation
on the ground.
You have to define your missionand the mission has to be
clear-cut and defensible, likeWorld War II clearly clear-cut.
(14:41):
We were attacked by a foreignforce that was trying to conquer
the world, so it's an easy call.
Vietnam, iraq, afghanistan area little more gray areas.
We weren't directly attackedthere, the sitting government
was not democratic or clearly onour side, and we're in areas we
(15:04):
didn't understand very much.
So then you have to look at doyou have authorization to do
that, both internationally andby the Congress?
Have all the stakeholders beendiscussed in defense and state
and NGOs and the people?
And what about the people onthe ground?
You have to listen to what theyare saying in Iraq and
(15:27):
Afghanistan and Vietnam and inVietnam.
When I started I was verypro-Vietnam War because I was
sort of a traditionalconservative background and
people don't realize that in1965, 1966, 1967, the vast
majority of the American peoplesupported the war in Vietnam.
That was what we did.
(15:47):
We supported the Korea andWorld War II and that was the
same generation.
But the more I found out aboutthe Vietnamese, it was a very
murky situation.
The leadership there was, youknow, not democratic it was.
There was a large support forHo Chi Minh.
(16:09):
There was differences betweenCatholics and Buddhists
something a young GI you know,lieutenant, didn't know, but you
realize and they didn't want todo their fighting so much.
And so, if they're not willingto do the fighting, why should
we do that fighting?
Speaker 1 (16:26):
How long did it take you to have that epiphany?
Or was it just by death througha thousand cuts?
Speaker 2 (16:32):
That's a good way of saying it.
I read a lot.
I talked to people I talked toin Vietnam.
I talked to the local villagechiefs.
I talked to everyone and I geta sense.
I also had a sense that therewas ethnic differences between
the Vietnamese and the mountainpeople and the Vietnamese looked
down on the mountain peopleeven though they were
(16:53):
anti-communists.
They were considered not….
Speaker 1 (16:58):
Was it a different class?
A different class?
Speaker 2 (17:00):
and they were not Vietnamese.
They spoke different languagesand they were a little more
primitive, but they were veryloyal.
So they didn't even get thebest equipment.
So all these things togethermake me realize why should
American boys be fighting forsomething that is a little murky
Now?
That's different than Ukraine.
(17:21):
Ukraine, like World War II,it's clear act of aggression,
unprovoked by Russia, onto asovereign country trying to
maintain its independence andsovereignty.
So there was a clear violationof a very cardinal principle of
international law.
And they didn't ask us to fightfor them, unlike in Vietnam.
(17:42):
They said we'll do the fighting, you just give us, help us with
the equipment and we'll defendand they're defending our
interests when they defend theirinterests.
Speaker 1 (17:50):
So what interests are they defending of ours by
defending their?
Speaker 2 (17:54):
own.
Well, they're defending theirfreedom and independence and
they are right on the forefrontin Europe.
Now Russia has taken overCrimea, donbass, and that's one
of the core principles ofinternational affairs is you
don't take over your neighbor.
(18:15):
If you can do that, what's next?
What does China think if Russiacan take Ukraine?
Take over Taiwan, Take overTaiwan.
What are the Baltics?
What are Moldova?
What about Poland?
Why should they stop if theycan do that?
Putin thinks that Russia is anempire and that that empire had
(18:38):
been destroyed in the Cold Warand he's going to resurrect it.
Speaker 1 (18:43):
So I think you're very astute at analyzing people
that have the opposite opinionof yours.
Right, I think you have to bein intelligence.
Why do you think so manysenators and Congress people
believe we shouldn't bedefending Ukraine?
(19:03):
Is it just the divisiveness ofour House and our Senate, or do
you think they have a point ofview that is just different from
yours about that?
Speaker 2 (19:15):
Well, firstly, I believe in civil discussion,
civil discussion and we shouldhave this discussion.
I think in the post-war periodmost people have seen Russia
through the eyes of Moscow andthis has been not only post-war.
Since 50, 60, 80 years, almostall the journalists, the
(19:37):
senators, the tourists, they'vegone to Moscow and Moscow says
that we are a great empire, theRussian soul and these other
messy little countries, placeslike Ukraine and Tajikistan and
Georgia and Armenia and Estonia,they're part of Russia and even
(19:59):
the dissidents say that they'repart of Russia and even the
dissidents say that.
So there was no sense.
And when I was a young diplomatin Moscow in 79, 81, nobody
thought the Soviet Union wouldbreak apart.
Everyone thought this was onesolid mass and that they agreed
with it.
But the more you knew and Itravel a lot in the Soviet Union
as a young diplomat and youtalk to people on the ground,
(20:20):
not the leaders they arefollowing Moscow's line but the
cab drivers, the local workers.
They felt they were Armenianand not Soviet or Russian.
They felt they were Estonian,they felt they were Muslim, so
they didn't identify with thecenter.
Speaker 1 (20:36):
Do you think they were fearful of talking to you
about a position that's not thesame as Moscow's position?
Speaker 2 (20:43):
Yeah, that's where you have to sort of sneak around
and avoid the KGB tales, andthat's what we did a lot.
So there was a sense and Ithink a lot of Americans who
followed that had aMoscow-centric point of view not
realizing that there are allthese nationalities.
And also we have a sense thatand this has changed a bit that
(21:06):
union was good.
We fought as a union against,you know, in our own
revolutionary war and we wereUnited States.
So we had a sense, well, allthese small little countries,
that's the devil we don UnitedStates.
So we had a sense, all thesesmall little countries, that's
the devil, we don't know.
We knew Russia and we coulddeal with them.
(21:26):
So it was very difficult for usto accept that you're going to
have 15 different countriesthere.
And if you accept that andaccept their right to be
sovereign countries, you accepttheir right to protect
themselves and make their owndecisions.
Like a lot of the argument iswell, we pushed russia because
(21:46):
we expanded nato.
One, we didn't expand nato andthey weren't.
Ukraine was not going to go in.
Two, it's not up to moscow,it's not up to washington, to
Washington or Brussels todetermine what people want.
If the Poles want to be part ofNATO because they've been
attacked for generations byRussia and Germany, that's their
(22:06):
right.
It's not Moscow to decide orWashington to decide.
So if they have that right,then they have the right to seek
alliances too.
And to me the fact that Ukrainehas done as well lately as it
has in the wars because theybelieve in what they're fighting
for, unlike in Afghanistan andIraq or Vietnam, where there
(22:31):
were so many different factionsand there was no common sense
that we've got to do certainthings.
In Ukraine they want to fightand they want to keep their
freedom sense that we've got todo certain things In Ukraine.
Speaker 1 (22:40):
They want to fight and they want to keep their
freedom.
Do you think there's an endgame, or do you think this just
goes prolonged until another setof power, a power vacuum,
happens in that part?
Speaker 2 (22:55):
of the world.
Yeah, well, that's what PetraeusGeneral Petraeus, who was our
commander in Iraq, said to thepresident Tell me how it ends.
As a military guy In Ukraine.
It shouldn't be for us todetermine how it ends.
It's for them, and if theybelieve that they need to have
(23:19):
the united Ukraine with alltheir territory and they're
willing to fight for it, weshould help them.
Now I don't think that.
I don't know the exact end game.
I know that the end game is notRussia taking over, because I
think there's so many unintendednegative consequences to Europe
(23:40):
, to our own defense.
We'll have to be spending moreon military.
What happened to China, whatthey do, what Iraq and what Iran
does.
It will be a bad signal to theworld if, on this most basic
European continent, that wecannot defend Ukraine.
I see that if we are steadfastwe being NATO and democratic
(24:04):
countries in support of Ukraine,they will ultimate triumph.
Now it may be they agree to ademilitarized Crimea or a
long-term neutral part.
Those things are beyond usright now, but it's not for us
to tell the Ukrainians.
Speaker 1 (24:22):
So their triumph might be in what they believe
the end is Right, a fair ending.
This might be a long-windedquestion.
You might have a sip of yourbeer while I'm asking.
Let's finish it up.
I think you and I might agreethat actions around the world
impact the United States in somedegree, depending on what those
(24:44):
actions are Internationalalliances, oil and energy
production, food sourcing,pandemic oversight, stewards of
the environment, stewards ofhuman rights and election world
leaders that influence all theabove.
Am I missing anything else inhere that would be an action
(25:05):
that would affect us, certainlywars.
It leads me to the business ofmanaging and running.
The United States has asignificant effect on the world
stage.
In five months, us citizens getto elect or reelect the
influencer in charge.
Some would say the presidentshould have the most informed
(25:27):
viewpoint of the world stage,domestically and internationally
, the power to influence anddeclare war if necessary to
protect US interests.
It leads me to this nextquestion of why do you feel so
passionate about sharing yourthoughts and feelings about who
(25:48):
should or shouldn't be theleader of the free world for the
next four years?
Speaker 2 (25:55):
Okay, where do you start?
I think we all should.
We are stewards of our futureand if you believe strongly I
believe strongly in the UnitedStates of America that we play a
special role and I believe wehave certain ideals to uphold
and I think we've done a decentjob certainly we've done that in
(26:18):
post-war war Europe and thosebeliefs and liberal democracy,
rule of law, accountability,decency, civility are things we
should defend and I think thatif you are an engaged person,
you do the little things you can, even though you realize you're
(26:39):
just one person.
So my view is and I think Iknow where we're going with this
is that Donald Trump is adanger to the United States, and
I say that as somebody who'svoted Republican oftentimes.
Speaker 1 (26:59):
As I have.
Speaker 2 (27:00):
I've been a young Republican in college, come from
a conservative family and veryproudly served 11
administrations since Linda.
I was an officer in the Armyunder Linda Johnson.
That's 11 administrations and Ian officer in the Army under
Lyndon Johnson.
That's 11 administrations andI've never had a difficulty
serving.
And for example, let's take 12,14, 16 years ago, when you had
(27:22):
Obama versus McCain, obamaversus Romney I would have
happily and loyally served anyof those people, even though I
didn't agree with all thepolicies of any of them, because
I thought they were decenthuman beings who believed in
this country.
And I don't think Donald Trumpis that person.
I think he is transactional.
(27:43):
I think he doesn't understandwhat patriotism is.
I mean, daddy got him out ofthe draft.
Everyone who's worked closelywith him his closest
conservative advisors, secretaryof Defense, state National
Security Advisors all have quitor left office.
(28:03):
He's had more turnover in hiscabinet than any person in
American history.
Speaker 1 (28:09):
So let me talk to that while you're on that
subject, I think there are twoways to evaluate a leader.
One is did they do what theysay they were going to do and
certainly there are alwaysforces against them, right?
And the other is what arepeople that have worked for them
?
How did they feel about them?
And would they follow him intowar again?
(28:30):
As I say, so as I know it today, 11 senior people that have
worked for him have beensentenced to jail, right.
So Bannon, navarro, cohn,manafort, papadopoulos, stone,
gates, weisselberg, broidy,underswan, pinedo and Flynn.
After the insurrection ofJanuary 6th, 1,000 people were
(28:55):
charged, 500 pleaded guilty, 78were found guilty at trial.
They're still working on somepeople.
There were 18 people that hehired, that he either fired or
quit national security advisors,chief of staff, so all these
things kind of underscore whatyou're saying.
And then he had those 18 hefired, 36 quit.
(29:21):
And these are loyal Republicans,so they're not some liberal
Democrat that he's getting ridof Right and some he hired in
the first week, where these arethe greatest people, but it all
comes down to there's somethingin common with every single
person that he's fired or quitand that when they didn't agree
on a certain subject matter orthey wouldn't follow him on a
(29:43):
policy that he thought wasdetrimental to the United States
, he became an enemy because hewasn't loyal anymore.
So I agree.
So this is something whenyou're looking for good
leadership.
In everything I've read aboutany president or any leader, I
don't think I've seen thisamount of people that have
(30:05):
either are serving time infederal prison or that have been
fired or quit.
So there's a common theme here,and so my question is you and I
see it, we read it why does hemaintain his popularity with all
of these facts that we'retalking about?
Speaker 2 (30:25):
Good question and the Democrats are asking that
question themselves.
I think there is a certainamount of tribalism that you are
if you have this messianicleader who tells you this is
simple, I'm going to solveeverything.
Just believe in me.
We've had that through history.
I'm just reading or watching athing about the Nuremberg trials
(30:49):
and the lead up to the trialsand how a smart you know
intelligent people with a lot ofentrepreneurship have followed
this guy, hitler, because theybelieve that one, he would leave
this to destiny easily.
(31:10):
Two fear of the other he wouldleave this to destiny easily.
Two fear of the other.
And when you have a fear of theother, whether it was Jews in
Nazi Germany or immigrants tothis country, you appeal to the
dark side of human nature.
And we all have a little bit ofthe dark side and the good
presidents appeal to the brightside, like Lincoln and the
better angels.
(31:30):
The bad ones are appealing tothe dark side and it's us versus
them and making fun of peopleand it makes you then part of a
tribe to do that.
Whatever the leader says, youfollow and there's a little bit
of that psychology and I'm not abeliever and I think it's wrong
for the Democrats to have saidthese are a basket of
(31:53):
deplorables or that they are allracist.
You have to treat peopleindividually and the Democrats
have to go out and talk topeople as smart voters and not
to say they're deplorable.
The ideas that Donald Trumptalks are not conservative
(32:13):
principles, conservative valuesor principle liberal values.
They are the values of atransactional narcissist and a
con man with no loyalty to hisown people, and you cannot vote
for somebody like that.
Speaker 1 (32:29):
Since he was convicted of 34 counts.
His base, I think, is strongerthan ever.
Now this is alleged the Trumpcampaign raised $141 million
days after his conviction.
I'm not sure how verifiablethat is, because it's coming
from their camp, but it's safeto say that his conviction
(32:54):
didn't scare away his ardentsupporters.
That being said, in thisconversation we're having, who
do we hope to sway with thispodcast, or are we just weighing
in ourselves?
Speaker 2 (33:09):
Yeah, well, we, probably we are weighing in
ourselves.
But if you look at the pollsand again, polling is just a
little snapshot the numbers havenot gone up for Trump.
Of the true believers, they say, well, this is just a bad guy's
idea to get me, it proves thatit's a witch hunt.
(33:30):
But the numbers went down oneor two percentage points after
that and it's that 4% to 10% inthe middle, many former
Republicans, independents, youth, who will not vote that you
want to talk to and you want totalk to them as intelligent
people and talk about DonaldTrump as he really is.
Talk about Donald Trump as hereally is, and my view is that
(33:54):
he a lot of people will say,well, I don't know, he's not the
best guy in the world, he foolsaround.
Speaker 1 (34:00):
I've heard that so much.
Speaker 2 (34:01):
But he's a tough guy.
Speaker 1 (34:02):
Right.
Speaker 2 (34:03):
He gets things done.
Speaker 1 (34:03):
You think?
Speaker 2 (34:04):
he's a tough guy.
I think he's a coward, I thinkhe's weak and you have to go to
his masculinity.
That's something we stay awayfrom.
You have to go to hismasculinity.
That's something we stay awayfrom.
But I've said this I think areal man is loyal to the people
around him.
If you've ever been in basictraining or military training or
(34:24):
you've been on a sports team,you take care of your buddies.
And what did he do with hisbuddies?
Speaker 1 (34:29):
The minute they disagree, he's up there yeah,
and not only the way he firedthem too.
He did it with a tweet, yeah,and in many cases, they might
have known it was coming.
Other times they're reading iton twitter and he's not calling
him into his office and say look, we don't agree with these,
which?
Speaker 2 (34:44):
is a cowardly way of doing these things.
Another thing is what I thinkyou know.
I think there are certaintraits.
Individuals of male and femalehave many traits and you can't
define it, but I would think areal man takes care of those who
cannot take care of themselvesand I bring up, like the
(35:04):
Beatitudes they don't talk about.
Blessed are the tough guys, thebullies, the war makers.
It's blessed are the poor andthe meek and the peacemakers.
Now, that doesn't mean you haveto follow the poor, the meek,
the peacemakers, but it doesmean that if you're a real man,
you take care of those who areleast able to take care of
(35:26):
themselves in society and youdon't call them vermin, you
don't make fun of people.
That's a cowardly, unmanly actand that's how I think we should
portray him, and portray him tothose followers who think he's
a tough guy.
Speaker 1 (35:40):
The wokeness, the overcorrection to real problems
that we've had have made it easyfor him to point his finger at
that overcorrection and say he'sgoing to do all these bring us
back to the way things used tobe.
And I think his soundbite, Ithink he appeals to a lot of
people that are either fed upwith the direction.
(36:02):
You know, the pendulum hasswung probably farther than it
should have and he's pointingthat out to everybody and his,
his position is he is going tobe the savior of that and while
some points are valid, I don'tthink he's.
I don't think he could fulfillany promise because I don't
(36:23):
think he has the wherewithal tocreate alliances.
I think great leaders cancreate alliances and that's how
they build their strength.
I I don't think that's histhing.
Speaker 2 (36:39):
And I think that there's always a longing for a
past that probably wasn't thereany, but there is this Camelot
idea that there was this.
That's well said, and I thinkthat Trump appeals to people who
think they're going to findthis past.
He, however, the nextadministration, if he's
reelected, he's not going tohave the guardrail of all these
people who said you can't leaveNATO, you can't bomb Mexican
(37:02):
cartels which you wanted to do,you can't bomb Iran.
They're consequented.
Those people are all gone,everybody who said those things
he has denounced.
He's going to have a bunch ofsycophants and lackeys around
him and all these things that hewants to do.
It's all transactional for him.
(37:23):
You know, when he seeks to gowith Saudi Arabia, how many
planes can I sell you?
None of those sounds prettygood.
You make Boeing and Lockheedmade some money out of it, but
those planes are bombing Yemenand that's creating all these
other unintended consequencesand hatred of the United States.
You have to think through thesethings.
It's not talking to the NorthKorean leader about having
(37:47):
hotels on the beach.
That's what he's talking about.
He has no sense of whatAmerican interests are and no
sense about what the long-termprospects.
He just looks at it for himself, for his family.
Speaker 1 (38:00):
Certainly, your service to the United States
suggests that you have servedthe United States in a lot of
different countries threepresidents right, Both Bushes
and Clinton, if I remembercorrectly and so I think you've
got some credibility to speak tothe cause and effect of
leadership and how the effectthat it has worldwide.
(38:24):
Any last words for thelisteners on something to think
about for them.
Speaker 2 (38:32):
Well, I think we should vote, and I think we
should vote based on what thebetter angels of our soul are
the good America, the Americathat is the rule of law, that we
take care of our neighbors,that we have alliances, that we
work with other people and thatwe don't look at that this
(38:56):
country is us versus them.
We're all Americans and that wecan do that.
And even though we may disagreewith, let's say, biden.
I think he's too old, honestly,but you're going to have these
discussions.
We can discuss what's the bestimmigration reform, what do we
do about crime.
We can discuss all these issues, but I worry, if you're in a
(39:18):
tribal sense, that you hate theother.
We're not going to have thatchance.
That's why everyone should vote.
Speaker 1 (39:25):
Okay, well, thanks for your time.
Speaker 2 (39:27):
Thank you very much.
Speaker 1 (39:30):
I hope this reaches somebody's ears that hasn't
decided yet.
Speaker 2 (39:35):
Good Well, thank you for giving a free platform.
Sure, there's life afterretirement.
Speaker 1 (39:42):
Yeah, there, sure is For both of us, thank you.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.