Donald Trump’s “second first term”—an oddity of winning nonconsecutive presidential elections—begins with talk of dramatic policy shifts at home and abroad.
Hoover senior fellows Niall Ferguson and “Trump 45” veteran H.R. McMaster discuss the odds of a successful second Trump presidency; whether the man himself has changed; the most salient questions to ask Pentagon and State Department secretary-designates; whether Elon Musk’s government reform will be more DOGE or dog; what America’s allies and adversaries are thinking; plus the seriousness of acquiring Greenland or other Trump-speculated land grabs (Canada, the Panama Canal).
After that: the fellows opine on where the Biden presidency went off the rails (are historians to blame?), followed by a look at LA’s devastating wildfires and California’s shifting political landscape (the conflagration straight out of the pages of Niall’s 2021 book Doom: The Politics of Catastrophe), plus what prompted Mark Zuckerberg to abandon Meta’s fact-checking and DEI programs.
Recorded on January 15, 2025.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
>> Reporter (00:00):
Do you owe citizens an apology for
being absent while theirhomes were burning?
Do you regret cutting the fire departmentbudget by millions of dollars,
Madam Mayor,have you nothing to say today?
Have you absolutely nothingto say to the citizens today?
(00:20):
[MUSIC]
>> Bill Whalen (00:21):
It's Wednesday, January 15, 2025.
And welcome back to Goodfellows, a HooverInstitution broadcast examining social,
economic, political, andgeopolitical concerns.
I'm Bill Whalen,I'm a Hoover distinguished policy fellow.
I'll be your moderator today, andI come with both good news and bad news.
The good news is that two-thirds of ourhappy triumphant has rejoined us for
this show.
So please welcome back the historian,Sir Niall Ferguson, and
(00:44):
former presidential national securityadvisor, Lieutenant General HR McMaster.
Gentlemen, good to see you.
All right, gentlemen,let's get right to it.
Let's talk about the change of powerabout to occur in Washington DC.
The 46th President of the United States,Joe Biden,
soon to give way to the 47th President,United States, Donald Trump.
It's not the first time that an Americanpresident will begin a second term.
(01:04):
But what is unique about this isthat Trump is beginning a second
non-consecutive term for the onlysecond time a president has done this.
Niall, I turn to you with the big questionfor the show and it's a two-part question.
Number one, what is the difference for
Trump between a first termversus a second first term?
And building upon that,
do we honestly believe that a 78-year-oldleopard can change his spots?
(01:25):
In other words, do we think that Trump isgoing to pursue the second term with more
discipline and a little more efficiency,and a little more effectiveness?
>> H.R. McMaster (01:31):
Well, there's some really fundamentally different dynamics
from 2017 and this year.
And there's some things will be the same,right?
So what has changed?
Well, the world's a much moredangerous place, and Niall and
I have been talking about this forquite some time.
It's a dangerous place, I think largely or
most importantly because ofthe coalescing of this axis of aggressors.
(01:53):
These are the two revanchistrevisionist powers on the Eurasian
landmass of Russia and China who havepulled into the fold the Iranians,
the theocratic dictatorship in Tehran.
And the only hereditary communistdictatorship in the world in North Korea,
so it's a dangerous place.
And it's dangerous because what we'vetalked about on this show quite a bit,
mainly because the axes of aggressorsperceive weakness in the United States and
(02:17):
across the free world.
So the world's changed,it's more dangerous.
There are a number of challenges, but,hey, there are a lot of opportunities.
Niall's written about this recently, and
think Donald Trump couldmake us tired of winning.
[LAUGH] He really could this time becauseof, I think, some profound weaknesses.
>> Bill Whalen (02:34):
But has Trump really changed?
Niall, you've been to Mar-A-Lago, andyou've seen him in that environment,
what is different this time?
>> H.R. McMaster (02:41):
Well, I mean, this is what I was getting to is that the team is
different because Trumpknows this team much better.
When I went in there quiteunexpectedly in February of 2017,
Trump didn't really know me.
He didn't really know Jim Mattis,who was the Secretary of Defense.
He didn't know Rex Tillersonas his Secretary of State.
(03:01):
And sowhat that did is it made it quite easy for
those who were coming intothe administration to sort of develop and
widen rifts between the president andmembers of his key team.
And there were really three groups ofpeople in that administration in 2017.
There were those who were thereto serve the elected president.
There were those who came in, I'mthinking of people like Steve Bannon, for
(03:22):
example, who weren't thereto serve Donald Trump,
they were there toadvance their own agenda.
And then you had a group of people who sawDonald Trump as an emergency [LAUGH] that
had to be contained, right?
This time there are gonna be farfewer people in the third group, but
there's still quite a lot ofpeople in that second group.
And I think there are people cominginto the administration who reflect to
(03:43):
a great extent what Donald Trumpis consistent about, right?
I mean, border security,burden sharing, reciprocity and trade,
energy dominance, right?
We know what you're gonnaget in those areas.
But there are also people who come in whoreflect the dissonance Donald Trump has,
the opposing ideas he carries in his head.
Peace through strengthversus budget hawks.
(04:05):
You have people who understandthe importance of burden sharing
through alliances and through and throughfor positioning of able US forces and
those who see retrenchmentas an unmitigated good.
So you're gonna see, I think [LAUGH]the at war with ourselves dimension.
It's still gonna be there,so it won't be boring.
(04:26):
Niall, what are your thoughts on this?
>> Niall Ferguson (04:28):
I agree with a lot of what you've said, HR, if one just kinda
compares the two administrationseight years ago or now.
This feels like it will be more cohesive,
he has done the job before, andthat does make a difference.
A central problem of Trump one was theinstability of the chief of staff role,
(04:51):
Susie Wiles is gonna be in that role.
She's come through the campaign withhim and clearly has his confidence.
And you can tell that there's alreadya tighter ship by the lack of
leaking to the press.
It's actually anybody's guess what's gonnabe in the inaugural address at this point.
The discipline is much greater.
I think if one looks down the list ofnames, and here the media doesn't really
(05:15):
help because they focus onlyon the controversial picks.
So we'll read way,way more about Pete Hegseth or
RFK than we'll hear about Marco Rubio,
about Scott Besant,about Doug Burgum, I could go on.
I look->> H.R. McMaster: Mike Waltz,
who's fantastic.
(05:37):
Mike Waltz,
let's talk about the national securityteam because HR raises the very
deep foreign policy problems thatthe new administration confronts.
A very different world from the worldof 2017 because this is a world where
the axis is formed and there are livewars going on in Eastern Europe and
the Middle East and a non trivialrisk of another one over Taiwan.
(05:58):
But if you look at that combinationof Rubio as Secretary of State,
you've got Mike Waltz atthe National Security Council,
I think it's an impressive lineup.
Keith Kellogg has been sent asspecial envoy for Ukraine and Russia.
He's played a very important role inthe interregnum, can we call it that,
(06:21):
between the two Trump terms atthe America First Think Tank.
So when I look at the rut,the whole thing,
I look at all the people who'vecurrently been nominated,
I think it's actually a verydifferent beast from Trump.
One which is HR says was a weird coalitionbetween people who got him elected,
who hadn't really expected to win,then the Republican Party establishment,
(06:43):
who were deeply wary of whatthey were getting into.
And then there were certain people who,as you say, saw themselves as there
to kind of save the republic fromthis demagogue who got elected.
This is gonna be a verydifferent story eight years on.
There'll be trouble alongthe way because there always is.
And it will be a second term, even ifthere has been a four-year hiatus and
(07:05):
the second term has certain dynamics.
It's very hard to have a bettersecond term than your first term.
Think only of Ronald Reagan'sdifficulties in his second term.
Still, with all of that said,
I'm feeling a little more comfortableabout where we're headed.
And I'm a hundred times more comfortablethan I would be if, by some weird quirk
(07:26):
of the electoral system, Kamala Harrishad just been sworn in as president.
>> Bill Whalen (07:31):
I hate to spring breaking news on you, but
Donald Trump literally seconds ago justposted on social media that a hostage deal
has been reached andthey will soon be released.
HR if there is indeed a hostage deal, ifindeed all of the hostages are released,
and that's one of the keysto be determining, or
if it's just a partial release oran entire release.
Does that open the door for Joe Biden todo something on the way out with regards
(07:51):
to Iran, to strike their nuclear program,strike the oil production?
Would you advise him to do so?
>> H.R. McMaster (07:57):
Well, no, I think it has to be an option on Iran's nuclear program,
and I think, it's inevitable thatthe Israelis will act if we don't act.
I think what's really notableabout this hostage deal which,
I think, has been the top priority forthe incoming Trump team as well as for
the Biden administration.
What's notable about it is in a period oftime when we see this kind of vitriolic,
(08:20):
partisan discourse, the outgoing Bidenadministration work very closely with
the incoming Trump administration.
The other dynamic associatedwith this deal that, I think,
people might miss is that it's reallyTrump's assurance to the Israelis.
The fact that the Israelis have nodoubt that Trump has their back,
that probably allowed the Israelis tomake the kinds of concessions that
(08:45):
they've had to make forthis deal to happen.
In terms of the release of Hamasterrorists that are probably gonna be part
of this deal.
Because they know that if they haveto track and hunt them down later,
that the United States will supportthe Israelis in that effort.
So, I think, that's one ofthe dynamics associated with this,
as well as the Iranians knowing, hey,Trump understands the return address for
(09:08):
all this.
He knows it goes back to Tehran.
And so, to the degree to which theIranians influence this process as well as
the Gutteres,
who know that Trump would like tohave a good relationship with Gutter.
But also he's quiteskeptical of the duplicity
of the gutteres on a number ofoccasions and in a number of areas.
So, I think, all these dynamicsabout Trump's experience
(09:32):
from poor has played intothis in a very positive way.
>> Niall Ferguson (09:36):
I think, it's very important to understand that
Trump's goal is indeedpeace through strength.
He wants the wars to endin the Middle east and
in Eastern Europe and to avoid a conflict,a hot war with China,
(09:56):
and he's got to work evenbefore he is sworn in.
It's clear that his envoy to the Middleeast has been actively negotiating,
I mean, no doubt the Biden administrationwill try to claim credit for this.
But I don't think that they couldhave done it on their own because
they've been trying forhow many months to achieve this?
(10:19):
And I don't think it's accidental that
Steve Witkoff turns up andsuddenly there's a deal.
I also think we'll see somethingsimilar in the case of Ukraine.
And notice since the election,Trump has spent much more time talking to,
and even being with Volodymyr Zelenskyythan talking to Vladimir Putin.
(10:44):
So what's interesting is that thispresidency has started even before
the official launch, the inauguration.
And there alreadyare signs that there will
be significant changesin the world in 2025.
I've drawn the analogy inthe recent foreign affairs piece
(11:04):
with the beginning ofthe Reagan presidency.
And you'll both rememberthat within minutes of
Ronald Reagan finishinghis inaugural address,
the hostages in Tehran were released.
So there's a similar vibe shift goingon here where you realize that the kind
(11:25):
of unsuccessful one term president is onthe way out, a new sheriff's in town.
And that new presidenthas greater credibility
even before he's sworn inthe geopolitical shift is happening.
And, of course,that has to be good news, I,
(11:48):
of course, don't wanna overstate the case.
As I understand it,
a significant number of terrorists will bereleased by the Israelis on their side.
That is my understandingof the nature of this deal,
and that's not great.
(12:09):
On the other hand,
if it takes the situation in Gazacloser towards a resolution,
then we will have to accept thatthat is a step worth taking.
And clearly Prime Minister Netanyahu,as HR said,
is willing to take that step andmake that concession.
(12:30):
Now that Trump is on his way to the WhiteHouse and previously he just wasn't.
>> H.R. McMaster (12:36):
The other dynamic associated with this, Niall and
Bill is as these hostages are released,
I fear that some of them probably havealready been killed by the terrorists.
The world's gonna have to confrontthe brutality, the inhumanity,
the barbarism of Hamas.
(12:57):
And, I think, that this will shift,I think, the narrative once again in favor
of Israel and against these terrorists whoreally are the enemies of all humanity.
And, I think, what that's goingto do is inject new life into
the Abraham Accords toresurrect the Abraham Accords.
And, I think, for Trump to reallykinda stack up the number of
(13:18):
diplomatic wins in the Middleeast quite quickly.
Especially as Niall noted,his special envoy is quite capable person.
I don't know him personally, butI know he's working extremely well with
the broader Trump foreign policy andnational security team.
So, I think, what you're gonna see is,I said it's kinda a little bit jokingly,
(13:40):
but I think, I mean, in the second term,
Donald Trump really mightmake us tired of winning.
In a number of areas, which has a lot todo with as you mentioned at the outset,
he did learn, I think,from his first time.
He's put a good team in place that, Ithink, will be more cohesive, at least for
a little while until they get eachother's throats on some of these issues.
(14:01):
But also that, I think,this axis of aggressors,
which I mentioned at the outset,is profoundly weak at this moment.
And President Biden tried to take creditfor that bizarrely, earlier this week.
When, in fact, I think, that thisaxis is weak kind of despite some of
the feckless policies of the Bidenadministration, not because of them.
>> Bill Whalen (14:24):
Let's talk about a few members of Sheriff Trump's posse.
Since we've been talking aboutthe Middle East and diplomacy, ultimately,
my question to you gentlemen.
If I demote you from Hoover Senior Fellowsto United States senators and
further punish you by movingyou to Washington, DC and
make you have to sit throughconfirmation hearings.
Question, you're sitting onthe Foreign Relations Committee,
(14:44):
and Marco Rubio is before you.
What is your question to Marco Rubioabout being a secretary of state?
What's the one thing youwanna find out for him, HR?
>> H.R. McMaster (14:52):
Well, I would like to ask him because he was kind of a one of
the first people in government to raisethe alarm bells about the intentions
of the Chinese Communist Party.
And to question what had been the flawedassumption about that underpins
US Policy toward China.
Which China having been welcomedinto the international community,
(15:12):
would play by the rules.
And as China prospered,it would liberalize its economy and
liberalize its form of governance,senator Rubio never bought that.
But what I would do is, I would ask himwhat his assessment is in connection with
our ability to compete effectivelywith the Chinese Communist Party.
That is determined to establishexclusionary areas of primacy across
(15:34):
the Inter Pacific region and to createnew spheres of influence internationally.
Such that they can rewrite the rules ofinternational discourse in favor of their
status, mercantilist economic model, andtheir authoritarian form of government.
What is your plan, future secretary ofState, to compete more effectively?
I think,that would be the question to ask,
because he's gonna havegreat ideas in this area.
(15:55):
And, of course, these are ideas thatwill require support by the Senate.
In the congress broadly, and I think youare based on the work that the China
select committee did in the house,there's a great opportunity, I think,
to up our game in terms ofthe competition with the CCP.
>> Niall Ferguson (16:13):
Well, I would ask about the most dangerous place in the world,
which is Taiwan.
And I'd ask to understandhow he thinks about
the threat posed by the peopleof the Republic of China
to Taiwan's de facto autonomy anddemocracy.
(16:34):
I would also ask about its importanceto our economy given that we now
are at a point where 99% ofthe sophisticated semiconductors used
in artificial intelligencecome from Taiwan.
We are trying to beef up our deterrence,at least,
that's the strong impressionwe get from the military side,
(16:57):
from Indo Pacific Command.
But are we willing the means to deterChina, that would be my question.
My sense is that the great problemwith the Biden administration's Taiwan
policy was that they talked a lot of talk.
But they weren't really successfulin enhancing Taiwan's capability or
(17:18):
our capability to deter China.
And I think it's important to understandwhat incoming Secretary of State thinks
about that issue, cuz in my view it'sthe most dangerous threat to global peace
that the world now faces.
And it probably will take the Trumpadministration some time to
re-establish deterrence in the far east.
>> Bill Whalen (17:38):
All right,
now let's shift you to anothercommittee Senate Armed Services and
Heg you been part of yesterday'sconfirmation hearing for
Defense Secretary designate Pete Hegseth.
I found this just to be a travestyof a hearing in this regard.
Instead of a conversation aboutAmerica's military preparedness,
the fiscal crunch facing the Pentagonwhich Niall has talked about in terms of
the ability to pay fora military versus paying off debt.
(18:00):
We were just saddled with a lot oftalk about this nominee's sex life,
his drinking habits and so forth.
HR if you were sitting on that committee,
what question would youoppose Pete Hegseth?
Cuz I'm fascinated by this, cuz I don'tthink there's been a more complicated
time in the history of our countryto be a defense secretary.
>> H.R. McMaster (18:15):
Yeah, I mean, it's kinda of an easy one [LAUGH] to come up with is
what are your top three priorities?
To improve the combat effectiveness,combat readiness,
the overall capacity in ourdepartment of defense and
the joint force,what would your top three priorities be?
And I'd be looking to hear something like,you are addressing the bow wave of
(18:37):
deferred modernization and doing sowith an eye toward reforming,
how we buy stuff in the departmentof defense and defense procurement.
And he talked about thisconsiderably would be
on how to preserve the warrior ethos, and
to ensure that our force hasthe mentality that's necessary,
(19:00):
the kind of cohesion, and the ethosnecessary to fight and win in war.
And I would like to hear more aboutwhat his thoughts are on the capacity
of the force, right?
And what the assumptions are thatshould underpin kinda the force sizing
the force structure.
Other issues to talk about mightbe his vision of future warfare,
(19:23):
and whether or not he believes the USmilitary is prepared to fight and win,
given the way that we see the characterof warfare kind of evolving.
You wanna hear those kindasubstantive questions,
because they're critical to the senate'srole of advice, and consent to
make sure that we have the best qualifiedpeople in these critical positions.
>> Bill Whalen (19:48):
Now, one point HR he was cornered by Kirsten Gillibrand,
the Senator from New York aboutthe issue of women in the infantry and
what Gillibrand asked him was whether ornot there was a quota on women in that.
>> Kirsten Gillibrand (19:58):
He needs generalized statements.
>> Pete Hegseth (20:00):
Meet quotas to have a certain number of female infantry officers
or infantry enlisted, andthat disparages those women.
>> Kirsten Gillibrand (20:07):
Commanders do not have to be quotas for the infantry.
>> Bill Whalen (20:10):
Is there a quota in the military, are you sure?
>> H.R. McMaster (20:12):
Well, I don't know, I'm not connected with the day to day but
there are standards, andthose standards have to be enforced.
I was the commander of 4 Moore, Georgia,what used to be, before Benning, Georgia,
during the period of time in which womenwere being integrated into combat arms.
Now, one of the things I just wouldlike to clarify is there have
(20:34):
been some statements about disagreeingwith women being in combat.
Hey, women have been in combat fora long, long time.
And when I was a commanderof an air cavalry squadron,
guess who the forwardmost cavalry scouts were?
Kiowa Warrior Scout pilots, right,who were in front of everybody, and
you could argue in the most dangerousposition on the battlefield.
(20:56):
Who's in the most dangerous position?
Is it an infantry soldier in the squad ora tank crewman, or
is it a truck driver sitting infront of 2,500 gallons of JPA
fuel on a contested highwayoutside of Baghdad?
So when we lost Corporal Jeffrey Williams,a fantastic soldier
(21:16):
who was the medic on our little platoonthat formed my security detail,
I asked forvolunteers on who would replace him.
The first hand that went up fromour headquarters medical troop
was a female soldier who carried heraid bag, carried her ammunition,
(21:38):
her weapon in body armor in 120-degreeheat in urban combat, right?
So I think it's really importantto clarify women are in combat.
There is a question of standards, right?
What are the standards for closecombat formations and units that have
a very considerable physical burdenassociated with duty in those units?
(22:00):
And these are typically the formationswhose mission it is to close with and
destroy the enemy in close combat.
Those standards should benon-negotiable cuz they're
based on what you really have todo in battle where you have to
carry on your back,how you have to perform as part of a unit.
(22:23):
So yeah, I mean that shouldhave been the discussion,
what should the standardsbe in close combat units?
How are you going to assess the degree towhich those standards are being enforced?
And I don't know ifthey're being enforced,
I'm not leading army unitsthe way like I used to.
>> Bill Whalen (22:43):
Okay, Niall, I want your thoughts on somebody who will not face
a confirmation hearing,and that is Elon Musk.
You of the three of us have the best readon Elon, two questions for you my friend.
First of all,do you think he can swim in his lane?
Can he stay focused on DOGE suitably,or is Elon too distracted?
And then that leads to my question,
what is he doing muckingaround a British politics?
>> Niall Ferguson (23:04):
Well,
it's certainly the case that Elon canmultitask like no one on this planet.
After all, think of allthe different companies that he is
somehow managing to run at the same time.
So I don't think we should justapply normal standards here and
(23:24):
assume that he's using X to attack KeirStarmer, he's not thinking about DOGE.
The Department of Government Efficiencythat he's supposed to be setting up.
I would say that Elon'sinterest in British politics
is part of what I callthe global vibe shift.
(23:49):
And it's a signal to the world thatthis administration is watching.
It's watching to see whethertheir allies as well
as adversaries are sincerein tackling some of
the problems that weall collectively face.
(24:09):
And I think it's pretty clearthat what went on in Britain,
and I'm speaking from that countrytonight over not just years, but decades.
Was an indefensible covering up orhushing up of
attracted succession ofhideous crimes that are not
(24:32):
accurately described withthe phrase grooming gangs.
What was actually going onwere gang rapes of minors.
So pedophile rape gangs wouldbe a better description.
And the fact that some unknownproportion of these crimes were
(24:54):
carried out by people of Pakistaniheritage in multiple cities is one
of the truly outrageous storiesof contemporary British history.
If it takes Elon Musk toforce a public discussion and
perhaps also a publicinquiry into that scandal,
then that's a sad reflection on the stateof health of the British media and
(25:20):
the British political class.
Does this mean that Elon's notsimultaneously running SpaceX and
Tesla andthe Department of Government Efficiency?
No, the man is all butsuperhuman, and I don't think for
a minute that DOGE is going to be a dog,
I think DOGE is gonna bea very important part of 2025.
(25:45):
Remember, it's a two-yearenterprise to try to make
a meaningful impact onwaste in the government.
Which is a big part ofthe problem of our deficit and
our debt andour chronically inefficient federal
bureaucracy with its whoknows how many agencies.
(26:06):
I tried to find out today howmany federal agencies there are?
The answer is around 430,nobody's quite sure exactly.
Tells you all you need to know,doesn't it?
So->> H.R. McMaster: It reminds me of
one of my favorite Monty Python skitswas the Ministry of Silly Walks.
Do you remember?
>> [LAUGH]>> Bill Whalen: That probably is
(26:29):
a Federal Bureau of Silly Walks somewherein the outskirts of Washington DC.
>> Reporter (26:35):
I think- >> H.R. McMaster
grants, actually only one of your legs issilly, well, that's why need the grant?
>> Bill Whalen (26:42):
What would you do with the federal government?
I was dropping off a letter atthe post office the other day and
I looked over at the post office,thought to myself,
why do we still have a United StatesPostal Service in this day and age?
It's doing the US Mail is kind oflike walking around the Sony Walkman.
>> H.R. McMaster (26:57):
I disagree with that though, Bill.
I mean, you have these greatHoover stationery that we use,
I like sending notes to people.
You like get to you like Eddie Bell,don't you, Bill?
I mean [LAUGH].
>> Niall Ferguson (27:10):
I wrote a letter only today, but it's true to say that
the relative importance of USpostal services is declining in
our extraordinarilytechnologically transformed world.
Now, here's the thing that Elon andVivek Ramaswamy,
who, of course will also be on the DOGEportfolio, understand very well.
(27:32):
Namely that the last part of oureconomy to be transformed by
information technologywill be the government.
And it's gotta happen, and until it doeshappen, we're going to have this chronic
fiscal imbalance becausethe government is an analog entity.
It is running, at best,with legacy software,
(27:53):
in some cases not even with software.
And if they can make a starton bringing the New Age,
the 21st century tothe federal government,
it will translate, I believe,into meaning savings.
It's, by the way, fashionable to say,this is all impossible,
they won't be able to achieve anything.
It's been tried before,that's how Washington talks, right?
(28:15):
HR it's like we've seen this.
>> H.R. McMaster (28:18):
Niall, I know in contact with some of
the members of this teamas are coming together.
You might suggest to them that they takea look at what Japan has been doing for
quite a number of years.
They have a department that's focused ongovernment efficiency, digitization, and
I think this is an era where we can learna lot from what Japan has tried and
what succeeded, what's failed, andI think there's an opportunity there.
>> Niall Ferguson (28:38):
And Estonia and Taiwan.
>> H.R. McMaster (28:41):
Yeah, the digital state thing, digital citizenship in Estonia.
Absolutely, yeah.
>> Niall Ferguson (28:45):
And they're like decades ahead of the US government.
So, I think this is a really importantassignment that Elon's given himself and
Vivek, andI think we should be rooting for them.
And I think, let's just remember,
what is Peter Thiel's first law,never bet against Elon.
>> Bill Whalen (29:03):
Well put, okay, I'm gonna go see what Estonia and
Japan do on their mail service.
And for the record, I'm not anti-mail,it's just a question of is the government
doing something that private sectorcould do better and quicker?
>> H.R. McMaster (29:13):
I'm gonna write you a note today, Bill,
to tell you how much I appreciate you,man.
>> Bill Whalen (29:16):
Thank you. >> H.R. McMaster
when you get that in the mail,you're gonna feel good,
you're gonna get a warm feeling, Ton.
So years ago, this journalist, Salena Zito,
said something incredibly trenchant,I think, about the Trump experience.
And she said words, the effectthat when looking at Donald Trump,
you have to understand the following,that his followers take him seriously but
not literally, whereas his detractorstake him literally but not seriously.
And this takes me to MAGA, as I call it,which is Make a Greenland Acquisition.
(29:40):
Trump has talked a lot about the worldbeyond America's shores since he was
elected.
He has talked about Americapicking up Greenland,
he has talked about Canadabecoming a 51st state.
He has talked about takingback the Panama Canal,
he's talked about the Gulf of Mexicobecoming the Gulf of America.
So, gentlemen, the Salena Zito question,do we take him seriously,
do we take him literally?
>> H.R. McMaster (30:02):
Hey, I think to take him seriously and he thinks out loud.
I write about a lot about this in thebook, I tell the story one day he said,
he goes,General why don't we just bomb them?
I'm like, well, who should we bomb, Mr.President, who would have in mind?
[LAUGH] He said the labs,the labs of Mexico.
And after the meeting,we huddled outside of the Oval Office, and
(30:23):
some of the people in there had onlyrarely interacted with the President.
I think there may be a couplepeople who were there for
the first time interactingwith the president, and
they were kind of apoplectic of like,my gosh, we're to bomb Mexico.
I'm like, no, guy, I mean,
what he's saying to us is that90,000 people die every year.
90,000 of our fellow Americans dieevery year from fentanyl poisoning, and
(30:47):
what we're doing isn't working.
So what he's telling us todo is to bring him options.
>> Bill Whalen (30:52):
Right. >> H.R. McMaster
[LAUGH] Greenland,Arctic security is a big deal, right?
Maybe we're not doing enough on Arcticsecurity, that's what he's saying,
you know or maybe is Panama givingus a good deal on the canal?
I don't know, I mean, but it isa concern of growing Chinese influence,
not only in Panama on both sides of thecanal, where Chinese companies own a lot
(31:13):
of the infrastructure, butin the Western hemisphere, broadly.
So let's do something about it, so
that's what he's saying ina lot of these ideas or
he's a conversational learnerhe thinks out loud, right?
And so if you're around himmultiple times a day, I mean,
you kind of understand that.
(31:34):
But I think people who are only exposed tohim sporadically which is really not that
many people anymore, right?
As he comes into his second term, I thinkthey should take him seriously, but
not always literally,cuz he does think out loud.
He says that what many people,maybe most people,
would regard as outlandish things, butthose outlandish things that he says
(31:56):
are typically conversation startersabout a significant issue.
Well, Niall, this ties with something you like to talk about,
which is Empire versus Republic.
>> Niall Ferguson (32:04):
Well, that was last year's leitmotif.
I always like to start the yearwith some kind of organizing idea.
And this time last year,I remember saying it on
this show the choice we face isbetween Empire and Republic.
I was being semi serious because at thattime, you may have forgotten this, but
back then, part of the Biden campaign wasgoing to be that Donald Trump was this
(32:27):
terrible threat to democracy, and thatwas why you should vote for Joe Biden.
Well, here we are, that didn'tplay out the way they intended.
I think the question can be focused now,because President Trump
revealed during the campaign that heowes some debt to William McKinley,
(32:48):
late 19th century president,whom he associates with tariffs.
McKinley certainly was a tariff man,but McKinley was also
an Empire kinda guy,because out of the Spanish American War,
the McKinley presidency acquiredquite a lot of real estate.
(33:08):
It acquired Guam,it acquired the Philippines temporarily,
it had Puerto Rico and an option on Cuba.
That president also pickedup Hawaii along the way.
So when President Trump says, hey,how about Canada as a 51st state?
Or let's rename the Gulf of Mexico Mexico,and hey, Greenland, let's have that.
He's just being McKinley.
(33:30):
And that's why the whole idea that DonaldTrump was an isolationist was always so
wide of the mark that it was inthe opposite direction of the target.
So the McKinley element to Trump isinteresting to me that you got to know
when you're trying to decide,am I taking him literally or seriously?
You gotta know when Trump is joking,
(33:51):
cuz sometimes Trump isn'tintending to be taken seriously.
And I think Canada is that the whole thingwith Justin Trudeau was a massive trolling
operation that Trudeau walked right into,and it ended Trudeau's premiership.
But I think it was all just a joke.
Trump was obviously making funof Trudeau when he said, hey,
(34:11):
you should be the 51st state andyou can be governor, that's a Trump joke.
Even if it does have consequences forTrudeau,
who should probably not have rushedto Mar a Lago the way he did.
Greenland, is Trump being serious?
Because there's a seriousissue as HR has rightly said,
we're actually lucky to haveamongst our fellowship.
Eyck Freymann, who's one of the world'sleading experts on this subject,
(34:31):
wrote his doctorate on Greenland.
And I can remember when he suggestedthat as a doctoral thesis,
scratching my head a little, butof course he was onto something.
It's a long standing problem ofNorth Atlantic security Greenland.
And the status quo is no longerstable if the inhabitants
are considering either independence orleaning to China.
(34:52):
And so Trump is absolutely right that wehave to address this issue, because we
certainly can't have Greenland becomingpart of the Belt Road initiative or
whatever it is thatthe Chinese might have in mind.
So we gottta know,when is he being serious?
>> H.R. McMaster (35:06):
The Senate's introducing a bill, Niall,
to authorize the presidentnegotiate on Greenland.
And we should mention thereare 58,000 residents in Greenland.
So in terms of scale, right?
It could be feasible there, right?
In terms of a deal, right?
You make the deal look pretty attractiveto 58,000 Greenlanders, I think.
>> Niall Ferguson (35:28):
So I think this is a case where one needs to take him both
literally and seriously.
And understand that what was determinedafter World War II and the relationship
between Denmark and Greenland thatexists today is not set in stone.
It's not something that waspreordained at the creation.
And it would be surprising rising ina world where the tectonic plates
(35:50):
are shifting a lot if the United Statessimply sat passively and
let others move the plates.
>> Bill Whalen (35:56):
All right, a son of the times is that we've spent a lot of time on
this podcast talking about Donald Trump,and we haven't talked about Joe Biden,
who, by the way, is on TV tonightgiving a national address.
His timing is excellent, he gets tobrag now about the hostage release.
I assume it'll be in that speech.
I'll leave it to your fellowhistorians to discuss the Biden legacy.
Let's do one question on Biden,and that's this.
(36:17):
Where did it go wrong?
I could point you tothe disastrous debate.
I could point you to the disastrouswithdrawal from Afghanistan.
I could point you to the meeting ofhistorians who came into the White House
and said, you can be the next FDR,LBJ if you wanna be.
But, you guys,where do you think Biden went off track?
>> Niall Ferguson (36:34):
It went off track right at the start when they told him,
you can be a transformative president.
And the way you can be a transformativepresident is with a whole bunch of big
spending legislation.
Think Roosevelt, think LBJ.
And he went straight intothat at a time when, in fact,
the federal government should have beenreining in spending cuz the pandemic was
(36:57):
clearly gonna come to an end.
And the vaccines worked, they made a hugemistake in throwing money around in 2021.
And that led to the inflationthe following year that saw consumer price
inflation up at 9%.
That's why they lost the electionmore than any other thing.
The second reason you already mentioned,Bill, they bungled Afghanistan.
(37:17):
They bungled the withdrawal fromAfghanistan, alienating allies, but
worst of all, leaving the people ofAfghanistan at the mercy of the Taliban.
And that set a signal to all theauthoritarians, this is a weak presidency,
we can have some fun here.
So I think it all wentwrong in year one and
I'm proud of the fact that I pointed thatout at the time when after 100 days I was
(37:39):
asked how should we thinkabout the Biden presidency?
I said, forget transformative, this isgonna be a lot like the Karter presidency.
It'll be a one term presidency and it'sgoing to be notable for inflation and for
geopolitical weakness.
>> Bill Whalen (37:51):
Yeah, HR if you look at Biden's polling over
the four years you get to Afghanistan andonce Afghanistan occurs,
his polls go south andthey never come back.
>> H.R. McMaster (38:00):
Yeah, I think I agree with everything Niall said.
I think also you could add to thatthe administration kinda resurrected
the philosophy of the Obamaadministration in that
it was a performative administrationrather than a formative one.
And everything about them is messaging,they message everything.
(38:21):
And it's all about the story that theycan tell about whatever the issue
is rather than the results they can,that they can deliver.
Or how they can compete effectivelywith aggressors and rivals and so forth,
how to manage the relationship, how totell a good story about the relationship.
(38:41):
And I think that that has reallyunderpinned so much of their foreign
policy and they just didn't takeseriously that there are hostile states
who have aspirations that go far beyondanything that's in reaction to us.
And this is how you get kindathe mantra of management of these
relationships andsort of the escalation management or
(39:05):
the effort to always deescalaterather than to compete effectively.
And that was read asweakness by our aggressors.
And I think as Niall said, that leddirectly to the disaster in Afghanistan.
Then it left a trail from Afghanistanto the massive reinvasion of Ukraine in
(39:25):
February of 2022 to the horrificHamas attacks on Israel and
the activation of Iran's Ringof Fire against Israel.
And I think it also led toa more aggressive stance by
the Chinese Communist Party.
So I think one of the reasonwhy we have North Korean
troops fighting on European soil, right?
(39:46):
I think this is all based onthis perception of weakness and
an administration that wasfocused on its performance.
What it said from various podiums,
rather than what it did to advanceAmerican security and American prosperity.
>> Bill Whalen (40:02):
Very quick, that's a question,
Donald Trump takes office at noonon January 20th, East coast time.
Tell me the one thing thatyou two are looking for
in terms of a measure ofTrump being successful.
>> Niall Ferguson (40:11):
I think the economy is the thing that's hardest for
this incoming administrationbecause they're inheriting
an economy that they overheatedwith fiscal stimulus.
They're inheriting an inflation landingthat hasn't really yet fully happened.
(40:31):
The bond market is looking atthe numbers deficit, 6% of GDP,
debt is way above 100% of GDP andit's getting nervous.
If the bond market continues to bejittery and the 10 year yield continues
to be where it is, then I thinkthe stock market's gonna be vulnerable
(40:52):
unless just insanely good news keepson coming in from the AI Bros.
So I think their biggest challengeis actually on the economic side.
And that of course, was true ofRonald Reagan too, because '81,
'82 saw one of the nastiestof post war recessions.
Didn't have a whole lot to do with Reagan,
it had a lot to do with Paul Volckertrying to end the inflation of the 1970s.
(41:13):
In the same way, if the economyturns ugly in the next year,
it won't really have much,I think, to do with Trump.
But he'll be blamed and people will say,you talked about tariffs and
you did this and you did that andyou spooked the markets.
I think in truth, they're reallygonna have a tough time writing
this economy because of the way it'sbeen run by their predecessors.
(41:37):
That's what I'm gonna be watching notwhat's in the New York Times or the BBC or
any of the legacy media.
I know what they'regonna be writing about.
They're gonna be saying,deportations, terrible.
That's gonna be their narrative, but
I'm gonna be looking very closely atreally how the markets respond to all
the tough things that this administrationis going to have to do, HR.
>> H.R. McMaster (42:00):
Hey, I think I'll be just, of course,
paying attention to the tone.
Remember the first inaugural speech, thetagline became American carnage, and what
I'm hoping to see is, kind of a positivevision, for the future of the country.
I think that we do have kind ofa crisis of confidence in our country.
I hope that President Trumphelps us get over that and
(42:21):
restores our confidence in ourcommon identity as Americans.
And I hope that he sort of sets off ona path that allows him to do a better
job than he did in his first term.
And certainly a better job than Joe Bidendid at getting to the politics of
addition to bring Americanstogether around a positive agenda.
For restoring confidence,in who we are, but
(42:44):
also confidence in our democraticprinciples and institutions and processes.
And as you said, confidence in ourfree market economic system, right.
And confidence among, maybe youngergenerations that they're gonna have even
a better life,than their parents and grandparents.
So, tone is gonna be a big part of it,I think.
(43:05):
And I hope it's positive, andI hope it sets him off on a course toward
getting to this kind ofpolitics of addition.
>> Bill Whalen (43:12):
And I'm watching his chief of staff, Susie Wiles,
who is saying all the rightthings in the transition,
how she is going to limitaccess to the Oval Office.
He's not gonna let independent operators,
their own agendas try to cloudup the President's thinking.
If you're not familiar with Washington,a chief of staff is usually important
to a president in terms ofbeing both a traffic cop but
also keeping the President on a steadybeat, so let's see if Susie's successful.
(43:34):
And with that->> H.R. McMaster: Good luck [LAUGH].
I mean, I'll tell you,I think that's great, but the president,
he likes to talk toa broad range of people.
You can't limit that, right?
Right. >> H.R. McMaster
I think what you can do is you can limitthe degree to which people can try to
manipulate him.
So whenever certain peoplewent into the Oval Office,
(43:54):
I made sure I went in with them.
Because I knew they were bringing withthem an element of kind of a foreign
policy agenda or they wanted the Presidentto do a solid for them, internationally.
And there's nothing good forthe President in that kind of stuff.
So I think, it's really important forthe chief of staff,
the national Security advisor,to recognize, as you're alluding to, Bill.
(44:16):
I mean, these are two people in the WhiteHouse who have the President really as,
as their main client, right.
And National Security advisorreally the only client, and
it's really important to make sure that,the President is not sort of manipulated.
And of course,this happens with every president.
(44:37):
And they'll try the people who pushhis buttons, they do it with flattery.
They do it with, hey, this will make youlook weak, this will alienate your base,
your most loyal supporters, they're notgonna like you anymore if you do this.
I think what you really need to do is,as a chief of staff, is make sure
the President gets best advice andhears from a broad range of people.
(44:59):
But always gets multiple options becausethe President deserves multiple options.
The President's the personwho got elected.
So don't try to shine onecourse of action up and
get everybody to try to getDonald Trump to approve it.
Give him a range of actions,
help him understand how thisfits into his overall agenda.
And I think when that happens withDonald Trump, he makes good decisions.
(45:23):
If you try to just givehim that one option or
if you try to manipulate him intocertain decisions, it's gonna backfire.
Okay, onto the lightning round.
[SOUND]>> Bill Whalen: So four years ago,
our friend Niall Ferguson published a bookcalled Doom, the Politics and Catastrophe.
And if you look at that book and you lookat the photo on the jacket of that book,
(45:45):
it looks like, Niall, you're playinggolf in Los Angeles right now.
Not to diminish what the good peopleat that city are going through.
If you haven't seen the book,read the book yet by means do get it, and
look at that photo.
It shows a fire about to consumea golf course, making for
the trickiest of par fours,we would agree.
Niall, as you watch what's going on in LosAngeles, it strikes me as really something
straight out of your book in thatEllie's problems are one part nature.
(46:07):
You can't control 100 milean hour Santa Ana winds, but
it's also one part man in termsof bad government policy.
So, could you put LA's plightin the doom narrative?
>> Niall Ferguson (46:19):
Well, it fits right in because the central argument of
that book was there's no such thingas a purely natural catastrophe.
Or in almost every case, and you cango all the way back to ancient volcanic
eruptions, there's some elementof human agency involved.
After all, nobody made you builda city at the foot of a volcano,
(46:40):
Vesuvius, for example.
And I think that the case ofthe fires of Los Angeles,
truly terrible events that have destroyedthe homes of many thousands of people and
cost lives, dozens of lives,need to be understood in this way.
The debate that's going on right now,as far as I can see,
is between those who say,it's a purely natural event,
(47:03):
how can anybody possibly blame the localauthorities or the state authorities.
And those on the other side who say,
it's entirely the fault ofmisguided climate policies.
And the reality is, as with nearlyall disasters, all great fires,
great floods, all the greatdisasters that my book describes,
(47:23):
it's this point at which natureintersects with bad decisions.
There have been a lot of baddecisions taken in California
over some decades since Californiabecame a one party state,
and environmentalpreoccupations took over.
From, say, policies of controlledburning in areas vulnerable to
(47:45):
fire when we stopped investingin our water infrastructure.
These problems are so well establishedthat I remember writing a column
about wildfires in California as apolitical problem at least four years ago.
When we had a space of firesin Northern California.
So you can't exonerate the stategovernment or the city government by
(48:07):
simply saying, gee, the wind wasreally strong and fires happened here.
There has been a pattern ofmisgovernment in California and
in the major cities of California.
And I can only hope that this calamityin the state's biggest city finally
persuades people that there'ssomething rotten at the heart
(48:27):
of the California Democratic Party.
And there needs to be real opposition toit within the state if the state is to be
properly managed again.
And it has not been properly managed,I'm sorry to say, for decades.
>> Bill Whalen (48:40):
Right, So, HR Essentially, the podcaster columnist Hugh Hewitt has
called this California's Chernobylin this regard.
1980s Chernobyl occursin the Soviet Union, and
the government cannot cover upthe fact that this is a garden.
The people suddenly realize, my God,this is Soviet style management.
And Hugh contends that the fireshave exposed this in California.
(49:00):
But what you see going on in Californiaright now, HR is a leadership crisis,
plain and simple.
The governor does not have controlof the situation, there's no
confidence in the mayor at any chance theywill throw somebody else under the bus and
not say something as simple as,this is my fault, I screwed up.
Does this speak to a largerleadership crisis in this country?
>> H.R. McMaster (49:18):
I think you're exactly right, it's a crisis of leadership.
And I'd like to just ask you the question,I mean,
you're an expert on California politics.
I recommend our readers go to your column,they listen to your podcast,
it's fantastic.
And everything I know about Californiapolitics, I kinda learned from you, Bill.
So I'm gonna ask you,is this a moment of reckoning?
Are people finally gonna elect peoplelike Rick Caruso, for example,
(49:43):
in LA instead of more of the same,the next Karen Bassett that comes along?
I don't know, I mean,I hope so, I really hope so.
I mean, my whole family's here,my children,
my grandchildren are all in California.
And it's a beautiful place,it's a wonderful place to live.
And as you've exposed so many times in somany different ways, it's so poorly led.
(50:04):
So, Bill, what are the prospects,is it gonna get better?
>> Bill Whalen (50:07):
The doors wide open to
someone like Rick Caruso torun in a recall election?
Caruso, for those not aware, isa developer extraordinaire in Los Angeles.
He ran for mayor in 2022, andhe lost to Karen Bass, the current mayor.
He could run into recall,he could probably win in a recall.
But here's what I'vebeen thinking about this.
It's not going to bringRonald Reagan in overnight,
the state is still 2 to 1 democraticin terms of party registration.
(50:30):
But I think what we're seeing here isnow the door is wide open to an ideas
conversation in California without boringyou the nuances of our politics here.
We had a ballot initiative,last of all Proposition 36.
And this was undoing a previous ballotinitiative which had watered down
punishment for shoplifting in California.
If you got caught with less than$900 of goods, misdemeanor penalty,
(50:51):
the cops don't reallywant to prosecute you.
You get turn on the street,
revolving door to justice leads tostores getting constantly looted.
Stores eventually shut down.
And Niall, that's why you get SanFrancisco in a doom loop to use Doom once
again, we're gonna sell thatbook today as best we can.
>> Niall Ferguson (51:05):
Thank you, I appreciate it.
>> Bill Whalen (51:07):
What the point I'm making here is that Prop 36 not only
passed last fall an anti-crime measure.
It got almost 70% of the statewide vote,that is incredibly rarefied era for
a California ballot initiative.
It passed in every county in California,including Marin county,
which hates these sorts of measuresbecause California is fed up.
If you look north to San Francisco, whichwas somewhat gloating while Los Angeles is
(51:30):
suffering because why blue skies,no earthquakes,
one there is a reminder thatno part of California is safe.
San Francisco actually hadan earthquake last Friday,
it was in the same spotas a 1906 earthquake.
That would make menervous if I lived there.
But San Francisco swartinaugurated new mayor last week.
His name is Daniel Lurie,he's an heir to Levi Strauss fortune.
(51:50):
And what's notable about Mr.
Lurie is that he is not a productof San Francisco politics.
This is the first time they'vechosen a a non-political mayor since
the Harry Truman Dwight Eisenhower era.
So voters in San Francisco are fed up andthey're looking for something different.
So I would argue that if you reallywanna affect change in California,
I would not spend $20 million tryingto elect a Republican because he has
(52:12):
the wrong letter at the end of his name.
I would get involved in the initiativeprocess and start pushing ideas and
forcing those status quo inCalifornia to defend them.
But let me send this back to you guys.
Well, Niall's a former California,
recovering Californian Iguess we would call it.
HR is still a Californian.
My question to the two of you is, wouldyou advise somebody to move to California?
This is a beautiful land,nature is spectacular.
(52:35):
There is opportunity if you are veryintelligent and very innovative.
On the other hand,housing is impossibly expensive.
Good luck getting gasolineat a cheap price.
If I took you guys to my favorite diner inPalo Alto, I treat you to a $23 omelette.
Why would anybody wanna live here?
>> H.R. McMaster (52:54):
How about the scenery, the climate.
I mean,I look outside my window right now, Bill.
I mean, looking at the Santa CruzMountains, or looking down the South Bay.
I think it is a great place to be andit is a really creative place.
I didn't really even understandit how this innovation ecosystem
(53:19):
worked until I came back toCalifornia after having been
a National Security Affairs Fellowhere at Hoover from 2002 to 2003.
And you have the universitieswho are connected to so
much of the capital that's availablehere and the venture firms who
are connected to the engineers thatthese universities produce, right?
(53:44):
And the ideas that are generated here.
So it's an exciting place to be andI think it is a real hub for
innovation across the country anda real strength of the United States.
I think there has been, and
Michael Anton who's going back into theTrump administration, is a great guy and
was, he was our communications directorand National Security Council staff.
(54:06):
He wrote a really acerbic but
extraordinarily witty essay aboutthe history of Silicon Valley.
And about the turn it took away fromits roots which was really the defense
industry in the post-World War II periodin particular, and World War II period.
And so I think that it's coming back.
(54:30):
What I see here and people would tell me,man, you're out there in California,
isn't that an environmentof self-loathing?
No, I mean, there are so many patrioticpeople here who believe in our country,
who understand that we're in consequentialcompetitions internationally.
So I think because ofthe wholesale politics here and
what you described as the DemocraticParty's exclusive grip on power and
(54:53):
a certain ideology that has beenprevalent here for a long time.
There's kind of a misunderstanding ofthe many Californias that exist and so
many of the people here who are determinedto help advance our interests and
humanity's interests against what we seeis, I think, threats to our way of life.
(55:14):
Manifested by the Chinese Communist Party,for example, or
what we see with Russia and the war inUkraine or terrorist organizations and
their sponsors like Iran.
Anyway, I think this California thatI know is not what people perceive it
to be from my old hometown like inPhiladelphia where they're a lot of
my cousins are like, man,I can't believe you're in California.
(55:38):
What is that like?
I'm like, yeah, it's great,[LAUGH] it's great [LAUGH].
>> Niall Ferguson (55:43):
It is great and I want to stress to Good Fellows fans that I have
not left California for the conventionalpolitical or economic reasons.
I'm back here for family reasons andflying to California tomorrow and
looking forward to it very much.
I think HR's right, I think things arefinally turning because the progressive
(56:06):
wing of the Democratic party has just madesuch a huge mess of the two major cities.
And after a certain point,even the most liberally inclined,
conservative hating Californian says,something's got to change.
So, I think it is gonna change.
I think there's also been a big shiftin sentiment in Silicon Valley.
And let's not forget, maybe this is a goodnote on which to end, that this election
(56:30):
might have turned out very differently ifthe tech bros, the red pill, tech bros.
Elon Musk, butalso my friend Marc Andreessen,
Joe Lonsdale,a bunch of people from the tech sector,
had not decisively shifted their politicalorientation and backed Donald Trump.
That was a very big differencebetween 2024 and 2016.
(56:52):
And a lot of that impetus whichlies behind ideas like DOGE,
originates in Silicon Valley.
So, I think Silicon Valleyhas really shifted.
And as Silicon Valley goes, soI think ultimately California goes,
it's coming back.
And the vibe shift cannot be escapedanywhere in the world, including in
(57:12):
Los Angeles, in San Francisco, andlet's hope finally in Sacramento.
>> H.R. McMaster (57:17):
Hey, and I'll tell you, I love California, but
I don't love California enough to berooting for the Rams this weekend.
Just to make that clear.
>> Bill Whalen (57:25):
Hey, Niall, since you mentioned Silicon Valley,
I wanna split one more thing before we go,and that is Meta.
It's now ditched its fact checkingprogram, the other day announced it's now
doing away with its DEI programs,meaning hiring, training, and suppliers.
Niall, what the Zuck is going on?
>> Niall Ferguson (57:40):
Well, if you think back, I think it was to 2019,
he gave a pretty strongdefense of free speech in
a lecture that he gave inWashington at that point.
And then he was kind of justswamped by the trends that we saw
in all the big tech companies.
(58:02):
They emanated in some ways from theuniversities where they hire their young
people, from the HR department.
And I think Mark Zuckerberg,like other tech leaders who might have
been personally libertarian inclined,they were just overwhelmed.
I don't think it speaks very well
(58:25):
of Mark Zuckerberg that he folded,
as he clearly did in 2020, 2021.
But I'm glad to see thatthe vibe shift has enabled him to
throw off that mask andrevert to his 2019 position.
(58:47):
I think that's a healthy thing.
It does right slightly remind me ofan old Rothschild joke, which is,
what are my principles todaywith regard to pork bellies?
I mean, what are your principles today,
is a good question to askthe next tech bro you meet.
>> Bill Whalen (59:03):
Good, HR, you have the last word.
>> H.R. McMaster (59:05):
Hey, I just think sometimes you have to take people [LAUGH]
you have to believe what they say,
and I think his message,it seemed to be sincere.
Hey, we tried to do this,it didn't work out.
We were wrong, andhe reversed his position.
And so, I think that,as Niall said, is positive.
I think it does reflect what Niall beganto talk about at the beginning of our
(59:28):
discussion today,which is the shift in the vibe overall,
which I think is in a positive direction.
And so, all reasons to be optimistic.
And I hope that our incomingpresident is optimistic
in his speech coming uphere at the inauguration.
>> Bill Whalen (59:44):
Okay, guys, good conversation, very efficient conversation.
DOGE, Department of GoodfellowsEfficiency, how's that [LAUGH]?
On behalf of the Good Fellows,Sir Niall Ferguson, and HR McMaster,
our missing Good Fellow, the recoveringeconomist, John Cochrane, get better,
John, soon, we miss you.
We hope you enjoyed today's show,
we'll be back in later thismonth with a very good guest.
(01:00:05):
I'm not gonna tell you who it isyou're gonna have to tune to watch,
but you're gonna like it, trust me.
>> H.R. McMaster (01:00:09):
I've got one more DOGE, the morbid of Go Eagles.
>> Niall Ferguson (01:00:13):
[LAUGH] >> Bill Whalen
Niall the Fly, Eagles,Fly song at some point [LAUGH].
Anyway, folks, thanks again forwatching, a very belated happy 2025 and
we will see you soon, take care.
Thanks for watching.[MUSIC]
>> Presenter (01:00:35):
If you enjoyed this show and
are interested in watchingmore content featuring H.R.
McMaster, watch Battlegroundsalso available at hoover.org.
[MUSIC]
Do you owe citizens an apology for
being absent while theirhomes were burning?
Do you regret cutting the fire departmentbudget by millions of dollars,
Madam Mayor,have you nothing to say today?
Have you absolutely nothingto say to the citizens today?
(00:20):
[MUSIC]
>> Bill Whalen (00:21):
It's Wednesday, January 15, 2025.
And welcome back to Goodfellows, a HooverInstitution broadcast examining social,
economic, political, andgeopolitical concerns.
I'm Bill Whalen,I'm a Hoover distinguished policy fellow.
I'll be your moderator today, andI come with both good news and bad news.
The good news is that two-thirds of ourhappy triumphant has rejoined us for
this show.
So please welcome back the historian,Sir Niall Ferguson, and
(00:44):
former presidential national securityadvisor, Lieutenant General HR McMaster.
Gentlemen, good to see you.
All right, gentlemen,let's get right to it.
Let's talk about the change of powerabout to occur in Washington DC.
The 46th President of the United States,Joe Biden,
soon to give way to the 47th President,United States, Donald Trump.
It's not the first time that an Americanpresident will begin a second term.
(01:04):
But what is unique about this isthat Trump is beginning a second
non-consecutive term for the onlysecond time a president has done this.
Niall, I turn to you with the big questionfor the show and it's a two-part question.
Number one, what is the difference for
Trump between a first termversus a second first term?
And building upon that,
do we honestly believe that a 78-year-oldleopard can change his spots?
(01:25):
In other words, do we think that Trump isgoing to pursue the second term with more
discipline and a little more efficiency,and a little more effectiveness?
>> H.R. McMaster (01:31):
Well, there's some really fundamentally different dynamics
from 2017 and this year.
And there's some things will be the same,right?
So what has changed?
Well, the world's a much moredangerous place, and Niall and
I have been talking about this forquite some time.
It's a dangerous place, I think largely or
most importantly because ofthe coalescing of this axis of aggressors.
(01:53):
These are the two revanchistrevisionist powers on the Eurasian
landmass of Russia and China who havepulled into the fold the Iranians,
the theocratic dictatorship in Tehran.
And the only hereditary communistdictatorship in the world in North Korea,
so it's a dangerous place.
And it's dangerous because what we'vetalked about on this show quite a bit,
mainly because the axes of aggressorsperceive weakness in the United States and
(02:17):
across the free world.
So the world's changed,it's more dangerous.
There are a number of challenges, but,hey, there are a lot of opportunities.
Niall's written about this recently, and
think Donald Trump couldmake us tired of winning.
[LAUGH] He really could this time becauseof, I think, some profound weaknesses.
>> Bill Whalen (02:34):
But has Trump really changed?
Niall, you've been to Mar-A-Lago, andyou've seen him in that environment,
what is different this time?
>> H.R. McMaster (02:41):
Well, I mean, this is what I was getting to is that the team is
different because Trumpknows this team much better.
When I went in there quiteunexpectedly in February of 2017,
Trump didn't really know me.
He didn't really know Jim Mattis,who was the Secretary of Defense.
He didn't know Rex Tillersonas his Secretary of State.
(03:01):
And sowhat that did is it made it quite easy for
those who were coming intothe administration to sort of develop and
widen rifts between the president andmembers of his key team.
And there were really three groups ofpeople in that administration in 2017.
There were those who were thereto serve the elected president.
There were those who came in, I'mthinking of people like Steve Bannon, for
(03:22):
example, who weren't thereto serve Donald Trump,
they were there toadvance their own agenda.
And then you had a group of people who sawDonald Trump as an emergency [LAUGH] that
had to be contained, right?
This time there are gonna be farfewer people in the third group, but
there's still quite a lot ofpeople in that second group.
And I think there are people cominginto the administration who reflect to
(03:43):
a great extent what Donald Trumpis consistent about, right?
I mean, border security,burden sharing, reciprocity and trade,
energy dominance, right?
We know what you're gonnaget in those areas.
But there are also people who come in whoreflect the dissonance Donald Trump has,
the opposing ideas he carries in his head.
Peace through strengthversus budget hawks.
(04:05):
You have people who understandthe importance of burden sharing
through alliances and through and throughfor positioning of able US forces and
those who see retrenchmentas an unmitigated good.
So you're gonna see, I think [LAUGH]the at war with ourselves dimension.
It's still gonna be there,so it won't be boring.
(04:26):
Niall, what are your thoughts on this?
>> Niall Ferguson (04:28):
I agree with a lot of what you've said, HR, if one just kinda
compares the two administrationseight years ago or now.
This feels like it will be more cohesive,
he has done the job before, andthat does make a difference.
A central problem of Trump one was theinstability of the chief of staff role,
(04:51):
Susie Wiles is gonna be in that role.
She's come through the campaign withhim and clearly has his confidence.
And you can tell that there's alreadya tighter ship by the lack of
leaking to the press.
It's actually anybody's guess what's gonnabe in the inaugural address at this point.
The discipline is much greater.
I think if one looks down the list ofnames, and here the media doesn't really
(05:15):
help because they focus onlyon the controversial picks.
So we'll read way,way more about Pete Hegseth or
RFK than we'll hear about Marco Rubio,
about Scott Besant,about Doug Burgum, I could go on.
I look->> H.R. McMaster: Mike Waltz,
who's fantastic.
(05:37):
Mike Waltz,
let's talk about the national securityteam because HR raises the very
deep foreign policy problems thatthe new administration confronts.
A very different world from the worldof 2017 because this is a world where
the axis is formed and there are livewars going on in Eastern Europe and
the Middle East and a non trivialrisk of another one over Taiwan.
(05:58):
But if you look at that combinationof Rubio as Secretary of State,
you've got Mike Waltz atthe National Security Council,
I think it's an impressive lineup.
Keith Kellogg has been sent asspecial envoy for Ukraine and Russia.
He's played a very important role inthe interregnum, can we call it that,
(06:21):
between the two Trump terms atthe America First Think Tank.
So when I look at the rut,the whole thing,
I look at all the people who'vecurrently been nominated,
I think it's actually a verydifferent beast from Trump.
One which is HR says was a weird coalitionbetween people who got him elected,
who hadn't really expected to win,then the Republican Party establishment,
(06:43):
who were deeply wary of whatthey were getting into.
And then there were certain people who,as you say, saw themselves as there
to kind of save the republic fromthis demagogue who got elected.
This is gonna be a verydifferent story eight years on.
There'll be trouble alongthe way because there always is.
And it will be a second term, even ifthere has been a four-year hiatus and
(07:05):
the second term has certain dynamics.
It's very hard to have a bettersecond term than your first term.
Think only of Ronald Reagan'sdifficulties in his second term.
Still, with all of that said,
I'm feeling a little more comfortableabout where we're headed.
And I'm a hundred times more comfortablethan I would be if, by some weird quirk
(07:26):
of the electoral system, Kamala Harrishad just been sworn in as president.
>> Bill Whalen (07:31):
I hate to spring breaking news on you, but
Donald Trump literally seconds ago justposted on social media that a hostage deal
has been reached andthey will soon be released.
HR if there is indeed a hostage deal, ifindeed all of the hostages are released,
and that's one of the keysto be determining, or
if it's just a partial release oran entire release.
Does that open the door for Joe Biden todo something on the way out with regards
(07:51):
to Iran, to strike their nuclear program,strike the oil production?
Would you advise him to do so?
>> H.R. McMaster (07:57):
Well, no, I think it has to be an option on Iran's nuclear program,
and I think, it's inevitable thatthe Israelis will act if we don't act.
I think what's really notableabout this hostage deal which,
I think, has been the top priority forthe incoming Trump team as well as for
the Biden administration.
What's notable about it is in a period oftime when we see this kind of vitriolic,
(08:20):
partisan discourse, the outgoing Bidenadministration work very closely with
the incoming Trump administration.
The other dynamic associatedwith this deal that, I think,
people might miss is that it's reallyTrump's assurance to the Israelis.
The fact that the Israelis have nodoubt that Trump has their back,
that probably allowed the Israelis tomake the kinds of concessions that
(08:45):
they've had to make forthis deal to happen.
In terms of the release of Hamasterrorists that are probably gonna be part
of this deal.
Because they know that if they haveto track and hunt them down later,
that the United States will supportthe Israelis in that effort.
So, I think, that's one ofthe dynamics associated with this,
as well as the Iranians knowing, hey,Trump understands the return address for
(09:08):
all this.
He knows it goes back to Tehran.
And so, to the degree to which theIranians influence this process as well as
the Gutteres,
who know that Trump would like tohave a good relationship with Gutter.
But also he's quiteskeptical of the duplicity
of the gutteres on a number ofoccasions and in a number of areas.
So, I think, all these dynamicsabout Trump's experience
(09:32):
from poor has played intothis in a very positive way.
>> Niall Ferguson (09:36):
I think, it's very important to understand that
Trump's goal is indeedpeace through strength.
He wants the wars to endin the Middle east and
in Eastern Europe and to avoid a conflict,a hot war with China,
(09:56):
and he's got to work evenbefore he is sworn in.
It's clear that his envoy to the Middleeast has been actively negotiating,
I mean, no doubt the Biden administrationwill try to claim credit for this.
But I don't think that they couldhave done it on their own because
they've been trying forhow many months to achieve this?
(10:19):
And I don't think it's accidental that
Steve Witkoff turns up andsuddenly there's a deal.
I also think we'll see somethingsimilar in the case of Ukraine.
And notice since the election,Trump has spent much more time talking to,
and even being with Volodymyr Zelenskyythan talking to Vladimir Putin.
(10:44):
So what's interesting is that thispresidency has started even before
the official launch, the inauguration.
And there alreadyare signs that there will
be significant changesin the world in 2025.
I've drawn the analogy inthe recent foreign affairs piece
(11:04):
with the beginning ofthe Reagan presidency.
And you'll both rememberthat within minutes of
Ronald Reagan finishinghis inaugural address,
the hostages in Tehran were released.
So there's a similar vibe shift goingon here where you realize that the kind
(11:25):
of unsuccessful one term president is onthe way out, a new sheriff's in town.
And that new presidenthas greater credibility
even before he's sworn inthe geopolitical shift is happening.
And, of course,that has to be good news, I,
(11:48):
of course, don't wanna overstate the case.
As I understand it,
a significant number of terrorists will bereleased by the Israelis on their side.
That is my understandingof the nature of this deal,
and that's not great.
(12:09):
On the other hand,
if it takes the situation in Gazacloser towards a resolution,
then we will have to accept thatthat is a step worth taking.
And clearly Prime Minister Netanyahu,as HR said,
is willing to take that step andmake that concession.
(12:30):
Now that Trump is on his way to the WhiteHouse and previously he just wasn't.
>> H.R. McMaster (12:36):
The other dynamic associated with this, Niall and
Bill is as these hostages are released,
I fear that some of them probably havealready been killed by the terrorists.
The world's gonna have to confrontthe brutality, the inhumanity,
the barbarism of Hamas.
(12:57):
And, I think, that this will shift,I think, the narrative once again in favor
of Israel and against these terrorists whoreally are the enemies of all humanity.
And, I think, what that's goingto do is inject new life into
the Abraham Accords toresurrect the Abraham Accords.
And, I think, for Trump to reallykinda stack up the number of
(13:18):
diplomatic wins in the Middleeast quite quickly.
Especially as Niall noted,his special envoy is quite capable person.
I don't know him personally, butI know he's working extremely well with
the broader Trump foreign policy andnational security team.
So, I think, what you're gonna see is,I said it's kinda a little bit jokingly,
(13:40):
but I think, I mean, in the second term,
Donald Trump really mightmake us tired of winning.
In a number of areas, which has a lot todo with as you mentioned at the outset,
he did learn, I think,from his first time.
He's put a good team in place that, Ithink, will be more cohesive, at least for
a little while until they get eachother's throats on some of these issues.
(14:01):
But also that, I think,this axis of aggressors,
which I mentioned at the outset,is profoundly weak at this moment.
And President Biden tried to take creditfor that bizarrely, earlier this week.
When, in fact, I think, that thisaxis is weak kind of despite some of
the feckless policies of the Bidenadministration, not because of them.
>> Bill Whalen (14:24):
Let's talk about a few members of Sheriff Trump's posse.
Since we've been talking aboutthe Middle East and diplomacy, ultimately,
my question to you gentlemen.
If I demote you from Hoover Senior Fellowsto United States senators and
further punish you by movingyou to Washington, DC and
make you have to sit throughconfirmation hearings.
Question, you're sitting onthe Foreign Relations Committee,
(14:44):
and Marco Rubio is before you.
What is your question to Marco Rubioabout being a secretary of state?
What's the one thing youwanna find out for him, HR?
>> H.R. McMaster (14:52):
Well, I would like to ask him because he was kind of a one of
the first people in government to raisethe alarm bells about the intentions
of the Chinese Communist Party.
And to question what had been the flawedassumption about that underpins
US Policy toward China.
Which China having been welcomedinto the international community,
(15:12):
would play by the rules.
And as China prospered,it would liberalize its economy and
liberalize its form of governance,senator Rubio never bought that.
But what I would do is, I would ask himwhat his assessment is in connection with
our ability to compete effectivelywith the Chinese Communist Party.
That is determined to establishexclusionary areas of primacy across
(15:34):
the Inter Pacific region and to createnew spheres of influence internationally.
Such that they can rewrite the rules ofinternational discourse in favor of their
status, mercantilist economic model, andtheir authoritarian form of government.
What is your plan, future secretary ofState, to compete more effectively?
I think,that would be the question to ask,
because he's gonna havegreat ideas in this area.
(15:55):
And, of course, these are ideas thatwill require support by the Senate.
In the congress broadly, and I think youare based on the work that the China
select committee did in the house,there's a great opportunity, I think,
to up our game in terms ofthe competition with the CCP.
>> Niall Ferguson (16:13):
Well, I would ask about the most dangerous place in the world,
which is Taiwan.
And I'd ask to understandhow he thinks about
the threat posed by the peopleof the Republic of China
to Taiwan's de facto autonomy anddemocracy.
(16:34):
I would also ask about its importanceto our economy given that we now
are at a point where 99% ofthe sophisticated semiconductors used
in artificial intelligencecome from Taiwan.
We are trying to beef up our deterrence,at least,
that's the strong impressionwe get from the military side,
(16:57):
from Indo Pacific Command.
But are we willing the means to deterChina, that would be my question.
My sense is that the great problemwith the Biden administration's Taiwan
policy was that they talked a lot of talk.
But they weren't really successfulin enhancing Taiwan's capability or
(17:18):
our capability to deter China.
And I think it's important to understandwhat incoming Secretary of State thinks
about that issue, cuz in my view it'sthe most dangerous threat to global peace
that the world now faces.
And it probably will take the Trumpadministration some time to
re-establish deterrence in the far east.
>> Bill Whalen (17:38):
All right,
now let's shift you to anothercommittee Senate Armed Services and
Heg you been part of yesterday'sconfirmation hearing for
Defense Secretary designate Pete Hegseth.
I found this just to be a travestyof a hearing in this regard.
Instead of a conversation aboutAmerica's military preparedness,
the fiscal crunch facing the Pentagonwhich Niall has talked about in terms of
the ability to pay fora military versus paying off debt.
(18:00):
We were just saddled with a lot oftalk about this nominee's sex life,
his drinking habits and so forth.
HR if you were sitting on that committee,
what question would youoppose Pete Hegseth?
Cuz I'm fascinated by this, cuz I don'tthink there's been a more complicated
time in the history of our countryto be a defense secretary.
>> H.R. McMaster (18:15):
Yeah, I mean, it's kinda of an easy one [LAUGH] to come up with is
what are your top three priorities?
To improve the combat effectiveness,combat readiness,
the overall capacity in ourdepartment of defense and
the joint force,what would your top three priorities be?
And I'd be looking to hear something like,you are addressing the bow wave of
(18:37):
deferred modernization and doing sowith an eye toward reforming,
how we buy stuff in the departmentof defense and defense procurement.
And he talked about thisconsiderably would be
on how to preserve the warrior ethos, and
to ensure that our force hasthe mentality that's necessary,
(19:00):
the kind of cohesion, and the ethosnecessary to fight and win in war.
And I would like to hear more aboutwhat his thoughts are on the capacity
of the force, right?
And what the assumptions are thatshould underpin kinda the force sizing
the force structure.
Other issues to talk about mightbe his vision of future warfare,
(19:23):
and whether or not he believes the USmilitary is prepared to fight and win,
given the way that we see the characterof warfare kind of evolving.
You wanna hear those kindasubstantive questions,
because they're critical to the senate'srole of advice, and consent to
make sure that we have the best qualifiedpeople in these critical positions.
>> Bill Whalen (19:48):
Now, one point HR he was cornered by Kirsten Gillibrand,
the Senator from New York aboutthe issue of women in the infantry and
what Gillibrand asked him was whether ornot there was a quota on women in that.
>> Kirsten Gillibrand (19:58):
He needs generalized statements.
>> Pete Hegseth (20:00):
Meet quotas to have a certain number of female infantry officers
or infantry enlisted, andthat disparages those women.
>> Kirsten Gillibrand (20:07):
Commanders do not have to be quotas for the infantry.
>> Bill Whalen (20:10):
Is there a quota in the military, are you sure?
>> H.R. McMaster (20:12):
Well, I don't know, I'm not connected with the day to day but
there are standards, andthose standards have to be enforced.
I was the commander of 4 Moore, Georgia,what used to be, before Benning, Georgia,
during the period of time in which womenwere being integrated into combat arms.
Now, one of the things I just wouldlike to clarify is there have
(20:34):
been some statements about disagreeingwith women being in combat.
Hey, women have been in combat fora long, long time.
And when I was a commanderof an air cavalry squadron,
guess who the forwardmost cavalry scouts were?
Kiowa Warrior Scout pilots, right,who were in front of everybody, and
you could argue in the most dangerousposition on the battlefield.
(20:56):
Who's in the most dangerous position?
Is it an infantry soldier in the squad ora tank crewman, or
is it a truck driver sitting infront of 2,500 gallons of JPA
fuel on a contested highwayoutside of Baghdad?
So when we lost Corporal Jeffrey Williams,a fantastic soldier
(21:16):
who was the medic on our little platoonthat formed my security detail,
I asked forvolunteers on who would replace him.
The first hand that went up fromour headquarters medical troop
was a female soldier who carried heraid bag, carried her ammunition,
(21:38):
her weapon in body armor in 120-degreeheat in urban combat, right?
So I think it's really importantto clarify women are in combat.
There is a question of standards, right?
What are the standards for closecombat formations and units that have
a very considerable physical burdenassociated with duty in those units?
(22:00):
And these are typically the formationswhose mission it is to close with and
destroy the enemy in close combat.
Those standards should benon-negotiable cuz they're
based on what you really have todo in battle where you have to
carry on your back,how you have to perform as part of a unit.
(22:23):
So yeah, I mean that shouldhave been the discussion,
what should the standardsbe in close combat units?
How are you going to assess the degree towhich those standards are being enforced?
And I don't know ifthey're being enforced,
I'm not leading army unitsthe way like I used to.
>> Bill Whalen (22:43):
Okay, Niall, I want your thoughts on somebody who will not face
a confirmation hearing,and that is Elon Musk.
You of the three of us have the best readon Elon, two questions for you my friend.
First of all,do you think he can swim in his lane?
Can he stay focused on DOGE suitably,or is Elon too distracted?
And then that leads to my question,
what is he doing muckingaround a British politics?
>> Niall Ferguson (23:04):
Well,
it's certainly the case that Elon canmultitask like no one on this planet.
After all, think of allthe different companies that he is
somehow managing to run at the same time.
So I don't think we should justapply normal standards here and
(23:24):
assume that he's using X to attack KeirStarmer, he's not thinking about DOGE.
The Department of Government Efficiencythat he's supposed to be setting up.
I would say that Elon'sinterest in British politics
is part of what I callthe global vibe shift.
(23:49):
And it's a signal to the world thatthis administration is watching.
It's watching to see whethertheir allies as well
as adversaries are sincerein tackling some of
the problems that weall collectively face.
(24:09):
And I think it's pretty clearthat what went on in Britain,
and I'm speaking from that countrytonight over not just years, but decades.
Was an indefensible covering up orhushing up of
attracted succession ofhideous crimes that are not
(24:32):
accurately described withthe phrase grooming gangs.
What was actually going onwere gang rapes of minors.
So pedophile rape gangs wouldbe a better description.
And the fact that some unknownproportion of these crimes were
(24:54):
carried out by people of Pakistaniheritage in multiple cities is one
of the truly outrageous storiesof contemporary British history.
If it takes Elon Musk toforce a public discussion and
perhaps also a publicinquiry into that scandal,
then that's a sad reflection on the stateof health of the British media and
(25:20):
the British political class.
Does this mean that Elon's notsimultaneously running SpaceX and
Tesla andthe Department of Government Efficiency?
No, the man is all butsuperhuman, and I don't think for
a minute that DOGE is going to be a dog,
I think DOGE is gonna bea very important part of 2025.
(25:45):
Remember, it's a two-yearenterprise to try to make
a meaningful impact onwaste in the government.
Which is a big part ofthe problem of our deficit and
our debt andour chronically inefficient federal
bureaucracy with its whoknows how many agencies.
(26:06):
I tried to find out today howmany federal agencies there are?
The answer is around 430,nobody's quite sure exactly.
Tells you all you need to know,doesn't it?
So->> H.R. McMaster: It reminds me of
one of my favorite Monty Python skitswas the Ministry of Silly Walks.
Do you remember?
>> [LAUGH]>> Bill Whalen: That probably is
(26:29):
a Federal Bureau of Silly Walks somewherein the outskirts of Washington DC.
>> Reporter (26:35):
I think- >> H.R. McMaster
grants, actually only one of your legs issilly, well, that's why need the grant?
>> Bill Whalen (26:42):
What would you do with the federal government?
I was dropping off a letter atthe post office the other day and
I looked over at the post office,thought to myself,
why do we still have a United StatesPostal Service in this day and age?
It's doing the US Mail is kind oflike walking around the Sony Walkman.
>> H.R. McMaster (26:57):
I disagree with that though, Bill.
I mean, you have these greatHoover stationery that we use,
I like sending notes to people.
You like get to you like Eddie Bell,don't you, Bill?
I mean [LAUGH].
>> Niall Ferguson (27:10):
I wrote a letter only today, but it's true to say that
the relative importance of USpostal services is declining in
our extraordinarilytechnologically transformed world.
Now, here's the thing that Elon andVivek Ramaswamy,
who, of course will also be on the DOGEportfolio, understand very well.
(27:32):
Namely that the last part of oureconomy to be transformed by
information technologywill be the government.
And it's gotta happen, and until it doeshappen, we're going to have this chronic
fiscal imbalance becausethe government is an analog entity.
It is running, at best,with legacy software,
(27:53):
in some cases not even with software.
And if they can make a starton bringing the New Age,
the 21st century tothe federal government,
it will translate, I believe,into meaning savings.
It's, by the way, fashionable to say,this is all impossible,
they won't be able to achieve anything.
It's been tried before,that's how Washington talks, right?
(28:15):
HR it's like we've seen this.
>> H.R. McMaster (28:18):
Niall, I know in contact with some of
the members of this teamas are coming together.
You might suggest to them that they takea look at what Japan has been doing for
quite a number of years.
They have a department that's focused ongovernment efficiency, digitization, and
I think this is an era where we can learna lot from what Japan has tried and
what succeeded, what's failed, andI think there's an opportunity there.
>> Niall Ferguson (28:38):
And Estonia and Taiwan.
>> H.R. McMaster (28:41):
Yeah, the digital state thing, digital citizenship in Estonia.
Absolutely, yeah.
>> Niall Ferguson (28:45):
And they're like decades ahead of the US government.
So, I think this is a really importantassignment that Elon's given himself and
Vivek, andI think we should be rooting for them.
And I think, let's just remember,
what is Peter Thiel's first law,never bet against Elon.
>> Bill Whalen (29:03):
Well put, okay, I'm gonna go see what Estonia and
Japan do on their mail service.
And for the record, I'm not anti-mail,it's just a question of is the government
doing something that private sectorcould do better and quicker?
>> H.R. McMaster (29:13):
I'm gonna write you a note today, Bill,
to tell you how much I appreciate you,man.
>> Bill Whalen (29:16):
Thank you. >> H.R. McMaster
when you get that in the mail,you're gonna feel good,
you're gonna get a warm feeling, Ton.
So years ago, this journalist, Salena Zito,
said something incredibly trenchant,I think, about the Trump experience.
And she said words, the effectthat when looking at Donald Trump,
you have to understand the following,that his followers take him seriously but
not literally, whereas his detractorstake him literally but not seriously.
And this takes me to MAGA, as I call it,which is Make a Greenland Acquisition.
(29:40):
Trump has talked a lot about the worldbeyond America's shores since he was
elected.
He has talked about Americapicking up Greenland,
he has talked about Canadabecoming a 51st state.
He has talked about takingback the Panama Canal,
he's talked about the Gulf of Mexicobecoming the Gulf of America.
So, gentlemen, the Salena Zito question,do we take him seriously,
do we take him literally?
>> H.R. McMaster (30:02):
Hey, I think to take him seriously and he thinks out loud.
I write about a lot about this in thebook, I tell the story one day he said,
he goes,General why don't we just bomb them?
I'm like, well, who should we bomb, Mr.President, who would have in mind?
[LAUGH] He said the labs,the labs of Mexico.
And after the meeting,we huddled outside of the Oval Office, and
(30:23):
some of the people in there had onlyrarely interacted with the President.
I think there may be a couplepeople who were there for
the first time interactingwith the president, and
they were kind of apoplectic of like,my gosh, we're to bomb Mexico.
I'm like, no, guy, I mean,
what he's saying to us is that90,000 people die every year.
90,000 of our fellow Americans dieevery year from fentanyl poisoning, and
(30:47):
what we're doing isn't working.
So what he's telling us todo is to bring him options.
>> Bill Whalen (30:52):
Right. >> H.R. McMaster
[LAUGH] Greenland,Arctic security is a big deal, right?
Maybe we're not doing enough on Arcticsecurity, that's what he's saying,
you know or maybe is Panama givingus a good deal on the canal?
I don't know, I mean, but it isa concern of growing Chinese influence,
not only in Panama on both sides of thecanal, where Chinese companies own a lot
(31:13):
of the infrastructure, butin the Western hemisphere, broadly.
So let's do something about it, so
that's what he's saying ina lot of these ideas or
he's a conversational learnerhe thinks out loud, right?
And so if you're around himmultiple times a day, I mean,
you kind of understand that.
(31:34):
But I think people who are only exposed tohim sporadically which is really not that
many people anymore, right?
As he comes into his second term, I thinkthey should take him seriously, but
not always literally,cuz he does think out loud.
He says that what many people,maybe most people,
would regard as outlandish things, butthose outlandish things that he says
(31:56):
are typically conversation startersabout a significant issue.
Well, Niall, this ties with something you like to talk about,
which is Empire versus Republic.
>> Niall Ferguson (32:04):
Well, that was last year's leitmotif.
I always like to start the yearwith some kind of organizing idea.
And this time last year,I remember saying it on
this show the choice we face isbetween Empire and Republic.
I was being semi serious because at thattime, you may have forgotten this, but
back then, part of the Biden campaign wasgoing to be that Donald Trump was this
(32:27):
terrible threat to democracy, and thatwas why you should vote for Joe Biden.
Well, here we are, that didn'tplay out the way they intended.
I think the question can be focused now,because President Trump
revealed during the campaign that heowes some debt to William McKinley,
(32:48):
late 19th century president,whom he associates with tariffs.
McKinley certainly was a tariff man,but McKinley was also
an Empire kinda guy,because out of the Spanish American War,
the McKinley presidency acquiredquite a lot of real estate.
(33:08):
It acquired Guam,it acquired the Philippines temporarily,
it had Puerto Rico and an option on Cuba.
That president also pickedup Hawaii along the way.
So when President Trump says, hey,how about Canada as a 51st state?
Or let's rename the Gulf of Mexico Mexico,and hey, Greenland, let's have that.
He's just being McKinley.
(33:30):
And that's why the whole idea that DonaldTrump was an isolationist was always so
wide of the mark that it was inthe opposite direction of the target.
So the McKinley element to Trump isinteresting to me that you got to know
when you're trying to decide,am I taking him literally or seriously?
You gotta know when Trump is joking,
(33:51):
cuz sometimes Trump isn'tintending to be taken seriously.
And I think Canada is that the whole thingwith Justin Trudeau was a massive trolling
operation that Trudeau walked right into,and it ended Trudeau's premiership.
But I think it was all just a joke.
Trump was obviously making funof Trudeau when he said, hey,
(34:11):
you should be the 51st state andyou can be governor, that's a Trump joke.
Even if it does have consequences forTrudeau,
who should probably not have rushedto Mar a Lago the way he did.
Greenland, is Trump being serious?
Because there's a seriousissue as HR has rightly said,
we're actually lucky to haveamongst our fellowship.
Eyck Freymann, who's one of the world'sleading experts on this subject,
(34:31):
wrote his doctorate on Greenland.
And I can remember when he suggestedthat as a doctoral thesis,
scratching my head a little, butof course he was onto something.
It's a long standing problem ofNorth Atlantic security Greenland.
And the status quo is no longerstable if the inhabitants
are considering either independence orleaning to China.
(34:52):
And so Trump is absolutely right that wehave to address this issue, because we
certainly can't have Greenland becomingpart of the Belt Road initiative or
whatever it is thatthe Chinese might have in mind.
So we gottta know,when is he being serious?
>> H.R. McMaster (35:06):
The Senate's introducing a bill, Niall,
to authorize the presidentnegotiate on Greenland.
And we should mention thereare 58,000 residents in Greenland.
So in terms of scale, right?
It could be feasible there, right?
In terms of a deal, right?
You make the deal look pretty attractiveto 58,000 Greenlanders, I think.
>> Niall Ferguson (35:28):
So I think this is a case where one needs to take him both
literally and seriously.
And understand that what was determinedafter World War II and the relationship
between Denmark and Greenland thatexists today is not set in stone.
It's not something that waspreordained at the creation.
And it would be surprising rising ina world where the tectonic plates
(35:50):
are shifting a lot if the United Statessimply sat passively and
let others move the plates.
>> Bill Whalen (35:56):
All right, a son of the times is that we've spent a lot of time on
this podcast talking about Donald Trump,and we haven't talked about Joe Biden,
who, by the way, is on TV tonightgiving a national address.
His timing is excellent, he gets tobrag now about the hostage release.
I assume it'll be in that speech.
I'll leave it to your fellowhistorians to discuss the Biden legacy.
Let's do one question on Biden,and that's this.
(36:17):
Where did it go wrong?
I could point you tothe disastrous debate.
I could point you to the disastrouswithdrawal from Afghanistan.
I could point you to the meeting ofhistorians who came into the White House
and said, you can be the next FDR,LBJ if you wanna be.
But, you guys,where do you think Biden went off track?
>> Niall Ferguson (36:34):
It went off track right at the start when they told him,
you can be a transformative president.
And the way you can be a transformativepresident is with a whole bunch of big
spending legislation.
Think Roosevelt, think LBJ.
And he went straight intothat at a time when, in fact,
the federal government should have beenreining in spending cuz the pandemic was
(36:57):
clearly gonna come to an end.
And the vaccines worked, they made a hugemistake in throwing money around in 2021.
And that led to the inflationthe following year that saw consumer price
inflation up at 9%.
That's why they lost the electionmore than any other thing.
The second reason you already mentioned,Bill, they bungled Afghanistan.
(37:17):
They bungled the withdrawal fromAfghanistan, alienating allies, but
worst of all, leaving the people ofAfghanistan at the mercy of the Taliban.
And that set a signal to all theauthoritarians, this is a weak presidency,
we can have some fun here.
So I think it all wentwrong in year one and
I'm proud of the fact that I pointed thatout at the time when after 100 days I was
(37:39):
asked how should we thinkabout the Biden presidency?
I said, forget transformative, this isgonna be a lot like the Karter presidency.
It'll be a one term presidency and it'sgoing to be notable for inflation and for
geopolitical weakness.
>> Bill Whalen (37:51):
Yeah, HR if you look at Biden's polling over
the four years you get to Afghanistan andonce Afghanistan occurs,
his polls go south andthey never come back.
>> H.R. McMaster (38:00):
Yeah, I think I agree with everything Niall said.
I think also you could add to thatthe administration kinda resurrected
the philosophy of the Obamaadministration in that
it was a performative administrationrather than a formative one.
And everything about them is messaging,they message everything.
(38:21):
And it's all about the story that theycan tell about whatever the issue
is rather than the results they can,that they can deliver.
Or how they can compete effectivelywith aggressors and rivals and so forth,
how to manage the relationship, how totell a good story about the relationship.
(38:41):
And I think that that has reallyunderpinned so much of their foreign
policy and they just didn't takeseriously that there are hostile states
who have aspirations that go far beyondanything that's in reaction to us.
And this is how you get kindathe mantra of management of these
relationships andsort of the escalation management or
(39:05):
the effort to always deescalaterather than to compete effectively.
And that was read asweakness by our aggressors.
And I think as Niall said, that leddirectly to the disaster in Afghanistan.
Then it left a trail from Afghanistanto the massive reinvasion of Ukraine in
(39:25):
February of 2022 to the horrificHamas attacks on Israel and
the activation of Iran's Ringof Fire against Israel.
And I think it also led toa more aggressive stance by
the Chinese Communist Party.
So I think one of the reasonwhy we have North Korean
troops fighting on European soil, right?
(39:46):
I think this is all based onthis perception of weakness and
an administration that wasfocused on its performance.
What it said from various podiums,
rather than what it did to advanceAmerican security and American prosperity.
>> Bill Whalen (40:02):
Very quick, that's a question,
Donald Trump takes office at noonon January 20th, East coast time.
Tell me the one thing thatyou two are looking for
in terms of a measure ofTrump being successful.
>> Niall Ferguson (40:11):
I think the economy is the thing that's hardest for
this incoming administrationbecause they're inheriting
an economy that they overheatedwith fiscal stimulus.
They're inheriting an inflation landingthat hasn't really yet fully happened.
(40:31):
The bond market is looking atthe numbers deficit, 6% of GDP,
debt is way above 100% of GDP andit's getting nervous.
If the bond market continues to bejittery and the 10 year yield continues
to be where it is, then I thinkthe stock market's gonna be vulnerable
(40:52):
unless just insanely good news keepson coming in from the AI Bros.
So I think their biggest challengeis actually on the economic side.
And that of course, was true ofRonald Reagan too, because '81,
'82 saw one of the nastiestof post war recessions.
Didn't have a whole lot to do with Reagan,
it had a lot to do with Paul Volckertrying to end the inflation of the 1970s.
(41:13):
In the same way, if the economyturns ugly in the next year,
it won't really have much,I think, to do with Trump.
But he'll be blamed and people will say,you talked about tariffs and
you did this and you did that andyou spooked the markets.
I think in truth, they're reallygonna have a tough time writing
this economy because of the way it'sbeen run by their predecessors.
(41:37):
That's what I'm gonna be watching notwhat's in the New York Times or the BBC or
any of the legacy media.
I know what they'regonna be writing about.
They're gonna be saying,deportations, terrible.
That's gonna be their narrative, but
I'm gonna be looking very closely atreally how the markets respond to all
the tough things that this administrationis going to have to do, HR.
>> H.R. McMaster (42:00):
Hey, I think I'll be just, of course,
paying attention to the tone.
Remember the first inaugural speech, thetagline became American carnage, and what
I'm hoping to see is, kind of a positivevision, for the future of the country.
I think that we do have kind ofa crisis of confidence in our country.
I hope that President Trumphelps us get over that and
(42:21):
restores our confidence in ourcommon identity as Americans.
And I hope that he sort of sets off ona path that allows him to do a better
job than he did in his first term.
And certainly a better job than Joe Bidendid at getting to the politics of
addition to bring Americanstogether around a positive agenda.
For restoring confidence,in who we are, but
(42:44):
also confidence in our democraticprinciples and institutions and processes.
And as you said, confidence in ourfree market economic system, right.
And confidence among, maybe youngergenerations that they're gonna have even
a better life,than their parents and grandparents.
So, tone is gonna be a big part of it,I think.
(43:05):
And I hope it's positive, andI hope it sets him off on a course toward
getting to this kind ofpolitics of addition.
>> Bill Whalen (43:12):
And I'm watching his chief of staff, Susie Wiles,
who is saying all the rightthings in the transition,
how she is going to limitaccess to the Oval Office.
He's not gonna let independent operators,
their own agendas try to cloudup the President's thinking.
If you're not familiar with Washington,a chief of staff is usually important
to a president in terms ofbeing both a traffic cop but
also keeping the President on a steadybeat, so let's see if Susie's successful.
(43:34):
And with that->> H.R. McMaster: Good luck [LAUGH].
I mean, I'll tell you,I think that's great, but the president,
he likes to talk toa broad range of people.
You can't limit that, right?
Right. >> H.R. McMaster
I think what you can do is you can limitthe degree to which people can try to
manipulate him.
So whenever certain peoplewent into the Oval Office,
(43:54):
I made sure I went in with them.
Because I knew they were bringing withthem an element of kind of a foreign
policy agenda or they wanted the Presidentto do a solid for them, internationally.
And there's nothing good forthe President in that kind of stuff.
So I think, it's really important forthe chief of staff,
the national Security advisor,to recognize, as you're alluding to, Bill.
(44:16):
I mean, these are two people in the WhiteHouse who have the President really as,
as their main client, right.
And National Security advisorreally the only client, and
it's really important to make sure that,the President is not sort of manipulated.
And of course,this happens with every president.
(44:37):
And they'll try the people who pushhis buttons, they do it with flattery.
They do it with, hey, this will make youlook weak, this will alienate your base,
your most loyal supporters, they're notgonna like you anymore if you do this.
I think what you really need to do is,as a chief of staff, is make sure
the President gets best advice andhears from a broad range of people.
(44:59):
But always gets multiple options becausethe President deserves multiple options.
The President's the personwho got elected.
So don't try to shine onecourse of action up and
get everybody to try to getDonald Trump to approve it.
Give him a range of actions,
help him understand how thisfits into his overall agenda.
And I think when that happens withDonald Trump, he makes good decisions.
(45:23):
If you try to just givehim that one option or
if you try to manipulate him intocertain decisions, it's gonna backfire.
Okay, onto the lightning round.
[SOUND]>> Bill Whalen: So four years ago,
our friend Niall Ferguson published a bookcalled Doom, the Politics and Catastrophe.
And if you look at that book and you lookat the photo on the jacket of that book,
(45:45):
it looks like, Niall, you're playinggolf in Los Angeles right now.
Not to diminish what the good peopleat that city are going through.
If you haven't seen the book,read the book yet by means do get it, and
look at that photo.
It shows a fire about to consumea golf course, making for
the trickiest of par fours,we would agree.
Niall, as you watch what's going on in LosAngeles, it strikes me as really something
straight out of your book in thatEllie's problems are one part nature.
(46:07):
You can't control 100 milean hour Santa Ana winds, but
it's also one part man in termsof bad government policy.
So, could you put LA's plightin the doom narrative?
>> Niall Ferguson (46:19):
Well, it fits right in because the central argument of
that book was there's no such thingas a purely natural catastrophe.
Or in almost every case, and you cango all the way back to ancient volcanic
eruptions, there's some elementof human agency involved.
After all, nobody made you builda city at the foot of a volcano,
(46:40):
Vesuvius, for example.
And I think that the case ofthe fires of Los Angeles,
truly terrible events that have destroyedthe homes of many thousands of people and
cost lives, dozens of lives,need to be understood in this way.
The debate that's going on right now,as far as I can see,
is between those who say,it's a purely natural event,
(47:03):
how can anybody possibly blame the localauthorities or the state authorities.
And those on the other side who say,
it's entirely the fault ofmisguided climate policies.
And the reality is, as with nearlyall disasters, all great fires,
great floods, all the greatdisasters that my book describes,
(47:23):
it's this point at which natureintersects with bad decisions.
There have been a lot of baddecisions taken in California
over some decades since Californiabecame a one party state,
and environmentalpreoccupations took over.
From, say, policies of controlledburning in areas vulnerable to
(47:45):
fire when we stopped investingin our water infrastructure.
These problems are so well establishedthat I remember writing a column
about wildfires in California as apolitical problem at least four years ago.
When we had a space of firesin Northern California.
So you can't exonerate the stategovernment or the city government by
(48:07):
simply saying, gee, the wind wasreally strong and fires happened here.
There has been a pattern ofmisgovernment in California and
in the major cities of California.
And I can only hope that this calamityin the state's biggest city finally
persuades people that there'ssomething rotten at the heart
(48:27):
of the California Democratic Party.
And there needs to be real opposition toit within the state if the state is to be
properly managed again.
And it has not been properly managed,I'm sorry to say, for decades.
>> Bill Whalen (48:40):
Right, So, HR Essentially, the podcaster columnist Hugh Hewitt has
called this California's Chernobylin this regard.
1980s Chernobyl occursin the Soviet Union, and
the government cannot cover upthe fact that this is a garden.
The people suddenly realize, my God,this is Soviet style management.
And Hugh contends that the fireshave exposed this in California.
(49:00):
But what you see going on in Californiaright now, HR is a leadership crisis,
plain and simple.
The governor does not have controlof the situation, there's no
confidence in the mayor at any chance theywill throw somebody else under the bus and
not say something as simple as,this is my fault, I screwed up.
Does this speak to a largerleadership crisis in this country?
>> H.R. McMaster (49:18):
I think you're exactly right, it's a crisis of leadership.
And I'd like to just ask you the question,I mean,
you're an expert on California politics.
I recommend our readers go to your column,they listen to your podcast,
it's fantastic.
And everything I know about Californiapolitics, I kinda learned from you, Bill.
So I'm gonna ask you,is this a moment of reckoning?
Are people finally gonna elect peoplelike Rick Caruso, for example,
(49:43):
in LA instead of more of the same,the next Karen Bassett that comes along?
I don't know, I mean,I hope so, I really hope so.
I mean, my whole family's here,my children,
my grandchildren are all in California.
And it's a beautiful place,it's a wonderful place to live.
And as you've exposed so many times in somany different ways, it's so poorly led.
(50:04):
So, Bill, what are the prospects,is it gonna get better?
>> Bill Whalen (50:07):
The doors wide open to
someone like Rick Caruso torun in a recall election?
Caruso, for those not aware, isa developer extraordinaire in Los Angeles.
He ran for mayor in 2022, andhe lost to Karen Bass, the current mayor.
He could run into recall,he could probably win in a recall.
But here's what I'vebeen thinking about this.
It's not going to bringRonald Reagan in overnight,
the state is still 2 to 1 democraticin terms of party registration.
(50:30):
But I think what we're seeing here isnow the door is wide open to an ideas
conversation in California without boringyou the nuances of our politics here.
We had a ballot initiative,last of all Proposition 36.
And this was undoing a previous ballotinitiative which had watered down
punishment for shoplifting in California.
If you got caught with less than$900 of goods, misdemeanor penalty,
(50:51):
the cops don't reallywant to prosecute you.
You get turn on the street,
revolving door to justice leads tostores getting constantly looted.
Stores eventually shut down.
And Niall, that's why you get SanFrancisco in a doom loop to use Doom once
again, we're gonna sell thatbook today as best we can.
>> Niall Ferguson (51:05):
Thank you, I appreciate it.
>> Bill Whalen (51:07):
What the point I'm making here is that Prop 36 not only
passed last fall an anti-crime measure.
It got almost 70% of the statewide vote,that is incredibly rarefied era for
a California ballot initiative.
It passed in every county in California,including Marin county,
which hates these sorts of measuresbecause California is fed up.
If you look north to San Francisco, whichwas somewhat gloating while Los Angeles is
(51:30):
suffering because why blue skies,no earthquakes,
one there is a reminder thatno part of California is safe.
San Francisco actually hadan earthquake last Friday,
it was in the same spotas a 1906 earthquake.
That would make menervous if I lived there.
But San Francisco swartinaugurated new mayor last week.
His name is Daniel Lurie,he's an heir to Levi Strauss fortune.
(51:50):
And what's notable about Mr.
Lurie is that he is not a productof San Francisco politics.
This is the first time they'vechosen a a non-political mayor since
the Harry Truman Dwight Eisenhower era.
So voters in San Francisco are fed up andthey're looking for something different.
So I would argue that if you reallywanna affect change in California,
I would not spend $20 million tryingto elect a Republican because he has
(52:12):
the wrong letter at the end of his name.
I would get involved in the initiativeprocess and start pushing ideas and
forcing those status quo inCalifornia to defend them.
But let me send this back to you guys.
Well, Niall's a former California,
recovering Californian Iguess we would call it.
HR is still a Californian.
My question to the two of you is, wouldyou advise somebody to move to California?
This is a beautiful land,nature is spectacular.
(52:35):
There is opportunity if you are veryintelligent and very innovative.
On the other hand,housing is impossibly expensive.
Good luck getting gasolineat a cheap price.
If I took you guys to my favorite diner inPalo Alto, I treat you to a $23 omelette.
Why would anybody wanna live here?
>> H.R. McMaster (52:54):
How about the scenery, the climate.
I mean,I look outside my window right now, Bill.
I mean, looking at the Santa CruzMountains, or looking down the South Bay.
I think it is a great place to be andit is a really creative place.
I didn't really even understandit how this innovation ecosystem
(53:19):
worked until I came back toCalifornia after having been
a National Security Affairs Fellowhere at Hoover from 2002 to 2003.
And you have the universitieswho are connected to so
much of the capital that's availablehere and the venture firms who
are connected to the engineers thatthese universities produce, right?
(53:44):
And the ideas that are generated here.
So it's an exciting place to be andI think it is a real hub for
innovation across the country anda real strength of the United States.
I think there has been, and
Michael Anton who's going back into theTrump administration, is a great guy and
was, he was our communications directorand National Security Council staff.
(54:06):
He wrote a really acerbic but
extraordinarily witty essay aboutthe history of Silicon Valley.
And about the turn it took away fromits roots which was really the defense
industry in the post-World War II periodin particular, and World War II period.
And so I think that it's coming back.
(54:30):
What I see here and people would tell me,man, you're out there in California,
isn't that an environmentof self-loathing?
No, I mean, there are so many patrioticpeople here who believe in our country,
who understand that we're in consequentialcompetitions internationally.
So I think because ofthe wholesale politics here and
what you described as the DemocraticParty's exclusive grip on power and
(54:53):
a certain ideology that has beenprevalent here for a long time.
There's kind of a misunderstanding ofthe many Californias that exist and so
many of the people here who are determinedto help advance our interests and
humanity's interests against what we seeis, I think, threats to our way of life.
(55:14):
Manifested by the Chinese Communist Party,for example, or
what we see with Russia and the war inUkraine or terrorist organizations and
their sponsors like Iran.
Anyway, I think this California thatI know is not what people perceive it
to be from my old hometown like inPhiladelphia where they're a lot of
my cousins are like, man,I can't believe you're in California.
(55:38):
What is that like?
I'm like, yeah, it's great,[LAUGH] it's great [LAUGH].
>> Niall Ferguson (55:43):
It is great and I want to stress to Good Fellows fans that I have
not left California for the conventionalpolitical or economic reasons.
I'm back here for family reasons andflying to California tomorrow and
looking forward to it very much.
I think HR's right, I think things arefinally turning because the progressive
(56:06):
wing of the Democratic party has just madesuch a huge mess of the two major cities.
And after a certain point,even the most liberally inclined,
conservative hating Californian says,something's got to change.
So, I think it is gonna change.
I think there's also been a big shiftin sentiment in Silicon Valley.
And let's not forget, maybe this is a goodnote on which to end, that this election
(56:30):
might have turned out very differently ifthe tech bros, the red pill, tech bros.
Elon Musk, butalso my friend Marc Andreessen,
Joe Lonsdale,a bunch of people from the tech sector,
had not decisively shifted their politicalorientation and backed Donald Trump.
That was a very big differencebetween 2024 and 2016.
(56:52):
And a lot of that impetus whichlies behind ideas like DOGE,
originates in Silicon Valley.
So, I think Silicon Valleyhas really shifted.
And as Silicon Valley goes, soI think ultimately California goes,
it's coming back.
And the vibe shift cannot be escapedanywhere in the world, including in
(57:12):
Los Angeles, in San Francisco, andlet's hope finally in Sacramento.
>> H.R. McMaster (57:17):
Hey, and I'll tell you, I love California, but
I don't love California enough to berooting for the Rams this weekend.
Just to make that clear.
>> Bill Whalen (57:25):
Hey, Niall, since you mentioned Silicon Valley,
I wanna split one more thing before we go,and that is Meta.
It's now ditched its fact checkingprogram, the other day announced it's now
doing away with its DEI programs,meaning hiring, training, and suppliers.
Niall, what the Zuck is going on?
>> Niall Ferguson (57:40):
Well, if you think back, I think it was to 2019,
he gave a pretty strongdefense of free speech in
a lecture that he gave inWashington at that point.
And then he was kind of justswamped by the trends that we saw
in all the big tech companies.
(58:02):
They emanated in some ways from theuniversities where they hire their young
people, from the HR department.
And I think Mark Zuckerberg,like other tech leaders who might have
been personally libertarian inclined,they were just overwhelmed.
I don't think it speaks very well
(58:25):
of Mark Zuckerberg that he folded,
as he clearly did in 2020, 2021.
But I'm glad to see thatthe vibe shift has enabled him to
throw off that mask andrevert to his 2019 position.
(58:47):
I think that's a healthy thing.
It does right slightly remind me ofan old Rothschild joke, which is,
what are my principles todaywith regard to pork bellies?
I mean, what are your principles today,
is a good question to askthe next tech bro you meet.
>> Bill Whalen (59:03):
Good, HR, you have the last word.
>> H.R. McMaster (59:05):
Hey, I just think sometimes you have to take people [LAUGH]
you have to believe what they say,
and I think his message,it seemed to be sincere.
Hey, we tried to do this,it didn't work out.
We were wrong, andhe reversed his position.
And so, I think that,as Niall said, is positive.
I think it does reflect what Niall beganto talk about at the beginning of our
(59:28):
discussion today,which is the shift in the vibe overall,
which I think is in a positive direction.
And so, all reasons to be optimistic.
And I hope that our incomingpresident is optimistic
in his speech coming uphere at the inauguration.
>> Bill Whalen (59:44):
Okay, guys, good conversation, very efficient conversation.
DOGE, Department of GoodfellowsEfficiency, how's that [LAUGH]?
On behalf of the Good Fellows,Sir Niall Ferguson, and HR McMaster,
our missing Good Fellow, the recoveringeconomist, John Cochrane, get better,
John, soon, we miss you.
We hope you enjoyed today's show,
we'll be back in later thismonth with a very good guest.
(01:00:05):
I'm not gonna tell you who it isyou're gonna have to tune to watch,
but you're gonna like it, trust me.
>> H.R. McMaster (01:00:09):
I've got one more DOGE, the morbid of Go Eagles.
>> Niall Ferguson (01:00:13):
[LAUGH] >> Bill Whalen
Niall the Fly, Eagles,Fly song at some point [LAUGH].
Anyway, folks, thanks again forwatching, a very belated happy 2025 and
we will see you soon, take care.
Thanks for watching.[MUSIC]
>> Presenter (01:00:35):
If you enjoyed this show and
are interested in watchingmore content featuring H.R.
McMaster, watch Battlegroundsalso available at hoover.org.
[MUSIC]
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.
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
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!