April 11, 2024 • 32 mins
Everything you need to know about defeating Trump in 2024: an in-depth conversation with Bill Kristol. Bill has been a leader of the pro-democracy movement from Day One. As part of that effort, he founded The Bulwark, an online media source that includes some of the sharpest voices of the day. Listen in as Bill shares his insights on Trump, the election, how voters are changing and crossing over past barriers, and more.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/is-it-just-me-or-have-we-all-lost-our-minds--5869817/support.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/is-it-just-me-or-have-we-all-lost-our-minds--5869817/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:02):
Is it just me? Or havewe all lost our minds? It's a
question I've been asking myself on repeatfor the last eight years, and I
know I'm not alone in that.Is it the politics, is it the
culture? Or am I just gettingold? Hi? I'm Jennifer Horn and
I'm a former Republican strategist and partyleader turned independent sanity activist. I decided
(00:25):
to do this podcast so we couldexplore these questions. I'll bring experts to
the table from politics and media andculture. We'll have raw, insightful conversations
with the clear goal of getting tothe bottom of it all. One way
or another. We've all lost ourminds, and I hope you'll join us
on the journey to find them again. Hi. This is Jennifer Horn,
(00:46):
your host at Is it just me? Or have we all lost our minds?
And I'm thrilled to have back withus today Bill Crystal. If you
have followed the conservative movement, ifyou have followed the anti Trump movement,
then you already know who Bill is. This is who Wikipedia says. Bill
is William Crystal, an American neoconservative writer a frequent commentator on several networks,
(01:08):
including CNN. He was the founderand editor at large of the political
magazine The Weekly Standard. Crystal isnow editor at large at the center right
publication The Bulwark, and has beena host of conversations with Bill Crystal in
an interview web program since twenty fourteen. Bill, I'm not sure if that
last one is still if you're stilldoing that or not. But it's great
(01:30):
to have you. How are you. I am doing it and it's great
to be with you. And that'sa pretty good Wikipedia. It does a
pretty good job. I always find, you know, yeah, these days,
I remember, might never look atmyself, but I mean for other
people when I have to look somethingup quickly, it seems like it's rarely
totally accurate. I remember when wefirst started, we were all borned.
You know that don't go to Wikipedia. They don't know what they're doing.
(01:52):
But I agree, I think it'sbecome pretty accurate. And like you,
I never look at myself because Iknow other people can contribute to the wiki
page and I don't want to know. You know. It's like not reading
the comments about you know, yourown articles or right right exactly. I
try not to read comments on Twitteranywhere else if I can avoid it as
well, the Weekly Standard. It'sbeen I can't. It just seems impossible
(02:15):
to me how long ago that wasat this point, and that's where when
you and I first met, youand Fred Barnes were at the Weekly Standard.
You were the voice of the conservativemovement. And that was what drew
me to the two of you andto reading the Weekly Standard, and you
know, having a I felt likeyou guys had an understanding of the conservative
movement as opposed to these individual politicalplayers who kind of use it, you
(02:40):
know, they like so many politiciansdo use these movements kind of for their
own purposes. And that's where youare at the Bulwark now. And let's
start by talking about the Bulwark alittle bit so that they can find it
out. You're on Twitter, butit's the Bulwark dot com, is that
correct? Bullwork dot com? Andyou get several articles a day and the
bunch of podcasts, and I knowCharlie seis to the newsletter fantastic job for
(03:05):
five years and a podcast every day, Andregor and I have taken over the
newsletter now that Charlie des let itto get off the hamster wheel, as
he put it, and Tim Millerdoes the podcast and Jonathan West so lot
last, those all kinds of things, and Jonathan Last does the noon newsletter.
So it's really been great, Igot to say. And I feel
like we've really it was a byaccident in a way that it got started.
(03:29):
Then we can stay I got closed. But in a way, maybe
it's good to have something new forthis new moment. And I think we've
I hope we've. I think weprovide lively and entertaining coverage of this moment,
and we've always taken it seriously andseriously, but not I hope too
seriously in the sense of right.We tried a good time and be good
humored and cover a million things inour direct politics as well culture and stuff.
(03:50):
But at the end of the day, you know, when historians look
back at this period twenty nineteen,twenty twenty four, really twenty sixteen,
obviously twenty twenty four, but coupulworkers twenty ninety sort for Trump is the
dominant figure, no question about it. People say, you spend to what
time worrying about Trump and Trump's effectand trump Ism and Trump's followers, But
I don't know, it's kind ofimportant to get that right. I don't
(04:12):
think it's too much time at all. And I think what you guys are
doing at the Bulwark, I likehow you just said it that, like
this is the right vehicle for thismoment, and the Weekly Standard probably wouldn't
have been it was a different kindof an operation. I love the podcasts
that you guys do, and Iencourage everyone who's listening to us to check
them out at the Bulwark. Andwhat the other thing I love is that
(04:32):
you have voices. It's not justa far right voice or just a conservative
voice. You have a lot ofother voices mixed in here with the podcast
and the columns and everything else.And Jill Lawrence is another one who writes
at the Bulwark. I just thinkhas been doing great work over there.
And so I think this is theright vehicle for this moment in time.
(04:55):
And I'm one who hates to admitit, but if you're not talking about
Donald Trump when you're talking about politics, then you're really missing the vote completely.
And that doesn't mean that he's likethis amazing politician. It means that
he is the primary force in thismoment. And if we don't understand that,
and you want to defeat him,you have to understand that other part.
First, Yeah, you saw thatearly on Jennifer and new ampsh I
(05:19):
think we yes, I think that'swell said. You don't have to be
obsessed with Trump. You can addup write about a million other things.
Obviously the Hill and it's a loton international relations, a lot on the
Ukraine Russia war and so forth.So we're not you know, it's not
like Trump all the time, butthe contrary. In fact, there'll be
(05:39):
days where there isn't an article directlyabout Trump or what he's up to,
or or even Trump isn't But butyeah, he's the he's the one stance
towards him thinking through the effects andimplications of his dominance of one of our
two major parties now for what nineyears, he's going to be nominated for
the third time. Very few peopleare nominated three times in a row by
(06:01):
one of our major parties. Andhe was president for four years. He
was a leader in exile, hasbeen for the last four years. It'spite
January sixth, and despite the factthat it looked for about two days after
January sixth that he might not beand looked in twenty twenty three that might
be serious challenges to him. Hebrushed the wall aside. So it's foolish,
I think, to sort of minimizehim. And I still see some
of that among friends who are antiTrump, you know, but they sort
(06:25):
of want to think of it asa weird aperation it's going to go away?
When when's the fever going to break? It hopefully will go away,
and hopefully we can restore and maybeeven get to a healthier place than we
were once we worked this through.But the idea that it's just this kind
of fever that's going to break andthen you you know, you have a
day of recovery and then you're backat it. You know, that's right,
(06:46):
right, not he's a more consequentialI was sadly, I think,
really, but a more consequential figurethan that. Well, it won't go
away on its own, is howI think about it, you know.
And and so if somebody isn't focusingon and it's not going to go away,
it's not going to end. Andone of the things that I was
thinking about I wanted to ask youabout. I have a very good friend
also who's anti Trump, but he'sa former Democrat who's also anti Biden,
(07:12):
And he said to me the otherday and it just blew my mind.
He said to me the other daysomething like, well, what's the worst
that can happen with another Donald Trumppresidency? Like? What was so bad
about the first one that we didn'tsurvive it? So let me ask you
that question. What would be sobad about another Donald Trump presidency? So
a couple of things. That's abig question. I see, we survived
(07:33):
the first one because there are alot of people who joined the Trump administration
but who still pushed back against Trump. Most of them will not be there
the second time. Trump has learnedhis lesson. They don't want to be
there anyway. But Trump really hasa trumpest cadre behind him. And it's
not a small cadre, you know. It's not like maybe people are not
(07:53):
heard of, all the people whowill come in, but they're all being
listed and recruited by the Heritage Foundation. They're signing up. They see it
as a path forward. And sohe will change the US government much more
than he did in his first term. And he will change it, in
my opinion, in your authoritarian directionand things that we've taken for granted in
terms of the way the Justice Departmentworks, and the Defense Department works,
(08:13):
and the White House works. Wealready saw a lot of challenges to that
in the first term, but Ithink in the second term much more serious
erosion of these norms and customs andregulations and even laws. You know,
a publical party can't be counted onto stand up to Trump. Obviously,
it's more Trump much Trump, You'reout than it was in twenty seventeen or
eighteen, and even that to Trumpobviously. And then in the world,
(08:37):
I just think in the degree ofdebt, especially with the Putin's attack on
Ukraine and general you know, chaosin that gay As but you know,
other wars in the world, obviouslyIsrael at Gaza, and then the challenges
China, the degree to which thatAmerica first foreign policy. It's one of
the few things Trump actually seems tobelieve in the damage that could do,
(08:58):
collapse of the international order. We'vebeen the cornerstone out for eighty years.
I mean, that really is aterrifying thought. And that's what I think
the most is the collapse of theworld order, the collapse of leadership from
democratic nations or nations that embrace democracyand what that leads to. I think
people think it's a joke sometimes whenwe say he's, you know, he's
a Putin admirer, that he's awant to be dictator. But I think
(09:22):
that that's a very real thing,and to me, that's going in that
direction is the worst thing that couldhappen when when we're no longer the leader
of or the voice for, youknow, democracy and democratic policy and democratic
relationships, that all that all,to me is what creates the worst possible
outcome. So I'm so glad tohear you say that. I was reading
(09:43):
something the other day and I havelike a hundred things in my head whenever
I talk to you, Bill,I'm like, oh, I need to
talking about this and this and this, So we're not going to get to
them all, but this is onethat made my list. I was reading
something about how the you know,first of all, it started out as
the change in the GOP, andyou just talked about the GOP is trumpier
than it's ever been and that's absolutelythe truth, and I think we'll get
(10:03):
to that as well. But itwas talking It was an article about how
the demographics in our politics in generalare changing and how who supports Trump and
who supports Biden are starting to changein ways ways that were not expected,
and they're sort of overlapping in aweird way. So I just thought about
in my own head, like,I'm going to vote for Joe Biden,
and it's got it and doesn't matterto me anything other than preserving the democratic
(10:28):
base of our country, preserving democracy. But I started to think about who
am I as a voter, andI came up with this list, and
it could have been longer. Ijust got bored with myself. But it's
I'm pro Biden, I'm pro life, I'm pro choice, I'm pro LGBT,
I'm pro Ukraine, I'm pro astrong national defense, I'm pro legal
immigration. I'm also pro a strongborder. And as I kind of think
(10:52):
about all those things and how theyused to fit, they would a lot
of that would be on separate lists. Are there more people? Am I
just crazier? There are more voterslike me kind of developing because of this
weird political world we're living in rightnow. And if my conservative friends from
home heard that list, they say, well, you're not a conservative anymore.
(11:13):
I think I am so ill thatyou run with that. No it's
good. I mean, it's startedto say the one that we're very tripolized
and polarized. So basically, ninetypercent of Trump voters will vote at least
two avoid for ever again, ninetypercent of by versus for him again for
forty five states will certainly go thesame way they did last time, and
so forth. So in a certainway, you know, we could all
(11:35):
have our individual cross pressures, butin the big picture, the country's sorted
out pretty you know, two camps, two tribes pretty well. On the
other hand, certainly for those swingvoters, and that's not a small number,
that's you know, five ten percent, there's all that cross pressure pressuring
that you describe going on, andthere will also be some movement of voters
(11:56):
within the camps. So clearly Trump'sit seems to be attracting. We're younger
voters, more minorities, who don'thave the old attachments to the Democratic Party
and who've just rethought things in theera of Trump but decided they like certain
aspects of Trump, and Trump isin a oddly contrary to what people expected.
Some of the older, older votersseem to be coming back to Biden.
(12:18):
I think they have some understanding ofwhat the world could look like if
you didn't have US strength in USleadership. And they don't remember World War
Two themselves, but they had parentswho who fought in it, or you
know, great big grandparents certainly whomthey knew, who lived through the twenties
and thirties. They have more senseof that, maybe than young people do.
So I think it's wise to beandy. Once said, oh,
(12:39):
everything's frozen, I think that it'snot frozen now. For now, it's
still two basic trenches which aren't changingmuch. But they could also change more
rapidly than people think, maybe notuntil Trump and Biden leave the scene,
just because people have Now would yourewrite an election? Most people don't like
saying they were wrong. They don'tlike changing their vote, and so it
was by definition, if you havethe same two candidates tourney again, and
(13:01):
those two candidates are the current presidentof the most recent president, people are
mostly loyal to one or the other. But I very much agree that after
twenty twenty four, after November ofthis year, I think you could have
total breakups of the coalitions, newparties, conceivably really new arrangements in our
politics, and that could be verygood. It could also be crazy,
(13:22):
but I mean I think we needsome of that. But for now,
I think we are in a kindof showdown between the two camps. Yeah,
and what you were just talking aboutthose you know that it's kind of
part of what this article is talkingabout to the you know, I don't
think a lot of people have thoughtthat some of these older folks who used
to be Republican or if you usedto be Democrat and left, but now
they're coming back to Biden and youknow how the different the white, college
(13:46):
educated suburban women and how that votehad, you know, the impact that
that has had. Will we seeis it possible that we will see?
Generally, we look at at leastfrom the party perspective, and I was
the you know, people know Iwas a chairman of the gop up in
New Hampshire. I worked with theR and C. So from the party
perspective, we're looking at the topof the ticket and how that's going to
influence down ballot tickets. We wanta top of the ticket guy who will
(14:09):
also help us win the US Senateand our state legislature and you know,
has the influence to be able tokind of come down, come down the
ticket. But when we see thiskind of shake up a little bit where
it's not people aren't frozen and theyare looking at things differently than we are
used to them looking at them.Maybe over the last ten or twenty years,
(14:31):
like, could we see something wherethe Republicans perhaps abandoned Trump at the
top of the ticket, but areable to hold the House or win the
Senate or they or the other wayaround, where maybe some of these Republican
moderates will go over and vote forJoe Biden but come back and vote for
the you know, the bottom ofthe lower races on the ticket. Yeah.
(14:54):
Sure, we saw some of thatin twenty twenty and there was an
under vote for president in Georgia,for example, and more Republicans voted in
the Senate where people that are inthe Senate race because they didn't like either
candidates for the presidency. And sowe can see some of that, and
we could see when they're not Imean, there's a non maga of republic
If there's a maga Republican, it'shard to see why that Republican would outperform
Trump. And in fact, there'squite a lot of evident's that Trump is
(15:16):
the strongest mag of Republican. Trumpdoes have a kind of unique appeal and
the imitation. Trumps don't do aswell as Trump. Some of them win
because they're red districts or whatever,so Margie Chailly being getting selected in re
election, but they're not as strongas Trump. The question will be kind
of normal Republican sort of do betterthan Trump and keep that part of the
party alive. I think they're veryhard for federal offices because those become referend
(15:41):
on Trump and are you going tosupport Trump? As you know in New
Hampshire, you can have Republican governors. You could have state legislators who are
pretty far from Trump. Some ofthem don't even support him, reluctantly support
him, like SNU, and thatI think has more of a life of
its own at the state level.And so I do think in twenty twenty
five, and if Trump were tobe defeated and sort of left the scene,
(16:03):
there'll be a million Trumps successors fightingwith each other, but there will
be people like governess and a governorcamp. I guess it'll be former Governors
Center at that point and Governor Campin Georgia and they'll be you know,
Liz Janey will be there and NikkieAlie will be there, and I don't
know. I mean right now,I wouldn't bet. I I need of
them to beat a must Trump herehe had an eight in twenty twenty eight.
(16:25):
For four years a long time.History can judge things differently, you
know, people will look back differentlyin twenty twenty seven that they did in
twenty twenty five and so forth.So yeah, I think fluidity posts stability
for now, stabilities under the rightword, but are kind of frozen this
almost at the conflict right now fora few months, a lot of slugging
it out for just one two threepercent. But I think after remember twenty
(16:48):
twenty four, much more chances forthings to start moving around. Yeah,
that's interesting to me because I'm convincedthat the Republican Party is two decades at
least away from a world where candidatesare not being asked are you a Trump
Republican? Or you are you asome other kind of Republican? Like I
think his influence and involved. Ithink that he will be involved until he
(17:11):
you know, leaves the earth,And I think is influential last a long
time beyond that. So when youtalk about me, you know, shake
up and maybe even new parties,that's interesting to me because I think it's
the party and let's stuck about theR and C briefly before I lose you
as well. I think that theparty has become so broken at this point
and so infiltrated with the Maga mentalitythat that's that it's going to keep going
(17:36):
long after Trump. I think that'sthe party foundation. I mean, they
rewrite their platform based on what,you know, whatever Trump thing of the
day might be. So I thinki'd like to hear you talk a little
bit about the party and the waythey're going to influence this. So I
tend to agree with you that Ithink it's a mistake to underestimate the consequences
of Trump, and therefore one ofthe consequences is the transformation of the Republican
(17:59):
Party. And you just see ifyou look at who's running for office and
who's in office in that party,and it's not a party where it's like,
you know, who was a partyof John Bahner and now it's a
party of Mike Johnson. And itwas a party of Mitch McConnell and it's
not going to be after this andso forth, and you see it down
to the local level. So Ivery much agree, and I think that's
a big mistake. It's a bigmistake people make when they underestimate the implications
(18:19):
of Trump and Trump is them.The only slight caveat to that I would
have is it's right to know howmuch of it. I think that's true.
But still the personal appeal of Trumpand power of Trump is probably crucial
that all happening right now. Andwould there be fractions, So would there
be intra Trump trumpst fights among thetrump Ists. I think probably they would
(18:41):
be right, they'd be like eighteendifferent leaders of the Trump faction. But
I's still the biggest faction for now. Even after Trump leaves, if he
leaves, as you say, he'snot gonna leave anyway. He's not like
he's going to give up his controlof the party. Just if he loses
the election, he'll say it wasstill and he'll fight at that for a
couple of months, and then you'llkeep control of the party as much as
he can. But if Trump losesthe game, is it possible that you
begin to get a kind of gradualliberation a little bit from Trump. But
(19:07):
I think you're just to finish up. I think on that, I think
your point is absolutely right. Peoplewho think it's just going to snap back,
all the trumpets will go go away, or they'll change their mind again,
they've already cast their lot, atleast to find it. It was
not a trumpet. She worked withme and others well, Paul Ryan and
so forth, towards w Bush administrationwhen she was spread out of Harvard,
and she made her a big switchin twenty eighteen. She's risen to number
(19:30):
three in the House as a Trumpsupporter. Second switch. Again, she's
being Trump isn't is the future.She's going to fight very hard to see
that it's the future, and manyothers in the House will fight hard to
make sure they continue to dominate theHouse. The outside groups will fight hard
to make sure they win the primaries. So yeah, I'm very much with
you in the sense that people shouldnot think this is a short term thing
(19:52):
that's just going to pass. Yeah, And she's to me one of the
strangest examples of all, at leastto phonic. I mean, she started
out as this moderate Republican. Shewas gonna be the face of the future
of the party, you know,this up and comer, and then and
then the party changed so dramatically andso quickly, and she kind of just
jumped on board. That was that'sa strange one. But then let me
(20:12):
ask you, I want to staywith the R and C. Then for
a couple of minutes. I lookat what's happened at the rn C since
Laura Trump and is it Michael Watley? Who's the guy who's the chair right
now? Yeah, you know,that's a I'm watching that from the perspective
of having been a former R andC member, and so the process was
not terribly out of whack. Whenthe nominee decides he wants somebody else,
(20:37):
he or she gets somebody else andthey choose, and then the rn C
votes and they vote for the personthat they know. The guy was like
that was that was all pretty prettyho hum. But what I have seen
since then really makes me kind ofscratch my head and wonder what's going what
their conscious thoughts are over there?They are to me when I look at
them. They are building this legaldepartment that is full of election deniers and
(21:02):
bringing in guys who are former youknow who were formerly part of that,
the election denier strategizing and that wholething. They are getting rid of staffers
who will not fully embrace the ideaof twenty twenty having been stolen, Who
aren't willing to who are who arewho aren't even willing to, you know,
use smart political language when talking aboutit. They don't even want that,
(21:26):
you know. To me, Ifeel like it's becoming what I have
called a an election disruption operation ratherthan a get out the vote operation?
Am I overreacting? Am I gettingto conspiracy theory? Thinking in my own
head? I mean, it's aTrump support operation, including funneling a lot
of money to Trump's legal teams,you know, which was to be divided
(21:48):
with the R and C. That'sthe other part I didn't forgot to mention.
You're right, yeah, yeah,no, So it's very much correct
to see it as a Trump aTrump support operation. Now, Trump's a
unique candidate and maybe he doesn't needsome of that traditional Ryncy type work,
and maybe he just generates his votesort of, you know, just because
he's Trump, and maybe it doesn'thurt to waste a lot of money on
(22:11):
stupid election denying lawyers, and maybeinst the land the groundwork for trying to
fight that again in twenty twenty four. So you know, it's from their
point of view, So I supposenot totally crazy, but I think it's
a good illustration whether you're looking atthe RNC or at the Heritage Foundation,
or at some of these individual commentatorsand journalists, or even magazines and newspapers.
I mean, the degree to websites, the degree to which Trump has
(22:33):
changed so many people and so manythings. It's a sign of how consequential
he was. Just to get backto where we began. Really that the
people made a mistake thinking that,you know, well that's just kind of
a little weird thing that's going togo away. Maybe it could have,
but it didn't. And once theparties to come to him, he was,
I say, the one thing hewas pretty good at. When do
you think about it, He waspretty ruthless and sort of taking over the
(22:55):
party. He did it in himhanded ways and then kind of goofy ways
a time. He made miscalculations attimes, but at the end of the
day, here we are, right, Lara Trump is the co chair of
the Arts, right. I meanthat says it all, doesn't it.
It does, Yeah, and I'mafraid to comment. I'm afraid to say
what really is in my head,you know, like like that's extraordinary to
(23:17):
me. And Ryan's previously you lovehim or hate him. He was a
serious person who you know, tried, who had a path and a vision
and tried to accomplish something that wasbigger than himself with the with the r
n C. And I don't wantto sound like I'm a big Rhyme's previous
fan, because he's broken my heartmore than once, you know, since
I was on the r rn Cwith him. But Lara Trump is essentially
(23:40):
running one of the two major politicalparties in the United States and America.
It blows my mind and I think, I you know, I don't want
to be hurtful. I try notto be, but I think it makes
a joke out of the rn Cat this point. And that's a big,
a big part of it. You'vesaid something earlier that clicked in my
head about parties as well. Wedon't need to get into no labels and
(24:03):
what could have happened and would havehappened, and you know, all that
sort of thing. But are welooking at post twenty twenty four. Are
we looking at a landscape where athird party could start to build and grow
and develop. A lot of peoplelooked at no Labels, I think and
said, it's a great idea.I love the concept, but it's the
wrong time. Yeah, what doyou think? I don't know. And
(24:25):
there are a lot of obstacles tothird parties in the US, and a
lot of people have talked about themfor a lot of long time and it
never quite happens, never happened successfully. But I got to think, if
you have a trumpet Republican party,maybe, especially if Trump loses and there's
little chaos there, but the Trumpis kind of hang on, and it's
a Democratic party with Biden was alwaysthe lame duck goes left and it might
(24:47):
not invited out. But let's sayit does maybe and suddenly there's a massive
golf in the middle. Could alsowrite this area where Biden and windsess could
also happen. We'll wear Trump wins. It could also happen that way too,
if he has a bad term ofstuff. So yeah, I'm inclined
to think. I mean, I'vetried to look at some of these structural
obstacles a little bit carefully and seehow strong they really are, how much
(25:07):
of it is just history and custom. I think if what began at twenty
twenty five they really determined effort,it's not out of the question that one
could have a serious third party.And again, a lot depends on what
happens with the Republicans and the Democrats. Of course, you could also have
factional fights within the parties. Alot of American history depends on the your
fights between different chunks of each partwithin the parties, right, the Rockfellow
(25:30):
Republicans and Goldwater Republicans, the Clintonand the Model, the h Clinton Democrats
and the Bernie Sanders Democrats, whatever. Right, So you know that it
could be a looked more like thattoo. But I think either way,
we've had a kind of false Idon't know, stability at the top.
We're going to nominate the same peoplefor the second time in a row,
Trump for the third time in arow. Biden was vice president for eight
years, so both those names havebeen there, you know, very consistently
(25:52):
for the last decade. At leastthat will not be the case in twenty
twenty eight, I don't think.And it's interesting we keep we always talk
about the Republican Party because that's whereTrump is. You know that that's the
tool he uses to be as destructiveas he is. But you know,
just for a minute, the Democrats. If it wasn't for Trump, we
could just as easily be talking aboutthe Democrats as you just said, We've
(26:15):
got the mineror we've got the Bidenrepublic Democrats, and you still have the
Bernie Sanders Democrats, the AOC Democrats, and you know they have some some
splits and some divisions within their partyas well. But I get the impression,
my belief as I watch it unfold, is that they're all going to
come home on election day. There'snot going to be a big measurable number
(26:36):
of Democrats who either don't vote orjust said e they're going to vote for
some you know, write in BernieSanders or something. They're all going to
come home for Biden, I thinkin November. I mean, if the
Biden team does their job, Ithink that should be the case. But
you know, the world is unpredictableplace, and what if they're really things
really blow up, people worse inthe Middle East, and people are really
unhappy about manage for that, Itend to agree with that though. I
(26:59):
mean, I think that the Trumpwill focus everyone's attention. People decide to
put off their baby fights for thefuture, you know, the Josh Shapiro's
Gretchen Wimmer, Kamala Harris, who'sthe head of the party, and you
know, AOC versus Abigail Spanberger fodrives the direction. You know, all
that stuff will be probably a twentytwenty five discussion more than a twenty twenty
fourth session. But life's unpredictable.You know, things can blow up pretty
(27:22):
suddenly. I was talking with DavidAxelrod last week. I did a conversation
with him, and you know,what does the Chicago conventional look like if
the Israel Guza war is continuing inthe way it is, and some chunk
of Americans, mostly on the left, of course, are you know,
really upset by the fact that Bidenis I don't know what they think you
should be doing, but anyway,not doing war. Let's just put it
(27:45):
that way. To fresh Israel.And you know, would you have riots
in the streets in Chicago, Idon't know, It's not out of the
question. All kinds of things arenot out of the question. Honestly,
God knows Approven will do, Chinawill do in terms of disinformation. I'm
worried about twenty twenty. For onthe surface it's stable, but there's a
lot of stuff there that's that's notthat's potentially sort of cold blow up,
(28:06):
so to speak. And I wejust don't know what's going to happen.
Yeah, and that doesn't give meany encouragement. And all, by the
way, to your builds, I'msorry, who knows what would happen,
But you know you, I didn'teven think about Israel and Gaza as I
was jotting down notes before you andI jumped on this conversation. And in
the eyes of the American people,uh, the the approval loving their their
(28:30):
favorability and how they look at howthey look at Israel has dropped by ten
points since this time last year.And and that worries me like that,
that gives me concern. And uh, there was a conversation at Center Clip
earlier or last week about has hasIsrael gone too far? And a lot
(28:51):
of the conversation ended up kind ofrevolving around Biden. I'm not sure what
people expect Biden to do that couldbe different than being year of what we
do and what he does and doesn'tsupport. And I assume that nobody wants
Biden to send troops to Israel.You know, no one's looking for that.
You know, is there a twominute answer to to the Israel guys
(29:11):
a question or not? So muchdepends on what happens and whether it's not
clear Visuel has his viable strategy ornot. It's not clear if there go
if this whirl end pretty soon,or whether it'll go on and on and
on. It's not clear whether Israeldecide they really have crushed them off so
they can afford to get out andbegin a reconstruction, or whether you know
(29:33):
that won't happen soon still could spreadto the north with Iran and as well.
So no, I think it's veryuncertain. And so yeah, I
think some of the criticians of Biden'sunfair. But but I'm struck. I'll
just closing this way bit, Sarah. I mean, is there a long
one, my colleague, is youknow, does all these focus groups and
very striking how much voters think theworld's chaotic and it wasn't. If you're
(29:53):
a Swingish voter who's kind of goingtowards Trump. It's you know, the
world's chaotic. It wasn't this wayunder Trump, and Biden looks kind of
weak and he's old and people aren'tlistening to him, and so we'll be
able to all these wars going.Now that is not a per sophisticated point
of view, might say, andit's sort of feared, but I think
in out of ways. But Ido think that just a sense of chaos
(30:14):
in the world takes away you wantto buy the strongest arguments, which is
he will keep this what we weretalking about earlier, this international order that
America leads in reasonably good shape.But if it's just in chaos anyway,
what's the risk of Trump? SoI worry, I said, Trump could
really benefit from international chaos over theX six ones. Yeah, and that
makes a lot of sense when youjust think about who he is, how
you know, how how he functions, you know how what his weapons are.
(30:37):
And it's the same actually with theeconomy as well. All the economic
indicators, you know, ninety ninepercent of them are so strong, but
groceries have gone up twenty five percent, and people feel it, and that's
all that matters. You know,we got to remember that and that impacts
how they vote. Bill, itis always a pleasure to talk to you.
Always insightful. I walk away feelingscan't say I necessarily am, but
(31:02):
it's always great to have you here. Well's asks you say, it's great
to be with you, Jennifer,and good luck. I see you senter
personal. I hope so as well. Thanks so much for listening in,
for joining our conversation with Bill Crystal. It is always good to have you
here. We remain committed here atthe podcast to bringing you thoughtful, insightful
(31:22):
guests who can actually bring knowledge tothe table and hopefully arm us better each
time to be stronger members of theanti Trump movement. We should feel good
about that, we should feel proudof that. It is about preserving democracy
in America today. That is whatwe are focused on. That is what
(31:44):
is on our table in front ofus here from now to November. So
I appreciate that you're listening in.I appreciate that you find that to be
as important as I do. Ithink future generations will look back at this
moment and not know any of usby name, but know that the movement
existed and that they are living withprivileges that were preserved for them by people
(32:08):
like all of you, who caredenough to be involved and to do something
about it. You're listening to,Is it just me? Or have we
all lost our minds? I'm JenniferHorn, and I look forward to having
you back here again next week
Is it just me? Or havewe all lost our minds? It's a
question I've been asking myself on repeatfor the last eight years, and I
know I'm not alone in that.Is it the politics, is it the
culture? Or am I just gettingold? Hi? I'm Jennifer Horn and
I'm a former Republican strategist and partyleader turned independent sanity activist. I decided
(00:25):
to do this podcast so we couldexplore these questions. I'll bring experts to
the table from politics and media andculture. We'll have raw, insightful conversations
with the clear goal of getting tothe bottom of it all. One way
or another. We've all lost ourminds, and I hope you'll join us
on the journey to find them again. Hi. This is Jennifer Horn,
(00:46):
your host at Is it just me? Or have we all lost our minds?
And I'm thrilled to have back withus today Bill Crystal. If you
have followed the conservative movement, ifyou have followed the anti Trump movement,
then you already know who Bill is. This is who Wikipedia says. Bill
is William Crystal, an American neoconservative writer a frequent commentator on several networks,
(01:08):
including CNN. He was the founderand editor at large of the political
magazine The Weekly Standard. Crystal isnow editor at large at the center right
publication The Bulwark, and has beena host of conversations with Bill Crystal in
an interview web program since twenty fourteen. Bill, I'm not sure if that
last one is still if you're stilldoing that or not. But it's great
(01:30):
to have you. How are you. I am doing it and it's great
to be with you. And that'sa pretty good Wikipedia. It does a
pretty good job. I always find, you know, yeah, these days,
I remember, might never look atmyself, but I mean for other
people when I have to look somethingup quickly, it seems like it's rarely
totally accurate. I remember when wefirst started, we were all borned.
You know that don't go to Wikipedia. They don't know what they're doing.
(01:52):
But I agree, I think it'sbecome pretty accurate. And like you,
I never look at myself because Iknow other people can contribute to the wiki
page and I don't want to know. You know. It's like not reading
the comments about you know, yourown articles or right right exactly. I
try not to read comments on Twitteranywhere else if I can avoid it as
well, the Weekly Standard. It'sbeen I can't. It just seems impossible
(02:15):
to me how long ago that wasat this point, and that's where when
you and I first met, youand Fred Barnes were at the Weekly Standard.
You were the voice of the conservativemovement. And that was what drew
me to the two of you andto reading the Weekly Standard, and you
know, having a I felt likeyou guys had an understanding of the conservative
movement as opposed to these individual politicalplayers who kind of use it, you
(02:40):
know, they like so many politiciansdo use these movements kind of for their
own purposes. And that's where youare at the Bulwark now. And let's
start by talking about the Bulwark alittle bit so that they can find it
out. You're on Twitter, butit's the Bulwark dot com, is that
correct? Bullwork dot com? Andyou get several articles a day and the
bunch of podcasts, and I knowCharlie seis to the newsletter fantastic job for
(03:05):
five years and a podcast every day, Andregor and I have taken over the
newsletter now that Charlie des let itto get off the hamster wheel, as
he put it, and Tim Millerdoes the podcast and Jonathan West so lot
last, those all kinds of things, and Jonathan Last does the noon newsletter.
So it's really been great, Igot to say. And I feel
like we've really it was a byaccident in a way that it got started.
(03:29):
Then we can stay I got closed. But in a way, maybe
it's good to have something new forthis new moment. And I think we've
I hope we've. I think weprovide lively and entertaining coverage of this moment,
and we've always taken it seriously andseriously, but not I hope too
seriously in the sense of right.We tried a good time and be good
humored and cover a million things inour direct politics as well culture and stuff.
(03:50):
But at the end of the day, you know, when historians look
back at this period twenty nineteen,twenty twenty four, really twenty sixteen,
obviously twenty twenty four, but coupulworkers twenty ninety sort for Trump is the
dominant figure, no question about it. People say, you spend to what
time worrying about Trump and Trump's effectand trump Ism and Trump's followers, But
I don't know, it's kind ofimportant to get that right. I don't
(04:12):
think it's too much time at all. And I think what you guys are
doing at the Bulwark, I likehow you just said it that, like
this is the right vehicle for thismoment, and the Weekly Standard probably wouldn't
have been it was a different kindof an operation. I love the podcasts
that you guys do, and Iencourage everyone who's listening to us to check
them out at the Bulwark. Andwhat the other thing I love is that
(04:32):
you have voices. It's not justa far right voice or just a conservative
voice. You have a lot ofother voices mixed in here with the podcast
and the columns and everything else.And Jill Lawrence is another one who writes
at the Bulwark. I just thinkhas been doing great work over there.
And so I think this is theright vehicle for this moment in time.
(04:55):
And I'm one who hates to admitit, but if you're not talking about
Donald Trump when you're talking about politics, then you're really missing the vote completely.
And that doesn't mean that he's likethis amazing politician. It means that
he is the primary force in thismoment. And if we don't understand that,
and you want to defeat him,you have to understand that other part.
First, Yeah, you saw thatearly on Jennifer and new ampsh I
(05:19):
think we yes, I think that'swell said. You don't have to be
obsessed with Trump. You can addup write about a million other things.
Obviously the Hill and it's a loton international relations, a lot on the
Ukraine Russia war and so forth.So we're not you know, it's not
like Trump all the time, butthe contrary. In fact, there'll be
(05:39):
days where there isn't an article directlyabout Trump or what he's up to,
or or even Trump isn't But butyeah, he's the he's the one stance
towards him thinking through the effects andimplications of his dominance of one of our
two major parties now for what nineyears, he's going to be nominated for
the third time. Very few peopleare nominated three times in a row by
(06:01):
one of our major parties. Andhe was president for four years. He
was a leader in exile, hasbeen for the last four years. It'spite
January sixth, and despite the factthat it looked for about two days after
January sixth that he might not beand looked in twenty twenty three that might
be serious challenges to him. Hebrushed the wall aside. So it's foolish,
I think, to sort of minimizehim. And I still see some
of that among friends who are antiTrump, you know, but they sort
(06:25):
of want to think of it asa weird aperation it's going to go away?
When when's the fever going to break? It hopefully will go away,
and hopefully we can restore and maybeeven get to a healthier place than we
were once we worked this through.But the idea that it's just this kind
of fever that's going to break andthen you you know, you have a
day of recovery and then you're backat it. You know, that's right,
(06:46):
right, not he's a more consequentialI was sadly, I think,
really, but a more consequential figurethan that. Well, it won't go
away on its own, is howI think about it, you know.
And and so if somebody isn't focusingon and it's not going to go away,
it's not going to end. Andone of the things that I was
thinking about I wanted to ask youabout. I have a very good friend
also who's anti Trump, but he'sa former Democrat who's also anti Biden,
(07:12):
And he said to me the otherday and it just blew my mind.
He said to me the other daysomething like, well, what's the worst
that can happen with another Donald Trumppresidency? Like? What was so bad
about the first one that we didn'tsurvive it? So let me ask you
that question. What would be sobad about another Donald Trump presidency? So
a couple of things. That's abig question. I see, we survived
(07:33):
the first one because there are alot of people who joined the Trump administration
but who still pushed back against Trump. Most of them will not be there
the second time. Trump has learnedhis lesson. They don't want to be
there anyway. But Trump really hasa trumpest cadre behind him. And it's
not a small cadre, you know. It's not like maybe people are not
(07:53):
heard of, all the people whowill come in, but they're all being
listed and recruited by the Heritage Foundation. They're signing up. They see it
as a path forward. And sohe will change the US government much more
than he did in his first term. And he will change it, in
my opinion, in your authoritarian directionand things that we've taken for granted in
terms of the way the Justice Departmentworks, and the Defense Department works,
(08:13):
and the White House works. Wealready saw a lot of challenges to that
in the first term, but Ithink in the second term much more serious
erosion of these norms and customs andregulations and even laws. You know,
a publical party can't be counted onto stand up to Trump. Obviously,
it's more Trump much Trump, You'reout than it was in twenty seventeen or
eighteen, and even that to Trumpobviously. And then in the world,
(08:37):
I just think in the degree ofdebt, especially with the Putin's attack on
Ukraine and general you know, chaosin that gay As but you know,
other wars in the world, obviouslyIsrael at Gaza, and then the challenges
China, the degree to which thatAmerica first foreign policy. It's one of
the few things Trump actually seems tobelieve in the damage that could do,
(08:58):
collapse of the international order. We'vebeen the cornerstone out for eighty years.
I mean, that really is aterrifying thought. And that's what I think
the most is the collapse of theworld order, the collapse of leadership from
democratic nations or nations that embrace democracyand what that leads to. I think
people think it's a joke sometimes whenwe say he's, you know, he's
a Putin admirer, that he's awant to be dictator. But I think
(09:22):
that that's a very real thing,and to me, that's going in that
direction is the worst thing that couldhappen when when we're no longer the leader
of or the voice for, youknow, democracy and democratic policy and democratic
relationships, that all that all,to me is what creates the worst possible
outcome. So I'm so glad tohear you say that. I was reading
(09:43):
something the other day and I havelike a hundred things in my head whenever
I talk to you, Bill,I'm like, oh, I need to
talking about this and this and this, So we're not going to get to
them all, but this is onethat made my list. I was reading
something about how the you know,first of all, it started out as
the change in the GOP, andyou just talked about the GOP is trumpier
than it's ever been and that's absolutelythe truth, and I think we'll get
(10:03):
to that as well. But itwas talking It was an article about how
the demographics in our politics in generalare changing and how who supports Trump and
who supports Biden are starting to changein ways ways that were not expected,
and they're sort of overlapping in aweird way. So I just thought about
in my own head, like,I'm going to vote for Joe Biden,
and it's got it and doesn't matterto me anything other than preserving the democratic
(10:28):
base of our country, preserving democracy. But I started to think about who
am I as a voter, andI came up with this list, and
it could have been longer. Ijust got bored with myself. But it's
I'm pro Biden, I'm pro life, I'm pro choice, I'm pro LGBT,
I'm pro Ukraine, I'm pro astrong national defense, I'm pro legal
immigration. I'm also pro a strongborder. And as I kind of think
(10:52):
about all those things and how theyused to fit, they would a lot
of that would be on separate lists. Are there more people? Am I
just crazier? There are more voterslike me kind of developing because of this
weird political world we're living in rightnow. And if my conservative friends from
home heard that list, they say, well, you're not a conservative anymore.
(11:13):
I think I am so ill thatyou run with that. No it's
good. I mean, it's startedto say the one that we're very tripolized
and polarized. So basically, ninetypercent of Trump voters will vote at least
two avoid for ever again, ninetypercent of by versus for him again for
forty five states will certainly go thesame way they did last time, and
so forth. So in a certainway, you know, we could all
(11:35):
have our individual cross pressures, butin the big picture, the country's sorted
out pretty you know, two camps, two tribes pretty well. On the
other hand, certainly for those swingvoters, and that's not a small number,
that's you know, five ten percent, there's all that cross pressure pressuring
that you describe going on, andthere will also be some movement of voters
(11:56):
within the camps. So clearly Trump'sit seems to be attracting. We're younger
voters, more minorities, who don'thave the old attachments to the Democratic Party
and who've just rethought things in theera of Trump but decided they like certain
aspects of Trump, and Trump isin a oddly contrary to what people expected.
Some of the older, older votersseem to be coming back to Biden.
(12:18):
I think they have some understanding ofwhat the world could look like if
you didn't have US strength in USleadership. And they don't remember World War
Two themselves, but they had parentswho who fought in it, or you
know, great big grandparents certainly whomthey knew, who lived through the twenties
and thirties. They have more senseof that, maybe than young people do.
So I think it's wise to beandy. Once said, oh,
(12:39):
everything's frozen, I think that it'snot frozen now. For now, it's
still two basic trenches which aren't changingmuch. But they could also change more
rapidly than people think, maybe notuntil Trump and Biden leave the scene,
just because people have Now would yourewrite an election? Most people don't like
saying they were wrong. They don'tlike changing their vote, and so it
was by definition, if you havethe same two candidates tourney again, and
(13:01):
those two candidates are the current presidentof the most recent president, people are
mostly loyal to one or the other. But I very much agree that after
twenty twenty four, after November ofthis year, I think you could have
total breakups of the coalitions, newparties, conceivably really new arrangements in our
politics, and that could be verygood. It could also be crazy,
(13:22):
but I mean I think we needsome of that. But for now,
I think we are in a kindof showdown between the two camps. Yeah,
and what you were just talking aboutthose you know that it's kind of
part of what this article is talkingabout to the you know, I don't
think a lot of people have thoughtthat some of these older folks who used
to be Republican or if you usedto be Democrat and left, but now
they're coming back to Biden and youknow how the different the white, college
(13:46):
educated suburban women and how that votehad, you know, the impact that
that has had. Will we seeis it possible that we will see?
Generally, we look at at leastfrom the party perspective, and I was
the you know, people know Iwas a chairman of the gop up in
New Hampshire. I worked with theR and C. So from the party
perspective, we're looking at the topof the ticket and how that's going to
influence down ballot tickets. We wanta top of the ticket guy who will
(14:09):
also help us win the US Senateand our state legislature and you know,
has the influence to be able tokind of come down, come down the
ticket. But when we see thiskind of shake up a little bit where
it's not people aren't frozen and theyare looking at things differently than we are
used to them looking at them.Maybe over the last ten or twenty years,
(14:31):
like, could we see something wherethe Republicans perhaps abandoned Trump at the
top of the ticket, but areable to hold the House or win the
Senate or they or the other wayaround, where maybe some of these Republican
moderates will go over and vote forJoe Biden but come back and vote for
the you know, the bottom ofthe lower races on the ticket. Yeah.
(14:54):
Sure, we saw some of thatin twenty twenty and there was an
under vote for president in Georgia,for example, and more Republicans voted in
the Senate where people that are inthe Senate race because they didn't like either
candidates for the presidency. And sowe can see some of that, and
we could see when they're not Imean, there's a non maga of republic
If there's a maga Republican, it'shard to see why that Republican would outperform
Trump. And in fact, there'squite a lot of evident's that Trump is
(15:16):
the strongest mag of Republican. Trumpdoes have a kind of unique appeal and
the imitation. Trumps don't do aswell as Trump. Some of them win
because they're red districts or whatever,so Margie Chailly being getting selected in re
election, but they're not as strongas Trump. The question will be kind
of normal Republican sort of do betterthan Trump and keep that part of the
party alive. I think they're veryhard for federal offices because those become referend
(15:41):
on Trump and are you going tosupport Trump? As you know in New
Hampshire, you can have Republican governors. You could have state legislators who are
pretty far from Trump. Some ofthem don't even support him, reluctantly support
him, like SNU, and thatI think has more of a life of
its own at the state level.And so I do think in twenty twenty
five, and if Trump were tobe defeated and sort of left the scene,
(16:03):
there'll be a million Trumps successors fightingwith each other, but there will
be people like governess and a governorcamp. I guess it'll be former Governors
Center at that point and Governor Campin Georgia and they'll be you know,
Liz Janey will be there and NikkieAlie will be there, and I don't
know. I mean right now,I wouldn't bet. I I need of
them to beat a must Trump herehe had an eight in twenty twenty eight.
(16:25):
For four years a long time.History can judge things differently, you
know, people will look back differentlyin twenty twenty seven that they did in
twenty twenty five and so forth.So yeah, I think fluidity posts stability
for now, stabilities under the rightword, but are kind of frozen this
almost at the conflict right now fora few months, a lot of slugging
it out for just one two threepercent. But I think after remember twenty
(16:48):
twenty four, much more chances forthings to start moving around. Yeah,
that's interesting to me because I'm convincedthat the Republican Party is two decades at
least away from a world where candidatesare not being asked are you a Trump
Republican? Or you are you asome other kind of Republican? Like I
think his influence and involved. Ithink that he will be involved until he
(17:11):
you know, leaves the earth,And I think is influential last a long
time beyond that. So when youtalk about me, you know, shake
up and maybe even new parties,that's interesting to me because I think it's
the party and let's stuck about theR and C briefly before I lose you
as well. I think that theparty has become so broken at this point
and so infiltrated with the Maga mentalitythat that's that it's going to keep going
(17:36):
long after Trump. I think that'sthe party foundation. I mean, they
rewrite their platform based on what,you know, whatever Trump thing of the
day might be. So I thinki'd like to hear you talk a little
bit about the party and the waythey're going to influence this. So I
tend to agree with you that Ithink it's a mistake to underestimate the consequences
of Trump, and therefore one ofthe consequences is the transformation of the Republican
(17:59):
Party. And you just see ifyou look at who's running for office and
who's in office in that party,and it's not a party where it's like,
you know, who was a partyof John Bahner and now it's a
party of Mike Johnson. And itwas a party of Mitch McConnell and it's
not going to be after this andso forth, and you see it down
to the local level. So Ivery much agree, and I think that's
a big mistake. It's a bigmistake people make when they underestimate the implications
(18:19):
of Trump and Trump is them.The only slight caveat to that I would
have is it's right to know howmuch of it. I think that's true.
But still the personal appeal of Trumpand power of Trump is probably crucial
that all happening right now. Andwould there be fractions, So would there
be intra Trump trumpst fights among thetrump Ists. I think probably they would
(18:41):
be right, they'd be like eighteendifferent leaders of the Trump faction. But
I's still the biggest faction for now. Even after Trump leaves, if he
leaves, as you say, he'snot gonna leave anyway. He's not like
he's going to give up his controlof the party. Just if he loses
the election, he'll say it wasstill and he'll fight at that for a
couple of months, and then you'llkeep control of the party as much as
he can. But if Trump losesthe game, is it possible that you
begin to get a kind of gradualliberation a little bit from Trump. But
(19:07):
I think you're just to finish up. I think on that, I think
your point is absolutely right. Peoplewho think it's just going to snap back,
all the trumpets will go go away, or they'll change their mind again,
they've already cast their lot, atleast to find it. It was
not a trumpet. She worked withme and others well, Paul Ryan and
so forth, towards w Bush administrationwhen she was spread out of Harvard,
and she made her a big switchin twenty eighteen. She's risen to number
(19:30):
three in the House as a Trumpsupporter. Second switch. Again, she's
being Trump isn't is the future.She's going to fight very hard to see
that it's the future, and manyothers in the House will fight hard to
make sure they continue to dominate theHouse. The outside groups will fight hard
to make sure they win the primaries. So yeah, I'm very much with
you in the sense that people shouldnot think this is a short term thing
(19:52):
that's just going to pass. Yeah, And she's to me one of the
strangest examples of all, at leastto phonic. I mean, she started
out as this moderate Republican. Shewas gonna be the face of the future
of the party, you know,this up and comer, and then and
then the party changed so dramatically andso quickly, and she kind of just
jumped on board. That was that'sa strange one. But then let me
(20:12):
ask you, I want to staywith the R and C. Then for
a couple of minutes. I lookat what's happened at the rn C since
Laura Trump and is it Michael Watley? Who's the guy who's the chair right
now? Yeah, you know,that's a I'm watching that from the perspective
of having been a former R andC member, and so the process was
not terribly out of whack. Whenthe nominee decides he wants somebody else,
(20:37):
he or she gets somebody else andthey choose, and then the rn C
votes and they vote for the personthat they know. The guy was like
that was that was all pretty prettyho hum. But what I have seen
since then really makes me kind ofscratch my head and wonder what's going what
their conscious thoughts are over there?They are to me when I look at
them. They are building this legaldepartment that is full of election deniers and
(21:02):
bringing in guys who are former youknow who were formerly part of that,
the election denier strategizing and that wholething. They are getting rid of staffers
who will not fully embrace the ideaof twenty twenty having been stolen, Who
aren't willing to who are who arewho aren't even willing to, you know,
use smart political language when talking aboutit. They don't even want that,
(21:26):
you know. To me, Ifeel like it's becoming what I have
called a an election disruption operation ratherthan a get out the vote operation?
Am I overreacting? Am I gettingto conspiracy theory? Thinking in my own
head? I mean, it's aTrump support operation, including funneling a lot
of money to Trump's legal teams,you know, which was to be divided
(21:48):
with the R and C. That'sthe other part I didn't forgot to mention.
You're right, yeah, yeah,no, So it's very much correct
to see it as a Trump aTrump support operation. Now, Trump's a
unique candidate and maybe he doesn't needsome of that traditional Ryncy type work,
and maybe he just generates his votesort of, you know, just because
he's Trump, and maybe it doesn'thurt to waste a lot of money on
(22:11):
stupid election denying lawyers, and maybeinst the land the groundwork for trying to
fight that again in twenty twenty four. So you know, it's from their
point of view, So I supposenot totally crazy, but I think it's
a good illustration whether you're looking atthe RNC or at the Heritage Foundation,
or at some of these individual commentatorsand journalists, or even magazines and newspapers.
I mean, the degree to websites, the degree to which Trump has
(22:33):
changed so many people and so manythings. It's a sign of how consequential
he was. Just to get backto where we began. Really that the
people made a mistake thinking that,you know, well that's just kind of
a little weird thing that's going togo away. Maybe it could have,
but it didn't. And once theparties to come to him, he was,
I say, the one thing hewas pretty good at. When do
you think about it, He waspretty ruthless and sort of taking over the
(22:55):
party. He did it in himhanded ways and then kind of goofy ways
a time. He made miscalculations attimes, but at the end of the
day, here we are, right, Lara Trump is the co chair of
the Arts, right. I meanthat says it all, doesn't it.
It does, Yeah, and I'mafraid to comment. I'm afraid to say
what really is in my head,you know, like like that's extraordinary to
(23:17):
me. And Ryan's previously you lovehim or hate him. He was a
serious person who you know, tried, who had a path and a vision
and tried to accomplish something that wasbigger than himself with the with the r
n C. And I don't wantto sound like I'm a big Rhyme's previous
fan, because he's broken my heartmore than once, you know, since
I was on the r rn Cwith him. But Lara Trump is essentially
(23:40):
running one of the two major politicalparties in the United States and America.
It blows my mind and I think, I you know, I don't want
to be hurtful. I try notto be, but I think it makes
a joke out of the rn Cat this point. And that's a big,
a big part of it. You'vesaid something earlier that clicked in my
head about parties as well. Wedon't need to get into no labels and
(24:03):
what could have happened and would havehappened, and you know, all that
sort of thing. But are welooking at post twenty twenty four. Are
we looking at a landscape where athird party could start to build and grow
and develop. A lot of peoplelooked at no Labels, I think and
said, it's a great idea.I love the concept, but it's the
wrong time. Yeah, what doyou think? I don't know. And
(24:25):
there are a lot of obstacles tothird parties in the US, and a
lot of people have talked about themfor a lot of long time and it
never quite happens, never happened successfully. But I got to think, if
you have a trumpet Republican party,maybe, especially if Trump loses and there's
little chaos there, but the Trumpis kind of hang on, and it's
a Democratic party with Biden was alwaysthe lame duck goes left and it might
(24:47):
not invited out. But let's sayit does maybe and suddenly there's a massive
golf in the middle. Could alsowrite this area where Biden and windsess could
also happen. We'll wear Trump wins. It could also happen that way too,
if he has a bad term ofstuff. So yeah, I'm inclined
to think. I mean, I'vetried to look at some of these structural
obstacles a little bit carefully and seehow strong they really are, how much
(25:07):
of it is just history and custom. I think if what began at twenty
twenty five they really determined effort,it's not out of the question that one
could have a serious third party.And again, a lot depends on what
happens with the Republicans and the Democrats. Of course, you could also have
factional fights within the parties. Alot of American history depends on the your
fights between different chunks of each partwithin the parties, right, the Rockfellow
(25:30):
Republicans and Goldwater Republicans, the Clintonand the Model, the h Clinton Democrats
and the Bernie Sanders Democrats, whatever. Right, So you know that it
could be a looked more like thattoo. But I think either way,
we've had a kind of false Idon't know, stability at the top.
We're going to nominate the same peoplefor the second time in a row,
Trump for the third time in arow. Biden was vice president for eight
years, so both those names havebeen there, you know, very consistently
(25:52):
for the last decade. At leastthat will not be the case in twenty
twenty eight, I don't think.And it's interesting we keep we always talk
about the Republican Party because that's whereTrump is. You know that that's the
tool he uses to be as destructiveas he is. But you know,
just for a minute, the Democrats. If it wasn't for Trump, we
could just as easily be talking aboutthe Democrats as you just said, We've
(26:15):
got the mineror we've got the Bidenrepublic Democrats, and you still have the
Bernie Sanders Democrats, the AOC Democrats, and you know they have some some
splits and some divisions within their partyas well. But I get the impression,
my belief as I watch it unfold, is that they're all going to
come home on election day. There'snot going to be a big measurable number
(26:36):
of Democrats who either don't vote orjust said e they're going to vote for
some you know, write in BernieSanders or something. They're all going to
come home for Biden, I thinkin November. I mean, if the
Biden team does their job, Ithink that should be the case. But
you know, the world is unpredictableplace, and what if they're really things
really blow up, people worse inthe Middle East, and people are really
unhappy about manage for that, Itend to agree with that though. I
(26:59):
mean, I think that the Trumpwill focus everyone's attention. People decide to
put off their baby fights for thefuture, you know, the Josh Shapiro's
Gretchen Wimmer, Kamala Harris, who'sthe head of the party, and you
know, AOC versus Abigail Spanberger fodrives the direction. You know, all
that stuff will be probably a twentytwenty five discussion more than a twenty twenty
fourth session. But life's unpredictable.You know, things can blow up pretty
(27:22):
suddenly. I was talking with DavidAxelrod last week. I did a conversation
with him, and you know,what does the Chicago conventional look like if
the Israel Guza war is continuing inthe way it is, and some chunk
of Americans, mostly on the left, of course, are you know,
really upset by the fact that Bidenis I don't know what they think you
should be doing, but anyway,not doing war. Let's just put it
(27:45):
that way. To fresh Israel.And you know, would you have riots
in the streets in Chicago, Idon't know, It's not out of the
question. All kinds of things arenot out of the question. Honestly,
God knows Approven will do, Chinawill do in terms of disinformation. I'm
worried about twenty twenty. For onthe surface it's stable, but there's a
lot of stuff there that's that's notthat's potentially sort of cold blow up,
(28:06):
so to speak. And I wejust don't know what's going to happen.
Yeah, and that doesn't give meany encouragement. And all, by the
way, to your builds, I'msorry, who knows what would happen,
But you know you, I didn'teven think about Israel and Gaza as I
was jotting down notes before you andI jumped on this conversation. And in
the eyes of the American people,uh, the the approval loving their their
(28:30):
favorability and how they look at howthey look at Israel has dropped by ten
points since this time last year.And and that worries me like that,
that gives me concern. And uh, there was a conversation at Center Clip
earlier or last week about has hasIsrael gone too far? And a lot
(28:51):
of the conversation ended up kind ofrevolving around Biden. I'm not sure what
people expect Biden to do that couldbe different than being year of what we
do and what he does and doesn'tsupport. And I assume that nobody wants
Biden to send troops to Israel.You know, no one's looking for that.
You know, is there a twominute answer to to the Israel guys
(29:11):
a question or not? So muchdepends on what happens and whether it's not
clear Visuel has his viable strategy ornot. It's not clear if there go
if this whirl end pretty soon,or whether it'll go on and on and
on. It's not clear whether Israeldecide they really have crushed them off so
they can afford to get out andbegin a reconstruction, or whether you know
(29:33):
that won't happen soon still could spreadto the north with Iran and as well.
So no, I think it's veryuncertain. And so yeah, I
think some of the criticians of Biden'sunfair. But but I'm struck. I'll
just closing this way bit, Sarah. I mean, is there a long
one, my colleague, is youknow, does all these focus groups and
very striking how much voters think theworld's chaotic and it wasn't. If you're
(29:53):
a Swingish voter who's kind of goingtowards Trump. It's you know, the
world's chaotic. It wasn't this wayunder Trump, and Biden looks kind of
weak and he's old and people aren'tlistening to him, and so we'll be
able to all these wars going.Now that is not a per sophisticated point
of view, might say, andit's sort of feared, but I think
in out of ways. But Ido think that just a sense of chaos
(30:14):
in the world takes away you wantto buy the strongest arguments, which is
he will keep this what we weretalking about earlier, this international order that
America leads in reasonably good shape.But if it's just in chaos anyway,
what's the risk of Trump? SoI worry, I said, Trump could
really benefit from international chaos over theX six ones. Yeah, and that
makes a lot of sense when youjust think about who he is, how
you know, how how he functions, you know how what his weapons are.
(30:37):
And it's the same actually with theeconomy as well. All the economic
indicators, you know, ninety ninepercent of them are so strong, but
groceries have gone up twenty five percent, and people feel it, and that's
all that matters. You know,we got to remember that and that impacts
how they vote. Bill, itis always a pleasure to talk to you.
Always insightful. I walk away feelingscan't say I necessarily am, but
(31:02):
it's always great to have you here. Well's asks you say, it's great
to be with you, Jennifer,and good luck. I see you senter
personal. I hope so as well. Thanks so much for listening in,
for joining our conversation with Bill Crystal. It is always good to have you
here. We remain committed here atthe podcast to bringing you thoughtful, insightful
(31:22):
guests who can actually bring knowledge tothe table and hopefully arm us better each
time to be stronger members of theanti Trump movement. We should feel good
about that, we should feel proudof that. It is about preserving democracy
in America today. That is whatwe are focused on. That is what
(31:44):
is on our table in front ofus here from now to November. So
I appreciate that you're listening in.I appreciate that you find that to be
as important as I do. Ithink future generations will look back at this
moment and not know any of usby name, but know that the movement
existed and that they are living withprivileges that were preserved for them by people
(32:08):
like all of you, who caredenough to be involved and to do something
about it. You're listening to,Is it just me? Or have we
all lost our minds? I'm JenniferHorn, and I look forward to having
you back here again next week
Popular Podcasts
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!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Cardiac Cowboys
The heart was always off-limits to surgeons. Cutting into it spelled instant death for the patient. That is, until a ragtag group of doctors scattered across the Midwest and Texas decided to throw out the rule book. Working in makeshift laboratories and home garages, using medical devices made from scavenged machine parts and beer tubes, these men and women invented the field of open heart surgery. Odds are, someone you know is alive because of them. So why has history left them behind? Presented by Chris Pine, CARDIAC COWBOYS tells the gripping true story behind the birth of heart surgery, and the young, Greatest Generation doctors who made it happen. For years, they competed and feuded, racing to be the first, the best, and the most prolific. Some appeared on the cover of Time Magazine, operated on kings and advised presidents. Others ended up disgraced, penniless, and convicted of felonies. Together, they ignited a revolution in medicine, and changed the world.