« The Weeds

Mad Dogs and Obamacare Repealers


Ezra and Matt are joined by Yochi Dreazen to talk about national security policy in the Trump era, the latest on ACA repeal, and research indicating the internet's not to blame for political polarization. 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
This. We support, is also sponsored by Nature Box, gotta, nature, Baxter, Comstock, weeds for fifty percent off your first order. The following podcast contains explicit language. Oh, we should plug the live, show them. How do where do they go? You need to give them an addressed to go to vex outcomes like weeds, live a really cool I think the right to the Wanna hatred. He sank bone where you can see as a kind surplus more did really. Allow welcomes There are also the weeds boxes, policy, podcast, independently network Matthew they see us join as usual by as recline and also by our colleague your Healy Dresen. We're circle. I don't you know she figured got this healthcare bill. Happenings biologist gone vacation for no real reason. Have Sarah, buried. There are very happy for gradual abolition. Sarah too,
unmanageable, post industrial worker of some kind. As those of us who saw last last week's episode, we're really guides. Johann as a guest. Again it get to talk a little national security which I've heard from review. You want to hear more about, but we were too ignorant. So again, we can work on that. Put first. If you like list turning to the weeds for free on your phone, you may enjoy even more list to the weeds in exchange for money, but live in person at the Warner Theatre on Tuesday April that does not make a hell of a deal. It's amazing a weeds. Show it features as Recline Sarah Cliff and more. I me If you go to Vauxhall COM, slash weeds, live, you can get full details on ticket prices and availability, and should we really good, you know what we're can we really excited we're gonna meet as some people who have the IP tickets and and see everybody in charge is fine, it's it's.
To get out of the house and do things to not just not just sit around lonely. Listening to podcast, and of getting out of the house that you things that you might also enjoy VOX is having its second unconvincing conversation with a hundred fifty people, people, the very very fascinating speakers and policy experts about the first hundred days of policy under Donald Trump. It will be in DC, is an invite only conference. We want this to be a real conversation that is pushed to end planned by the people. Audits are keeping a pretty small if it sounds interesting. Key you gotta conversations DOT box, Doc, comic in conversations, dot, box, dot, com, full details there you can, apply. I fine at all. You need to know. We did one of these last year it was one of my favorites we ve done as a site is really meaningful to meet. All of you is really really great discussion I learned a lot, I think, of the people there did too. I think of your listening. You'll enjoy that such I got conversations not box tat come all that
today. The weeds we're going to, in addition to national security, are going to talk about that. The big changes to the healthcare bill and we also have a white paper, a genuine envy, our paper that I'm actually pretty exe did about about whether internet use actually increases political polarisation. Spoiler, I'm not telling you yet, but that when we talk about the matter, so you know during the campaign I think Trump and and farm policy was was disk. the law in Hillary Clinton sort of frequently charge that you know you have this like in temporary sort of ignorant I blustering around he's gonna get us all killed, and Firstly, he made a big push that you know. Isis was like running rampant and do not Muslims are going to murder, of our children and unless we elected him and you see in the exit polls a lot of interest in these issues and sort of a sharp divide.
People, who said they were interested in foreign policy, so to over womanly favoured Clinton. Where's people said they were interested in terrorism, can overrule my favorite trump that they frame the issues differently. We have been talking about this much on the weeds, that's it since it came, but you know this past week we we have this. kind of weird blow up with the british surveillance agency over overshot spacer saying. Maybe they had bug trump tower. We had a Lamar call came by forcing awkward meeting and then the next morning tromp was like tweeting angrily at heard that Germany, whose money tat to NATO, and I remember, after that I spoke to it some people- I know social Democrats it in Germany and who are hoping to win an election and who I don't really want to increase
and spending and to them, this was like manna from Heaven ride like Donald Trump, whereby hates like tweeting, angrily at Angela Merkel, is like, like a gift to them too, like not do what the United States, Shelly theoretically wants them to do, and I guess I wonder I mean is this: people should really be unease like just antics, weaken, laugh offer, or does this matter to? First you say that five months into being a vocs employee and I really feel outcome of oxen, forty being the poor man standing for circle. If we're poor men, stand adversary, cliff ETA, but David. You take your second point. First right now trump, I think it's down the stairs, so we can kind of laugh at him a little bit, because some of the stuff doesn't yet appear to have true significant, but when they get to an actual crisis, no joke. There's somebody shooting at us. We are shooting at them. Then the fact that he won lies to
data from this lies and three left eliminate every hour. We have, then that becomes a big big deal, right now we are seeing this past week was kind of fascinating, so geared builders and the Netherlands, who have one thought, is here's another I read: Guy Catholic Trample of to use twitter did not do as well. The election is people feared. Then you have leaders come to the? U S from insult them, and they immediately get used to me was slightly more popular when she went back to England, Angela Merkel. Much more popular there is a headline of leader of the free world meets Donald Trump, which I think kind of nail: the waterways, but what you're seeing that's coming is canny ever back down I'm stuff about the wiretapping of Tom Towers really, let alone the new stuff about the British. The average of the USA functionally being involved in, it is empirically false. Every Republican who's been asked is denied it. Yesterday the directive here I began his hearing saying a trumped. Wheat was wrong and ended it by saying it different from what was one so what to do in the metals exactly those does not others
it set her rights that are a spider lurked those we're onto. But when you have this many people say its false and he just can't ever back down to meet ass, a part of our trump. I find most interesting it. You know he lies. We know that he's agitator know that, but he can't ever acknowledged. light and then just briefly, the postscript of me said. Don't ask me, ask Fox so FUCK said the count back this up. This is crap they suspended the person who said in the first place, so one the idea of a campaign, down to the idea that he says just ask Fox and three when Fox took back, he still counted Aachen remarkable to me, so this tough action strikes me a screen when we get what you're talking about with the Ask Fox is that he got apparently got his wiretapping tweet because he saw something Andrew Nepal Autonoe said that he misunderstood on Fox or I dont fully understand the chain of telephone here, but he blamed Fox. He is the president of the United States of America. He's got people he can ask you know. I remember when tromp was elected and there is a lot of talk about normalization right, there's a lot
discussion of how what would happen if you normalizes guy, and I think the way people thought about that had to do If the way spoke about Muslims and ended in what he said about women, certainly on the on the tapes, but this week is felt to me like a real example of normalization. It has helped me, like even though there are headlines oversee we written about it and in every other, major publications written about the fact that the director of the FBI and the director of the USA came. Isn't everything Donald Trump has been saying recently about wiretapping is not just wrong, but it's based on nothing. It's just garbage that he spit out for no evident recent accept a change. subject, and people are noting that right, it's a it's, a big story, but I dont think that we are almost capable like emotionally capable of putting ourselves back in the space. We were in two years ago, or even you know four years before that in trouble imagining. How would we about another president who came out
and because he saw something on Fox NEWS, tweeted that its predecessors running an illegal surveillance campaign of him and they went demanded when asked events. It will. I think the Senate should investigate and then, when they say nothing happened, uses Waltz Fox news asphalt this really scary to me an ecosystem left. Have you expand on a little bit wishes in one thing we actually need with. The president is to trust him not to agree with him or her right. You always have to agree with the president, but probably we need dealing with a foreign crisis. You actually need to trust them an end. I thinking go too far and this right door I'll be Bush. What was wrong and or lying depending on who you how you want to look at it when he said their weapons of mass destruction and obviously Lyndon Johnson in the Gulf of talk, and it is not. The case at present have lied about national security before but Donald Trump really really place it loose with. Information obviously appears to be fooling himself before he falls anybody else and that
feels to me very scary in a context where we actually need to trust the guy about what is happening and how we should respond yeah. I think George W Bush engineer parallel, because in some ways the analogue would be of George W Bush was asked, hey you, the? U S is lost. Five thousand people in iraq- and he said no- I haven't- I just deny the existence of that number, which Donald Trump is down with statistics. Said? I just don't buy the number and if you were ass little London to hay analyze, so George Bush what's going wrong, we change course. We can't imagine Donald Trump doing any of that right. We can imagine Donald Trump, acknowledging the existence of those numbers being real. We can acknowledge him saying this is wrong. I made a mistake or shifting course- and I agree with you- that the issue of trust with him is remarkable because not clear if we can trust him, if not clear who he trusts. You know the heads earthy Intel services, the heads of the entire committees, who are republican heads of it
I'll say this is fox. This is not true and he doesn't trust them, and there is a moment yesterday in the hearing that I found fascinating, it was sort of lost in the middle of it a little bit, but afterwards John Space was asked about the hearing with a wider spokesperson. He said when asked about collusion. He said no evidence stop digging when he was asked about the Trump wiretapping claim he said. There's no evidence keep digging and that's kind of to me Trump Renault. In a nutshell, he will keep doing something false. He does not want. They want something true and if you're the average American and all you, is this barrage of denials? I think it's very easy, even if we follow the news to get lost in it, so I mean it gets a question I have is like we're sure we'd look, you know concretely effort for things to start mattering biggest of stuff is happening abroad, writing we have in North Korea, is doing some product. Nations. We had this slightly odd rex. Tell us in turn, to Asia, where he he just said,
said like while the past twenty years, a policy of failed so will come up with something different and then didn't talk to any reporters are explain what he meant and we ve got a plan to put put more troops on the ground Syria, I believe an to sort of I know exactly how to characterize this, but that, but the feeling was that, when Obama was president, these kind of military actions in the Middle EAST were being like run out of the White House, swayed that that this was that the critique you heard from people in the Pentagon, especially, was that, like the National Security Council, was like looking of their shoulder micromanaging everything Donald Trump doesn't seem to have patience to micromanage. Anything so so, like the the gloves, are coming off and in some sense but what you would always here, you know from the Obama White House was like
you know. I understand, like people, don't wanna be micromanage, but at the same time like we are responsible. If american soldiers die or if civilians get mass, Third, and so you know I don't know. What's actually happening and Now we seem to be in in a situation where more may happen with with a lot less attention from from the centre here, yeah I'm in the Yemen case. It is actually really illustrative to point you just made every american president going back Carter. if something went wrong militarily, even if they had literally nothing to do with it said. Ultimately, I'm response was commander in chief compared with Donald Trump arrayed in Yemen went badly. John Mccain said failure? Civilians died, children died, a? U S, Navy seal died and dont Troms responds. Wasn't I think responsibility was, is the fault of Milton and he had personally proved this rate. He personally
did over dinner and what was said to be a thirty minute meeting and ultimately it's his call he's the commander in chief, but that kind of great stress the idea that they're sitting over dinner he's like yep go ahead with it. I think attacking him, for the approval is not fair, because the military presented it that's their job. He captives is to prove it tonight. He proof. But to blame the military. I've never seen notary friends of mine, the more offended by anything dating back to the Iraq war than that and the idea the commander in chief would say: there's a tragic loss. The father daughter, it's so dismissive and, frankly so cruel to say the notary, mourns and now you're being told hate your fault, it makes it worse. What s interesting is that there is a kind of the two foreign policies right. There's the foreign policy as tweeted. I'll trump, which bears no resemblance in the foreign policy, is currently being carried out by Rex to listen or by chimeras right now, the d, it happening militarily, the matters most, although not get much attention- is the Eu S sending five thousand troops Eastern Europe to Poland, and there is a real question of Brok: Obama committed to it without Trump do it, and if you dont from trying to suck up
Soviets until Russians and to every other phrase it produces gravely european and his government you'd counselor deployment and right now the aren't. So, if your son I'm worried about NATO worried about down tramping too close to Putin that's kind of a good site. But if you're someone trying to figure out what the hell does down something about NATO, the fact that Rex tailors and just He won't go to the next meeting of the NATO foreign ministers. It just baffling rights of foreign policy by tweet from the President foreign policy carried out by secretaries, running the different agencies and near TWAIN shall meet. There are two things I wanna fell upon. Their won t go back to the Yemen peace for a minute, because I think that such important at our members- you who told me this or I read it or maybe I'm wrong about it, which, if I am you can you can tell me, but that after the Yemen raid went, and after Donald Trump disowned it there were. Actually new process is put in place so that he would more of it should be just approved within the Pentagon, and you have more distance from it, and I found that extraordinary right and on two levels. One is the eye an organisation much smaller than the heads.
Its of America right than the federal government and all its power. But when something goes wrong, the first pulse. Somebody runs and organization is not to increase the layers of plausible deniability between you and the thing going wrong. It's to try to put into place structures where you can make sure it goes right in the future, doesn't mean you want Goldwater micromanaging it, but my God for the impulse to be immediately push it back further. So that happens again. It is easier for you to blame the military is, then people would say, will you approved it? That was it extra are you moment, and I thought was a real piece of inside. So on my on my interview podcast this week I had this discussion volleyball he's at the Atlantic and so fantastic that dusted. Pug reporter He was saying that all presidencies are ultimate defined by crises, their defence. And by moments of president did not create but had to respond to, and you can think of is going backwards. You could think of with Obama just how much of the first couple years had to do. A say that
The oil spill was a big deal for him. The financial crisis was a big deal for him for Bush, the financial crisis, ninety Levin Katrina, and something that I think we're seeing as an impulse within Donald Trump is that when things go wrong, he does go deeper into running the government and running the response, he tries to get further out from it as a real sense of alienation, which I think is fastened, a real alienation between him and the bureaucracy that he is positively in charge of an. You know, data day as you as you are saying, these might be antics now, but if something begins Chile going awry, and it is his job to handle it, and he gets front that's the way it is being handled, as presidents often do, because hard problems are hard to solve. It is not
to me that he is going to respond in a way that we will even have any context for, as opposed to cutting the agency almost completely loose yeah, and I think that he almost comments on the presidency as compared to running it, you know. Barack Obama was marked for being this kind of profit soil like analyzing from the outset if you dont have agency, but dont trumpets tweeting. On government in real time, but Obama did this. Is I think this very point, but Obama did this with the media narrative, what Obama did harmonious pray, plate, press critic all the time and play political pundit believing have that around the yard, like the one thing he didn't do their round with the actual bureaucracy dinner on politics is a more general point, but you know what then what wrong the vizier you may not like it, but it was his fault totally. I agree completely with the point is, I think the weird similarity is the criticism from the outside, but I think that the terrifying differences, the down Trump polio
many people around the world, including, I should say my wife worked. The Pentagon are very reassured that the secular defence, Jim Mattis and this feeling of lake not fair. I think that you managed to say Jim Mattis will keep the world safe light. Your match will keep the world safe and Donald Trump, two degree he's a very same company in person, but the other day he's not the president, and I think that you're right, when you have a structure, president, namely doesn't want to nobody, is actively critical of what's happening. That's what amazing to me. You're even have a president and tested plowed, the kind of hypothetical whom I publicly stand by what he, what he said and did, but privately asked for investigation, asked his aids to serve, say what went wrong. Even if you didn't ever go public with it and trumpet the opposite trumpets just back the military bash, the until services pass the hill, so there there's known willingness to huge information, no one is to act on it in its legitimately scary. You know there is a phrase. I never thought out utter in my life to defend our trump for one second, broader, to defend our Trump one. Second,
given the military, more control of the Pentium, more control, tactically, isn't necessarily a bad thing. A Christian. I thought that Obama got there was somewhat fair, was why are decision, but every drone Raiden in Yemen being approved by the White House when they don't necessarily need to be. I don't think that in itself is problematic. I think it's problematic when you have a president who doesn't want to know the details before or after who doesn't really care about the details. That's what I think if they could stay in Why I guess this is my question: is what in practice is this going to look like I mean even relatively optimistically, because I think a lot of people. You know. I take the view that, as you said, why did like tremendous is competent, well respected person he's known internationally, he's he's well regarding the Pentagon and so he's not going to like, but wonder in the way that you might worry that the down from wood, but also he he left the government years earlier under under the?
administration over you know there were some real policy disagreements right about the sort of U S, stance and in the Middle EAST and and things are going to going to change. I think an, and can you, Sir, how people understand like what is the world gonna look like in a sword, two less micromanagement for the White House, less hand wringing, maybe even a president who who doesn't sort of care in it particularly fine grained way, what's happening in Yemen in Iraq, so am, I don't know, mass over the years, especially when he was running centric man. He is assessed he said to be, he does red is often his. He said to read me: that's all true. He hates the nickname, mad dog, so never dont trumpets a mad dog metis chimeras despise that may be genuine haters regular die. How did he get it? I work, I don't want it Yes, I have agreed with western know it's like a marine loved upon their chest in and when it not sending around new photos about them. Reinstate, like the sort of take on this
MACHO image. That was his kind of course, I'm within the Marine corps early on in his career, but that was never an accurate, a at him. He's not a shouter, a yellow, not profane. He reads constantly he's not married his kind of monkish and his personal. Is it a undress, cares about alert. I had a friend like this, I'm who had a who had a name that was Ike Maddox but he had that name because have how much he didn't fit it Is it I always assume, because I know the answer here, that you know that he was at least consider this by the Marines. Isn't it joking name. Is it a sort of counter signal on that he's, monkish and location? I got dogs in with his. You know, Journal Arthur Tonight I wish I could report had a kind of sense of humour that ironic rise of humor it doesn't, I dont think got away. Thank you gotta, just because really genuinely Marines, like each other, tough guy named so as there might be tough boss or something similar ass, the commander in chief of vocs, From now on. You must all referred exclusively as-
the presidential music, but the germanic he does not live up to the, namely, doesn't look good reputation in a match. Your point, I think, mattress, he's the reason why troops are still going Can Europe down trumpet already said he's the reason why, despite our trunks, very frightening love of torture, which just parenthetically that is really scary, terror presents a basically I love torture works, which even George Bush wouldn't use the where torture, Damascus reason. We don't do that. His reason why we still have troops going to Russia, Johannes, when he was the onto your question with Obama. The fight was over IRAN, Damascus, farmer Hocker. She thought arouse the biggest threat, the western Least weirdly now he's more double shot around the Donald Trump and when there are people whispering about Trump's year, do something military. They confer on its Jim Mattis around HAWK the saying. None of them to no don't do that. Which he had to your point as it from earlier about how these things happen. Unimaginable Iago, two years ago, this
a small one, but this weapon unmentionable if he were ready, but the military two years ago. If you're anything like me, you know sometimes you wanna snack end if whatsoever snack on his junk food, you gonna eat junk food and it's it's not great. So if you want a sort of live a healthier life, he did start snacking healthier with nature box. It makes knacks that actually take great and their better for you you're great with high potty ingredients that are free from artificial colors flavors of sweeteners. She can feel ok about snacking. I like some their dried fruit staff. There are great apples like a great pairs. They also have some slightly more indulgent, principally things and there that that I also ask for, and they recently made. This was even better. You can order as much as you want, as often as you want with no minimum perch required anything cancelling anytime. I so it's really simple you than a nature box, dot com. You check out their snap catalogue. Does it work
it smacks to choose from there always adding new stuff. She choose what you want. They deliver read your door, it's easy, but nature backs you'll, never get bored is new stuff there, each month, it's inspired by real customer feedback and it for some reason. Something comes you don't like it. They will replace it for free is a good opportunity to try something new, I'm so right now, you're, safe, even more because nature boxes offering offence. Fifty percent off your first order. If you got a nature box, dot com, slash reads: you gotta Nature Box, tat, complex weeds that we get credit. You get. Fifty percent of the first order. Nature backstop slash. Let me ask this question very much. The same question met, but about Rex tell us, because till and came in and there was com the nation about the fact that he was seo backs on. You know: lots of people from the energy community from the global warming fire very worried about his appointment. There is consensus as close and sublime your Putin, but the thing you always heard about tell us, and was all that may be true, but I might do
tribe he's a calm, sensible guy recommended by Robert Gates and congolese arise. Had he knows what he's doing that he's run a gigantic multinational corporation that actually. This is actually very good peck and, in another context from another president you'd actually be happy to see him, and it has seemed to me from afar that his meaning. A secular state has been unusual. I he just went on this trip. He only brought a report of me. pennant journals and review, which has a set of new conservative website. I he talked about how it doesn't need. The press has been very quiet, others, partly a lot of confusion at state. Just because he's not giving very clear directives, he's quite understaffed at the moment. But what does your impression of tell us at this point and an end is different than what you thought it would be completely he's been visible in a way that I dont understand him in their couple things any with flagging with him one he want to bring in a deputy Abrams Dave Rooms, because I m- knew the state Department down from personally vetoed it and if your breath
and you're not used having someone say no right, you don't you seal Exxon, massive Exxon, if not tough, strong guy and our trump just completely steamroller them Rayner person is both irrelevant in a way that I think is astounding for secular state and Isabel and seemingly either unwilling to run capable out stand up to Donald Trump, and we have the state department. Fundamental work you're saying it's: just a ghost town, Many literally have nothing to do because he's there. He has no deputy. There are no assistant secretary of state, there's nobody running the place, so there's no guidance. So if you're sitting that say you're trying to communicate to the embassies in Russia or countries that really matter what they should say or do, there's nobody what you should say or do, and it's a can't you said, he's ok with a state, a moment, budget being cut by a third which is staggering, and somebody put it on a twig, and I agree with it he's. Acting like he's. A middle manager brought into cut costs essential that kind of
he's doing right now that an end. If you were thinking about regular saint, who is this wealthy, this successful business? Why would you want the job rather job? Right now just seems like it sucks. You ve got no one to help you do it. The people you want were vetoed. You not given any kinds, but we should say you have no one to sort of help. You through this and you're, be their embarrassed by the present. When that he's in Asia saying about North Korea by China, we can work with the Chinese and then dont from tweets. China's not doing enough that doesn't help. He apparently was not evolve, went out Trump shifted away from the idea of a two state solution, Israel, Palestine, which was this massive historic shifting youth policy sector of state, wasn't involved indecision. So if you're a relevant and invisible wanna go back retirement, you know even this. This point about the staffing is is word, sir dubbing. India has, I think, I think, a lot of people don't necessarily recognise this, but you know all appointments are dying. Legally speaking by the present you no one. So that means that, just because your secretary,
energy doesn't mean that you get to pick who the different assistant secretaries. Are. It comes out of the White House at the same time you know. Typically, you would give some level of deference or input to us you know what it is that the actual secretaries want- and this is also something that police wise people bargain about before they accept jobs wade. So when Barack Obama was asking Hillary Clinton to come on Ecevit aid. She demanded as it as a condition, a significant amount of latitude in picking her own team, They are good. She wanted to put you know some of our own people and place a couple. People I mean, I think Sidney Blumenthal specifically was vetoed by the White House, but I heard from people who had difficulty getting low level jobs at the State Department during Barack Obama's first term because they had supported Barack Obama in the primary.
right, like that was that was a problem for you getting work and Hillary Clinton State Department. That was because she had a lot of cloud. You know, like Obama, really wanted her, a team tellers and does not seem to have leverage himself and in any kind of way, I mean there was a time when everyone was, worrying like whose Donald Trump Gonna get Us Secretary of State, any kind of pulled this rapid out of the hat right, like a guy who was not part of the Republican Party, foreign policy establishment who had trashed him but who did have support Bob Gates and congolese arise, whose experience was outside of government but seemed relevant. Just like aren't alot of people who could check those boxes and he didn't use that
trinity, just as he hasn't manage to. He could have fought against these proposed budget cuts. It state ride like we know, senior military leaders, don't really think that cutting the State Department budget by third is a good idea when a savvy bureaucratic fighter could have could done and he'd just cite seems, like you didn't write immediate seems strangely weak far like the ceo of a giant companies yeah, and it's really genuinely mr find to me this. Not somebody. John Kerry won't be sector if state his whole life, where this was like the thing he dreamed of doing rex, tellers and never dreamed of being Secretary of State Rex, those undreamed of running Exxon we read Steve calls book about Exxon, which is fascinating, and when you read it, you come way knowing that x on people stay for life. Now they come in his young young executive nears like you, didn't they just stay rise, so he was wealthy. He was
Why didn't noodle want this job, but you're gonna? Take it. Presumably wanna do something with it and right now he's not say much about its tremendous was not eagerly asshole. I want a secular offence. From past him. I think he had a sense of duty, because people were saint him quietly. You need to keep this guy under wraps. His personal choices. Rasa vetoed just last week that it finally got nominees for deeply secular defence in other political jobs ran on depending on there are no political point. Is none except not even a spokesperson. You ve worked Bob Gate when he stayed over between Georgia motion and I brought Obama would not, like you say, with Hilary a condition of him staying was soft people state, including spokesman, Jeff, Morel, Betty Trust in general. Right now, there are no spokespeople for any executive branch agency. So when we talk about the war and media, not simply down from saying fake news would, incidentally, he said which my report, which has just
Real. A gem report: it s, really a question he said back to her thickness- does not contain the post, but she's now become hero with within Germany. But fake news. Tweets are one thing, but if you have no spokesperson of the Pentagon State Department, Homeland Security justice on on anything and that's how you can transformation. Everything goes assurance by Sir John spice relies reels. Report is not the end of it, and that is our comes back in some ways to extortion. If you're extortion and your servant visit parliament by invisible is you have no spokesperson and it could have re it feeds on its own dynamic I think a telling thing that the tellers and said in the interview with I forget her name, the wiring requirement by so we He's talking about his sort of anti media philosophy and he's talking about how could he will see of Exxon? He did a lot of deals with tough regimes and it was sometimes easier to get those deals done when it could be done, sort of quietly and behind closed doors.
I'm not you know, makes a certain amount of sand semi. Then you have a question about America's role in promoting press. Freedom are other things like that, but a lot of american diplomacy, deals with regimes that aren't necessarily, so tough right. I mean our relationship with Mexico or Germany or the United Kingdom. Or even over a million other countries, Japan, South Korea, the it all makes it a difference and part of what seems odd to me about is that international relations between democracy is sort of has to happen in public right. You can't just do everything through sort of backroom deals and an wink nod understandings, because what Japan does with the United States with regard to North Korea, it has to be
defensible in Japan by japanese political figures, and this is where it seems to me that that the whole trump apparatus is not is like. It's not gonna work that you can have you. No man is deploying troops to Poland to sort of say, look we are supporting. Nato were defend central and Eastern Europe? But if everybody's understanding on the ground in Europe is that the Trump administration does not support this alliance than that, is it its own kind of reality? Right I mean there's only so much. You can do with troop deployment that NATO sort of needs to be sustained by actual political commitment from democratically elected figures and Trump is playing exclusively to his. politics. It seems to me without thinking about you know how does any of this like work abroad, intelligence,
and I M glad you find it on deal making it's kind of illustrative in a sort of not the way. Probably the intended. A lot of diplomacy is maintenance. It's not sexy at all, it's a sort of like all of us, making sure our house or not broken your checking with allies. You go visit them and you you do press com, it is it's not terribly glamorous, but also not terribly difficult, if see it as something where you make deals. Otherwise you don't talk you're missing the whole point of being sector stayed here, the face of the United States when Mitt Romney was under consideration. We know the doll trumpet likes to cast his cabinet. Like a television show. We know this. He found Mitt Romney looked like us Do you think that's part of why he liked him Rex tellers and may or may not have that look, but dont trump at least the beginning? seem to understand the you needed a face of America and that that look was important. Resolution Brenner doesn't act as a face he doesn't do. Press constituted doesn't meet with foreign leaders. in South Korea. This very weird moment where it was this was have dinner with the South Koreans than they said he can do as he was too fatigue than he said not to know he was fine, but was all optic
The South Koreans basically saying on other values, are our eyes light, just a bizarre self inflicted wound, but not understanding with diplomacy. Is that isn't just making it the automotive crisis pollution? Can I keep him he's coming along? It means you don't understand diplomacy, which is a problem if you're the sector of state and adoptive my financed it, and one word it's not like the president is like gonna. Do that lifting right I mean that's. That's like the big difference. Ride, like madness, has done an enormous amount of work on the sort of inter governmental relationship. like making people not be excessively alarmed by slightly alarming Donald Trump tweets, but we don't have the state department doing putting forward a public face of the United States that more consistent and more reassuring than these sort of. Braddock tweets from the trunk man has re your cabin secretaries, don't typically take the job, thinking that their whole job will be acting as a spokesperson for dollar from trying to
anyway. What he just said, but that's what dramatic Renault that's? What he's doing? What might pensive doing part of what we are doing is going to different security conference is different capitals and saying basically, ignore that guy with the orange skin in the when the small fingers in the White House, who is often NATO's fine, we support traditional things. We're not gonna cut out the Russians, Rockne kowtow to match the Chinese, the that's their job or no kind of damage control, and that's not what a vice president to as was sector. Defence typically does arguably their respective staters, but extortion doesn't seem to want to do that and it it's just fascinating and very, I think, scary. A friend of mine just came back he's a business person who travels la through the Middle EAST Africa and asked him what he hears. What Donald Trump any said, two things and one made sense me one didn't each would oppressing the first one wise confusion as we kind of all and expect people around the world to set and have as a feeling the other was pity. He said that he was talking to people from Zimbabwe to part of Africa that are not democratic countries were basically saying it's. Ok, you know, you'll make it through this
it hard and you're the hard fears. But, but we know it's ok, just having people from impoverish developing country, a sort of pat him on the shoulder to reassure him. He said in his life. He never saw anything quite like it and that's that scared. That is very, very depressed. I'm alright you're here. Thank you so much for for being the weeds. Damn mammography stop by my pleasure. I think, if I get as much as it he'll sacrilegious to talk about is that Sarah, here, you're trying to sneak a repeal bell through the House representatives with no revise Scipios Gore, whilst air cliff is on honey, I think we are, of course, can rightly be argued, revises sepia score, so here's what's going on last night. We are speaking here on when to stay, but this isn't it. I saw on Monday night the Republicans brought out the man, just amendment to the American Healthcare ACT, and this is basically a package of changes are gonna make to the bill to try to get it through the house.
I would not say any of the changes are huge did to run through quick list of them. You have changed deductibility rules that is basically built to give the Senate eighty five billion dollars roughly so they can increase ups- these fur older Americans, because republics have been stung by the the correct claims of it. This their legislation, will make health care completely unaffordable for for older americans are missing, a billion might help bet. It's not gonna change that dramatically so, but that that's by the biggest change other things are doing, is they are accelerating? The repeal of Obamacare access by a year, all the way to retroactively cancelling some complicated taxes. as you joked me earlier, maybe laughs him some job creation from this a couple months ago which would obviously be nice they. are creating some different rules and Medicaid couple important things, They are allowing states to take the medicate bunnies block grant. Currently what they're trying to do is move Medicaid to a per capita,
I'm so that you get it particular amount of money for every individual, her sin of every individual category, child disabled, adult, etc. In the in the plan. Alongside its take the money as a block grant means that they can choose to have any all of the money they be expected as one lump sum. They could do more more kinds of things with This is a long time, a hope of some concern, there also changing some Medicaid rules around reimbursement. They are not allowing states to sign up for Medicaid between now and twenty twentieth design for the medicate expansion. So maybe a couple things like that, a weird thing that that is getting the bid is getting called the buffalo by out. she's a change, TAT, Medicaid reimbursement. They would help county governments at the expense of state governments. Does they particular of disease? air of the New York delegation for reasons that may be makin fine, but but I have not yet again to but that's register by offer for a couple members of the house. There are a couple other thing scattered here and
Basically, what I would say that you could have imagined Republicans: China solve one of three problems as they change their bill: one people, Is it their bill? Is going to coordinate national budget office? Push twenty four million people into the ranks the uninsured put millions are tens of millions more than that into height the kind of higher deductible care. The Republicans Noah's unpaid. are and have been criticising and Obamacare, and to do all this, while pretty on popularly giving massive tax cuts to the rich. That is, with voters want? It? Isn't what they ask Donald Trump, for it is an appalling shows they want it's. What the build does the bills alright very, very unpopular who could have imagined Bob against China making more popular bill. They are not doing that. The set they could have done is they could have really worked on the construction of the bill. Pretty much every health policy experts who has looked at the saying has said this is not well built it issues not well designed bill. This is true on the conservative side you have Cato is very concerned about the Medicaid rules are built. You have overcome I and many others have made the point that for all that Paul Ryan,
He is worried about implicit, marginal tax rates for the poor witches he's where that under Obama cares, you get as you make more money when your poor, because you lose subsidies your actually not incentivize to get a job and move up in the world the way the bill right now because of the huge shift when you get off of Medicaid, it is a huge, marginal tax rate, a huge implicit tax rate for for the very poor who make more, who make enough money to jump off of Medicaid they have, in fact that bothers risky, whose are very smart consultative healthcare industries, as argued that the way disposes Heineken destroy insurance markets in a really push healthy people out a pool of even fix that. So this is a bill that premature everybody thing: If you actually tried to implement it, if you actually passed and tried to implement it would create total havoc. you can imagine them hearing them and saying okay. Well, we will see how to go back to the drawing board in case we do have to implement this. They did not go back to the drawing board. What they're trying to do here?
is a targeted by off of just enough House Republicans to get it out of the house. They are trying to give house freedom, caucus and republican study can be folks a little bit of you know sweeteners on medical. aid to try to give the New York delegation this buffalo by out the better a couple. Others, random things for an in here they're just trying to get this thing for the house, so Far House Freedom caucus peoples, not positive on this mark meadows, who run who leads a house for caucus said these were not made it, changes. We wanted major changes. This won't pass just in a more she's, been critical. The bell said he doesn't think it'll pass. It's very hard right now to handicap that, but there are very few people looked. Is that what this is really solve? The problems that legislation I mean the most telling thing in this whole mass is the eighty five billion dollar magic asterisk, because he don't legislate that, where traditional
What happens in the legislative process is that differ. Members? Have differing views on what they would like the legislation to say and they bargain with each other over then you know sometimes they they reach a mutually agreeable compromise and arms. They don't, but you talk about, but what you want the bill to say in this case they don't have time to have doubt always hot cup Rochelle, not yet just go through with it. Nobody is making them, this fact knew? No. I haven't fuckin time in the world where we're having. This is what I mean they have. Poem Ryan has decided that his objective is to pass an Obama care, repeal and replacement bill on Thursday night So, having decided that that is what he's doing, everything else is a rotating around that fixed point right, and so that includes they threw this thing in that New York State Republicans think that they want other way. I think they may live to regret it there
are accelerating the tax cuts in various ways, just sort of amp up the like: hey guys, this cuts taxes for the right end. I am sure members who are worried about losing their seats are worried about getting yelled out by their constituents. We're like woe, You know I saw these analyses of this can be disastrous for old people, so right has written in their like hey Senate. Do something to help out with the older people, and you could talk about will what is that going to be right?
because it's obviously eighty five billion dollars isn't nothing. You can use that money to make this bill. Less bad for older people, it's not enough money to hold older people harmless, and so the question is which older people are you going to help and how will it be targeted at lower income, older people, which is, if you don't have enough money to help everybody? You might think what you should targeted the people who need them most help, but that violates the whole, lying philosophy of this construction. She could give it to everybody flat, which is sort of along the lines of what Paul Ryan is thinking, but that's not going to solve the problem really so wits different. And you would normally have a process of hashing this out. instead of doing that, their sticking with the schedule, they are basically tat members that this gives them cover.
two like say that they are addressing the issue, the c b o is not going to be able to score a provision that doesn't right, say or do anything but because it is unscramble, it will let everyone say. Oh c B. O score Democrats are complaining about, doesn't take into account this like magic fix that I got, but he just dumps at all on the plate of the United States Senate, and that seems to be the overarching goal here at this point. Where is get a thing pass the house now? It is not their problem any more that way if it dies, it dies in the Senate if it lives in the Senate and will definitely be in some different form, and we can deal with it then, and it's it's true that you don't need to worry about what the details of this bill say, because this bill, as written, is not going to pass the Senate and is not going to become law.
but this us or something you know, mine, bogglingly, irresponsible, about asking people vote for a piece of legislation on the grounds that you don't need to sweat the details, because the bill isn't gonna pass and you are we'll trump saying that too I mean we ve had multiple reports of human coming out of meetings house, members or even speaking at rule ease and being like. Don't worry about it like this is going to have to choose some more and we'll work it out that he said. night Monday night at a rallying Kentucky the he's gonna the bill, so it includes prescription drugs, price negotiations and that kid he's not he's he's going to do that is in the legislative text, he's not doing anything to make that happen. There's no process under way through which will happen, and there just kind of moving forward blindly. I this New York thing, I
is a great example because, like what happens, there is that New York state has is weird Medicaid wall with a make county governments kick in to this earth State Medicaid programme and then because the federal government matches state and local Medicaid spending. You get this kind of three two one leverage of Eight dollars rights of the stable, spend one dollar than the county kicks in a dollar than the federal government kicks it too, it's, not really great policy, and, in my opinion, but you know it is what it is. Upstate, more conservative counties really hate that, because they are conservative counties and they want to keep taxes low, but they have all of this like unfunded mandate, Medicaid. So Ning survey. Just like a long time, republican gripe and your politics is, the state should not be allowed to do this.
So the bill, just kind of says that counties with under five million people, which is too like not New York City, cannot be made to to get this money, which is fine. I guess, if, like literally the only thing you want is to maximize the odds that some property tax, billikin passing in some random county and in big mountain, but there's no guarantee the only the literal thing. This does as great a multi billion dollar hole in the New York State Budget, and you have Republicans from New York state agitating for this because they cooked it up like some time on Sunday didn't like gather, state hospital leaders and stakeholders in my do a real process unlike talk through. Is this actually the change that we want it's just like
an idea that was kicking around, and so they put in the bill- and you know we'll work it out later, and it's so much about this process is stunning, starting from the fact that, like everything, the bill does is the opposite of what Donald Trump Promise, that its then hard to be like stunned by the smaller little epicycles inside. It It just makes me wonder like if this past, like what would happen without that to me as the core of all of this. They have absolutely no idea what would happen fast, and they don't want to know. I mean that that has always been the fascinating thing here. They literally dont want to know they dont want to subject spill and this construction twond of outside analyses. You don't want to have a long process for people, come, do hearings and say: hey. If you did this, I run a hospital system western Illinois and here's what happened. My hospital system, you don't know what would happen to rural hospitals in the spell nobody's, looked at
in very great detail. They ve not had time to look at that in very great detail that everything about this is a process where they have mistaken a political objective of past something we could say, repeal and replace Obamacare with a policy objective which is passing and it makes people's lives better and the process itself you Columbine bogglingly, irresponsible right so that I was sitting in my head. The words breathtakingly irresponsible when Sir rota, a great piece of a couple weeks ago, but if you just took everything Republican said they hated about the Obamacare process, everything the speed, the fact there, Democrats for pushing forward on a bill that, by the end, was reasonably unpopular, the corn huska kickback stuff? The fact that it was a pretty parties,
in process. I'm you just go down the line and they have taken every single piece of reconciliation and supercharged it. It's like they have gone back and looked at what they said and what they criticised and use it as a playbook and what they have ended up with is a process That is much much much worse than the Obamacare process. I mean just one example: is it despite the fact that, by the way that the Obamacare bill had existed in many more form before really came into existence. The piece of legislation, the time period between Nancy Posts introducing the draft to the house and it and initial passage in the house with five months. It wasn't three weeks, which is what Brian is trying to get to, and you know they have. A lot of severe scores and preliminary scipio scores and different kinds of CBS scores. There are really significant committee processes were tons and tons and tons of amendments got put forward the whole thing, It's just. This is not what you do when you try to build legislation. I've. I have talked Republicans about this.
The area. The thing they will say is look like. We don't think we're not persuaded. We can survive a process spill, will survive a lengthy legislative process, but the recent they're not waited at will survive like legislative process. Is it's not a good bill? They dont think is people hear more about it? They will I get more. They don't think that, as members of Congress have time to talk, the hospital administrators and doctors and nurses and P bull that they're gonna become more inclined to vote for it. One thing that really did happen and the Obamacare process as much as the bill was under continuous fire and attack. People actually did get bought into it. I in the Senate and the house, it got changed in ways. People like people thought the thing had been stress test at an even with all. That is still very hard implementation process. It was still pretty unpopular, but but they really did do the work. So people felt hey. I've been heard
we have done. You know the best we can under the circumstances and and and there's something here that something here that I can feel you know not a hundred per cent on, but recently confident on. One thing I think is interesting about the process Republicans have chosen here is it? Is it really reeks of cowardice? Reeks of fear that this actually is not good legislation? and yet, whilst doing that, I don't know what they think is going to happen on the other side, because what will happen if you pass bad legislation, is it will? oh badly, and they saw this. I mean Republicans I've They were wrong about the Obama care process which has seen a thirteen process? It had a lot of run up to it I mean I thought is a pretty open. I think there is a lot to be said for it, but let's say you don't believe that I thought they believe what they set about this and it after it came out that they believed that a bomb cares subsequent problems, the very the disastrous roll out of health care Dhaka the unpopularity of the bill, the problems in certain markets. I think they believed that this was part and parcel of
asking a bill, they thought was rushed and done in the dead of night and done over the public's objections and no popular support, and so the whatever mistakes are made. They work and make that one because they look Democrats Aha, look. You guys really got yourself in at this time and it turns out they looked. It then said that was a great idea, let's triple at. Let's make it much much worse. oh wow. Setting an interesting neurons I just picked up on this morning- is that most people are aware that lower income parts of the United States are generally more conservative in politics: and thus that that Obamacare, as a sort of slightly odd income transfer away from democratic core areas toward more conservative parts of the country network. To not be true. If you look at it at that. how's, the district level that if you look at centre for american progress, has this sort of coverage loss district by district thing, which you know, was designed to sort of like about the heat on Republicans. Because
like a low number, sounds bad. But if you look at the list of the hundred districts, they will have the largest coverage loss. Only twenty five of them are represented by republic which, as you know, fairly remarkable, have you flip to the Senate. Oh, it's exactly the opposite right and the states that are going to suffer the biggest coverage loss under under Obamacare repeal are mostly republican states, with mostly republican members of Congress from them so. That's unimportant sort of tension between House and Senate here that that you're hang out, did you see a lot more evidence from different sides, but from from Dean Heller from Susan Collins,
from Bill Cassidy Front from Louisiana to an extent from when Paul from Kentucky from raw Portman from a high out. A lot of republican senators are clearly expressing some level of like will what, if this happens, worry where's house Republicans, it seems like many fewer of them have that concern in a sort of a concrete way and citizens had this obsession with the kind of like theoretical objections of the House Freedom Caucus like? Does this really repeal it enough, but. it at least seems like. If some version of this bill passes, we're gonna have to have a much more reality. Focused type conversation in it in the Senate, were the main concern is really gonna be from senators who are afraid that, if repeal goes through people in their homes, states are gonna, be devastated by it, and so they want some reassurance that, like the bill,
actually work. Now. I think the absolute worst thing that can happen Republicans is built passes it. It is just, would be such an unmitigated disaster for them it is going to take every prob. The people have about the system now and make it so much worse, so much more high, deductible care, so much less affordable coverage. A lot of markets where premiums are gonna skyrocket, Republicans will own every piece of it with a bill. Unpopular from the moment it launched no longer be able to run against Obamacare like it is a total disaster. Every level and they are just driving it forward. I do think something interesting here is ended. This project, the gospel. and I was working with our interned, Jacob Garden sorts and we should have compiled everything. Donald Trump said publicly about health care, since this bill was released like every single thing, every tweet every speech, every interview,
Whoever does everything- and I read all that- and I do not think Donald Trump knows what is going on here- I wonder. Do one thing this really striking is versus how narrow his talking points on healthcare or he'll say this side of things about Obamacare every time they the same like couple Ceta things about about his plan, primarily we'll talk about how Democrats won't help him, no matter how good the plan was. It is the best plan in the world Democrats would help him. It's really such a shame. He doesn't, stand? Why it really makes him sad, but one thing it is fascinating is Donald Trump has been persuaded by Paul Ryan and you can when he talks about this city. This really understand why? But Paul Ryan has told him that you cannot do tax reform before healthcare, then, in order to get to tax reform, you have to get healthcare, reform, just so you know Trump, whose kind of sad I would have preferred to do. Taxes first, we'll say: look for very complex region.
Statutory and otherwise a very complex way too complex impetus. You gotta do healthcare. First, we just gotta do healthcare first and it's not true. You don't have to do healthcare first, you too don't what Ryan is persuading Trump of the basic argument is making is, if you can repeal Obamacare taxes, they it is easier to do. Revenue neutral tax reform includes tax cuts, because you will already have cut taxes in Obamacare so that their so the total level of taxation in the economy can be can be lower, and that allows you to design a tax system that you know looks better than that in the one we currently have. That's only, I think, partially true and the best circumstances, because you're you're really does double counting there, but you're gonna have to use a savings. You got from Obamacare in that structure and I don't think it's gonna end up a very much real but tromp I think, does, really understand what is in this. Bill is not at ease when he talks about. It seems very confused in the promises making
not a contingency. It ensures affordable access for all continues to talk about it, having lower deductibles, more competition and is just clearly completely unprepared politically for will happen if hissing actually goes into effect in everything blows up here: one line Omri says, are even recognize. A builder talking him in the press of the bill were passing, know that If that is the bill, your path like you are being fooled, and it's funny. His bright and some other reproach of outlets have actually taken on this sort of s rallying cry the Dama Chumps being fool that the wool is being pulled, where's eyes at Paul Ryan is leading him down the path of darkness, because it is a kind of like me he can't be wrong. Only his advisers can be evil, but but nevertheless I don't think they are prepared. I don't think that's the guy who is currently lobbying for the bill most effectively. Trump knows what he is lobbying for, or is gonna, be ready of. Hissing comes into effect.
Close up, which it would do it's interesting to me. Bright Bart initially was like taking that line. The healthcare bill has just disappeared from their website. So I think initially my red was that, like oh, there were some kind of factional war inside the White House and banning was trying to like back channel through through bright Bart like see what's going on here, but all their coverage has gone away now, as if all Key players in the White House, TM are now on board with this programme. It seems to me, but I wonder about blow back inside,
the White House? I wonder about if this passes and we start moving to a Senate process? And there is not nearly as many senators and like if Tom Cotton gets to have a one on one meeting Mcdonald from where he can speak to him for twenty five minutes and his like present trump, I supported YO. I supported your pledge to not get rid of medicate expansion that will cause acts was in Arkansas people like what are we doing here. They're like Trump may see that the bill doesn't do what his staff is telling him. or may even see that this sequencing thing does not work. The way Paul Ryan has told him it does it. It seems
It's very dangerous. I mean more than the floor. Mechanics of the process putting legislation together which is based on this, like shadow boxing we trump spoke to her house. Some view conference today and very openly seem to be like warning house members, they could face primary challenges of that involved for the spill red. Silk trumps salesmanship is critical to getting this past, but is completely divorced from any of the provisions of the well, nobody knows who is lying about this typical house. Republicans are really dumb, which seems to be like helping sort of DR this forward to summing up there really inform on healthcare, yes, very, very strong opinions about taxes, but just healthcare, just like very little preexisting expertise in the public in House conference, but also their not asking any bad
you know, I mean I mean there's a lot of people you could talk to like if you want something we have not read. A single story of is like an under sided House, Republican decided to get on the telephone with the American Hospital Association and like try to walk through this with them or the fucking Cato health tee more like anybody red It seems like they don't care, they don't think as import till. I know what the law does or says they're just boxing around these concepts of like. Is it really repeal or something ride like metaphors? eggs. The senators are always just a little bit better informed than house members, and I wonder when, when it leaps too that phase
I also wonder. Interest groups have like waiting on this bill generally negatively, but they also don't seem to be taking a very seriously, and I think one thing that, like all the stakeholders oughta consider a little bit more here, is that if this goes through in anything resembling its current form, it's gonna completely destabilize the politics around health care in the United States, like on a permanent, basis, if it turns out that doing coverage expansion in an industry friendly way costs you like populist points and hurts you with the democratic base, and that then The industry stakeholders do not fight to maintain the coverage expansion like their done right. They give may take a hundred years for universal health care to come to America if this were peel gets through, but when it comes its
We, like with bayonets torches right like full communism, Bernie Sanders like they're gonna, give daycare doll and I'm not going to raise any taxes. Cuz, like it's just going to be all provider cuts or all of the taxes will be on billionaires or or something like that, because, like the whole point of the affordable care act, was to put forward universal coverage in a way that would be accepted. to like the main stakeholders and the main players in the industry and of the industry. Players cannot obtain any kind of Republican Party by in first sustaining the system, then, like they're gonna, all lose. It seems to me in the law return. I think that's right at the beginning, I does I've heard a lot of them are focusing their lobbying on the Senate, where we'll just have to see how powerful that is. You wanna do white paper. This I'm excited about this paper it. This is an end, be our white paper, as they often are.
It's a very short white paper. Actually, I read it and had like Willie settled in for some time and then I guess airily barriers barely there, but it's interesting. It's called easy internet causing political polarisation evidence from demographics, I'm its by loving excel at Stanford, Matthew against GAO Stanford and Jesse Shapiro of Brown, and basically, what they did was a took from the American National Action surveys over over a number of years and they conduct and the constructed multiple, ah indices of how likely somebody is the internet, the main one they used in the one. I think they trust the most is actually age. Young people are quite likely to use internet an older people are a less likely duty internet, and that is particularly true when you look at social media. So age is a pretty good proxy good proxy to be heavy internet use. Judge, and also we measure it really. Well, they also
creates a mother indices about predicted internet usage, actual recorded internet usage but but ages, one, the really looking at and others from Red said the abstract, because it it hits, it hits it pretty well, and they say we find the growth in political polarization Or polarization in recent years is largest for the demographic groups least likely to using internet social media. Again it is the most polarization, they're fine, is among the groups, who are least likely to be on the internet so far Our oral index and eight of the nine individual measures should have greater increases for those older than seventy five than for those aged eighteen, thirty, nine and what they're doing here is. They have basically trawl the political science, literature, for every way of measuring polarization they can find they have measures look at party polarization which, as you know, how off how? How do you feel about the two political parties they ve measures ideological polarization, which is how do you feel about liberals and conservatives? They look at issue distance sea, which is how much do you
issue positions line up all on one party or another voice. How much are they mix between the two parties? They ve got a lot of stuff in there. And really in eight of the nine measures I believe, the one that does not hold true for religious polarization, but an eight of the nine put. polarization measures. I polarization is much weaker among the young men among folks age. Seventy five now one thing that they may make a point of saying, and actually it's important to draw this What is it this does not mean the internet does not increase polarization. Eight does increase herbs oceans, it does. It could increase polarization evidence, Harris maxed, what it means It is clearly not the strongest force, increasing polarization, yet among older americans who are not using the internet. Polarization is going up even faster, and that implies that of the. ask of things driving rising polarization IBM is not the top one. One question I have about this is that, like people talk about polarization,
and I wonder in this context, if polarization is really the thing that they mean. I think that when a lot of people say is China causing political polarisation, what they mean is: is the internet causing people to vote for Donald Trump because, like they find that it is obvious that you dont want someone who, on the one hand, doesn't know anything about policy but, on the other hand, seems like a racist mad man another lot of other people are like know. What we want is an ignorant racist man, man, I think in strict pullers Sean terms, though Donald Trump cashing in party nomination, was a step away from polarization right like oh Trump is a more ideologically moderate figure. Then Margaret
YO or Mitt, Romney he's just like a worse seems. I got like a bad guy right like it in a way that other people wouldn't but the like leading things that seem to me to be really bad about. Donald Trump, like start a war by accident or has his kids stealing from the public Treasury are like not ideological concepts and part of why people inside the non trump bubble feel that it so outrageous that other people are in the trunk bubble, is that these problems with even when you put it anyways, I dislike it, shouldn't be a part as an issue that, like you, don't just like, have your moron son in law running foreign policy, but like that's exactly the point, rhetoric that isn't it is an issue, but we are still segmented into the world that is like so oh sack of establishment politics that they think this is a good idea and the world that is, I would say, it's is normal to me and feels that that it isn't you know that's just sort of my
baseline. It's a worry about this research in terms of like what kinds of reassurance is this exactly giving swayed like when we worry about social media, causing polarization like is polarization really what we worry of amicable thoughts on this one? It is worth saying that this date is pretty much pre trunk, which is a good thing to note, cause it's possible things look different at this point. I think there are a couple things worth looking at here, though I do think this discussion of chump gets to Summum. First, I think it's really important to draw the point you made. People use polarization as a synonym for things that it does not describe the thing. I think people Sleaze polarization is a sin, and import even put out of the trumpet context is a kind of bitterness or anger when they say politics and becoming too polarized right now they meet becoming too pissed off that everybody hates each but that's actually not- would polarization measures is not a measure of outrage or intensity. It's a measure really consistency. How much does your
party affiliation and your ideological affiliation and your issue police align together, and you can have very angry periods in american politics. For those things are not true. right? The low above of polarisation in Amerika, was in the post war period like fifty sixty Seventys, which were extremely fractious time and american politics mean political leaders have been assassinated. We had the civil rights movement, we had the feminist movement we had the Vietnam WAR but politics was on polarize, because his angry is out. Period was as much as you had literally kids being shot dead for protesting on campus the views on these things were not consistently split up by party right. You and I, Vietnam WAR, Republicans you'd all kinds of things. So it's very important talk about like what we are not saying, discuss, polarization. That said, what I do think is useful about this and discuss your point about trying to think about what might be leading to adopt,
Tromp is the internet is a shiny, new think it's that new, but certainly face book dominating all news coverage me that is a new and when we I aren't. I was coming up in the blood great Billy human eyes reader. Right, you and I were the first generation of sort of internet trained political journalists right we were on the internet before we're on paper- and there is no social media, isn't that long ago like it is you got, you got you, you came up through links, I emailed Madame laces was like I gotta go to blog post, so this stuff is pretty new and people, feel it around them and they the gall Minus, whose angry things are getting put up. Anything all like this must be what driving this terrible political scenario, but Donald Trump was lifted up in the primary by lot. people who, as far as we can tell, are not the demographics most bought into Facebook, and so I think that this is telling us to do above all else is sort of get out of the shiny new thing.
problem where it's like fake news it on, social media is a new problem, and so because it's a new problem, it's an interesting problem, and so we make it like the only problem we're talkin about. I think, if you look at this you you can come up with a couple hypotheses one is it cable, which are extremely big among older Americans, is driving a lot of political polarisation and partly Fox NEWS which Extremely beg among older Americans is driving lotta political polarisation, and, if you ask me what kinds of things at both set the stage for Donald Trump and lifted him, I would say: cable news, didn't I would say that was a huge part of it. Practically among the Republican Party talk, radio cable lose really created a a useful ground in which Donald Trump could it take root, and I think that you might wonder about practically for older Americans, and this is a little more complex to talk about. You know a lot of this met period of measurement in law. The pair of rise at we're, seeing here, though not the whole rise of polarization, is having an Obama's presidency. An older people have left
more retrograde views on race. Is it possible that Obama's presidency had a very politically polarizing a fact among folks who may be did not for him in the first place as a demographic right, John Mccain, one older Americans we're just a little more unnerved. By the change and racial politics, the rising Majority Minority coalition that began to get hyped up and and really activated in the Obama and then, of course, are a million other things you could come up with, but but I think what is doing, is saying that the depended did you say all social media, that's lazy and yet fifty eight using this point about cable is, is really critical because you know my whole career been on the internet and It makes an enormous difference if you compare the quality
of political news that is on the internet to like the best of print newspaper reporting, which is like often what happens in like Chin stroking kinds of dialogues. Verses. If you compare it to cable news right, if you got, I mean I like Chris Hazel TV show and I, like Rachel MAD Tv, show, if you exclusively relied on those two programmes for your news and information, I think you'd be in pretty rough shape. You now and if you, if you explicitly relied on a really bad show like Sean Hannity, is like you'd, be fuckin clueless. You know any it's, it's so much worse than the social media Dynamic, and I guess it's because it's like it's not even a bubble. You are so body in two like a particular
grams philosophy. The story lines that they are covering information is presented its it's like its lead, you're right like tv has this just like stream. So like thing go by, and you don't hear them, you can't really go back in any kind of way. It's not the the analogue browsing experience or the digital type one, and if you just look like daytime. You flip on CNN Msnbc, something I got to do a pretty straight news there not like giving life span and by us, but it's odd for Netteke S, a shallow, its shallow, but it's also unnerving like the world, always seems to be falling apart. If you just like watch sixty minutes straight of daytime, kinda bad as social media is, and it can be bad. It is dropped by lot of baby pictures, which you're they will lose. Isn't I'm gonna take your point and turn it around on me. I have done a lot of cable news,
the prototype windows hosting television shows per pound. When I was on six seven eight times, I was on a lot. I was a contributor to MSNBC. I developed my job if you followed, if you decided you're gonna learn about politics from as recline, and you followed my cable news work, versus following my written work. You would have been so much worse, informed and not cause. I wasn't true, hard untie, because the shows I was on were bad. It's just these are quick, formatted interviews. There is not time to double back on yourself There is not time if you don't get the right question to go and say well here the parts of my Sir, that are maybe I'm not that certain about you. May to say something to qualify, but then you get a little voice. Nervous has rap. You are extremely concerned I end by commercial breaks your extremely constrained by what the show decided to cover versus what it did in decide to cover. There is no space by the way like I'm people, talk, bout. The issues about a Linux. One thing is really good about social.
Media and edges about the internet were generally. Is that if you write a peace that wall, the plausible total audience for it is not huge. It's like two hundred thousand people, but that audience under served. So they all really like that article, like you, can get to unto dozen reads on a peace, whereas cables Do not do that. You do not go for furnish audiences on cable news. He also just get a narrower group of things being discussed as all kinds of stories. Do for four I did for launching puss before they just like. You would be laughable that you'd put on cable news, so it It is bad. I don't wanna make was all about cable news, because I as much as I'm I'm offering this hypothesis, I want to say the paper- does not go and say. This is all about cable news right. This is, I think, one thing that could be going on, but on
but you I think that I am just plain, was part of the basic right. Before there was the internet. There was like a boat critically before there was Facebook, like we just no in reality that, like yes, the New York Times in the Wall Street Journal, one financial media outlets but like so was Fox NEWS, so was rush limber right, like the internet to an already very mixed quality media us and also to other says as one as one of the points on this big one thing they're doing in here, Sir he's really using ages as a proxy for internet usage. But if you, if it is used age, is a proxy for age. Right you disuse age to look at age, and one interesting thing there showing is that older Americans have just had a much sharper rising in political polarization. It that's true for part, for any illogical polarization for ideological consistency than younger Americans, and I think that to go to your point
Donald Trump. It is interesting to I'm. The Republican Party Become, is much stronger among older americans em. You can really a slight like if politics were dominated by the young you'd be overwhelmingly democratic, four dominated by older folks, Ebby, overwhelmingly republican and their very very polarized to end their pull out. You can come up with a lot of theories and we ve been doing a little bit of that, but I think that a very simple thing to say is one thing that is setting the right. The context of the rise of someone like Tromp is that old or publican have swung very hard, not just to the right but to a kind of sealed, hermetically sealed right. A very ideologically internally party based consistent right of one measure, or they should look in here- is also feelings towards the other party, I'm if a thousand, if I'm understanding the paper right and feeling towards Europe, party and in that stuff is very strong. So one thing it's happening is Some really worrying trends a little bit about hunger, Americans, but more so among older Americans, and how their experiencing politics and that is leading to
very sharp changes and outcomes practically in the parts of politics and older workers. Dominate, which are Republican Party primaries in mid term elections and is also worth noting. How knew that the aid stratification of american politics as Is it really so? A lot of people think that something has been around for a couple cycles is like an enduring fact of nature. But if we look at the examples where two thousand I receive very clear, election, but among eighteen to twenty four year olds. It was forty seven forty, seven among five and over it was fifty one. Forty seven so Gore, one senior citizens narrowly amongst all of us and Emily people in the middle gourd. Thirty to forty nine Gore got forty. Eight percent Bush got fifty percent right yeah, it's an interesting results.
Somebody, one somebody lost, but they were all just a couple points apart from each other. You fast forward to twenty sixteen and the election is all about a trade, and it's not just that clean verses from was very each polarized, but couldn't verse Sanders was very strongly polarize inside the primary trump was. The old faction of the Old Party Clinton was the more moderate older faction of the younger, more liberal party and then evolved. You know, you see two thousand for twenty, a teen twenty twelve, that this sort of aid shred of occasion increases and increases and increases over time. But so it's not just like the polarization has happened, alot among senior citizens as its depicted here, but that the whole Structure of politics has become much more much more age linked that than it used to be
It's, for example, also not true that in the nineteen sixties, younger people were particularly anti war, its true that college campuses, where particular like social focal point of anti war protest movements, but this strongly age based politics, as it is a very new thing. So when you think about new media consumption. That is mostly done by young people. You know it's like it's it's worth, keeping that in mine in terms of like what is even a plausible driver of, Anything you know. If you had some story that was like Facebook caused Bernie Sanders. I dont know that you could find a research evidence for that, but is at least true that the people who are most likely to vote for Bernie Sanders are also the people who are most likely to like think of going to social media, for your news as a normal thing to do
and from this is very much up said. One thing that I think it is a huge cell to all this is pot casts which you will send a pod cassock. The weeds again incredibly well informed is great So you should subscribe rate, send it to your friend, If you want to come see us live again. That's box, dot com, such weeds life right, yes, oxter com, such weeds alive, thanking my colleague, Mathieu glaziers to you the reason for being here earlier, tar producer theme Shapiro, we miss Sarah Cleft she'll be back shortly, and so will we
Transcript generated on 2021-09-13.