Welcomes the Commentary magazine Daily Podcast, today's riding for every twenty six, twenty twenty one, I'm John POD words the editor of Commentary Magazine and the purveyor of March shirts toad bags. All for you. March Start Commentary magazine, dot com. I have to say the merchants flying off the shells, those generosity, t, shirts and sweatshirts that keep the camel t shirt, the commentary, logo, T shirt and the commentary tote bag,

we may have to start ordering more limited time offer here, because we are running out so make your purchase today at March, dot com. Terry Magazine, DOT, com and it we can see a rose wells were doing. We may add some new products, for those of you I think everybody is really received. There's yeah, probably, but when you get it, if you like it, we may have more for you so by some for you by some for your friends by some for your kids. It's fun and marched commentary magazine, dot com and with me, as always, associate editor nor I've been high. Now I jump. executive, editor, a green waldheim, hunger and senior writer. Christine rose high, Christine Project So the first military action of the Biden Administration took place last night in response to the iranian backed militias in Iraq. Sway

king at american contractor targets and we have retaliated with a strike against iranian assets in. Syria Noah? What do you make of the choice of target my initial aid and when I came across the wire, I thought they were striking back against positions in Iraq, which would be covered by Delhi's too. mass, but there are thirty. It's the authorization for the use of military force, as as voted by Congress there is no legal authority to execute strike. Syria that doesn't seem to be a problem. The last three consecutive administrations have done it it. legally disconcerting Congress, which, as you know, rending garments than members of Congress are rending ornaments on left over this,

I should probably introduce an Eu Imf early sickening methane and pursue a legal already here, nevertheless degrading the capacity of these malicious to execute these kind of attacks on american positions. Merkin contractors and our allies in the region is an absolute necessity, it's good by an administration pursue it, they were very reluctant to acknowledge that this even happened. Much less. Who is responsible for these around? act. Militias operating in Iraq and Syria work still pretty poorest border and there's little definite. between the two but very little consistency in this administration. They don't seem to have a consistent idea of how to proceed The policies that are seeking one minute, they're, trying to their making overtures word ran diplomatically in their exhorted, can lead the stuff sliding down the next minute they're going after his malicious, duly approved really, but again only we talked about it the other day that the sort of this parallel track

where these now of attacks on these positions from these she wouldn't let militias well making overtures to ran and pretending Two things are connected: that's not it Oh foreign policy, now the doctrine right. Well, I mean ok, so let's be fair right. Administration has been in place for Thirty, five days, thirty six days, They were having that this would be, though, devils advocate. They were against your position. They were challenged by a rein in action, and they have taken a response that could be deemed proportionate. It's not escalating, it is a response and they chose to do so. I guess probably because this was an easy

safe target and they were but basically trying to hamper the effectiveness of these militias and Syria by destroying the info. rupture around them so they d had a moment where they had to respond or not respond, and they chose to respond and I feel like. Maybe we should give them a little credit for risk. Funding since they seem to have every incentive not too given their grand the grand structure of their idea that what they are now was to do is restore some kind of status quo ante between the United States and Europe, and there was in place before Donald Trump I don't get it don't get me wrong. This is a good move, is a justified retaliate response in an effort to remind ran in its proxies that there are consequence Is further the problem patients they engagement, but there needs to be a strategic approach to the region here and we're not seeing anything closed

strategic approach and just because there, a month then doesn't mean that they get a pass on this. This administration is staffed by Olaf. But with a whole lot of governmental experience, most of which country the Obama, administration and I'll get a pass for being New Let me let me let me ask you this a friend of ours. You know on the on the right side of the political spectrum who are you know hawkish, I have responded to this with a certain degree of scorn. They only bombed road not serious, they did whatever they could do to make sure that nothing happened. That would interfere with their larger grand design between with some form of rapprochement between the? U S, and IRAN, it's all city, silly, its kabuki theatre. What are you make that take you, I think that at this point, not fair,

I'm with you, John, that that we should give the administration credit as of now you know a week ago, then they were dead. The by demonstration is putting out stories the times about how they were not like the trumpet minute, patient in that they weren't going too? You know as overtly aggressive against IRAN. here we are weak later in theirs and there is a strike that is a proxy strike on IRAN. Look I'm more concern still about are our it's on the right or one time, friends on the right who, what I'd say that this is a two week show american Force but saying that it is unnecessary entirely and we are going back to this. War is in the Middle EAST and its Peppino instead of business as usual

bombing. Again, No they're saying this in a way that is ethical down. The line to the way the left used to speak about

american military action when undertaken by a republican administration Christine. Ah, we have a lot of awe. Yuck ended up deservedly, I think, because people have of course gone back and looked at the statements made by Biden and by administration officials back during the trumpet ministration in response to actions taken by by Trump particularly white ass, fresh secretary General Saki, saying in twenty seventeen in relation to it, a strike in that was executed, strike that was executed in Syria to deal with the use of chemical weapons that them. This was very troubling because, of course, Syria's very bad, but it is a sovereign nation, and now I guess of course, at eleven thirty today, she's gonna have to go out and defend the series

strike, having herself did done. One of these you now head shaking some sucking had scratching. Well, I don't really know if this is cricket thing than Annabel had not not just Jen Saki, but there are lots of statements on the record from Vice President Kabila Harris when she was a senator about the very same thing which I think actually depressed, criteria should be asked about by the media. Like has her view of this situation shifted now that she has access to a greater intelligence and and because of The way the world has changed. I doubt that question is gonna be asked, and if it is, I doubt Saki will answer, but it is an important question. I was, actually with the with the domestic policy reaction to the strike being very similar in terms of how the binding ministration is trying to play. In different angles, in the same way that they're doing it with the issue of immigration in the border, and I Agree with no other, there is a kind of overall sense of confusion if your kind of a if your kind of

slightly hawkish, moderate, but otherwise a pretty moderate in a Republican. You look at that. You like this, makes no sense cause. A week ago. You were, they were kind of the coast. up to IRAN, another striking them. What? What is your policy- and I do think that a lot of this a lot of the least the talk. The action is geared towards that progressive, dismissed, wing of the Democratic Party that doesn't like this. Everything and but is trying to give the administration a little bit of time to tat kind of solidifies policies in the same way that I think apes correct that right. You have a similar fracturing that's gone on with regard to how much military action overseas, the United States should be engaged in eyes, would suspect If you're a savvy Democrat, you exploit that on the rapid and try to ignore the criticism you gonna get on your own side. But that's Sustainable for the bite administration for more than a few months, because the honeymoon period is, if even had one is coming to an end, Willoughby

Let me propose again to play devils advocate or whatever so make some argument that tries to put the the the Biden actions in I don't know what I'm in a favourable light. Something like that. You could say that out the late. A century, the unique States had this by four created view of how was to deal with adversaries, in particular the Soviet Union, which is that we are confronted the Soviets, Miss behaviour in various places, with support for proxies. That's the Nixon doctorate. You know supporting for freedom fighter, supporting a proxy groups. Fighting soviet proxies, Africa and various other places. But that didn't mean that we were negotiating

the Soviet Union over arms treaties and nuclear weapons and human rights, and things like that now there is it considered body of opinion, particularly in the NEO conservative camp, that those negotiations were always always put us at a disadvantage and were always foolish because we wanted we wanted the results more than they did in. There was always gonna be I'm equal balance. There are such that, thus, the salt to treaty, which was eventually rejected by the Senate in nineteen. Seventy nine effectively enshrine soviet nuclear warhead numerical, superiority in pursuit of a deal as we wanted to deal so much and they don't give up, they didn't needed you're not a deal. You can then make

Flip around and say there were negotiations, Legged Helsinki over human rights that looked like big losses for the United States. in various ways, because we had to serve acknowledge, sober dominion over Eastern Europe in order to get the Helsinki deal through in the late nineteen seventies and yet, according to soviet dissidents, at the time, the Helsinki Accords Guy them enormous legal egg. give them new ways in which to contest and combat the soviets. Illogical, and monstrous behaviour towards them inside Russia. So but point of difference. Between the I mean I understand, sir. If you are going on two tracks with with an adversary like that, but the difference one of these one difference between the Erika under along those lines.

With the Soviet Union and how the environment vision and the Obama administration approaches approached IRAN. Is that we were not trying to rehabilitate the image of these, Obviously we were not trying to hence the world that they were good and responsible actors and should be asked for further in meshed, the sphere, responsible states and what not very much the opposite, in fact, which is actually what we should be doing with IRAN and we're doing the opposite. Yet At tat. That point I mean, aside from the fact that there is a qualitative distinction between this role our state and appear competitor when Brzezinski, for example, would talk about human rights.

as an instrument for curios big Brzezinski, was Jimmy Carter. Massacre arises, When we talk about human rights as an instrument of american foreign policy he would talk about it in hard power terms. It would, a young another weapon in the personal to anathematised the regime who put pressure on it in If that were not military in nature, to force it to make expenditure, is that would otherwise not make and to harm its international image. So they talk about it, and I you know you can quibble with that, whether their general serious or not, because there was an ideological rob predilections on display there, but the way the top about. It was valuable in so far as they acknowledge that it was a tool to isolate and contain the Soviet Union just like. I see them surrender, maybe arrange weapons redeployments in Eastern Europe. I mean that

that's that's an interesting point and where we certainly weren't, trying to rehabilitate or or or or you know, turn the Soviet Union into an ally, but Jimmy Carter, did say. We have to get over inordinate fear of communism, and this idea was yes. We can treat the Soviet Union as I wasn't a radical revolutionary state, but that it was a state that was within the community of nations and that it would add here in hue to international agreements and international standards, as was always one of the many objections to the IRAN deal from people who objective was that we had absolutely no reason to believe that the Iranians

Would you to the terms of the deal? They are revolutionary say they do not accept international norms. They do not accept. You know the western contractor western ideas of contract law. They have a different set of understandings and therefore you now going through one of these processes. making a deal with them. That would be, you know, enforceable largely by world opinion by little bits and pieces of things unless we unilaterally pulled out of it, which is what we did was it was a fool's errand and that we were we were being. We were a mark. We were being taken advantage of. but we were the ones taking advantage of ourselves like this. This was all are doing now, not IRAN's right. So. Where we are now is we had a run, At the same time, they want to have a track in which they can somehow get back.

to some semblance of the iranian Nuclear Deal and then, of course, we also have this report from the International Atomic Energy Agency that IRAN has now refer. I ain't uranium to a level thirteen times the level that we knew that they had done so what we have worse pulled out, deal unilaterally? They don't have to respect the terms of the deal if we pull out of it, but but they are producing uranium an incredibly fast clip, which either means this hope. This whole exercise is ludicrous because they're not gonna, stop or if your them. I guess you think we better get back into this really fast and slammed the brake son, they're doing, but at the same time tony Blinking Secretary of state and others have said we're not going to go back the deal until they agree to abide by its terms before we start talking about that

we were in there's also I'm sorry, but there's that there's a healthy level of scepticism and or cynicism among the american domestic population about any return to any discussion of these deals, because we do know- and this is something the less really has never come to terms with honestly- we were told the people- was deliberately misled by the Obama administration in order to get that deal in the first place. So any attempt to even go back to parts of that deal the binding, ministration, better talk about the transparency of what's going on when Anne. you know. I mean ten roads made his career leaking in a fake information to credible new news, media credulous news media that can't But again I don't think people have the tolerance without any more, particularly in the wake of four years. Trump and listening to the media, talk about how you cannot lie to the public. You cannot lie to the public while we were lied to before so he's he's got to find a way. If he's going to get back to this deal, talk about it to his domestic political audience and awaited isn't gonna spend more cynicism. Is their domestic political opponents of the EU?

here is where we get into this bizarre conundrum of what the american public wants regains or thinks about, or cares about, do they care about this. Certainly we cared about the IRAN deal and that my America cared about the IRAN deal in twenty fifteen. There have been three years of run up and We were only a few years out from the Iraq war and I would if even if, even even say, that and you know them- we're only fourteen years out from nine eleven, and so there was still a lot of focus on this. It's now too, twenty one were coming- on the twentyth anniversary of mine, eleven, the eighteen year anniversary of twenty around going into Afghanistan. Eighteen years of going into Iraq, I just an end at there was fatigue and Trump did the minimum and not much more

little bits of things and killed some money, and all that does the american public. Hair about any of this. I see absolutely no evidence to suggest the amount I mean, I don't know where the evidence would come from, but I see absolutely no evidence as regards the american public cares about foreign policy at all in any way shape or form at all. I agree with the exception that they care to the extent that you can fall down on a team, from side or team. Anti Trump said still. You know especially you know, guarding something like IRAN right. If you are, if you are still anti until Trump you'd you dont want to deal in, there are other reasons not want one But if you are anti trumps idea, you you'd love to get that that deal back and races. What would you know Trump accomplished. Air or in a red races Trump eraser of Obama's policy. I mean

describes partisans yet, but I don't know if it describes average voters it's as as a foreign policy voter. It's a safe bet that Americans don't care about foreign policy only except in so far as their body bags coming up. That's when that's when people perk up and then some people get really invested in in an issue that is related to foreign policy, but the public debt care about the arrangements we I didn't know it was it was because it, but because it was a backstop against armed conflict that was always in the in the air during these negotiations by the movement autonomic illustration rendered the gun ministration framed it as this or war right bonnet. Us is the mine. Not only did the public care about IRAN, veal. The public was opposed to the IRAN deal sixty forty, this wasn't even a close call, boliden believe the Obama administration screaming right, but I mean they were against

at an Obama, then had to structure this treaty as something that was not a treaty in order to get it passed through the sand because, in fact you know was this bizarre structure, where you'd have to have two thirds the Senate vote. I can remember how well it was all it was all flipped around backward like the Senate, could reject the deal by two thirds. But otherwise he would just sign it because it wasn't really a treaty and, of course, As Tom Cotton said, and then everybody came down on his head because it was so evil. How dare he negotiated the violation the Logan ACT or something like that. He said hey, you know, I find this deal it's fine. If people like us get into power, we can just pull out of the IRAN deal and Hague has happened. It's exactly what happened, advertising guidelines on a letter about the urgency what a letter that was addressed to turn

it's wrong right, yeah from republican Centres yeah, how dare we suggest that the sanctity of the iranian, could be violated in this negotiating from the Senate. To that and, of course, you create a tree. That's not a treaty that is common, crucial that that that actually did not have majority support, quite the opposite. Pulling out of the deal was nothing. There were no political consequences for pulling out. the deal whatsoever, which of course also raises the interesting question of what political benefit is it to go? back in my mind. I don't think that you would have the same kind of sixty forty against numbers now. Maybe what who knows that it seems to be much less central to the national conversation, but what political better for you getting except to satisfy your own

you because the timing is savvy if you're by administration, Ministration official, who wants to revive the Rangel right right now with Americans care about foreign policy at all, it's probably China. That has their focus for obvious reasons. So if you actually won a kind of get something in under the radar. The way the above him was successful in doing you do it now, when, when people are focused on the opposite, the pandemic on and you can get trying to get back to normal, and on China if their focus on a foreign country and also, I actually think from a kind of sin. a political perspective. Now is the time to kind of rust something through and get it get it done. You know the bump, We think that this question of Americans, not caring about foreign policy, it strikes me its potentially quite depressing, because I think part of it stems from The fact that when you think about U S, foreign policy, you have to orient yourself, after you have to think about America's place in the world-

you're? U dealing with an agreed upon sense of what what America role in the world is, and in agreed upon with a sense of the country's good right, because you're protecting the country- and I think, with the sort of patriotism, so scrambled up and like you know, misused and challenged and, and so Little agreed upon these days. I think that has something to do with thinking about foreign policy. That's absolutely true, and you have you have you have Democrats, liberals, liberal, the liberal and telling

and see a turning on the american experiment in the form of this notion that this country is of haven of systemic racism, men than unfounded in search of a regional evil and all that, and then you have the Trump wing of the of those saying that term. We have an illegitimate president who stole the election and everything is got. You know everything has gone to Hell, so this middle ground, which is what we really need, is somebody who is there to defend, protect him advanced american interests and the interests of freedom in the interest of the west? And all of that, who gives voice to ask her. Where, where, where is the advocacy for this position? This is why there's this kind of bizarre echo of the seventies here, even though

Obviously we were only in the seventies that kind of them left wing where hatred of em Ferko was a relatively recent vintage and in a bad struck, knew by civil rights issues in Vietnam and and the youth move man and all of that, and then you still had this kind of atavism of Vienna. Everybody had a relative who who served in World WAR two and had been part of this in our efforts to protect the world. From from this terrible evil- and you didn't go around trashing, the United States so readily. But now we have two parties are very easily in different ways: trash the United States of this notion that we have to do. We have to do for our sake, because we're good men and then we have these other, but we have these rivals and their bad there. Morally bad were morally go. There morally. Add that remedy that there really but

into perspective and go back to the Reagan Erin the the leftovers sort of view that that patriotism on displaying in in Rome and watching encouraged and was unexplained. The nineteen eighty is a sort of a shallow expression of of faith in and thanks for when America Gratitude for what. Eric has done for the world and for its citizens, but if you I mean look around now. This is what shallow patriotism is. That sort of what was display in the nineteen eighties, that sort of unconditional patriotism is an shallow at all, it's quite deep. What we today is very conditional patriotism that country is only valuable in. so far as it advances my interest, whatever they happen to be the wrong as long as your team as women, yeah, like that. You know that shallow patriotism, or maybe it follows that if you want to follow a sports analogy right, say ever team routinely.

Maybe even loses because there's bad officiating they lose the Superbowl or been others a bad call by empire, and you lose you now. The world series You dont then say that the NFL is irredeemably corrupted needs to be destroyed. You know you don't say that major baseball itself is a is that in our name cries founded in evil. You know the end, so that's that's the! I think part the weirdness that were facing, and you know to talk about some of these enduring. questions. I want to talk to you about a new sponsor ray you're gonna, be hearing about for me over the course of the next month. It's the new book by Mark Grierson, it's called the telling our Judaism's essential book reveals the meaning of life, and what mark has done your mark as somebody who wrote for commentary and the ninety nine these published books about education that having been it

he turned in New Jersey and then found it a very successful business, consulting firm- and he was a great interest in jewish issues. Partially are the result of his having married a rabbi and having for kids with her has taken on the task of realising describing giving the historical context too and the and the they were of the past silver holiday and the hookah the the text that the Jews read at Paso,

making it actually probably the best known jewish text, even better known than the than the weekly prayer book or or the Torah, certainly the Talmud, because this is something that that most particularly american Jews, red death to twice a year every year for the course of their their entire lives. And so this is a very exciting project. I gotta means telling The principle of the high gotta is that you tell your children the story of the exodus from Egypt and the more and deeper and

More seriously tell it the more praiseworthy you are. That is what it says in the hut, which is a compendium compendium. It's it's a it's. A bits and pieces gonna put together account in in various different ways, with kind of fifteen sections where you talk about practice: observance, the history of of of the people, the war against idolatry, the journey from Egypt and the and the role of education in jewish life, which is central to the mission of the Hungarian. It's a thrilling book. There is its very rich there's a lot, well I'll, be talking about it. As I say over the course of the next month, the telling by Mark Grierson, please go to Amazon, go you're, Bookstore gotta

the noble. Whatever you have to do. Mark persons, the telling Ok so we are now. I guess Aids are weaker, whatever away from some kind of final vote on the Corona virus relief package in the Senate with the final with a determination, very complicated thing, passing it was fifty one votes which have been fifty seven. Fifty democratic senators and calmly Harrison the Thai was. Fifty republican setters voting against was weighed on the ruling of the Senate parliamentarian. This only evades being a bill that requires a sixty vote. Margin, filibuster, prove margin because it is a because it it's been deemed a budget bill, something that involves and controls and has some major standing,

federal budget and the Senate parliamentarian. That therefore had to rule on certain parts of the package, and particularly the imposition of a affair RO minimum wage, and the parliamentarian ruled yesterday that federal minimum wage is not a budget bill for very simple reasons which are that they, it does not implicate the federal budget except to the extent that federal workers would be a have their minimum wage increase. That has not that's not what it's about that it would the one point: four million jobs. cost would would have. Impact on payroll taxes, that's an inch it until effect, not a direct budgetary affect them cannot be ruled. It doesn't come or with the bird process, which may burn a role, which means that we have to set the budget firmly tenures written so

there are. Several material has ruled this way SAM parliamentarian has now. In our view, I mean here's the interesting thing, which is memory wage asked in ice. nation asked about migration policy. Very well always has always will you know it sounds like why not? Why shouldn't everybody ornament, fifteen dollars an hour. Peel the onion a little bed and you start getting to business owners saying this catastrophic. For me, you know if I'm not living in a place where there is extremely high yeah. Maybe I can afford fifty dollars an hour, so I could, if I could have six workers amount. Gonna have three those three or also veto, were not commensurate with the kind of money that I'm gonna pay. But fine. You know, that's that that whatever so and you deal with them, you deal with it. Macro economic impact, which is this claim that, on the one hand, it all in a little give

a lot of people lot more money, and then it will cost a number. Answered number people jobs so whatever benefit larger financial benefit is zeroed out or in the end. Is that actually negative for the economy, certainly in the nature of employment? And I don't really think that, outside of the religious belief in the minimum wage on the part of Democrats that if you were to buy the ministration, you want this to be the thing that you you know. Let bring down your ship like. This is not worth it. And it's not really good policy, I don't care what any aid there is no, except in this modern place, were in with new economic thinking that says things like you know: Twenty trillion dollars and debt is great.

You know the memo ages, bad economic policy just flat out it's bad. It does bad consequences. We have at the centuries worth of evidence for this in terms of initial employment, teenage employment, all kinds of different factors here, how people get into the workplace, how they learn, how they, how they move up, how they dont necessary, how they, how they feel, how it retards ambition, various other things. Ok, if your Biden are you happy that the forests parliamentarian his world this way? Don't guess this is perfect for buying, because this is it. This was a test, by progressive of binding, because we ve already passed by partisan relief bells right so this is another that this was not a relief bill. This is a relief bill with victorious Democrats having tacked on all their favorite. You know policies which they then, when I ran down the throat of Congress and the american people and the button

restrictions actually been signalling, not so suddenly, over the last few weeks that AL you know, maybe we should take the minimum wage out of this. This isn't quite really got to focus on the relief so far for buying. This is perfect because the parliamentarian is the one who gets thrown over the bus here, and we see this because this squad in the house. You know you are no more Corey Bush and the they're all tweeting, angrily about how the part parliamentarians should be fired. How, dear this, you know unelected, Eurocrats, stop us from giving the Americans what they need, which is in a federal minimum wage to their angry. At the parliamentarian and despite their claims of wanting, you know, being governance want to blow it all up on and the Senate side Biden can sit there and say: well, you know, let's just work towards you, operating the minimum wage question from the really fell so he's got cover So in that sense I think he's in it it's a politically good position for him for now, because they can still go out and talk about the relief bill and interestingly, its protective of of Republicans in some sense, because they can

he blamed for getting rid of the minimum wage themselves. So, in twenty that, when the when the mid term elections come up, you can't have all the squad ease and, and all the people on the left saying. The only reason you don't have a good paycheck right now is because of Republican is a technically isn't, is because the parliamentarian rolled his way and some republican senders Holly and might not have been proposing somewhat lower minimum wage like so in a weird way. Both sides get a little something the squad really angry about it. Though there on that the general sensors the conventional wisdom hours of this great because actually it's gonna make it much easier to pass the the covert bill we get to talk about within the covered them There's there's a lot of pitfalls for Democrats when we start to begin to talk about what's in the covert bill, one a problem, so political scandal was really dangerous when can boil down to a sentence right. That's that something that is easily community Annabelle communicable, rather whatever and it's hard to defend one of them,

things that has could have a long tail on. It is this provision in the bill which sets aside, five hundred. Seventy, I think billion million five and seventy million for federal employees who qualify if their parents Children are the school is closed, or hybrid ized, they? U, citizen qualified for fourteen hundred dollars and relief. I'm, not getting a thirteen hundred a month if you're an average american right right so for full time federal employees there Ain able to claim fourteen hundred a week through sector we're thirtieth in as far as their school is closed? If your kids going to school, if it goes, private institution, you don't get it wires, was closed because federal employees will not their employees by teachers, unions Who are in line with democratic priorities are keeping them close, Anyway, you have this. You have to sell

four Petra waiting loop, it's even in article because I'm sorry interrupt, but Fairfax County Virginia Montgomery County Maryland the places that have not and deceived the places that have a vast majority of the federal government's workforce living in these suburban areas also had not had school. For your. It's not a coincidence. I've sound robot conspiracy. There is a bit sorry noticed this says a lot. We could have a real long tail on and I'm about his anti populist as it gets. This is pitchfork stuff, ok, It has a long tail in two ways. That's what central about this! If you think about it, which is that by by doing this, workforce is, of course, overwhelmingly democratic events in its in its voting, and you have, as you say, teachers unions in Montgomery Loudon Prince William and Fairfax, and I to Arlington counties the central the ring counties Prince Georgia's carry the ring counties around around Washington

you are creating up. You are creating a conspiracy of support for school closure. Not just that you are doing, though, working the benefit of the teachers unions, locally, and in these areas with you aren't you, you are creating a constant see within these schools that benefits from them stay in closed that is rewarded financially the tune of fifty six hundred dollars a month, the loud and gradually to stay closed. That's not a conspiracy that is how that is like urban them like Classic Ward urban corruption on a federal scale, and- and you know we ve talked about or may we haven't

talked about how the United States turned against the labour unions in the nineteen sixteen and nineteen Seventys, which were you'd and were which were very high order and a quarter of the workforce in the ice age or something was unionized. There was a lot of public support and it was thought that they were there. They they helped raise people from the working class, the middle class crib, protected them from workplace injury, created, health benefits and educational benefits, and they were wonderfully you a w at this whole minors and though, and the April ceo in these Raul great organizations and then from within them, Around them came the news that they were its astonishingly corrupt, that their leaderships, which did not work on the union for the factory floor, were get bribing, getting bribes living and cry.

we high on the hog working with the mafia part of the mafia and all an end, so wasn't Jean out there. There's all conspiracy to this is all done by you know management in order to kill unions to come up with these theories. But if it's not true the Teamsters, which was the largest union. The United States was a mafia, dominated organization, federal government. took over the management and administration of the teachers Union of of the Teamsters and the public thought, while these are clear then people inside the union's themselves were outraged horrified by the behaviour of their leaders. and that is how the trade Union movement fell to pieces. This has very much the same odor to it, I just to give a perspective to its. That is, if this guy gets pass and goes into effect in March and its good through September. That's thirty, nine thousand dollars in the pockets of federal workers whose kids don't go to school. Thirteen,

Thousand dollars, if you do it from March to the end of September, that is a lot that is higher, I believe, than the average annual income of most Americans. That is appalling. Its appalling and its abroad in writing. Ro the are lagging a worn out to buy their support for teachers, unions in places where that that can really be affected. And it's kind of astonishing cause? I don't know how you don't think that this was done cynically plain to me. How who put it in there and why we Now this is one of the things about these. My mammoth bills. You have these things in the bill and you don't know who put them. There is the classic story. He's writers and little bits and pieces of things, and all that You don't know how they got in there. So we don't who put it in there. But if you think whoever came up with the idea.

And put it in what was then, what was their motivation to privilege federal workers over everyone else. how on earth they were gonna deal with school closures the brutal left as Democrats. This is how they think This is how we think, if you, if you're a working class, person who lives in these. You know who lives among a lot of federal workers, but you're, not yourself a federal worker and We can also goes to public school, that's clothes, but you have a job that forces. You are the home. Like you driver, you drive an upper or you are a grocery store worker or you workin in in a restaurant. How are you going to feel? I mean I you probably although Democrat, but if you're looking next door at your neighbour, whose literally sitting on fifty six hundred dollars a month while. The kids are, you know hanging out at home and you have to go to every day and struggle to make ends meet. This is it this is. Do you know that

the class discussion that we often hear from Democrats, which is meant to attack Republicans they're gonna, have a big internal debate about that. I hope, because that should make you angry if you're, not a federal worker, so this, I think, is where the nightmare of art negative partisanship, comes into play in a way that that was not true in previous generations, which is the the wood the default mechanism. At this moment, when you were talking about controversial policies entered into by your side, that may be politically unpopular uncomfortable is you can't object to it? You

and oppose it, because you were gonna, give aid and succour to the enemy, and you ve got a stick with us right or wrong winner Lou. You gotta stick with us because the aid, the what happens then is the fascists come barreling down, and that means this nose. Anti populism notwithstanding the question, is how that information gets out to people and how its used effectively by Ah people who were in opposition to it to really you know score points and really make up, make us a serious bring about us here its reckoning here, there's been on a bus our dynamic in this early administration, which wrong claim

Is it really so? I haven't years a staff yeah, that's the problem. He still thinks he's more chief and staff and behaves outweigh any effort whose admonition that wasn't a famous one dreams agar. They add the chief of staff. Still staff yeah doesn't seem to get it done his his big line. You he's out there very public phasing out. Why does she have a staff in his so big line. As you know, this is by partisan and the peace in the press had been marveling over this line so clever, because their region finding by partisan that its votes in the Senate, but as public opinion polls a significant amount of the opposition favours it. That's bit bipartisan magic, rhetorical magic. It's so shallow at all. It is a threat. It's not analysis is trying to get you to shut up about it. this provision- and there will be many more in this Bill- really easy to argue against not hard to argue against and the notion here that no one can

look under the hood of this thing, either before it passed or after is just hubris since its laughable Actually, when you just when you can it boil down to a sentence that is we're bribing federal employees and creating inducements to keep schools closed someone's going If you out to argue against that. I'm just saying this is really really popular. Isn't gonna hold forever because it's just it's it's it's an it's just. A reflection of this snapshot in time It also undermines their safety argument. That is that there has been the one that the union's had been clinging to is, as the justification for keeping schools closed passed the point: with scientific evidence, shows that that's not needed. This undermines that, because of its only unsafe for federal employees, children, what about everybody else's kids, rightly so, you're going to kill, a closed but only pay off. The people who you know Democratic, solid democratic motors mean this is just its it. It just

gives the lie to a lot of a political rhetoric and cover the been giving unions looked at the naked political fact is: that the success or failure of the stimulus here, the two trillion dollar stimulus. I've heard the warnings that the stimulus is when overheat, the economy create inflation is gonna, do more harm than good. That's the Larry Summers argument that argument is lost. I mean it's lost as a bad. You know, as well as a means of combating the bills, passage right so that that no no one apparently bought that so fine, What is interesting is that the the value the political value of the stimulus in terms of buying off of elements of the democratic base we'll be there, but that the true political success or failure of stimulus as well will lie entirely on how well,

or how explosive the economy is in the wake of the pandemic in oh, if there is massive economic growth in the wake of the pandemic when things get back to normal, whatever that means and what however, that is the claim will be that the stimulus contributed to that and was a wild success. And I am afraid to say, it is going to be difficult to argue against that opinion, because there's no way to run the formula there's no way to run counter the counter scenario. Endemic will end. Something will happen. The economy will grow, may help if it grows. You know by eight or nine percent into success of court.

hers, then Biden and the Democrats will be golden. There's gonna be no way for Republicans to make the argument that they were reckless and irresponsible with all this spending, because you're gonna say well shut up, look at the results. If, however, things go not so rate, and there is some inflation and the stimulus is seen to not have been particularly effective. Then they're gonna reap the whirlwind, but I we don't know enough there either. You know either, They are doing this because they are sold ideologically committed to all of these action items as a form of pent up rage, anger suppressed feeling during the Trump administration in the end, that five years or six years of Republicans on the hill retarding Obama's ambitions after the twenty ten election. So it's finished

ten years, and they have all this stuff, they want to do and they're gonna. Do it right now with the two trillion dollar spending bill that normally is about the virus, but is actually just about turning the spigots of federal spending up and then also creating the conditions and pressures for a massive tax increase I think it's worse than that, that every every house financial analysts that you look at predicts a real profound jump in GDP this year anywhere from four to eight point on it? But it stuff like this. That could overshadow the economic message because it doesn't it divorced from economic performance? People will look at this bill and say always responsible for Although a semi, many will it will be inclined to reward Democrats just because the presiding over this economic expansion- but this talking point exists outside of that narrative

that's good, that's a really important point, because I think of it. This way, if all politics as local envy is, is like fear, a very powerful motivating force for human beings and if you're sitting in your suburban how's, watching your federal federalism, boy neighbour, Russia, get in and your kid so can't go to school and their kids are also not in school, but they're getting paid this to sit at home with their kids. That kind of animosity is, is kind of from a partisan perspective and can be exploited rather easily. Ok. But then, let's talk about how that message will get transmitter that has to do with some of the it's going on in Orlando this weekend at the conservative political action conference, which is that there will be a media conspiracy to quiet and downplay the rhythm downplay all of them

as there is right now like. I will talk about a rich story. We all know this because we are on the right. I don't know what I don't. I don't think a single liberal at America knows that federal workers are gonna, get the second our get our going. This you know. The size of these special is even right. Now, just call it when I was a bride, but that could be able- It story the New York Times like just the way that stories about how there are benefits for fat, cat corporations and tax bills said sets no doubt But they're not telling the story of the story will be told and conservative media. But if fifty percent of the price of the of the stories, pressure in the conservative media are going to be about how the only out front from now until twenty four. Indeed, how?

election was stolen here comes from, but he's trying to kill, Mcconnell and he's there they're going to primary. This guy here comes Lara Trump and there's Ivanka Trump and is Donald Trump Jr. Maybe trouble run so Donald Jr. One mark meadows says everybody that you can look at. Who might be President United States of twenty twenty five has the last name trump, which is the way of saying that maybe will be Donald, maybe it'll, be Donald. Jr, maybe be your vanka, maybe it'll be Eric, maybe it'll be fast. So I wonder I rather differently, though, because he said everybody whose we're looking at an Ex administration and the start of planning for the next diminished I can tell you the people that are at the top of the list, all of them and in trumped that's new, said as candidates. I thought it was stacked up here who knows whatever it doesn't that external drop in and then just trumps all the way down. My point is that, then, this all get mixed up with the question of trumpets. Trumps future and Trump ISM, and that message will simply be become subsumed into just pure negative partisanship, rather than

in this common sensible. What the hell is going on. This isn't right to the sort of thing that to get out to low information voters, independence or who are not particularly idiot logically tied to either party, who are the ones were as always, even as they shrink in number in Ireland in impure terms, are not in a larger pulling terms. Or you know, self identified terms are the ones who are going to decide who is president, not present, while this is where the vacuum in republican leadership becomes once again both noticeable in horrifying, because if you cannot have leaders who step up and and start talking about that message and and ignore the trump you no trouble kaluza for the next four, the foreseeable future than this stuff we'll get pass it. Actually, the Republicans and conservatives and general get everything they deserve, because there is a major leadership vacuum and

very tough right now to step into because you're gonna get hit by both sides. But there are there are, I hope you know, people in the Republican Party who could deliver that message and actually without even engaging tromp personally or the trunk family, Firstly, it just here where we are this guy's president, the democratic control, everything they're, gonna drive, this country into the ground- if we don't do something, here's what we can do, it doesn't have to be about Trump, but I think there is still a lot of fear and realigning going on right now and the time for leadership is running like we need that to start now, which has started a month ago, but there there vacuum in, and this is what happens in a vacuum. Well, if you remember two thousand and nine. I just wanna deserve the ego above a moment of which, if you remember two thousand and nine, the Republicans were reeling there on the ropes it. You know what to do that forty that thirty nine senators Mitch Mccall came up with the strategy.

The powerlessness strategy, which has now been, can transmuted into how much recalled destroyed Obama CARE, which is insane, which was we're just knock in a vote for anything we were publicans are not enough, are not going to participate in a bomb as successful legislative agenda for only doesn't need ass. He can pass, but every wants to pass, but we are not going to give him by partisan cover, he's gonna own it and will see what happens turns out. It was a the strategy is beyond it and then they got shall act in twenty tat. There was no leadership, though out of nowhere. Dick Cheney gets up and start delivering speeches and you know it was. It was a rare thing you vice president. states not particularly pop as far as we knew, but that he gave these galvanizing series of speeches about what Obama was doing where he was going honestly

And where he was going in terms of foreign policy that provided a weird kind of heart to the the effort or gave people some sense that there was still fighting to after all of this was over, The problem is that all of that out of power stuff has this focus on on trumpet and trump alone and Trump has no interest in making a policy set of policy arguments against Biden ISM. He wants to discipline the Republican Party to get it remained, keep it as a vassal state that is the source of his energy. the authority and power and his own passion he'll talk crap about Biden whenever he has two in whatever way he needs to, but that's not where his focuses and so the question is: is there someone who can take up that role.

I don't know that is not how it happens Not Mcconnell Mccarthy, that's, not anybody who wants to involve himself in the tree. wars of the not Trump wars down from his neighbour did. The belief here is that the president has been invisible, really but he hasn't really- and he has been doing media he's been putting a press statements. Favorite thing that here, Then I thought was really indicative of how this is gonna go is the minute that informal found himself in the hot seat and people and on his camp again turn not have Donald Trump came, defended him when I'm too bad for Inter format, and its performance during the pandemic. That tells you everything you need to understand about what this, guy's motivations are, he felt thrown over. The vote was a call right now He felt sorry for him because

I'm always gave cause going through exactly what he went through, not by the way the Quabos stories another one that you know should have gotten out too the wider. You know people, news consumers universal. Conservatives knew it for months and months and months about the nursing homes and was like that she's stature. Somebody here in their crazy can rightwing news media. You know well that and then, of course, as as Christine, said the other day this you know the details of the sub Lindsey Boiling, sexual harassment scandal in which Linsey Boil and says the Cuomo somebody to his office and then kissed her on the lips of a married woman with a small child who had apparently made it evidently clear to him and everybody, you know that she that she was uncomfortable that he was in pursuit of her, and Where is that's, why you know I mean we, we hear about how

We heard about how Louis E K didn't touch any Bucky didn't kill anybody, but had them in a bit of a room in his career, is over and at now there's com, who actually physically molested. someone staffer in his government- and why isn't that on the front pages? Well and even when it is when it is discussed? The framing of it is so telling rates of CNN when, when allegations were made against Brett Cavanaugh, it's like these are accusing him of all these terrible things, but when allegations are made against a prominent Democrat, its quota, denies all allegations against at Munich. Even so, you might not think there's a big difference there, but that's a huge quality the difference in how you are presenting the framing of a story, a new. We certainly saw that throughout the Trump years, billboard I continue to see that in terms of police, clay. How they're going to frame discovered relief built right like that, the bad news is either gonna get.

Married or refrain. Does Republicans pounced on this? You know this provision so the framing is important, and I do think that more more Americans are becoming, although deeply cynical mistrustful of the media as an institution. There's a bet that, if they can see one that's happening, because that's an attempt to frame and argument to manipulate your opinion about the news that your receiving- and it should be- you know, challenge I just say one thing, and that is that I just don't I it is becoming increasingly difficult to understand what it is that ordinary people know and don't know a because there is no common frame of mind

prince conservatives, no certain things, liberals, no certain things. I dont know what people in the middle. Now I dont know what people who don't you very closely the one ideological side or the other know what it is that comes across to them. Why what the emphasis is. This is one of the reasons it so hard for us to understand what the public attitude is on the virus. Is, I just don't think we we, we know what the or engage people now and by throughout the course of history. What the more engage people know was actually the only thing that matters because they control all conversation, they were. The people had the ideas they were. The ones who we know nominated people did all that and end. So that's history shows us that's who mattered in that

who mattered at the time that is less and less true. As there is no common frame of news reference or in the logical reference or anything like that- and I just don't- I don't know what they know- I don't know do they know. Were about Andrew Cuomo, the nursing homes, or do they not do they know about art you gonna know about the fourteen hundred dollars a week for ferry, workers. Are they not? We don't know what degree of scepticism they they apply to any this stuff in and where you know right party, is there not heeded I think that their credulous or not credulous cause- I don't really understand them and who they are her real. But as there not heeded, they don't necessarily any reason to be skeptical of a piece of information that comes down their path. When they

it's like. Oh did you see that story about the added a you know it's like were well. How did they? You know we insensibly always in New York Times? Well now we better figure out whether that's that doesn't sound quite right to me. But if they dont have those sign posts, Let's say I trust this or I don't trust that what is it that they take in? What is it the day? What is it that they are sceptical about? It's it's just too it's interesting problem and its It's much less solvable them didn't used to be, and with that we will issue. Good. We can remember. Gotta marched out commentary magazine dot com for that, crushing morosely teacher in sweatshirt for the keep the candle burning, t shirt for the Commentary magazine Lobo T shirt and the commentary tote bag, maybe more to come. So for a

they are now I'm john- had words keeping animals.