♪♪ >> Tonight is going to be a fun one because, um, I thought long and hard about who I wanted at the table to have this discussion, uh, about, um, beyond 2025.

What does this country look like after the first 100 days of Donald Trump?

What, uh, are the political and news motivations that are out there that are driving and, you know, pushing, uh, story lines and, uh, different realities for communities across the country than our guests.

And I'll get to introducing them in a moment.

But I do want to set the stage of what they're here to talk about tonight.

Um, we're going to look at the complexities of this particular moment.

Um, how much do the words "we the people" really mean?

What do they mean to you, uh, when you think about the arc of this nation and the role that you now get to play as this generation of emerging leaders?

Um, see, I've already spoken to your leadership, so I'm not going to give you the out, because now it falls on you to step up and to take it from here.

We have a new administration.

We have dynamic changes in our national and our state governments.

And so how do you process that and how should we as a country process that?

Um, and what will it look like?

What does it mean?

Um, I think most importantly, the charge that's been given to us by our founders, um, is not a charge that's given to an institution or one individual.

The power of those three words, which for me are the most powerful of all the words written in all of our documents, that these men who own slaves, these men who didn't recognize the rights of women, wrote a document that started "We the people," not we the landed gentry, not we very White, wealthy White men, but we the people, not even knowing what the future of this country would look like and how it would develop.

Um, now, they may have had some hopes of how that would go, but the reality is we the people ultimately change the trajectory of this land and this government.

And so I think we're now called to that unique and important challenge again.

And so tonight we want to get into, what does that look like?

How does that play out?

And try to first understand what the landscape is.

And then look at what's potential solutions and what tomorrow could potentially bring.

And to help us do that, our two buddies, uh, whom I've had the pleasure of working with, sparring with us, getting beat up by on numerous occasions.

>> What beat up?

What do you mean, beat up?

>> Y'all should see some of the stuff this man wrote about me.

>> Oh, oh, oh.

Before we became friends.

Yeah.

>> When I was RNC chairman, I'm going -- >> I mean, you -- >> I'm going to save your introduction for last because that's going to be special.

>> You did deserve some of it, I'm just going to say it.

>> But I got the job done.

>> Thanks.

>> Thanks.

Oh, thanks.

>> So our first guest, uh, congressman, former Congressman Joe Walsh from Indiana -- Uh, Illinois.

Um, is a former Republican Congressman.

Um, elected in the Tea Party wave of 2010.

In fact, Joe was a part of a number of candidates that the party had been identified to us as up and coming next generation leaders who could emerge onto a bigger stage.

Um, and he served in Congress.

After his service in Congress became one of the most popular conservative talk radio hosts in the country, syndicated in major markets throughout the US.

In August of 2019, Joe became a candidate for President of the United States, waging a Republican primary challenge against Donald Trump.

Uh, Joe, is the author -- >> What a crazy thing that was.

>> I know, right?

Joe is the author of "F Silence," but it's spelled out on the book cover just in case y'all wondering.

>> Is it four letters?

>> It's all four.

>> Okay.

>> All four.

>> All four.

Not no ampersands, asterisks.

>> It's all there.

Calling Trump out for the cultish, moronic, authoritarian con man he is.

It was released in February of 2020, and Joe currently serves as the director of the Social Contract and the host of a podcast called "The Social Contract with Joe Walsh."

Um, and Joe is -- I think Joe is uniquely positioned as someone who was -- who emerged out of the Tea Party movement but then saw the direction things were going and said no.

And today is a very strong critic in many -- on so many levels -- but most importantly still has his touch into the MAGA world so he can contextualize a lot of what we see happening from that perspective to help us better understand what that thinking is, because a lot of us don't know, and a lot of us presume stuff.

But there is some thought behind a lot of the things you see.

And so we'll get into that.

Next is Jonathan Capehart.

[ Sighs ] >> [ Laughs ] >> They tell me he's a Pulitzer Prize winner, but I need to see the proof.

>> You just wait.

>> He is.

He is a Pulitzer Prize- winning associate editor of "The Washington Post" since 2007.

He has been an opinion writer at "The Post."

He was a member of "The Post" editorial board until 2022.

At MSNBC, Capehart is the anchor of "The Saturday/Sunday Show with Jonathan Capehart," which has been on the air since 2020.

In the spring, he will become the new co-host of "The Weekend."

Uh, and from 7:00 AM to 10:00 AM.

Uh, and so I am honored to have you take over that spot, my friend.

>> With an extra hour.

>> With an extra hour.

>> An earlier hour, too.

>> Yeah.

They got his behind getting being in the studio at 7:00 in the morning.

We have to get there at 8:00.

So that means you need to leave your house at 3:00.

So...

But, uh -- >> I heard what time you roll in for an 8:00 show.

>> Yeah, right?

Um, his MSNBC special, "A Promised Land: A Conversation with Barack Obama," was nominated in 2021 for an Emmy for Outstanding News, Discussion, and Analysis.

His MSNBC special, "Pride of the White House," won a GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding TV Journalism Long Form in 2022.

At PBS, Mr. Capehart serves as a political analyst on the "PBS NewsHour" and is featured on the popular Friday segment Brooks and Capehart, which is actually a lot of fun to watch.

Um, so welcome.

Let's welcome our guests, uh, Joe Walsh and Jonathan Capehart.

>> Thank you.

>> So why don't we just start with each of you giving an assessment?

Um, we are effectively through the bulk of the first 100 days.

Um, and there are about 20 days or so left, um, in that, about three weeks left.

Um, what is your assessment in light of today?

Just so you all know, for the record, today is Liberation Day, so we're all free.

Is that what that meant?

>> You should have seen the faces.

Folks were like, wait, what?

>> So, I mean, today we announced -- the President announced national -- I mean, global tariffs, uh, across the globe, uh, to impact not just, um, adversaries, but everybody.

Everybody, as we like to say.

You have that, you have, um, citizens, um, documented citizens being taken off the street by, um, ICE thugs, ICE individuals.

I won't call them thugs.

I'll be good for five minutes.

Um, what's your assessment of where these hundred days are taking us?

What's it setting up in your mind for the country?

>> Start us.

>> Oh, you want me to start?

>> Start us, Jonathan.

>> Um, well, first, thank you very much for this invitation.

And when you were doing the setup, I grabbed my phone for a minute because it clicked.

Wait.

There's only one Colbert King.

And I wanted to make sure that the Colbert King, the Colbert I.

King is the same Colbert King I know, and it is indeed.

>> It's the same one.

>> The same Colby King, who was at the at "The Washington Post" when I, 18 years ago last month -- or two months ago, when I came down to interview, I sat with Mr. King in his office.

I got the job and then he retired, and I sat in his office in the old "Washington Post" building until we moved to the new building.

And he is a giant.

And so it is a double honor to be here this evening.

So to your question, man, um, on the one hand, we all knew this was going to happen because we paid attention to what was being said and also what wasn't being said.

We paid attention to Project 2025, um, and maybe even for some of us, we paid attention during Trump one.

>> Right.

>> To me, Donald Trump is perhaps the most transparent politician, certainly president, I have ever had to cover because he is out there.

When he says things that might seem outlandish, like it might be, but it might not be.

>> It's insights into his thinking.

If nothing else.

>> Right.

And so if it does indeed happen, don't be surprised.

So here we are now, almost 100 days in.

Um, Vice-President Harris and every Democrat around the country saying, "Project 2025.

Look at it."

Even Vice President Harris said, "They even had the nerve to put it down on paper."

Well, we're seeing it play out before our eyes.

And the fact that people are shocked, dismayed that, um, innocent people are being swept up in this.

We were telling you.

We were telling you, those of us in the press, those of us who were paying attention and screaming from the rooftops.

I look at what's happening, Um, I don't want to say conspiratorial, but again, because I've been paying attention to this man, I honestly think that what seems like a haphazard wrecking ball through the bureaucracy, through the government, firing all these people, not just staying away from the third rail and not just sort of touching, bear hugging it and saying, you know, no, leave the power on.

We want to talk about Social Security and Medicaid and Medicare and having a billionaire say, "Well, my mother-in-law wouldn't miss her Social Security check.

If she didn't get it, she could wait till next month."

Well, of course she wouldn't complain.

Oh, and she lives with you, too?

Yeah, no, she doesn't have to worry about it.

>> Small detail.

Right.

>> But if you think about -- I honestly think they are going about this in such a way that they are hoping that people take to the streets to protest.

>> Interesting.

>> And he's hoping that when they go out to protest that it will be a, you know, part two of the Black Lives Matter protests.

>> Lafayette Park all over again.

>> Right.

From his perspective, he wants people in the streets.

One, he wants people to, from his perspective, commit acts of violence in some way because, you know, the definition is broad.

And then that gives him the pretext to invoke the Insurrection Act.

And once he does that, it's game over.

>> No midterms.

>> None.

And so that, to me, is what is most frightening because that's the turnkey he needs.

I mean, I've now come to the conclusion that perhaps maybe Chuck Schumer was right in letting the continuing resolution -- like keeping the government open, because if we were in a shutdown now, we would not come out of a shutdown.

That would have been it.

>> Basically, they would have continued to shut things down.

>> Shut things down.

>> And blame the Democrats for it.

>> Right, right.

And so that is my biggest concern.

But the thing that's giving me a little bit of hope, even though things are disastrous, all this stuff is happening.

And the people, we the people are not falling for it.

We're not falling for the okeydoke.

Um, folks are protesting Tesla dealerships.

They are, um, going and protesting -- >> You know that's a crime now, right?

>> Apparently.

>> Yeah.

>> But no one's going out there and acting in ways that would give them the excuse to do, um, what I think they want to do.

>> Well, put a pin in that point because there is activity coming up this weekend.

>> Yes.

>> Which we'll talk about.

>> Oh, yes.

>> Because you make, I think, a very important -- given a very important analysis about the fact that -- And we war gamed this in '24, in April, May, June of '24, the approach to the Insurrection Act.

What approach would the administration take?

And it all hinged on "civil disobedience" and the idea that, uh, like Black Lives Matter, uh, folks out protesting would then give the administration, uh, the reason and the authority, particularly given that the Supreme Court has now ruled all he has to do is claim it as an official act.

Right?

Everything leading up to and around that would then take off the table any questionable behavior or activity.

Um, they would then be able to go put that in place, clamp down on civil liberties.

Um, lead as close as you can get up to declaring martial law without necessarily declaring it, although that is on the table.

So that's a very interesting point.

I like that, particularly given the protests that are scheduled here in Washington where they're looking about 100,000 people, whatever.

So we'll talk -- I want to talk about that.

So I'll put a pin there.

>> That's so interesting though.

And I think you're right.

Trump is extremely transparent.

He's also the most dishonest person in the world.

I mean, he lies as he breathes.

Um, but I hadn't thought though about the transparency.

That's fascinating.

Look, I think there's always been a failure of imagination when it comes to Trump.

Uh, people have never imagined or believed that he could do what he's done.

20 years ago, if the three of us are sitting here together, we'd look a lot better, but none of us would have believed -- >> Speak for yourself.

>> The young kid.

Um.

If I'd have told you there'd be an American President who would lose an election and wouldn't accept the results, and then would try to overthrow the election, you would have thought I was smoking something.

>> Yeah.

>> So when Jonathan says he wants people on the streets, he wants to send out the military, he wants the Insurrection Act, he wants to stop the midterms from happening, I think we're past the point where we should roll our eyes at this stuff, because it could happen.

When he won in 2016, Michael, I think people were shocked.

When he won this past November, I think a lot of people were bummed and checked out.

But I've noticed around the country -- This Saturday, all over the country there will be protests that organically... All a thousand points of light -- George H.W.

Bush.

Organically, a lot of protest and resistance has sprung up.

>> What does that tell you?

I mean, what does that tell both of you about the organic nature of what we see happening?

And so this -- To get to that point in the circle that I was just talking about, you've got planned across the country, I think right now in nine states, um, pretty sizable protest.

And then they're expecting, at least from what I've heard -- You may know more from what you're hearing, Jonathan -- up to 100,000 people here in Washington to protest this weekend.

Uh, I guess the capital and around in the environment.

What does that say?

Taking for the for the moment, the sort of dangerous piece that if there's anything, if those protests go sideways, they open up a Pandora's box for Trump to dive into and start setting up, uh, taking next year's elections off the table.

Um, but what does it say about this organic -- the organic nature of what's happening that we're at this point, 80 days plus in -- Because a lot of people, at least in the first three weeks, were like, "What the hell are you -- Why are people mad?"

I was one of them.

I was very adamant on the weekend when Simone asked me about, well, you know, what do you want people to do?

Just show me you care.

Show me you're concerned, as pissed off as I am.

Well, for I think a lot of people, what's happened is the slow roll of everything sort of catching up to them in their lives.

They're calling Social Security offices, and they're getting a busy signal or no one's answering at all.

They're now having to realize there's no one that's going to be able to process the paperwork for their dad's retirement, you know, and all of that.

So what do you -- >> I think it started before the things you mentioned.

I think of the period between Election Day and Inauguration has that moment.

I'm sure you've seen it when a bird is flying and it, you know, miscalculates and it hits a window.

>> Oh, it happens a lot at my house.

>> It's a window and then it's stunned on the ground.

>> No.

It's dead.

>> No, no, no.

>> It hit the window.

>> At times I've seen it happen, the bird hits, lands on the ground, and it's stunned.

>> Yeah.

>> But time goes on and it starts to -- It wakes up.

It figures out, oh, what the hell just happened?

>> Right.

>> Oh, God.

Am I all right?

And then if it's not dead, it flies away.

>> Right.

>> I think we're at that point now where the American people are looking around and they figured out, okay, that happened, but we're still here and I'm mad as hell it happened.

One, that this guy got elected.

But now what's happening is, in addition to Democrats and people who didn't vote for Trump, now you're having other people come along and say, this is not what I voted for.

This is not what I wanted.

And so I think the key word in what you -- in what you're talking about is "organic."

This is not manufactured by the DNC.

This is not Jeffries and Schumer sort of ginning up people.

Right.

It's not, you know, it's not politicians.

It's the people.

People are gathering because they are upset.

And the fact that it's happening before 100 days, to me, only amplifies the organic nature.

You can't get people to organize anything in any amount of time.

There's got to be some passion behind it and there's passion behind this.

>> In your analogy, when did the bird hit the window?

Was that election day?

>> That was election day.

That was election night.

>> See, I think -- and maybe -- I disagree only in that -- and maybe you all agree with Jonathan.

I don't think people were shocked he won this time.

Disappointed.

Pissed off.

But like in '16, I think the country was shocked that this guy could actually be president.

I didn't feel that this time.

I felt disappointed and people just said, "I'm done with that."

>> Although, well, remember, in '16, after the election, people were stunned.

They couldn't believe it happened.

In 2020, I think people were like, you know what?

I'm washing my hands of this.

I gave it my all.

I'm washing my hands of this.

I'm washing my hands of all of this stuff.

Leave me alone, I don't care.

I'm pissed off.

I'm mad at the country.

But I knew that that was not going to last because I knew what was coming.

You should not have been surprised.

>> I wasn't that.

>> Well, not about the election.

But you should not be surprised by the upset that we're seeing now.

>> Oh, no.

Yeah.

>> People are organizing and they are, you know, taking to the streets and making their displeasure known.

>> I'm not surprised about that.

I never was.

My frustration was, oh, why didn't they express that frustration and that anger sooner?

Um, but I still think a part of it is all of the disruption that we've seen play out is something that it trickles downhill.

It flows downhill.

So, you know, initially everyone is like, yeah, government sucks.

Tear it down.

And then all of a sudden they're like, uh, what do you mean we didn't get a check for school.

You know, for the breakfast program.

For the lunch and breakfast program.

Um, and so all of a sudden, those things start to hit.

It's not just the price of eggs anymore.

It's a lot of other things that are starting to hit for people.

And so, Joe, I think from the perspective of the people you talk to, how much of a realization, the, oh, crap, I voted for this, is really kind of landing in MAGA?

Or are they just sucking up and going, "It's them, not me"?

>> There were like two kinds of Republicans voted for Trump.

His hard-core MAGA supporters.

And they're all in.

They'll be all in tomorrow.

But as this Tea Party guy campaigned every day out there for Kamala Harris, I'd get a lot of Republicans who would say, "Joe, I know he's a bad guy."

They'd use a lot stronger language, right?

"I know he's an...

I know he's a jerk, but."

But the Democrats.

But the border.

But... >> Right.

>> Um, these people, I think right now, these Trump voters right now are stepping back and saying, wow, something's going on.

This is kind of crazy.

I've heard from them like -- Not a day goes by, Michael, Jonathan, that some of them don't say, "I didn't vote for this.

Like, I knew Elon had some interesting ideas.

I didn't think Elon was just going to tear apart the federal government."

>> So what did they think?

>> Right.

>> I mean, because it was.

>> Fair question.

>> It was laid out in a 900-page document.

>> What, Project 2025?

>> Project 2025.

But even if you don't read, like the President...

Right?

I laughed today when he was talking about... >> He doesn't read >> ...how he read -- See?

He said he read something, and he holds up -- he holds up the report uh, on the economic impact of his tariffs.

Right?

And this thing was this thick.

That man ain't no more read that document.

He standing there lying to people like, "It's a good read."

I'm like, dude, seriously?

>> Was there actual words on the page, graphs, data?

Because I wouldn't put it past him.

>> Right.

All it had was a front cover.

That's all we saw.

I can't say that there weren't just white pages in between.

>> Was it upside down?

>> Right.

Actually, I had to look twice.

It wasn't.

So...

So the question becomes, when they say that, what the hell did they think?

I mean, did they not think that the man who said, "A, I want to be your retribution, B, I want to be a dictator, C" -- I mean, the list -- >> Michael, what they thought was he's going to seal up the border and the price of eggs will drop on day one.

>> And could I add to that?

"I'll be your retribution," another thing you said, the other thing you said, remember, it wasn't applying to them.

The folks who heard that and was like, oh, he's -- "He hates the same people I hate.

He's going to he's going to seek revenge on the people I would love to see, you know, have revenge"... >> Right.

>> ..."pushed on them."

What they didn't expect was that they would be the ones who would get caught up in the retribution.

Caught up in the revenge.

And so, you know, the stories coming out of Trump voters who are like, "Oh, but I didn't think it was going to impact me."

And I'm sure I'm not the only person in this room who is like, "Really?"

>> But -- >> And not to be unkind, but... >> Oh, no, no.

I'm very much so on that.

>> But the three of us obviously pay attention to this 24 hours a day.

But are even -- Are any of us surprised?

From the moment he got sworn in at how like the blitzkrieg, how quickly him and Musk have moved?

I think the average American is.

Maybe they shouldn't be.

I mean, it's been... >> Yes, a little bit.

Look, when this was war gamed out, there were certain things that folks thought would be some of the leading, uh, aspects of what he would do.

And the Insurrection Act was very much one of those things because the thinking was that, on the heels of the inauguration, very similar to what we saw in 2017, there would be this outpouring of disgust and anger by voters, um, who just like, you know, converge on Washington or converge on the state capitol to lay out their outrage, which would then trigger to the point where we're just having, um -- or making, rather, Trump's response through some type of official government act.

Um, what is surprising was how studied they had become of the weaknesses of our enterprises, of our institutions, that Project 2025, on its face as a manual, is one thing, but then being able to take the various parts of it and align that up with the gaping hole in potential responses.

Everybody knew Democrats were going to sue.

Even in the war gaming, that was an immediate thing that you would see as a response from the institutions would be Democratic members of Congress, democratic -- small D -- organizations, big D organizations, and individuals suing.

>> And, Michael, I don't think people understood -- I say this as a former congressman -- that the Legislative Branch would just lay down for him.

I mean, they've abandoned their jobs.

So we have two independent branches of government right now.

We don't have an independent Legislative Branch.

I mean, they're working for him.

They're not working for the Constitution.

I think people overlook that Congress would just lay down.

>> So, to that point then, because that fills out the rest of the narrative for us, because if the question that we're trying to begin to wrap our heads around is, uh, what next?

If the only guardrail left standing is the court... >> The courts.

>> ...and the lawyers who argue before those benches -- >> Right.

Have already bended the knee.

>> Bending the knee.

>> Oh, my God.

>> Keep it clean.

Clean.

>> Okay.

They're bending the knee.

>> Keep it clean.

>> They're bending the knee.

How does -- How does that guardrail hold?

What is that future -- And, folks, I'm not talking ten years.

I'm talking about ten weeks from now.

How does that look?

>> It means that -- You say we have two independent branches of government.

I'm not willing to say that the judiciary, especially with the Supreme Court, is all that independent with a 6-3 Conservative supermajority.

The answer to your question -- The person who has the answer to that question is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

>> John Roberts.

>> And Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

>> And Kavanaugh on a good day.

>> On a -- And define good.

>> Right.

>> But to -- Look, the Legislative Branch folded.

But I think it's even worse than that.

The Speaker of the House is a true believer.

>> Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

>> He's not folding because he's afraid of Trump.

He agrees with what Trump is doing.

That's the Legislative Branch.

>> He was part of the architecture of January 6th.

>> Right.

Now, flip to the Executive.

Something to keep in mind.

We're talking about Project 2025.

But remember, one of the chief architects of Project 2025 is a guy named Russell Vought.

Russell Vought was Trump's OMB Director in the first term.

>> And he's back.

>> And now he's back as OMB Director in the second term.

He has spent all this time looking, compiling Project 2025, but also studying the gaping holes that you're talking about.

And now that he is back in the White House, he and a bunch of other people, they set out immediately, January 20th, "Mr. President, here are all the executive orders you need to do right now, today, right now to get the ball rolling."

He, to my mind, is the person we most need to watch.

He doesn't make a lot of news by design, but you know, through this whole budget process, we're about to go through reconciliation.

They just dropped the reconciliation bill in the Senate.

All of this is right there from Project 2025.

And all the things that people are doing to try to slow the roll or to stop them is eventually going to land at the Supreme Court.

And then that's when we have to pray that a super Conservative like the Chief Justice will suddenly put on his institution hat and realize, in some of these cases, we, the court, simply cannot do this.

Otherwise, not only does the reputation of the Supreme Court falls, but the Republic might fall.

>> Do either of you think he'd defy a lower court order before that even happened?

Supreme Court?

>> Who?

>> Trump.

Do you think he would formally defy any of these?

>> Isn't he already doing that?

>> I look at the Venezuelan cases.

Boasberg told him, "Land the planes, turn them around."

>> Turn them around.

>> And he was like, okay, yeah, we'll do that.

And didn't.

So that's -- No one wants to dance on that pinhead because then it deconstructs everything, the arguments that they're making about, we're not at a constitutional crisis yet, because -- >> By the way, Jonathan made a really important point.

And I say this as a former Republican who used to be a very crazy, true believer.

The percentage of crazy true believers in the Republican Party, the people who think like Trump and believe in all that crap, has really grown.

>> Yes.

>> Like, it used to be the Marjorie Taylor Greenes.

That used to be more fringe.

>> Yeah, the Marjorie Taylor Greenes were not even allowed in the room.

>> It now is the party.

>> Now they run the room.

>> So one of our two former political parties is pretty well radicalized right now.

>> Well, and so that -- So we're talking about the longer horizon of the we the people portion of this looking at, uh, our political system, looking at the construct of government that's being, uh, reimagined and created in Trump's image before our eyes with very little resistance from at least one of the political parties.

We can have a discussion about how effective the other party, the Democratic Party, is or potentially could be.

Um, what we saw with Senator Booker notwithstanding, what we see with AOC and Bernie Sanders notwithstanding out on the hustings, um, you then are now confronted, looking at that longer horizon, what does the political landscape for the country really look like?

I've been giving some thought, particularly given, you know, my roles, various roles in the party going back to the 1990s.

County chairman, state chairman, national chairman, elected official, all that stuff.

And I've been looking at that timeline.

And I came to a conclusion, a very interesting one.

And I leveled it up at one of our discussions a few weeks ago that, when I stopped and I looked at how we have morphed on Zelensky and Ukraine, to move from the party that would stand in opposition to and fight the evil empire, Russia, um, that would take the premier, the president of Russia, um, as the adversary that he is.

The last presidential candidate to level that up accurately was, um, Mitt Romney in the 2012 cycle.

And everyone laughed when he said, "Russia is the problem, people.

Let's be real.

He's the problem."

Um, and I concluded that maybe, maybe Reagan was the aberration.

>> Hmm.

That's interesting.

>> That, in truth, what Trump has been able to do, looking at that longer time horizon, is to expose what Republicanism has always been.

So in other words, you go back and you start looking at the data points on that time horizon from Reconstruction forward, how quickly did the Republican Party capitulate to the South in the Reconstruction Era?

Johnson didn't get a lot of fight.

Right?

What about the 1930s and the embrace of Nazism in the early days?

There were a lot of Republicans at those Nazi rallies in New York.

What about the John Birch Society in the 1950s?

And, yes, there were leaders who stood up and said, "Oh, hell no, we're not doing that."

But the party was moving much more comfortably in that direction.

And then in 1964, you have Goldwater rejecting the civil rights agenda of the GOP, right?

At his national convention, Where he made it very clear that, you know, "Hey, tearing this up is not a bad thing, folks."

It's not a vice, right?

Resistance to civil rights is okay."

Four years later, Nixon's like, well, we really want Southern White segregationist men in the party and offered up the Southern strategy.

Reagan launches his presidential campaign in 1980, in the backyard where three civil rights workers were killed.

Who was that messaging for?

>> And then, after Reagan, you had kind of the whole Pat Buchanan thing.

>> Then you had the Pat Buchanan thing, right?

And that reared its ugly head in the '92 election.

>> Yeah.

>> Up against George Bush.

That was the cleaving by -- >> And there was part of this in the Tea Party.

>> And it was part of it in the Tea Party.

So I'm just saying that maybe the aberration are those moments where the party tried to do the normal thing against the type that it really was.

>> I'm sitting here like this because it sounds like -- this sounds like a column.

You should write this.

>> I'm working on that.

I will need your help.

>> This is a great history... >> Be very careful, Michael.

>> ...lesson that makes it very clear, and saying that maybe Reagan was the aberration, that's the hook that makes people go, "Wait, what?"

>> Yeah.

>> Because this party -- not yours anymore -- your party... >> Yeah.

>> ...revered -- I mean, everything was Reagan, Reagan, Reagan, Reagan, Reagan.

>> I've stayed in 'cause it pisses them off.

I mean, they hate it because -- Look, I've been here for 50 years next year, right?

And I've been in virtually every room and have seen and fought.

But for me, a lot of the founding ideas that caused those individuals to break from the Whigs to stand in the breach in support of ending slavery, arguing for the individual liberties for everyone under our Constitution, that at the core, it's nothing to do with whether you're pro-life or pro-choice.

It's nothing to do whether you support the Second Amendment or the Fifth Amendment or any other amendment.

It has to do whether you believe in the fundamental thread that the founders wove into the fabric of this land, and that is all of us are free, period.

>> Hoo, are we far from that.

>> Right.

>> We're a long way from that, yeah.

>> And so that's been the internal tension within the party that likes to wrap itself in the American flag, and at the same time sit in judgment over your freedom.

>> You're still a Republican.

I'm a former Republican.

We'd each acknowledge, and maybe Jonathan would agree, there's always been an authoritarian strand in the party.

>> That's my point.

>> Like wanting a strong man.

wanting a dictator, wanting a king.

Trump is like the personification.

>> Right.

But that's my point.

But that's always been sort of the backside of the GOP.

That's not been what they've led with.

You know, they've never come out of the gate saying, "We want a strong man."

Right?

In those terms, the way they do now.

Right?

>> Open about it.

>> So it was always they would anchor around individuals they perceived to be strong.

A Reagan, an Eisenhower.

Was a general, right?

So it kind of made sense.

But when it comes to the actions that those presidents took, they always resisted it, because the one thing I learned over the years and would hear after every presidential election, would be a growing number of Republicans say over and over again, "We lost that election because we weren't conservative enough."

>> Mnh-mnh.

>> Right?

And conservative started to mean something other than what it meant in the traditional, you know, liberal, small L, sense of the word.

And the reality is that piece of this began to morph, and like anything, metastasize in a much more negative way, I think.

>> And, Michael, the other elephant in the room, there's always been a race issue in the Republican Party.

>> Oh, yeah, without a doubt.

Without a doubt.

>> I was a Republican because I thought I believed in freedom and free trade, limited government.

But the race thing has always been there.

>> Right.

>> And you talked about the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House, has openly spoken about America as a White Christian country again.

>> Right.

>> This notion now among a lot of Republicans is, I mean, they're out there saying shit like this.

This is a scary time.

>> Right.

So, the question is, how does the "we the people" portion of this reconcile all of that?

Does it create something else to replace this Republican party, third party, whatever?

Does it try to ignore it and everybody just kind of land in the Democratic space?

>> We're all Democrats now.

>> We're all Democrats now.

I mean, to your point, I mean, you joke a little bit, Congressman, but there is a strong thinking in that regard, too, even among some Republicans.

Y'all just need to sign up on the Democratic side and have this fight from the Democratic side.

>> Well, they -- We need an opposition party.

>> That's the counterargument.

So what do you -- >> You can't have an opposition party, especially in this country.

How many times have we seen people run third party, and they get 1%, 2%, and then deny the Democrat?

>> Well, that's because they're running it wrong, but we can get into that.

>> But I mean, we need the Democratic Party to be the opposition party.

>> Right.

Okay.

>> That's what I mean.

>> Right.

In the short term, that's what you need to have happen.

But in the long term, it requires you, since you're still in the party, and like-minded folks to then start the process of building a new party.

Maybe y'all are -- >> We're doing that.

Don't worry.

>> You know, where you peel off again.

>> He knows.

>> Look, I agree with Jonathan.

>> But that what's going to have to happen.

>> My philosophy now is -- and I've felt this way since I campaigned for Biden four years ago -- we're all Democrats now, because this thing, my former party, is a threat to democracy.

So we all got to suck it up and help the opposition party, the Democratic Party, get their act together, and once we can -- >> And I've done that, but from within my confines, because the power of the moment for me and my reasoning was to be the former Republican National Committee chairman, to come out and endorse Joe Biden for president in 2020, to do a campaign ad with that endorsement was my way of saying exactly what you just said.

We're all Democrats now, but small D, because politically I was still in this space.

>> But back to Joe's original point about the race thing is an issue in the Republican Party.

>> Oh, yeah.

Trust me.

>> It is.

Out in the open now.

>> Right?

But how... We watched Vice-President Harris bust her behind to get every possible vote she could get.

>> Right.

>> Including campaigning with Liz Cheney and doing all sorts of events, trying to appeal to, um, soft Republicans.

>> Republicans for Harris.

>> But especially Republican women.

>> Right.

>> Because choice was on the ballot.

It made perfect sense.

If you're going to win, you needed to have what you thought would be voters who would come your way on this particular issue.

And as I watched this, I kept my fingers crossed and I hoped, but I kept coming back to something I learned at an event I was a part of in 2017.

And it was either put on by Planned Parenthood or NARAL, but it was a political panel but basically like, how did this happen?

How did Trump win?

>> Right.

>> And a question came from -- Not a -- Yeah, it was a question that came from the audience.

This woman said, "I can't believe White women voted for Donald Trump.

How could they vote against their own interests?"

Then a woman on the panel stopped her cold and said, "I'm sorry, what makes you think she voted against her interests?"

And you could hear the air go out of the room.

>> It's true, it's true.

>> And the woman on the panel said, "You're focused on the woman part.

You're not focused on the White part."

And once she said that, I was like, oh, damn, that -- No.

That's it.

And that has been my frame to watch all of this.

So as we went into the 2024 election on PBS, in our marathon session from 6:00 to 3:15 AM, I was asked, "Jonathan, what are you going to be looking for in the election tonight?"

And I, you know, did my little thing.

And then I said, you know, gingerly -- not gingerly, rather aggressively -- "I'm going to be watching what White women do, because if Kamala Harris is to win, she is going to need White women to vote for her."

And to -- They didn't -- Unlike the exit polls in 2020 -- in 2016, subsequent data show that White women did not vote 50 plus for Trump.

He got the plurality of the White women's vote.

And so she needed to do better than that 48%.

But deep down, I was sort of like... >> They ain't done it.

No matter how many phone calls they got on.

>> ..."I hope I'm wrong."

And so it's great to do all the stuff you're doing.

But how are you going to get over that race hump?

>> You don't.

You don't unless everybody wants to.

It is fundamentally, at the core, we refuse to have the conversation that we need to have as a country.

>> Right.

As a country, for sure.

>> We need to have the conversation about race, because we ain't going to solve jack until White people and Black people work it out.

It ain't about being Hispanic.

It ain't about being Asian.

It ain't about being gay.

It ain't about any of that.

It's about how Black people and White people see each other.

Because that's been a 400-year struggle and story that no one wants to talk about.

And now you have an administration that wants to whitewash that history.

>> Yeah.

It is whitewashing.

>> Erasing it.

Literally jackhammered it out of 16th Street.

>> Right.

And so to your point about the White Christian nationalist piece, that is very much -- It's not a thread.

It's a frigging ocean that runs through this country that we don't want to have.

>> Elected members of Congress say that out loud now.

>> Yeah.

Yeah.

So I was -- I thought you were going to go to a particular spot.

And so I was getting prepared.

>> Did I defy your expectations?

>> You did, unfortunately.

But I'm going to talk about it anyway.

>> You know, we could end up seeing -- So now we're all talking about the decimation of NIH, CDC, the sciences.

The next story is going to be the brain drain from the United States overseas.

>> It's starting.

It's starting.

>> Where Americans who can get out and go and do the research.

Say that you want to do, do the work that you want to do, won't be able to do it here.

But you know, everyone else around the world ain't dumb.

Like, "Wait, what?

Americans with all that talent and expertise, they want to come here?

How can we get them here?"

That is the next story.

>> And to Jonathan's point, there are stories out today talking about that very thing where, right now, not just in terms of our academic institutions, but even among our professional class, those government officials at agencies who lost their jobs, you've got competing agencies in Canada and in Mexico, in Europe, saying, "Hey, we'd love to have you come over and run our Department of X or share with us as a consultant your expertise and what you learned running departments inside NSA or inside of, you know, NIH."

So that's a real thing.

And it is -- Look, your future is obviously going to be in your hands, but a lot of the dictates that you're going to have to deal with are probably going to draw your vision outside of this country in the long term, because the opportunity is going to be greater for you there than here, because not only don't they want your talent, but because of the color of your skin or your background, they can't be seen hiring you here.

So what are you going to do?

You're going to leave.

You're going to go where you have an opportunity and where you're welcomed because, you know, businesses in the country no longer want to do anything that's "DEI," and that's stupid.

>> The other thing to remember, politically, everything that Trump's doing, the gutting of these agencies, he's doing all via executive order, which most of which is unconstitutional, but he's doing it.

It's not an act of Congress.

It's not a law.

>> Right.

>> So elect a good president, a Democratic president, boom, via executive order, reinstate.

>> Yeah, but keep in mind the damage is done.

>> The damage is done.

>> And that's going to be the hard part.

Folks, that brings us to the conclusion of this semester's program.

I thank you guys very much.

♪♪ ♪♪ >> This program was produced by WHUT and made possible by contributions from viewers like you.

For more information on this program or any other program, please visit our website at WHUT.org.

Thank you.