Is a Utah Senate Upset in the Cards? (with Evan McMullin)

Welcome to Bags to differ. The Bulwark weekly roundtable discussion featuring civil conversation across the political spectrum. We range from center left to center right I’m Mona Sharon, syndicated columnist and policy editor of The Bulwark, and I’m joined by our regulars, Bill Galston of the Bookings Institute and The Wall Street Journal. Linda Chavez of the Nishkanen Center and Damon Linker who writes the Substack newsletter, eyes on the right. We’re doing something a little different this week because our special guest is actually a senatorial candidate.

We are delighted to welcome Evan McMullen independent candidate for senate in Utah. Welcome one and all. So there is a lot going on. We have new inflation numbers. We have Alex Jones.

There was a verdict in his case. He will be required to pay compensation of nearly a billion dollars to the people that he tortured with his misinformation. There’s all kinds of news, but we are going to begin with the Utah race and the state of the GOP and the midterms and the future of democracy just for starters. So let’s begin with the Utah race. So Evan.

First of all, you are the first guest that we’ve ever had on Bogue to differ that I actually voted for for president. So That’s that’s another new thing. But that was in twenty sixteen. So you are running a race in Utah against the incumbent Mike Lee Republican that has been called the most interesting senate race of twenty twenty two. And part of why it’s so interesting is that you are running as an independent, but the Democratic party in the state of Utah elected to not nominate anybody and allow it to be just basically a head to head match up between you and Mike Lee.

So why don’t you tell us, first of all, how is it going? I’m seeing conflicting reports about how close or not close it is, but just the other night, Mike Lee basically begged Mitt Romney to endorse him on Fox News Channel which sounded to me a little bit nervous, or maybe even a little desperate?

Well,

I think that’s right, Mona. But first of all, let me say that I’m so honored to have had your vote in twenty sixteen, and I’m honored to be with you today and with the group. You know, in Utah, we’re making a lot of progress year. I know that I sounded like a crazy person at the beginning of this effort when I said, look, I’m gonna ask the democrats not to nominate their candidate I’m going to go to this third party we have here in Utah, called the United Utah party, a moderate party, and asked them to do the same. And at the same time, we’ll have Principal, the Republicans join us as well, and most independents will be with us too.

I think a lot of people pundits here in Utah and and at the national level thought that that seemed very improbable. But I’m pleased to report that now with about a month left in the race, we have succeeded in building that coalition and the race has become very competitive. Now you mentioned the polls that you’re seeing that, you know, they’re conflicting polls. Mike Lee’s campaign managers out telling people that Lee is leading me by eighteen percentage points but really our polling and the independent polling in this race done by the local newspaper, Desirade News, has this race very, very close, essentially within the margin of error. We’re up sometimes.

We’re down sometimes. But what we’re seeing in the general trend of our own polling and of credible independent polling is that this race is moving in our direction. And I think that’s why many of your listeners probably saw the tape of senator Lee on Tucker Carlson a couple of days ago. If they haven’t seen it, I strongly recommend that they Google it and and watch the tape. It’s remarkable display of desperation, one of the most remarkable such displays I’ve seen in American politics at any time.

But they alternate between attacking Mitt Romney in one moment to begging Mitt Romney and his children to donate to Lee’s campaign. And I think that reflects a reality that this race has become quite competitive and that they know it’s slipping away from senator Lee as our coalition of Republicans, Democrats, and independents grows to replace them and help change our broken politics. So

I’m not the only one who voted for you for president twenty sixteen. Another person who voted for you was Mike Lee himself. That’s right. Who never did endorse Trump and who was part of a demonstration on the convention floor attempting to challenge the rules and, you know, really was trying to make every last ditch effort to prevent Trump from being the nominee, but then he got in line with of engines. Right?

He

he definitely did. I mean, you’re right to point out that he he opposed Trump in twenty sixteen. He encouraged me to run against him. He called for Trump to get out of the race after the access Hollywood tape leaked. You pointed out that he campaigned against Trump on the floor of the Republican National Convention And then, of course, on election day, he voted for me and publicly said so.

But I think he realized that his own personal pursuit of power, he thought was better served by ending his opposition to the extremism that was rising as a part of Trump’s demigodgery and got on board. And, you know, a a lot of batons I I think in the state have cast a a vote for Trump in twenty sixteen or twenty twenty. But they never liked him and they held their noses to do it because they didn’t want to support a Democrat. But what Lee did that offended many of them was that he went from simply supporting Trump to becoming a real sicker fan for him to the point that in October of twenty twenty, Lee was campaigning with Trump on a stage in Mesa, Arizona to an audience of members of the Church, of Jesus Christ, of latter day saints, the Mormons, And while he was on stage with Trump, he compared Trump at length to a revered book of Mormon hero known as Captain Moroni. And it was something that offended many members of the church deeply here in Utah, but I think everywhere.

And it really, I think, underscored just how far Lee had gone in becoming a sicker fan in the pursuit of power. And I think that has really offended a lot of you and I hear from you telling who have voted for Trump once or twice, and they tell me they just can’t support Lee because he got too close to Trump. And so people are drawing a line and, you know, that gives us an excellent opportunity to hold the accountable for a range of

misdeeds, including trying to overturn our last election with fake electors. Yeah. He had a key role there, which is quite a heel turn for somebody who’s advertising always stressed that he was a constitutional conservative and a great upholder of the constitution, wrote a book about it, I believe, But okay. Evan, one one more thing from me on the politics here. So among the roughly one point six million registered voters in Utah, eight hundred and seventy eight thousand are Republicans, four hundred and seventy six or so thousand are independents and two hundred and thirty four thousand are Democrats.

So it’s tough for any non Republican in a state like Utah. And though you spent your life being a Republican, you’re now running as an independent.

Yeah, that’s right. Before I talk about those numbers, which I will, because they are better than one might think, but I would just say that Certainly senator Lee, who calls himself a constitutional conservative, is anything but that. You can’t be a constitutional conservative if you betray the constitution. And senator Lee likes to pull his pocket constitution from his chest suit pocket and and wave it in the air as a political prop. But he’s he’s very quick to abandon it when his pursuit of power is the priority.

And that’s what we’ve seen. And I think senator Lee and people like him are constitutional comment. They are not actually committed to the document and and that’s the problem. As far as the numbers in Utah, you know, fifty percent of Utahans are registered Republicans, fifty percent of registered voters are Republicans. Thirty five percent are independents and fifteen percent are Democrats.

And, you know, in this state, we also have a large number of Republicans who I call principal the Republicans who have opposed extremism within the party and extremism, frankly, on both sides of the aisle. But they remain committed to a Lincolnian view of or a more traditional, you know, perhaps Mitt Romney view of what the Republican Party should and could be. And they’re about thirty five to forty percent of the party here in Utah. And I think that number is growing. So there there’s reason for optimism and encouragement that there can be in the long term a change at least here.

But for our in building this cross partisan coalition, there are plenty of Republicans for us to bring into the effort to allow us to prevail in this election, and and that’s why this is possible because in part because of those principled Republicans.

Damon

Lanker, are you encouraged? Do you think there are enough principled Republicans? Well,

actually, that’s exactly what my question is gonna be about. Evan, you you went to bring him young university, didn’t you? That’s right. And I think Mike Lee did as well. Well, you probably don’t know this about me because you probably don’t know anything about me, but I taught at BYU for two years in the late nineties.

I’m not LDS, but I was a visiting professor there when I first finished my PhD in political science. And I’m very fond of the LDS religion. I have many Mormon friends. And so much so that as I was watching the kind of slow motion train wreck of the twenty sixteen primaries, when the Utah caucuses were held that year, it was sort of late and it was very clear that Trump definitely had the momentum and it looked like he probably was gonna win this thing. But despite that fact, Ted Cruz won with sixty nine percent, and Trump finished in third behind John Kaysick.

So I wrote a column at the time for the week where I worked the next day titled The Republican Party needs more Mormons. And it was it was a tribute to the kind of moral seriousness that I remembered from my time living out there. That I saw exemplified because there were two things that worked that year. Of course, there was the fact that there was this faction of the party that genuinely loved Trump, and then there was as the primaries went on, just kind of gathering momentum, telling people, like, well, I don’t really like Trump, but look, he’s gonna be the nominee. I’m gonna, you know, so there was like bad waggling around him by that point.

But in Utah, that didn’t happen. It stopped. So my question to you, as Mona indicated when she turned to me, is is this is very encouraging and very interesting? And I do think that there’s a possibility that you might win this thing. But to what extent is this kind of a hopeful beacon for, say, bulwark listeners, the type of former Republicans or even still semi Republicans today who would love to see this as a sign that, yes, this can be done.

An old fashioned Republican, say, Reagan to Bush Republican, and then ultimately, as you said, even back to Lincoln. Can mount a challenge to a trumpian politician and actually win? Or is this a Utah story? Is this that, yes, as I said in twenty sixteen, the Republican Party needs more Mormons. And thankfully, Utah has enough of them.

But there aren’t enough states outside of Utah where there are enough. Is this a translatable story regardless of exactly how things play out on election night, you’ve already mounted a very potent challenge to a seated incumbent senator of the Republican Party. Is this a local story or a national

story? I

think it may be a local story for now, but such as the case with many trends, you know, they start somewhere and and then, you know, people can imitate them elsewhere in in slightly or or very different circumstances to the degree they can. You know, I think that there are some particular elements here at play in Utah, some particular circumstances that make it possible. We have a a Democratic party that isn’t competitive in statewide races. There are also some prominent unifying democratic leaders who have joined this effort. And so they were able to bring the party to a point where you know, it decided not to nominate its own candidate into the general election so that we could together build this cross partisan coalition So you need those kinds of leaders.

Ben McAdams is one of them. The former congressman here from Utah, also Jenny Wilson, the mayor of Salt Lake county was another one. So you need cross partisan partners in the effort. You also need a strong base of principled Republicans and you know, in in twenty sixteen, I ran that brief presidential candidacy for three months at the end of the race when no one else would do it. And Why won’t twenty one and a half percent of the vote here in Utah?

Most of those were Republicans that translated to about forty percent of the party. And about forty percent of the party also voted against Lee in the recent Republican primary. And so there really is a fairly large plurality of Republicans who would reject the extremes and who would call themselves and and they do in in our polling, Romney Republicans. And in fact, more Republicans now in Utah favor Romney than they do Trump. And that’s been developing in a favorable from my perspective, in a favorable direction over the course of the last year when I got into the race.

It wasn’t quite that, but now it is. And so that’s also helpful for us because those voters are all available for us to win. And there are more of them, frankly, than we need to win this race. But I’ll be greedy and and be working very hard to win every single one of them to our side.

It looks

great. Bill Galston, it is really interesting about the continuing discomfort of Utah Republicans with the Trump trend in the Republican Party, and it is a definite weakness of Lee’s But what’s your sense about the Democrats? It’s hard to vote for somebody who isn’t a Democrat. It’s hard for anybody to vote outside of their party. Though I’ve been doing it lately and trust me, it’s not that horrible.

But what’s your sense about how the democrats in Utah are gonna because if they turn out and are enthusiastic, you know, that will certainly help Evan. I

think that in the same way that Republicans or many Republicans in Utah are a special breed, I think Utah Democrats have been sobered by an unbroken record of failure. Of their party. And my hunch is there are a bunch of sobered up Democrats in Utah. Who understand that Evan McMullen will be a much better senator than the senator Mike Lee. Has become.

And I don’t know what that proportion is. I’m not going to pretend to be an expert on Utah politics, but it’s a lot bigger than zero. And I think that Evans assessment of the state of the Democratic Party in his own state is quite plausible. But I have a question for Evan. That might conceivably enhance the enthusiasm of Democrats for his candidacy and I’ll just ask you very bluntly, if you are elected to the United States

Senate, will

you caucus with the Democrats or will you be a pure independent outside of any caucus?

Well,

I’ll I’ll I’ll say to that, Bill. And of course, I get that question quite a lot. And actually, before I get to that, I I should say something about Democratic enthusiasm here in this race. You know, I would love to be able to say Bill that Democrats are supporting me because, you know, I’m their ideal candidate. But, of course, as a conservative and former Republican leaning voting conservative independent, that’s not going to be the case.

The reality is that there is so much energy here in Utah among Democrats to replace Mike Lee that they are thrilled to be a part of an effort that has the opportunity to replace him and then get a lot of other things done that we all agree on. What am I talking about? I’m talking about attending democracy. I’m talking about living up to our responsibility and stewardship for the environment. I’m talking about lowering healthcare costs and inflation other issues.

So there’s actually a lot of things in common in this coalition between the Republicans who have joined it, the Democrats, and the independents. And so, yes, I understand Democrats are very motivated here to replace Mike Lee, and that may be their prime motivation. I’ll take it, but we also have a lot of other things in common that allow this coalition to come together and democrats to join it. Now as far as the Senate and caucuses, I’ve committed to maintaining my independence. I will not caucus.

The reason for that is that if I go to Washington and to join one party or the other or I make a commitment to join one party or the other, then this coalition falls part. If I join one party, the other side of the coalition drops off. If I join the other party, then the other side drops off. So just as a matter of electoral necessity. I’ve committed to maintaining my independence.

Now I will say that I will be in coalition with other senators who are competitive the priorities that I’ve committed to, first and foremost, being the preservation of our system of self government. Now many people will say, well, most of those are Democrats, and and perhaps they’re right. But there are Republicans in the senate who are still committed to our system of self government, our very own senator Mitt Romney is one of them. Lisa, are Halsky, I think, is another. And on a good day, there are a couple of others.

And so I will be in coalition with them and I will work cross party lines to get things done on a range of issues just as senator Romney does, but I I will do it as a committed independent.

Linda

Chavez, do you have any thoughts on all of this or a question? Well, I guess I have some question just following up on Bill’s question about what it means to retain your independence. So if the vote is up for who gets to be majority leader Mitch McConnell or Chuck Schumer, what happens then?

Well, it’s

a it’s a good question and an important one. I won’t and this isn’t your question, but just to lead up to it, let me say that I won’t decide who was elected within the parties to be their respective leaders because as an independent I won’t have a vote in that. Republicans, I imagine, are likely to elect Mitch McConnell, Democrats, Chuck Schumer, if it comes down to my vote, to who controls the senate, then I’m going to have to have conversations with all of my colleagues, and I’m going to approach it like this. My number one priority is preserving our system of self government. And my second priority is lowering inflation and getting our fiscal house in order.

Another one is lowering the cost of healthcare, another one is protecting our air and water here in Utah and more broadly in the country. And then my fifth priority is ensuring that we have a strong national defense. There are some reforms I’d like to make on that front. And so I’ll have those conversations and do what’s best for Utah in the country, and I’ll work more closely with with senator who are going to put me in a position to advance those goals best. And that’s the only way I can do that.

That’s the best way I can approach that. I’ll I’ll do what’s best for Utah and what’s best for the country according to those goals.

Could I

just follow-up with one more question and then do about your priorities and your policies, which I thought, look, I’m very sympathetic if I lived in Utah, there’d be no question who I would vote for. I’d certainly support you. And I think like many of us who considered ourselves, conservatives,

I

believe very strongly in the constitution. And to me preserving democracy trumps all other issues. So I will just say that outright and there’ll be times when if I think that an election denier or somebody who’s going to in some way threaten, democracy happens to disagree with me on all sorts of policy issues because they are much to my left. I still might end up voting for them because to me that’s the most important. Let me ask you a practical question about one issue that you didn’t directly mention.

And that is the whole question of energy and energy independence and Utah has a state that, if I’m not mistaken, has energy reserves in it, do you have any specific thoughts about energy that might make those Utah voters who care about that and don’t worry about the cost of gasoline at the pump that you might give them some comfort.

Yes, happy to talk about that, Linda. But also, I will tell you that I agree, and then you and I share this view that the preservation of our Democratic Republic, I believe, is is the number one issue. And and the reason for that is that we can’t solve any of the other major challenges we have in this country if our system of self government is broken. And I would say it’s breaking right now. And so I hear some on the far right, for example, JD Vance saying democracy has failed, and now we need a strong man, and it won’t be as bad as you think it will be.

Well, as a CIA officer in an earlier life, living overseas and countries controlled by authoritarians and dictatorial regimes, I know from firsthand experience that when we live under the the thumb of strong men, our needs as people are are not met you know, they do not serve to solve problems for the people. They serve to enrich and empower themselves at the expense of the people. So I share that prioritization. That’s why on my website, my list of five priorities. That’s number one.

It has to come first. Now as far as energy is concerned, this is my view. I’m glad that in the west, we are stopping the consumption of Russian energy because all we’re doing is fueling their war efforts in Ukraine and other malign activities across Europe and the world. And so I think that’s important, but we do in the near term and for the foreseeable future need to replace that supply shock And I believe part of doing that is by increasing domestic production of hydrocarbons.

And

so I support that. At the same time, I do believe that true energy independence and a better answer for the long term and for our environment and we’re facing some very serious acute consequences of environmental challenges here in Utah. We’ve got to invest more in cleaner sources of energy. They aren’t priced on a global market and they’re more independent as a result and also better for our environment. We’re in a mega drought right now in Utah.

Some municipalities at times are trucking in water. The Great Salt Lake is disappearing, our air quality is really suffering, all of those issues are related. And so we have to take them very, very seriously here in Utah, but also in the near term, we’ve got to do something to bring down prices at the pump because we just can’t afford to keep paying four to six plus dollars on fuel on a gallon. I’m

gonna come to Bill Galston for one more point, but before I do, I just have to note since his name was mentioned. I just wanna say about J. D. Vance, who is the Republican candidate for senate in Ohio, that he tweeted back in twenty twenty one about Alex Jones. He said this.

Alex Jones is a far more reputable source of information than Rachel Maddow. One of them is centered by the regime. The other is promoted by it, unquote. And naturally, that tweet is getting a lot of attention in light of the JURY VERDICT THIS WEEK. OKAY, Bill Galston.

Adrienne: I

THINK I KNOW THE ANSWERING OF THIS QUESTION, BUT JUST FOR THE RECORD, I’m sure you’ve noticed as others have that opposition to continued aid to Ukraine has been rising. Within the Republican Party. And there’s some speculation that the current aid package will be the last major aid package. And the Ukrainians and many in the United States are very worried about this. If you’re elected to the senate, will you be a strong voice for continued aid, not just financial aid, but material and training to the Ukrainian government and armed forces.

Absolutely. Because I think the cost of not doing so are far greater than the cost of doing so. I mean, look, you know, Russia and Putin, they will not stop in Ukraine if they’re able to achieve their goals there. And and I think some people assess that Putin’s economic capacity for further conflict is so limited that we wouldn’t see it. But he knows how to topple regimes without firing a shot.

And he’s taken a more conventional military approach to this adventure, but he doesn’t have to take that approach in in other places. And so I think we do need to be very concerned about what he might do next, and it’s just simply vital that we stop him in Ukraine. And and frankly, The war effort there, I think, has reached a turning point. And so it would be a mistake now to back off and allow him to regain ground of course, he’s trying to reassert himself with indiscriminate fire on civilian targets, and and that comes after the Ukrainians have taken back territory and after Putin has faced criticism within his own regime and struggled to reinforce his troops with additional troops, as people flee Russia in order to avoid the war. So Putin’s in real trouble now, of course, at any turning point in conflict that it can become quite dangerous as the losing side becomes more desperate and tries to reassert itself.

And certainly, we should take good threat seriously. But we really have an opportunity I think here to deliver a significant blow to Putin both in Ukraine and also at home politically through additional losses and failures in that conflict And and again, I think it’s a mistake to take our foot off the throttle on this. And yes, I would support continued military, economic, intelligence and humanitarian supports Ukraine. Howard Bauchner:

And we might also point out that Mike Lee was one of the senators who voted against the last aid package for Ukraine. If if I

could, I I mean, he has a long track record Senator Lee of enabling Putin in twenty seventeen. He was one of only two senators. The other was Rand Paul. To vote against sanctions on the regime after the twenty sixteen election. Then about a year and a half later, Lee was traveling to Monc Moscow will plan to travel to Moscow as a part of a congressional delegation of Codell.

And Russia denied all of the other senators’ visas but they did grant senator Lee his visa, I think, probably as a reward for voting against those sanctions. He said he was going to Moscow to talk about religious Liberty, of course. But while he was there after his meeting with the regime, the Russians claims that they had had good discussion with senator Lee about lifting sanctions, and when NPR Moscow asked him if that was true, he confirmed that it was. And so senator Lee has repeatedly voted against aid to Ukraine. He’s challenged internal NATO deployments and on and on and on.

He has a a terrible track record of enabling Vladimir Putin.

You know, you would think that if a delegation asks for visas to visit Russia, and they decline all the visas except yours. You might just want to make statement that that’s unacceptable and not go, but he didn’t choose that. Howard Bauchner: And that’s right. And and also, you know, senator Lee is the only member

of Utah’s congressional delegation not to be sanctioned by Putin’s regime. Wow. So he’s well recognized as a friend to Putin in in mass a good friend of Moscow. Okay.

Well, this is an excellent transition to our next topic because I want to discuss the war in Ukraine.

So I’m

gonna go next to Damon Linker. Damon. This was a very dramatic week. Someone blew up the bridge that Putin had built from Crimea over to Russia. Unclear how it was done.

There was talk of perhaps a truck bomb, but, you know, I know people who think it might have been a missile. Same kind of missile that took out that Russian warship. But in any event, it was a direct some in the eye to Putin because Putin himself opened that bridge after taking Crimea in twenty fourteen. And so in response, and anyway, because this is the way they’ve been conducting the war, the Russians have been baraging civilian areas. Forty cities have been struck and dozens of civilians killed, and they are also targeting, which is, you know, again, these are war crimes and you target civilians.

They’ve hit waterworks and power stations. So what is your sense Damon about, you know, whether this is a turning point or, you know, your views?

Well, I mean, they’re all turning points, I guess. I mean, we’re turning, turning round we go. I it’s It’s an extremely dangerous situation we have here no matter how many different scenarios I play in my mind. In the end, they all come down to how crazy Putin is willing to be and how crazy he might be. Because at every stage, it looks increasingly clear that Putin and the Russian military cannot achieve whatever aims they had for themselves, whether it originally was taking over the entire country and installing a puppet regime, or the kind of more limited claims that he backtracked to after that didn’t work, after the first couple of weeks of the war.

Which has then evolved into just taking these eastern provinces of the country and absorbing them into Russia and declaring that any attempt to take them back on the part of Ukraine would be treated as an attack on Russia. But he said that not even having full control over areas. So it was like a giant bluff. And of course, Ukraine responded by immediately, continuing the offensive into those very areas, and then, of course, attack the bridge to Crimea as well, which of course brings us back to twenty fourteen when Russia first invaded. So this is a a full spectrum of war now where everything is at play, everything Russia has tried to achieve there.

And so the prospect that Russia could lose everything it’s tried to gain over the last eight years is very real. And how crazy is Putin gonna act out as this becomes more and more clear? We don’t know. Here’s what I think though.

Biden has a

very difficult task as president in this situation because he has to be commander in chief and being commander in chief in this kind of a very delicate, dangerous situation involves making decisions and giving orders and not publicizing because you don’t want everything to be public. You don’t wanna deal with this extra dimension to the kind of public relations side of things. You don’t wanna threaten to humiliate Putin in certain ways that will make it more difficult for him to back down as we want him to by announcing things publicly taunting or going the other direction that he did after some of these recent statements. Putin, by talking about Armageddon and so forth. I think on the one hand, he

needs to be very

cagey. On the other hand, Biden needs to do the work of Democratic leadership and speak very soberly to the American people about how important it is that we stay the course here and not back down. But again, not being too specific about exactly what we expect Putin to do and when. But here’s what I think he should be saying quietly behind the scenes. He should be making clear to Putin, crystal clear, that any use of tactical nuclear weapons in theater is going to lead to an immediate response of the American military combined with NATO military against Russian troops in country.

You don’t

have to specify that we won’t use tactical newts back. I don’t think we should. But it would open direct American and NATO involvement in the war against Russian troops, in Ukraine, but not in Russia proper. But we should also telegraph to Putin that any use of any weaponry whatsoever against Daniel Nadeau Powerball instantly mean that we would then start attacking Russian forces in Russia as well, and that these are the red lines and make absolutely clear that this is not a bluff, it is not a threat, it is a promise. And that has to be communicated with absolute clarity because the last thing you want in this kind of a situation is uncertainty.

We already have a hell of a lot of uncertainty about what Putin’s gonna do, but we don’t want the kind of uncertainty on Putin’s part about what he can get away with. We don’t want him thinking, ask, I just launched one tactical nuke in an empty field somewhere to kind of thump my chest and show I’m serious, they’re not gonna do anything. If we don’t wanna let him do that, across that red line, we have to make sure he knows it and make sure he knows what the penalty is gonna be, which is that Ukraine just bought direct American involvement. And is that risky, you bet it is, but I’d really do think that the stakes are at that point right now.

Linda, putin is behaving as a good former KGB officer does. The way one would expect that is he is attempting to threaten and bluster as everyone has pointed out. The war is not going well for him and he is attempting to frighten the world and specifically Ukraine and us, the NATO allies, with this nuclear threat. And it strikes me that while I have thought that for the most part, Biden has been handling this issue very, very

well, the

blurted comments at a fundraiser last week were not particularly good. Why? Well, because he returned to the topic three separate times. And you can just imagine that Putin’s analysts are going to be pouring over those comments and they’re going to be telling Putin, you see, you’ve rattled them. He keeps talking about Armageddon, he keeps talking about things getting out of hand about the Cuban missile crisis and so forth, don’t you think that Damon is right and that what he needs to do is just be super clear.

He doesn’t have to be specific. In fact, he shouldn’t be specific. But he should just deliver a message to the Russians just saying it will be catastrophic for Russia to use nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction and leave it at that? Well, I

guess, you know, the this is a rare time, Mona, when I’m gonna agree with Damon that maybe disagree with you.

Okay. I

was not as bothered by his invitation of armageddon. I in

some ways thought

it

was signaling to a Vladimir Putin, you know, be careful what you are talking about here because the consequences to your people are going to be just overwhelming. And I I think Damon

very

nicely laid out exactly what we ought to be communicating. And I think

it

doesn’t need to be communicated out loud in public. But I do think we ought to be sending the message if you make a nuclear attack anywhere in Ukraine. You are asking for the direct involvement, not just to the United States, but of NATO. And as Damon suggested, if there is a response from Russia, against our troops or against NATO forces, then we become participants in the war directly, and we will attack Russia. It won’t just be attacking troops in Ukraine.

But the whole invitation of armageddon doesn’t bother me. As much. I do think we are at a very dangerous point, and I think people need to understand that. I think people need to be aware that this may be the most precarious time we’ve seen in terms of a balance of power and use of that power since the Cuban missile crisis, which few of us on this podcast are old enough to actually remember in real time. And I think that the only thing that really needs to happen now is for the United States, not just to continue to support with defensive weapons and some offensive weapons.

But I think we ought to allow Ukraine to do what I think is necessary to win this war. And I don’t think that anything short of winning the war now is going to suffice. I don’t think we’re gonna see a sheated settlement. I think they’re really gonna have to defeat the Russians. And that may mean attacking Russian military installations within Russia, at least those close to the border and those that are supporting the war.

And I don’t like the fact that we have tied the hands of the Ukrainians on this. And I assume that probably Damon will disagree with me here on this matter,

but I

I

think we have to win this. And when I say we, I mean, not just Ukraine, but the United States that we have to allow Ukraine to do what it has to do to win this war.

Bill

Galston, do you agree with General Chavez’s

strategy here?

Well, there’s been a lot of good sense spoken all around in this segment despite the disagreements. President Biden’s position, as I understand it, is that we have to do everything we can to help Ukraine win this war short of triggering World War three.

I

think that that’s a

formulation that most Americans would accept. I know I do, and that means that there are some limits. Circumstances will determine the exact meaning and extent of those limits beyond which the administration will not go pursuant to the caveat that we shouldn’t risk starting World War three. And

the White House

as I understand it is

employing

a very careful case by case analytical assessment to determine which weapon should go to Ukraine and when. And one of the red lines

has been

the potential use of any particular weapon system to attack Russia. Itself. And that’s been one of the hang ups blocking the transfer of much longer range tactical missiles and weapon systems to Ukraine than even the Haimars systems, which have proven to be so remarkably effective on the battlefield. They’re the closest thing to silver bullet game changers that we’ve seen. In the technology of this war, although the drones may be a close second.

So I’m with Biden, and I should add

that

there were solid reports out of the NSC that a message was conveyed to the rush leadership in unmistakable terms about what our red lines would be involving the use of nuclear weapons and the assured response of the United States and NATO. My understanding is that that message has already

been delivered,

whether president Biden’s mongering’s at fundraisers model that situation at all? I very much doubt.

There’s every

reason to believe that the Russians know exactly

what the

Biden administration is thinking and exactly what will happen.

If they

cross one of the lines that we’ve drawn. So I’m not so worried about that. And as I said, I do have confidence that this White House is employing a very sensible set of guidelines and a scrupulous process for determining whether or not those guidelines would be crossed in any particular case. But I have to say, I’d be really interested in how former CIA officers. We just happen to

have one, so that’s probation. So, Evan, what what do you make of all of this. And particularly, I’d be curious to hear whether you think this distinction between defensive and offensive weapons breaks down at any point. I mean, there isn’t any sense. It’s there that the Ukrainians plan to march on Moscow or Saint Petersburg.

I mean, they all of their weapons in that sense are defensive. They’re just trying to protect themselves from an invasion. So should we be that scrupulous about the nature of these weapons? Do you think Biden’s doing the right thing? Well, I think we should

be very cautious. And

I’ve I’ve been very cautious throughout this episode. For example, not wanting the United States or NATO allies to directly enforce a no fly zone for example over Ukraine.

Because I

think we have to be very careful not to find ourselves in an escalatory cycle that we can’t control. And most of the time, it’s very difficult to control that. And so I think we do need to be cautious, but I think your distinction is right. After all, Putin has invaded Ukraine. And I think we’re being perhaps overly cautious if we equate somehow a response from Ukraine that includes attacking Russian facilities just on the other side of the border, for example, not marching to Moscow, etcetera.

But just on the other side of the border, if we equate that to some broader counter invasion of Russia, which just clearly isn’t the case. I don’t think I importantly, I don’t think Putin would consider it the same, though I I do think there would be a risk of further affiliation at that point, but there’s also the opportunity of forcing Putin to decide that continued aggressive pursuit of this adventure is no longer in his interest. And I tend to agree with Linda that we we have to pursue defeat and what defeat means is a big question, but it certainly means Russia, specifically Putin, deciding that he doesn’t want to go on with this And I think we have to remain committed as a broader fighting force Ukrainians and its allies to victory because if we don’t, then that creates an opportunity for Putin to change his reality in Ukraine. So I do favor providing longer range missiles. I do favor providing more advanced air defense technologies.

I’m glad Ukraine continues to push for those. I think they’re important for the Ukrainian effort especially in terms of maintaining Ukrainian will to fight, which is important. And in order to do that, you’re going to have to I think provide more sophisticated air defense weaponry. Again, this is defensive weaponry. But beyond that, I do agree that we’re going to have to also provide the ability for Ukraine to push the Russians further back until they are no longer in country.

Thank

you. I don’t want to be seen as cavalier about the risks here. Obviously, it is a dangerous situation, but I would just quote, my bulwark colleague who also happens to be my son, Benjamin Parker, who notes that the Ukrainians have already attacked territory that Putin calls Russia. They have attacked Crimea. They have

attacked these

eastern provinces and Russia has not responded with the feared nuclear or extreme response. Now, that maybe that means he’s bluffing. Maybe it doesn’t. I’m just I just raise it as another point of information for us to consider. Alright.

Thank you for that. We will now turn to our highlight and the highlight of the week, and I will start with Linda Chavez? Well, it’s a pretty

easy one for me

to pick a low light plus the week, and that is what has happened out in Los Angeles with the city council where we have had a scandal emerging

involving

us several Democratic elected officials and one top union official in the city who were caught on tape making very disparaging remarks about other minority groups and even making intra Hispanic derogatory remarks referring to Wahaans who are more indigenous than they are Spanish and there are apparently, a number of Wahaians who live in the Los Angeles area. So to me, this is an example of why racism, it exists across the political spectrum. You know, we spend a whole lot of time talking about racism among Republicans and we had some disgusting examples this week of Tommy Tuberville making racist remarks about blacks and crimes. Uh-huh. And I think it’s probably fair to say that at least in recent memory, we probably heard more examples of racism coming out of the mouths of people on the right, but it exists on the left as well.

And one of the things that drives what is going on in Los Angeles where Nury Martinez, who was the president of the LA City Council, was taped again, making these disparaging remarks about blacks, about indigenous people from Mexico and others, is that racial politics and the kind of identity politics that occur on the left also is a breeding ground. For these kinds of in group fighting. And when, you know, when you have incentives in place, to create districts with a superabundance of one or another ethnic or racial group as we have. And the Voting Rights Act actually gave its Im Promoter to that. It can set up rivalries and this kind of fighting.

So I think it’s a disgrace. Miss Martinez is resigning. There are others ahead of the Los Angeles. Labor council, his step down is a result of this. But it just does show that when you layer race onto politics and you try to mix the two, it’s a very very dangerous combination.

Okay.

Thank you. Evan McMullen. Yeah,

you know, I I would

say that that that mine is a combination of a highlight and a low light. I I I have to say that what so many women in Iran are doing and standing up to their theocracy and to the brutal limitations on their freedom. The absence of their freedom, I I think is is very inspiring. And I think that’s the highlight. Of course, we’ve seen such courage among Iranian’s before.

The low light is the unlimited willingness of the Iranian regime to use the force of violence to put down

these protests.

And I I fear that they may very well doom sort of the prospects for change in Iran as they have in the past. Ultimately, for these efforts to succeed for broad mass protests to succeed the security forces have to join with the people. And I sadly don’t see evidence of that happening this time either in Iran. But once again, I I’ve been very encouraged or inspired, I think, is probably a better word by the courage of Iranian women to stand up for a future for themselves. And they currently don’t see one under the Iranian bureaucracy and they’re fighting for their freedom and I I greatly admire

them. Thank you for mentioning that, yep, a hundred percent agree. Okay. Damon Linker.

Yeah. You know, I

almost feel silly even mentioning this, but I just can’t resist and it probably doesn’t well of me that that is the case. But here I go, I think I’ve probably had a low light in the past on here about Michael Anton. I think, I believe, if not me, I know others here on the podcast have. He’s such an easy target for this. But he wrote a piece within the last week for us.

Really, kind of silly, very pro trumpian website called American greatness. And from the headline on down, you get the idea. This is the headline. The dishonest and dishonorable disagreements of former friends. This is someone a little out of control with the alliteration there.

It’s just a screen where he sort of as a friend mentioned, when he sent me the link to this piece. He’s settling the family business if you get the reference to the godfather. He kinda just goes through and and and takes shots at a series of writers who

he is

offended that they have dared to be critical of his writing. Michael Anton, of course, is the guy who wrote Flight ninety three essay, which gave a kind of permission structure for conservative intellectuals to jump on the Trump train. And so September of twenty sixteen, really

an

appalling

essay, kind of rhetorical travesty, in my opinion. So he attacks Gabe Schoenfeld, Bill Crystal, at quite some length, Christian Vanderbrook, Jonathan Last, all of those people have ties to, very close ties. To the bulwark. And then yours truly Damon Linker rounds out the list. I will do a post on my sub stack next week in which I respond to some of this partly because he’s either lying or misremembering things about my relationship with him.

Those who don’t know this, I actually was a speech writer for Rudy Giuliani before he went insane when he was mayor of New York. About twenty two years ago, and Michael Anton hired me and was my boss in this brief episode. And he’s misremembering or lying about certain things from that period. But then in general, his just his attitude is of a guy who, like, main lines his own anger. He, like, he extracts it from his own veins, refines it, and then injects it into himself for the sheer thrill of indignation.

It’s really quite appalling. But, you know, if our listeners want to get a a good sense of the continuing degradation of the conservative mind, I recommend this essay for that purpose

alone? Damon, I

happen to have read that because it mentioned so many of my pals. And and my reaction was that everything you say is true, but also it just struck me as so juvenile and childish. And it reminded me of something that when I had young kids and I was friendly with another mom who had young kids and cheese to say to one of them, put that wine in a bottle. Yeah.

I mean, if he didn’t mention me personally, I would never have thought to write a response because it’s just incredibly petty and juvenile, as you

say.

But alas, I’m in the mix No.

No.

You And I am I am a platform and what else am I gonna write

about next question?

I’ll do that. I look forward to

reading it in our thanks. Bill Galston,

Well, first, I want to note for

the records that I’ve worked for half a dozen presidential candidates and not one has subsequently gone crazy. So you ought to be working

our fault again with me.

Okay. You win, Bill. Yeah. See, I think he’s still crazy after all these years, and we just didn’t notice it before. But I have

no

highlight this week, but I do have

a low light.

This is the week when the voters of Maryland have become acquainted with the entire slate of Republican candidates for statewide office in Maryland And the Republican slate is really quite remarkable. We’ve learned something about Dan Cox. But the Republican candidate for attorney general. One, Michael Anthony Peruca, makes Cox look like a moderate. There’s a long bill of particulars but at a political meeting in twenty twelve just to give you a flavor of the man, he asked everybody at the end of the meeting to rise for the National Anthem, and then he led a rousing chorus of Dixie.

It has been reliably reported that he is still angry that the state of Maryland did not join the confederacy. Yep. He was being killed. Right? No.

And he was a longtime member of the southern league. There’s a dispute as to whether we have to left it, but the southern league is an unabashed pro confederacy organization that continues to deploy. The tactics that the union employed to repress this entirely honorable cause fighting for limited government I could go on, indeed, I’m tempted to go on at hour long lengths, but the more you read about Michael Anthony, Perucca, the more you will be amazed at the degeneration of an honorable Republican party that could possibly turn its back on a slate backed by Larry Hogan and instead vote for a a slate of crazy people. Thank

you for that, Bill. Can I just mention for the all of those people who are constantly saying that Republican Party has not changed. That has always been like this, that they just consider the transition from Larry Hogan to Dan Cox. For example of how the party has become led by lunatics. Okay.

I have two highlights this week. One is that the Economist magazine has put out a podcast series which is free, that you don’t have to be a subscriber to The Economist It’s called The Prince. Eight part series about Xi Jinping. Beginning with his early life, and the title is a double entandra because he was a princeling of the Communist Party. His father was a high ranking official.

But

it’s also an illusion to Machiavelli. But anyway, it’s very beautifully done and interesting So he was this princeling of the Communist Party, but of course his father fell out with now, which meant that the entire family was plunged into Pannuery for a while and he had to, you know, he was hungry and his sister, I believe, either attempted suicide or committed suicide under the pressure. Really horrible story, not an uncommon story, of course, in China. But what does Xi take from that experience? That he had to be redder than red in order to succeed in that system, that the Communist Party was the only game in town.

Which is very interesting. Anyway, I highly recommend the series. Again, it’s called the Prince. And of course, he is about to embark upon his third term and he wants to be the next Mauser Tom. So that’s one highlight, though it’s not about a good topic.

And the other is something like can’t quite explain why this cheered me up so much, but I was on an airplane this weekend coming back from California. And as people were boarding, I saw father and his six ish little daughter getting on the plane and they’re making their way down the aisle and the dad says to the daughter Oh, look what the flight attendant gave me for you. And he hands her a little bag that I guess it was full of toys and games and things that they give out to children on planes. And the little girl said, oh, did you say thank you? And I thought, this is great.

You know, some people are raising their kids with nice manners and not to be entitled and, you know, there’s hope for us after all. So on that, I want to thank Evan McMullen and Godspeed. Let’s keep our fingers crossed. Thank you, Mona. And I want to thank our producer, Katie, Cooper and our sound engineer today was Joe Armstrong.

Thank you to all of our listeners, and we will return next week as every week.

You’re worried about the economy. Inflation is high. Your paycheck doesn’t cover as much as it used to, and we live under the threat of a looming recession. And sure you’re doing okay, but you could be doing better. The afford anything podcast

explains the economy and the market detailing how to make wise choices on the way you spend and invest. Avoid

anything talks about how to avoid common pitfalls, how to refine your mental models, and how to think about how to think. Make smarter choices and build a better life.

Afford anything wherever

you listen.