\n<\/p>\n
All right, Jamelle, I need to ask about the hat. So it says \u201cLeguminati\u201d and it\u2019s from the company Rancho Gordo. And it\u2019s sortof like you\u2019re part of the bean Illuminati. Wait, you\u2019re part of the secret bean power structure. Yeah yeah. OK, well, the White House wrecking ball just keeps on swinging this summer as President Trump pursues his passion for undermining key American institutions. Just the past couple of weeks, we\u2019ve seen the White House Fire the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the agency responsible for providing unbiased info on the labor market, because the president was displeased with the jobs report. Meanwhile \u2014 and this is my personal obsession \u2014 Republican State lawmakers in Texas at Trump\u2019s command redrew the state\u2019s congressional map to give the G.O.P. five more house seats. Now, practically speaking, these moves don\u2019t seem to have much to do with each other, but they both spotlight just how far this president will go to destroy public trust in vital institutions. And that is what I want to talk about today. So once again, I feel the need to say that we are recording this on Thursday morning. So by the time you hear us God knows where the chaos will have taken us. So let\u2019s go ahead and get into it. Guys, are these episodes part of a larger strategy to challenge the norms of power and political dynamics in the U.S.? Jamelle, why don\u2019t you just kick us off with this. Sure I think it\u2019s always important not to attribute too much intentionality to the specific person of Donald Trump. Do I think Donald Trump is most interested in maintaining maximum autonomy? He wants to be able to do whatever he wants whenever he feels the need to do it. Yes. A byproduct of that is this assault on institutions. But I think it\u2019s worth remembering \u2014 or this is, I guess, my view \u2014 that him going after district redistricting in the country, him being obsessed with tariffs, those I think in his mind, aren\u2019t related to each other. There\u2019s no logical connection between them. He\u2019s obsessed with tariffs as he\u2019s been basically for 40 years. And he doesn\u2019t want to lose control of the House next year, knowing that losing control of the House not only puts an end to his legislative agenda such that it exists, but exposes him to political vulnerability. So he wants to do both of these things. And in the process of doing both of these things, he has no real interest in regular procedures or Democratic give and take or anything. So he\u2019s demolishing institutions. And so they\u2019re related in that way. But that relation is like our interpretation. I don\u2019t think it\u2019s something that he himself, envisions. Steve, do you think it\u2019s all just capriciousness? Well, I think there\u2019s an element of capriciousness, but I think there\u2019s also an element of intentionality. And I think I\u2019d I certainly agree with everything Jamelle said. But I\u2019d put it also in this context, which is the difference between Trump 1.0 and Trump 2.0. Trump 1.0 operated vaguely within some set of norms that we\u2019re used to. He didn\u2019t try to fire the head of the BLS or this or that. And Trump 2.0. He has this idea that he was elected with this extraordinary mandate, and he thinks it\u2019s empowered him to put anybody he wants in any job that he wants. And so far, of course, the Senate has gone along with him in virtually every respect, and he feels there are no guardrails and he can just do what he wants. And that\u2019s the way he\u2019s been operating. So the way I look at it is obviously this is all about him getting to do whatever he wants without anybody saying no. But I also think that one of the things that he\u2019s worked on since he got into office, even before, is undermining all other sources of authority, not just in terms of what kind of power they have, but also how people view them. He wants everybody to distrust the Department of Justice or the courts or certainly the media, because he wants them to be viewed as illegitimate, which just makes him the only source that his people look to. And I do think that this kind of falls into the category of if you can make everything look super partisan and super sketchy, that\u2019s just in service of his greater power grab. So that\u2019s how I think of in terms more of a broad picture on this. But getting back to the economic, you know, the Bureau of Labor statistics stuff, Steve, you\u2019re an economics guru here. What is your view on him booting the head of that agency in. What\u2019s sure smells like the politicization of a department that\u2019s previously operated above the partisan fray. I mean, our colleague Tom Friedman wrote that of all the terrible things Trump has said and done as president, the most dangerous one just happened on Friday. So what say you to what\u2019s going on here. We can debate whether it\u2019s the most dangerous thing that happened. It may well be. But it\u2019s certainly right up there. It\u2019s quite extraordinary that the Labor Department comes out with a set of statistics, that it compiles the same way it compiles them every month. It\u2019s important without getting into too far into the weeds on this, to explain to your viewers and listeners how this works. It is not the head of the BLS waking up in the morning and deciding, well, this is how many jobs we created last month. This is a process that has gone on this for 100 years, in which two different sets of surveys are done, compiled by career members of the BLS and then released to the public. The same process every month, forever and ever. And so it is. It is beyond. It is beyond imagination that these statistics could have possibly been manipulated. There have been attacks on the BLS before. In 2012, Jack Welch, well lauded CEO of General Electric, claimed that in the run up to Obama\u2019s re-election, the BLS had manipulated the unemployment number to show it going below 8 percent and he didn\u2019t believe it had gone below 8 percent So the BLS has had these kinds of attacks before, but this is certainly one of the most remarkable things I\u2019ve ever seen, where the president literally just woke up and fired the head of the BLS and claimed all the numbers were made up, which, as I just said, not a single economist. Not a single expert. Not anybody who\u2019s ever known anything about the BLS would have ever suggested that was possible. Can I just real quick jump on one of my hobby horses here. Oh please do. Please O.K. Steve mentioned earlier that the president seems to have this belief that he can of fire anyone in the executive branch and the entire federal bureaucracy and replace him with whomever he deems appropriate, kind of irrespective of what Congress has said. And this is like a view that, very conservative legal scholars have. It\u2019s part of the Unitary Executive argument that the executive branch basically is contained within the person of the president. The president exercises the whole of the executive power, and that this gives the president broad powers of removal. And Trump is claiming basically unlimited powers of removal. And part of the argument for this is that it enhances political accountability, the president being democratically accountable to the American people, giving him this kind of broader, almost unlimited removal power, and thus enhances the accountability of executive branch officials for the American people. But you\u2019ll note, with the removal of the head of the BLS, that the issue here isn\u2019t that person\u2019s performance as it relates to the American public. That person is doing their job as spelled out in the legislative directions given to the BLS, as spelled out in the accumulated tradition of how one does things at the BLS. The issue for the former head of the agency is that they were not doing what Trump wanted them to do. So she is removed because a lack of accountability. You could say to Trump in Trump\u2019s personal political interests, not those of the American people. And I think that\u2019s an important nuance to capture that this removal power is not being used to enhance accountability to the American public. This removal power is being used to discipline officials who are not obeying or following or enhancing Trump\u2019s personal political standing. And that is my hobby horse. Well, I love that hobby horse. Steve, you\u2019re in touch with CEOs and business leaders. What are you hearing from them. What has them worried about all this. Well, with respect to the BLS specifically, they are appalled, taken aback, shocked as everyone is. I was just at a conference with a lot of CEOs, economists, journalists, people like that, and everybody is scratching their head in amazement that this could go on, but it\u2019s part of a broader picture that is worrying CEOs, which is simply the unpredictability, the lack of guardrails. The government by tweet, the tariffs are on. The tariffs are off. We\u2019re going to put a percent tariff on Brazil because we don\u2019t like the way the former president\u2019s been treated. And it is really it is really created a climate of uncertainty and unhappiness in the business community. That\u2019s quite substantial. So you mentioned tariffs to what are the potential long term or at least longer term effects because we\u2019re talking broadly about power. But you also have very specific, very concrete repercussions when it comes to the economy. What is the damage that\u2019s being done that will outlast this moment. You think, well, let\u2019s talk about the numbers that were actually released before the head of the BLS got fired. They showed a substantial deceleration in job growth, not just for last month, but then they revised down the two prior months to show a very small amount of job growth over the last three months. And that is worrisome that suggests that the labor market is weakening significantly. And if you talk anecdotally to CEOs, they will tell you that their hiring plans have come down substantially. If you talk to any young person who\u2019s out in the job market right now, they will probably tell you that the job market has gotten a lot tougher. But I think clearly from as I talk to CEOs, they have all cut back their hiring plans, in part because of the uncertainty around the tariffs. And the damage that they believe the tariffs will ultimately do to the economy. And I\u2019ll make one last point about this, which is historically, and I\u2019m not here to tell you, I know for sure that this time will be the same or different. Historically, when unemployment numbers have gotten revised one way or the other, up or down by a significant amount, it can often portend a trend. It can often be an early indicator of a trend. And so the fact that you\u2019ve had such significant downward revisions for two prior months, as well as a poor number for the most recent month has got a lot of people very, very nervous about the state of this economy. It\u2019s also I mean, the president doesn\u2019t understand this. His advisors are too sycophantic to really, I think, make the argument to him. But this is also detrimental to his own political interests. There\u2019s the phrase, the aphorism, the map is not the territory. You can change the numbers they report to make you look better. But that doesn\u2019t change the underlying reality of what\u2019s happening in the economy or the underlying reality of what\u2019s happening in anything. If you\u2019re going to change the number to juke the Stax stats, if you will. And so the president can put pressure on the nation\u2019s statisticians to make him look good. But if the underlying conditions are actually on the downturn, if things are actually getting worse for people, then the only thing he\u2019s done has made it more difficult for his government to respond to whatever is bubbling up from the surface. Well, that\u2019s what I was going to ask you both, is that this move by Trump spotlights his panic about what\u2019s happening, certainly how it will impact his party\u2019s fortunes and whether he keeps a death grip on the government going forward. I think our assumption has always been that no matter what the numbers say, if people start to feel some pain, it\u2019s going to come back and then you will start to see some pushback. I mean, do you think that the tariffs and what we\u2019ve got coming and the softening job numbers are the beginning of what Trump has been worried about or at least what his party has been worried about in terms of people actually being able to see what\u2019s going on. I think that the perception of economic growth and prosperity is basically the thing that holds up Trump\u2019s public standing right. People don\u2019t actually like Trump that much. And you see this in the polling whenever he gets back into power. People really do not like his general thing. But what they accept in this trade off is that, O.K, Trump may be terrible in x, or z way, but he brings prosperity. He\u2019s like this totem for wealth. If it turns out that under Trump there is a significant economic slowdown, if there is a recession, even I think that is a moment where the bottom can really fall out from under his administration and his political standing. Now, what this means in practice, you just have to see what happens. But I do think that that\u2019s a real danger for him, that in the absence of any other compelling thing outside of his particular cult of personality, to keep him buoyed up with the rest of the public, he just doesn\u2019t have that much. Well, I\u2019d suggest that\u2019s actually already happening. In other words, if you look at the polling data, as you said, Jamelle, he is unpopular himself. His job approval ratings are terrible, plus or – 40 percent depending upon which poll you look at. But people\u2019s perception of the state of the economy has not improved at all since Trump came back. His big beautiful bill act, whatever you want to call it, polls. Well, that is not what I want to call it. Yeah, I have many more names for it than that. The big ugly bill. There you go. Polls? quite negative, I think honestly, I would say on behalf of all of us who are journalists or opinion people or commentators on the situation, I think we\u2019ve actually done a pretty good job of explaining to the American people what\u2019s really going on in the Trump administration and what\u2019s not going on, and I think that\u2019s part of why he panics and does something like the BLS, but when you see polling data on that, I think you\u2019re going to find that even that has backfired on him, and people are simply not going to believe that the data is manipulated or that he did the right thing in firing the head of the BLS. O.K, so the topic of political danger is a perfect segue into the second part of this, which is I have been following the Texas redistricting drama for weeks, since well before the new congressional maps were posted. And this is all about Trump panicking about what\u2019s going to happen in the midterms. So asking state lawmakers in Texas, which is led by Republicans, to redraw them a congressional map that finds the party five more seats before the midterms next year, which they\u2019ve done, and they have put them out there and it has exploded. So this week\u2019s Hot new development is that Republicans have drafted the FBI to help them track down and arrest Texas Democratic lawmakers who fled the state in an effort to bog down this power grab. Democrats at the National level are spoiling for a fight. They\u2019re looking to push back. Blue states like California are threatening to redistrict. In response, Democrats I\u2019ve been talking to including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, understand that they cannot take the so-called high road any longer, but are going to need to dig in and punch back hard. So I am I am very interested in where all this is going. Jamelle, I want you to look at this because this is obviously this is far from the first time Republicans have done this. This is ain\u2019t their first rodeo, as they say. But this has happened in your backyard in North Carolina. They went through it in 2021 when that legislature redrew the maps. And at the time you had suggestions for how Congress could address this issue. Do those still apply. Kind of. What have you been thinking watching all this. So my thought watching all of this, and I believe my suggestions way back when, was just that Congress should pass a bill ending partisan gerrymandering, which is well within Congress\u2019s power to do. And I still think that I still think that there should be a national ban on partisan gerrymandering. I think that the country should move away from single member districts, which necessitate gerrymandering, and move towards multi-member districts, which could open the door to more viable third parties in the American system. Having said that, I do think that one cannot bring a knife to a gunfight. One of the things that\u2019s worth saying is that gerrymandering is something of a gamble. So in Texas, if they\u2019re going to squeeze out five more Republican leaning congressional districts, this necessarily means spreading Democratic voters across other already Republican leaning districts, and these new districts may be only modestly or slightly Republican leaning, and prior districts from which you\u2019re moving. Populations may become a little less Republican leaning as well. And what you\u2019re counting on is a certain baseline level of partisan swing if you get above that. What can actually happen is that you lose all of those seats. A wave can wipe out a map in that way because you\u2019ve lowered the barrier. And so part of what\u2019s funny to me about all of this is that it\u2019s clear that Donald Trump has a vision of what gerrymandering is, which is just that it\u2019s a generic way to get more seats and there\u2019s no cost to it. So of course, why wouldn\u2019t you do it. But the reality is that there is a cost to it. And the cost is that if you find yourself in a situation where there\u2019s a broad public swing against your party, you can lose all the seats that you may have gained with gerrymandering. The other thing I\u2019ll say here, just in terms of fighting fire with fire, whatever cliche you want to use is that there aren\u2019t that many high population Republican states. Like the typical Republican State is, population wise, a little smaller, a little more sparsely populated. And so, Yes, in Texas, you can maybe net a few more seats. In Ohio, you might be able to net a seat or two. California, Illinois, New York have actually a lot of room to really severely gerrymander their maps. And so if you do get into this game of tit for tat, you might end up in a situation where in fact, what you\u2019ve done is made the map lean a little more Democratic than it otherwise would have been. And I would say that this is a response Democrats should have and they should say openly as well, that we will stand down. If you stand down, if you elect us into a majority, we will pass a bill outlawing partisan gerrymandering, which in addition to I think being smart politics is just the right thing to do. Well, that is one thing that has popped up. I mean, Jamelle\u2019s to Jamelle\u2019s point. Blue states have a lot of voters that could be redistricted in ways that disadvantage Republicans, but so many of these blue states have what now looks like unilaterally disarmed by having the redistricting process turned over to independent commissions. And what they\u2019re having to look at now is clawing back a process that was supposed to be going, pushing the country in a less partisan, less polarizing, more good government direction. And in some places, there\u2019s a little bit of hesitation about this. But, I mean, the people in Texas, if you talk to them, are like, we can\u2019t afford to just stand down at this point because they have taken this fight national and Republicans have no concerns about blowing through good government guardrails or anything like this. So, Jamelle, it sounds like you think this is the right response from the Democrats, even if it\u2019s potentially leading to a kind of slippery slope acceleration problem with it. That\u2019s right. I mean, I think one thing you have to ask yourself is like, how do you actually conceptualize the United States. Is it like, is it one country where all of our fates are linked, or can we all just silo ourselves in our individual States. If you believe the latter, then I can understand the hesitation about wanting to abandon nonpartisan redistricting commissions and that kind of thing, because it feels like a retreat from ideals of fairness and good government. But if you recognize that yeah, what happens in Texas has relevance to my life in Virginia. What happens in North Carolina has relevance to someone in Wisconsin. This has national implications, and the only way to deal with this is in a national manner. And if you recognize that fact. Then I think it leads you, inevitably to the conclusion that those people who are interested in actually fair elections have to do what it takes now to win the power to pass laws to ensure fair elections. But maintaining a position of we\u2019re going to fight for fairness in our state and we\u2019re not going to worry about what\u2019s happening elsewhere is ultimately a recipe for losing the war. You win a battle and you can lose the war. So what do you guys see as the best case scenario for this. First of all, I agree completely that Texas started this fight and New York and California and Illinois need to fight back. And the Democrats need to fight back. It would seem to me that on present course and speed, those legislatures legislators are eventually going to have to go back to Texas. They\u2019ll probably go ahead and get this done. And then I hope the big blue states will go ahead and do what they have to do. And then hopefully, as Jamelle said, if we Democrats and I\u2019m a Democrat can get back in power and can pass some laws to bring this to a better place, then that is the most optimistic scenario I can see. To build on that, I think that the best case scenario does involve Democrats nationally recognizing that the only way past this moment in our politics, past Trumpism, you might say, is through serious political reform. And that\u2019s going to include, I think, some kind of restriction on partisan gerrymandering. So the best case scenario is that Democrats nationwide recognize the fight that they\u2019re actually in and build a consensus around the next time they hold power. We\u2019re going to begin this project of political reform. And again, I\u2019ll say this is something that\u2019s popular with voters. Voters voters don\u2019t like gerrymandering. They really do not like it. And so this is an opportunity to make a promise that you can deliver on, and also a promise that you can deliver on that will, in the long run, make our politics better. So I want to jump on that because I actually spent some time down in Austin, and I\u2019ve talked to a lot of the Democrats who\u2019ve been watching this thing down there for a long time. And they do have this situation where you need public pressure, you need public attention. It\u2019s not going to be the lawmakers alone that save you or some redistricting commission. This is one of those things that the Republicans are counting on people caring about. And let\u2019s be clear for the hearings that they were holding on this. The people were lining up and in the Capitol to testify and the other arenas where they were having these things, people were lining up online to testify they had overflow rooms. There was a lot of local pressure. But what Republicans count on in these situations is that people get really fired up, but then they don\u2019t really follow through, or they don\u2019t press hard enough. For Democratic lawmakers like Gavin Newsom or Kathy Hochul in New York to feel like it\u2019s a must do. So I just want to throw that out there because it does come down to voter priorities. And even if people don\u2019t like gerrymandering, unless they make that really clear and come up at these moments, nothing\u2019s going to get done about it. Well, I mean, you got to I think it\u2019s worth saying that public opinion is in a kind of dialectical relationship with actual politicians and that the baseline state of public opinion is they don\u2019t like gerrymandering, but it may not be the most salient thing. And so the important thing for politicians to do is to make it salient, to enhance its salience and to connect it to other kinds of issues that voters care about and to use that to create a cycle in which voters understand gerrymandering to be just one example of a kind of manipulation of the rules of unfairness that affects other parts of their lives. Like, that\u2019s the job of politics. And I think that if Democrats say to themselves, Oh, well, I don\u2019t know if we can mobilize voters to care about this, I think they\u2019re just not they\u2019re not trying hard enough. I think it\u2019s a tough issue for the American people to understand and grasp, I think. Sure there\u2019s a headline, Jerry, partisan gerrymandering. I suspect if you ask the average American, they probably think both parties do it. It\u2019s just part of the seamy side of politics. Eric Holder\u2019s been working on this issue since the end of the Obama administration, and obviously hasn\u2019t made a huge amount of progress. And I would have to say the Democrats don\u2019t come to this with absolutely clean hands, because back in 2022, they redistricted in the state of New York and the courts threw it out, claimed it was too partisan, and the court drew the boundaries for that election. And the Democrats ended up losing four seats as a result of it. So then they went back in and redistricted again in a way that was less overtly partisan, and it got past the courts and got some of those seats back. So I think the American public finds all of this really complicated, confusing, and has a hard time figuring out who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. And so I certainly agree with both of you as to what we need to do, but I don\u2019t want to underestimate how tough a Hill. This is to climb. No, I think you\u2019re absolutely right. And I think the difference this time is that Trump has been so naked about it, and that\u2019s what\u2019s gotten a lot of attention. So like Jamelle, I think this could be, once they get through this immediate response and how to deal with Texas specifically, it would be nice if this could go back on the table as a nationwide issue of reform. But I am not super optimistic about it. So not to be the skunk at the Garden party as well. So we have an attack on the integrity of economic data and an attack on the integrity of the nation\u2019s electoral map. So the common thread here seems to be about who gets to define reality. Whether it\u2019s the healthy economy or the will of the voters. Trump obviously thinks it should be him, and only him and many other Republicans seem content at this point to play along. But at what point do you guys expect to see any pushback or at least any serious pushback. And what do you think it will look like from within his own party. I have to say, I\u2019ve been around this stuff for a pretty long time. I started my career at the times in the Washington Bureau, and I have never seen a president have this kind of a hold on his party. I would have never predicted, based on what congressmen and senators said about the big ugly bill before it was passed, that he would get that through Congress. It was just I couldn\u2019t imagine it. You had people like Josh Hawley saying, I\u2019m never going to vote for these Medicaid cuts right before he voted for the Medicaid cuts. And he has this incredible control. This conference I mentioned, which was under Chatham House rule. So I can\u2019t identify the people. It was bipartisan. There were a number of very senior former Republican legislators there, and they basically think Trump owns this party and will own it for the foreseeable future. And remember, he\u2019s raised money that he will never need because he\u2019s not going to I don\u2019t believe he\u2019s going to run, try to run for a third term. And we can debate that if you want. But he\u2019s holding he can hold this over the heads of all of these legislators and essentially tell them he\u2019s going to primary them. I would have never predicted that some of the nominees, some of the manifestly unqualified nominees that he put forward, Pete Hegseth, just to pick a name, would have gotten confirmed by the Senate. But they did. And so I think it\u2019s going to take I think it\u2019s going to take an awful lot before this breaks, in my opinion. I think it would take probably a disastrous midterm election, and I\u2019m not sure I see that as likely. I think probably the Democrats will get the House back. But the Senate map is pretty tough for the Democrats, so I\u2019m not sure that will flip. And so I think it would take a lot a really major downturn in the economy, a disastrous midterm election, something like that. If the Republicans are willing to sit back and allow him to fire the head of the BLS, allow him, ironically, to weaponize the Justice Department after attacking Biden for so-called weaponizing the Justice Department, then I\u2019m not sure what short of one of those two things I mentioned, is going to cause the Republicans to push back in any kind of major way. Yeah, we are in an interesting moment. Usually what you look for is a bad midterm or some electoral punishment. I do think the Democrats have such a brand problem that you\u2019re right. It would be surprising if it was a midterm Wipeout, but even if it were a midterm Wipeout, I think we\u2019re in this weird zone where Republican lawmakers are not just politically afraid of upsetting Trump, but they are physically afraid for their safety. I have talked to plenty of congressional members during the Trump years who are afraid for their families. It has reached a very dark place, and I don\u2019t know how that plays out until he is an unfortunate memory in this office. Which kind of brings me to where I want to wrap this up, which is that he is a lame duck president, as you point out, unless he totally blows up the Constitution, he\u2019ll be gone in another few years. Will that be enough to halt this bad trajectory, the erosion of trust. Like, I guess, what happens that outlasts Trump. That\u2019s a really interesting question because part of me thinks that Trump\u2019s own personality, his own particular force as an individual, has such an important role to play in all of this that if and when he goes. If he just leaves office or whatever happens to him. I think his absence from the scene will. Will it won\u2019t make. It won\u2019t fix anything, but it will transform. It will change things, I think, in a measurable way. But then he\u2019s been on even when this happens, he will have been on the scene for well over a decade. And that does shape and change American politics. There will be basically a generation of Republican politicians politician from Trump is like is their lodestar. Republican voters certainly for Trump is their lodestar. And if you buy that there\u2019s such a thing as a moral ecology to a society, then Trump has influenced the moral ecology of American politics in such a way as to make the kind of open and explicit corruption and casual and open bigotry, all these things to make them common again in American political life. And so I love this view that there will be tangible policy things from the Trump era that may not last beyond Trump, that may not last beyond the personnel associated with them. But there\u2019ll be maybe like an ethos that cultural changes, cultural changes, that does survive beyond him. To sound a little like the conservatives of my youth culture matters and character matters, and these things do shape a society. Oh, that\u2019s so pass\u00e9 now, come on. I know. I mean, I have many thoughts and feelings about the way these things are these days. But I do think that might be the thing that endures out of all of this. But it\u2019s hard to say. It is hard to say, and it\u2019s really going to be interesting. It\u2019d be more interesting if the consequences and the stakes weren\u2019t so great. But I started my career, as I said at the times Washington Bureau in June of 1974, and of course, in August of 1974, Nixon resigned and Gerald Ford got on television and said, we are a nation of laws and not of men. And my point is that the pendulum swung back and we went through a period of what I\u2019ll call good government, where a lot of where norms were reestablished and where we went on for a good while before we got to this place. So I don\u2019t really know what\u2019s going to happen. I like to think I\u2019m an optimist. It\u2019s possible that whatever\u2019s left of the moderate wing of the Republican Party, and I will absolutely grant you that he\u2019s driven most of them out of power and out of office, will reassert itself. And so I think it\u2019s a straw in the wind that could blow either way, depending upon what happens in the next 3 and 1\/2 years. But I I\u2019ve not given up hope. I really do think our country\u2019s been through a lot of bad stuff over the last 250 years. Civil war, certainly, I think we\u2019ve endured. And so I\u2019d like to be optimistic and think we\u2019re going to find our way through this. O.K well if you\u2019re going to be optimistic, I\u2019m going to be optimistic right there with you. We\u2019re going to land this plane. Guys, Thank you so much for coming in to talk through all of this. Hope you come back again very soon. Thank you. Thank you so much.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
All right, Jamelle, I need to ask about the hat. So it says \u201cLeguminati\u201d and it\u2019s from the company Rancho Gordo. And it\u2019s sortof like you\u2019re part of the bean…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":5554,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[7],"tags":[6826,1600,57,6825,30,1539],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"yoast_head":"\n