What's up y'all? I'm Skyler Diggins, 7-time WNBA All-Star, Olympic gold medalist, and mom. And I'm Cassidy Hubbard, host and reporter for nearly 20 years, covering the biggest names and stories in sports and mom. And this is and mom, a community for athletes, game changers, and moms of all kinds. Dropping May 14th. Tap in with us. Do you ever wonder what's in your lotion? If you look at the back of the bottle, it could contain more than a dozen ingredients. And they may not all be regulated. The threshold is so high that only 11 cosmetic ingredients have been restricted by the FDA since 1938. This week on Explain It To Me, the chemicals lurking in your cosmetics. New episodes Sundays wherever you get your podcasts. I know Donald Trump means it as a bluff. He thinks that the Iranians will be scared. But they know as well as everybody else how hazardous it will be to use the ground troops. Once ground troops are deployed, we're into a very protracted war that there's no way to imagine ending. And I don't think there's any appetite to invade and occupy Iran. They will have these limited operations that put the initiative in the Iranian hands. And the United States should not be fighting a total war against Iran in a world where Russia and China are more important problems. I mean, I would like to talk access of evil with you and talk about the lessons that we and you especially having been part of the Bush administration, you know, gleaned from that. Welcome to Raging Moderates. I'm Jessica Tarlev and my guest today is David Fromm from The Atlantic. He's the host of the David Fromm Show podcast as well as are you contributing editor, senior editor? What's the right title for The Atlantic? Staff writer extraordinaire. Thank you for being here. It's great to see you again. Thank you. Lots of news. Everything's moving quickly as usual in Trump 2.0. And I want to start with the latest in Iran. The stock market had its worst day since the start of the war yesterday. President Trump wrote that he was extending the deadline for Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz until April 6th, though we have no reason to believe that they actually care about any of his deadlines. He is threatening to mount new attacks on Iran's energy infrastructure if they do not comply. We had a peace plan exchange. The U.S. sent a 15-point peace plan to the Iranians via Pakistan. Iran rejected, came back with their own requests that were non-starters for us. We have very few allies willing to help fight the Iranian attacks in the Strait with us. So Secretary Rubio is on his way to a G7 meeting in France to try and make Trump's case again. Increasingly though, I feel like the major headline is, it looks like we are headed for a ground war. And that's where I want to begin with you, David. Yeah. Is that your feeling as well? Very much so. Just to help people who don't follow my work, which is most of humanity. No. I'm just going to put some cards on the table so people can consituate me in this discussion. If we were having this discussion six weeks ago, I was opposed to using military action against Iran just generally. I don't think Iran is America's number one strategic problem. Russia and China are both more serious, so I would not have invested the resources to deal with the Iranian problem. That's just as a general matter. As a specific matter, no war is under Donald Trump. He's not a war leader. He's not president of the United States. He has no intention of being president of the United States. He's the best president of 40% of the country. He has no regard for the rest of it. He can't lead the country in war. He doesn't make good decisions. So generally, no. Specifically, under Donald Trump, no. But now that we're unfortunately in this thing, I think it's important to try to make a success of it to achieve the best results possible and avoid the war. So that's just where people know. So I'm against those who say, okay, we have to stop the war immediately because we're in it. We have to get the best result, but I was not in favor of it from the beginning. And that's a complicated point of view. It's my point of view. So where are we now? Whenever people tell you something is not true of Donald Trump, it's true. So when the people around him are insisting Donald Trump never bluffs, it's important to understand Donald Trump always bluffs. He's always trying to buy things without cash. He's always trying to get things done without the votes. He's always trying to do things illegally. And his plan for Iran seemed to be, I get away with everything. Venezuela was cheap and easy. This will be cheap and easy. Whack them from the air, watch them give in, take the victory parade, name something after yourself. In this case, he's dealing with really fanatical people, horrible people, murderous people. From a moral point of view, there are about as, even if they're not strategically the biggest problem in the world, they're morally maybe the worst problem of the world. So they're terrible people and they have no regard for human life, no regard for their own people, no regard for the prosperity of their own society. So they took the blow and they keep fighting. And now he's in a situation where he's trying to bluff them into giving up. And so he keeps escalating the rhetoric. He's brought Marines nearby. He's apparently sending another 10,000 troops. And he's going to trap himself in the bluff that was meant to work on others. He will find himself in a few weeks with the Strait of Hormuz still closed. Oil prices high, the world economy in trouble, his numbers at home even worse than now. And he's going to have a tool at hand that maybe magically will help him resolve his problems. And he's not good at calculating things. As I often say about him, no one who's good at risk management goes bankrupt as often as Donald Trump. Yeah, that's a good point. And one that I have made less articulately multiple times. And then I get told actually how smart it is to go bankrupt and we go off into La La Land about how to manage businesses effectively in Atlantic City. But that is my plight in life, not yours. So I wanted to ask you since you have a position actually that is not too dissimilar from Scott Galloway's, which is we should be looking for opportunities for things to go right at this point because we are here now. How could this war end in a good way? Like what is the best case scenario looking at the facts on the ground right now? The best case scenario, and this is, I'm no kind of expert on this, so I'm not going to pretend I have any special insight here, but this is a wish-casting, not analysis. The best case scenario is the Israeli method of eliminating the most fanatical members of the regime one by one by one. Keeps working until you hit somebody, until you bring forward a level of leadership that is more amenable to working with the rest of the world. Because while we keep reading, we are making the regime more fanatical. My understanding from people who know more about Iran than I do is that most of the regime at this point are crooks. There is a fanaticism, there is a messianism, there is an apocalyptic desire for end of the world at the higher leadership. But by now, most people have lost faith in the system. They're just crooks feathering their nest. And if you can eliminate the fanatics, maybe you'll bring to light a crook. I guess this is Donald Trump's hope too. The problem is it just seems not to keep working. Or at least none of the crooks are brave enough to break ranks with the non-crooks or the fanatics to make some kind of deal. But the one thing not to do is not to send the ground troops. And bringing the ground troops into the region, I think it just creates irresistible pressures. I know Donald Trump means it as a bluff. He thinks that the Iranians will be scared. But they know as well as everybody else how hazardous it will be to use ground troops. And once ground troops are deployed, we're into a very protracted war that there's no way to imagine ending. And I don't think there's any appetite to invade and occupy Iran. So they will have these limited operations that put the initiative in the Iranian hands. So if you seize the shoreline opposite the Strait of Hormuz, okay. Now you've got an American military occupation of how many hundreds of kilometers? You seize Kar-Gailan. You're sort of sitting ducks. Any involvement of ground troops will surely create more and more demand until you've got total war against Iran. And the United States should not be fighting a total war against Iran in a world where Russia and China are more important problems. Wouldn't you say though that Iran is a central cog in Russia and China's strength? I mean, so obviously there's the oil sourcing. So China can't live without them in terms of that and the region generally. And then you have the proxy forces that Iran commands set up all over the Middle East that will do the bidding of the Iranians and certainly of Vladimir Putin who seems to be thrilled with the current situation. I mean, I would like to talk access of evil with you and talk about, you know, the lessons that we and you especially having been part of the Bush administration, you know, gleaned from that. But it does feel like these are interconnected forces. When President Bush delivered the access of evil speech in February of 2002, more than a year before the Iraq war, those of us who worked on the speech did not know which countries he would name. That was not our job. Our job was to create intellectual and rhetorical structures for policy. So at the time that that speech left whatever contact I had with it. Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom. States like these and their terrorist allies constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world by seeking weapons of mass destruction. These regimes pose a grave and growing danger. I didn't know what he was going to say. It was like a fill in the blank, like whoever you really don't like. No, it was like this. Here are things you could do. And one of the things when you're talking to a president, you always say, I am not here to constrain your options. I'm here to present your options. I'm not a policy person. So here's a range of things you could say. So it wasn't that it was a complete, you know, countries to be determined. It was you could do it this way. You could do it that way. You could do this other way. You could do it maximum, medium or minimum. That's not for me to say. That's the job of the president. So it was very unclear to me in February of 2002 whether operationally Axis of Evil would mean Iraq, would mean Iran, or would mean just the immediate financiers and sponsors of terrorist organizations. And the reason that's important is not just an historical note. It's when you describe Iran as a central cog. Yeah, it's a big part of China's supply of energy. And it's a meaningful partner to Russian aggression in Europe and elsewhere. But it's not the center of the action. A war with Iran will not weaken Russia. An American war against Iran will strengthen Russia. Russia is today making a billion more dollars a day out of oil. The main weapon to break Russian power and stop the aggression against Ukraine and make Europe safe is the economic collapse of the Putin regime. Well, this war saves the Putin regime economically. They're still having a bad time militarily, but they've got a billion dollars a day more to spend to pay pensions to soldiers and others. China gets oil from Iran. There are lots of places. China has money. If you have money, you can get oil. There's a planet, a wash in oil. So the reason China likes buying oil from Iran is because of American sanctions, Iranian oil is cheaper to China than other countries' oil. But they could buy it from somebody else. And if there is an American war with Iran, it isn't just China that will be paying more for oil. It's everybody, including Americans. I drove a stake right through the heart of that argument that I was making. I'm curious as to what you think the role of JD Vance's right now. There was some reporting this morning that he had a kind of tough love call with BB Netanyahu talking about the aims of this and what we actually could accomplish and that toppling the regime is essentially off the table. I've found his appearances to be quite haphazard and they're not as frequent as I would expect either. But he's doing everything from continuing to maintain that this is the peace president to saying this time it will be different because Donald Trump is smart and past presidents have been dumb. How do you see the vance of it all? So begin with the assumption that Vance is an entirely political creature, that he is entirely about his own advancement. And while he lacks Trump's charisma, he has much more strategic sense. And of course, he's a totally amoral person. One of the most amoral people ever to reach the high ranks of government. So he's got two goals right now and they are a little bit in tension and everything you're describing fits in one of two goals. So goal number one is not to be so against Donald Trump on Iran that he gets an actual Trump endorsement of Marco Rubio instead of Vance for 2028. Remember, President Obama was succeeded as the nominee of his party, not by his vice president, Joe Biden, but by his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton. It can happen. And Obama in the end decided Biden was not the person he wanted. He wanted Hillary Clinton and Obama maneuvered the party to deter Biden from seeking the nomination and to support Hillary Clinton in getting the nomination. That could happen again. So Vance, goal number one, do not be so anti-Iran that Donald Trump gets mad at him and endorses Rubio instead of Vance as Trump keeps threatening to. Goal number two, Vance believes this war is not going to go well. So, and Vance intends to run against the war sometimes. And Vance is also very aware of the far right that thinks all of American foreign policy is a Jewish plot, but Iran is especially a Jewish plot. And that element of the Republican Party is very important to Vance and he wants to keep on their good side. I don't know why. I don't know how important they are, but he thinks they're important. So his goal is one to be to signal to the conspiratorial anti-Semitic wing of the party, I'm with you. I want your support. I agree with you. I am opposed to the Iran war and I blame Benjamin Natanyahu for the war, but not to do so in such a way that Trump endorses Rubio over Vance. And that's it. He is indifferent to the Middle East. He is indifferent to America's strategic posture in the world. He has no non-political opinions. Those are his opinions. Do you think the story that clearly his camp was putting out there that he's potentially thinking about not running in 2028 because he needs to, he's going to have a fourth baby? And apparently Usha isn't really into the political scene, I guess, in the way that they expected. Do you give that any credence or you think he's just doesn't want to be humiliated if it turns out that Rubio is the favored son? He's trying to take the Biden rule in 2016 and put a little bit more agency in it. Which is first, if I think I'm going to be fired in favor of Rubio, that wasn't Trump's decision. That was my decision because of my beloved fourth job as I'm such a family guy. So I think one is he's trying to take back a little bit of power if he is dumped from the ticket. But the second thing is he may be calculating if the Iran war does go really badly, then the Republican nomination in 2028 may not be worth much. And let's just continue our Biden-Clinton Obama analogy. Biden did not run in 2016. Clinton did. She lost. Biden held off till 2020. Won the nomination and won the presidency. And so that may be part of Vance's calculation. Oh, interestingly, it's going to be such a blue wave couple of years that I'd rather not be in position right now. I think he won't have made any of those decisions. So one of the things to understand about Vance is you're an unusual Republican politician because he's a real book intellectual. He gets his ideas about the world from books, not people. That's why he believes in all these bizarre, ultra-traditionalist, neo-reactionary theories that circulate on the Internet. He's hyper-online. He's hyper-intellectual. If you were to ask a great tennis player, how do you hit the ball? They actually probably couldn't tell you because they just do it. They're in it. They just do it with their whole heart, soul, body, also brain. But if you were to take the people who become tennis instructors, they know exactly what they've done. That's why they're not champions is because they're doing it all with their head. And we have seen politicians, and they can go quite far like Richard Nixon, no natural affinity for people, no natural charisma, but a great ability to analyze the game. And that, I think, is the kind of politician that Vance is. Trump has a kind of instinctual knowledge of human nature at its worst. He is human nature at its worst, and the deep wellsprings of the worst in human beings, recognizing him, permission for themselves, but he doesn't. He's not a cerebral politician, and even someone as smart as Bill Clinton wasn't a cerebral politician only. He was cerebral too. But Vance is like Nixon, cerebral only. So he's thinking these things out, and he's got kind of a leaky shop. So some of the things he's thinking do make their way into the media. It does feel, and I agree with you about Trump, that he has an innate feel for the zeitgeist in a way that you wouldn't expect even with someone with his background and profile. I was saying, I just want to stress, he's got to feel for the worst. And the reason he's in trouble with this war politically at home is what Trump is never able to do, speak to human nature at its best. And you know what? Human beings are complicated. We have bad impulses and good impulses. And sometimes people respond to things that are elevated, patriotic, decent, good, idealistic. Trump can never sound that those notes at all. And he's a terrible person. He appeals to terrible people, and he appeals to, and even non-terrible people, of terrible impulses. He appeals to that. He appeals to everything that is dark and ugly and vicious and predatory and mean and cruel and dismissive. But sometimes you need to sound the higher tones, and that is a whole register. When we're in that mood, and that's the mood you need if you're going to lead a country through sacrifice. And one of the reasons, he's promised Americans a cheap, easy, and not he hasn't promised them anything, but he sort of signaled this war that I'm leading the country to will be cheap and easy and over soon. Just 10 days, I've got all these deals. We're going to negotiate our way. And if three months from now, there are American Marines on Karg Island or on the shore, trying to hold a beachfront in Iran and taking casualties, I don't think Trump has any way to talk about that in any way that would be meaningful to anybody, except the most conspiratorial part of the maga base, who will rapidly turn to, you know, it's Israel's fault, it's Netanyahu's fault, it's the American Jews' fault. You're so right about Trump not being able to appeal to the better angels or deliver kind of like a rah-rah patriotic message. He called into the five yesterday. I wasn't there. But Dana Perino asked him a question about how the Iranian people are, because we don't hear that much about the folks actually on the ground and asking, you know, whether they have food and water and Trump responds by talking about how she's hotter now than she was in 2016 when they had lunch. It is alarming that we have not been able to see or hear from any of the Iranian people. And I imagine that is because their internet is shut down. And I think there is some general worry about them. Do you have any insight as to how they are doing? Do they have drinking water? Do they have food? Right, I do. It's upsetting. I do. But first, do you remember when we had lunch years ago in the base of Trump Tower when it was a brand new building? It was a long time ago, yes. A long time ago. And you haven't changed. Oh, well. You have not changed. Now, I'm not allowed to say this. It's the end of my political career, but you may be even better looking. Okay. So I don't know what you're doing. Yeah. So get your point. Hey, I'm Matt Bichel, comedian, writer and floating head you may or may not have seen on your 4U page. And I'm starting a brand new podcast. Wait, wait, don't swipe away. It's called That Sounds Like a Lot as in that feeling when you check your phone in the morning, you read three headlines and you immediately think, Oh, that sounds like a lot. I can't deal with all this. But guess what? I can deal with it. And I'm going to get into it every Friday. I'll break down whatever chaos is happening in the world. Then I'll sit down with a comedian. You can be progressive and not be like fucking annoying. Maybe an actor. They go, feminism has gone too far. You go, why? Because the Sadie Hawkins dance happened. Maybe a filmmaker. Since leaving that show, I'm challenged to sparing. I just got to hang out and try to do so. You're the one with a charmed life. Could be a politician, basically anyone who responds to my cold DMs. We're recording the whole thing in a beautiful studio, so yes, you can watch it on YouTube or you can listen wherever you get your podcast. This is not the place to get the news, but it is the place to feel a little better about it. That sounds like a lot, part of the Vox Media Podcast Network. Complex and unprecedented, the Spanish authorities are calling it. Before the landing, asymptomatic. Passengers who'd been stuck aboard the Hanta or maybe Hantavirus-stricken Dutch cruise ship disembarked in the Canary Islands this weekend, prompting the highest stakes game of where are they now since maybe COVID? Some of the evacuees, American and French, have since tested positive for the virus, and yet public health officials seem remarkably calm. We do have one individual who was taken to the biocontainment unit early, early this morning, and we assess that individual. They are doing well. Possibly because this is not the one to freak out over. Today Explained drops every weekday afternoon. This week on Net Worth and Chill, we're diving into another edition of Am I the Asshole? Finance Edition. And trust me, these money dilemmas will have you questioning everything. I'm breaking down real stories from real people who are navigating financial situations and are trying to get the best out of it. This week on Net Worth and Chill, we're diving into another edition of Am I the Asshole? Finance Edition. And trust me, these money dilemmas will have you questioning everything. I'm breaking down real stories from real people who are navigating financial situations that range from mildly awkward to absolutely unhinged. And I'm giving you my unfiltered take on who's in the right and who needs a serious reality check. Because let's be real, when it comes to mixing relationships and finances, someone's always asking if they're the asshole. Learn how to set boundaries, protect your wealth, and avoid becoming the villain in your own financial story. Listen wherever you get your podcasts or watch on youtube.com slash your rich BFF. Welcome back. I'd say up until this point, I've been kind of flabbergasted by how Trump's poll numbers can go down so far in every major category, you know, economy, immigration, overall approval rating, no health care plan, all the things Americans care about. And yet, Democrats are polling just about even on who's best to manage the economy and still losing on immigration. It's always worth remembering that in 1932, maybe the worst year in recent American history since the Civil War, depths of the Depression, Americans literally going hungry, people losing their homes, people losing their farms, incumbent President Herbert Hoover still got 38% of the vote. The base is called your base for a reason. They stick with you through thick and thin. I think there are a lot of Americans in 1932 who said, you know, don't love going hungry, don't love losing my home and farm, but at least Hoover is holding the line on prohibition. And that's the thing I really care about. My grandfather fought at Antietam and by God, he made on his deathbed, he made me swear, never vote for a Democrat, and I never will even though I've lost my farm. And so he got 38% of the vote in 1932. There are floors in a two-party system. On the other hand, the Republicans still lost the election of 1932. Right, which is my expectation, my most fervent wish. And at the very least, certainly for the midterms, I would like some divided government back in the conversation. So there's a push and pull as it was designed. But my question, I guess, is about the politicking of this moment because that floor is there and the magabase is not abandoning him. But we have seen a tick down with the GOP voters who came back in 2024. And they're saying like, no, no, no, no, we didn't sign up for this and we're not getting money in our pockets anyway. How do you see the general state of political play? Trump's big plan for 2026 was to use executive power to control the elections. Either presidentialize the elections in some way or use ICE to keep people away from the polls. But there are 9,000 polling, voting jurisdictions in the United States. I'm told by Stephen Ritcher, the heroic, the quarter of deed in Maricopa County, Arizona. The states control the elections and they're just as big as ICE has become. You can't actually federally occupy an American election, which is a creature of state law. So all of Trump's schemes, many of which have been struck down by the courts already, but even those that have not yet been, are only workable, only imaginable in a world in which the Republicans are two or three points down, four or five points down. If they're really down, there's just nothing that can save you. His other problem is he had this idea, I think, I'm guessing, that if he had a cheap and easy success, he remembered the 90 point approval ratings that George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush had in the first shock of foreign policy. And he fantasized, I think, about boosting his numbers with the glorious war. But George H. W. Bush, who had the most successful foreign policy of any president in American history, still lost to Bill Clinton. Because people said, thank you very much for reunifying Germany and winning the Gulf War. But I might have worked, so you lose. And Trump has signed up for a situation where even if Iran wins, I don't think he gets anything politically for that. People say, oh, well, that's a relief. Great. Now back to talking about the economy. And if it goes badly, he gets punished. Well, this is the danger of going into a war without a clear set of goals that you're sticking to, but also making no case to the American public. I mean, the polling is very stark on how unpopular this is versus lots of other military interventions that we've engaged in that ended up being very unpopular. But at least there was some buy-in from the American public. And that's not been on their agenda. One of the reasons that a normal president, contemplating any military conflict of any substantial size, not talking about like Ronald Reagan going to Grenada in 1983, but wars of substantial size, presidents get buy-in from Congress, an authorization for the use of military force, or at least some kind of symbol of collective agreement, and they make speeches to the public, and they get public buy-in, and they make a case, and they do all of that because when things go wrong, and they always do, and people say, whose idea was this, the president's saying, well, we all agreed. All of us. All of us. You can't just blame me solo alone because, look, I was standing there flanked by the leaders of House and Senate from both parties and the Prime Minister of Great Britain and the President of France and the Chancellor of Germany and the Prime Minister of Canada and the Prime Minister of Australia. We all thought it was a good idea. And by the way, 60% of you approved, so you're kind of on the hook too. Don't you all blame me? But when you went to war and say, no Congress, no allies except Israel, and Israel's fighting a war for very justifiable reasons of national existence. It's fighting its own war. And different from ours. And totally popular because the Israelis get what they're doing, because Iran is Israel's number one problem in a way that it's not America's number one problem. You know, so here I am, Trump says, I'm doing this alone. Me and Secretary of Partying Pete Hague said, that's it. And plus, plus the Israelis who are fighting a successful war in their own way for their own reasons. And no one else thought it was a good idea. Me only. So if it's not a good idea, there's only one return address on that envelope. Let's hope it's not 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for too much longer. But yes, he's definitely going in alone and obsessing over the legacy portion of his existence, which is coming up. And he has said, you know, that he can't do a third term, even whatever Steve Bannon is concocting. So George H. W. Bush, president from 89 to 93, did lose the presidency to Bill Clinton. But if an angel of God had come to George H. W. Bush on inauguration day 89 and said, look, God has determined we are giving you one wish. One accomplishment. What would that one accomplishment be? What would you like history to say about you? George H. W. Bush would have said, Soviet Union is on the brink of collapse. They have 50,000 unsecured nuclear weapons. If you tell me that not one of those nuclear weapons would be unaccounted for, not one of them would detonate accidentally. And oh, by the way, the entire Soviet nuclear scientist core would also all be accounted for. I will think whatever happens to me politically, I would think I was a big success. And the angel of God could say, done. That's going to be your legacy. And that is George H. W. Bush's supreme legacy. The entire Soviet nuclear program, despite the fall of the Soviet Union, was controlled. There was not one loose nuke of the 50,000. Tremendous, tremendous success. That's the legacy. And those of us who care to remember it, thank him for it. But you don't get reelected for it. And it's not something that offsets in George H. W. Bush's case of recession, but it's not going to upset a billion dollars worth of corruption, fraud, and stealing. Well, that is where I wanted to go with this, because there are things that he can do like branding, which he's done his entire career, where he just slaps his name on something. You know, you have the ballroom, the UFC fighting thing. He has his canabas on Arc de Triomphe, the Trump Kennedy Center. And now he's putting his name on our currency. Yeah. Does any of it blow your mind? The currency, I mean, I guess I was prepared because of the coin that he was supposed to be getting. But the willingness of people who have worked in government for a long time to turn a blind eye to what all of this actually is, does kind of blow me away. Yeah. Now, look, this second administration has been staffed by sniffling weaklings of all kinds. And a lot of people who you thought might have some strength of character like Scott Besant, a successful business guy. They turned out to be like doormats, human worms. The currency maneuver, putting a signature on the currency, I looked it up. That turns out not to be illegal. The coin business is almost certainly illegal. You're not allowed to put living people on the coins. And the only way they're defeating it is by creating commemorative coins, describing the coins that Trump will be on. That he can sell on QVC also. Right. They're commemorative coins. And there is a loophole that while circulating coins, they're not allowed to bear the likeness of a living person. Commemorative coins. Like no one got around to writing rules about that. Because I think if they think of commemorative coins as being like a medal or with the authors of the statute, so that's probably illegal. But the whole thing, you know, when you're up, you look vanglorious. If the president is down, he's going to look like a pathetic weakling idiot. Like the idea is that, well, you lost a war, but you built a ballroom. That's what people are going to say about you. That sounds kind of like one of those dim-witted Russian czars playing with toy soldiers while the empire falls apart. I mean, he's jealous of those guys, frankly. You know, some of them ended up in lunatic asylums or, yeah. But yeah, there's something kind of like the dim-witted feeble-minded czar about this. And one of the reasons, one of the reasons presidents, there's also like, there's a kind of decent respect for the Republican institutions of the country. But also most presidents are content with the thought, I'm going to leave, I mean, leave office and everyone's going to be mad at me because almost everyone is mad at you. And then time will pass and then they'll forgive me and then they'll appreciate me and then they'll build statues of me because they want to, not because I made them. And they'll remember me in different ways and different presidents will be remembered to different degrees. But presidents like Harry Truman, who went out of office quite unpopular, we remember them now as hugely successful people who built the modern world and we are grateful to them. What Trump is betraying here is his awareness that nobody likes him but him. And so if he doesn't arrange for the memorialization himself, it ain't going to happen. No, he's actually said that to Jesse Waters, one of my colleagues. He said straight up, if I don't do it, who's going to? Right. And Jesse had no answer. George Washington knew the answer to that question. If I don't build it, who's going to? They're all going to. They're going to queue up to do it. Men of far better stock. They don't make them like they used to. David Frum, it was so great to have you. Thank you for joining me. Thank you. Bye-bye. Bye-bye.
