I'm a dual national, US/Brazil, who lives in Brazil, and I want to say how proud I am of the way my country of naturalization has confronted Elon Musk and brought him to heel. Musk seems to have thought that he only needed to bend to authoritarian regimes like Turkey and China, that democratic regimes were soft and weak and that he could push them around. Minister Alexandre de Moraes of the Supreme Federal Tribunal, our Supreme Court, has proven him wrong and firmly schooled him about how much tolerance at least one democratic country is willing to show to the firehose of lies that he facilitates.
Not coincidentally, it was the same Minister Moraes who led the effort to bring to book the criminals of January 8, 2023, an eerily similar insurrection to the one that was committed in Washington on January 6, 2021. Admittedly, the Brazilian judiciary, like many judiciaries in Europe, has investigative powers that the American judiciary does not -- but Merrick Garland has had them for almost four years. One key difference is that Moraes and his colleagues refused to dither: they acted.
Two years before the next presidential election, the people who committed the actual violent acts have received due process and are in jail, the presidential candidate who inspired the insurrection has been disqualified from running again, and investigations are continuing of the members of the military, police, and bureaucracy who aided and abetted, and of the people in the shadows who bankrolled the whole thing. Searches and arrests are still being made. There are still appeals in process, some people may be let off, Bolsonaro even may be allowed to run again, but it would be hard to say that Brazil isn't in a better situation than the United States is after suffering a similar trauma.
Maybe a decisive group of Brazilian leaders value the rule of law so highly because quite a few of them can remember the period of the military dictatorship, from 1964 to 1985, when they suffered through not having it. I would hope that an experience like that one wouldn't be required; I guess we'll know in a month.
*Crossposting this comment from Morning Shots comments as it is directly related to today's pod episode...*
The discussions around the tech oligarchy support for Trump misses some important context. While tax cuts and frustration with lefty "woke" culture may play a role, it is important to understand how much deregulation of AI and Blockchain (and by extension, crypto) plays into their decisions.
Marc Andreesen and his venture capital firm, Andreesen Horowitz (which has been described as a PR/Lobbying firm masquerading as a VC) have made massive investments in blockchain technology and crypto. Andreesen has given interviews in which he asserts that Web 3.0 will be based on blockchain (blockchain has uses outside of cryptocurrency, but crypto is the main driver of adoption). Additional massive investments are being made by Andreesen and other tech bro billionaires in AI technology. At the same time, they have openly called for a return to a robber baron economy -- when "makers" ruled and before the "managerial class" took over. Andreesen and Musk have compared themselves to Rockefeller and Morgan in interviews.
Trump was skeptical of crypto but is now fully on board and is even issuing his own currency. He has promised to replace Powell at the fed with a more crypto-friendly Chair. The government and agencies are just now struggling with how to regulate and put guardrails in place for AI adoption. Any regulation is an infringment on the goals of the tech ogliarchy. They've learned, just as Putin did on foreign policy, that Trump can be manipulated easily and provides the clearest path to unfettered power and money from these nascent technologies.
Regarding Musk's comments about the 1st and 2nd Amendments, which are the only ones MAGAs know (and poorly), what struck me was that his comments were at the site Trump got shot. That shooting may not have been politically motivated, of course. But if Musk and Trump seize power and start cancelling our constitutional rights, they, too, shall experience the American ethos Musk spoke of so lightheartedly.
I’ll be honest, I’m not enjoying this election, but it didn’t bother me in the least that political pundits are. I don’t think for one moment Tim that you are on any side but on that of the angels. I don’t have CNN so I haven’t seen Kaitlin’s show, but I would guess she is pro-democracy.
Bill Kristol makes a good point that supporters of Israel should take note of. How exactly will Trump's American Isolationism policy and his decree that America will no longer participate in foreign wars go into effect if Iran launches a full scale war with Israel? Especially if Iran sees Trump's position as a weakness and an advantage to them?
Will Trump maintain his 'No foreign wars' stance or will he, as I expect, be the massive hypocrite we know he is, commit American troops to the conflict and facilitate what may actually may come to be 'World War III?
I just wanted to burst Tim's fantasy about 2028 (not that he really believes it can happen, but still). It would be wonderful to have two normal parties, but can anyone at this point really envision a world four years from now where Glen Youngkin is the Republican leader? He would have to do a JD Vance-level metamorphosis first. Clearly there has been an historic tectonic shift in Republican priorities across the board, brought on by a big plurality of entrenched aggrieved voters and their willing enablers. This shift won't just reverse itself if/when Trump loses. Notice how Nikki Haley endorsed Trump, as if it made perfect sense after all the bridge-burning things she said about him previously. The Republicans who haven't endorsed Trump are marginalized "RINOs". For the past nine years I thought a RINO was a non-Trumpist Republican, but they're just irrelevant Republicans now, it seems to me, literally in name only, with nothing else to identify themselves as Republicans. It's the Tucker/JD party, now and going forward. Possibly there will be DeSantis or someone like him running again as the sane option, because that's as sane as it gets now in the modern Republican party. Either you abandon your values like Haley, do semi-authentic MAGA cosplay like Ron, or become MAGAfied like JD and Tucker. Anyone of any note who doesn't abandon their values and suck up, or anyone even marginally less MAGA than Ron, not only didn't speak at this year's Republican convention, they didn't attend (or if they did, no one noticed or cared). The party certainly doesn't care one iota about their previous VP, nor their nominee before Trump and his VP pick, let alone former president Bush and VP Cheney. They’re all considered the past, disrespected and hated. None of this points towards Glen Youngkin, I'm afraid. Sorry Tim!
I think after Trump there will be years of fighting within the Republican party about purging the MAGA elements (perhaps similar to what happened with the John Birch Society decades ago), and that’s where the Bulwark is probably going to shift its focus.
The Israel issue continues to dumbfound me. I'm a Jew from Los Angeles and have always been involved in the Jewish community and I have had a lot of trouble understanding why my fellow jews have seemed to gravitate towards Trump since last Oct 7th. Similar to what Bill noted when talking about Clinton, rhetoric is nice but especially in foreign policy, actions are far and away the most important and I am more than happy with the support the Biden/Harris administration has given both to jews fighting anti-semitism in America and also towards Israel as they fight this war. Yet what I have continued to notice is that a lot of friends (and I understand this is all anecdotal) are more concerned with lip service than they are with actual results and policy. They are more concerned with Biden/Harris "both sidesing" on occasion than they are with Billions more in aid that was sent. It seems as though because Biden is not "perfect", they are projecting their dreams as to how this scenario in the middle east be handled onto Trump for no reason other than he talks nice (even though he really doesn't). At this point, Biden could turn into Moses and part the mediterranean sea for them and they would still say Trump would do it better. It is unbelievable the amount of unwarranted confidence that is placed in himm.
Tim - another thought about the last few minutes today. Once we're all livin' large in Harris/Walz term #1, there's an issue that will be serious to some folks more than others, even if MAGA mania were to subside and not take the form of violence. PTSD. I know folks who've already been highly stressed, emotionally shaken... we read about local officials, election volunteers, people receiving threats. Not to psychologize you, Tim, but your reflections today are valid - a central part of your identity will be missing once you no longer have to be in the (as Sarah says) "the keeping Trump out of office business."
Whole lotta healing gonna be needed. Let's remember that, be kind to each other, and to ourselves.
Tim--on your coda in this show: I heard that and I was OK with it and understood. But thanks for the respect to the audience. As for the post-Trump 2025 we're hoping for, what I am hoping for from the Bulwark, in addition to continued focus on Maga-ism, is to support this community that has been united around defeating *that* to being able to return to true civility in our politics. I like to think that a lot of us here have taken the lesson of what comes from hurling "Communist", "Socialist", "Fascist", "death panels", "nannie state", "war monger", "baby killer", etc epithets at each other has brought us.
There are thoughtful and intelligent people at the Bulwark, listening/reading the Bulwark, and contributing to the Bulwark. Can we do that when talking about government spending?
As someone who’s in a phase of life that’s bringing on significant changes, I really appreciated your comments, Tim, about the blend of anxiety and excitement that you feel about the future. One point I’m now certain of (wasn’t sure at the beginning), is that whatever the path might be, this community will hang together.
many German industrialists did support the Nazi Party, though their support was complex and motivated by various factors. Initially, some industrialists were skeptical of the Nazis due to the party’s anti-capitalist rhetoric in the early 1920s. However, by the late 1920s and early 1930s, a number of key industrialists began to view the Nazis as a bulwark against communism and socialism, which they feared would threaten their businesses and private property.
As Hitler and the Nazi Party gained political influence, industrialists were drawn to their promises of political stability, economic recovery, and anti-communist policies. Many companies and wealthy businessmen provided financial support to the Nazis, particularly during election campaigns. For example, figures like Fritz Thyssen, a prominent steel magnate, and Emil Kirdorf, a coal baron, were early financial backers of the Nazi movement.
After Hitler became chancellor in 1933, many industrialists benefited from Nazi policies. The regime’s focus on rearmament, autarky (economic self-sufficiency), and large public works projects, such as the construction of highways (Autobahn), created lucrative contracts for businesses. Industrialists also profited from the regime’s suppression of labor unions and its control over wages.
However, the relationship was not uniform across all sectors or business leaders. Some supported the Nazis more out of pragmatism or self-interest rather than ideological alignment, and a few resisted or were even persecuted by the regime, especially if they had Jewish roots or opposed Hitler’s plans. Nonetheless, many large companies and industrialists were deeply complicit in the regime’s actions, including the exploitation of forced labor during World War II. (ChatGPT). And, yes, ChatGPT has it right.
To me (just as a Democratic voter) its not so much that I don't take those with culturally conservative views as unserious. I get fusturated and sometimes angry that they don't seem to reconize that these issues have very high stakes for lots of people out there.
I'm a dual national, US/Brazil, who lives in Brazil, and I want to say how proud I am of the way my country of naturalization has confronted Elon Musk and brought him to heel. Musk seems to have thought that he only needed to bend to authoritarian regimes like Turkey and China, that democratic regimes were soft and weak and that he could push them around. Minister Alexandre de Moraes of the Supreme Federal Tribunal, our Supreme Court, has proven him wrong and firmly schooled him about how much tolerance at least one democratic country is willing to show to the firehose of lies that he facilitates.
Not coincidentally, it was the same Minister Moraes who led the effort to bring to book the criminals of January 8, 2023, an eerily similar insurrection to the one that was committed in Washington on January 6, 2021. Admittedly, the Brazilian judiciary, like many judiciaries in Europe, has investigative powers that the American judiciary does not -- but Merrick Garland has had them for almost four years. One key difference is that Moraes and his colleagues refused to dither: they acted.
Two years before the next presidential election, the people who committed the actual violent acts have received due process and are in jail, the presidential candidate who inspired the insurrection has been disqualified from running again, and investigations are continuing of the members of the military, police, and bureaucracy who aided and abetted, and of the people in the shadows who bankrolled the whole thing. Searches and arrests are still being made. There are still appeals in process, some people may be let off, Bolsonaro even may be allowed to run again, but it would be hard to say that Brazil isn't in a better situation than the United States is after suffering a similar trauma.
Maybe a decisive group of Brazilian leaders value the rule of law so highly because quite a few of them can remember the period of the military dictatorship, from 1964 to 1985, when they suffered through not having it. I would hope that an experience like that one wouldn't be required; I guess we'll know in a month.
*Crossposting this comment from Morning Shots comments as it is directly related to today's pod episode...*
The discussions around the tech oligarchy support for Trump misses some important context. While tax cuts and frustration with lefty "woke" culture may play a role, it is important to understand how much deregulation of AI and Blockchain (and by extension, crypto) plays into their decisions.
Marc Andreesen and his venture capital firm, Andreesen Horowitz (which has been described as a PR/Lobbying firm masquerading as a VC) have made massive investments in blockchain technology and crypto. Andreesen has given interviews in which he asserts that Web 3.0 will be based on blockchain (blockchain has uses outside of cryptocurrency, but crypto is the main driver of adoption). Additional massive investments are being made by Andreesen and other tech bro billionaires in AI technology. At the same time, they have openly called for a return to a robber baron economy -- when "makers" ruled and before the "managerial class" took over. Andreesen and Musk have compared themselves to Rockefeller and Morgan in interviews.
Trump was skeptical of crypto but is now fully on board and is even issuing his own currency. He has promised to replace Powell at the fed with a more crypto-friendly Chair. The government and agencies are just now struggling with how to regulate and put guardrails in place for AI adoption. Any regulation is an infringment on the goals of the tech ogliarchy. They've learned, just as Putin did on foreign policy, that Trump can be manipulated easily and provides the clearest path to unfettered power and money from these nascent technologies.
Regarding Musk's comments about the 1st and 2nd Amendments, which are the only ones MAGAs know (and poorly), what struck me was that his comments were at the site Trump got shot. That shooting may not have been politically motivated, of course. But if Musk and Trump seize power and start cancelling our constitutional rights, they, too, shall experience the American ethos Musk spoke of so lightheartedly.
I’ll be honest, I’m not enjoying this election, but it didn’t bother me in the least that political pundits are. I don’t think for one moment Tim that you are on any side but on that of the angels. I don’t have CNN so I haven’t seen Kaitlin’s show, but I would guess she is pro-democracy.
On a less serious note, I would love a chance to look at all of the books on Bill’s shelves. I’m a (just) retired librarian. I can’t help myself.
Bill Kristol makes a good point that supporters of Israel should take note of. How exactly will Trump's American Isolationism policy and his decree that America will no longer participate in foreign wars go into effect if Iran launches a full scale war with Israel? Especially if Iran sees Trump's position as a weakness and an advantage to them?
Will Trump maintain his 'No foreign wars' stance or will he, as I expect, be the massive hypocrite we know he is, commit American troops to the conflict and facilitate what may actually may come to be 'World War III?
I just wanted to burst Tim's fantasy about 2028 (not that he really believes it can happen, but still). It would be wonderful to have two normal parties, but can anyone at this point really envision a world four years from now where Glen Youngkin is the Republican leader? He would have to do a JD Vance-level metamorphosis first. Clearly there has been an historic tectonic shift in Republican priorities across the board, brought on by a big plurality of entrenched aggrieved voters and their willing enablers. This shift won't just reverse itself if/when Trump loses. Notice how Nikki Haley endorsed Trump, as if it made perfect sense after all the bridge-burning things she said about him previously. The Republicans who haven't endorsed Trump are marginalized "RINOs". For the past nine years I thought a RINO was a non-Trumpist Republican, but they're just irrelevant Republicans now, it seems to me, literally in name only, with nothing else to identify themselves as Republicans. It's the Tucker/JD party, now and going forward. Possibly there will be DeSantis or someone like him running again as the sane option, because that's as sane as it gets now in the modern Republican party. Either you abandon your values like Haley, do semi-authentic MAGA cosplay like Ron, or become MAGAfied like JD and Tucker. Anyone of any note who doesn't abandon their values and suck up, or anyone even marginally less MAGA than Ron, not only didn't speak at this year's Republican convention, they didn't attend (or if they did, no one noticed or cared). The party certainly doesn't care one iota about their previous VP, nor their nominee before Trump and his VP pick, let alone former president Bush and VP Cheney. They’re all considered the past, disrespected and hated. None of this points towards Glen Youngkin, I'm afraid. Sorry Tim!
I think after Trump there will be years of fighting within the Republican party about purging the MAGA elements (perhaps similar to what happened with the John Birch Society decades ago), and that’s where the Bulwark is probably going to shift its focus.
The tech bros think they can get to ai tech immortality after which the rest of humanity is superfluous. Don't look up.
Appreciate the context re: Caitlin banter. I got the joke, but cool that you care about your audience to share from the heart.
The Israel issue continues to dumbfound me. I'm a Jew from Los Angeles and have always been involved in the Jewish community and I have had a lot of trouble understanding why my fellow jews have seemed to gravitate towards Trump since last Oct 7th. Similar to what Bill noted when talking about Clinton, rhetoric is nice but especially in foreign policy, actions are far and away the most important and I am more than happy with the support the Biden/Harris administration has given both to jews fighting anti-semitism in America and also towards Israel as they fight this war. Yet what I have continued to notice is that a lot of friends (and I understand this is all anecdotal) are more concerned with lip service than they are with actual results and policy. They are more concerned with Biden/Harris "both sidesing" on occasion than they are with Billions more in aid that was sent. It seems as though because Biden is not "perfect", they are projecting their dreams as to how this scenario in the middle east be handled onto Trump for no reason other than he talks nice (even though he really doesn't). At this point, Biden could turn into Moses and part the mediterranean sea for them and they would still say Trump would do it better. It is unbelievable the amount of unwarranted confidence that is placed in himm.
Tim - another thought about the last few minutes today. Once we're all livin' large in Harris/Walz term #1, there's an issue that will be serious to some folks more than others, even if MAGA mania were to subside and not take the form of violence. PTSD. I know folks who've already been highly stressed, emotionally shaken... we read about local officials, election volunteers, people receiving threats. Not to psychologize you, Tim, but your reflections today are valid - a central part of your identity will be missing once you no longer have to be in the (as Sarah says) "the keeping Trump out of office business."
Whole lotta healing gonna be needed. Let's remember that, be kind to each other, and to ourselves.
Tim--on your coda in this show: I heard that and I was OK with it and understood. But thanks for the respect to the audience. As for the post-Trump 2025 we're hoping for, what I am hoping for from the Bulwark, in addition to continued focus on Maga-ism, is to support this community that has been united around defeating *that* to being able to return to true civility in our politics. I like to think that a lot of us here have taken the lesson of what comes from hurling "Communist", "Socialist", "Fascist", "death panels", "nannie state", "war monger", "baby killer", etc epithets at each other has brought us.
There are thoughtful and intelligent people at the Bulwark, listening/reading the Bulwark, and contributing to the Bulwark. Can we do that when talking about government spending?
As someone who’s in a phase of life that’s bringing on significant changes, I really appreciated your comments, Tim, about the blend of anxiety and excitement that you feel about the future. One point I’m now certain of (wasn’t sure at the beginning), is that whatever the path might be, this community will hang together.
many German industrialists did support the Nazi Party, though their support was complex and motivated by various factors. Initially, some industrialists were skeptical of the Nazis due to the party’s anti-capitalist rhetoric in the early 1920s. However, by the late 1920s and early 1930s, a number of key industrialists began to view the Nazis as a bulwark against communism and socialism, which they feared would threaten their businesses and private property.
As Hitler and the Nazi Party gained political influence, industrialists were drawn to their promises of political stability, economic recovery, and anti-communist policies. Many companies and wealthy businessmen provided financial support to the Nazis, particularly during election campaigns. For example, figures like Fritz Thyssen, a prominent steel magnate, and Emil Kirdorf, a coal baron, were early financial backers of the Nazi movement.
After Hitler became chancellor in 1933, many industrialists benefited from Nazi policies. The regime’s focus on rearmament, autarky (economic self-sufficiency), and large public works projects, such as the construction of highways (Autobahn), created lucrative contracts for businesses. Industrialists also profited from the regime’s suppression of labor unions and its control over wages.
However, the relationship was not uniform across all sectors or business leaders. Some supported the Nazis more out of pragmatism or self-interest rather than ideological alignment, and a few resisted or were even persecuted by the regime, especially if they had Jewish roots or opposed Hitler’s plans. Nonetheless, many large companies and industrialists were deeply complicit in the regime’s actions, including the exploitation of forced labor during World War II. (ChatGPT). And, yes, ChatGPT has it right.
To me (just as a Democratic voter) its not so much that I don't take those with culturally conservative views as unserious. I get fusturated and sometimes angry that they don't seem to reconize that these issues have very high stakes for lots of people out there.