I can sympathize with Mona’s points here but I think Charlie is ultimately right on almost every point. I think lots of people probably have made the argument about history and the dangers of appeasement and negotiating with terrorists…etc. So I’ll just say this instead:
In my own life, I’ve often had to face difficult decisions where there were no easy answers. But whether I wanted to admit it or not, there was definitely one answer that was clearly “right”. What I realized much later in life, was the thing that made the “right choice” *right* was that it was the one motivated by the *love for something positive* instead of the kne motivated by the *fear against something negative*.
Listening to this debate, it strikes me that Mona’s stance is motivated largely by fear - the fear that the perception of injustice will embolden MAGA Republicans or the fear of how the optics will play out or the fear that DOJ will not be able to successfully prosecute Trump and ultimately the fear that Trump may become the next Republican nominee and win the presidency in 2024.
Charlie, on the other hand, seems to be motivated by a love *for* the principles of Justice and equal treatment under the law and a belief that doing what is right is essential - not just for the immediate future but because of what it says to future generations about the kind of country we are and the kinds of behavior we are and are not willing to tolerate by our leaders.
Please understand that it’s not that I think Mona *doesn’t* believe in these things, but I do wonder if she is perhaps allowing fear to make things more complicated than they are. I don’t say mean to disparage anyone.
Fear is real and I’m not trying to minimize it. Often reacting to real and dangerous threats helps us survive for a little while longer. But I don’t think it can ever help us move forward. In these cases, I think we need to ask ourselves if surviving but remaining in a state of perpetual and paralyzing fear is worth the risk of dying. I don’t think it is. You may disagree.
re the student debt relief recently announced by Biden-
Everyone seems to agree that this does nothing to address the problem of ever steeper cost barriers to higher education.
Joe Scarborough's alternative proposal strikes me as reasonable. He suggests that government financing programs only be available to students attending universities that keep costs in line with inflation. (This implies a benchmark year)
Individual institutions could decide for themselves whether they wish to participate or not.
This action would be instead of random one-time debt forgiveness.
This was an incredible podcast! Regardless of which side you fall on, the issues on both sides were comprehensive, devoid of cliches and done respectfully. I learned new things to consider from both sides.
I'm a week late but absolutely terrific conversation/debate. Thanks Mona and Charlie, this is why we subscribe. Any Bulwark+ers who haven't listened yet should do so. Charlie have a great vacation!
One other comment: Mona says 50% of US voters would become supportive of Trump. I know there is a solid 30% that blindly supports him but I don’t think it is 50% .
The possibility of a super maga person on a jury is a thing to be considered. However, could we not use the same practical logic regarding the people who stormed the Capitol and have been indicted and/or convicted? Could we not use it to avoid prosecuting Guilliani or Eastman or Stone? Should we not also hope that Fani Willis drops her charges out of fear or intimidation? Ultimately where does it end?
I’ll make one other point that is loosely connected.
If Russia decides to invade a NATO country, what should NATO’s response be, knowing that a nuclear war could be the next step? I am certain that NATO would respond forcefully and promptly, no matter the consequences. NATO has an obligation to its member countries and that obligation is not a situational condition, depending on a risk assessment.
In like manner, the United States has an obligation to upholding the rule of law, regardless of the associated risks. If that obligation falls to the wayside because we fear a maga backlash (likely from a few hundred crazed individuals), does that not have the same catastrophic effect on our democracy that electing an authoritarian would have?
Great discussion between articulate, informed, thoughtful adults. Thank you, Mona and Charlie.
My heart is with Mona because I like her writing and thinking so much. As usual, she makes a lot of excellent points.
My mind is with Charlie, though, and I come down more heavily on his side this time.
I agree with some of Mona's points: that the most important thing is not to elect Trump again--and I agree with her that, if he is elected again, America as we know it is finished.
I say this with tears in my eyes.
Mona's point is well taken that the country was moving away from Trump before the FBI raid and that the raid brought them back into his camp and gave him back his superpower: the ability to command everyone's attention. A trial will do so even more, enhancing his election chances.
Yet Charlie's point is also well-taken: we have found that the guardrails on presidential power depend on the person's character and honor--things of which Trump has none, of course; there may be other presidents, more evil and smart than Trump, who may not have good character either.
Therefore, the rule of law must prevail. Impeachment and conviction--the constitutional guardrails--have been hijacked by partisanship. Congress does not put country over party.
All that has really stood between us and total Trumpian chaos is the courts. The courts have been the only guardrail that has held.
Civil war, MAGA threats, MAGA grievances and chest-thumping may well come to a head over some unforeseen, random issue rather than the issue that Trump put the national security of the United States at risk with his cavalier attitude about classified material.
If we're going to go down, let us go down for something worthwhile--upholding the rule of law.
Both Mona Charen and Charlie Sykes are insightful and make good points, and they have been a bulwark of sanity in the storms of our national situation since Trump.
Yet the Neville Chamberlain analogy resounds throughout history. Appease, and the tyrant is emboldened.
Again, I say all this with tears in my eyes for our country.
There is no way that Trump will be acquitted. The best he can hope for is a hung jury, which is not an acquittal. Such an outcome would probably strengthen Trump's hold on the GOP and make him more likely to be nominated. But the evidence presented against him at trial would cause swing voters to swing against him in the general election, just as they did in 2020. Prosecuting Trump on the maximum charges that can be supported by the evidence is the best way to weaken his electoral prospects.
Excellent discussion. Both Mona and Charlie did a great job and I want more “Charlie and Mona’s Fight Club” !!! Charlie did get a bit personal but Mona, bless her, kept dignified under fire. (Umbrella, indeed). Thank you botj.
If Garland has an airtight case he should negotiate behind the scenes and off the record (no gag order, no deal) with Trump's attorneys to bar him from future high office. Keeping highly classified material, allowing his mob to violently overrun the Capitol, cheering them on as they hunted his own VP, the Raffsenberger call, the fake elector scheme-- all this and more loudly call for disqualifying him for high office, constitutionally. But indictment, trial, potential imprisonment or acquittal is a much more fraught path, I think. He could still rail on about how he's denied the opportunity to run, but it will be because his own attorneys (and privately himself as well) recognized it was the safest path. This all supposes he has the sense to fold, with a threat of a long prison sentence. I don't think Trump would risk his freedom if the case is overwhelming enough. He'd prefer the guarantee he could go on with his privileged public and private life. His diehard followers would react badly, but they don't like anything that doesn't openly pave the way for Trump to trash constitutional order and the rule of law; this isn't a stance we should coddle, to put it mildly. I think down deep most of them understand by now he has disqualified himself, but enjoy seeing him rail against the system regardless. What they definitely do not understand, along with the rest of the R party (save for people like Charlie), is that he also belongs on trial for criminal acts or in prison. As the defacto leader of the Republican party this would be a bridge too far for half the country. But no one can deny he roundly refuses to play by the rule of law. He's shown this over and over. This is something Garland can detail dispassionately for the public after the fact, if need be. Right leaning constitutional scholars or the WSJ opinion page would have to tie themselves in to knots to make the case he's fit for office. He of course won't resign from politics on his own, as Nixon was forced to do. Perhaps it will be up to the DoJ to privately convince him it's in his best interests.
I agree with Charlie. The problem with Mona's "Try Him in the Ballot Box" is the premise that Trump will accept defeat. He will not. He will push every button necessary to get his followers to use violence to put him in power. His rhetoric regarding the "raid" at Mar-a-Lago has already incited online talk of civil war.
I can sympathize with Mona’s points here but I think Charlie is ultimately right on almost every point. I think lots of people probably have made the argument about history and the dangers of appeasement and negotiating with terrorists…etc. So I’ll just say this instead:
In my own life, I’ve often had to face difficult decisions where there were no easy answers. But whether I wanted to admit it or not, there was definitely one answer that was clearly “right”. What I realized much later in life, was the thing that made the “right choice” *right* was that it was the one motivated by the *love for something positive* instead of the kne motivated by the *fear against something negative*.
Listening to this debate, it strikes me that Mona’s stance is motivated largely by fear - the fear that the perception of injustice will embolden MAGA Republicans or the fear of how the optics will play out or the fear that DOJ will not be able to successfully prosecute Trump and ultimately the fear that Trump may become the next Republican nominee and win the presidency in 2024.
Charlie, on the other hand, seems to be motivated by a love *for* the principles of Justice and equal treatment under the law and a belief that doing what is right is essential - not just for the immediate future but because of what it says to future generations about the kind of country we are and the kinds of behavior we are and are not willing to tolerate by our leaders.
Please understand that it’s not that I think Mona *doesn’t* believe in these things, but I do wonder if she is perhaps allowing fear to make things more complicated than they are. I don’t say mean to disparage anyone.
Fear is real and I’m not trying to minimize it. Often reacting to real and dangerous threats helps us survive for a little while longer. But I don’t think it can ever help us move forward. In these cases, I think we need to ask ourselves if surviving but remaining in a state of perpetual and paralyzing fear is worth the risk of dying. I don’t think it is. You may disagree.
re Trump 'get-out-of-jail-free' pass
Charlie is 100% correct. Appeasement only rewards and encourages the bad behavior.
re the student debt relief recently announced by Biden-
Everyone seems to agree that this does nothing to address the problem of ever steeper cost barriers to higher education.
Joe Scarborough's alternative proposal strikes me as reasonable. He suggests that government financing programs only be available to students attending universities that keep costs in line with inflation. (This implies a benchmark year)
Individual institutions could decide for themselves whether they wish to participate or not.
This action would be instead of random one-time debt forgiveness.
I agree with Mona don't try to defeat Trump in the courtroom & make him a martyr. Defeat him (and his ilk) at the polls and make him a loser.
This was an incredible podcast! Regardless of which side you fall on, the issues on both sides were comprehensive, devoid of cliches and done respectfully. I learned new things to consider from both sides.
I'm a week late but absolutely terrific conversation/debate. Thanks Mona and Charlie, this is why we subscribe. Any Bulwark+ers who haven't listened yet should do so. Charlie have a great vacation!
One other comment: Mona says 50% of US voters would become supportive of Trump. I know there is a solid 30% that blindly supports him but I don’t think it is 50% .
Good debate - you are both smart people worth listening to - thanks!
The possibility of a super maga person on a jury is a thing to be considered. However, could we not use the same practical logic regarding the people who stormed the Capitol and have been indicted and/or convicted? Could we not use it to avoid prosecuting Guilliani or Eastman or Stone? Should we not also hope that Fani Willis drops her charges out of fear or intimidation? Ultimately where does it end?
I’ll make one other point that is loosely connected.
If Russia decides to invade a NATO country, what should NATO’s response be, knowing that a nuclear war could be the next step? I am certain that NATO would respond forcefully and promptly, no matter the consequences. NATO has an obligation to its member countries and that obligation is not a situational condition, depending on a risk assessment.
In like manner, the United States has an obligation to upholding the rule of law, regardless of the associated risks. If that obligation falls to the wayside because we fear a maga backlash (likely from a few hundred crazed individuals), does that not have the same catastrophic effect on our democracy that electing an authoritarian would have?
Great discussion between articulate, informed, thoughtful adults. Thank you, Mona and Charlie.
My heart is with Mona because I like her writing and thinking so much. As usual, she makes a lot of excellent points.
My mind is with Charlie, though, and I come down more heavily on his side this time.
I agree with some of Mona's points: that the most important thing is not to elect Trump again--and I agree with her that, if he is elected again, America as we know it is finished.
I say this with tears in my eyes.
Mona's point is well taken that the country was moving away from Trump before the FBI raid and that the raid brought them back into his camp and gave him back his superpower: the ability to command everyone's attention. A trial will do so even more, enhancing his election chances.
Yet Charlie's point is also well-taken: we have found that the guardrails on presidential power depend on the person's character and honor--things of which Trump has none, of course; there may be other presidents, more evil and smart than Trump, who may not have good character either.
Therefore, the rule of law must prevail. Impeachment and conviction--the constitutional guardrails--have been hijacked by partisanship. Congress does not put country over party.
All that has really stood between us and total Trumpian chaos is the courts. The courts have been the only guardrail that has held.
Civil war, MAGA threats, MAGA grievances and chest-thumping may well come to a head over some unforeseen, random issue rather than the issue that Trump put the national security of the United States at risk with his cavalier attitude about classified material.
If we're going to go down, let us go down for something worthwhile--upholding the rule of law.
Both Mona Charen and Charlie Sykes are insightful and make good points, and they have been a bulwark of sanity in the storms of our national situation since Trump.
Yet the Neville Chamberlain analogy resounds throughout history. Appease, and the tyrant is emboldened.
Again, I say all this with tears in my eyes for our country.
There is no way that Trump will be acquitted. The best he can hope for is a hung jury, which is not an acquittal. Such an outcome would probably strengthen Trump's hold on the GOP and make him more likely to be nominated. But the evidence presented against him at trial would cause swing voters to swing against him in the general election, just as they did in 2020. Prosecuting Trump on the maximum charges that can be supported by the evidence is the best way to weaken his electoral prospects.
Totally agree with you on the student loan forgiveness. But stop using Larry Summers as your economic expert. The man is a pompous, elitist asshole.
Excellent discussion. Both Mona and Charlie did a great job and I want more “Charlie and Mona’s Fight Club” !!! Charlie did get a bit personal but Mona, bless her, kept dignified under fire. (Umbrella, indeed). Thank you botj.
If Garland has an airtight case he should negotiate behind the scenes and off the record (no gag order, no deal) with Trump's attorneys to bar him from future high office. Keeping highly classified material, allowing his mob to violently overrun the Capitol, cheering them on as they hunted his own VP, the Raffsenberger call, the fake elector scheme-- all this and more loudly call for disqualifying him for high office, constitutionally. But indictment, trial, potential imprisonment or acquittal is a much more fraught path, I think. He could still rail on about how he's denied the opportunity to run, but it will be because his own attorneys (and privately himself as well) recognized it was the safest path. This all supposes he has the sense to fold, with a threat of a long prison sentence. I don't think Trump would risk his freedom if the case is overwhelming enough. He'd prefer the guarantee he could go on with his privileged public and private life. His diehard followers would react badly, but they don't like anything that doesn't openly pave the way for Trump to trash constitutional order and the rule of law; this isn't a stance we should coddle, to put it mildly. I think down deep most of them understand by now he has disqualified himself, but enjoy seeing him rail against the system regardless. What they definitely do not understand, along with the rest of the R party (save for people like Charlie), is that he also belongs on trial for criminal acts or in prison. As the defacto leader of the Republican party this would be a bridge too far for half the country. But no one can deny he roundly refuses to play by the rule of law. He's shown this over and over. This is something Garland can detail dispassionately for the public after the fact, if need be. Right leaning constitutional scholars or the WSJ opinion page would have to tie themselves in to knots to make the case he's fit for office. He of course won't resign from politics on his own, as Nixon was forced to do. Perhaps it will be up to the DoJ to privately convince him it's in his best interests.
Love you both but this week Charlie’s right… Mona Chamberlain is wrong
Hang him high
I agree with Charlie. The problem with Mona's "Try Him in the Ballot Box" is the premise that Trump will accept defeat. He will not. He will push every button necessary to get his followers to use violence to put him in power. His rhetoric regarding the "raid" at Mar-a-Lago has already incited online talk of civil war.