Political Wire Conversations

For eight years, Ben Rhodes served as Deputy National Security Advisor to President Obama.  Now Rhodes has written a book — After the Fall: Being American in the World We've Made — about his personal post-Obama journey that sought to answer a simple question: What happened to the world, America, and himself as the undertow of history pulled us into the currents of nationalism and authoritarianism – and what we should do about it? As he learned and you’ll hear, there may be simple questions. There are no simple answers. Ben is the author of the New York Times bestseller The World as It Is, a contributor for NBC News and MSNBC, and co-host of Pod Save the World. And as mentioned, sign up for a free trial of my daily briefing newsletter: chrisriback.substack.com/CRC

We’re back for a new season! I also launched my new daily email, Chris Riback’s Newsletter. 6 days a week, I compile and publish the meaningful ideas, trends and events into a daily briefing of what you need to know, and not a word more. I add engaging videos, tweets, graphs, and more. My goal is to help readers save time and stay smarter.  Sign up for a free 30-day trial: chrisriback.substack.com/CRC

This is a special live Zoom edition of Chris Riback’s Conversations, the first in our new series of political book conversations sponsored by Cornell’s Institute of Politics & Global Affairs. What does it mean for democracy when the President attacks the free press as fake news? How should journalists balance the need to avoid becoming the “opposition party,” as Steve Bannon described them, while also standing up when individual reporters – frequently women, frequently minorities – are publicly ridiculed? Jonathan Karl is ABC News’ Chief White House Correspondent. Jon’s also President of the White House Correspondents’ Association and author of the new New York Times Best seller: “Front Row at the Trump Show” As Karl writes: “Our democracy is built on trust…. That’s why I fear President Trump’s war on truth may do lasting damage to American Democracy.”

Chances are, you may not have heard of New Rochelle, NY before about a month ago. It’s New York’s 7th largest city, located just 30 minutes north of Manhattan. It was founded by refugee Huguenots – French Protestants – who were fleeing religious persecution in France in 1688. During the 1930s, New Rochelle was the wealthiest city per capita in New York state and the third wealthiest in the country. For listeners of a certain age — or any of you who watch the classic TV shows on YouTube — you’ll also know that New Rochelle is where Rob & Laura Petrie lived in the Dick Van Dyke show. It has a strong business community and cultural scene. And it’s beautiful. It sits right on the water is known as the Queen City of the New York Sound. Of course, right now, New Rochelle, NY has become known for something else: One of America’s multiple ground zeros of the coronavirus. Nearly every major media organization has suddenly paid a visit. And if you Google "New Rochelle" now, as you might imagine, nearly every result has something to do with the virus. And the face of New Rochelle through all of this – the one racing from town meetings to food distribution centers to senior living homes to religious groups to 60 Minutes interviews – is the city’s hometown mayor Noam Bramson. And I mean hometown – Noam was born in New Rochelle. He grew up there. After leaving for college, he returned. He’s been mayor since 2006. And it’s where he’s now raising his own family. So how do you run a municipality through a pandemic? And what’s it like to see the place you love – your home – go through this kind of challenge? That’s what we discussed. Before we begin, let me put my bias on the table right away: I’ve known Noam for nearly 30 years. We met in grad school. He was very smart, unnecessarily modest, and always friendly. As you’ll hear, some things don’t change, even when you’ve had to lead your hometown through a pandemic. For show notes & my newsletter, go to chrisriback.com.

When I first scheduled an election analysis discussion with former U.S. Representative Steve Israel, it’s fair to say that my initial set of questions had nothing to do with how to run for President in a time of Coronavirus. That’s where this conversation begins, but not where it ends. Because while we all navigate this new reality, we’re also still trying to understand the Democratic primary: What in the world just happened? How did Joe Biden get blown out in the first three caucuses – and then turn it all around to basically run the table? And assuming Biden holds on, did the moderate wing of the Democratic Party really win the ticket – or did the progressives set the agenda and took moderates along for the ride? How unified is the party? And what about Biden’s running mate – he said he’ll choose a woman VP candidate. Ok, beyond that, what are the practical and political factors that matter? More background on Steve Israel: He spent 16 years in Congress representing New York's 3rd Congressional District – that’s on Long Island. He’s the former Chair of DCCC and today serves as Director of Cornell University’s Institute of Politics and Global Affairs. He’s also author of two political satire books, and we talk about his most recent one that took on the gun lobby – it’s called “Big Guns,” and it’s an excellent read. For show notes & my newsletter, go to chrisriback.com. As referenced in the intro, here is a link to the special edition of The 180 Podcast on the coronavirus with Dr. Pamela Cantor, Turnaround for Children’s Founder and Senior Science Advisor, about how to address the fear, stress and disruption caused by the pandemic.

Today we continue with our check on the state of American democracy. We began with Harvard professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt to get an update on “How Democracies Die” and the question: How much more can our institutions take? Today we’ll look at the cornerstone of our democracy and a question that’s as shocking to ask as it sounds: Can America run a fair election? I told you – crazy. But whether that’s Putin’s great accomplishment, the post Iowa Caucus fiasco reality, or simply the result of the disintegration of nearly all of society’s institutions over the last years, well, that’s where we’re at. Look at the evidence: The latest headlines that U.S. Intelligence briefed Congress that Russia is already attacking our elections again, trying to help Trump win in 2020…and trying to help Democratic front-runner Bernie Sanders, too. Voter suppression in Kansas, Georgia, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Texas, and elsewhere Unproven claims of voter fraud to hurt confidence in elections. Regular threats – or so-called jokes – to not leave office… from Trump to recently-ousted KY Gov. Matt Bevin Massive, targeted disinformation campaigns – even from within the U.S. And of course, election irregularities in Broward Country, FL, election debacles like the recent Iowa caucus, and even NY Times reporting from the Nevada caucus of “errors and inconsistencies” similar to Iowa. While concerns around the viability and fairness of U.S. elections have been raised in the past – anyone listening to this podcast seen a hanging chad? – it’s fair to say the distrust and concern have never been as great as they are today. It all adds up to one of the major threats to American democracy and the question I asked at the top that few of us ever expected to seriously hear. So where are we? How bad is the problem? And perhaps most importantly – how does American democracy survive if Americans don’t trust their elections? Rick Hasen is the one to ask. Hasen is Chancellor’s Professor of Law and Political Science at the University of California, Irvine and author of the new book “Election Meltdown: Dirty Tricks, Distrust, and the Threat to American Democracy.” Hasen writes the often-quoted Election Law Blog, which – like his excellent Twitter feed – is an absolute must read. Rick is co-author of leading casebooks in election law and remedies, as well as author of over 100 articles on election law issues, published in numerous journals including the Harvard Law Review, Stanford Law Review and Supreme Court Review.  For show notes & my newsletter, go to chrisriback.com.

It’s time for a democracy check. With the Trump Impeachment Trial over and the 2020 presidential primaries in full bloom, I’ve been thinking a lot about what I imagine many other people are wondering, too: How’s our democracy doing? Are America’s democratic norms still valid? How much more can our institutions take? And this was even before the Roger Stone sentencing reduction news broke. So I decided to dedicate the next two conversations to the topic. The first one looks at democracy itself – coming out of only the third impeachment trial in our 250-plus year history, how stable are we? The second looks forward: If free elections fill the center of a true democracy, how stable is our election process? Both conversations are with previous podcast guests. Today’s is with the two Harvard professors  -- Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt -- who I talked with two years ago and who first brought the issue to national prominence with their New York Times bestseller “How Democracies Die.” As I relistened to our previous podcast – and as I note in this one – it’s crazy how predictive they were about the way things could go. The second podcast will be with Rick Hasen, UC Irvine Law and Political Science professor, creator of the Election Law Blog, and author of the new book “Election Meltdown: Dirty Tricks, Distrust, and the Threat to American Democracy.” Some background on Levitsky and Ziblatt, Professors of Government at Harvard. Levitsky’s research interests include political parties, authoritarianism and democratization, and weak and informal institutions, with a focus on Latin America. Ziblatt’s interests include democratization, state-building, comparative politics, and historical political economy. His focus is on European political development.  Together they’ve spent more than 20 years studying the breakdown of democracies around the globe – places like Germany, Italy, Chile, Venezuela, Peru, among others. Among my questions to them was an update to one of my previous questions: After so much work on shaky democracies in other countries, can they believe even now that somehow our country has become their new laboratory. One editorial note: As you’ll hear, near the end of our conversation, I got Roger Stone – Department of Justice headline alert on my phone just as my guests were talking about Attorney General Barr and the ways in which various manipulations of legal systems can impact a democracy’s health. Talk about real life proving the point in real time. While I interrupted the conversation to ask Daniel and Steven’s reaction, the news had just broken and no one had had time to fully consider what it could mean. And one listening note: Daniel took our call via Skype from Germany. Sometimes his audio is a little digitized, but that’s the price of primary research. For show notes & my newsletter, go to chrisriback.com.

The first time he said it – or rather tweeted it – was in January 2018. In describing his business, television, and political accomplishments, President Trump typed: “I think that would qualify as not smart, but genius… and a very stable genius at that!” He said it again at a NATO meeting that July. Again the following July 2019. And again in September. And October. It’s become one of this era’s defining lines of bravado and self-image that infuriates Trump detractors and fuels his supporters with equal amounts of pleasure. Now, it’s also the title of one of this era’s defining books – an exploration of Trump’s first three years, with deep context and new extraordinary reporting. Washington Post reporters Philip Rucker and Carol Leonnig have built on the work they do every day – and, if you watch cable news, it seems every night – to deliver the No. 1 New York Times Best Seller “A Very Stable Genius – Donald J. Trump’s Testing of America.” When they’re not writing best sellers, appearing on television or breaking news, Leonnig and Rucker are also earning Pulitzer Prizes, five of them individually and as part of teams. They brought that focus and detail to their book, an overwhelming series of events and back stories that delivers a powerful narrative that defines our times. For show notes & my newsletter, go to chrisriback.com.

Rick Wilson – the sharp-witted, wise-cracking Republican political strategist, ad-maker, analyst, columnist, and crazy-good tweeter – joined me in Westchester County, NY for a live conversation about the 2020 election, impeachment, and his new book, “Running Against the Devil: A Plot to Save America from Trump – and Democrats from Themselves.” It was a terrific event, and we discussed everything: How Democrats can beat Trump? What has happened to his fellow Republicans, the ones he calls “bootlicks, yes-men, [and] edge-case weirdos?” How endangered is our democracy? Would Democrats be better off if they in fact do nominate a woman – and if so, who would make for a more compelling candidate, Elizabeth Warren or Amy Klobuchar? As a bonus, we also discussed his regular Waffle House roundtables for The Lincoln Project – breakfasts with his other #NeverTrump Republican strategists, including one named George Conway. No surprise for anyone who has heard Rick or, better yet, followed his Twitter feed: He was at his colorful best. You may notice this particular edition of Chris Riback’s Conversations carries an “explicit” label, and folks, it’s not because of me! At the end, we opened it up to questions from the audience – you’ll want to hear those. Over the next weeks, I’ll post the video from the event. For show notes & my newsletter, go to chrisriback.com.

(Note: This is a DocuPod – audio reads of important public documents. No conversation; no interview. Just the document itself.) You may have noticed: Especially with the impeachment, there’s been a lot of news, coverage and discussion – tweets, speeches, rallies, angry letters, hearings, cable panels – around two branches of government: The Executive and Legislative. But assuming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi indeed sends the two Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, and assuming Majority Leader Mitch McConnell indeed convenes a trial, our third branch – the Judiciary – will be front and center. That’s because, as you may know, when the President of the United States faces an impeachment trial in the Senate, the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court presides. And that person, of course, is John G. Roberts. Now, we don’t hear much from Chief Justices. Sure, they write some of the Court’s opinions. But they don’t really do interviews. They certainly don’t tweet. So when they speak, their words carry great power, and everyone scrambles to read between their lines. Just recently, Chief Justice Roberts spoke. Actually, he published – on New Year’s Eve, his annual Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary. And, of course, with the tensions among the branches of government – with an impeachment trial likely on the horizon – this year’s report was widely anticipated. You may recall Roberts’ last comments that seemed to be directed towards President Trump in 2018, when the Chief Justice reminded the President that, “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.” President Trump tweeted back: “Sorry Chief Justice John Roberts, but you do indeed have ‘Obama judges,’ and they have a much different point of view than the people who are charged with the safety of our country.” So what about now? Would Roberts say anything about President Trump? Would he reveal his feelings on the state of our nation – on whether we are in, or headed towards, a Constitutional Crisis? Chief Justice Roberts didn’t disappoint. As the New York Times described, Roberts “issued pointed remarks… that seemed to be addressed, at least in part, to the president himself. The two men have a history of friction, and Chief Justice Roberts used the normally mild report to denounce false information spread on social media and to warn against mob rule. Some passages could be read as a mission statement for the chief justice’s plans for the impeachment trial itself.”  For show notes & my newsletter, go to chrisriback.com.

As our 2020 Presidential campaign becomes more intense and pointed, it’s clear there is a battle going on for, among other things, America’s economic soul. Politically, the debate has exploded a revival of -isms… Populism, authoritarianism, socialism. But through the issues – from Trump’s tax cuts to Elizabeth Warren’s Health Care Plan – the complicated arguments largely can be simplified to this: For our democracy to survive, do we need massive economic restructuring? If you think this battle is new, you might want to listen to Matt Stoller. Stoller is a Fellow at the Open Markets Institute. Previously, he was a Senior Policy Advisor and Budget Analyst to the Senate Budget Committee and also worked in the US House of Representatives on financial services policy, including Dodd-Frank, the Federal Reserve, and the foreclosure crisis. He new and important book is “Goliath: The 100-Year War Between Monopoly Power and Democracy.” As Stoller outlines, the tension between monopoly and American democracy is, without exaggeration, as old as our country. In fact he explains how concentrated financial power and consumerism transformed American politics, resulting in the emergence of populism and authoritarianism, the fall of the Democratic Party, and the need to create a new democracy. As Stoller has said: “We are in a moment where capitalism is being seriously questioned. There are corrupted and concentrated markets everywhere, not just search engines and social networks but dialysis, syringes, baby food, missiles and munitions. This isn’t just a threat to our quality of life, but to our democracy itself. We have been here before, and we defeated the monopolists. But to do that, we must understand our own history.” For show notes & my newsletter, go to chrisriback.com.

It started with the generals. Mattis. Kelley. McMaster. Along with Rex Tillerson, they were part of the “Axis of Adults,” the ones, as the story of this presidency has been told, who stood between President Trump and chaos – between President Trump and his own, unchecked impulses, particularly in foreign affairs. As we know now, only Trump is left standing. And he stands impeached, because, the U.S. House of Representatives found, he couldn’t withstand his unchecked impulses and withheld U.S. military aid and White House prestige from Ukraine unless our ally announced investigations into his political rival. How did we get here? What happened to the defense and security these generals – heads of defense, security and more – were supposed to provide? And, not for nothing, where are they and what are they saying now? Peter Bergen is here to tell us. His new book is Trump and His Generals: The Cost of Chaos. Bergen seems to have been inside the room for all of the details – the fights, debates, wins, losses. His goal: “To reveal what happens when the unstoppable force of President Trump meets the immovable object of America’s national security establishment.” For show notes & my newsletter, go to chrisriback.com.

If you’re feeling lousy about the state of politics in America, now might be the time to surround yourself with some Brits. As they surely must ask about us: What in the world is going on over there? The UK is now more than three years into Brexit, the unexpected, unplanned and so far unfinished move to pull out of the European Union. The latest delayed exit was delayed again when Boris Johnson – UK’s permanently disheveled Prime Minister – couldn’t, as we like to say, get the bloody ball over the goal line. Ok, we don’t say the “bloody” part. Instead, Boris called for and got new elections. So December 12, UK voters will decide whether to elect a new leader, or not, and through that choice, whether to leave the EU or not. In other words, Britain’s future is as clear to see as a plate that holds a double helping of bangers and mash. So what, in fact, is going on over there? How did they get into this Brexit mess – and will they ever get out? Few better – or funnier or more thoughtful – to help explain than Fintan O’Toole, the award-winning writer and columnist for the Irish Times, Guardian, and New York Review of Books. His own new book is “The Politics of Pain: Postwar England and the Rise of Nationalism.” O’Toole is Irish borne and loves England – both important facts as you read and listen to him analyze the English psychology around self-pity, colonization, and that terrible EU oppression that, we’re told, led to Brexit. In fact, among the surprising insights from O’Toole – at least to this American – is O’Toole’s argument that the Brexit push has less to do with the European Union than it does with England itself. For show notes & my newsletter, go to chrisriback.com.

This is a special episode of Chris Riback's Conversations. For this podcast, I read the opening statement of Lieutenant Colonel Alexander S. Vindman to the US House Impeachment Investigators on October 29. As you surely know, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman is the decorated Iraq war veteran and top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, who listened in on that July 25 telephone call between President Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky. That’s it. No conversation; no interview. Just the 6-page document itself -- a DocuPod. Here’s why I believe there’s a need for this type of service – audio reads of important public documents. First, with our democracy under stress, these documents are interesting and essential; 2) with all of the spin, it helps to know the exact words ourselves; and 3) those exact words are powerful — much more powerful than that third-party spin. And of course: It’s really hard to find time to read them. For show notes & my newsletter, go to chrisriback.com.

This is a special episode of Chris Riback's Conversations. For this podcast, I read the opening statement of Amb. William B. Taylor, the senior U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, who testified behind closed doors before the U.S. House Impeachment Investigators on Oct. 22. His extraordinary testimony has been called “the smoking gun” of President Trump’s attempt to hold up Ukraine financial aid in exchange for political help from a foreign country. That’s it. No conversation; no interview. Just the document itself: Amb. Taylor’s 15-page opening statement – a kind of “DocuPod.” Why am I doing this? My gut is: There’s a need for this type of service – audio reads of important public documents. First, with our democracy under stress – and with continuing testimony and the House Impeachment Inquiry picking up speed – these documents are interesting and essential; second, with all of the spin, it helps to know the exact words ourselves; and third, those exact words are powerful — much more powerful than that third-party spin. Perhaps most important: It’s really hard to find time to read them. As I said, this is an experiment. Is it a good idea? I don’t know. So now the favor. I’d be grateful for your feedback – an answer to one question that you can send via email. My question: Is this service useful to you? Please let me know – along with any addition thoughts. Thank you. For show notes & my newsletter, go to chrisriback.com.

Between the alligator moat revelation and horrendous, inhumane taking of children from their parents, when considering Donald Trump’s immigration policy, it can be hard to get past the headlines. But it turns out, the immigration story serves as an incredibly useful way to consider the entire Trump presidency: Obsession, chaos, fear, depravity, and yet – meaningful, important, and potentially-lasting change that has shifted not only how the world views America, but how we view ourselves. The story has been told – through a combination of clear context, incredible detail, and expert storytelling by Julie Hirschfeld Davis and Michael D. Shear in their book, “Border Wars: Inside Trump’s Assault on Immigration.” As you’ll hear in our conversation, Davis and Shear bring us inside the rooms –uncomfortable places, really – as extreme ideas about immigration move directly from the collective minds of Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller and Jeff Sessions into the campaign and then presidency of Donald Trump. You’ll hear how Miller outmaneuvered generals and cabinet secretaries to seize control You also hear about the key player who might be most confounding of all: Former Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen. In fact as you hear more about these policymakers – and as you read Hirshfeld Davis and Shear’s book –it all seems to lead to the central questions of our time: Who are we, and what is America? Some background on Julie and Mike who, as far as I can tell from what is admittedly quick research, seem to have covered every important Washington D.C. story in the last 25 years. Julie is Congressional Editor at The New York Times; she also serves as a CNN political analyst. Michael is a White House Correspondent for The New York Times, and you can also catch him frequently on CNN. For show notes & my newsletter, go to chrisriback.com.

If one question has driven mankind’s quest for innovation, it very well might be this: How can we get more from less? For most of our time on this planet, the answer was simple: We couldn’t. As my guest Andrew McAfee points out, for just about all of human history – particularly the Industrial Era – our prosperity has been tightly coupled to our ability to take resources from the earth. We got more from more. That tradeoff yielded incredible positive contributions in nearly every field: Technology, industry, medicine. But there’s one glaring area – one of those “aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play” areas – where the trade wasn’t so incredibly positive. Of course, that’s the environment. As global industry rode the combination of human’s infinite ingenuity and Mother Nature’s finite resources – we all reaped the benefits and the costs: Exponential global warming. Perhaps it’s not an exact straight line, but the connection is clear to all but a few climate deniers. Luckily, we know the solutions: Consume less; Recycle; Impose limits; Live more closely to the land. Or do we? What if, instead, these central truths of environmentalism haven’t been the force behind whatever improvements we’ve made and, more importantly, aren’t the drivers that will solve the existential task at hand: Saving the planet? Instead, as McAfee argues in his new book, the answer is dematerialization – we’re getting more output while using fewer resources. We’re getting, as his title suggests: “More from Less: The Surprising Story of How We Learned to Prosper Using Fewer Resources – and What Happens Next.” McAfee argues that the two most important forces responsible for the change are capitalism and technological progress, the exact two forces “that came together to cause the massive increases in resource use of the Industrial Era.” Combined with two other key attributes – public awareness and responsive government – we can and do “tread ever more lightly on our planet.” McAfee knows his prescription to save the planet is controversial. He knows it will frustrate – if not outrage – most of his friends… assuming they’re still willing to call him friend. But as the saying goes: He’s done the math. He’s researched the data. And like it or not, he’s ready for the conversation. For show notes & my newsletter, go to chrisriback.com.

October 1st marked the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China – the name given by Chinese Communist Party Chairman Mao Zedong in 1949. To understate the reality, a lot has happened in China over the last 70 years. The fact is, a lot has happened in China over the last 70 days – much of it unexpected, confusing, and on-going – politically and economically. Politically, of course, pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong capture global attention and concern. So, too, does China’s economic situation, in particular, its continuing – sometimes escalating – battle with the U.S. over tariffs, intellectual property, market access, currency valuation and more… all fitting somewhat neatly under the “Great Power Competition” with the United States. As the 2020 campaign heats up, several key questions will be asked and debated, including: How did we get here – and where do China and US-China relations go next? To find out, I talked with Isaac Stone Fish – a senior fellow at the Asia Society's Center on U.S.-China Relations, as well as a visiting fellow at the German Marshall Fund, Washington Post Global Opinions contributing columnist, and more. Stone Fish has studied China from the inside, having spent seven years living there. Today he continues to analyze China’s place in the world as a Truman National Security Project fellow, a non-resident senior fellow at the University of Nottingham's China Policy Institute, and an alum of the World Economic Forum Global Shaper's program. For show notes & my newsletter, go to chrisriback.com.

As regular listeners of this podcast know, I read a lot of books. Most of them, frankly, are excellent – smart people making thoughtful arguments in engaging ways. Every once in a while, though, I read one that’s not just excellent, but delivers something more: It shifts your lens on the world. Alters your focus. New York Times Chief Television Critic James Poniewozik has written that kind of book: “Audience of One: Donald Trump, Television, and the Fracturing of America.” He’s written that kind of book not despite the fact that he analyzes television and American culture for a living… but because of it. We know Trump loves TV. We know built his image through the NY media and that he was a reality TV star. We also know reality TV is hardly reality. What we may not have considered sufficiently is what has happened to us – how, as television and media changed over the last decades, so did we. And to put it bluntly: You might not like what we’ve become – or what’s required, virtually 24/7, to capture our attention. This book and conversation are part history, part current events, and all-important. As Poniewozik writes: “Follow the media culture of America over the course of Trump’s career, and you will understand better how Trump happened. Follow how Trump happened and you will understand better what we became.” And you may wonder – as I asked Poniewozik – whether any potential Democratic candidate understands any of this well enough to beat Trump. One note: I spoke with James before House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the official Impeachment Inquiry of Donald Trump. But already, in the early days, I see evidence of what James writes about at play in the way Trump and his team are responding. For show notes & my newsletter, go to chrisriback.com.  

It was a perfect week to have Philip Mudd, CNN counterterrorism analyst, on the podcast. Phil spent some 25 years at the highest levels of the CIA – reaching Deputy Director of the National Counterterrorism Center – and FBI, where he was hired to be its first National Security Branch Deputy Director by Robert Mueller. So when you have Mueller’s Congressional Hearings nine days ago followed by President Trump’s tweets five days later announcing his intention to replace our top intelligence chief with a Republican House member who, as the Washington Post wrote, has alleged anti-Trump bias at the FBI and Mueller’s team, directly accusing Mueller of violating  “every principle in the most sacred of traditions” of prosecutors – when you have that and you want to know what in the world is the state of our national intelligence and law enforcement agencies, well, Phil Mudd is who you call.But truth be told, that timing was mostly luck. The real reason I wanted to talk with Mudd: He has written an important, first of its kind book: Black Site: The CIA in the Post-9/11 World. Mudd not only takes us inside the CIA, but inside one of the most hidden parts of the CIA, the part known internally as “The Program”: The secret Black Sites where the so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques” and where our national debates on torture, waterboarding, counterterrorism, and the deep responsibility to prevent another attack were born.How were those decisions made? How were they justified? What did CIA officers, deputy directors, directors – even people who interrogated prisoners – think and feel about what they were doing? And how do they feel about it now?  For show notes & my newsletter, go to chrisriback.com.

What happened to the Republican Party? You’ve heard of it: One of the two major political collectives in America… the one that counts Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan among its heroes? The modern GOP branded itself on ideals of fiscal responsibility, fighting dictators from the Soviet Union to Saddam Hussein, and personal morality. Today, of course, the U.S. deficit is more than $1 trillion. New age dictators are our friends. And personal morality? Well, not so much. The GOP change has been swift, stark, and you might be led to believe, all because of one person: Donald Trump. But is that true? Was Trump the cause or the most logical outcome? Perhaps more importantly, is there any going back? Is the GOP now the POT – the Party of Trump?  That’s what I asked Tim Alberta, Politico Magazine’s Chief Political Correspondent and author of “American Carnage: On the Front Lines of the Republican Civil War and the Rise of President Trump.” For show notes & my newsletter, go to chrisriback.com.

You may have heard last week’s conversation on the Supreme Court. Well, there’s something about the Supreme Court that gets listeners’ attention. I received a lot of follow-up questions – so many, that I wished I had immediate access to another constitutional scholar. Turns out, I did. I already had recorded the second half of the conversation you’ll hear today with Robert Tsai. Tsai is Professor of Law at American University and a prize-winning essayist in constitutional law and history. Previously, he clerked for two federal judges and worked civil rights lawyer in Georgia. He has written three books, the most recent of which is Practical Equality: Forging Justice in a Divided Nation. When we consider remedies to the various inequalities that define these times – from voting restrictions and oppressive measures against migrants to the rights of sexual minorities, victims of police action, and even racism in the criminal justice system – existing laws to address equality are often incomplete. But in exploring the Constitution and reexamining important historical cases, Tsai explains how legal ideas that aren’t necessarily about equality at all — ensuring fair play, acting reasonably, avoiding cruelty, and protecting free speech — have been used to overcome inequality in the past and can serve as potent alternative tools to promote equality today. Simply, Tsai offers a distinct view and outlines the possible innovative legal measures to overcome injustice. But with all the comments from last week’s podcast, I asked Robert for a favor – would he be willing to do a quick update call where I could ask him some of the Supreme Court follow-ups I got from listeners. He agreed, so here it is. For show notes & my newsletter, go to chrisriback.com

It was the Supreme Court session Democrats feared and Republicans had waited a generation for – a solidly conservative 5-4 majority. It took the Merrick Garland block and Brett Kavanaugh hearings to get here, and now that first session is complete.   So how’d it go? Were the fears and hopes realized? That’s what I asked Adam Liptak, who covers the Supreme Court for The New York Times.   As you’ll hear, for all of this session’s surprise alliances and shifting balance, it may turn out to be an important prelude that sets up a supreme bonanza: A 2020 election year session that confronts some of our most contentious issues – Immigration, the Second Amendment, discrimination against gay & transgender workers, and possibly abortion, as well as health care and the Affordable Care Act.   For show notes & my newsletter, go to chrisriback.com  

Here’s a parlor game: Outside of President Trump, who’s the most curious figure on the world stage today? China’s Xi? North Korea’s Kim? MBS of Saudi Arabia?As Trump’s interactions with global leaders raise never-ending questions, few are as perplexing – or, if we only could understand it, might explain so much – as the one with Vladimir Putin.When the Cold War ended, it all seemed so clear: History was over, and liberal democracy would deliver a new Russia. But as the so-called liberal modernizers and democratic reforms emerged, so too did a period of extreme poverty and oligarchic wealth – a debilitating era of Russian economic and social challenges, even humiliation. As that time ran its course, an apparent savior emerged – a single man who refused to consider Russian weakness and instead redefined Russian power and pride. A man who recently told the Financial Times: “The liberal idea has become obsolete.”So what happened? How is today’s polarized, disrupted world one in which Russia can thrive?  That’s what Angela Stent explains through history and analysis in her remarkable new book, Putin's World: Russia Against the West and with the Rest.Professor Stent is director of the Center for Eurasian, Russian and East European Studies and a professor of government and foreign service at Georgetown University. She has served as national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia at the National Intelligence Council, as well as in the Office of Policy Planning at the U.S. State Department. She has written numerous publications, including “The Limits of Partnership: US-Russian Relations in the Twenty-First Century, which earned her the American Academy of Diplomacy’s Douglas Dillon prize for the best book on the practice of American Diplomacy. She’s also a non-resident Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution.   For show notes & my newsletter, go to chrisriback.com

With 20 candidates and 2 Democratic debates spread over 48 hours this week, the 2020 Presidential campaign season is officially underway. We know the process: For the next 16 months, candidates will debate, boast, fundraise, debate, and fundraise some more. Then on Nov. 3, 2020, we’ll have the decision – the President will be chosen. But what about when we get a new President not over two years, but in a heart beat?  When we don’t elect our President following an intense, 500-day process, but rather get our new leader instantaneously and by accident. I’m talking, of course, about the times when we’ve gotten a new President because the sitting one died. So what does history tell us about these leaders, the process, our country – about what happens when accidents occur? Jared Cohen has written the NY Times best-selling book – “Accidental Presidents: Eight Men Who Changed America.” Cohen offers a unique way look at our history – and the many ways our country evolved purely based on chance: Because an assassin or disease forced an immediate change in our land’s highest office. For show notes & my newsletter, go to chrisriback.com

It’s already one of the major issues of the 2020 presidential campaign: Does American capitalism still work?  In the face of ever widening income disparity – not just exponential upward movement at the top, but also, at best, stagnation near the bottom — economic inequality is a key social and political topic. Which is why Joseph Stiglitz’ 55th high school reunion was so telling. It was about four years ago, the Nobel Prize winning economist was reminiscing with old friends in Gary, IN, when he heard a story that made him stand up straight. Then he heard another. And another. These classmates’ stories brought to life the statistics Stiglitz had been seeing in his economic charts: Lost jobs, poor access to health care, shorter life spans, diminishing hope. The numbers hadn’t lied, and now they were talking to Stiglitz at his high school reunion. Their message: The economy was broken. In fact, more than just the economy wasn’t working – Capitalism itself seemed off. Following that class reunion, Stiglitz further saw an erosion of society’s pillars, and – being an economist – connected them all: The economy, capitalism, and democracy. He sounded the alarm, and the result is his new, powerful book: “People, Power, and Profits: Progressive Capitalism for an Age of Discontent.” Beyond the Nobel Prize, Stiglitz' career highlights include: He served as President Clinton’s Chair of the US Council of Economic Advisers and Chief Economist of the World Bank. He’s the best-selling author of more than 10 books and today is a University Professor at Columbia University.  For show notes & my newsletter, go to chrisriback.com

A few updates:  First, we’re back. I’ve been doing a lot of prep for this new podcast season. I think you’re going to like it. Second – and maybe this should be first – you may have noticed the name change from Political Wire Conversations to Chris Riback’s Conversations. Why the change? I love politics and public policy. In these podcasts, I’ve talked with Senators, Governors, Mayors, and candidates; Generals, historians, journalists, and professors; Strategists, pollsters, and more – thinkers, writers and doers across the political spectrum. But these aren’t my only conversations. I also talk with leaders, thinkers and doers in business, technology, science, and the global marketplace. Guests include Nobel Prize laureates, a U.S. Presidential Medal of Science winner, global CEOs, two U.S. Council of Economic Advisers chairs, tech & media entrepreneurs, the most incredible cancer researchers, and more. I like these conversations a lot. More importantly, I don’t see them as distinctly different from the so-called political podcasts I do. For example – is climate change science or public policy? Are economics for business audiences or political ones? Cancer researchers are often funded, in part, by government agencies – politics or medicine? The fact is: Today, everything connects. In our extraordinarily divided times – when reason and nuance and context feel like Stone Age relics – understanding those connections simply must be our way forward. Let me know what you think at chrisriback.com. Thanks for listening – and welcome to Chris Riback’s Conversations.

So you’re in a restaurant. Great meal. The bill comes, and it’s got a surprise – an unexpected $10 charge because, well it turns out your entrée required a special ingredient the server forgot to mention.   Would you pay it? Would you expect to have to pay it?Now look at our health care. You go to the Emergency Room. They take your insurance. Only it turns out, your in-network ER is being staffed by out-of-network providers. Suddenly, in addition to the surprise of having landed in the ER in the first place, you’ve got thousands of dollars in surprise medical costs.What you wouldn’t stand for in a restaurant can happen any day in an emergency room – and New Hampshire Sen. Maggie Hassan wants to do something about it.Sen. Hassan has introduced a bill titled the “No More Medical Surprises Act.” As you’ll hear, her bill aims not only to protect patients from the outrageous bills that suddenly land folks deep in medical debt, she borrows from baseball to find a market-based solution to the problem. And no, that doesn’t involve using a baseball bat… though I bet she wishes it could.While I had Sen. Hassan for the conversation, I also wanted to take the opportunity to ask about another important and divisive issue that – like health care – went to the heart of the recent Midterm elections: Border Security and Immigration. Sen. Hassan sits on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and I wanted to know: Do Democrats have a clear message on border security and immigration?In our extraordinarily partisan times, is it reasonable to hope for agreement on a health care bill? What about immigration? You’ll want to hear Sen. Hassan’s answers.

This is a special live edition of Political Wire Conversations. On Friday, I hosted an outstanding live event and discussion at Harvard’s Kennedy School: Midterm Elections Preview: Blue Wave or Red Save? I was joined onstage by an All Star cast of panelists: Rick Wilson, Republican Political Strategist  Asha Rangappa, CNN Legal & National Affairs Analyst Clare Malone, 538 Political Reporter Taegan Goddard, Political Wire Publisher 

The countdown to Midterms is on. With less than three weeks to go, many questions remain and the stakes couldn’t be higher. How high? According to my guest today, “the nature of our democracy is on the ballot.” I’m not sure I disagree.You may remember Richard Clarke for his 30 years in the U.S government, including 10 continuous years as a White House official, serving three consecutive presidents as Special Assistant to the President for Global Affairs, Special Adviser to the President for Cyberspace, and National Coordinator for Security and Counterterrorism.His first book, "Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror," was a New York Times #1 bestseller, and he has stood on the front lines warning us about the risks and realities of cyber attacks.Now he’s got a new outlet – a podcast (c’mon, who doesn’t have a podcast these days?) called Future State. The 10 episode run started last month and ends the day before the Midterms. Once you’re done listening to all of my podcasts, I really recommend listening to Clarke’s. I’m just kidding of course. You don’t have to listen to all of my conversations first. Just most of them.Clarke and I discussed the important news of the day – Jamal Khashoggi, Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, and of course, cyber.

How do you make the most arcane, overlooked, eyes-glaze-over – and most critical – aspect of the U.S. government – interesting? How do you help folks understand that the so-called deep state – the parts of the bureaucracy that some people ignore and belittle – is actually vital to our safety, well-being and, frankly, our future?Simple: Have Michael Lewis write about.And now he has. In his new book, The Fifth Risk, goes inside several government departments – Energy, Agriculture, Interior, EPA – and reveals the truths that might seem funny if they weren’t so scary: Not only was the Trump Administration unprepared to run the government, the plan may have been crafted and executed by design. Want to shrink government? The easiest way is simply not to staff it.And why does this matter? Well, do natural disasters like hurricanes or fires matter? Is it important to find black market uranium before terrorists do? What if we no longer feed kids at school?Lewis does for government bureaucracy what he’s done for the unsung part of a football team’s offensive line, credit default swaps and a baseball executive’s approach to talent: He pulls it apart and exposes the fascinating, essential elements.Lewis does what no politician has taken the time – or, seemingly, has the ability to do: Make clear why government matters. Reagan famously said, “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."  Maybe that’s because Reagan never read Michael Lewis’ new book.

One thing is sure about the extraordinary, once-in-a-generation Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing last week: There was a lot of anger in the room.Judge Brett Kavanaugh: Angry. Senator Lindsay Graham: Angry.But it might have been the anger outside the room that changed everything. You’ve seen the video – two women somehow got hold of Senator Jeff Flake in an elevator, and they unleashed: “Look at me when I’m talking to you,” one shouted. “Don’t look away from me!”For many, watching that scene felt uncomfortable – not just the cornering of a U.S. Senator. The scene of women getting mad in public. But for others, including author Rebecca Traister, the scene was a remarkable, appropriate and much-needed display of what they already knew: Women have been angry for a long time – in fact, very likely as long as there have been women.Most of the time, as Rebecca Traister wrote in Sunday’s NY Times, “female anger is discouraged, repressed, ignored, swallowed.” That time, Traister argues in her landmark, must-read new book “Good and Mad: The Revolutionary Power of Women’s Anger,” that time should be fully behind us.Keep your eyes open – something massive and important is happening again in America. The role and impact of women’s anger is evolving.The anger has always been there, of course. Even before Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Stanton and the women’s suffrage movement, there was Abigail Adams and others. We saw it in the 60s and 70s. We saw Anita Hill.But something new has been developing – through movements like #MeToo  and new voices like Emma Gonzalez. And now, certainly, through Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.A note: I spoke with Rebecca last week, before the hearings occurred. But as you’ll hear, if you want to understand what’s happening – where we’ve been and where we’re going? Rebecca Traister is the one to explain.

Think your life is crazy? How’d you like to be a White House correspondent with Donald Trump in the Oval Office?After all, if your daily schedule doesn’t get turned around multiple times, you always could get cursed or threatened at a campaign rally. In fact, just 60 minutes before my conversation with CBS News Chief White House Correspondent Major Garrett began, news broke that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had resigned. Or was fired. Either way, he was gone. Then, 20 minutes after the recording, Rosenstein was back – and meeting with Trump later in the week to figure things out.It’s a perfect example of what Major means and writes about in his terrific book “Mr. Trump's Wild Ride: The Thrills, Chills, Screams, and Occasional Blackouts of an Extraordinary Presidency.” The book itself is a great ride: Major is a professional storyteller. And as you’ll hear, he brings new details and drama to the events we all lived through. He brings the reality show to life: What’s it really like to cover Donald Trump?

Doris Kearns Goodwin. Do I need to say more?Seven books; multiple New York Times’ best sellers; Pulitzer Prize. She is simply one of our nation’s great presidential historians.And Doris has spent much of her career studying four of the best – Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, and LBJ. Now she takes a new look at all of them through a lens that – as you’ll hear – feels as much a commentary about today as it does on history. It’s titled “Leadership in Turbulent Times.”Doris explores the early signs, growth, and active display of leadership for each of them, exploring not only the green shoots sprouting early in their lives, but also how that leadership took over during the key – if not most important – moments of their presidencies: Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation Teddy Roosevelt’s handling of the Great Coal Strike of 1902 FDR’s First Hundred Days LBJ and Civil Rights  A great historian writes about yesterday, of course, but with a keen eye on today – making clear why earlier lessons, actions, and events help guide us in current times. Doris hits this one, too.It’s impossible to read her book and not think about our current president. In fact, I asked her directly whether a book titled “Leadership in Turbulent Times” was an entire trolling of Trump himself. And she answered.

How important has the Supreme Court become in American life? From gun rights to personal relationships, from money in politics to healthcare, whether it’s access to abortion, the voting booth or even our borders, the Supreme Court increasingly dominates how we work, live, and play – it defines, quite often, what kind of country we are.You could argue that it was the deciding factor for millions of voters in the last Presidential election – potentially the deciding factor in the election itself.And this week, of course – between anonymous New York Times op-eds and Bob Woodward book drops – the Senate held confirmation hearings for our likely next Justice, the one who many believe will turn this purple Court decidedly red for the next generation.How did this happen? In Alexander Hamilton’s words, the Court would be based “neither on force nor will, but merely judgment.” While the president “holds the sword” and Congress “commands the purse,” the court would be “the least dangerous branch.”How did it all change? How have we we’ve transitioned our toughest political issues into judicial ones?That's the question and American challenge that David A. Kaplan addresses in his new and outstanding book, “The Most Dangerous Branch: Inside the Supreme Court's Assault on the Constitution.”In writing the book, Kaplan talked with a majority of the sitting Justices – incredible access. He tracks the shifts, outlines how the Justices took more and more political power, and explains why that is flat out dangerous for our country.Also, as we discuss, Kaplan top-ticked it in terms of timing – who else has been able to perfectly time a Supreme Court book with a Supreme Court confirmation? Even if you don’t like his analysis, which I think you will, you’ve got to admire his commercial sense.

Who is Mike Pence? It seems strange, but more than two years after he entered our national stage, how much do you feel you know about the Vice President? He’s a man of faith – we know that… but what exactly does it mean? He has acted as something of an economic libertarian – he’s a favorite of the Koch Brothers. But again, what does that mean – and how does it connect with his religious beliefs? And then there’s his treatment of Donald Trump – George Will notably called Pence a “sycophantic poodle.” And we all remember the Cabinet roundtable in 2017 where Pence, as the Washington Post noted, offered “one expression of gratitude or admiration every 12 seconds” over three minutes of “impromptu praise.” How do these strands – faith, economics, and his exceptional handling of Donald Trump – come together? Who, in fact, is Mike Pence? That’s what Michael D’Antonio and Peter Eisner cover in their new biography “The Shadow President: The Truth About Mike Pence.” It’s an extraordinary and revealing story, tracing Pence from his youth in Columbus, IN through his religious awakening and political climb. It’s also an important story – Pence, of course, is a heartbeat away. About my guests: Michael D'Antonio is an author, journalist, and CNN commentator. He shared the 1984 Pulitzer Prize for Local Reporting with a team of Newsday reporters and has written over a dozen books, including the 2015 biography The Truth About Trump.  Peter Eisner has won national and international awards as a foreign correspondent, editor and reporter at The Washington Post, Newsday, and the Associated Press. He also was nominated for an Emmy in 2010 as a producer at PBS World Focus. As you’d expect from practiced storytellers, it was a terrific conversation.    

Jason Kander has a lot going on.To begin, he’s running for mayor of Kansas City. For most of us, that would be a full-time job. But as you’ll hear, Jason Kander is most definitely not the rest of us. It’s not just that he can rebuild a combat weapon while blindfolded, as he proved in a 2016 political ad.It’s also not simply that in reaction to 9/11, he did what only a few other brave and patriotic people did – volunteered for US military service and got himself sent to Afghanistan.It’s not even the crazy volume of meaningful activity he sustains simultaneously — in addition to the Kansas City race, he started Let America Vote, a PAC that aims to end voter suppression across the U.S.; he hosts Majority 54, the Crooked Media-backed podcast that debuted at No. 1 when it launched last November; and now he’s written a new book, Outside the Wire: Ten Lessons I’ve Learned in Everyday Courage. As you’ll hear, the book is less about life lessors and more of a call to arms.Beyond that, what sets Jason apart — he connects with people. All kinds of people — including, as he describes in our conversation, ones who don’t agree with him on all the issues. Listen to Jason now… It surely won’t be the last you hear from him.

Rick Wilson doesn’t expect you to like him.For the last 30 years, Rick has been part of the underbelly of American politics: A self-described “Republican political strategist and infamous negative ad-maker.”And he’s done it for Republicans at all levels – state, local, & national, ranging from George H.W. Bush to Rudy Giuliani. As he says, he’s the one you called when you needed an attack.Not that feels his Democratic competitors were any better. But among them all, they helped make our politics nasty, bitter, angry, and mean.Now we have a divided country and Donald Trump is President. And Wilson – who, as you’ll hear, feels some guilt about the mess we’re in – is trying to do something about it.And he’s written all about it in his new book: Everything Trump Touches Dies: A Republican Strategist Gets Real About the Worst President Ever.If you’ve seen Rick on TV, you know he’s a live wire. Just this week Morning Joe had to use 7-second delay and literally mute one of his colorful rants. So, buckle up.In fact, one note about that in terms of this conversation: Some of the audio went haywire – Rick started to digitize with our internet connection. I let some of it go, because the guy delivers gold – I didn’t want to stop him. About halfway through I gave up on the Internet and called him on his landline, so definitely stay with it.

The latest economic numbers are out, and by the time you hear this podcast, Donald Trump surely will have told us all why they are great, why tariffs work, and why this economy is the best ever.But you know better. Or at least Washington Post opinion columnist Catherine Rampell does. While we may have one or multiple months of strong GDP, the key question remains: Is that growth sustainable? And as she wrote, “Right now, under Trump’s policies, the answer looks like a big fat no.”So today my goal was to better understand Trumponomics, and whether bad economics might just be good politics.After all, we’re running up debt, collecting fewer taxes, destroying free trade, fighting with trade partners, implementing tariffs, and then bailing out farmers with $12 billion of handouts to pay for the results. As I seem to ask every week: What is going on?About Catherine Rampell: As you surely know, her columns focus on economics, public policy, politics and culture, with a special emphasis on data-driven journalism. Before the Post poached her, she previously wrote for the New York Times.

Well, that was quite a week. And no doubt, in the few hours between my recording this intro and when the podcast drops, another extraordinary week will have passed.How to make sense of it? To fashionably employ the double negative – it’s so good to see grammar finally get its due on the world stage – I don’t think it’s unfair to ask: Where are we as a nation?For guidance, I turned to former U.S. Ambassador and current professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, Nicholas Burns. Without exaggeration, I don’t think I could have found anyone better.A full rundown of his bio could be a podcast on its own. Just some highlights:·     Served or participated under five presidents·     U.S. Ambassador to NATO – including on 9/11 – and Greece·     State Department Spokesman·     National Security Council, where he held roles covering Russia, Ukraine, Eurasia Affairs, and the Soviet Union·     Onsite service at the American Consulate General in Jerusalem and U.S. Embassies in Egypt and MauritaniaAnd don’t get me started on his 15 honorary degrees, Presidential Distinguished Service Award, Secretary of State’s Distinguished Service Award – all of which, I bet, Burns would rank below his true claim to fame: Life-long member of Red Sox Nation.  

It feels like a lifetime ago, I know. But so much of what’s happening today – the divides, anger, insults, policy realities – have emerged as a reaction to the Obama years. To understand today, it helps to understand what came before.Brian Abrams makes an important contribution to the process. Abrams specializes in oral histories – talking with key players and letting their words, almost exclusively, tell the story.Done well, this approachthoughtful narrative. That’s exactly what Abrams did his new book “Obama: An Oral History.”It’s a rare opportunity to relive and understand the Obama years, from the inside. Brian talked with many of the key players, Democrats and Republicans. He joined me for a terrific conversation – just what you’d expect from a great storyteller. I think you’ll like it.

So here’s the timeline: Two days ago, I spoke with Dan Pfeiffer. As you surely know, he’s President Obama's former communications director and senior advisor and co-host of a podcast you might have heard of: Pod Save America. Then yesterday, Dan’s new book -- Yes We (Still) Can: Politics in the Age of Obama, Twitter, and Trump – debuts at No. 1 on the New York Times best-seller list. Co-incidence? I’ll let you decide. All I can do is accurately portray the facts.The other thing I can do: Tell you that the book is a terrific read, and the conversation was even better. He’s got a great sense of humor. That comes out in the book, too.We also discussed the serious side of politics today: I asked Dan about Democratic messaging for the midterms and beyond – what should their message be and can they possible overcome all of the noise? As well: Who’s the elected Democrat who can best lead that narrative? We also discussed the ways in which he feels the Barack Obama’s election helped lead to Donald Trump. 

In the face of jailing immigrant children, questions about capitalism amid tariffs and possible trade wars, and concerns about democracy as we reject western allies and warmly welcome authoritarians and dictators, a lot of us are wondering not just who are we, but also, how in the world did we get here?Steven Brill feels he has an answer.You likely know: Brill is a serial ideas entrepreneur. He founded, among other ventures, American Lawyer and Court TV. He has taken on some of our biggest issues and institutions – Law, Journalism, Healthcare, Schools. Now he’s at it again, and the topic is no less than the American decline.He has written it all down in “Tailspin: The People and Forces Behind America's Fifty-Year Fall--and Those Fighting to Reverse It”Tailspin is a vital and complicated story that Brill simplifies like this: About five decades ago, the core values that make America great began to bring America down.The story’s also complicated because, as you’ll hear, Brill himself is a beneficiary of the very system that seems to have gone haywire: Meritocracy. That well-meaning approach to success – where we all get judged by what we can do rather than from where we came – has been turned against itself. As the knowledge-based economy grew, those at the top have pulled up the ladders. We live, he argues, in a country of moats.

For many on the right and left, the question has been “what’s happening to the GOP?” Free Trade? Gone. Budget deficits? No problem Free movement of labor? Not so much. Military war exercises? Who needs’em? Russia as outlaw state? How about Russia in the G8? I think a more fair – and probably more relevant question: What is the GOP?And frankly, the question comes more from the right than the left. Bob Corker basically asked it this week on the Senate floor. Conservative writers ask it in columns and tweets. GOP voters ask it, particularly as they primary established conservatives like South Carolina’s Mark Sanford and, perhaps, Alabama’s Martha Roby.Today I’ll ask it.Scott Jennings is a political strategist and co-founder of RunSwitch Public Relations in Kentucky. You’ve seen him on CNN, where he is resolutely polite and Republican. Among many roles: He served as Special Assistant to President George W. Bush and Deputy White House Political Director. He worked for Mitt Romney in 2012 and Jeb Bush in the last election. He also has worked on numerous campaigns for his home state Senator, Mitch McConnell. Just this spring he was a Fellow at Harvard’s Institute of Politics.

Does President Trump think he’s a king?That was the provocative headline to a recent piece by Harry Litman, a former U.S. Attorney and Deputy Assistant U.S. Attorney General. Litman made his argument after reviewing the legal arguments made in that confidential 20-page memo sent by President Trump’s lawyers to the special counsel, Robert Mueller.I wanted to talk with Litman for many reasons, not least of which: He’s a Constitutional Law expert. We discussed other major legal questions, including Paul Manafort, leaks, and whether a president can pardon himself.

If you know Bill Browder's story already, you surely won’t mind hearing it again. It’s extraordinary. If you haven’t heard it before, get ready. Bill Browder very well may be Vladimir Putin’s public enemy No. 1. Why? Remember that “Hillary dirt” Russia meeting that Don Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort had with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya in June 2016 – the one the White House said was about Russian adoptions?As you’ll hear, “Russian adoptions” is code for the Magnitsky Act – legislation passed in 2012 that now blocks more than 40 Russian government officials and businesspeople from entering the U.S., froze their U.S. bank assets and banned them from accessing U.S. banking systems. Bill Browder is the force behind the Magnitsky Act.Everything about Browder’s story is made for a movie – His upbringing, professional career, and especially his life since an early-morning November 2009 phone call informed him that his lawyer, Sergei Magnitzky had been beaten to death by guards on a Russian prison floor.And as we know from the recent UK poisoning of that Russian ex-spy and his daughter – as well as various journalist killings – sitting in Putin’s crosshairs is, to put it mildly, an uncomfortable place. Just this week – after our conversation occurred, so we didn’t discuss it – Browder was briefly arrested in Spain on a Russian arrest warrant. Turned out the warrant had expired, and Browder was released. But the threat is always there.

Of the many institutions that Donald Trump has attacked – Courts, Congress, media, political parties, diplomats, former Presidents – perhaps the most surprising and unnerving has been the relentless attacks on our intelligence community. Even before that second day in office – the one where he stood before the 117 stars honoring the CIA’s fallen and said we should’ve kept Iraq’s oil, claimed almost everyone in the room voted for him, and, of course, raved about the inauguration crowd size – even before all that, the attacks were there.Why does he do it? More importantly, what’s the impact on our country and our stability?Gen. Michael Hayden has written as thorough, thoughtful and complex an analysis as I’ve seen in his new book  “The Assault on Intelligence: American National Security in an Age of Lies.” Gen. Hayden connects our Enlightenment Era roots, philosophy, history, science and our post-truth insanity with the mindfulness you’d expect from a former CIA Director. Oh, and his answer: A resounding nothing good. Hayden spoke frankly and directly, which shouldn’t surprise. He’s also a retired United States Air Force four-star general and former Director of the National Security Agency. He doesn’t mince words.

Can we talk politics?In the last weeks on this podcast, we’ve talked about racism, our shrinking diplomacy, the Mueller investigation, how democracies die, and more.But we ought not forget: it’s the political elections that deliver the policies that define our democracy. Not happy with how things are going? You might want to vote. Thrilled? Well, you may want to, also.So where’s our Midterm vote headed? Who’s up, who’s down, where’s the Blue Wave – and how much do particular candidates actually matter, or is all politics today really just about Donald Trump?Amy Walter is the person to talk to. Amy is National Editor of The Cook Political Report and simply one of best political journalists around. She’s the former ABC News Political Director. Her weekly column is must-read. When she’s not writing, you regularly see her on one of the television political shows. And now, starting in June, she’ll be Friday host of The Takeaway on WNYC. There’s no avoiding Amy.

Usually we drop these conversations on Friday mornings – you know, something to look forward to since the workweek excitement is about to end.But we’re posting this on Monday, May 7 because of my guest: It’s his last day as Mayor of New Orleans.Did you see the speech? It was about a year ago and New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu stood up and explained to his city and the nation, really, why he removed four statues that honored the Confederacy: Robert E. Lee; Jefferson Davis; P.G.T. Beauregard; and the Crescent City White League.In that speech, Landrieu took on race and inequality and history. He asked: “Why there are no slave ship monuments, no prominent markers on public land to remember the lynchings or the slave blocks; nothing to remember this long chapter of our lives; the pain, the sacrifice, the shame... all of it happening on the soil of New Orleans. So for those self-appointed defenders of history and the monuments, they are eerily silent on what amounts to this historical malfeasance, a lie by omission. There is a difference between remembrance of history and reverence of it.”It was a powerful 20 minutes, and if you haven’t watched it, you should.For a mayor who had so much else to be proud of – his city: New Orleans has rebuilt itself incredibly since Katrina; and his family: his father Moon Landrieu was New Orleans mayor and HUD Secretary under Jimmy Carter; his sister was a U.S. Senator – the speech brought Landrieu into the national conversation at a time when there was a lot of yelling and not much talking.Landrieu has written a book about the statues and race in America – it’s called “In the Shadow of Statues: A White Southerner Confronts History,” and it’s excellent.I spoke with Mayor Landrieu four days ago – before term limits meant he would give way to a new mayor. He was gracious with his time – and funny and thoughtful with his words.I asked him about the speech, the book, New Orleans, and of course the question everyone has about him: What about that running for President thing?  

Iran, North Korea, Syria, Brexit, Paris Agreement, China. Prime Minister Abe, Macron, Merkel, Xi, a fellow named Putin. At a time when U.S. foreign policy – when diplomacy itself – requires as much clarity and coordination and skill as it has in decades, ours has been going through – to put it diplomatically – a major transition.You know the headlines: Thousands of State Department positions unfilled. Budgets slashed. Tillerson fired. One day we have the world’s biggest button; the next, we’re ready to travel across the world for a summit with a leader who just months ago was a madman.How’d we get here?That’s what Ronan Farrow has pieced together – through exceptional storytelling and just plain reporting – in his new book “War on Peace: The End of Diplomacy and the Decline of American Influence.” Farrow did the work, talking with every living Secretary of State. And what he’s pulled together is the story of not only the shrinking, but also the militarization, of U.S. foreign policy. And to be clear: It didn’t start with Trump.You might have heard of Farrow. He’s a bit ubiquitous and, if you ask me, extraordinary. He just won a share of the 2018 Pulitzer Prize for public service: his The New Yorker articles helped to uncover the Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations and played an important part in fueling the #MeToo movement. He has been a lawyer, diplomat, journalist, and a Rhodes Scholar. He worked in the Obama State Department as Special Adviser for Humanitarian and NGO Affairs in the Office of the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, among other roles.And as you’ll hear, he’s also extremely gracious, which is not a bad quality, even if you’re no longer a diplomat.

Forget everything you think you know about President Jimmy Carter and get ready to ask yourself: Was he an ineffective, overwhelmed outsider who oversaw four of the worst years in our history… or, as my guest today argues, was Carter’s presidency one of the most consequential in modern history. I confess – I forgot just how much occurred during Carter’s four years – and how much of what he did set the stage for politics and policies today: Ideas like protecting the environment, putting human rights at the center of our foreign policy, energy conservation, the Middle East peace process, and perhaps most painful in today’s political ridiculousness: A post-Watergate President who ran for office on the promise that “I’ll never lie to the American people.”Say what you want about Carter; he kept that promise.But for all the success, Carter’s presidency is rarely hailed. He micromanaged. He tried to do too much. He ruined the economy. He oversaw gas lines in America – literally, lines of people in cars waiting to fill their gas tanks. Google it. And most terribly, he couldn’t free the American hostages from 444 days of captivity in Iran.So how should we consider Jimmy Carter’s presidency?Stu Eizenstat had a front row seat to it all. From 1969 to 1981, Eizenstat worked for peanut farmer, governor, candidate, and President Carter, ultimately as his chief White House domestic policy adviser. Eizenstat has written an historical take on Carter’s four years as President – one that Stu himself says is largely positive, yes, but doesn’t shy away from harsh criticism, too. As Stu writes: “I am not nominating Jimmy Carter for a place on Mount Rushmore. He was not a great president, but he was a good and productive one.”More on Stu: Before the Carter years, he had worked as a very young man in the LBJ administration. After Carter, he served as US Ambassador to the European Union and then Deputy Secretary of the Treasury under Bill Clinton. He has been a powerful presence internationally, and was awarded high civilian awards from the governments of France (Legion of Honor), Germany, Austria, and Belgium, as well as from Secretary of State Warren Christopher, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and Secretary of the Treasury Lawrence Summers. He now heads the international practice at Covington & Burling.His exceptional book gives insight and context to every crisis and challenge of the 1970s… We talked about many of them – most relevant for today, I asked him about how much of what Carter did is being attacked by Trump and Trump’s own approach to the Presidency.