Trump’s Domination Politics, at Home and Abroad with Fareed Zakaria

When you get older, you got to have yourself a little bit of the comfort. And that's where the avocado green mattress comes in, man. And unlike most mattress brands, they'll only sell you online. They do have stores too. You can go in the store. You can try them out. Unbelievably comfortable. Avocado mattress is designed for comfort, support, helping your body stay aligned. You know, the last time my body was aligned, it's been, I think it might've been the last time the Mets won the world series. That's how long it's been since it's been aligned. But these mattresses, avocado green mattress, responsibly sourced organic materials that are built to last. So get an avocado green mattress. Avocado products are made, not manufactured and thoughtfully crafted with real materials to deliver lasting comfort and support. You can experience them in person at an avocado showroom or premier retailer near you or shop online at avocadogreenmattress.com slash TWS to check out their mattress and furniture sales. It's avocadogreenmattress.com slash TWS, avocadogreenmattress.com slash TWS, period. This episode is brought to you by TXU Energy. For the first time ever, Texans have an energy plan that combines free nights all year with daytime summer savings. It's called Free Nights and Cool Summer. You get free nights every night, all year long, plus a 25% bonus toward your daytime use all summer. It's a first of its kind plan. Created for how Texans. Texans actually use energy. Discover how much more you could save with Free Nights and Cool Summer. TXU Energy. Energy for everything. Visit TXU.com for more information. Rep number 10004. Hello. Welcome back to the weekly show podcast with Jon Stewart. My name is Jon Stewart and we have been gone God knows how long we've been gone. I can tell you how long we've been gone. I'm back at my podcast. death. And there are, it would appear to be three dead insects. You would think that I would have come up here and clear those out, but I took a nice break, but boy, did the world not. There is so much going on that is disparaging and needing of framing. And I'm delighted to have Fareed Zakaria is going to be joining us on the show. You know, so much of this is about what exactly is the theory of power for this Trump administration. Is there anything that we can figure out that kind of gives us a coherent directional worldview as to where these guys are going? Or is it just literally big fuck small? I think it's more complicated than that. How does Iran and Venezuela fit into all that? You know, all these different things we will try and run through and, and get some through line that could maybe help us feel slightly less vertigo from what we feel from the bouncing around between we are going to invade, uh, Greenland. And also is that delicious oil? I think I'm going to have to, to, to take over your country and drill it. Uh, so I'm going to have a talk to this fella used to come on the old daily show, uh, constantly. And, and I haven't been able to talk to him in quite a bit. So I'm delighted to have him on the program today. Mr. Fareed Zakaria, host of CNN's Fareed Zakaria GPS. And so folks in a world that has, uh, so many now, uh, plates spinning in the air and, and a constant stream of what appear to be, uh, really close to cattle cataclysmic events and, and catastrophes. Uh, we, we bring in a gentleman who's been doing his program, keeping an eye on all this sort of thing for 18 years now, Fareed Zakaria, host of CNN's Fareed Zakaria, uh, GPS. And as we spoke earlier, you were the most frequent guest that we had on the daily show back when I still had to work every night, which God bless. You figured that early on Fareed, didn't you? Well, it was a huge pleasure. And honestly, but you, you asked me to do it when I was very young and, um, it was based on my first book actually, uh, which was all about illiberal democracy, you know, democracies where elected rulers start to abuse, elected leaders start to abuse the rule of law and, uh, you know, individual rights. Uh, in those days I was talking about places like Pakistan and the Philippines, not the United States of America. Um, and it was a huge pleasure. Uh, and of course it leaves me wondering, you know, what happened, John? What am I chopped liver? Why have you forgotten me? Oh, let me, let me tell you what happens. So I disappear for nine years, raised a couple of kids. And then, uh, I decided to come back once a week. I don't have time for any guests. I don't, somebody shows up. You got to see you. Now you got to look young and hip. And like, I'm, you know, I'm old news. I don't somehow, I think this face, uh, you know, I'm ready to play Tevye in Fiddler. I mean, with this face, it's you'd be good. None of this is working, uh, for read, uh, what, what a great way to, to jump into it, which is, you know, you, you make your bones on this idea of illiberal democracies. And all the ways in which, uh, these more authoritarian rulers use the mechanisms of democracy to create systems that are actually eroding it and corroding it, uh, and the infrastructure of it to the point of, uh, somewhat of a collapse. And, and you jumped my first question, which is, uh, are you seeing now the things that you viewed in, in Philippines? And I don't want to be, you know, alarmist or hyperbolic, but boy, it's hard not to view this country as, you know, the polite way to would be, I guess we are now a subsidiary of the Trump organization, which would look at it more benignly. And the, the less benign way would be they've been using these illiberal techniques in test kitchens in the Philippines and all kinds of other places. And now they've brought this new McRib to the United States and they're applying it here. Uh, look, there's no question that, that that's true. If you, when I was writing about it, when I coined the phrase illiberal democracy in 96, 97, I was looking at, you know, places like Pakistan, the Philippines, Slovakia, uh, Turkey under Erdogan, you could begin to see it happening. Um, and I always thought that this is not going to affect the developed world as much. I did actually, in my book, have a chapter or two about America, but I thought it was sort of like a tendency, a danger that we were becoming too enamored. And I thought, well, I'm going to do this. I'm going to do this. You know, of the idea of, uh, these charismatic leaders. And, but what I didn't expect is that the institutional framework of, of Western democracies would be as fragile as it is. And in this case, actually the United States is, is in worse shape than other places. Um, so if you look at in Europe, explain that we're in worse shape than places like Pakistan and Slovakia and Turkey. No, no, no, no, no. More than in places like in Europe. So look, I see, I see. Yeah. Georgia Maloney comes to power in Italy and she's a fire breathing right-wing populist. And, but she's contained by the institutions. Her policies have actually not been as radical as people thought they would be partly because there are lots of institutions, both within Italy and within the European union that, that, and she's basically not torn them up in, in the, in the United States. You know, we have, we have the oldest constitution in the world, which is great in many ways, but in some ways it's kind of old fashioned. So for example, um, our justice department does technically sit entirely under the president. That is not true in Europe. All their justice departments are independent agencies. Um, so what that means is that what we developed after Watergate was a set of norms. Uh, you know, the president wouldn't ask the attorney general to prosecute certain cases, but those are all just norms that we developed after Watergate and Trump just broke them all. And he just said, look, there's no law that tells me I can't do this. Similarly, he's correct. When he says there's no law that says my kids can't do all the business they want and take advantage of the fact that they're my children. And, you know, all these things were norms. And what it's turned out is that we need more actual laws that constrain, uh, executive power in particular. And the challenge here is the Supreme court, um, has, has become so pro executive power that we're, I think we're in a very bad fix because you can see the problem as you described it. The, the, the, you know, the Trump presidency is basically knocking down norms in many cases, violating laws that the TikTok ban should have been implemented as a congressional ban. That was a law. Congress made it a law and he's done rescissions. He's pulled money back. So that, that's my question to you. Cause we talk a lot about how Trump has blown past norms or, you know, let's say Maloney goes into Italy, but she's more constrained. But I think what Trump is demonstrating is that even these laws, it's not so much that the system has been constraining, uh, individuals is that the individuals themselves believed in that system as being the most viable and most stable and most productive. It would be the most prosperous. It's one of the reasons why America is so strong. It's one of the reasons why America has done so well is because by laying out rules of the road and adhering to it, we've earned credibility and trust that we weren't. going to be ruled by the whims of mercurial and volatile leaders. Trump, I think, has made a different choice. I think he's shown the weakness of liberal democracies, almost not in norms, but by the idea that if you control, what did he say about the Supreme Court when they, the Supreme Court came in and said, you can't do that? And what was his response? How are you going to enforce that? So it's not, I think Trump is actually, it's worse than, oh, he's blowing past. It's why I wasn't so bothered by, oh, he fired some inspector generals. When he blew past norms, I kind of soft peddled it. This is a different, this is a different thing that is now being accomplished. This isn't about norms. It's exposing, the weakness of the enforcement mechanisms of the laws that a powerful executive just decides to ignore. Yeah. And that is in some ways at the heart of the, you know, the problem of the American constitution, because I would argue that one of the, you know, the things that the founders really could not have imagined was these political parties that are so loyal to the party and to the president as the, the head of the party that they completely abdicate their institutional loyalty to Congress, right? So Madison always believed that congressional power would always be a check on executive power because Congress wants to retain its own self-interested, you know, for self-interested reasons, retain power. No, Mike Johnson is happy to be the errand boy to Donald Trump. Of course. Because at the end of the day, he knows that the way he's going to stay in power and get elected is because he's going to be the errand boy to Donald Trump. So if you have a system like that, you actually don't have the checks and balances. The checks and balances are completely notional. Or similarly, as you point out with the court, I think what Trump is doing, for example, on the tariff case is a fascinating use again of this kind of illiberal democracy, which he's intimidating the court and saying, we're doing this for national security. We're getting tons of revenue. All these deals have been done. You undo the whole reputation and a set of relationships I have and deals I have made. Well, yes, but what you did was plainly unconstitutional. I mean, literally, it is in the Constitution, in a line, not by implication or inference. There is a line that says foreign commerce will be regulated by Congress. Tariffs were regulated by Congress. And by the way, they knew what tariffs were. The reason we had the American Revolution. Tariffs. You know, when people talk about the tea party, you know, what was that? That was a tariff on, you know, which they called a tax and a tariff interchangeable on tea coming in from Britain. Which of course was, the tariff was paid by Britain and not the American people. And it raised so much money and we were so powerful. But by the way, that means, that means the whole American Revolution was a misunderstanding. If only we had realized that we were, that we in America were not paying the tariffs, it was the poor Brits who were paying it. Why did we revolt? That's right. It was, it was making us, it was making America great again, again. But, but the thing that it is not hard for me to foresee a world that even if the Supreme Court says those tariffs are unconstitutional, that he will not get rid of them or Congress, which is now a vestigial organ will just say, or, or they may do the, you know, a different thing and say, okay, they have, certainly they control the Senate and they control. The House and they could pass them if they wanted to, but they abdicate responsibility because they don't want to go on record for anything. But I don't think he'll do it, John, because I think if your inspector's general point is an interesting one. So, you know, he comes in for day one, he fires all the inspectors general. Now, congressional law allows the president to fire the inspectors general, but there's a procedure in the law, which is you have to give six months notice. He didn't follow a procedure. There has to be a specific charge of complaints against each inspector general. And he filed them all without cause. I think that for Trump and for the people around him, and I think this is very much part of the heritage 2025 project. It is, it is important as an act of principle to violate these laws because they believe these laws are incorrectly constraining executive power. So I think what Trump will do is he will deliberately not go to Congress to get congressional authorization because he wants to make the point I, as president, am going to retain the right to do this. And it'll be some made up jumble of emergency national security. You know, lawyers can argue anything and he'll come up with, but if you look at the way in which he handles the recisions, as you said, it's absolutely clear that you can't just stop spending money that Congress gave. But they want to do it. But he did. Right? Because they want to make the point that we think all these constraints are bullshit. We, in the executive branch, can't do that. But he did. Right? We in the executive branch can do whatever we want. What I'm puzzled by is do the Republicans going along with this not realize that one day there will be a Democratic president? But I think what they believe is that because you will find that Congress suddenly grows a spine again when a Democrat takes office. I think what they're not understanding, and maybe they think of the Democratic president won't push this to the extent that he does, is that final step to that, which is, and what we were talking about earlier, which is, you and what army, motherfucker? How are you going to enforce this? And that's where I think the line is being drawn in the most dangerous place. It's the Andrew Jackson line. You remember when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Sioux Indians who were being displaced? Or Cherokee. Yeah. And Andrew Jackson is supposed to have said, Justice Marshall has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it. That's exactly right. And Stephen Miller has made this case explicitly. You know, he's gone out and he does that. You know, whenever he talks, I always imagine like dark clouds start to arise over there and like the theme from The Exorcist starts playing. But, you know, his point is, hey, we see the world as it is and the world belongs to the strong and the strong. And this gets to, and I want to talk about, it's a more generalized theory of power because right now they're trying to find. They're trying to find a coherent governing philosophy that they can sell the, you know, the Don Roe doctrine or these different things. We're going to strengthen our hemisphere and that's what makes America great and all these different things. What I believe they have decided is kind of a more old school theory of power, which is coerced compliance is ultimately better than alliance. Mm-hmm. That common cause alliance. That common cause alliance will not get America the prosperous future that coerced compliance will get us. And you see it everywhere. We're going to get Greenland or we're going to do it the nice way or we're going to do it the hard way. So even if he strikes a deal to buy it or to do these other things, it is obviously at the point of a gun. I don't think, and you know, we'll tie this all together because I have something I want to ask you about in terms of Iran and Venezuela. I want to ask you about Iran and Venezuela with all of that. But would you say that the bet they are making is that one, that we want to take the world back to those systems where might makes right. If you have the larger Navy, you get to take it and just blindly ignoring how volatile and violent and ultimately unsustainable that kind of world was. Yes, absolutely. Hey folks, we got, we got a new one here. We got a new little sponsor here that's going along and it involves rent. I don't know how many people out there who are listening to this pay rent, but judging by the numbers that I read in the wall street journal, it's a shit ton. There's a ton of people that are out there paying rent because apparently homes themselves not so affordable. So this is kind of, it's a really interesting. It's kind of a great idea. It's creating a rewards program around rent. You're going to be paying the rent anyway. And, and in this year of our Lord, 2026, if you're paying the rent without bill, you're missing out. It's a loyalty program for renters and, and it rewards you for just paying your rent. You live there. You got to pay your, your rent, but now you can earn points and they can be redeemed with flights and hotels and Lyft rides and Amazon or whatever it is that's on there that you're you can get credit for starting in February, uh, a built member. You can earn points on mortgage payments for the first time as well. So it's quite a program. You can redeem the bill points even towards your next rent credit, or even like a down payment on a home. Really kind of a great idea paying Brent. It's better when you use built and, and soon owning a home is going to be better with built as well. Join the loyalty program for renters at join built.com slash TWS. That's J O I. N B I L T.com slash TWS. Make sure to use our URL. So they know we sent you. So, I mean, most people don't realize what a sharp break it took place in international relations after 1945. If you look at the hundred years before 1945, you see, you know, every two years there's a war of conquest, there's aggression, there's annexations. You know, I mean, France and Germany went to war three times between 1850 and 1945, right? Twice they dragged the whole world into it. The shift then from 1945 to this rules-based international system, you know, that the United States, basically it was Franklin Roosevelt's dream, Harry Truman implements it. And what you have since then is remarkable. There's almost no war of conquest that has taken place. There's almost no annexations. There's almost none of that that has taken place. Of course, there've been violence and conflicts, but it's a remarkable break. And why did it happen? It's because the United States, the United States conceived of a system that was not this traditional real politic law of the jungle. It was, you know, let's try to create a world in which everyone has an incentive for peace. Let's create an open economy so everyone can grow and, you know, can grow and prosper. And they have this much more dark, you know, machtpolitik. It's like the, you know, 19th century German view of how to be powerful. And the only thing I would point out is, that the United States didn't do so well for the, for the Germans. But that's for free. America created that world 80 years ago. Now that world wasn't perfect. And it's certainly mistakes were made in terms of how liberalized globalization was and how you balanced your industry with other things. But it was remarkably successful, but in their vision, that world, the 80 years post-World War II were the sucker's bet for the United States. That we are the victims. First of all, that we are the victims of that. We were the most prosperous country out of anybody during that time. And remain the most prosperous. But the second thing is, we fucking created it. That was our design. And they're acting like that is the world that was created to take advantage of us. Right. He said, he, Trump says the European Union was created to screw the United States. We basically encouraged the European Union. The Europeans to come together because we didn't want them to fight wars again. We, we thought, we thought that, you know, they would understand the advantages of commerce and it, and it worked brilliantly. But the point you make, uh, John, which is very important is that the whole mega premise is that the United States has gotten screwed over the last 80 years and particularly the last 30 or 40, right? Here's the data about 25 years ago, us and European wages were roughly the same today. Us. Wages. Wages are 50% higher than European wages about 15 years ago, the Eurozone economy and the U S economy with the same size today, the U S economy is 70% larger than the Eurozone economy. If you look at one company, Nvidia, it has a higher market capitalization than the entire German stock exchange. So it's like, what world are you talking about? The United States is more dominant today than it has ever been. Um, you know, we have. We have some issues with inequality and things like that, but those are issues of redistribution. How do we organize and divide the pie, but not of prospering? We've created more wealth in this world and we've got the dollar underpinning the world. So the fundamental, you know, to me, the, the, the fascinating thing is that they, they, it's the whole vision is premised on decline, decay, sclerosis, uh, even the, the, the Venezuela thing, you know, as you say, what they want. They want to do is go from being the global hegemon that set the rules that created the system that maintains the system to like a regional bully. You know, we give up to Putin, Ukraine, we give up Asia to China, and we get to boss over Venezuela and Mexico. Isn't that great? And it's like such a shrinking of American power. And it also, what it, what it says is this administration believes, uh, we will be more prosperous having total dominance. And a more colonial view of South America and kind of, uh, removing Europe and, and, uh, what we gained from that Alliance. And even the ridiculousness of, you know, we need to take over Greenland so that Russia and China don't take over Greenland. You're like, isn't that what NATO is for? We formed an Alliance with, it's like saying we will fight alone to control South America instead of fighting with all of our allies. To have a mutually beneficial position in the entire world. And how is that more prosperous for us? Think about, think about the difference, you know, as you say, you put it right there, they want it. They think coerced compliance is better than the kind of messiness of this Alliance between democracies. Because it's zero sum. They have to have a zero sum. So look at the coerced compliance. So China, we have something like 50, uh, greedy allies in the United States. And most. Most of them are the most, the richest countries in the world. You know, the Euro, the Europeans, Japan, Australia, China has one treaty ally, North Korea. Um, let's throw in Russia. That's really true. That is the only treaty ally they have. I thought they had trade treaty allies though. They do have, but not defense. You know what I mean? I mean, you know, let's throw in Russia and let's throw in Iran. Right. Right. Think of that. Like they've got three, we've got 50. Right. And we want to give that up. We want to piss them off so that we can have Greenland, which we already have. Basically we have base there. We could put more bases there. We could talk. It's, it's as though they don't want, they think that alliances are weak. It's better for them. It's the same thing they're doing with immigration in the United States, rather than trying to, are you, are they really trying to tell Americans that the best way. To get criminal, uh, undocumented people in this country out of this country is to show up in force at a target, wearing masks with guns. They want that feeling of boot on the neck. It's for some reason that the goals that they want are so much more easily accomplished if they didn't have that sense of, and we must dominate and humiliate. You, if you are our foe, including if you didn't vote for him. Yeah. The theater is very important. As you well know, Obama has probably still, uh, uh, deported more people than Trump. In other words, if you look at it month to month. But they did that. It was a different, they, they did do it at the border. Exactly. And they did it in a very different way, but that's my point, which is in, in one case, they were almost trying to minimize the theater and maximize the effectiveness in this case, they are actually trying to maximize the effectiveness. Even if they, you know, the numbers aren't what they, they want to show that this is what we are doing. Right. Right. I also think back to your Greenland point, it's a very important thing to understand that their view of, of wealth and, and economic growth is weirdly old fashioned. So they think, you know, like Greenland has minerals in the ground. It has all this stuff. You can always buy them. You can always lease them. You can always like they, you know, the. The idea that the, the country that has minerals in it underneath the soil is going to be rich as creases. What's like that, if that were true, all of Africa would be rich. You know, think about Israel, South Korea. It is a colonial mindset. Yeah. These countries have nothing. And what do they have? They have smart people. You can always buy this stuff, you know, from around the world. Think about the oil revolution in America, you know, the Chinese kept going around Africa and trying to lock. Up oil and natural gas deals. The U S did technical technological innovation and invented fracking. And it turned out ours was a much more successful thing because it's fundamentally knowledge driven. There's they've got to make corrupt deals with, you know, African dictators that we, we, in a weird way, Trump is more like that. Chinese mentality, you know, let's, let's find, you know, that's why he loves the Venezuela case and a colonial mentality. It is a, it is a King's mentality. And the strange thing about it to me is. Think about the damage you do. To our world standing by going in and taking the resources from Venezuela to, to get more oil, right? Who's the largest oil producer in the world? It's us. It's already us. So to do that, but what are we doing when, when we push that we're sending a message to the world that if you're, uh, you know, it's sort of like the old Peaky blinders thing, big fuck small. If you're big, you can do this. So here's what. Here's what we may be trading off. We get to take a bigger cut of Venezuelan oil and China looks at that and goes, oh, well then I guess we get to take a cut of quantum chips in Taiwan. And what do you think is going to be more important in the modern world? What are we, what what's the trade off for us? Farid? Yeah. I mean, one way to think about what, what they're doing here is, you know, for Trump, it clear. It's clear, I just read this book, "The Gods of New York," which is the New York in the '80s. you'd love it actually is a really fascinating one i moved and trump is and trump is a there's a huge character in it and you can look even then every time he did a deal his absolute imperative was how do i squeeze everybody in every possible way to screw them and get the best deal i can for myself there was never a thought about uh this instead of a transaction how do i build a relationship and any any really great businessman will tell you businesses were built not on a single transaction but on you know building a relationship and he burns bridges like nobody's burned bridges before and this is what he's doing and you know with this in each in each of these tariff negotiations his point is i'm gonna screw you i'm gonna squeeze you i'm gonna get that you know and there's something sort of strange about not realizing that american power since 1945 has been built on this unique thing that we have built so much goodwill and trust among the richest countries in the world international relations theories all predicted that at some point germany will go nuclear japan will go nuclear they're too rich they're too powerful to allow their foreign and defense policy to be subcontracted to the united states but it never happened and it never happened because we were honorable about saying we're taking everyone's interests into account and as you say we made mistakes and all that but um compared to other great powers that dominated the world you know the united states has been remarkable in in having this enlightened self-interest and it took 80 years to build that level of trust and my my great fear is that as you say four kind of like almost misguided notions of economic uh wealth we're squandering it because what are we going to get first of all the venezuelan oil is a bit of a of a mirage you know and most people don't realize they talk about venezuela having the largest oil reserves in the world 300 million you know where that number comes from hugo chavez one day crippled the estimate of venezuela's chavez is a bit like trump that way he likes numbers yeah yeah so so it's also apparently not the type of grade of oil that's easily got it's much cheaper it's not something that even the oil companies are like i don't know about that stuff yeah yeah i love the cal classifications ours the stuff we produce is called light sweet ah and this is this is heavy crude so who wants that yeah and but but also they're right now they're they're exporting one percent of the world's uh petroleum they're they're 21st uh in in so you know they're going to be able to do more but the whole idea of some gold mine which is why the the ceo of exxon in you know in in front of the television camera stealth trump venezuela is currently uninvestable which means if you want us to invest in the world you're going to have to give us guarantees you know this is the new form of capitalism that we're embracing and you saw trump's response to that was uh everybody wants to be a part of it but i think i'm going to cut exxon out of it because they were too glib with their answer and what i don't understand about the maga movement or the republicans right now is that somehow they believe as poorly as maybe some of our institutions uh had performed over time and the kind of reform that they needed in the various things is that replacing that with the whims of a mercurial megalomaniac and and malignant narcissist is the key to a more stable and prosperous american future rocket money you still paying that only fan subscription you told your wife you canceled i feel you you know you need rocket money you're paying for subscriptions you don't even remember signing up for rocket money is a personal finance app that helps find and cancel your unwanted subscriptions monitors your spending helps lower your bills so you can grow your savings rocket money you can track your subscriptions cancel with just a few tabs how many of you i i am losing money left and right of these rocket money is the thing that can set you straight how many of the cars you don't drive anymore still have you don't drive anymore how many of the cars you don't drive anymore still have how many of the cars you don't drive anymore still have how many of the cars you don't drive anymore still have how many of the cars you don't drive anymore still have how many of the cars you don't drive anymore still have satellite radio for god's sakes stop wasting money on things you don't use let rocket money help you reach your financial goals faster join at rocketmoney.com tws that's rocketmoney.com tws maga is steeped in kind of the mythology of american creation and they're really going in hard on it jd vance says you know the heritage american is really the most important american they have more uh say in this land we're not a creed we're we're a people right but the constitution very clearly says no i think i think we're actually a creed and that creed is that the consent of the governed that we are given unalienable rights by a creator and and those rights carry weight in whatever governing system that we place in there and this is the thing they fetishize they put it on their buses and they don't tread on me and they've got the gads and flags and all that they're clearly though giving fealty to someone operating utterly outside of that system but here's where i think it really gets interesting other countries we exported that people want to govern themselves and when you go in and you start to exploit their resources and do it explicitly so or say we're just what you unleash in the people that you are exploiting is a cycle that we have seen play out numerously through history and i'll use iran and venezuela as the example it's a 70-year cycle in iran think of this as the lion king it's the cycle of life for reed so in venezuela we just started the cycle we cooed the leader we arrested him whether that's justified or not we'll save that for a different day we're going to go in and we're going to take their oil people would say like oh americans don't want that that's like iraq it's not like iraq it's like iran in 1953 we and british petroleum did the same thing in iran mozadik we removed him and what did we do we replaced him with a pro-western leader and we got all those resources and how long did that system hold up for 1979 because the resentments that we created within that region expressed the same thing in iraq and in iraq and in iraq and in iraq the same thing exploded into it's the reason that the mullahs were in power in 79 and now the mullahs rule with their iron fist and now they're in the cycle where they're about to turn over that country and what's going to happen then my guess is the western powers or somebody's going to come in and install somebody else and the cycle how do we not see that how do we not see that what we are starting in venezuela is going to sow the seeds for the volatility and danger that we had already sowed in iran in 1953 we're just repeating the same stupid cycle you know for the united states for america it's always been very hard to understand uh other people's nationalism in other words we are very proud nationalist patriots right but then when you go to vietnam and they're like we want to we want our country we we just don't understand that we're like no no no we we are we want our country we just don't understand that we're like no no we we are going to give you a better system you know we go to iraq and they're like get out of here we're going to and we said no no no well you don't understand we're going to have a we're going to set up a wonderful democracy where the shias and the sundays will live together and i actually because as an immigrant i i think we do mean well in many of these cases but we have no we seem to have no understanding that other people have nationalism too other people you know there's this famous moment it may have been apocryphal when uh mountbatten the last british viceroy uh uh is talking to gandhi you know you know i love a good mountbatten anecdote throw it my way yeah and and and and he says mr gandhi the british just leave india it's going to be chaos and gandhi looks at him and says yes but it'll be our chaos and that's what i think most people don't understand sometimes people prefer their own chaos to a foreign imposed peace a foreign imposed order and what trump is doing is actually igniting nationalism and anti-american nationalism in places that have really never had it like canada like denmark you know like the nordic countries like sweden i mean i'm talking to these people and there you can feel that underneath they're trying to be polite there is a deep resentment at the way they are being treated and what are we doing this for i mean that's to me the most bizarre part we're creating all these enemies out of allies for what for like the notional idea that we'll have more bases on greenland which we could have had anyway it's i i think it's the kind of thing and i you know nationalism is there's so many connotations about that that some people you know view differently i think what we're missing is which is so strange again because of of how much we just lionize our own origin story. People yearn to breathe free. Self-determination is inherent in the human condition. And I don't understand how we believe that so deeply in our bones for our story. And yet somehow think Venezuelans don't feel the same about themselves. They may not like the Chavista. They may not like Maduro. That election may have been screwed. But they want the ability to determine their own future, not this paternalizing. We would never accept it. Yeah. And in fact, even in Venezuela, I think it's important for people to understand Chavez was hugely popular. He won the first election. Well, that's the difference between him and Trump. These populist movements. And the truth is, there are a lot of people who still believe in Chavez and believe. So that's one of the reasons why this could get very, if they actually try a regime change, this would be very, very complicated. Because there are still, first of all, a lot of people with guns who are not going to give up power easily. But there are also a lot of believing Chavez followers. And then there's drug traffickers in Cartel. So the whole thing is much more complicated, which is why the sad truth is this is probably going to look like essentially the most expensive arrest in human history of Maduro, which got rid of him, got American oil companies some concessions into Venezuela, and left everything else intact. The entire repressive apparatus of the regime, the defense minister, the interior minister will all stay exactly as they are. Because otherwise, you're opening a Pandora's box. And we're jumping into one of the things that creates such instability in South America and Central America is our interventions, right, into their politics is what created a lot of these more extreme left-wing movements, right? So now they bounce back and forth between right-wing authoritarian strongmen and left-wing authoritarian strongmen. And the thing that prevented that type of pendulum swings, which is the type of thing you see in like Pakistan, where it, it'll go from a military junta to, you know, a corrupt kind of democracy to back. It's kind of that cycle. What prevents that is our system of constitutional checks and balances. And what we're saying is we'd like to throw that out to get a system more like theirs. They're setting the United States up for that. So the really interesting question, John, that I would put to you is, you know, if you assume all the things we're saying are true, the part that's most difficult to understand for me is why are Americans, or at least 40 to 50% of Americans, okay with this? You have a situation where it's absolutely clear that, you know, that one party, that the president right now is accumulating powers on a scale that no president has ever seen. And I think that's a really interesting question. And I think that's And I think that's a really interesting question. And I think that's. And to be fair, and to be fair, the left has also done this sometimes, you know, and I've- Of course, but not nearly to the extent and never to this. Yeah, there's no both sides-ism, but it always worried me when Biden would do these student loan, you know, waivers using executive power. Like, you know, that stuff, like just because you want the outcome, you cannot want the outcome so badly that you violate the processes of liberal democracy. Like, that's the whole point of liberalism and liberal democracy, which is the process is very important. You don't get to just make your policy happen any which way. And what Trump is showing you is the real cost of that. But I think there's also something to be said about, look, the system that we have in place is so complex and Byzantine that in many ways, there is always a clause or something from the sergeant of arms or whoever might jump. Or the parliamentarian to prevent us from doing anything. But it's also complex enough that if you really dig down into emergency powers and you could do anything, the difference is generally it has been at some level of consensus and not at the whim of an individual and a mercurial one at that with absolute silence and no pushback, even from those in his party. You would disagree. This is an absolute utter takeover of the apparatus of a political party. And you asked why they would go along with it. And the reason is because they believe that the left is the enemy, not that they are a competing sort of worldview or any of those other things that they are an enemy. They are their enemy. And the dopamine hit that they get. This is an algorithmically driven kind of look, populists are popular for a reason. They sell a story of you being forgotten and of a country in decline and of a people that have been abused and victimized. And this man, what does he say? I am your vengeance. I will fight for you. And they don't give a shit how he does it or how punitive he is and if that means threatening to arrest you. to arrest the fed chair so be it that guy's corrupt anyway and he's our enemy and so this plays to the passions and prejudices of your base and and that's how it's all done look they're selling a story that the reason you can't the reason why eggs are expensive is because some somalis in minnesota fucked with a medicaid program yeah not that not that we spend a trillion dollars on like military equipment soon to be 1.5 trillion dollars or not that uh we subsidize corporations and they suck a lot of the prosperity out of this country and they don't distribute it in any way within the country in any way that resembles fairness none of that matters to them farid and so until they think there's some peril what's the i guess i would put that question back on you what do you think they think the peril is some larger goal of constitutional uh bureaucracy like what why wouldn't they love him he's he's basically saying if you're for me you can go to the capitol and beat the shit out of a policeman with the flagpole of a confederate flag and i will praise you and pardon you but if you try and block a street and you're clearly don't have any idea what you're doing we can shoot you in the head so why wouldn't they love that you know what what you what your point makes me think about is the degree to which maybe during the cold war american politics was constrained was disciplined by the reality of the ideological contest between the soviet union the need for america to be this beacon of freedom and democracy the sense in which you know hubert humphrey once said this that that he thought the reason for the civil rights movement was there was a foreign policy reason we had to show uh the you know the communist world that america was in fact the the you know the shining city on the hill and you know and since then i think what's happened is honestly we have no competition we've become so powerful it's exactly the opposite of the mega narrative we have no check no constraints so i think at some level like the power has gone to our heads and the power has gone particularly to somebody like trump's head look at the way he treats other countries right the only way reason you can do that is because you're so powerful you're unconstrained you don't have to worry that they're going to go over to the to the communist side like there's there's something here that feels very much like it's about the arrogance of power the ability to act in unconstrained ways and i kind of wonder whether you know the reason we when we were powerful in the past there was this check there was this sense in which you know you had to you had to put forward your best front boy this now okay this this is very interesting to me hey folks it's quince time now if you're like me you generally wait uh until fashion week to purchase your clothes for the upcoming year because you you want to be on trend you'll see me in milan sitting next to anna wintour and bad bunny watching the all right maybe we won't do that but the point is this what'd you get for christmas ugly sweater no gift receipt today's sponsor quince helps you forget about all the fashion nightmares quince they bring together the premium materials the thoughtful design the quality you stay warm you look sharp you feel your best each piece made from premium materials by trusted factories that meet rigorous standards for craftsmanship and ethical production but they cut out the middleman oh i know i don't like middlemen do you like middlemen maybe you're a middleman maybe you do like middlemen but you cut out the middleman and you cut out the traditional markups quince delivers the same quality as these luxury brands at a fraction of the price suck on that anna wintour probably shouldn't put it that way that seemed a little aggressive to anna wintour i didn't mean it like that but you know what i'm talking about take that anna wintour probably a better way to frame it refresh your winter wardrobe with quince go to quince.com slash tws for free shipping on your order and a 365 day returns now available in canada too that's quince q-u-i-n-c-e dot com slash tws free shipping and 365 day returns quince.com slash tws the idea is when the battle was democracy versus communism we almost had to it's sort of like hey man your parents are coming over you're gonna have to put on a suit and tie you can't you're not you can't look sloppy if you're trying to get this job so we had to live up to some of the ideals or at least the ones that you know we thought were in bold to to demonstrate to the world sort of our vision our version of uh you remember during that same time we put in god we trust on the coins to separate ourselves from the godless communists yeah yeah so we had to demonstrate that our system actually was so rather than our actions being a sort of function of absolute power maybe it's that the world view right now is not communism versus capitalism but woke versus unwoke sort of the idea is multiculturalism versus singular monoculture and that now we have to demonstrate not the higher values of the constitution but we have to demonstrate uh uh uh i guess a more violent form of sorting and the reason why we're not mad at russia is because we view them through that prism they're white and christian and they're defending you know western civilization not in the sense that we think of the enlightenment but of you know a more orthodox uh white christian version of that yeah exactly exactly the cultural divide that has that has developed now is one in which i think for somebody like you i think for somebody like me i think that's for somebody like you i think for somebody like you i think for somebody like me i think for somebody like jd vance russia are actually the good guys right there as you say they're white they're christian in fact putin often makes the point of putin is culturally a neoconservative i mean he's against all the licentiousness of western liberalism so by the way is xi jinping uh one of the it's why they don't like europe europe's too like exactly and atheist and right they don't want any part of that exactly they worry that the kind of acids of western liberalism will change their societies as well and so in many ways the russians and the chinese are not just balancing against the west uh geopolitically but they're balancing against them culturally because they don't want these forces of modernization and liberalism to infect their societies but the the twist now compared to the cold war is they have allies within the west who feel the same way right they have you know this is what's so different about this moment whereas we've faced adversaries in the past we've faced ideological adversaries geopolitical ones but what's strange is we now have within the west very important strong forces that kind of agree with our enemies right and that's that's what is so such a kind of that's what makes it so difficult to navigate you know foreign policy because you watch trump on russia and ukraine and it's pretty clear everyone tries to find some rationale he hates the ukrainians he likes the russians he he hates zelinsky he likes putin zelinsky is the guy who got him impeached in his first term his solution to peace is i'm going to squeeze zelinsky try to get the ukrainians to make all the concessions they can hand it over to putin and claim peace and say hey i got peace can i please get the nobel peace prize his problem so far is putin once more right this is this is a very strange moment for the american president to be acting not as the lawyer for the embattled european democracy right yearning to breathe free but for the dictatorship the that is that is the aggressor that i think has never happened but farid if if you look at it through the prism that you're talking about the cultural one exactly the cultural one but also in terms of the one that you're talking about when the battle was democracy versus communism and we had to demonstrate democracy well if that's not the battle anymore then we don't have to demonstrate the democracy works but this is where i think it gets it gets darker that it means that the actions that are being taken are not the whims of a mercurial maniac but are much more purposeful that changing it to department of war is much more purposeful not backing ukraine is not necessarily about well they never got the dirt on biden that i wanted it really is about no no no no we're not uh the great uh democratic leaders like uh you know uh the people that we lionized in the old days we are now putin netanyahu us uh erdogan and and xi jinping and that is what we are demonstrating because now we can police the purity i mean i don't know if you've seen some of this uh homeland security iconography that they're using one homeland our one of you all of them like it is so it's at this point it's not even implicit of fascist iconography they're just it's just a direct translation and and so much of it i don't know if you've seen this it's like 50s nostalgia you know the they have these the photographs of kind of old cars and pristine beaches and and it's so fascinating because the whole thing is the politics of nostalgia you know there's this one moment where in nikki haley and her trying her best to do a mega imitation when she was running she tweets something like wasn't life so much simpler when we were growing up and i was thinking to myself so when would that be right like so you put it roughly speaking i think for nikki haley it would be like i don't know i don't know i don't know i don't know i don't know it would be the the mid-70s right and they're like okay the united states the oil embargo right we lost our first war in history the president was impeached and had to resign a hundred american cities were engulfed in ruinous race riots right oil prices quadrupled in one day and then we had the economy was so bad we had to rename we had to create a new name for it stagflation we had whip inflation now buttons we had to wear right parade around those were the happy halcyon days i think there's something fascinating about it it's almost like i think we have an evolutionary need to forget bad things that happen and we remember the past in a kind of misty-eyed way or something i think nostalgia is you know one of the things that nikki haley you know or any of those people and i've always said this is when people say like it was you know it's never been like it was when i was a kid and you're like right because you were a kid you were a child the reason why you loved the world then is because you were a kid and you were a kid and you loved the world because all you cared about is when that ice cream truck was coming back that's right like your parents paid the rent right that's all you gave a shit about so of course that nostalgia and it's so fascinating because it's and and now uh that like like elon musk either tweeted this out or like reposted it or did some shit but it was literally that exact thing you were talking about it was 1950s rhodesia and it was a picture in black and white of like this pristine you know looks suburban looking and you know south africa and it was the chaos and darkness and all that and you're like you do know in rhodesia how they got that right like do you understand and i used to think like oh they're hypocritical they don't understand how now i realize no they're saying this is how we do it colonialism you take it by force and you extract those resources cheaply and that's how you create and you police who gets to be there right and you can create these utopias yeah that when i saw that i know the tweet you're talking about yeah and i saw that and i thought to myself you know elon musk is so smart but it's a perfect example of how these step tech geniuses somehow see to either lack any sort of historical understanding or any common sense. Like you look at those pictures and as you say, you know, my reaction was you do understand that that world on the left that is that beautiful Rhodesia was true for like 3% of Rhodesians who were white, who were tyrannizing the 97% who were not. And that's why you could live like that. And the same is true in South Africa. And by the way, I grew up in India where, you know, if you had looked at the British enclaves in Bombay and Delhi and Calcutta and Madras, they look gorgeous. But, you know, if you kind of went and looked at rural poverty in India, you know, and looked at where all the money was being extracted in a way, I mean, it's sort of weird to me that they wouldn't, that somebody as smart as Elon Musk would not think to himself, how did this come to be? But it's almost, it's not even how it comes to be because that would, that would entail an empathy for those that have been exploited and they don't roll that way. What I'm saying is they believe that's the way we should do it. If we have the opportunity to exploit to our benefit, we should do it. I think what it's missing is the realpolitik of it, which is to sustain that level of exploitation requires a tremendous amount of research. And the further away you do it from your center of power, the harder it is to hold the forces of entropy and chaos from exploding. And that's the thing. I'm not even, I don't even want to appeal to their moral center. I don't think it exists. I don't think they look at Rhodesia and think, oh, that probably was a little fucked up for the other people who live there. But what they're not taking into account is how unsustainable it is because let's go back to the constitution. People want to be free. They don't want taxation without representation. They have rights and they are going to fight for them. And if you're the one holding them back, you're the one they're going to fight. And, and, you know, understanding that and building a force. foreign policy that was based around this idea that, take Latin America. We went in, we exploited it, we toppled regimes, and then we came to realize the point you're making. So for the last 40 or 50 years, really ever since the Latin American debt crisis of the 1980s, both parties decided, let's have a different approach to Latin America. Let's partner with them. Let's try to, you know, we'll figure out a way to help them restructure their economies. We help them transition. Almost every Latin American country in the early 80s was a military junta. They all became democracies by the 90s, with the exception of Cuba. That whole process of partnering, integration, cooperation, you know, law enforcement cooperation, drug cooperation, ended up making the United States much more influential in Latin America. And it produced, you know, Mexico now is half a middle-class society. There's no. There's no migration from Mexico into the U.S. anymore because, you know, there are jobs there. All these good things happened, but it points to the dilemma you're describing. This is complicated. It's messy. You have to treat countries that are really not your equal like your equal. You have to give them, you know, respect and defer to them sometimes. And yet it works. It has worked miraculously well. We're throwing that all away. We're throwing that for this much older version of, you know, power and coercion, which doesn't work. It's a sort of weird thing, right? Everybody, you know, there was this caricature, which is that everybody in America thought that if China, you know, kept doing what we were saying, China was going to become like America. But what's really happening is America is becoming more like China. We are becoming admiring of China's methods of running the economy. Right. State-run capitalism. Right. Controlling the population of buying, you know, mineral rights around the world. It's like we are becoming them. And it's such a strange bargain for a country like ours to make that has so benefited from a world order that we ourselves created. And the subterfuge of coups, not only is it exhausting, not only is it sort of undercutting the values by which we think we stand for, it's not. Sustainable. And it's it's a much more volatile system. And by the way, a constitutional republic is not really the best system by which to graft an imperial leader onto. So let's say he builds his giant fucking ballroom with all the gold trimmings and he knocks down the wall. Like the next guy can just undo it because that's kind of how, you know, and when you start going into these systems, you're going to be like, oh, my God, I'm going to be like, oh, my God, I'm going to that they're setting up of resentment, I don't know that we're going to be able to get that back. I don't know how other countries would be able to trust us knowing that one person who just decides to push it as far as you can push it can just come in. And what did Trump do? Pulled out of 60 treaties the other day? Yeah. You know, it's something that's true in personal life as well, like real deep abiding trust takes decades to build. It's a lot of hard work. Rupturing trust is very easy because exactly as you say, because after this, you know, every European country, every Canadian, the Australians, they always know, you know, the Americans could do this again. So I kind of have to hedge. I kind of have to have an insurance policy. I kind of have to have, you know, a way out. Some kind of diversification. And that's the tragedy. We had been so reliable, but the world never thought that our allies never thought they needed an insurance policy. They needed to hedge against, you know, against our becoming crazy rogue imperialists. And now they do. Look, you know, the holidays are over. Let's face facts. Christmas gifts, you got crushed. Why? Why do you have to buy a favorite? You just bought them last year. And it all adds up. Luckily, MidMobile is here to help you cut back on overspending on wireless this January. I don't even want to say it. I don't even want to tell you. It's too good. 50% off unlimited premium wireless. MidMobile's end of the year sale still going on, but only until the end of the month, which is January. So get on it. Cut out big wireless, exploded plans and unnecessary monthly charges with 50% off. Three, six, 12 months of unlimited nation's largest 5g network, high-speed data, unlimited talk and text. You could use your own phone. God, how much more do you people want? How demanding? What is wrong with you? MidMobile plan. Bring your phone number this January. Quit overspending on wireless with 50% off unlimited premium wireless plan started $15 a month at midmobile.com slash TWS. That's midmobile.com slash TWS. Limited time offer. Upfront payments of $45 for three months, $90 for six months or $180 for 12 months. Plan required. $15 per month equivalent. Taxes and fees extra. Initial plan term only. Over 35 gigabytes. May slow when network is busy. Capable device required. Availability, speed and coverage varies. See midmobile.com. Fareed, where, where do you see, you know, when we talk about, so as we change the world order and we align ourselves more with that idea of like the strong men, uh, spheres of influence, those kinds of things, the trade-offs that we make within that. So what is now, who is the leader of the free world? Because if we're the ones that are going into countries and dictating who can be their leaders, which we're doing, that they've said it explicitly, Venezuela can have a new leader, but it has to be, they have to meet this requirement. So that's not a free election. What then is, what is the world order? Is it literally us, China, Russia, you know, uh, some smaller strong men that also get to assert their spheres of influence in their things, a, uh, completely rotted EU that has no power. Like where does Canada, Australia, the EU, where, where does the block that we led, where does the block that we lead, what becomes of that? Uh, we are leaving them leaderless. We are leaving them disunited and leaderless precisely because their strength came from being part of a whole, right? They individually, not, none of them, many of them are pretty strong, you know, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh largest economies in the world. But what gave them the power was that we were all together. We were united. So we'll end up in a kind of multipolar world, which is like the 19th century. Very unstable, very volatile, prone to war miscalculation, except this time we have nuclear weapons. Uh, so not a, not a happy scenario. also not a world in which freedom has as much capacity to expand. And to my mind, what is strange about all of it is we took something where we were at the center, where we were the rule setter, where we were the agenda setter, and we've turned it into something where we've got this little box of the Western hemisphere, which is, by the way, the least important of the three main regions in terms of even our own trading, our main trading partners are in Europe and Asia. But I tend to think, John, that maybe it's just, again, I'm an optimistic immigrant. This is not going to last. You know, Americans don't like this, I don't think. I think the idea that America stands for nothing, stands for no higher ideals, the idea that the United States is just a bully. That it's going to literally consciously emulate the idea, you know, the ways of old fashioned imperialists, that it's going to essentially become a version of Putin's Russia. I don't think this is popular. I don't think people like it. I think that we are going through a bad phase in American history. And I don't, I think, you know, there is going to be some, at some point, the fever breaks. And I think the problem is we will have done damage. I've been hearing that for a very long time. For a very, very, very long time. I know, I know, I know, I know. And this is why I said to you, to me, the biggest puzzle is that the fever hasn't broken. But, you know, sometimes these things take longer. Because it's too flattering to, I think, that nostalgia that you talk about, to a group of people that feel, and by the way, many of them feel rightfully let down, that the systems that we talked about that created the prosperity in the world did leave them behind. And our system was not fast enough to catch up. And we did have a problem with not gaining control over immigration. None of these stories is completely invented out of whole cloth. The thing I worry about is the narrative that we're describing is one that makes perfect sense to what we observe in the world. But as we saw, you know, let's take Minneapolis as an example. I look at that video and I see something very different than what a parent, I mean, when the president. The president of the United States, an hour afterwards, just come out and say, that's a domestic terrorist who's, that was a terrorist attack trying to murder an ICE agent. And I'm like, hmm, pretty sure that, you know, you know, someone said like she was a well-trained operative in a domestic terror attack. And you're like, well, someone's trained in that, but it's not her. It's the officers. They're the ones that are trained. They're the ones that, it seemed like, getting back to our point, there were a lot of different ways. That they could have accomplished de-escalating that situation beyond killing the person. But they chose that. And it was a choice. Somebody was criticizing, I see people criticizing liberals saying, so it's okay that she tried to murder that agent. And you're like, no, we're not saying it's okay that she tried to murder an agent. What we're saying is from what we saw, that's not what she was trying to do. But we have two different interpretations. One view of, what are we doing in the world? I wonder, do they view it as, see, America's back. And that's how they digest it. I hope that this, it feels alien to me. It's surprising that someone, an authoritarian move like Trump's, normally a populist, is more popular than he is. Yeah. I mean, and that's the hope again, you know, that he's governing to his base. Right. Which he's doing very well, but he is losing, you know, the majority, not a huge majority, but it does, I mean, his approval ratings are in the high 30s at this point. But what you have to hope then is that the next, you know, Democrat, or honestly, frankly, a Republican, like a John McCain type Republican would come up and say, look, you know, we're proud of the things we've done. You know, we're proud that we were the richest country in the history of the world. We were also the most generous. We were also the most generous country in the history of the world. And I want to save the lives of the poorest people in Africa if I can do it at 1% of the federal budget, right? Sometimes I worry the Democrats are too scared to make the argument that, you know, there's something honorable and noble about the kind of things we were doing. Oh, I think they're too scared to make almost any argument at this point. And they don't have the wherewithal. And I think what I see in the Trump administration is, I think at times. Sometimes they even have some worthy goals, but when they have a choice, you know, Trump says, we could do it the easy way or we could do it the hard way. I think what they like is doing it the hard way, because the hard way is a way of showing power. There is a way for them to do immigration enforcement in this country that doesn't involve beating the shit out of people in Target parking lots. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And I think, by the way, that is the place the Democrats should be, because as you say, the Democrats totally mishandled immigration over the last. 10 years. Biden, you know, it was a disaster. You don't want to be supporting massive illegal immigration. It's wrong. It's bad, right? And so the question is, how do you get at this? That's right. And is there a way to do it that is more consistent with our values and yet is very effective and very hardline? And, you know, I mean, look, as a legal immigrant, I in particular don't like the idea that you can cut, you know, you can cut the line, as it were. But, you know, there's a way to do it that's consistent. And there's also, I think, you know, there's a sense that, yeah, if people are murderers and rapists and all that stuff and they're still in the country, yeah, get them. Like, overwhelmingly, Americans support that. And if that is what they were trying to accomplish, they could do it. But in the manner that they're doing it, it's almost as though they want the confrontation and they want the provocation. And so everything is done in the most, you know, egregious manner they can possibly, possibly think of because they want the fight. And that's what you said. And that's what makes me think, oh, you know what? This isn't even incompetence. This isn't mercurial whims of a dictator. This is the plan. What their end game on that is, I don't know. And it's sort of the opposite of what the whole point of liberal democracy is. You know, this is kind of like highly mobilized societies charged to find intern enemies. And, you know, it feels very different. Like, the whole point of liberal democracy is you live in your house, the government respects your privacy, nobody interferes with your, you know, you go out, you have your wonderful private life, civil society builds. That's what it used to be. And that's what the whole idea of capitalism and liberal democracy was. And American democracy, the craziest thing to me has been watching the don't tread on me crowd flip over to you obey and you comply. That's what the founders want. Right, right. An idealization of state power. That's right. You know, that the president should be the one doling out, you know, I'm going to give NVIDIA this contract. I'm not going to give it to Exxon because you wasn't nice to me. Right. And now the Swiss can have lower tariffs because they gave me a gold bar. I mean, that is, you know, that's that state power of a kind that, you know, no president has ever wielded. It was only, you know, maybe 25 years ago that Francis Fukuyama wrote. The end of, you know, uh, uh, what was it? The, the, the, the end of history, the end of history. And that it was that democracy, liberal democracy in particular had triumphed over history. And now it looked like that at the time, you know, it's funny. It's like, it's like, that's the thing about life is, you know, this is what gives me hope job. Nothing stays the same. Yes. So that's what we have to hope to the rare parts. Fareed Zakaria. Uh, Fareed, thank you, boy. What a, what a lovely chance to catch up. Uh, I I've really enjoyed it. Uh, I hope I get a chance to see you again. Fareed Zakaria, host of CNN's Fareed Zakaria, uh, GPS. Good luck over there at CNN. I don't know who's buying it next, but I hope that, that they believe in you and that you stay on and, and keep going from your lips to God's ears. All right. Well, actually we have, we haven't talked in a while, but I'll see what I can do. Uh, Fareed Zakaria, thanks for joining us. Pleasure. Fareed! I haven't seen him in a dog's age. Uh, he, he was the, he was the most frequent guest, uh, on the daily show. You can see why. Yeah. And now, uh, he's, I wonder if they, you know, what happens when they, when they sell CNN? Do they sell it for parts? Does he get just like left out on a curb and then anybody can drive by and just pick it up? Yeah, just with a sign, a piece of paper that says free on it. Yes, yes, yes, yes. Works well. Or they just start shutting parts down. Like remember CNN plus? That was a moment. Oh God. Yeah. They did that for like a week. And then they were like, ah, fuck this. This is, this seems like it might be hard. And then go, I really liked it. I don't even know who's going to get it. But the president, Trump is like, I'll decide who gets to buy it. And you're like, sure. That's not, I think that's how business works. You, you, you basically two people come to the, father and say, I would like it. It's like solemn. and I'll cut CNN in half and then one of you can take. Yeah, and then the father basically says you have X amount of time to make it worth my while. Right, you gotta make it worth my while and you gotta change it so that every time I turn it on, it makes me feel good. And that's the only thing that works. By the way, I thought it was interesting that I came into it with sort of the idea that, oh, we're being led by this sort of mercurial and they're following the whims and I don't know. But I did leave thinking, oh, this is a darker, deeper plan. There does seem to be, yeah, like a unifying theory, weirdly, which is, I mean, I think it goes back to what you say, which is big fuck small. You can see it from what's going on in Minneapolis to what's going on in Venezuela. It's the one thing that seems to unite it all, which is just like the stick swinging contest. But it's big fuck small, but it's in regards to, it's not just a theory of power. It's a theory of returning to a more, you know, a more colonial economy, an extraction economy of those weaker economies and your country being more homogenous. Like there is actually now metrics rather than just, oh, we have more weapons so we can take what we want. Like, but why are we doing it? I also think something that you touched on that I can't get my head around is like the ideological malleability of MAGA. Like two seconds ago, it was America first. A type of isolationism. And then, and Steve Bannon, who was the mouthpiece partially for it, is now saying, well, there is that Western exceptionalism for isolation. It's like, oh, okay. Yeah, no, there's a lot of exceptions to go along there. But I think that the larger point is it is a return to great homogenous heritage-based powers extracting the resources they need from the unwashed, massed masses of lessers. Like it's that, I think it's that dirty and dark in a lot of respects. And what they don't understand is the fresh hell that they've unleashed, not just morally, but in terms of stability and their ability to manage it. - Yeah, we're gonna miss the post-war world order when it's gone. - Yeah, they're gonna, I kinda like that. You're gonna miss this world order. You know what? Maybe that's the way to go here. Why don't we just fucking guilt them into this? - Yeah. - We worked very hard on that world order. You're gonna miss it when it's gone. It's a terrible, terrible thing. Now we've been gone forever. While we were gone, was the audience still active in some way? Were there things that they, are we done now? - Absolutely. - All right, what do they want? - We've got loads of questions for you. - All right, let's do it. - First up, John. - Yeah, yeah, yeah. - Bill and Hillary Clinton have announced that they won't comply with the subpoena from the House Oversight Committee's investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. Do you think that they should comply? - I absolutely do. But why should they comply if the Department of Justice is not complying with releasing the files? Like, is compliance a kind of specialized, individual, indigenous opportunity? Or is it, should it be universal? I mean, the Department of Justice has subpoenaed them to testify in the Jeffrey Epstein case while not complying with releasing the files. So how does that comport in any, but do I personally, personally think they should comply? Abso-fucking-lutely. Absolutely. And if they've got something to hide or an affair, like, yes, we should know about all this. This is bonkers how long this is going on. - And we have only seen such a fraction. I think I was reading it's like 2 million files still have to come out. - It's 1% is what I've seen. Yeah, like that we've seen. - And the casual nature in these emails are like, "Hey, can you get me an Indian and a redhead?" Like it's, they're just casually, it's literally like they're ordering from, you know, Uber Eats. I mean, it's just, and the fact that we don't- - And the spelling errors. It's humiliating. - That would bother Jillian the most. - It's just, it's so, these people, you think they're titans of the world and they can't. - Oh no, oh no. - I mean, can't type on a Blackberry. - The Grammar Police have also indicted. - The Grammar Police are doing more here than, you know, I think that's wise, but absolutely they should comply and the Department of Justice should comply. And these victims of this heinous case should finally get some of the justice and peace that they deserve. God's sakes. - Preach. - Fucking thing, yeah. - Next up, John, which one do you like doing more? The daily show or the weekly show? - Oh, that is an excellent, excellent question. - Oh, the word. - I. - We're all listening. - Any, any time you can do something in your house, if they would let me do the daily show from my house, it may have the edge. It is, it's, the whole thing is just part, you guys know that generally when I'm not doing this show or the daily show, that I am in a state of stasis where the charger is unplugged and I sit quietly. Not talking to anybody for five days. So I love the interaction of all of it. It helps, you know, I spend all the rest of my time when I'm not doing that, reading articles about how not to get Alzheimer's. And the only way to do it apparently is to continue collaborating and being around people and engaging in the world. And this is the manner by which I choose to do it. And you are the people that I love doing it with. So that's, that's, nah. - Take that daily show. - Yeah. - That was the takeaway. - I meant both. - Yeah. - Yeah, no, no, no, cut that. I'm taking it. - But I will say the commute to the weekly show is much more important. - It's pretty good. - They got any more, any more for us? - Yeah. Saw you joined Instagram, John. Does that mean you're through with Twitter? Sorry, X. - I did join. But I'm not really sure what to do with it. - No one else is. - Unfortunately I joined it and then, but then I was like, so now what do I do? And then I was like, so that, I have to take a picture if I want to put something on there. Like you can't just write shit. You got to take a picture. So I haven't used it yet, but I did join it. And I am going to put something there. I'll probably like put our stuff on there and daily shows have on there and maybe figure out some other shit if I could figure it out. But yeah, Twitter's rough, man. Like it's like, there's only so many times that I say something random on Twitter, like where I can be told I'm a Jew, where you're just like, hey, this is getting a little like, I know, I'm aware, like not hiding. It'd be okay if you don't have to jump on and tell me, like, and the thing I don't, and by the way, Instagram could be the same fucking thing. I have no idea. It just seems like a slightly less toxic environment. - Yeah. - More toxic environment than the one that appears to have developed. But you guys, you guys are on it. What do you think? - Just toxic in a different way. - Well, I think people are going to tell me I'm a Jew on both platforms and I'm not. I mean, the nice thing for me is my life is relatively drab. So there will be no posturing about the fabulous, you know, fabulosity of all this. So I feel no pressure in that regard. As you guys can see, we were laughing about it earlier. By the way, I dress and look like I gave up about 17 years ago, so. - I'm sure there's some thirst traps on the camera roll waiting, waiting for their moment. - Yeah, listen, thirst traps. I don't even, I shower in my clothes now. It's, it's, it's bad. Jillian, are you on, you're on Instagram too, yeah? - Yeah, I'm on Instagram. I'm not on X, the everything app. I, I love myself too much for that. - It's fucking wild, man. Like it's, and, and you really don't like, you just think to yourself, like, I really do hope actually this is a Russian bot. Because if there's a human being out there who really felt the need in their day, like seconds after I posted something, to just jump on there and be like, I'll never forgive you for the rally to restore sanity. You're like, where, what's your life? What's your fucking life? - The good news is it certainly is a Russian bot. - They all are Russian bots. - Well, I can't wait to see your Instagram aesthetic. - Oh, it's, well, it's, it's going to be a lot like my Pinterest boards. - Oh, okay. - It's going to be mostly Ann Taylor. Is that still a company? - Yes it is. - All right. - Great sales. - Is it all right? I thought that was a reference from a while back, but I wasn't quite sure. Well, guys, it's, it's so good to be back with you and to get my Alzheimer's medicine for the day. And we'll move there, but as always, great preparation, great work, so lovely to have you guys back. Lead producer, Lauren. Lauren Walker, producer, Brittany Mamedovic, producer, Jillian Spear. Video editor and engineer, Rob Vitolo. Audio editor and engineer, Nicole Boyce. And our executive producers, Chris McShane and Katie Gray. Thank you guys so much for rejoining us after a lovely break and we shall see you guys next week. The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart is a Comedy Central podcast. It's produced by Paramount Audio and Busboy Productions. All rights reserved. No part of this recording may be reproduced without Paramount Audio's express consent. It's a first-of-its-kind plan created for how Texans actually use energy. TXU Energy. Rep number 10004. Tammy regularly hauls stuff to her kids at college. That's why she shops at BJ's Wholesale Club, saving up to 25% off grocery store prices. Beef jerky, microwave meals, laundry pods, even they can't screw up. Have you met my kids? And with BJ's gas, she gets there for less. They call me the road warrior. This is your home, road warrior mom. Home of the Save. Join for just $20 at BJ's.com slash mesquite and save 10 cents per gallon for six months. Open soon. Limited time offer. New members only. BJ's. Home of the Save. Paramount Podcasts.