Donald Trump’s Reëlection, and America’s Future
49:08 Share

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever think about switching insurance companies to see if you could save some cash? Progressive makes it easy to see if you could save when you bundle your home and auto policies. Try it at Progressive.com. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and Affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states. WNYC Studios is supported by Apple Card.

Apple Card is the perfect card for your holiday shopping. When you use Apple Card on your iPhone, you'll earn up to 3% daily cash back on every purchase, including products at Apple like a new iPhone 16 or Apple Watch Ultra. Apply now in the Wallet app on your iPhone. Subject to credit approval, Apple Card issued by Goldman Sachs Bank USA Salt Lake City Branch. Terms and more at applecard.com.

Hey, it's Latif from Radiolab. Our goal with each episode is to make you think, how did I live this long and not know that? Radiolab, adventures on the edge of what we think we know. Listen wherever you get podcasts. Listener supported, WNYC Studios. This is the New Yorker Radio Hour, a co-production of WNYC Studios and The New Yorker. Welcome to the New Yorker Radio Hour. I'm David Remnick.

The New Yorker's Washington Correspondents gather at the end of every week to talk about the big events in our political life and what an incredible week it has been. I'm joined by staff writers Susan Glasser, Jane Mayer, and Evan Osnos to discuss, well, the obvious, the return of Donald Trump to the White House and what this means for America. We spoke Thursday evening. So we've had a couple of days to, how do we say, process this information? How are you making sense of this, Susan, right now?

Well, I mean, I would say— While standing on one foot. Yeah, exactly. David, look, in a way, I—first of all, I do not admit to having processed this information. I feel like it's sitting in, like, a large, undigested meal in our— And even with a fair amount of anticipatory dread on my part, my colleagues know this, but having anticipated something is not the same thing as experiencing it and the full weight of what it's going to mean. Mm-hmm.

for the country for four more years. And I think that that's one of the most important things to me is the idea that we are not

two days into the Donald Trump era, but eight years into it. And I think that means we're looking at a very large swath of the country, the core of the Republican Party that has been now quite fully radicalized and transformed into a very different Republican Party than it was at the start of the Trump era. Then you combine that with Trump's ability in this election to

which I think was underappreciated, the extent to which Trump was able to win over not just that core of the Republican Party, but independent voters, low-frequency voters, with a pretty simple message, it seems to me, of complaint, lament, outrage, resistance, unhappiness. And the anti-incumbency gene is something that is—

very present here in the United States and around the world right now. Exactly. And I think that... Susan, it's an anti-incumbency feeling that seems directed specifically at cost of living, a sense of deep inequality, a sense of... I think if we ascribe everything to

The craziness of Donald Trump, we make a profound mistake. I think for a lot of voters, it's despite the craziness, despite all the antics we can point to.

But because I mean, I mean, those are all fact based causes. I mean, this is while he is an unusually gifted liar. Those are actually some truths that people are experiencing that the Biden administration was slow to address, particularly the inflation and the price of groceries. And, you know, and I think sort of a post pandemic perspective.

you know, difficult economy that was really hard on people who don't have extra income. And this economic inequality under – I mean it's ridiculous that it's Trump who is the plutocratic president of all time and governed that way in his last term. But he managed to voice the resentments of people who are economically disadvantaged and depressed in this country who are stuck in

because there's much less social mobility. And there's been just giant economic inequality that started with Reagan and has just grown ever since. And the obvious question, Evan, to you, who's written a book about American inequality and spent a lot of time all over the country to report that book, why couldn't first Joe Biden and then Kamala Harris in the hundred days that was left to her to campaign, why could she not

get her arms around that central issue? And why was it such a losing issue for the Democrats? Yeah, you have to start with the fact that in a way that people don't articulate every day, but on some level they know. If you were a kid born in this country in 1940, you stood a 90% chance of out-earning your parents. That number has fallen in half.

And it runs through everything that people encounter, whether you're the young man or young woman or you're a person of color or you're a white person. It is a defining fact of your existence. And, of course, the Democratic Party self-image is that it has an almost self-evident claim

on speaking to those frustrations, on those issues. And in some ways, it almost it evaporated in a period of time before the Democrats could fully acknowledge that it was that they were losing their grip on it. But, you know, you asked about Kamala Harris. I actually think, look,

In many ways, Kamala Harris ran and people will quibble with this, but she ran as good a campaign as a person probably could in 107 days or obviously some things you might want her to do more effectively, certainly. And I also look, she was a very effective debater. There were all these moments, honestly, where Democrats going back to this point of a moment ago were Democrats who hadn't fully realized what they what what connection they had lost financially.

with a big piece of the electorate thought, oh, these are galvanizing moments. Surely they will, people who see the debate will come to the same conclusion that I have. And the fundamental fact was that in the end, some number of, look, you have to just look at the data to come away with a clear sense that one in three people of color in this country voted for Donald Trump. You

You know, a huge swing of Latino voters, something like north of four in 10 young voters voted for Donald Trump. So a lot of the assumptions that people had about the shape of the electorate and where it was naturally inclined turned out to be wrong. Wait, can I just –

Okay, after you. I have something I want to say, too, about that. I do have a slightly different take on it. If only we had a show in which we could talk about these issues. As the fourth Beatle and the visitor here, Jane first and then Susan. Go ahead. Okay, I'm just going to be quick because I just want to add to the statistics that Evan's looking at. Because one other jumped out, and people are really not talking about it as much. Yes, it's true. There were some of those shifts in the people of color of what –

black and Latino voters. But guess what? Which was the one demographic group that had a majority of voters for Trump? It was white people. Okay, let's not lose sight of the fact that it was white resentment that he captured most effectively and played to. But are you too quick to ascribe a racial attention to this and not a class one?

I take a look at the numbers. And not only that, but OK, we're going to do all the sort of Monday morning quarterbacking that people do and the self-flagellation that Democrats especially excel in. And but while we're sort of laying blame on ourselves and everybody else, and we all deserve it, I'm sure. But let's just

put it out on the table. She was a black woman. And it is not easy to be a woman running for president. No, none has succeeded yet. And he ran the most misogynistic campaign of any candidate in modern times. Well, since the last time he ran. Yeah, since the last time he ran. But there's not a day that went by in the last couple of weeks that he did not insult women in one way or another, whether it was Nancy Pelosi or...

or all the other things that he said about her. Susan? Well, I mean, I guess I'd like to just sort of take a slightly different perspective. First of all, I agree that things like inflation and inequality have powered our politics in ways seen and unseen for quite some time. But this inequality existed not only when Joe Biden won election just four years ago, but actually Democrats have had an extraordinary run of

of winning the popular vote prior to this election, you know, for six of the previous seven elections. That's an amazing run at exactly the period when this income gap was widening. So again, I don't dismiss it as a factor, but I'm not going to—I just don't think it's fair to say that that's the reason for this particular outcome. As far as the women goes, you know, I too—

despair, really, despair, both at the power, the continuing power of sexism and misogyny. And to see it so nakedly expressed is, you know, a gut punch for anyone who cares about freedom and equality in this country. And, you know, watching as the polls were closing, Stephen Miller, the architect of Trump's xenophobic campaign, literally tweeting,

all men, all men, please go to the polls right now. I just, you know, that was a kick in the stomach. But I do want to point out, since we're looking at data here, that I think we don't fully understand where and how that is effective. Because in one of the more notable things that we're going to be talking about for a long time in terms of these election results is the return of a ticket splitting and different outcomes in key Senate races. So actually in

Five Senate races, essentially, in the battleground states, it looks like Democrats have prevailed even where Harris lost. And in three of those, you have female candidates, female Democratic candidates in Nevada, Wisconsin, and Michigan who are leading. While the woman...

presidential nominee lost. And I don't, you know, I think we're still going to be trying to understand and digest this for quite some time, because I do think there is something different about the presidential race and the idea of a female commander in chief that Trump in particular honed in on. But, you know, again, that's just I want to I want to asterisk that as something to to

understand. But my big picture point that I want to hear what everybody has to say about, and including you, David, I hope that you will, you know, weigh in too, is that

I think it's more, we love to talk about issues, especially here in Washington, where all policy wonks, but that it's a clash of identities that Trump has made. You know, I call this the, you know, the sort of Godzilla versus the technocrats problem for Democrats. And Harris was like that. Biden was definitely like that. They are not Canada to protect a vision, really, in some ways. You know, they're talking about sort of micro-targeted

small-bore policy issues in many ways. And Donald Trump is offering a worldview. He's offering simple explanations. I think that's totally right. And look at Obama. Obama used masterfully the language of the civil rights movement, the fierce urgency of now, phrases like that, the cadences of the civil rights movement to do what? To advance racial progress? No. To advance...

Things like the Affordable Care Act to advance all kinds of policy. That was his superpower. And there was as many policy initiatives as Biden succeeded on. There was never a story told that could equal the narrative of what Obama employed. There was no new story employed. There was no poetry to it.

I'm not suggesting that Trump is poetry, unless it's of the most Charles Bukowski obscene kind. Howl would be his poem. Bukowski, by the way, takes offense at the analogy. And rightly so. I mean, he's also not policy. I mean, for all the complaints about how she's— But he has a story, and the story is—

I am your champion. This is a country of ruin. We are awash in migrant scum and rapists and all the rest. And foreign leaders are laughing at us. And I am here to save you. I'm the strong man. Yeah. And it's an old model and it's appealing and funny at times. And it's just, there was no answer to that. And certainly, God bless her, not in 100 days. Yeah.

It was too hard to overcome in the end. I think that's right. I think that's right. I mean, look, I think there is this big fact that is looming in our story of what just happened, which, of course, is the Biden presidency. And, you know, you hinted a moment ago, David, at the idea that it sort of failed to find a story. And there's something in there that it never had the narrative kind of philosophical reach that Obama personally had.

But then there's sort of two things going on, I think, in those Biden years that are worth identifying. One, and you've heard this in recent days, there was a way in which –

There was a political misjudgment made after the 2022 midterms made by Joe Biden and also the party generally. And that judgment was that, oh, we didn't do as badly as we thought. That means, A, we have a coalition out there of people who agree with us on this big democracy issue. B, we have Dobbs. The overturning of Roe v. Wade is this powerful galvanizing force. And then maybe Joe Biden's earned the right to use a term he would probably have used.

for a second term. And of course, that was a catastrophic misreading, most of all about himself. And I think that, you know, I was thinking about it today because he gave his, he gave a short speech at the Rose Garden in which he said, he kind of used his central mantra, the thing that has explained his life, which is, you know, when you get knocked down, you get back up.

And I heard it today and it was – it had the echo of catastrophe about it because it was that mantra that inspired him to run for the second term and then to stay in despite people and despite the polls and despite other Democrats saying you've got to get out, you've got to get out. It was almost like he made himself unavailable to hear what the universe was saying. So I think that's exactly right. I just want to add one footnote to that, which is –

That was a key moment, arguably the key moment in this campaign, the idea that Joe Biden was running again. That was a catastrophe. But I think there's another key moment, though, also in January, February and March of 2021. And that was the catastrophic misunderstanding about the Republican Party and about Donald Trump. And, you know, they believed that Donald Trump was

I was just—I think I said this to you, Susan, earlier in the day—

There was an interview with Anita Dunn back then who was, what, chief of staff in the White House or top advisor or whatever. She was senior comms advisor to Biden. And she was saying, well, we're not going to talk about Trump because he's over. People aren't interested in him anymore. So they thought they could ignore them. I mean if this was a monster movie, it would be –

they'd be saying that and there would be this looming shadow right outside the window. There comes Godzilla. I was going to say, we're back to Godzilla. What's really funny, by the way, is I think I've watched one Godzilla movie. I think you got the point of it. You got the main thrust of it. During the break, we can watch some Godzilla, but we have to take a break right now.

This is the New Yorker Radio Hour, and I'm speaking with my colleagues Evan Osnos, Jane Mayer, and Susan Glasser, staff writers all covering politics for The New Yorker in Washington. More in a moment. The New Yorker Radio Hour is supported by Fundrise. Buy low, sell high. Buy low, sell high. It's a simple concept, but not necessarily an easy concept. Right now,

Right now, high interest rates have crushed the real estate market. Prices are falling and properties are available at a discount, which means Fundrise believes now is the time to expand the Fundrise flagship fund's billion-dollar real estate portfolio. You can add the Fundrise flagship fund to your portfolio in minutes by visiting fundrise.com slash tny. That's F-U-N-D-R-I-S-E dot com slash t-n-y.

Carefully consider the investment objectives, risks, charges, and expenses of the Fundrise Flagship Fund before investing. This and other information can be found in the fund's prospectus at fundrise.com slash flagship. This is a paid advertisement.

Hi, I'm Nicholas Bleckman, The New Yorker's Creative Director. We've designed a collection of stylish and fun products for all seasons and ages, from beach towels and umbrellas to t-shirts and baby onesies. These and other items, including limited edition tote bags, are available only in The New Yorker store, carefully crafted and featuring work by the magazine's celebrated artists.

Visit store.newyorker.com and enjoy 15% off with the code NEWYORKERPOD at checkout. That's store.newyorker.com. This is the New Yorker Radio Hour. I'm David Remnick. Donald Trump was reelected last week pretty handily, gaining ground with voters in many states and among many demographic groups.

And he was reelected despite warnings about Trump from people who work with him very closely. Warnings that he's unstable, an authoritarian, a danger to democracy, and that he even meets the definition of a fascist. Voters were unmoved by that in their majority. And to understand this phenomenon better and how to think about those warnings now that Trump is the president-elect, I sat down on Thursday with our Washington correspondents, Jane Mayer, Evan Osnos, and Susan Glasser.

They come together each week on The New Yorker's podcast, The Political Scene. Jane Mayer, there's an alternate universe in which rather than preparing for a move back to the White House, Donald Trump is preparing for a potential prison sentence. And now that he's returning to power, how do you expect he'll use it? What's going to happen with all his legal travails that he faces?

Well, one of the first things that I expect is that the special counsel, Jack Smith, will no longer be in his job. One way or the other, those cases are going to go away. And instead, what I really think people need to pay a little attention to is that Trump, who's already...

already had an extraordinary opportunity to put three justices on the nine-person Supreme Court in his first term, is now facing the possibility of being able to replace two of the oldest justices who are conservatives, that's Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, and name by the time

at the end of his term, five of the nine justices on the Supreme Court. And conservatives are salivating already over this prospect. There's Ed Whalen, who's a conservative legal blogger, has been, he's already written a piece saying this could be a Trump court until 2045. Let's let that linger in the air. Who do you think he might appoint?

I think there are a number of people. Basically, there's been a pattern where when a justice retires, often they look for one of his former clerks. So you would look for Alito clerks, and there are several of them out there who are possibilities. The Fifth Circuit has some of the most far-out right-wing judges. The other circuit that often is a

The launchpad for the Supreme Court, of course, is the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia and several other conservative handpicked people who've been groomed practically since they were conceived for this job are just waiting for the call. Adjacent to that question, Susan, if Trump can reclaim control of the Justice Department, and I think he'll make every effort to do so, are we going to see political opponents locked up, as he has always said? Is that going to happen?

Yeah, David, I do think that this is really the, you know, the warning indicator light for how extreme or, you know, radical or anti-democratic a Trump second term will be is in this question of how much and in what ways does he follow through on his threats to prosecute and go after the enemies within. Because I think that that's really the hallmark where you're seeing a break from democracy.

Democratic small d norms and traditions. And by the way, in Trump's first term, this was a consistent theme of his. He just he had people who resisted this agenda, but he was demanding prosecutions of his political enemies from the very beginning of his term. He even publicly tweeted at his attorney general, Bill Barr, in the fall of 2020, where's the indictments of Joe Biden? As you know, that was the reason for his first impeachment.

impeachment back in 2019 was because he was demanding that another country, Ukraine, investigate his political opponents. He has a long record of wanting to see the independence of other institutions, especially law enforcement and intelligence-gathering institutions, eroded. And so I think you're going to see an effort by the White House to really

break traditions of independence when it comes to both the Justice Department, the FBI. One of the things you could see is him possibly firing the man that he himself hired as the FBI director, Christopher Wray. He threatened to do that in the immediate aftermath of his defeat in 2020. He didn't follow through on it, but he might this time. So this is one thing I'm really watching because I think this will be the indicator light for us about how much he follows through on that anti-democratic agenda.

What prevents him, if anything, from following through on these efforts where the Justice Department and the FBI are concerned? The oft-used word in your city is guardrails, right?

What are the guardrails?

Really, they're gone. I mean, most of them, if not all of them now. I think part of what we're asking is, is there anybody left who has influence and credibility with Donald Trump who can stand up and stop him? Because then the answer is, OK, if it's not him, then what are the institutions of society?

the press, the courts, the other independent sources of power that are not subject to his control. And how much power do they have? Well, I mean, basically, a lot of these norms are post-Watergate norms that were reactions to Nixon's corruption. And again, they're

Customs and practices, they're not laws. They're not real guardrails. They have to do with whether, as Evan put it really well, whether people will stand up and complain and protest. And also the Supreme Court has, to the extent there were laws, the Supreme Court has already eroded much of the post-Watergate framework. We saw that, you know, first of all in the...

One of the biggest responses to Watergate was the restriction of campaign contributions. Well, the Supreme Court already got rid of that a long time ago. And I think you can explain part of the, you know, sort of catastrophe in our political system from that. But in terms of Trump's executive power, this is a Supreme Court that has leaned so hard into executive power. And I think that's where that immunity decision, which is a product of the Biden administration's

own belated efforts to seek accountability for Trump's actions at the end of his term may end up actually ultimately empowering him as president to a far greater degree in the law than we might have seen. So that's one thing, David, that I think is really important. Well, let's discuss some of the people that might

staff this White House, this administration, and who you're most anxious about. Jane, anybody in particular?

I've got my eye on Russell Fout. We actually had a wonderful profile of him in The New Yorker. And he is a self-professed Christian nationalist who was in the first Trump term and who has been working on Project 2025 and other blueprints for a second Trump term. And he is a...

combination of being an ideological right-wing radical and someone who understands the Washington bureaucracy. So he's got the know-how and he's got the motives to really push the government in directions it hasn't been in before. Susan, one of the people I know you have your eye on is RFK Jr. Do you think that Trump has just kind of played RFK Jr. or do you think he'll empower him?

You know, to me, I would put this out as, you know, sort of maybe the first emerging scandal of the new administration, of which I do expect many. And that, by the way, we talked about, are there any guardrails left? One of the guardrails is Trump's own incompetence

and the chaos... No, seriously. And the chaos and dysfunction that have surrounded him in any role that he's ever been in. Self-limiting. No, and it is self-limiting. And so we expect that there will be vicious infighting as there were in all of his campaigns. You're suggesting that golf and television is what stands between us and horrible authoritarianism. And the apocalypse. But so on RFK Jr., the reason I bring it up here, right, is that Trump made a practical political decision to bring in RFK Jr. to his campaign. And by the way,

In the post-election, you know, kind of recriminations, there's a fair case to be made that this was a significant positive reason for Trump and why he won, you know, in terms of reclaiming young men, in terms of, you know, I will say you saw this at the Madison Square Garden. Explain that. He was very popular. But RFK Jr. has real appeal to voters. Yes.

Yeah, I think that he had real appeal to a certain segment of the otherwise, you know, maybe Trump-curious but not really sold on him part of the electorate, especially the demographic of younger men. And that arguably is one of the reasons. This was still a narrow election. And in that context—

I think RFK was a smart political choice for Trump. But of course, he's a catastrophic choice when it comes to anything related to actual policy. And Trump has reiterated publicly in recent days that he wants RFK to basically do anything he wants to do.

RFK has given several interviews, David, that I think are cause for true alarm. He has said, both before the election and actually then after the election, that one of the first things this new administration wants to do—I'm laughing only because it's so unbelievable—is to take the fluoride out of America's water, one of the great public health triumphs of the 20th century. And we've heard no pushback from anyone at Mar-a-Lago.

I mean, you know, that's a pretty remarkable thing. Speaking of odd characters on the American landscape, what role is Elon Musk going to play now that he's invested so deeply in the Trump campaign? Yeah, I mean, it is the makings of an oligarchic arrangement that we really haven't had yet.

Here you have the world's richest person who also happens to own a communications platform that he is now explicitly positioning as an alternative to a victor over the mainstream media. I mean, what he said after Trump won was, you are the media now.

uh, to his essentially to the platform. And he, Trump for, uh, in, in many ways would give Musk whatever he wants. He's talked about calling him the secretary of cost cutting. It's unlikely that Elon Musk is going to go into the government. He doesn't need to. What's much more likely is just that there is now going to be this gusher of influence and transaction and, uh,

and a complete fusion of policy and profit in a way that has been a kind of implicit backbeat of American politics. Jane's written about it better than anybody, but it is now suddenly going to be actually an articulated part of his appeal. Exactly. You know, Vladimir Putin is sitting in Moscow, and it's not just that the Trump election gives him what seems to be permission to,

shall we say, resolve his war in Ukraine successfully to his advantage. But Trump's re-election also underscores Putin's point about politics in general, that there's no such thing as democracy, there's only hypocrisy, and that Americans have their own oligarchs, their own empowered oligarchs. And what's the difference between a Russian oligarch and Putin?

Elon Musk, that's the way he's going to see this, no, Susan? I mean, you've, God knows, spent long enough in Russia. David, the difference that as Putin sees it is that, you know, he has control over his oligarchs.

And I think he perceives Donald Trump to be a vain, foolish, weak and malleable man who might be controlled by his oligarchs. And that's one key difference that Putin would perceive. In our book, we have an example that I think is a really important one. This is your biography of Trump with your husband, Peter Baker. That's right. And, you know, in the spring of 2017, when they were trying to explain the core of NATO to Donald Trump, which is its collective defense strategy,

And Trump in the Oval Office said, are you telling me that I would have to go to war to protect Lithuania? Because there's no effing way I'm ever going to be going to war for Lithuania. Well, Vladimir Putin knows that very well. And so it seems to me that even as we're sitting here today in November of 2024, the NATO Article 5 guarantee is already a dead letter.

Susan Glasser, Jane Mayer, and Evan Osnos. You're listening to The New Yorker Radio Hour with more to come. This is The New Yorker Radio Hour. I'm David Remnick. And we're talking, of course, about the election of 2024, a truly historic election without any exaggeration. I'm here with Susan Glasser, Jane Mayer, and Evan Osnos, staff writers for The New Yorker, all based in Washington.

A question for all of you. Maybe we'll start with Jane. The Democratic Party in this election lost ground with constituency groups like Latino voters and young voters. What is your sense of how the party, after its period of mourning, is going to come to terms with this reckoning? And do party officials even see it as a reckoning?

You know, I just don't – I think it's early days here. And they surely will convene some sort of great summits and talk to each other and create a circular firing line. I don't know what they will come up with here. I would hope –

that they would consider how the money picture has corrupted both parties. I mean, I think it's very hard for the Democrats to be the champions of the working people when the election looks like a battle between billionaires, ours versus theirs, and the consulting class is getting rich and working for corporations in between the elections. Evan?

I think, you know, there is always a risk of over reading an election. I mean, it's an irony here that at the very moment that we're kind of dealing with the seismic shock of Trump winning, it is also a fact that we have a stronger minority party now on empirical basis than we've had in a long time. Forty eight percent of the country won.

believes in essentially some form of the values or the ideas the Democratic Party represents. So there's almost like at the same time that you have to have an honest view and an honest look at the party, you also don't want to overdraw the lessons and immediately become your opponent. That said, I think that it is a very simple fact that

And as we started this conversation talking about, a lot of Americans decided fundamentally that Republicans are more interested in their economic hardship. And they wanted to listen to that as radical and offensive as it was in many cases. And you know, the left's reply to that, and you're saying that, Papa, again, is Bernie Sanders would have been the answer. That a principled left-leaning economic populism would have been the way to beat Donald Trump.

I certainly think that at this point, the argument that the Democratic Party, as personified by Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and this vast and in many ways incoherent coalition that had to address a equal number of issues on equal terms.

clearly did fall short on the number one issue, which was economics. And I think, you know, somebody, a Democrat said to me last night and rings true to me, which is that, you know, people value their identity as consumers as much as they value their identity as workers, meaning that if you've lost the ability to consume in the way that defines you, then you begin to treat that as a grievance. Yeah, I just think that, you know, Democrats are still in such...

And that, you know, that is, as Jane said, you know, going to be a huge process. But, you know, the most organized group inside the Democratic Party, right, is this progressive left, which, you know, they had sort of Biden, you know, who presents as a sort of centrist guy, but actually in a lot of ways in the personnel environment.

in many of the individual policies of this administration. It was a very hard left group. And one of the aspects that we haven't talked about at all, but I do think, you know, helped to power this was Donald Trump and his party's effective use of culture war issues to pry away independent voters who otherwise were open to voting for Democrats. And I don't see any kind of willingness to say like,

Let's talk about that transgender ad or, you know, why is it that so many Americans were open to the kind of manipulation and fear and panic of this idea that there's going to be, you know, boys playing girls sports? I mean, that was probably the biggest one of the biggest applause lines after mass deportation now, both at the Republican Convention, at the Madison Square Garden rally that. Right. Kamala Harris is for them. They.

Donald Trump is for you. Is for him. Exactly. Too many people are putting their heads in the sand. It's human nature. It's psychology to be like, oh, it'll work out OK. And by the way, I see a lot of Democrats and independents and people who don't love Donald Trump immediately kicking back into that. Yeah, it's called rich people and people who are not going to be deported in us. And a lot of people are not going to be hurt. But it's not just rich people, David. It's not just rich people. But I am glad you brought up rich people.

Because we've talked a lot about the people who have economic anxieties and depression and how they've gotten behind Trump. But as Susan has written also fantastically for The New Yorker, it was a coalition of the economically downtrodden, overlooked, and the economically privileged in the extreme. I mean, there were a number of billionaires and are behind Trump. In fairness, there are a number of billionaires behind Trump.

As we've said. Right. I mean, it's become a billionaire's game. But these tax cuts aren't a minor thing. I mean, and they have a lot to do with why the billionaires are behind Trump. And we're going to see – I mean, if he moves ahead with these tax cuts, you're going to see gigantic deficits and the weakening – a further weakening of the federal government to the point where there could be all kinds of problems for people. This has been a –

You know, we used to say a certain music to commit suicide by, and maybe this conversation feels very dark. But one silver lining for Democrats certainly is that seven states passed ballot measures to protect or expand abortion rights, including some Republican voting states. How do you interpret this alongside Trump's decisive, really decisive victory and a Republican majority in the Senate and quite possibly the House?

There's no doubt that there are a lot of women who are motivated to take on Trump still on reproductive rights issues. And Harris championed this issue passionately and articulately. And people flocked to her campaign because of it. I mean, don't forget. I mean, we're talking about as if she – this was a landslide. It actually was not a landslide. She got $68 million. He got $72 million.

There were a lot of people who voted for her and who really care about reproductive rights. And I think, you know, that this is an issue. You may see people – more of these mass rallies in Washington from women pushing back. I can see Susan's shaking her head. Go ahead, Susan. Well, I actually – I agree with Jane that this is a, you know, powerful, powerful –

But the reason I am and it's that I feel the, you know, the sad feeling in the pit of my stomach recurring at this point because the tragedy, Jane, is that there were one of you could argue that the margin of Donald Trump's victory was from women's

Women in particular, white women who support abortion rights and voted for the man anyways who gave us the repeal of Roe versus Wade. White women were the issue. And white voters, as I was saying before. We can't lie to ourselves, right? Like that's, to me, what's the hardest part.

after something like this is the temptation to, you know, want to look for silver linings or to, you know, I mean, I feel like, not from you particularly, but I just mean in a general sense. Let's look at the aftermath on the other side. On the day after the inauguration in January 2017, there was a massive demonstration with pink hats and

not only in Washington, but in New York City and cities and towns across the country. This was known as, at that time, the resistance. I get the sense, and please argue with me, and I know it's early days, that the reaction to this Trump victory is different than 2016, that it is, there was shock in 2016. Nobody, very few people expected this, with some exceptions.

This time around, probably more people than not expected Trump to win. And it's been met less with shock than with, for his opponents anyway, gloom, depression. And I am very concerned about the not only capitulation in some quarters, but also just lassitude, inertia, fear.

Evan, go ahead. We're so distressed we can't even answer. No, look, I think there's a couple things. I mean, one is 2016, it was a surprise. It was not a surprise this time, as you say, David. In fact, one of the big differences was in 2016, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote.

And the fact that Donald Trump won the popular vote is part of the reason why we're having this question and this conversation about what does the Democratic Party stand for and who does it stand for? Because in a sense, that's the harder question. You know, at the time, it was almost galvanizing to have this sense that but for this quirk, this quirk.

kind of almost criminal constitutional fact of the electoral college going the other way that maybe Hillary Clinton would have prevailed. And I think this time it is actually occasioning more of a moment of where did the party go wrong and inevitably also what do we do about individual candidates. But that's why I think it feels more like –

a moment to talk seriously about what the Democratic Party should be. And to that point, I just want to mention one thing, which is I think there is there has to be a precise, precise

understanding of what we mean when we talk about the left of the Democratic Party, because it's not clear that Bernie Sanders is the same as the cultural progressive forces we were talking about a moment ago. And in fact, it may turn out that the Democratic Party is going to double down on a piece of it on the economic message and reexamine what it that he represents and how it talks about exactly. Well, while thinking about

in new ways about how it talks about cultural issues. I mean, and in fact, the part of the left that cares most about identity issues has often been at odds with Bernie Sanders because they don't see him. I mean, the Hillary crowd particularly did not see him as supportive of women. And, you know, there are fissures within all of that.

I mean, I just wanted to, you know, lift your spirits by quoting the late, great Senator John McCain, who said, you know, the darkest hour is always before it turns pitch black. My spirits are soaring, Jane. Thank you for that. Okay. You know, there's something else we really have, you know, we're talking about a

Now, analyzing what was wrong with the Harris campaign and the Democratic Party and the strengths and weaknesses of Trump, but we really haven't talked about the other thing that seemed so different during this campaign, at least to me, is that I think that the mainstream media, so-called legacy media, really has lost dominance in terms of the information ecosystem. Didn't we know that before this race?

We felt it going piece election by election. I would say this is the one where it was gone. A final question for all. What questions do each of you have for this new Trump era? Why don't we begin with Evan and go around the table? I think I'm interested in how institutions will protect people who need and deserve protection, meaning to take a prime example of.

One of the biggest shames of the first Trump administration was the separation of families. And I think that at the border and the prospect of something like that happening again is something that institutions, whether they are

legal or journalistic or investigative in other ways, they deserve support because it is not going to be coming from within the House, meaning it is going to be harder and harder for dissidents within the departments, within agencies to come forward and say there's something terrible going on.

And I think there have been lawyers out there over the last – in the first Trump term who deserve real valor and celebration for standing up and bringing important cases. And I think I'm going to be watching to see how those kinds of outside institutions operate again. Yeah.

I mean, I'm always preoccupied with abuses of power. And I think that, you know, I'm really interested in whether the rule of law can contain Trump and the people around him at this point. Are we going to continue to be sort of this exceptional country where, you know, it's

it's a democracy that was with checks and balances, or are we going to see it tip over into strongman government where it's deeply corrupt? And I think it's going to take constant vigilance on the part of the press. And I just hope we have the energy and, you know, the ability to just keep holding these people in power accountable. And Susan? Yeah, I think

Jane and Evan are right that it's really about do we or do we not see Donald Trump implement the playbook for anti-democratic, authoritarian, strongman rule? And that will determine, I think, an answer to a question that's plagued us, which is, is Trump essentially kind of an outlier but still, you know, within the framework of American politics? Or does he represent something like a

And is this part of the natural oscillation of American politics and in two years will divided government return in the midterms? Or will he go after the political enemies within? Will he attack the fake news media in a structural legal way? For example, by throwing reporters out of the White House, simply refusing to obey the

the ethics, laws, and rules that have been put on the books over the last few decades? Will he weaponize the Justice Department? Will he transform the national security state and the intelligence apparatus of this country into his personal and political fiefdoms? Those are the questions, I think, that, you know,

You could make the argument about, say, Vladimir Putin or Viktor Orban or Erdogan in their first term or even their first or second terms in power, you know, that you still didn't understand exactly which way that society was going. This is the pivotal four years. We're going to understand whether something like an American strongman can arise within our system right now or not. And I just add to that, to those excellent questions, what can we expect of ourselves?

And, you know, having lived in a totalitarian country and seeing them come out of it and then plunge back into authoritarianism, it being Russia, we have to recognize that actual dissidence is very rare. That that level of self-sacrifice that we've seen from Alexei Navalny, who were farther back in the past, Sakharov, Solzhenitsyn, and Evan knows all about this too from China,

is exceedingly rare, but ordinary citizens are capable of ordinary kinds of heroism. And I think, you know, at home here at this magazine and in the press, I think we have to demand of ourselves, and that's the vow I make to our readers and my colleagues, that we will insistently do it. And

Our duty, our primary duty, is to apply pressure on power truthfully, accurately, consistently, and fearlessly. And I hope we're equal to that challenge, and I hope our colleagues elsewhere are too, because it's essential. Evan, Jane, Susan, thank you so much. Great to be with you, David. Thanks, David. Thank you so much, David. Evan Osnos, Jane Mayer, and Susan Glasser.

They join our podcast, The Political Scene, each Friday. I'm David Remnick, and that's The New Yorker Radio Hour for today. Thanks for joining us. I hope you'll join us next time. The New Yorker Radio Hour is a co-production of WNYC Studios and The New Yorker. Our theme music was composed and performed by Meryl Garbus of Tune Yards, with additional music by Louis Mitchell.

This episode was produced by Max Balton, Adam Howard, David Krasnow, Jeffrey Masters, Louis Mitchell, Jared Paul, and Ursula Sommer. With guidance from Emily Botin and assistance from Michael May, David Gable, Alex Barish, Victor Guan, and Alejandra Decat. Today's episode was produced in collaboration with Julia Nutter, Stephen Valentino, and Alex D'Elia.

The New Yorker Radio Hour is supported in part by the Tarina Endowment Fund.