When Caring Becomes Counterculture

25:40Isn't the job of saying, you know what? The United States in the summer of 2015, it hadn't recovered fast enough from the Great Recession. Many of its foreign policy commitments were not working as advertised and people were frustrated with them. Got it. And there does seem to be a slowdown in the rate of growth compared to what previous generations had. And obviously there are the chronic problems of climate change and all true. Nevertheless, all of that calls for reform, not revolution. The system is basically good and fair and worth defending. And not only that, but individual action matters and you shouldn't just tune out and defect from the political process.

26:16Sometimes you have to say to people, you're wrong. You're wrong about, and cynicism doesn't make you smart. Cynicism makes you vulnerable. Yeah. I had a whole project about who centered around this with Cameron Caskey, uh, before he decided to run for Congress as a young guy that started March for our lives where we did a show, we interviewed young people. And so it wasn't entirely about this, but, but this topic came up a lot, right. Um, uh, particularly with young men. And I found myself in your, in the shoes, in the shoes of you, like making that case a lot, right. Which is like, okay, I hear you.

26:49Like your complaints are legitimate, but in the grand scheme of things, you know, somebody that was a young man that was born in 1999, you know, or whatever, 2002, what, you know, has had some challenges, but they are a lot better off than young men and women who were born in a lot and almost all of the years of the past, frankly. And so at some level you want to say like, oh, poor baby, right? Well, congratulations on your high school diploma, class of 1932. Yeah, right. Yeah. Class of 1941. Yeah, I'm trying to think about the class that went through or like they graduated into, you know, World War I and then the first plague and, you know, like that, that you had the depression.

27:34Yeah. So there are a lot of bad years out there. That said, I, okay, great. Like, we're right. but Donald Trump is the president and the most like the head of the FBI is a podcaster who is a total buffoon who preyed on these fears and did so successfully so I guess my response to what you said is like yes it is true that it is overstated like the grievances and the complaints of young men in the year 2026 but some of their complaints are real and the job of people who are political practitioners is to win people over and i think that there was insufficient effort in winning people over in part because a lot of people on the left got into a bubble of their own where they were made to believe that these young men were something that they weren't right that they were like deeply irredeemably racist misogynist um problematic whatever followers of joe rogan and it's kind of like i don't know actually when you talk to most of them they're like a lot of young men.

28:38They're reckless and dumb and have some strong views on things and have some unformed views on other things. And Barack Obama appealed to that group very easily. And I kind of feel like had Barack Obama been the candidate in 2016, he would have appealed to them very easily again. Yeah. How do you personally adapt to this? I mean, you have a style that is very contemporary, very humorous, very demotic, and you're trying to bring people in. Very demonic? Demotic, not demonic. I knew. I was just making a joke. The demos is the voice of God, not the voice. Anyway, but is that calculated as a way to overcome this problem, or is that just who you are and you couldn't be any other way?

29:19It's mostly the latter. And I think that one of the things that has worked for the bulwark is that all of us were cast out and were just able to kind of be ourselves and say what we really thought. And, you know, I had a Democratic strategist once tell me after I got off TV and they're like, I'm so jealous of you. I was like, why? And they said, well, you know, even if I don't think I want to be White House press secretary ever again, like there's this little person in the back of my head that's saying maybe I will be, you know, and so I should soften the edges of whatever I'm going to say. And I just don't think any of us ever, I don't know.

29:57I think we all felt like, okay, that part of our life is over. Now we can just say what we think and that's freeing. So part of that is, I think, natural. But there is a calculated effort to try to reach different demographics. And I saw a pretty concerning poll of Lincoln about the Michigan Senate race. And I like Mallory McMorrow, the best of those candidates. That's in candor. It's a, she is, you know, sort of a, like she's about my age and, you know, is very online and casual in the way that she speaks. And, you know, there's more establishment kind of Haley Stevens is perfectly fine. And there's like a lefty candidate, Abdul Al-Sayed.

30:33And if you looked at the polls, McMorrow was doing the best among like 60 plus. And like, there's something, and I feel, and I feel this, right? Like there's something about, I think, a, a generation older than me, like my parents' generation who enjoy consuming material. Like, oh, that's a young person that talks like a young person. And I like that. It's a little different. It gets me out of my bubble. I learned some new things. But then you get to the main race where you see the same process sort of in play and likely to cost Democrats the Senate seat. Right. Yeah. With Graham Plattner. Because he's, I don't know about likely to cost, but potentially it could cost him.

31:15It's a risk. It's a risk to have somebody like Graham Plattner in that race, right? Actually, we should probably hit the pause button to explain who Graham Plattner is and what's going on in Maine. Yeah, yeah. So the main race is Janet Mills. It's funny. This race is, for me, such a microcosm of the problems of the Democratic Party, of like the two different factions. Janet Mills seems like a perfectly competent person, present governor in her late 70s. She kind of represents a lot of what Biden represented, like has been a very competent governor, but seem is not exactly inspiring, seems out of touch with what people will want.

31:49Then you have the Graham Plattner, who is this kind of left populist, younger candidate, oyster fisherman, tattoos and speaks more normal and casually. And so there's an appeal there. I think there's more excitement around him, but has a lot of the baggage that left populists have, whether with their online past, like saying, saying crazy shit, saying far left stuff. So now you get into a situation where it's like, well, okay, there are these two groups that the Democrats need to do well with, right? It's like our people, right? Like centrist, college-educated folks. Democrats have gained a lot of ground with them.

32:29And so Janet Mills will do fine with that group, right? Right. But then there's this other group of like working class folks that the Obama to Trump voter to be to just use a shorthand. Right. Working class voters that are traditionally voted Democrat that started to move more to the right. And there's a theory of the case that Graham Plattner types might appeal more to them. And so who can appeal to both? Right. Like this becomes a fundamental problem because you imagine there's this college educated group that has moved more to the Democrats. Democrats maybe some percentage of them look at Graham Plattner and Susan Collins and say Susan Collins not my cup of tea exactly but I know what I'm getting with her responsible blah blah blah it's not my point of view but just you know political analysis and and that costs Democrats a senate race you can imagine that you can imagine on the other side Janet Mills uh eking it out against Graham Plattner and the types of people that Plattner appeals to don't turn out to vote in a midterm election they're just like I'm not the type of person to vote in a midterm election when Susan Collins wins.

33:26So it's a conundrum. It's a pickle. Hopefully Donald Trump screws things up enough that there's a big enough wave to carry either of them through. But I do think that it's a problem with the party. And just one last thing, just circling it back to how I think about my role. It's like, I do think about how can I talk to the people that Plattner's appealing to? Because maybe, particularly in the younger men side of things, because maybe I'm the type of person as a former Republican who watches football and talks casually that they would listen to when they might not listen to because of misogyny or whatever, you know, some of the other voices.

34:01The last thought before we close the subject, on the rare occasions when anyone asks me for political advice, I always say, I say, when you get to the final round, there are two candidates, you have a one in two chance of winning a one in two chance of losing. So there's a reasonable statistical probability that you're going to lose. You should think in advance. If you lose, how and why would you like to lose? Because it's a terrible thing to lose for things you didn't believe in, to lose because of positioning, to lose because you weren't yourself. If you lose because you were yourself, you can live with that.

34:32If you lose over issues that you feel are important, you can live with that. And so I sometimes think as I listen to this detraction, you know what? If democracy loses because the defenders of democracy were too serious about it, too earnest, too believed in it too much, then at least we lost the fight the way we wanted to fight the fight. I'll just say one thing about this. We totally agree at the candidate level. And having worked for a lot of losing candidates, particularly in primaries, I've given this same speech to probably four or five people and said, hey, go down with integrity. Go down with dignity.

35:09Don't do it any other way. And then I agree with you. At a macro level, though, at a scale, I think I guess I have a slight disagreement. I do think it is incumbent upon the people who see the threat to our country, to our democracy seriously, to try to grapple seriously with how to thwart it. And I guess my point is I just I don't want people to not do things because they're high on their own supply about, you know, their norms and their values. And be true to yourself. Be true to your values. But also, you know, look, we only have two parties. Okay. So you're getting 60 million votes. The country is big and diverse.

35:51Every successful winning coalition in the history of this country has had cranks in it, has had racists in it, has had stupid people in it. That's just how you have to win. This is not like a European country where there are seven parties and you only need to win 22 % of the vote to get a plural. That's part of the deal. And so I just don't want to write people off. And I think sometimes my critique of people in our movement is that they write people off because they don't have the right thoughts or the right views on everything. And so then they're problematic and they're not worth appealing to.

36:24And I guess that's all I'm arguing is that it's worth at least trying to appeal to them. Since you raised coalition politics, let me ask you, and this is the last challenge I want to put to you. As you said, the bulwark began as an extension of the weekly standard of certain kind of subsection of conservative politics. And that's the life story of the core group that runs the Bulwark. But you have discovered this extraordinary new appeal in a much wider set of viewers and listeners who tilt more to the liberal side and even to the left. Probably the median Bulwark fan in 2026 was not voting for George W.

37:00Bush in 2003 if they were active in 2003. How do you find a stopping place? And when you and I were talking about this in advance, I mentioned that there was a kind a very favorable treatment of alexandria ocasio-cortez by by you and by bill crystal that you've had you had zoran mamdani on and you asked gave him a tough question and indeed you asked the question that has caused him the single greatest difficulty of anybody so i don't want to slight that but how do you say this is who we are and this is this is who we used to be this is who we are not going to become and this is where we don't go how do you think about those questions um i I appreciate this because it is like it's complicated and I'm evolving my views about it all the time.

37:44And I want and I say that because, you know, one of the benefits of having a daily podcast is getting to bring smart people on is I get to hear smart people's opinions. And sometimes people say things that makes me think about things in a different way. And so I want to frame this up in that sense where I'm trying to think about the best way to solve the last question, right? Like how do we protect the country? and sometimes the answer to that it does not necessarily align with what my particular policy priors are right and um and so how do you how do you think about that how do you integrate that like information and and how do i talk about you know those types of politicians those types of issues without being untrue to myself without doing audience capture etc the audience capture problem is easy because like once a month i do my best to just piss everybody off as much as possible about a topic.

38:34I find a topic that I know that the left part of the audience does not agree with me on. And I'm like, you know what, I'm going to do two more segments on this than I should, just so we can clean out any false assessments that I'm going to go along with every crazy thing that the left wants me to go along with. But what the red lines are, the best way to answer this question I think about, and we've all talked about this and thought about it, is around the word illiberalism. What is our core mission right now? And to me, it is in defense of liberal democracy, not necessarily limousine liberalism, not liberalism in that sense, but in the sense of the values that undergird liberal democracy that have made our society work, which is not too dissimilar to the constitutional values, to our old conservative points of views, like the values that are in the declaration.

39:29And so to the extent that there is a liberalism that spouts up on the left, I think that it's important for us to oppose it or call it out. I think it's also important for us to think about like, just because you are in favor of liberal values and American traditions doesn't mean that there can't be reforms. In order to defend liberal democracy, you have to defend every institution that has become sclerotic and that has developed in our liberal democracy. And I don't think that, but I just mean like the underlying values. And so, you know, the threat from a liberalism to me, very clearly at this point comes from the right.

40:04And one line I like to use is like, if somebody came up to me with a gun and said, you get to be the one that decides the future of the country, do you want it to look like Orbán's Hungary? Or do you want it to look like a Scandinavian social democracy? Like they wouldn't have to even like put their hand to their holster before I'd say a Scandinavian social democracy. Like it doesn't have all my preferred economic views or any other views, but it's just not close. Like the threat is from the liberalism. And so when I look at a person like Zoran or AOC, I think what we see is there are definitely some illiberal left views that they've held in the past.

40:36I think also that both of them have demonstrated that they are trying to appeal to folks outside of that, whatever, a DSA cul-de-sac. They're trying. So I think it's important to talk about that. I want to put a pause button there because I think you're combining two things that in my mind, at least are different things. So let's bracket Zoran Mamdani, who I regard as a more sinister figure than maybe you do. But let's talk about AOC. I think AOC is absolutely a normal American politician. And I have no doubt that if she were to somehow become president, if she's got a Supreme Court order saying, don't do this, she wouldn't do it.

41:16And I don't think she would run a meme coin business while being president. So if the question is, is this person an acceptable and unalarming, an unthreatening participant in American democracy? Yeah, absolutely she is. I can imagine that the scope of unthreatening American politics extends to her and then extends Marco Rubio to AOC, that's sort of the universe. If, however you say, I, David Fromm, at this microphone or you, Tim Miller, at your microphone, do I support her? I can draw a line by saying I don't find her threatening, but no, no, I don't. And I'm not the master. I'm not determining the outcomes of American politics.

41:56I'm just speaking for myself. And I can both say I find her. And if the choice were AOC or Trump, I would very unhappily and would vary with a lot of foot dragging and grumbling and complaining to my loved ones have to put up with AOC. But if the choice is AOC or somebody else, I choose somebody else. And I remember that when I talk and write about her. Again, Zoran Mamdani, I want to bracket because I think that's a different kettle of fish. But let's get so you and your work. One of the things that got, I think, that got led to the favorable treatment she got was a misstatement she made. And I don't want to mock her for it.

42:31It's a natural one. She said trans-Pacific when she meant transatlantic, which is not such a big mistake, except the Trans-Pacific Partnership was a very specific piece of legislation that the left destroyed and that I, for one, lament. And the Transatlantic Partnership is a much vaguer, more notional idea. Okay. I want to talk first about the question of whether we support her, and then we'll get to the favorable treatment that me and Bill gave her on the podcast about a week ago. I wouldn't say that I support her. No. I also think, for me, look, Donald Trump got elected twice in this country.

43:04Donald Trump, who I regard to be totally unacceptable and moronic and unappealing and for whom there was never even a moment for me where I was like, I get it. I see what people like in this person. I find him repulsive and I have all the way since 2012. And so if Donald Trump gets elected first time, it makes you think about some things. If then he tries to overturn our democracy and instigates a riot at the Capitol that causes the death of police officers, and then people elect him again, that makes me think, okay, well, look, I mean, sure, the easy thing to do is say, well, it was bad luck because of inflation.

43:40But to me, I think that there should have been no type of inflationary environment that should have led to Donald Trump getting elected again after January 6th. And yet he did. And so I, as an analyst of our politics, And as somebody who cares deeply of trying to get us out of this, have to look at that and say, okay, well, Democrats have to do something differently. Like doing the same thing over and over again and putting up somebody else in the Hillary to Harris kind of wing of the party or with those with their similar positions and with their similar affect, like that would be a mistake. And so as I look ahead to 2028, I feel like what my job is as a podcast host is to try to encourage Democrats to look at different options.

44:23Now, AOC is not going to be my kettle of fish, as you said. I think that there would be, God willing, there'll be multiple candidates that I prefer a lot more. But I think that there's things that she's doing that's very interesting and important that other Democrats I like better should learn from. Like for starters, she has a differentiated brand from an unpopular Democratic party. Number two, she talks like herself on social media. She's very relatable and authentic. You know, number three, she has some, again, these are all towards the left, but she has heterodox views that differentiate herself.

44:51I think that for a Democrat to be successful, barring luck, like sometimes you get successful, luckily, as you mentioned, if there are only two candidates, it's like, you know, you have a coin flip's chance. But for them to be actually successful, Democrats should learn from Obama and Trump and the successful politicians and differentiate themselves from an unpopular establishment of their party. And AOC is doing that. I have not seen a lot of that from the center left. I hope to encourage some of them to learn from the good parts of AOC and not take some of her more troubling positions. And so now getting back to Bill Kristol, to the extent that I give her plaudits for anything, it's usually one for doing that thing I think Democrats need to do.

45:34and two it's you know when she shows some glimmers of saying hey i plan to be more responsible than some others on the left i think it's okay to note that i think it's okay to note that aoc while she flubbed it and fucked up we got a greater on a curve but so did george w bush flubbed and fucked up his first appearances on the world stage and we graded him on a curve but like we can both say she flubbed and also i thought her speech was more responsible than marcos that's my final sentence i thought i prefer the flub i love the flub i got excited about the trans-pacific part be still my heart trans-pacific free trade that you're talking my language yeah anyway but my final point was just i thought her speech was more responsible than marco's period end of story does that mean that i'm going to agree with all of her foreign policy better than you know what i mean like there are a lot of other things but like that's just just speaking about that speech let me move the camera a little bit from aoc back more directly upon you so in in politics we have both as individuals.

46:30We have red lines, things we cannot accept, and green flags, things we believe in and are excited about. Mine would include US global leadership of democratic nations, free trade abroad, free commerce at home, constitutional restraints on the government, but also fiscal responsibility, generally preferring a government that taxes less and does less. That's a red line for you? No, that's my green flag. Oh, that's a green flag. I was going to say, that's a red line you've not had anyone to support for 40 years. No, the red lines are the things where you say, I will fight against this in the company of anybody.

47:00And sometimes when you're battling the red lines, you can forget what your green flags were or should be or used to be. In fact, this is the story of the first neoconservatives. They began by being upset about disorder in the cities of the industrial northeast and midwest in the 1960s. And pretty soon, they've become completely different people with a kind of, Andrew Sullivan calls it the neocon slide. and that's just natural but it's also something that maybe you want to make sure i'm making my own decisions about where i go i'm not being pushed by the force of events yeah no i i understand that i'm very conscious of it i always think that like my the thing i most took from jeb speaking of my campaigns is he had a um he had a phrase that he liked to use that you know what was his north star was that making sure that people had an opportunity to live a chance of purpose and meaning or had an opportunity to live a life of purpose and meaning.

47:55And that's what the government's job. It doesn't mean you had to give people purpose, right? Like if people didn't want to find purpose in their life, they could go and, you know, make fools of themselves. And we'd have a kind of a minimum safety net to make sure that they could enjoy the life part of having a life of purpose and meaning. But like we couldn't give people purpose and meaning. We had to give them opportunities too. And that the government should do what was possible to nourish that and that the government shouldn't do anything that would infringe on it. And you can think about any policy kind of through that prism.

48:28And so when I see things on the left that I think are dehumanizing, are preventing people from being able to do that, I want to speak out about it. I mean, I know you want to speak more in the policy space, but one thing that just jumps straight to mind that was a red line for me that I said very clearly in the podcast was I had a pretty disturbing amount of people that came up to me and said that they were basically okay with Charlie Kirk's assassination. Like that somewhere between didn't bother them and they celebrated it. And I was just horrified by that. I was like, no, I just, I believe in humans ability to, to grow and change and be redeemed.

49:13So I went Hillary's deplorables line when she called the mag of the basket of deplorables. I didn't mind deplorables because they are, but I didn't like that the next thing she used was irredeemable. A lot of these people are deplorable and irredeemable. No, everyone is, almost everyone. I don't know if Stephen Nolan's redeemable. Almost everyone is redeemable in the eyes of God. And so my view is I had to speak out. I had to say no. I will not actually be side by side with somebody who believes that political violence is either appropriate or allowed or encouraged in service of some broader democratic goal.

49:49I won't. Even if it's rhetorical, I won't give any aid and comfort to that. That seems like a very low bar. Unfortunately, we live in a society where the bar is pretty low. We saw a similar thing with Luigi Mangione and others. And so, look, I think that it's important to have a North Star, to know where the guard grails are. I just also think in the context of AOC and Zoran, we live in a world where the old way of thinking led us to two Donald Trump terms and led us really to the brink of potentially losing our democracy. I'm more open to creative solutions to that and other solutions that are outside of what my green flags are of fiscal responsibility.

50:32I want fiscal responsibility. I want cutting red tape. I would love for those to be elements of a broad coalition that allows us to get our society back on track. I'm also open to the possibility that there might be other more effective ways of reaching the types of people that Donald Trump reached. And so when I analyze AOC and Zoran, I just try to be mindful of that. I sometimes think, and I hope this is an accurate quote or that it's an authentic quote and that I'm reproducing it accurately. But I recall Friedrich Hayek once saying that when he was a young man of 20, the only people he could speak to with mutual understanding were old men of 80.

51:11And now that he's an old man of 80, the only people he could speak to were people of 20. I feel that really hard. But what he specifically meant was he had been 20 at the beginning of an era of authoritarianism and war and statism and control. And that was the common stuff of politics. And you had to be kind of a screwy oddball at age 20 in 1917 when I think he was 20 to believe. I still believe in freedom and limited government and a world in which goods and people move. And only at the end were those things rediscovered. And so we say the old ideas have failed. Well, there were the old ideas and there was failure.

51:49Have the old ideas failed or is liberty an idea that's eternal in you? Liberty is an idea that is eternal in me, for sure. And I think that I do believe that over the long arc of history, it will continue to bear itself out. And I think that the basic ideas of why I became a Republican of free markets and free people will bear themselves out. And I think that my pushback to a lot of what Trump is doing is in that spirit. Like his administration is a direct assault on liberty and free markets and free people. And so I guess my caveat, not caveat, because I would not be for someone that was anti-liberty.

52:29I would not be for someone that wanted to subjugate a certain group of people, even if they were MAGA people, I don't like. but I also think that like these I just the specific recognizing the um uh the trends uh you know recognize the patterns is what I was looking for but this is not the first time we've been through this to your point with Hayek right and if in order to get out of it we need to have an intermediating period where there are people that do not share like my poor my total ideology but who I can stand side by side with in protection of liberty and in opposition to the fascist creep.

53:11I think that it is important to do that in ways that are strategic and smart. And I think that there are limits on that. But also, you know, I think that being an old man shouting the clouds going, if only we had stuck to our guns on Simpson bowls, whatever, while, you know, Baron Trump, like reigns supreme over the land. I don't want to be that person either. And so I think that these are, you know, it's a complicated topic and it's a challenge. I'm going to appreciate the challenge, but like, that's kind of how I look at it. I hope that this makes sense. The Atlantic editors advised me to footnote things that need to be footnoted, but you know what?

53:48I'm just going to let Simpson bulls pass into the dust of history without elaboration. Those who remember, they remember. And those who never knew, they're not missing anything. Tim Miller, thank you so much. Those were beautiful and wise last words. I'm so grateful you joined today. Thank you, Dave. Appreciate it. Bye-bye.

54:10Logging off. Rebuilding our attention spans. Trading in smartphones for dumb phones. Why are people trying to get off their screens? And what are they really after? I'm Natalie Brennan, a producer at The Atlantic. And I'm Julie Beck, a staff writer at The Atlantic. This season, we're exploring the often fraught, always changing relationship people have with technology. and examining the ways our devices affect our connection with one another. New episodes of How to Touch Grass come out every Monday. Subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. A few months ago, I invited Atlantic staff writer Charlie Worzel onto The David Frum Show.

54:48As podcast hosts, we talked about the pressures and temptations of the medium. Outrage often gets rewarded. Nuance does not. Charlie doesn't take that bait. On his show, Galaxy Brain, he covers the ways technology is changing how we think and how we live. Not just the obvious stuff, but the subtle ways it shapes what we believe, how we talk to each other, how we see ourselves and our neighbors. If you've ever wondered how smart people end up believing implausible things online, Galaxy Brain is worth your time. It's thoughtful, surprising, and a little unsettling in the very best way. Find it wherever you listen or watch.

55:32Thanks so much to Tim Miller for joining me today on The David Frump Show. As I mentioned at the top of the program, my literary discussion this week will be an evaluation, an assessment of the State of the Union address as a ritual. Now, as you know, the Constitution requires that the President from time to time give information to Congress on the State of the Union and make recommendations to Congress about the State of the Union. That constitutional injunction has become the basis of a ritual that commands the attention of the world. The president of the United States standing in front of two houses of Congress, House and Senate, with the Supreme Court in attendance, the joint chiefs of staff, other distinguished people, senior representatives of his administration, the cabinet.

56:14It's a statement that whatever partisan divisions Americans may have on this day for this ritual, Americans are united. Now, not everybody claps at the same thing, but there's an expectation of decorum. Even people who are strongly opposed to the president's programs or policies are supposed to sit quietly and listen to what the president has to say. And it's considered quite shocking if there's an outburst of dissent or interruption or heckling from anybody in the room. It's happened before and has always been regarded as a grave scandal. You're supposed to sit there and listen politely as the president speaks.

56:49Well, as I said before, I'm recording this before we know what President Trump did on his 2026 State of the Union. But there's a pretty high likelihood he's going to do something untoward. I mean, the Supreme Court is supposed to be there. Trump has called them all kinds of names for the tariff decision, has said they should be ashamed of themselves and their family should be ashamed of them, has even suggested that they might be in some kind of thrall to a foreign power. The House and Senate will be there. President Trump recently tried to indict four members of the House and two senators for things they said, a violation not only of the First Amendment, but of the speech and debate rights of members of Congress, House, and Senate.

57:26President Trump has formally opened an investigation into one Federal Reserve governor, Lisa Cook, and is making a lot of noises about investigating and indicting the other, the chairman, the outgoing chairman, Jay Powell. And who hasn't he insulted in that room? If you were a potential guest at the Trump State of the Union 2026, you'd want to think twice. I'm going to have to sit in my seat. I'm going to have to behave in a respectful way. And the president might say or do anything. One of the destructive features of the Trump presidency has been the way his inability to control himself, his inability to respect the rules of the game, has actually changed the game.

58:05It isn't just Donald Trump who behaves worse. and people in response to Donald Trump are put into a position where they either match his behavior or they look like suckers and fools, or they look like victims who are bullied by him and intimidated by him. And so you've begun to hear talk of a number of members of the House and Senate saying they do not want to attend the State of the Union, and maybe they will not. Some people have suggested there might be a lot of visible empty seats or seats where Donald Trump and his people will have to hastily scurry to put extra bodies where the Senate isn't out, members of the House should go.

58:38It's a hard thing to think about because even those of us who most want to retain the great traditions of the American Republic, the symbolic demonstrations of unity, have to say, if somebody asked me, if a member of the House or Senate asked me, should they attend? I'd have a hard time telling them that it's a good idea. I think we are being pushed toward an evaluation of whether this tradition may have outlived its usefulness, at least so long as Donald Trump is present. Remember, while the president is obliged required to make a report to Congress. There's no requirement that he do so in person.

59:09From Thomas Jefferson's time to Woodrow Wilson, the State of the Union was submitted in writing. Thomas Jefferson broke with the precedent of his predecessors, Washington and Adams, he thought, that the State of the Union address reminded him too much of a British speech from the throne. Plus, he hated public speaking. So he submitted his reports in writing. And so it continued until Woodrow Wilson returned to the spoken form. In 1973, Richard Nixon went back to the speech in writing, or he sent six statements in writing to Congress. He did not speak that year. There's no reason that this can't be done in writing.

59:40It's just a tradition. It's just a practice. And it may be time, as long as Donald Trump is president, to rethink this. And for the next Congress, remember, the president is there as a, the president is before the two houses as a guest. That's why the Speaker of the House begins by saying, it is my high, my honor and privilege. I forget the exact phrase. Congress invites the president to enter its chamber and to speak to both House and Senate. That invitation doesn't have to be extended. Congress could say, you know what, President Trump, if you're going to insult the Supreme Court, if you're going to abuse members of the House and Senate, if you're going to try to arrest us for things we've said or indict us for things we've said, why don't you put your thoughts in writing?

1:00:19Send it to them to us in writing. If it was good enough for William Howard Taft, it should be good enough for you. Put it in writing. We'll read it. We'll debate it. But we don't want you on our platform insulting and abusing the people here, people whom you've tried to arrest and are opening bogus criminal investigations into. Put it in writing. You stay home. We'll read it. We'll get back to you at our earliest convenience. Thanks so much for joining me today. Thanks to Tim Miller for being my guest. Remember, the best way to support the work of this podcast, if you're so minded, is by subscribing to The Atlantic.

1:00:50That's the best way to support me and all of my colleagues. Thanks so much for joining me today on The David Fromm Show. See you next week. Bye-bye.

1:01:20This episode of The David Frum Show was produced by Nathaniel Frum and edited by Andrea Valdez. It was engineered by Dave Grine. Our theme is by Andrew M. Edwards. Claudine Abed is the executive producer of Atlantic Audio, and Andrea Valdez is our managing editor. I'm David Frum. Thank you for listening. A few months ago, I invited Atlantic staff writer Charlie Worzel onto The David Frum Show. As podcast hosts, we talked about the pressures and temptations of the medium. Outrage often gets rewarded. Nuance does not. Charlie doesn't take that bait. On his show Galaxy Brain, he covers the ways technology is changing how we think and how we live.

1:02:05Not just the obvious stuff, but the subtle ways it shapes what we believe, how we talk to each other, how we see ourselves and our neighbors. If you've ever wondered how smart people end up believing implausible things online, Galaxy Brain is worth your time. It's thoughtful, surprising, and a little unsettling in the very best way. Find it wherever you listen or watch.