182. Culture Wars, Identity, and What Needs To Change In Congress (Sarah McBride)

25:22And what they have done in Gaza went far beyond self-defense. That what we have seen in Gaza is horrific. It was and is a humanitarian crisis that was at minimum worsened with intentionality and disregard for human life by the Netanyahu government. I believe that right now we have to do all we can to maintain the ceasefire that exists. I'm glad, as tenuous as it is, that there is something in place. But I firmly believe that Palestinians have a right to self-determination. I fundamentally believe that there should be a Palestinian state where there's dignity and safety and individual rights for Palestinians.

26:11And I believe that that can coexist next to a safe and secure Israel as well.

26:16Rory Stewart:So we interviewed a man called Rob Malley recently, who was very central to both Bill Clinton's Middle East peace process, but also to Joe Biden on Iran. And he made a couple of observations I'd love you to respond to. One is that he feels that something's changed in American politics, that there was a moment where it could be taken as read that on almost any question, US politicians would be completely aligned with Israel and something was beginning to shift there. And his second, maybe more challenging observation is that no young Palestinian and no young Israeli believes in a two state solution anymore.

26:53Or believes that there will be one.

26:54Rory Stewart:Please say what we want. And that actually, this is just something that politicians say. And they've been saying it for 10 years too long, and they'll keep saying it for another 10 years. And there's literally no young person in the region who thinks that it's anything other than the talking point. Yeah. On the first part of the question, yes, things have fundamentally changed. Public opinion has fundamentally changed. And it is understandable that when people see the carnage and the death and the destruction in Gaza, that they would be outraged by it and want things to change. And that includes the way that the United States engages with the Israeli government.

27:37And so I do believe that things have significantly shifted. And I believe that Netanyahu and his government and their actions have dramatically precipitated that public opinion change. I think was occurring before October 7th and before Gaza, but I think their actions, and I think many American Jews feel this way, that their actions have responsibility for that change, that it's not propaganda, that it's not anti-Semitic for people to be outraged by what they see, and that criticisms of the Israeli government are not in and of themselves anti-Semitic. On the second point, first of all, I think there's a difference between young Palestinians and young Israelis wanting a two-state solution or believing that it's possible.

28:29I personally believe that it is the best, if not imperfect solution, if imperfect solution to guarantee individual rights for both Israelis and Palestinians as hard as it will be to achieve. I also believe it has been a talking point for a while. I do believe that people have not done enough to see that through, but we cannot give up on that possibility. I mean, the alternative is just unacceptable to me. And people can be pessimistic that there is a realistic path forward. I understand that. I'm not particularly optimistic that it's something we'll see in due course, but I don't believe that we can eliminate that as an option and close off that as a path forward because it is, again, imperfect, but probably the best way to minimize loss of life.

29:23And Rory mentioned Greenland. You went to Greenland. I went to Denmark. Oh, you went to Denmark. You didn't go to Greenland. Okay. So you went there presumably because you're concerned about what Trump was doing in relation to Greenland. Yes. And we're talking in Munich at the security conference where there is still a lot of talk. I mean, the impact of what Trump's intentions as he signaled them in relation to Denmark and Greenland have really had a huge impact upon European politics, transatlantic relationship. Trying to be your fair self, who, unlike Roy and I, doesn't constantly just say that Donald Trump's an absolute monster.

29:59What do you think, if you had to say there is some positive in his motivation, what do you think it could be? I don't think that there's a positive in his motivation. I think it's fundamentally selfish. I think a couple of things. One, I think he sees it as an opportunity to seize land dramatically expand the size of the United States, and that's part of his legacy. I think he sees Greenland as a opportunity, perhaps the weakest link in the chain, although not a weak link in the chain, but the weakest link in the chain within North America to really assert his sphere of influence philosophy of a global order, which is a might makes right in my neighborhood global order.

30:41And I think he sees this as an opportunity as one of the proving grounds to make that a reality, to normalize that philosophy and to create precedent for that philosophy. I think Venezuela was part of that as well. I think his engagement with Russia on Ukraine is also an example of him trying to normalize and make reality a new global order where great powers get to dictate what happens in their neighborhood, regardless of the territorial integrity or sovereignty of a neighbor.

31:09Rory Stewart:Lindsey Graham's just given a slightly controversial speech just a few hours ago here. And we interviewed Mike Pompeo. And the message of both of them is you're basically being too sensitive. Europe, Britain, you need to grow up, stop grumbling all the time. It's all fine. We can do all this stuff and we're all going to be friends again and nobody's going to remember because you need us. I am sick and tired of Republican politicians telling us not to believe our lying eyes. I'm sick of Republican politicians telling us that we should take him figuratively, not literally. I'm sick of Republican politicians telling us just to suck it up and get over it every single time this president does something that is unprecedented, harmful, insulting, and dangerous.

31:59But it sets down the line on almost everything, isn't it? Exactly. That's why I'm so tired. And why do they do it? Because they don't want to have to actually engage with the substance and the merits, or lack thereof, of what he's doing and what he's saying. They want the easy way out. It was in the first Trump administration. I didn't read the tweet. Now, it's, oh, he doesn't mean it. It's fine. He'll backtrack. It's rhetoric. I think the thing that was most profound for me in Denmark, we had people come up to us on the street. And you were both parties together, yeah? It was bipartisan, bicameral, both members from the House and the Senate, although the Republicans were just from the Senate.

32:38I think if we had some more time to organize it, we would have gotten some Republicans in the House. I mean, it's hard to overstate just how unpopular, both in Congress and with the public, the president's attempt to either by force or intimidation seize Greenland was. But people would come up, they knew we were there, it was getting wall to wall coverage, because of how scared Greenlanders are and were because of how bewildered, insulted, painful this was for the Danes. And people would come up to us with tears in their eyes, almost begging us, what do you what do you need from us for us to wake up from this nightmare?

33:14What can we do? We are willing to essentially do everything short of what no country would be willing to do, which is to give up our own territory. What can we do? And I think one of the things that we tried to convey to both our colleagues and the American people was the fact that this conversation was even happening. Insulting is not strong enough a word. I mean, it's dehumanizing. It's the indignity of having to plead for all that they've done, for the Dane's lost more people per capita in Afghanistan than any other country. The only time Article 5 was invoked was after 9-11. To see that sacrifice, not only explicitly denied by the president, but to have it just completely, completely insulted by, again, not strong enough word, by threatening to take another country's territory.

34:10The pain, the dehumanization, the indignity, you can't just say, suck it up. It's profound, and it has real, tangible and lasting consequences.

34:21Rory Stewart:How did Lindsey Graham go down? It was pretty spicy, actually. I mean, it actually ended early, I think. It looked like they were trying to have to manage it towards the end as things kicked off. I mean, I think we're struggling in Europe and in Britain with the sense that what it brought to light for us was how vulnerable we are and how dependent on the US in all these different ways, including in the future, cloud computing, AI, defense and security. And of course, it's made us suddenly look at what the US has been doing around the world to other people, but never did to us. We grew up thinking it might be normal for the US to get involved in telling the Iraqi government who they can and can't have in their cabinet, or putting the sanction pressure on Cuba and saying that any European who travels to Cuba can't have a visa to go to the United States.

35:12Rory Stewart:And so long as it wasn't happening to us, we sort of felt, well, this is, you know, the rules-based international order. And suddenly now we're having to stare down the barrel of it. And of course, a lot of people in the developing world are saying, well, you know, wake up. And I think that was part of the theme of Mark Carney's speech in Davos was not only do we have to grapple with this reality, but for many, this was a reality long before Trump. Look, I believe that the US and the global order that we have benefited from for the last 80 years, indeed, it was imperfect. Indeed, we were not perfect, fair, even arbiters of those rules.

35:56And yet it was still a much better aspiration than what we are seeing this current administration seek to create now, which is essentially not an imperfectly executed moral order, but an amoral world order where might makes right, where there will be kinetic conflict between great powers and middle powers. And then eventually, once you've dominated your neighborhood as a great power, you want to expand your neighborhood. And then eventually there could be very easily conflict, kinetic conflict between great powers. Okay, Sarah, a real quick break and then back for more.

36:52Rory Stewart:Anyway, give it a try at mintmobile.com slash switch. Upfront payment of$45 for three-month plan, equivalent to$15 per month required. Intro rate first three months only, then full price plan options available. Taxes and fees extra. See full terms at mintmobile.com.

37:07It's interesting. You said that you felt the American people were very, very strongly opposed to what Trump was saying and doing on Greenland. Is it the same in relation to Ukraine? because I think a lot of Europeans are really profoundly shocked that an American president seems to be much, much closer to an aggressive expansionist Russian worldview than a European country that's been invaded by him. I think that to us has been as bewildering as anything. I just wonder where you think American public opinion is. I think public opinion overwhelmingly in the United States favors Ukraine. I think it gets a little bit more complicated when you start talking about aid, as is always the case in most countries.

37:50But the American people overwhelmingly support Ukraine, not quite as overwhelmingly as they oppose taking Greenland. I mean, the polling on seizing Greenland, the opposition to that was like Putin numbers in an election in Russia. I mean, it was like -

38:07Rory Stewart:Why was the average American against taking Greenland? Because Trump obviously didn't think that would be the case. He obviously thought it's going to be lovely. I'll add a lovely bit of color to the map and I'll hand this as a 250th birthday gift. Why did most Americans think it was a bad idea? I think they thought it was stupid, one, because I don't think they bought that there was something that we needed that required that new territory. But I also think even more than that. And I think this is sometimes it works in our favor, sometimes it doesn't. But But I think the American people are very much of the mind that we have serious problems at home that we should be focusing on and prioritizing.

38:46And they certainly didn't think that this large island that they really only know because they see it on a map in school, that that needed to be seizing that needed to be the priority of our government at the expense of lowering costs for working people at the expense of restoring funding for Medicaid that the Republicans cut. But I think that's what they want our priorities to be. And I think they see it as a misplacement of priorities. Now, let's get back to your party and American domestic politics. Rory and I were both in the States for the election. Rory famously was absolutely convinced that Kamala Harris was going to be president.

39:27Where were you during the election?

39:28Rory Stewart:I'm going to recommit to this to you. I think that Kamala Harris is going to be president. Yeah, well, the whole thing was rigged against her. Maybe she won. Who knows? We'll send Tulsi Gabbard to figure it out. But if you had to give me three reasons, not why Trump won, but why the Democrats lost, and three things that you think the Democrats need to do between now and the next election to be in a winning position, what would they be? The first I already mentioned, which is I think many people feel like our party, our coalition looks down upon them. And so you never get to that second question around policy.

40:07It's personal. It's visceral. But Clinton didn't. Obama didn't. No, but I think - So what changed? Well, I think - And Biden probably didn't. No, but I think they transcended that. I think there's - Parties are not defined just by their leaders. Parties are not just defined by their elected representatives. Parties are now sort of this amorphous blob of things that are defined by a mix of groups and politicians and people on social media. And I think that the sort of democratic ecosystem left that impression in people's minds. The second is I think that talk about misplaced priorities. I think that they felt like our priorities did not match theirs.

40:52When you asked an American voter, certainly in the last year, what are the top five priorities for the Democratic Party? What are the top five priorities of the Republican Party? And what are the top five priorities for you as a voter? And they averaged all those answers out. Three out of the top five issues for the American voter appeared in their perception of the priorities of the Republican Party. one of their own priorities appeared in their list of their perceived priorities of the democratic party it was health care and it's five out of five the top two were abortion and lgbtq issues and that's what the public thought were the priorities of the democratic party despite

41:28Rory Stewart:the fact we sat through a chicago conference where kamer harris and the team talked about almost nothing except cost of living and economic performance and getting back to main street that just wasn't cutting through i think it wasn't cutting because that conference you presumably Yeah, I was at the convention. Yeah, that convention was not about abortion. It was not about LGBT. I mean, it wasn't much about that. It was mostly somebody had clearly said, we're going to make this about... Well, I will tell you a lot of, I will say, in 2022 and in 2024, there was a lot of paid media from Democrats about abortion.

42:01It did play a pretty prominent role.

42:03Rory Stewart:Because people believed it was going to be critical in the election. I mean, a lot of my friends were like, women are so curious about it. It helped, especially in 2022, to avoid that red wave. But I think then it left people thinking, this is your priority. I think we had seen a lot on LGBTQ issues. So I think in some ways, sort of the being a victim of our own success, perhaps the amount of progress left people thinking that that was a priority. And it goes back to what we talked about earlier. There was a massive right wing, well-funded effort to define us that way. Peace for you, they're for them.

42:39Exactly. Exactly. So I think that was - That was their most effective ad. And it wasn't about the substance of those issues. Most Americans are pro-choice. While there are differences of opinion and polling on things like sports don't look great for the trans rights argument, broadly speaking, the public supports non-discrimination for trans people. It's not that the public opposes those things. It's that they want the priorities of the party to be their ability to pursue the American dream and making it a reality for them. Okay, so number three? I think that people, and I don't know that this is necessarily something that we could have done better, but I think a big part of the last election did boil down to people going, Democrats have been talking about democracy and the threat that Trump poses.

43:30We survived his first term and prices were lower. Hmm. And that feeling was so discordant with what we were saying the stakes were, I think people just dismissed it. I think that in the last election in November 2025, we saw democratic victories in Virginia, New Jersey, Georgia. Obviously, there was a victory unsurprising in New York. But I think all of the successful candidates in those races executed three things well. The first is they ran on the politics of prosperity, on affordability, on a laser-like focus on lowering the cost of living, and with tangible, discrete solutions, right? Zoran Mamdani had solutions that felt big and bold to people in New York.

44:28Mikey Sherrill in New Jersey was rightfully talking about throwing out the blue ribbon commission. We're going to have executive action on day one on freezing energy bills. They focused on the politics of prosperity. The second is a politics of pluralism. I like Ted Lasso a lot. One of my favorite lines in Ted Lasso, which is actually a quote from Walt Whitman, be curious, not judgmental. We need to embody a liberal democratic pluralism that creates space for disagreement, that doesn't automatically presume people who disagree with me are bad people. We can tap people's better angels, but you can only do that if you authentically, genuinely see them yourselves.

45:14And then the third thing is a politics of place, a hyper focus on the place that they were running in that transcended their partisan identity. Zoran Mamdani was New York first. Mikey Sherrill and Abigail Spanberger were New Jersey and Virginia first. And that politics of place, I think, is really powerful to make connections with people who may disagree with you and may even identify as a different party than you.

45:38Rory Stewart:Sounds very lip dem in our politics.

45:43That's not a ringing endorsement. There could not be a big criticism coming from the Tory. Yeah, I was going to say that's not a ringing endorsement of my mind.

45:51Rory Stewart:They have turned around their electoral fortunes by going very radically local and making it all very radically local. And I feel they're dangerous there. But anyway, we've interviewed Seth Moulton and Jim Hines and Rose DeLore and you, a number of Congress people. And what we're picking up, I guess, and it'd be lovely if you could explain this to a sort of bigger non-American audience, is that there is a bit of a fight for the soul of the Democratic Party. And you're wonderfully articulate and honest. Some people tend to fudge it because they don't want to talk about divisions without their own party.

46:20Rory Stewart:But broadly speaking, could you explain, admitting it's simplifying, what are the two different strategic paths that people are debating? Well, I think the longer standing divide in the Democratic Party has been between people who consider themselves progressive and those who consider themselves more moderate. In the Labour Party, you know, new Labour, soft left, hard left, right? I think every single party has that challenge. that challenge. And the dynamics, presumably from the progressives is no, no, no, the reason we're losing is we weren't radical enough. We should have gone more Bernie Sanders and if we'd done that, we would have won.

46:58Rory Stewart:And then presumably if you're Jim Himes or Seth Moulton, you're trying to say, no, we have to recapture the center ground, right? Is that roughly right? I think that that's broadly speaking, correct. I do, I personally am of the mind, look, I'm a member, this might sound politician-y, but I'm a member of both the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the New Dem Caucus, which is the center left. No, so CPC is AOC. New DEMS is - You're AOC and you're also - I'm a member of both caucuses. Do you believe in both? I do. I do. And if your life depended on it and you had to choose only one, where would you go?

47:38I reject false dichotomies, false choices. Yeah, of course you do. No, look, I think - But you've got to get both together. I think there's truth in what both sides are saying. Yeah. Because I do think we have suffered from the fact that our economic policy has not felt bold enough. I think part of the reason why people don't think we prioritize economic issues is because they can't point to clear, digestible economic policies from us. Whether it's as simple and straightforward and classic as raising the minimum wage, or we're prioritizing paid family and medical leave. That's what I passed in Delaware as a byproduct of my experience as a caregiver.

48:23That's what really actually led me to run for office. Child care, Zahra Mamdani ran on. I think the progressive movement is right. We need bold. We don't say radical as a negative connotation in our politics, but bold economic solutions, both because the times and the need demand it, but also because I think if we want to prove to people that it is our priority, they need concrete, digestible policies. But then I think on the other side, look, I am socially progressive. But one of my favorite analogies that the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus uses as a former union organizer is when you're organizing a union, you're going to have people who are black, white, Hispanic.

49:06You're going to have people who are pro-LGBTQ rights and maybe not so pro. You're going to have pro-choice, pro-life people. And everyone's united around the shared goal of better wages and better benefits. But if you think ahead three years with another whatever we've got left of Trump's second term, the inequality is going to be off the scale. Yes. It's already off the scale. Yes. But it's going to be a level that I get the sense the corruption is going to be off the scale. With the scale of things that you're going to be facing, how do you not actually go down a maybe a more radical road? Yeah, I think that's what I say is I think that I think it's not just what we need because people are demanding it, but because the times and the need demanded.

49:48I mean, economic inequality, wealth disparity, globally, and particularly in the United States is out of control. And it potentially is going to get worse, both because of the corruption of the administration and because of AI. Yeah.

50:00Rory Stewart:Talk to us about AI. I'd love to go in there because that seems to me the thing that in the next two and a half years could change everything by the next election. People are barely talking about it. And in fact, some Congress people say to me that you're not talking about enough in Congress partly because it's a weird subject and difficult to communicate. But when you're talking about possible mass unemployment in sectors, collapse of whole bits, the economy, making public services, national security, everything dependent on AI, talk us about what you do about AI? How would you talk to the public about AI?

50:30Rory Stewart:What would your policies be? How do you respond? So you are 100 % right that AI presents to us certainly the biggest change for society since the Industrial Revolution. And I would argue that there is a possibility based on its impact on our economy, on relationships, on health, that this could be the biggest change for humanity since we stopped being nomadic creatures and started being stationary agricultural communities. And I agree with the critique that we're not talking about enough or doing enough about it in Congress. And I think it's hard because it is esoteric. It is hard to comprehend even for, you know, a young digital native.

51:09It is challenging to really wrap your mind around the technology and the full breadth of possibilities that it could unlock and the full range of risks that it could present. I have started, I'm on the Science, Space and Technology Committee, and I'm proud that I've actually already introduced bipartisan legislation on AI in an effort, actually a small way, but to address the potential wealth disparities that we will see. advanced AI technologies, not only are they going to increase productivity in a way that workers will likely not benefit from, but it will also increase the divide between large and small businesses as these large employers are able to adopt AI on a mass fast scale, the best models, whereas smaller businesses are going to really struggle with adopting it, understanding it.

51:58I have a bipartisan bill that would essentially create nutrition labels for small business IT folks to be able to actually navigate AI products in a more effective, competent way. That's a small, but an important way to level the playing field between large and small businesses. But I think we need larger scale regulation on things like we, I believe we should have sector specific regulations because I think AI presents different opportunities and different challenges sector by sector. But in all of those areas, we should have human centric regulations. We don't want China to lead. We don't want regulation.

52:36We can't put our heads in the sand and hope AI never exists. It's going to happen. The question is, where does it happen? I want it to happen in the United States. So we do need smart regulation, but it should be as often as possible human centric. So that means if there's a need based on workforce or consumer protection for human redundancy in certain sectors, we should guarantee that there's human redundancy as a matter of consumer protection or even workforce protection. I believe that in places where we are seeing AI produce content based on copyrighted material that people are producing, we should protect that copyright and make sure that, for instance, artists aren't being put out of a job because this AI model is taking their work and creating art on its own.

53:27So I do think that there are human-centric regulations that we should be adopting. We need standards. We need safety protocol. I do think that there should be liability if an AI business creates a model and they become aware of the impact that that model is having on people's mental health. I think they should be held accountable for that. So I think those are a handful of things that we should be doing. And I think we can learn. One of the benefits of the EU is that on AI, on social media, it's further ahead than we are. Some of it's good. You're not worried that we're heading to civilizational erasure.

54:05With AI? No. Your government's national security strategy, with JD, yeah. Yeah, JD's speech here last year. No. Look, I'm not saying that the regulations in the EU, which obviously you all are not a part of much to, I think, all of our chagrin. I don't think the regulations are perfect, but I think there's a lot we can learn from those laboratories of democracy that have been a bit ahead of us. We can take the best bits from both. And I think that we have to be clear eyed that there is possibility, there is significant positive possibility, and there is quite literally existential risk here. And it's going to be impossible to put the toothpaste back in the tube.

54:47And so we need to start doing this bit by bit right now as fast as possible because if we don't it could be too late my final question you've always said you said on um pod save america we mustn't keep making trump the main story you're very good at talking positively about the things you believe in and your own agenda but i sense that the the you've been more riled up is it i would find impossible to be an american right now yeah which is why i'm not going to the world cup despite scotland probably going to win it Ha! Sorry.

55:22Rory Stewart:But this is a prediction a bit like my... But what is your... Less plausible. How do you kind of not have him living in your head the whole time? I am scared, quite frankly. I think any American would be naive not to be scared and to worry that this could be an existential moment for our democracy, for our country. I try to center myself in two ways. One is, I think Trump and everything he represents is also compounded by this information environment that we live in right now, where everything, everything feels so cruel and toxic and where everyone either completely agrees with me or completely disagrees with me.

56:15where we see the worst because the algorithm privilege is the worst. And Trump is both a byproduct of that and a contributor to that. And one of the things that I find a lot of gratitude in as an elected official is I'm forced offline. I'm forced to touch grass. I'm forced to engage with people who think and vote differently than I do, not just about any topics, but about the things we disagree on in the real world. And I take a lot of comfort in the fact that we are not as divided as the algorithms make it seem. And that helps to recenter me in an environment where Trump feels so loud and everything feels so existential because I see that he doesn't represent where most people are.

57:05Even if most people who voted in the last election voted for him, that the worst that we see from him is not what most people are. And I see the goodness. I see the grace that exists. I see that even with people who I disagree with because I get to interact with them. Right now, we are just happy. It used to be you didn't talk about religion and politics at the dinner table. You never talked with people about those topics. And that was fine while it lasted. But we talk about politics now. We just talk about it in the worst place possible online. I actually, I'm encouraging, let's have conversations about politics in real life.

57:45Let's be proximate to one another and have those conversations because it will instill a sense of hope in you. And then the second thing that I think helps me to be a bit calmer in this moment with the Trump of it all is I try to take stock in the history that I get to exist in as a member of Congress. Every single time I go on the floor of the House of Representatives, I know it sounds hokey and cliche and trite, but you cannot tell me that the reasons for hopelessness now are greater than the reasons for hopelessness at almost any other point in our country's history. It is felt in the post-1960s world like we are on this unending cultural wave of momentum, that everything will work out if we simply work for it and fight for it.

58:38But that's not been the reality for most of human history and certainly not most of American history. And you cannot tell me that the reasons for hopelessness now are greater than the reasons for hopelessness for an unemployed worker in the early days of the Great Depression who had never heard of the New Deal. You cannot tell me that the reasons for hopelessness now are greater than the reasons for a hopelessness for a closeted LGBTQ person in the 1950s who never knew of an America where they could live openly and authentically as themselves. Yes, things are challenging, but we have faced greater odds.

59:09We couldn't see the light at the end of the tunnel in previous generations. And that's what feels scary now is because for the first time in perhaps all of our memories, we can't see the light at the end of the tunnel. That's new for us, But that's not new in history.

59:25Rory Stewart:Sarah, thank you. I mean, it's a wonderful, wonderful interview. We've come to the end. But it's been a great, great privilege to have you on. We've come to the end because it says wrap up. Wrap up. Thank you. Thank you. We now do two quick minutes before we get thrown out where we talk about you behind your back. But we're very, very grateful for your time. You know that. You said you listened. I didn't know it was behind my back. So you're kicking me out. We're very happy to talk about you here. You might get a bit more self-conscious. Thank you so much, Brian. Thank you, Sarah. It's been an honor.

59:55Rory Stewart:Really appreciate you. Thank you again, Sarah. And we'll see you, I hope, in the conference. See you in a second. See you soon. Bye-bye. Thank you. What did you think of Sarah? Oh, she's great. I sometimes think American politicians can be pretty impressive, right? There's this sort of fluency and confidence there, which you wouldn't get from every backbench British MP, would you? No. Look, I think there are quite a lot of American politicians who you wouldn't necessarily write home about. I would definitely write home about her. And it's not that we probably, you know, some listeners may think we spent too much time talking about the trans thing, but it's so fundamental to her story.

1:00:29And it's also kind of, I think, what has given, she's a leader. You can see the sort of leadership.

1:00:35Rory Stewart:She's an incredibly important voice, too. I mean, it was interesting. I mean, she obviously, you were right, didn't want to talk about it too much. But equally, she's got a huge burden there, which is that she will be the main voice telling a lot of people about that issue. And for our listeners, she's the first voice. Absolutely. And if you go back to what she said at the end of the interview, that is in large part the reason why she said she's not online. Why should she sit and look at all the abuse that comes her way all the time? Now, I thought that what she said about the Democrats is really interesting and insightful.

1:01:04And I think she does frame her entire politics as a means to try genuinely to engage people in debate, even when you disagree with them. Which, you know, let's be honest, I'm not always very good at that.

1:01:15Rory Stewart:Yeah, well, I mean, I also thought that she's quite interesting because often with a politician, you get a sense of this is the party line. This is what's polling well. Maybe even this is what different groups are trying to influence me to do. She had an ability to at least sound as though she was thinking quite freshly about foreign policy, about Trump, about AI. So actually, these were things she believed rather than things that she was trolling out. Yeah. And also, you know, she's a very experienced, skilled communicator, but she didn't make any effort to find out what we're going to ask her.

1:01:49When you say to her, give me three things that went wrong and three things, a way to put them right. She thought about it for 30 seconds and then gave, you know, very, very clear. And I thought pretty thought through answers. So, no, I think she's very, very impressive. And it's important as well. I think that I don't know what the stat is these days about how many American politicians don't even have a passport. It's still quite high, I think. But I think it's important that we don't all just think that when you think America right now, you just think Trump and Vance and Rubio and Wyckoff and all the people we hear about all the time.

1:02:18Rory Stewart:I think encourage people to listen to the four congresspeople we've interviewed on leading, all of whom I think are very impressive in different ways. And actually, just as everyone's writing off the Democratic Party and saying it's hopeless because Kamala Harris lost and all this kind of stuff, that there's such strength and energy and ideas there. But still, it's difficult. I mean, my final thought, which is maybe a bit unfair to her, is I don't think she's fully resolved this question around the progressive, non-progressive thing. And I think that's a difficult two horses to ride. And it was interesting when you challenged her around Trump, despite the fact that what she wants to say is my message is about cost of living and money.

1:02:57Rory Stewart:That final speech was very much about civil rights. It was about LGBTQ. It was about civil rights for African-Americans. I was expecting her to finish again on a narrative coming back to what she said is let's be relevant to what people care about which is I guess yeah but I you know I'm I'm unlikely to get the hairs stand up on my neck when I hear an American politician talk about affordability in Delaware but I did feel a slight prickling of the neck when she went to that big historical stuff you kind of need both you need both anyway I thought she was great I'm really glad we did that I thought I thought she was super cool, really cool.

1:03:33Rory Stewart:And also, I thought she's got a wonderful sort of natural style and ability. She carries herself very well. Yeah, I thought I really enjoyed that. I think she could be extraordinary. I know we thought Seth Moulton might have a big future. I think she could have a great future. And we're her favorite podcast as well, Roy. So, you know, what's not to like about her? Exactly. That's what she said anyway. Good politician. Yeah, yeah. Take care.

1:04:00Thank you.