Back again with Left, Right, and Center Dispatch Crossover. I'm Sarah Isger in for David Green this week. I'm joined by David French, opinion columnist at the New York Times, and Jonah Goldberg, editor-in at the Dispatch and a columnist for the Los Angeles Times. We're taking our best swing at bridging the political divide this week, discussing the conservative considerations on the 2024 presidential race. One thing that continues to fascinate me, and I'm sure the two of you as well, is how much we hear from both sides that the other candidate will be an existential threat to the country if elected. But when it comes to actual policy proposals, they're getting hilariously similar. No taxes on tips, increase the child tax credit, build the wall, owning guns. The biggest difference is that one wants the government to set the price on food and the other wants the government to set the price on credit card interest rates. David, explain to me how both can be true, that Donald Trump, I mean, you've endorsed Harris. Donald Trump is an existential threat if he wins, but also all their policy proposals sound identical to me. Well,

some of their policy proposals, because I would say we began to see some of the articulation of the genuine differences when we, after the Zelensky visit, on one of the most important issues in the race, Donald Trump went on an anti-Ukraine screed, just an absolute screed against Ukraine in a way that had demonstrated what we've long known about him, that he has real resentment and bitterness towards Ukraine. This goes way back to the 2016 election, where there is a very bizarre and completely false MAGA conspiracy that Ukrainians actually hacked to the DNC server, framed the Russians for election interference in 2016. And this bitterness goes back. This bitterness was part of the origin of first impeachment. So yes, on some of these domestic policies, you are seeing a very similar move to pander. There's just no question about that. But there's some really big differences that remained. Ukraine, huge difference. That's a giant difference for me, for example. I think this is a war that historians will talk about in 100 years that has immense influence on the future course of the global world order and American national security. And then here's a big, big difference, Sarah, huge difference, historic difference. If Kamala Harris wins, Donald Trump is prosecuted. If Donald Trump wins, Donald Trump is not prosecuted. That is a big difference. It's a historic difference. And I think it's a difference that really matters for the rule of law in this country.

Hmm. I

don't know that I agree. Yeah, go ahead, Jonah. I

will ignore David's evasion of the question and his rank consequentialism. And no, look, I agree with everything David says. I think his response to the Ukraine stuff was terrible. I do think it was a mistake for Zelensky to say some of the things and handle that trip the way he did, even though in normal times it would have been fine. But given the hair trigger that the Trump crowd has on these things, I think was probably ill-advised. Neither of these people are running with any ideological, serious ideological coherence. It's because they both really want to win and their parties are willing to forgive them for throwing whatever sicked cows they need to throw overboard to win. Now, the psychological permission structure and the sociological permission structure of both parties are very different. Trump is a cult of personality and whatever he wants to do is fine as far as people are, a lot of people are concerned. And it's, it's, and so even though he, he's doing it to win, right? He's throwing pro-lifers under the bus. He's throwing free marketers under the bus, all these kinds of people on the bus. Harris has the permission of her party to do it, not so much because they love her or it's a cult of personality about Harris, but because they're so afraid of the cult of personality around Trump that they're willing to put everything on hold and say, you let the pros figure out how to run the race in a way that'll let you win. And personally, I think more conservatives should be celebrating this approach. Because even though I don't think mandates are a real thing, in democracies, politics is about making arguments. And she's not making an argument for any broad agenda other than say for the abortion rights stuff. And it'll be very difficult once elected for her to do the catastrophizing things Republicans say she's going to do. If she didn't run on any of it, if she didn't say she was going to, you know, pack the court, if she didn't say that she was going to, I don't know, seize the means of production and nationalize the railroads or whatever people are accusing her of wanting to do, it just makes it politically much more difficult to do it once elected. And her ambition is actually a sign. The fact that she is doing everything she can to win over the median voter, I find reassuring. The Republican talking point is, oh, this just proves she has no core principles or she's a liar and all that kind of stuff. I would rather her do what she needs to do to win and have that flexibility once elected to get reelected than to be a Bernie Sanders committed ideologue. And I don't think you can, you can't claim she's a flip-flopper and a unmitigated ideologue simultaneously. Those two things are in conflict. I

mean, okay, but is there any chance we're starting to see some common ground that could lead the way towards bipartisanship in Congress? Like if they're really both proposing many of the same policy solutions, can I find some silver lining here, David? I

think on the border. I think on the border. I think if she wins and Trump is out of the picture and she has very clearly said she's going to bring that Lankford border bill back up, I think you would see it pass. And I think you would see some real progress on the border. Look, on all of this other stuff, whether it is no tax on tips, or it is price controls on credit cards, or a lot of this stuff is so plainly, so plainly late campaign pandering that it's hard to take any of it really seriously. Like who's going to be really picking up the torch on capping 10%, capping credit card interest at 10% and moving that through a very closely divided Congress. I mean, a lot of this stuff is just kind of fantasy land, late campaign overising that we constantly see. And yet we're seeing it, I think, worse because both sides are taking such an existential approach to this election that it's, what do I need to say here? What is it that I need to do here to win this thing? But one thing that, you know, I try to be very curious with my very MAGA friends and neighbors, and I ask them, can you please explain to me exactly what you think Kamala Harris will do that will end the country, that will destroy the country? coherent that comes out of that answer other than this idea that an open border will sort of swamp American cities, towns, et cetera. And that's the one area where I think that she has moved farther almost than any other area by declaring she's going to sign this border bill. So once you say, okay, let's say she signs this border bill, then what? Then what is going to destroy this country? And people, you know, come up empty really fast on that, really fast. But that rhetoric is so omnipresent. It is so constant, especially in Christian circles where people will use terms like demon crat instead of Democrat, that there's just, it's an article of faith that this country will die. And then the next question is how, what exactly will happen? And then that's where people start to come up empty really fast.

You're listening to KCRW and we're talking about what these candidates actually differ on with David French and Jonah Goldberg. Jonah, we're talking about policy here, and it's easy to say one or the other is just lying. They're pretending to have these policy views that match with the other because they're fighting over the same 100,000 voters across these few swing states. But maybe that's a good thing if both sides are pandering to what they actually believe is the median voter in the country, because it means that all of this bluster aside, they actually know what the median voter in the country wants. Yeah.

I mean, you're going to, there's a pony in there somewhere, Sarah. Yeah. I mean, look, I think the question of what positions either of these candidates take at this stage is, I mean, I agree with David. It's fundamentally a question of marketing and messaging rather than any sort of policy formulation. And I think that, you know, I've probably written this column a half dozen times about how I can't stand it the way presidential candidates talk about the things they're going to do on day one that they have no power to do on day one. Yeah,

although let me push back on one thing I'm really concerned about is that one of the things that Harris has said she's going to do day one or whatever this means is that she will get rid of the filibuster, but only for abortion legislation, which is bonkers on two fronts, right? This idea that you are going to get rid of the filibuster for one piece of legislation and that that won't hold for everything else. And of course, that the filibuster is one of the things keeping some amount of stability in the system where we don't just have massive statutory swings every couple years as a new party takes Congress. So in that sense, Harris seems like the one who's saying she's going to be less stable as a president. Although, of course, if you ask really anyone, Republicans will get rid of the filibuster the second they come into office, too. They're just not saying it.

Yeah. So but this, I think, is a perfect illustration of my point, which is that the president cannot get rid of the filibuster. The president has no power to get rid of the filibuster on day one or on day 1000. Right. You need the Senate to get rid of the filibuster. Only the Senate can get rid of the filibuster. And I do not believe that there are 51 votes to do it, which I think you'd only need in the beginning when you're setting the rules. But then after that, you need 60 votes to get rid of the filibuster. Once you set the rules, I don't think there are 51 votes to get rid of the filibuster because I think there are enough sane Republicans, if Trump is the president, to say, you know, Mitch McConnell's not going to vote to get rid of the filibuster. I don't think John Thune is going to vote to get rid of the filibuster. I could probably come up with four or five others of sort of normie Republicans who get why it would be a dumb idea. And I think there are a bunch of Democrats who also would not vote if Harris wins to get rid of – and the other party is definitely not going to vote for it, right? So like – Right, right. So like one of the things the filibuster does, to your point, and I know part of the problem is we know each other's positions on a lot of these things really, really well. The filibuster is one of these things that is a normalizing. It has these cascade effects throughout various parts of our political and legal culture that force people to behave themselves. Because you have to be at least tolerable to 20% of the other party to get appointed to the Supreme Court or various other things, at least when you had the filibuster. And the same thing with legislation. There are a bunch of Democratic senators who like to claim they are moderates who would be crushed in a filibuster-free Senate because they would either be forced to vote moderately and screw the Democratic Party, or they would be forced to vote with the base of the party and then lose election. The filibuster protects a lot of people from places like, a lot of senators from places like Virginia from taking hard votes. I just don't think Harris can get rid of it. But it's amazing to me, you have Republicans who insist Harris will get rid of it, and that's why you have to vote for Trump. And, but then you say, well, you know, Trump's against the filibuster too. He pressured McConnell all the time. They'll say, well, yeah, but the Senate's never going to get rid of the filibuster. It's like, well, wait, pick a lane. Either you think Trump can get it, get rid of the filibuster and Harris can't, or you think Harris can get rid of the filibuster and Trump can't, but it like they think one president has the ability to – it's a nightmare scenario if the Democrats get into power, and it will all be fine if Republicans do. And I think it just shows you what a Rorschach test, a partisan Rorschach test, all of this stuff is.

David? Yeah, Jonah's exactly

right. Harris cannot get rid of the filibuster. Trump cannot get rid of it. Yeah, yeah. That's all I need to say. Trump can't get rid of it. But again, this is actually outside of foreign policy. Foreign policy is where the president's power is at his or her apex. Outside of foreign policy, politics, and even within foreign policy to some extent, but outside of foreign policy, politics is very much a team sport. And this idea that Harris, Harris is going to do A, B, C, D, E, and F. No, no, no. It's only Harris if Harris wins the House and Harris wins the Senate when it's an extraordinarily unfavorable map for the Democrats in the Senate. And so for Harris to have a free hand to enact the parade of horribles that are sort of being used to whip up Republican turnout, she's got to win a lot more than the presidency. And it is really remarkable and I think also dysfunctional in our politics. it's one of the things that is breeding dysfunction in our politics is we place so much emphasis on the presidential election that a lot of Americans think, well, when I'm voting for a president, I'm enacting my will and I'm voting for the person who can enact my will. But they're only one part of a multi-branch government that has to act in together to enact your will. And we have a situation where people are putting an enormous amount of focus around the presidency to a degree far greater than Congress. When the presidency cannot do what the voters want it to do and what their voters critically intend for the president to do when they cast their vote. So they're living in this world of kind of perpetual frustration because they're demanding from the presidency and demanding from that vote for the presidency, what the presidency cannot possibly deliver, again, outside of some foreign policy context, where frankly, don't really vote on foreign policy or care about it that much unless there's an absolute crisis. So one of the things that could de-escalate our presidential elections is greater civic knowledge that the president, you're not electing a monarch. So

I agree that entirely. I'm sorry, I agree that entirely. I've been complaining about how we think people vote like we live in a parliamentary democracy when we don't. But there's one place where I think it's an important place where exceptions to the rule. There are things the president has the power to do by deciding. And then there are things the president has the ability to do if they're a good executive. Right. And so he can, with the stroke of a pen, simply decide to impose tariffs because Congress has given the president that power stupidly. And those tariffs could be really bad for the economy. I think he actually can't do the, the rounding up of 10 million people easily because that requires coordination and management and getting law enforcement agencies in the military and all that kind of stuff and buy-in from the bureaucracy in ways that I don't think he's up to doing. He could do a lot of damage trying, but there are things that he can do with the stroke of a pen on day one that Harris could do too that could have really devastating effects. I just don't know what those things are that Harris would do on day one that are like first order threats to the economy or to national security the way there are for Trump.