What if Democrats Win Back House, Senate (American Issues Take One)

Aloha. Welcome to American Issues Take One. I'm your host Tim Aella and today's title is what if Democrats win back the House or the Senate? Uh with me today is my co-host Jay Fidel, CEO of Think Tech Hawaii. Ben Davis, law professor at University of Toledo, Chuck Crumpton, mediator extraordinaire, and Gene Rosenfeld, uh, scholar and research of Middle East issues. Welcome everyone. You know, um, what would happen? Let's just put on our what if hat. What would happen if the Democrats did take over the Senate, did take over the House of Representatives, and ran the country? Would they um would they immediately make changes to how the administration would run? Would we see are the same old dysfunctions stay the same? Would we see changes that begin to help the drift away from the rule of law that we've experienced in the last 10 years? Uh would we get back onto the constitutional provisions that we so much enjoy? or or would we just be stuck in neutral because we still would have Donald Trump as president of the United States and of course all presidents have the power of veto. Would we see a concentrated effort to improve the economy to address those citizens that are barely making it right now uh with affordability issues? Would we see them to address the inflation, the climate change? Would we see them address DOD and that Supreme Court ruling? Would we see the um trying to reverse the politization of the Department of Justice? Would we see them try to address ICE and their current deplorable tactics, illegal tactics? Uh the list goes on. So that's what we're going to discuss today. And Jay, I'm going right to you. What would be the move to address issues in America that are suffering? And then what about would it be a matter of addressing our problems or would we go into a routine about investigations and the possible impeachment of Donald Trump? There's an old saying, Jay, that you know the government can walk and chew gum at the same time, but a lot of times I don't see that. And so to what degree could the government walk and chew gum and do all the above rather than one thing or the other? you know, they could um launch oversight and investigations. Um and uh that's nice. And that would sound something like what happened before um and uh the the Republicans left over would oppose anything and Trump would oppose anything and he would not he would veto or not sign anything. Um and of course this one makes a little sense. Um, Trump, they they would block Trump's cabinet and judicial nominees, including any Supreme Court judges. That would be refreshing. Um, but it really wouldn't deal with the people who are already appointed. They'd have to impeach them, too. Um, they could push a cost of living affordability package, but again, you know, um, they'd have they'd have to fight their way through, and if they passed a bill like that, Trump would veto it. um they could restore and expand health care coverage. Um again, um that's a problem because he would veto it and they could push anti-corruption and and democracy reforms. Um very nice, but um Trump would veto it. Um and they'd have to they have to deal with the uh you know the the filibuster issue to get anything through, I think. and and ultimately um impeachment. So I put impeachment very high on the list because he would he would veto anything and I think um the Democrats are not going to do that. They've said King Jeff said they're not going to do that. Uh it's that you know uh that that thing that Joe Biden did. It's it's the Marcus of Queensberry. Uh they're going to they're going to hold back. And so the answer is u not not clear what they could or would do. And I am very concerned that we're going to be back in the same place we were during the Biden administration slugging it out on every issue um with a with a president who opposes it. I know it's crazy, but he would oppose and uh he would veto anything good. And so you could have all this great legislation coming out of Congress, um, but they'd have to override him all the time and that would be problematic. So maybe the, you know, the the one that is of most interest to me is the impeachment. They get in there and they they ought they really have because anything else is going to run into an outrage outrageously. >> Is that what the American people want right now? um they're they're dying on the vine. Uh they're that's why if the Senate is democratically controlled and the the House is the same, it's as a result of them promising to address the economy and affordability issues. How does how does impeachment satisfy the American people's desire for a change in this existing administration? >> Well, it's the path to making the changes. is the path to stopping Trump from vetoing everything. Um, if Congress Congress passes legislation, right? And in order to get legislation through, you have to have the president sign it. Um, so I I'm I'm very concerned that he won't sign it. And people, and you're right, people will not understand that the path to getting legislation through is is impeachment. The problem, of course, and Chuck and I were talking about this before the show, is what is JD Vance going to do? Is he going to adopt the same notion? You can you can impeach Trump, but then JD Vance would step up and he might do the same thing. So, you know, as as I concluded after my conversation with Chuck is we're in a pickle. We're in a pickle and nobody knows when we're going to get out of the pickle. Well, if not the pickle, certainly the pickle barrel. I'm with you. Okay. So, hey, uh Ben, same question. What direction do you think the Democrats will take should they win the Senate or the House of Representatives? >> Let's look at the word win. Okay. If they got a 7475 vote majority, that would be something like 292 Democrats in the House. And that would be uh 67 Democrats in the Senate. Okay, I know I'm just starting from the big numbers on win. Okay, at that point they're veto proof and they are impeachment possible if they get to those kind of numbers because they can pass legislation and if Trump vetoed it, they got the twothirds majorities assuming everyone's present in both h in both houses to be able to override the veto. Now, if they don't get that, they've got a problem with overriding vetos, but they can at least get to quot right if they get to 60 in the Senate, they can get to Clo and pass something there. But again, there's the risk of the veto happening there and there aren't enough people to uh impeach Trump. Now, if we go down the impeachment path, personally, I think that there's a lot of more simple way to do it, which is to impeach both Trump and Vance. Okay? Because if you get rid of both of them, who's next in line? Speaker of the House. Well, if there's a Speaker of the House from a Democratic majority, who's that? Maybe Hakee Jeff. I don't know. But, you know, these are possibilities that we should keep in mind if we're going there. >> All right. I'm going to jump in because I think with Trump in his last uh you know since his second administration, it's a slam dunk. There's enough evidence there for high crimes and misdemeanors. No problem. Uh certainly can be brought up on on charges of impeachment. What What has Vance done to possibly qualify him for an impeachment? >> He's been the vice president. That's good enough. That's enough. He was He was in the room. He was in the room. He was in the meetings. He was doing all that stuff. And it's a political decision and say, "Sorry, you know, you're a tag team. You're you're both out. You're both out." >> Okay. All right. I'm not an attorney. I know you guys all are. But, uh, you know, here's the deal. I mean, you know, it's got to be specific high crimes and misdemeanors, does it not? >> No. No. Wait. No. Impeachment is political. You can say high crimes and misdemeanors, but we have seen, have we not, that it doesn't matter whether you can prove high crimes and misdemeanors. You know, it's it's a political decision determined by a vote of the houses. >> Bribery is one of the things listed, so we're covered. Don't worry. >> Duly corrected. And thank you so much. All right. Uh, thank you, Ben. A Jean, I'm going to go to you for the exact same question because I want to hear a variety of um opinions on this one. >> Historically speaking, Trump is what's called a lame duck president, but because he's Trump, everything is unprecedented. Nevertheless, um his power to um railroad across his uh his pet projects, you know, which now are largely architectural um has diminished. And what's happening behind the scenes is a in a very divided administration, people are looking sideways at each other to see who's going to emerge to take the helm of the movement that this charismatic leader started. So his power has diminished considerably. It may not be apparent on the surface, but it's there. Should by some miracle, and I do think miracle, the Democrats win the House and the Senate, it will not be by the majorities that Ben is talking about. Impeachment is a waste of time because he blamed Duck president. Number one. Number two, it is not going to reflect the Democrats who are elected. Because like it or not, whether or not they're in the majority in the Democratic party, it looks like Democratic socialists are coming on strong. The Democratic Party is now split in terms of the way forward. and youth in this country whether they are independent, Republican and disillusioned with what Trump is not doing uh or Democrats are angry and they are looking more toward an extreme platform and that extreme platform in case you haven't read it is the Democratic Socialists of America who would really like to get rid of the Senate by the way which is very funny it's not going to happen. Um, but it depends on which Democrats win is what I'm trying to say. >> Well, let me ask you this. Um, does it depend on which Democrats, be it moderate or the um, the socialist Democrats, are they going to turn out and vote? I mean, typically the more moderate Democrats, the older Democrats, they are actually those the ones that that vote. Okay, we started with the premise that somehow the Democrats were going to win the midterms, but let's back up and go before the election. I have my doubts about whether or not the Democratic Socialist Platform uh is going to appeal to anyone other than people between the ages of 18 and 29. And that's maybe enough if there's a close election to tip the election, but it's not enough to seize control or cause a majority in both houses of Congress. So it too many there are too many unknowns here. >> All right. Well, in your estimation, given the title of this program, um what is the most likely path that if the Senate was taken by the Democrats, the House taken by the Democrats, what is the likely pathway forward? I think the likely path is going to be within the Democratic party whether they can effect within those bodies among those members a unity of purpose and whether that unity of purpose is going to be to address the affordability issue and to repair the destructive things that have happened uh on all sides of uh American institutions and its potential to deliver a good life for the I think that's really what Democratic socialists want to address. And I feel also that mainstream Democrats want to address that also. So in the most positive sense, they would table the impeachment question and they would really address the affordability question >> as I think people want. I think Okay. Thank you, Jean. Appreciate that. Uh Chuck, where is the fine line? Where is the balance between a Congress that's looking for accountability rather than retaliation? And my curveball part B question is, does the media know the difference when they report on it? >> Going back to the central question, the first thing that whatever Democratic leadership may mean coming out of the midterms, they've got to anticipate that now. They've got to prepare for that now. They have to start putting together that leadership. Um, they need to look at strategically and realistically what things might the House be capable of moving forward, whether they can get it through the Senate and pass the presidential veto or not, and whether focus on those things may be to their benefit over not a 4-year period, but the 2-year period up to the 2028 elections. >> Do you see compromise uh in the air of Democrats trying to compromise with um the traditional GOP party? I'm not saying the mega the mega folks, but do you see them willing to compromise? They certainly did on um some earlier bills that didn't get passed like immigration. They compromised greatly uh to to get that on the floors. Um, do you see that as a possibility? Well, the old anything is possible answer applies here, but but first, if they're really going to make the most of whatever success they're able to achieve in the midterms, they need to recognize what are the authorities and the the kolana, the areas of responsibility of the house where they might be able to have enough influence that with the 2028 elections coming up, There may be just enough people somewhere in the middle of the pack, even for Republicans, to be able to get enough votes to get things through. If Trump's going to individually start vetoing things, that's going to land on him as a lame duck president, that in turn would strengthen movements toward impeachment and and the political process. But housing, healthc care, employment, infrastructure, production, manufacturing, all those things are monetary issues where the House has the greatest portion of legislative influence. If they could get organized and put together a platform on those elements and move that forward, there might be some political basis as they move toward the 2028 elections for some Republicans to protect their own position by agreeing to do things that may actually have national benefit. benefit in those areas, housing, healthcare, employment, education, all those things. So I think the question is going to be what can they form as a leadership and what can they do with whatever leadership influence they may come out of the midterms with. >> Followup question. Do you think um a change in both houses somehow puts um the brakes on the mega movement and this um charismatic following that we've witnessed for the last 10 years. Well, I think it curbs the potential for abuse and it curbs the potential for corrupt self-interest on the part of Trump and Mega and others in that group. You don't need to be able to stop everything. What you need to be able to do is to use whatever influence and authority you can get out of the midterms to build it toward 2028. But the first thing that's going to have to happen is the Democrats are going to have to come out with a leadership coalition that's going to be able to do that. They haven't demonstrated the ability to do that. And so far, nobody's really stood out as that kind of leader. >> Right. Good point. Excellent point. Actually, thank you very much, Chuck. Jay, what change is necessary to unlock the gridlock and getting bills passed should the Senate be one and the House one? You asked before about what the people want and uh I would offer that as part of you know the formula for making change but I think I think we've moved we've moved past that when I say we I mean the Congress has moved they don't really care what the people want. Uh and what what I get out of this and see if anybody agrees with me is that a lot of effort, a lot of money is going into the midterms. You know, we get races all day everywhere. We get, you know, all this uh effort and news coverage and whatnot about all these people working to achieve um a better Congress, but they're not going to get a better Congress. they're going to be in the pickle and I am very worried that nobody can really meet their expectations. It just won't happen. And the question and it goes to Jean's point about about the socialists. They're going to be ticked off. They're going to say, "We went to all this trouble. We we gave all this money. We worked so hard at grassroots level and now nada nothing. we can't achieve what we wanted. We're really unhappy and I and I think the government is going to be in even greater um you know disarray make that dis unpopularity when that happens. I say when because I think in the premise we're working on it will happen. um you can have a change in the Congress, but you you really have a problem in getting these bills through, assuming, of course, that the filibuster remains in place. So, I think they're going to be unhappy and I think that leads to street scenes and so forth or worse. Um I think the one the one thing that Congress can do, especially the House, is the power of the purse. So for example, we haven't mentioned it yet here today, but the war, we got the war, it's going on. And he is completely ineffectual in dealing with the war and it's just a matter of money. And uh if they control both houses, especially the House, um they're not going to give him a penny more, not a penny more. Uh and they're going to defund his organizations like like Homeland Security and various other ones to stop him. So the power of holding both houses, especially the House, is the power of the purse. And I think that's what they should be looking at. And I and I don't think you need a lot of coalitions and new leadership to simply not give him any more money on his pet projects. And it may not solve all the things we want to solve, but at least it can stop him on those projects. I'm not sure if I I or heard you imply that if nothing really gets done, does that then reverse the tide and and and the Republicans take the 2028 uh presidential election that that particular election? Do we, you know, in the short two years do the Democrats get thrown out? So there's so much frustration by the younger people of this country that they're just sick and tired of it. So, we change an administration every two years from Republican to Democrat and vice versa. >> That's a real possibility because that's a nuance that people in the electorate may not recognize. Uh they may they may think they wasted their time on the midterms and they may be ticked off at the Democrats for not achieving all the things they wanted to achieve in the two years between the midterms and the next presidential election. So I I think that particular scenario is a real possibility. Tim, >> that's depressing. Okay. Thank you. Uh Ben, excuse me. Does the Democrat party now or will have in the future a unified strategy to resolve disagreements between the moderate Democrats and the progressive factions of the Democrat party, specifically the Social Democrats. Notwithstanding all of the uh apparent ster uh you know hassling that we are seeing be with this sort of playing out of the progressive versus the more traditional Democrats discussion and the effort to label the progressives as either democratic socialists which I'm not sure they really are or communists which I know they're definitely uh even though they have a title. You you see the thing is is in in America, for example, the Democratic Socialists of America, it's a title. But I think that if you looked at democratic socialism, you would not be convinced that what they stand for is what democratic socialism stands for. Uh at at the at the most they sound mostly social democrats, if I can flip it around the other way in the European sense. uh meaning um sort of having things like you know universal healthcare things like that um uh so you know I I think that notwithstanding all the sort of sermon drunk I'm certain that already there's dialogue going on between the two branches the two- the progressive and the traditional Democrats to see how to make this work uh and uh and so yes I think that there'll be some give and some compromise between the two factions, but um you know there'll be agreement on on things that speak to affordability among the Democrats and then they'll come up against the uh effort by the Republicans. They essentially play the game of making people's lives miserable and then blaming the Democrats who are in power, which is the usual game that they tend to play. actually both sides play that game. But uh that's a particular game uh that's there. Um so you know if you wanted me to say what my my bottom line feeling is is that there's going to be this whole thing with regards to the day after the election. the 2028 presidential thing is going to start and there's going to be a bunch of people trying to become presidents of the United States and they're going to be, you know, trying to bring together different people and they're going to have this kind of moderating function because they're going to look at the electoral college and see, you know, where they have to win. And there'll be a debate between the people who say you should take a 50-st state strategy, which is not a strategy that the Democrats have typically taken. Uh it's more of been a strategy looking for you know what remember all the swing state stuff that we keep hearing about the seven swing states were the key thing you know as opposed to taking a 50-st state strategy where you kind of go into what are considered to be strongholds of red states of of the Republicans that really try to play everywhere. I know that there are factions of the Democratic parties in those states that complain about the fact that there isn't a 50-st state strategy and they just sort of give up on whole swaths of America, right? But um with the presidentials coming up, you know, there's going to be a lot of sort of trying to quote unquote go towards the middle. One thing that I really would hope is, and I'll just throw this out, is that if they're going to keep playing the social democrat card, you know, you're a bunch of democratic socialists and all that, the best line that I have seen on that is, yeah, like FDR, okay? You know, and just like the New Deal as opposed to the raw deal, you know, that kind of language, I think, is the kind of language that is the the Democrats could rally themselves around. you know, we want you to have a good deal, not a raw deal, something like that. And that could be the kind of thing that would go away from words that have more than one syllable like affordability to something that uh, you know, really speaks to people. We want you to have a good deal, not a raw deal. >> Okay, Ben, let me just jump in just briefly before I move on. You know, I saw and I don't even know who her name was. I She was interviewed by Fox, and I do listen to Fox now and then because I have to. It's painful, but I have to um she was representing what I would call the the equivalent of the DNC uh for Dem, you know, she was being interviewed as an outspoken social democrat or Democrat socialist. And the questions she answered was mindblowing. Uh I'll give you just a couple few examples. One, the Senate should be eliminated. Two, all police departments in the country should be eliminated. Um, three, there should be no uh immigration standards. Uh, no all open borders uh should be allowed. I mean, those those three examples that she just said, "Yes, that's what I believe in. That's what we believe in." How how will the Democrats take the House or Senate when you have this kind of uh bizarre uh platform? And I I'm I'm reminded back in 1968 during the Chicago Democrat uh convention and and the the disparity between Democrats during that convention virtually allowed Richard Nixon to become the president of the United States. >> Yeah. You know, that's great. And but let let's remember also what was it in 2010? There were uh Republican candidates who I if I remember there was one who was a witch, right? Wasn't there that something that there was somebody who was a witch, you know, that was, you know, so we're not talking about witches yet. Okay, man. You know, the other Yeah. Okay. So, the thing I I think I think you're talking about the uh m Miss Hong who is running for governor of Wisconsin. Okay. And so, you know, as usual, the game, right, is to be to try to frame her and frame Democratic socialists as loopy. I mean, they said that she's against Thanksgiving, you know, and what's, you know, what's up with that, too, you know, so you know, you know, or and I think she said that she wants to abolish prisons, you know, and all that kind of stuff. So, you know, he's trying to say, okay, these people are crazy. Well, first of all, I just feel like a big thing for her is that she is, I think, a works in a restaurant. She works a job, a job that people can relate to. Okay. And the other thing is that uh you know there's a lot of sort of this kind of play which is yes the democratic socialists say that I'm not a democratic socialist. This is what I believe you know and then you can keep trying to put me in that box but I'm not going to go into that box. Okay. Um and that's I think the the the play that the progressive wing has to do. Uh I think in terms of speaking very clearly I' i've noticed for example uh Elsed to pick the guy who just won the Senate primary on the Democratic side. You know he's talking about universal healthcare you know Medicare for all things like that. He's not saying oh affordability which is like everybody goes huh. He's saying Medicare for all or they think there was a point made that apparently when he was the um medical guy, he was able to uh essentially uh rid 300,000 people of their medical debt. you know, that stuff like that and using that kind of language, I think is just something that'll get past the framing games that are going to go on and have already started uh you know uh to to sort of make these uh candidates from the Democrats look crazy. So, you know, I you got to find your overhel your over, you know, your overarching theme that's going to play across and in and each but there's sort of specific things in specific places that you have to deal with, right? Taller Rico, he's doing a whole different kind of approach down there, right? Which is that I'm a Christian and I actually believe it. You know, you know what I mean? which which is, you know, like be nice to the hungry, you know, treat change strangers nice, you know, stop worrying about people smoking marijuana. That's not everybody's problem. People in Texas are going to smoke marijuana and eat gummies anyway. You know, we got to focus on people being able to, you know, have healthcare, things like that. You know, it's a different strategy, right? And uh so I just, you know, I don't know. I just am the kind of person who's thinking that if you can focus it on things that are concrete that you, me, or everyone can understand. You know, that would be the way that the Democrats can counter. You know, the plutoaucrats who are going to be spending gobs of money. Oh my god. Did you all see what happened in Michigan? It was $11 to one. $11 to one between the two candidates uh for the senatorial thing. I mean, that's astounding amounts of money on one side. That's the kind of money we're going to be looking at coming at. >> I love your comment about Texas mom, apple pie, gummies, and barbecue. Love it. All right. Um, Jean, um, what impact could the Democratic Congress have to address the judicial branch and certainly some of the decisions that uh, this the Supreme Court has made in the past? I'm thinking specifically of Dodd and specifically of um, Citizens United. Do you think there's any any uh movement with judicial reform andor influencing new legislation that uh correct some of the ills of past Supreme Court decisions? >> Two little elephants in the room we haven't got around to that I think are >> a lot of elephants actually. >> Yeah. Yeah. And uh they're waving their trunks. Uh and one of them is appointments, judicial appointments to the Supreme Court. Uh it's no secret that Sandro Stoayor would like to retire and uh if she retires in a Republican administration, we're going to get another conservative MAGA type justice. However, if uh by some miracle again, the Democrats do control the legislative branch, they might be able to um replace her in a window of opportunity because nobody knows whether Maga is going to die or come back roaring uh in 2028. So there is a window of opportunity there for justices the liberal justices to retire sit they want and to be reappointed and to reappoint a liberal justice. That's one thing. The other huge elephant in the room is the issue of our relationship with Israel and that's totally tied up in what's happening with the Iran war. that is a growing um roaring uh wildfire in American politics. Um people are very worried about this. Jews are very worried about this because the fallout from our um hostility in an with that alliance on the democratic socialist side is that uh there is going to be more anti-semitic incidents not just in the United States but globally and Jews are worried about that also. Hamas has won the propaganda war in the United States, but it is propaganda. And unfortunately, uh, our relationship with Israel is strategic as well as political. Netanyahu is facing a huge election in October. So, a lot's going to depend on whether he stays. His government stays or falls. If his government falls, we're in a whole new ball game. and democratic socialists might be able to unite with moderate Democrats on the issue of yeah, we'll continue our relationship with Israel, but we've got to address this war problem with the new government in Israel. That would be a productive thing. So there are things that a legislative branch run by Democrats, even though the Democrats are divided, should they come together on the on these two major issues, could improve the situation in the United States and globally. However, those are all again aspirational and depend on so many different factors in a chaos of of effect. Great observation and thanks for addressing the two trunked elephants in the room. Appreciate it. Uh Chuck, last question before we go to final thoughts. We're running we've run out of time, but I want to ask you, what do you see as a possibility to bring the Department of Justice back into the fold of having them do their mission and not Trump's wishing? Aaron boys for Donald Trump. >> Yeah, it's a really good question. Um, I think again if the Democrats are able to gain House majority and something close to a Senate majority, they may be able to craft programs that can withstand lower federal court review, federal District Court Review and maybe even some of the appellet courts. Um Trump will continue to try to use the Department of Justice, particularly with Blanch in there for forum shopping, for manipulation, for corruption, for self-interest, all of those things. But one of the things that the Democrats can do because of the ability to do what Ben said, control the purse strings and Jay is make it attractive for the federal district courts and even the appellet courts to support programs and platforms that they put forth. So rather than forcing on focusing on attacking the judiciary, support it by giving it things that have both legal basis and a policy basis. >> Okay. I I don't see Donald Trump running out of enemies anytime soon that he wants his DOJ to go after. Do you think that recent um experience that Americans have seen blatant retaliation and the vengeance tour, do you see that at all changing if uh House and were to swap to Democrats? Well, just for one example, let's say that the House put together a package that improved employment opportunities and compensation and benefits and they were able to get that through. Is Trump really going to be able to get the Department of Justice to attack that with the hope of success in the federal courts? A more challenging area might be healthcare. But if they put together a package that gets through, is he really going to be able to manipulate the Department of Justice effective? For Trump, so much of this has been personal. How much money and power can he put in his pocket and his family's pocket? He's never really been able to master a focus on national level legislation. And the Republicans were fairly ineffective during the Biden presidency at opposing those things. So use the powers and the influence that you've got to put together the packages that are not going to be as legally subject to attack for p personal reasons. You know, I think going back to the beginning question, what the Democrats to the extent that there is any cohesive leadership andor policy are able to do with whatever benefits they come out of the midterm. term elections with in the House and in the Senate with smaller margins there or favorable margin. That's going to be the real question. >> True. I I I think it's going to be close in both House and Senate. I don't think there's a a blue wave and what I just worry about gridlock that will go for another two years. So, okay, Chuck, thank you and much appreciated. Ben, your final thoughts. I'm sorry if I'm going to sound like Debbie Downer if you'll uh but won't be the first time. >> That's right. Okay. So, along with the two elephants, uh I'll add a donkey or two. Uh okay. Uh one one is where's the economy going to be? Um uh if growth is slowing as it seems to have done recently and you know you know the unemployment thing happens and all that stuff that will be focusing a lot of people's attention uh in in the period that's ahead. Not that Trump cares about it but it'll be a big focus of everybody with regards to that. And so we should not keep out of mind the possibility of one more Republicans in power recession happening as it seems to have happened four or five times in the past. Uh the other thing is uh Trump has an interest in creating chaos. That's how he loves. And I was thinking that if there was a big blue wave, would Trump try to counter it with something like, I don't know, invoking the insurrection act to try to do something because he's a miss. You know, he's if I'm Debbie Downer, he's double downer, right? So then, you know, that uh that's the kind of I know that uh I've heard that Steven Miller has been pitching that every day since the beginning of all this. So uh you know it's that's the other part of it that I just think about that uh there the people who are the 30 35% who seem to be supporting Trump seem to be absolutely authoritarian intense to that point and that's the thing about those that part of America that uh I quite honestly worry about what they will do to us if they are not uh if they don't get their way, you know, they what do they do to the highway if they don't get their way? >> All right. You know, for the record, uh Ben, I don't think you're a Debbie Downer. I think you're just looking at reality and it's about time Americans start doing the same and especially before the midterm election. So, thank you. Um by no means are you a downer. Anyway, okay. Uh Jean, your final thoughts on this topic. Normally this would be a referendum on the policies of this president but given that he is charismatic leader and not one that normally comes up through the ranks in the political party system and the institutions of the United States. I believe that this man is going to focus more and more on uh inoculating himself and his family from any consequences of the corruption and the destruction that he has uh waged on our institutions and our country uh and the world to some extent. So, he's going to be focused on that and leaving his legacy in terms of arches and ballrooms and uh golf courses uh throughout uh the uh presidential arena. Uh and I I I suspect that if the Democrats were to win the midterms, whether they won the House, which I think they will do, I think they will win the House, but not by a clear uh dominant majority. um and and if they should squeak through in the Senate or things should stay the same in the Senate. I don't think they will have the power to impeach, they may want to go in that direction. I know a lot of people want vengeance, but I don't think the country is with them and that would be just a waste of time. So what they need to look at are the things that people are crying out about that they they are I mean someone I Paul Krookman of all people a Nobel Prize winning economist said if something isn't going to be done in a year or two hunger is going to be a problem in the United States because the people who are at the bottom of the heap and in income u are are the least able to deal with the ter terrific burden of bureaucracy that is put on them just to get um you know food stamps, you have to go through all these hoops and and people at the bottom are really imprisoned by bureaucracy. So there is going to be severe hunger uh in the next two years if we don't address that problem. Gasoline prices uh they're not going to remain stable uh unless somehow we we have some sort of an end to this Iran war. And with Trump as president, uh, he's trying mightily for that before the midterms. I'm not sure he's going to be dedicated to it after the midterms. So, I think that what we're looking at is a slight shift in direction and time for the Democratic party either to get its act together or to split. And likewise within the Republican party, they have to decide whether they're going to go with oligarchs or they're going to go with the MAGA crowd because MAGA is getting very restive too in terms of what this Republican Congress is not doing. They're not going to they're not going to blame their leader. They're going to blame Joe Biden or the Congress, but but they're going to be very unhappy and stay home. >> All righty. Thank you, Jane, for your thoughts. Uh Jay, by design I want you to have the last word on this topic. >> You know, this is uh at the end of a long road where Trump has undone the country in so many ways. We could spend hours just identifying all the things that he's done um to mess it up and mess it up in in a global sense, too. Um and who could fix that? even a a decent um new president would have would have a chore uh that would take years and years to fix it. And certainly Trump is not going to participate in fixing it in the next couple of years. He's he's going to oppose everything that anyone does to try to fix it. He is a destroyer. And so I'm very concerned that whatever he's done, whatever mad mistakes he's made um are going to remain in place and they're going to get worse. And um we we have a problem. You know, Humpty Dumpty sat on the wall. All the king's horses and all the Congress cannot put Humpty back together again. So, we're going to see the things that he did take root regardless of what the Congress, how it's organized, who's there, and so forth. Remember, you still have the Supreme Court. You still have a lot of judges that he appointed and is appointing right now as we speak. Um, so all of that taken together is I I'm not optimistic that even a, you know, profound change in the membership of Congress is going to be able to fix this. Uh, and I'm I'm worried not only for the midterms till the end of his term, but beyond that because he's damaged all of the institutions that we can spend hours listing. The other point I would make it here at the close is that we have assumed in our premise uh that Trump will live another two years and it's not at all clear that he will. Mr. Hamburger may not be able to you know finish the term for one reason or another and that's another show. Um but what you know what in the world is going to happen if if he drops off the platform? what what in the world is going to happen with the presidency and all the chaos that he has created. I think the country is in deep kimchi as they say and what it what it will take actually in the way of the world and the way humanity works is it will take a leader uh to use your term gene a charismatic leader to step up out of all this chaos and say I will show you the way and right now I don't think we have anybody like that but maybe just maybe that person uh will emerge emerge from all the chaos we're having right now. So, I I do think that part of the premise is that um Trump will not Trump will live and continue to do his madness for the next two years, but that is not necessarily the case and we may have a whole different kept fish going forward if he does not finish his term. What an interesting show and interesting thoughts and it's been a pleasure. I want to thank my co-hosts Jay Fidel. I want to thank Ben Davis, Chuck Crumpton, and Gene Rosenfeld for a thoughtful discussion. This title has been the what if Democrats win back the House or Senate. This is American Issues Take One. I'm Tim Appetel, your host, and won't you join us in a couple weeks? And certainly until then, aloha.