The US Aligns Itself with Russia

Discussion post for March 4, 2025

In her book The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt writes:

“In an ever-changing, incomprehensible world the masses had reached the point where they would, at the same time, believe everything and nothing, think that everything was possible and that nothing was true. ... Mass propaganda discovered that its audience was ready at all times to believe the worst, no matter how absurd, and did not particularly object to being deceived because it held every statement to be a lie anyhow.

The totalitarian mass leaders based their propaganda on the correct psychological assumption that, under such conditions, one could make people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trust that if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood, they would take refuge in cynicism; instead of deserting the leaders who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along that the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for their superior tactical cleverness.”

Today, we see haunting echoes of Arendt’s observations in people’s struggle to distinguish fact from fiction in our daily events. We see people overwhelmed, checked out, angry, and frustrated with our government and each other.

These are the facts of today’s episode:

Last Friday, in the Oval Office, Vice President Vance and President Trump lost their tempers. They yelled at President Zelenskyy for challenging their version of reality and solutions for peace in Ukraine. Today, President Trump is imposing massive tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China, with no apparent conditions or reason.

In the days since this meeting, you probably saw posts from influencers and friends defending and justifying the President’s behavior when you scrolled through news feeds, opinion pages, and social media. You may have seen claims that “if you watched the whole thing, it makes sense.” You may have also seen many of your friends rushing to show their support for our Ukrainian friends.

This week, propaganda and narrative are going to collide. The Oval Office meeting will have real-world implications for Ukraine and our European allies. The President is addressing a joint session of Congress tonight to lay out his vision for his second term. With the implementation of tariffs, continued firings of federal employees, and a tumbling stock market, the economic impacts of Trump’s policies will hit Americans in their wallets.

Is Trump putting America first? Is he playing four-dimensional chess for the greater good? Is he incompetent? Sarah and Beth unpack and discuss the geopolitical ramifications of Trump’s Oval Office meeting, tariffs, and what it will mean when the impacts come knocking on our doors.

Topics Discussed

• President Trump Meets with President Zelenskyy in the Oval Office

• President Trump’s Tariffs Go into Effect

• Outside of Politics: Lent

Want more Pantsuit Politics? Subscribe to ensure you never miss an episode and get access to our premium shows and community.

Episode Resources

Pantsuit Politics Resources

• Pride and Prejudice: Derbyshire, England (Common Ground Pilgrimages)

Trump Upends US Foreign and Domestic Policy

• President Trump Meets with Ukrainian President Zelensky (C-SPAN)

• Opinion | The Dark Heart of Trump’s Foreign Policy (The Ezra Klein Show | The New York Times)

• From Groceries to Cars, Tariffs Could Raise Prices for US Consumers (The New York Times)

• Is it a coup? (Pantsuit Politics Newsletter)

• How Democracies Die by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt

• The Origins of Totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt

Show Credits

Pantsuit Politics is hosted by Sarah Stewart Holland and Beth Silvers. The show is produced by Studio D Podcast Production. Alise Napp is our Managing Director and Maggie Penton is our Director of Community Engagement.

Our theme music was composed by Xander Singh with inspiration from original work by Dante Lima.

Our show is listener-supported. The community of paid subscribers here on Substack makes everything we do possible. Special thanks to our Executive Producers, some of whose names you hear at the end of each show. To join our community of supporters, become a paid subscriber here on Substack.

To search past episodes of the main show or our premium content, check out our content archive.

This podcast and every episode of it are wholly owned by Pantsuit Politics LLC and are protected by US and international copyright, trademark, and other intellectual property laws. We hope you'll listen to it, love it, and share it with other people, but not with large language models or machines and not for commercial purposes. Thanks for keeping it nuanced with us.

Episode Transcript

Sarah [00:00:07] This is Sarah Stewart Holland.

Beth [00:00:09] This is Beth Silvers. You're listening to Pantsuit Politics, and today we are going to talk about the Oval Office meeting. The one with the Ukrainian president. We're going to talk about the tariffs and the big picture vision, such as it is from the Trump administration and how we're viewing it. And then Outside of Politics, we will talk about the beginning of lent because we are both practicing Christians. But I hope that that conversation will be welcoming to you, whatever your worldview.

Sarah [00:00:39] Before we dive in, we wanted to thank you for being here with us. If you like the show, we hope you'll subscribe. We believe strongly that part of healthy news consumption is choosing a few sources and returning to them regularly. We hope we can be one of those sources for you. We make a lot of additional content for our paid subscribers on Substack, but these two main episodes each week will always be free to you wherever you get your podcast. One more quick piece of business. If you're interested in my Pride and Prejudice trip, there's only five spaces left, so if you're on the fence, I would recommend getting off real quick like, real quick like.

Beth [00:01:11] Information about that will be in our show notes, which you can also find on our Substack. And speaking of, I really appreciate the way that our team has scrambled for me at the beginning of this week as I am dealing with the flu. Normally I would have been there with a new episode of More to Say, but that will be back on Wednesday as I'm recovering. We just appreciate everybody rolling with us, whatever cards the universe deals. Next up, we're going to talk about the Trump, Zelenskyy, Vance, Rubio, etc., Oval Office meeting. Well, Sarah, I've been under a little bit of a rock for a few days, and it's always interesting to see what reaches you when you've been under a rock instead of being out in the world all the time. And this conversation is the first one that anyone has ever approached my husband about out in the wild to say, like, I can't wait to hear what Beth and Sarah have to say. So I think that tells you how deeply the Oval Office meeting has penetrated the public's imagination and attention.

Sarah [00:02:22] When you get in a screaming match in the Oval Office, it's pretty unique.

Beth [00:02:27] It's quite a thing.

Sarah [00:02:28] We knew Nixon got in some because they were recorded and we found out after the fact. But live, I don't know. I think this is a first.

Beth [00:02:37] What was your initial just feeling experience of seeing it?

Sarah [00:02:43] I was furious. I was probably as angry as I have been since he's been sworn in the second time. I was furious. I have a very emotional attachment for Volodymyr Zelenskyy. I guess I'm not saying it's healthy. I'm just saying because of our jobs we were very in it with that invasion. We were following for days and weeks that it was coming, watched it roll out. I think I also just feel an affinity because I just had a hunch that it wasn't going to go like everybody expected, that the Ukrainian people weren't just going to roll over for the Russian invasion. And so I was very invested and still can call up watching Zelenskyy and his advisors say, we're not leaving, we'll be here. And the Ukrainian people-- and am tearing up right now. And the massacres in Ukrainian villages and what we've learned since. I still think about the Ukrainian children that were taken forcibly by the Russians and given to Russian families that many, many Ukrainian parents have still not gotten back. I think it felt personal. Even though I'm not Ukrainian, I've never been to Ukraine, it just felt personal.

Beth [00:04:15] My overwhelming sense watching it with sadness because you're right, because of what we do, we take in the horror of war at a level of detail that probably exceeds what most people in the United States do. And I think the more detail you take in through print media or broadcast media, the more aware you become that you're not taking in the level of detail at all, that you can't even imagine what it's like to live this way. And I don't want to attempt to paint the picture with words in the most dire way possible. But I just want to say that in my heart, watching the leader of a country that has been subjected to what Ukraine has been subjected to be asked why he isn't wearing a suit and be scolded for not being grateful enough to these two individuals, President Trump and Vice President Vance, who have built a campaign and an administration around a complete fairy tale about what's happened in this war, it just made me really, really sad. And I felt some shame because, as I've said before, I think the American public was really clear on what this administration's policies would be toward Ukraine and what they would mean for Ukraine. And to have it play out in such a cartoonish way put the facts in stark relief. There was a part of me that's like why am I even so upset about this? It's just a very vivid portrait of what we have known is going on the whole time.

Sarah [00:06:00] J.D. Vance said explicitly when he ran for Senate in Ohio, I do not care what happens in Ukraine. And I really appreciate his new and unique approach to Christian theology that states you just love your family first, and then your friends and then your neighbors. And if you just have some left over, then you can get to the people around the world. But that is not my values as a Christian. It's not even Christian values, as evidenced by the fact that the Pope felt required to come out and say that's not how it works. That's not how it works. So rejecting what it means to be a person, just like a good person, fine. Let's just set that aside. I think we've established they're not no matter how much J.D. Vance wants to trot out his Catholicism. It's also just ineffective.

[00:06:55] How many times when you've forced your children to say thank you or I'm sorry has it worked? That's not how human beings function. Also, I don't think Zelenskyy seems ungrateful. I watched it all play out and again I'm not surprised; I know that he loves Russia. He said explicitly at the end of the meeting he feels an affinity with Vladimir Putin because they both got put through the Russian investigation that came out of Hunter Biden's bathroom. What is that? That's not me being hyperbolic. That is what he said. To align yourself with Russia, we knew that. That was true in the first term. But to watch it play out so bombastic, so sloppily, just like everything else that's been happening in this second term, it's further proof to me that they have completely, completely bought their own press.

[00:08:06] Every Economist cover or Time magazine cover that says King Trump, he believes it. He thinks he's the king in a golden statue going to rebuild Gaza. And when someone presents difficult information that conflicts with King Trump, man, he just can't handle it. He can't handle it. What I keep thinking about that's so ridiculous, it doesn't even work that way for kings you dipshit. I'm reading Wolf Hall right now. Go read some history about King Henry VIII. He couldn't get what he wanted all the time either, honey. That's not how it works. Ever. I don't care if you're the king-- but you are also not. And when Zelenskyy was like Vladimir Putin doesn't agree to things. He doesn't keep his agreements. He doesn't do what he says he's going to do. Well, not with me. Yes, with you. Of course, with you. It's maddening.

Beth [00:09:02] The other thing that J.D. Vance has been very transparent about is his belief that Democrats are worse than any foreign enemy. And so I thought it was really telling that in his tirade, which felt like the internet comment section in a suit in the Oval Office, that he said, "You campaigned with the opposition in Pennsylvania." The opposition is Democrats in a conversation about foreign policy. It's extraordinary.

Sarah [00:09:32] Yeah. I thought that Ezra Klein's conversation with Fareed Zakaria was really illuminating because I think he's right. I think they do not want liberalism. And I don't mean democratic progressive policies. I mean a belief in individual rights, civil liberties, and free enterprise. They don't want us to be in charge of our lives. They want to be in charge of our lives. I want to say that again. They don't want us to be in charge of our lives. They want to be in charge of our lives. They don't want information. They don't agree with coming out through a free press. They don't want affinity groups who conflict with their worldview having any freedom of speech. They want to use the government to restrict that. The most basic principles of a liberal democracy that we have aligned ourselves with Europe to support since World War two, they do not agree with us. That's the only conclusion I can come to.

Beth [00:10:42] I think that's extremely important to think about when you analyze the situation with Ukraine. I understand that the American people don't want war. I saw some polling this morning indicating that the public is shifting a little bit. More people interested in a ceasefire immediately in Ukraine, that kind of thing. And I understand that completely. I'm sure the Ukrainian people would like the war to stop, too. I'm sure the Russian people would like the war to stop. None of this has been about the people in Russia. And I can appreciate trying to take a different approach to break what has felt like a stalemate. I can see shaking up the board here to try to get some movement from both parties. But the question that you and I have had persistently since the war began that we've asked experts is can there be any negotiated resolution to this war as long as Vladimir Putin remains in power in Russia, because Vladimir Putin does not believe in the liberal order?

[00:11:46] And that's what this war is about. Did the people of Ukraine get to determine their own future or not? Do they get to draw their own borders or not? Do they get to continue to live in the country that has been their country, sovereign or not? And Putin does not want that and Putin will not have that. No matter what happens in the short term, you can't day trade around a view like that. Donald Trump may be transactional, but Vladimir Putin is not in the sense that he has a worldview that is very, very static and that he believes in and is willing to play a long game to advance. And I think that JD Vance similarly has a worldview that's pretty entrenched now, and it is more aligned with Putin. That the people who take power get to make the rules, and they make the rules for everyone and plurality has no value in the new world order. And so, of course, it is to the advantage of that worldview to let Vladimir Putin carve up parts of Ukraine for himself and lie in wait to do it again later when he feels like it, when he's ready.

Sarah [00:13:01] I don't think they support sovereignty. I don't think that they believe nations have a sovereign right to exist within their own borders and choose their destinies. I don't think they believe in that. I don't think Donald Trump believes that his power comes from the people. I think he believes that he dodged that bullet and was chosen by God like a king because that's where the sovereign power of a king came from, was from God. And I think that's what he believes. I do not believe that's what the American people think. I do not believe that's what most of the American people that voted for Donald Trump believe. I think there are some, but I don't think there's a majority. And I think this idea that peace comes through strength-- peace for who?

Beth [00:13:55] Yeah. That's right.

Sarah [00:13:56] Peace for who? Greenland? Panama? All the other places you threaten on a whim because you do not respect any sort of sovereignty and the stability that comes from that. There's no peace from that. Go back and look at history when we had kings. I know it's tempting to think it's more efficient, right? When we just let one person decide, especially if it's our guy, right? It works out great. It doesn't. It doesn't work out great. Humans are fallible, even Volodymyr Zelenskyy. And we can talk about that. But it doesn't work. It's just an eternal battle for power based on the whims of powerful men on the backs of everybody else. We've seen this film before. We're going to do it again. Give me a break.

Beth [00:14:57] And so always with Trump, the thing that I feel the most emotion around-- because I accept that he is what he is and I know what he is. The thing I feel the most emotion around is the way people respond. And seeing people respond to that meaning still in an apologetic posture or supportive posture or a celebratory posture, I will never understand it.

Sarah [00:15:26] I got involved in a Facebook comment thread; God saved me because I just couldn't take it. He's standing up. If somebody disrespected you, somebody bullied you. I'm like, Vladimir Zelenskyy can't be a bully. A bully requires power inside the situation. And as Donald Trump made explicitly clear, he doesn't have any power. We hold all the cards. So who's the bully? What does that mean? He's bullying Donald Trump? Doesn't that assume Donald Trump can be bullied? It's absurd. And I do want to know what you think about people who have been criticizing Zelenskyy and saying he should have done what Macron does. You should have done what Starmer did. Like, come in, flatter him, don't fall for the trap. Kiss his ass to get what you need.

Beth [00:16:15] I can imagine that fighting a war brings a remarkable amount of clarity. And I can also imagine that Zelenskyy, going back to the phone call with Donald Trump, for which Trump was impeached in his first term, has a remarkable dose of clarity about who Donald Trump is. And I think probably understands at this point that Trump is about as trustworthy to him as Putin is. I think he went as far as he could go in agreeing to even come here to discuss this minerals deal, which is basically pillaging his country before it's even begun to be rebuilt after $500 billion and counting and damages. And so I just think he swallowed as much as he could swallow, and at some point he has to be truthful about how this war started and what it represents and what is at stake. This, again, just gets to the depth of things that bother me about Trump. I don't like people who expect you to set their clock by them. I just don't. And that's Trump, right? You're on my time. You're subject to my moods and my whims and my ego, and everybody makes a plan around me. And if I change, then you got to change the plan.

[00:17:45] And there are a lot of people like that and I think what continually makes me so sad in this era is how many people resent that only because they wish it was them; they want to be the people that other people set their clock by. And expecting Zelenskyy to do that to the point of acquiescing to outright lies about what's happened to his country, I just think it's too much. I think it's too much. Again, you can ask for Macron to be more delicate with Trump because there are bombs going off in France. If you are fighting for freedom and liberty, and principle, I just think you have to carry those through. And I did not think he was rude or disrespectful in any way. I really didn't. I think he only mishandled that meeting. If your expectation from the beginning is that the only person who mattered in that meeting, and the only thing that mattered in that meeting, was catering precisely to Donald Trump's mood on that particular day to get that particular deal done, which is not great for Ukraine, but believing that it might be a baby step towards something that is okay for Ukraine.

Sarah [00:19:01] Look, the hard political analysis is that was his job. That was the thing that mattered. And I've come around on the minerals deal a little bit. Because I do think having the United States invested inside the country is the best assurance he probably could get at this point. So I've kind of come around on the deal. And politically, that was his job. That politically, the only thing that matters is continuing to secure American support or (Donald Trump is right) it's over. I don't like to count them out. I think Europe could step up more. I think that's another thing Donald Trump has been right about. Europe does need to step up its defenses. And this has lit a fire under their butts.

[00:19:46] And I think they will be stronger in the end because of all of this. I think that forcing them to come together and see clearly and stop depending on the United States, not because I think that was wrong or exploitive or any of the bullshit he says. But it was the reality. They were very dependent on the United States. And for better or for worse, because liberal democracies are diverse and are unruly, it's something Vladimir Putin has been able to exploit this fragmentation in the West. So addressing that, making everybody stronger, will ultimately weaken Vladimir Putin's ability to use that against us.

[00:20:27] Okay, so all of that aside though. What I said before about why it doesn't work for one guy is because everybody can't be everything. You can't be somebody that's an expert politician and able to network and schmooze and do what Macron is able to do and be the guy that says I'm not going to take the plane out of the city. I'm staying. They are different set of skills. And you can even go back to the people we think are the zenith of that type of leadership. And they got shit wrong because you can't be everything. You can't be the general and the politician and the diplomat. There's a reason they're different roles. That's the reason we decided the king didn't work because he can't be everything all the time. And I think that asking Zelenskyy, even in this incredibly intense situation where there was a lot on the line to be everything all the time is a big ask. It's just a big ask.

[00:21:40] And when you think you can do everything all the time, it's how you end up being Donald Trump, right? Because that's what he thinks. He thinks he can build rebuild Gaza and he can run the global economy through ridiculous tariffs. And he can do it all. I don't think he really thinks he needs his cabinet. He thinks he can do it all. And that is destabilizing. It's ridiculous. It's in complete opposition to the reality of the human existence. And so with Zelenskyy, do I think another person might have done it different? Sure. But I think another person might have taken that plane out of Kyiv and I'm glad he didn't.

Beth [00:22:20] This is where I disagree with you about what his one job was in that meeting. Because the truth is, he doesn't ever get to have just one job. Like you articulated, he has to do everything all the time. And so maybe a person down the chain from Ukraine could have come and done that minerals deal and just kissed the feet of the emperor here and gotten it signed and it was a brick in the wall of trying to help keep America and Ukraine on the same page. Maybe. But he's the president, and his willingness to constantly give Ukrainians something to believe in and something to fight for is the only reason that they made it past those first few weeks in the first place. He has to keep his country motivated. He has to keep people onside. He knows the power of story and narrative.

[00:23:09] If he came over here and allowed Trump and Vance to minimize Russian aggression, imagine what that does to his people and his troops. He is representing so many things at one time. From a purely American perspective, sure. But he doesn't get to think about it that way. And so I think he made a calculation. I think he got heated. I think there was emotion underneath it, and I don't begrudge him that. But I think he also made a calculation that he had to correct the narrative from the American president and vice president in the Oval Office, with the secretary of state melting into the couch to say, that is not what happened here. You are telling a false story about my country. Because the story of his country is what propels his country forward in the face of all of this.

Sarah [00:24:04] I don't know. I've been reading so much from the ground in Ukraine. I don't know who I read that had been talking to the young people. There's kind of a dark vibe.

Beth [00:24:16] Sure. Of course, there is. They had three years of war. Yeah.

Sarah [00:24:17] And I don't think that they need to be-- honestly, I think war, particularly three years on, it stops becoming about the story. It starts becoming about what we sacrificed so far and how much more we're willing to sacrifice. There's a part of me that's like these people deal with Putin. They don't give a shit about somebody like Donald Trump. They know his number. They get it. You know what I mean? Because they've evolved themselves just as Zelenskyy has. Unlike what they require from a deal from the opening days where they were like it's going to be get out or nothing, now they're like can we just find a path forward? And, of course, they're not a monolith. It's a huge country with millions of people. Again, I established my loyalty to Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the beginning of this conversation. I'm not critiquing him. I'm just saying I do think we can get in this posture where even war itself becomes a story. And I think Trump and his ilk exploit that. But what's amazing to me is that the American people who usually fall for that kind of story like love that kind of story. And even the person I engaged with on Facebook was like, well, I support the Ukrainian people. I'm like but then what does that mean? What do you mean you support them? You say it on Facebook. I don't know what that means.

Beth [00:25:39] And that's a hard question since the beginning, because you could press Joe Biden on that question.

Sarah [00:25:44] Yeah.

Beth [00:25:45] Has it been support for the Ukrainian people to equip them? Sort of.

Sarah [00:25:51] Yeah. And then tie their hands.

Beth [00:25:53] Right. And then tie their hands. To use soft power, but not hard power. Or to use hard power, but sort of. What does support mean? And I think I totally understand why people find it appealing when Trump says things like you're gambling with World War Three because it does feel like that. You can easily imagine how this could escalate in a big way quickly. This is what I worry about with him sending troops down to the border of Mexico. This is what I worry about with China and Taiwan. That it won't be an invasion that launches World War Three, it'll be an accident. And so I understand why the Biden administration was so careful. I'm a careful person and I can completely understand why everyone has proceeded so carefully here. There's a real question what does it mean to support the Ukrainian people? We could start on the most fundamental level by not treating their president that way.

Sarah [00:26:53] And I just I think about that World War Two narrative and I think we all recite that poem. They came for such and such. But I was not such and such. So I did not speak. And that's true. Of course, there was moments when the individual German citizenry could have, should have, would have. But Germany's expansion into Europe and the deaths of millions of people came because other countries stood by and said not our problem. And we abandoned that attitude for a reason. We decided it is our problem. And I'm not saying our record on genocide is stellar since that time. But we did, in theory, learn that just letting powerful players exert their power leads to horror. It leads to horror. Again, I am glad that Europe had the gathering in London that they have woken up and exerted this forceful, unified message. I think that is positive for the continent of Europe that I care deeply about.

[00:28:36] I was even thinking about that I almost want to say to the next person who says something about Russia, like, "Are you going to go there anytime soon? You had plans to visit?" I got to Europe all time. I would never go to Russia. Why do you think that is? Can't you just see it through the lens of like where would you want to go? You want to go hang out in Russia or China? Or do we all by the thousands flock to Europe all the time? I'm just like trying to think of a prism through which people can see this isn't war games. This is real. And I keep thinking about the conversation we've had around January 6th a couple times. That even on Friday, I watched that, I was horrified, I was shocked, and then my life went on in a normal right. Went to the mall. Went to my cousin's shower the next day. Hung out with my family. And I keep thinking until that gap between what he does and what people feel immediately starts to shrink, we're not going to have a real wake up. And I got to say, I wonder if tariffs are that moment. So let's talk about tariffs up next.

Beth [00:29:57] So today's the day.

Sarah [00:29:59] Today's the day.

Beth [00:30:00] The tariffs are going into place. There's nothing Canada or Mexico can do to avoid it.

Sarah [00:30:05] Not that we've asked them to do anything specific.

Beth [00:30:07] Right. Because we do not seem to have specific goals except to fix everything. I mean, that's the goal. The tariffs are going to solve illegal immigration. The tariffs are going to solve the flow of deadly drugs into the United States. The tariffs are going to fund everything forever.

Sarah [00:30:27] I think it's supposed to fix the deficit, too.

Beth [00:30:30] And resolve the debt. We're going to have trade surpluses everywhere despite all of the retaliatory tariffs that are coming our way. And America is going to be great again. That's my understanding of the goal for the tariffs.

Sarah [00:30:45] The trade surplus is the one that I'm like why does this upset you so much? What do you think happens? He critiques Europe and then often wants to do a lot of what Europe does (I would argue unsuccessfully) to protect their economies. It's good for you. But good for you, but not for me, I guess. I don't know. I don't understand why the things you hate all these overregulation, things that really-- again, Germany is struggling right now because they protected their automotive industry. They have the industrial economy I think he wants and it's not going well, not going well for them over there. And so I don't understand why he thinks it's so bad. I can't quite unlock. Again, no one can. And you know what? Good for China for at least being like you don't know what you want, so we're not going to offer anything. We've done this before. Forget it. We're just going to sit here. You do what you want. We'll do what we want.

Beth [00:31:49] I understand. Looking at the United States and our size and our resources and the diversity of industries that we can support in our country, and thinking we should be less dependent on other countries. Absolutely. I understand that view. Particularly after Covid I understand thinking we need to be less dependent on other countries. We need to have more of the supply chain concentrated here. Less dependent on shipping routes and containers. And this part of a chip being manufactured in seven different countries before it reaches us, I get it. I really struggle to connect the dots how tariffs get us to that vision of a US where we are more self-sufficient, especially when the transition to be more self-sufficient is going to require so much lead time. Bringing factories on line, creating more electricity here as we do that. I just don't understand why we would hamstring ourselves, which was what the tariffs feel like to me. Creating this massive disadvantage at this time when we want to build all of this.

[00:33:12] I understood the Biden theory of let's infuse the economy with money, because this is a period of investment, and we're going to build and build and build and build and then hope that we recoup on the other side. I understood that theory. I understood that, but I was willing to endure some pain because I understood that vision. I don't understand this vision. I get like an end goal of a more self-sufficient United States, but I cannot connect the end to the means. And then when I think about the rest of the Trump agenda, I really get lost. Why run this experiment on food? If you're going to do the tariffs because you really believe that will whatever you think is going to do, you believe in it, why do it on food at the same time that you're talking about chronic disease and making America more healthy? Why cut off or vastly, dramatically increase the prices for fresh produce coming into the United States.

[00:34:14] Why not try it in a couple of sectors? Like, sure, tariffs on toys and cheap clothes made in China. Fine. All day. We might be better off for it in the long term. Maybe some of that would help cure our addiction to stuff here in ways that would be good for us in the long term. But why do it with food? Just the unwillingness to have any sort of trial approach, any sort of prove out the case by this administration is the same thing with Elon Musk. And I just don't understand. Always with the chainsaw, never the scalpel, never the willingness to come in and say, let's adjust this because we want to see if we're actually getting to our goal.

Sarah [00:34:59] The reason it doesn't make sense is because we are able to take this approach to tariffs, which is basically a trade war because we are self-sufficient. That's the dumb part. The reason you can throw this around, the reason you can walk in and be like, fine, it's going to hurt you even worse than it'll hurt us, which is true. Not going to say it's not going to hurt us, but it will hurt the other countries more than it will hurt us is because even with trade surpluses, our economy is big and largely independent. What problem are you trying to solve? I don't get it. It's not like other people are putting tariffs on us and we're just getting wiped out. Things pretty much work to our advantage across the board. What are you so mad about? I don't understand. The global economy works to the benefit of the American economy for the most part. Now, not all Americans equally. So let's say you're mad about NAFTA, which you renegotiated, so I'm not really sure why you're still mad about that. But let's say like you're mad. We shipped cheap labor and it hurt Americans. What part of this is going to fix that? Because what's going to happen is you're going to put these tariffs in, shit's going to hit the fan. People are going to get mad. You also have very little tolerance for political pain and you're going to back off. So what are we doing?

Beth [00:36:47] I felt that in the first administration, he had very little tolerance for political pain, and things would hit the fan and he would back off. I don't know this time because I feel fundamentally that this agenda is much less driven by Donald Trump than by the people he's surrounded himself with. In the first term, I felt that he had a group of advisers around him that he thought of as stuffed shirts, that he felt gave him some legitimacy but were mostly annoying to him. The way he would talk about Rex Tillerson, Jim Mattis, it sounded like he was talking about gnats. They're just little and annoying. They're here all the time. Get them away from me. This time I think he has a crew in place that he chose because he generally likes the way they operate, and I think that they are much more aligned and invested in this agenda, and they have a much higher threshold for pain. J.D. Vance knew exactly what he was doing in that meeting with Vladimir Zelenskyy. He knew exactly what kind of reaction it would produce. That's the point. And I don't think he has advisers around him this time who are going to say it's getting painful. We need to back off. I think they're going to say the pain is the point. The pain means we're winning. The pain means we're doing what the American people sent us to do.

Sarah [00:38:11] Maybe, but at the end of the day who he put in place is who's loyal to him. And so if he gets spooked, they'll follow suit. I think.

Beth [00:38:18] I think he thinks they're loyal to him. I think he has some vultures. I think he may have overplayed his hand. I think he has some people around him who are counting on his age and his general lack of interest in details, and who have played the loyalty bit really, really well and will continue to until they don't anymore. The Kings get betrayed sometimes.

Sarah [00:38:47] The courts are complicated, that's for sure. Courts are complicated. When you force people to bow down in that way, it certainly creates resentment. I can't tell if J.D. Vance is one of those people. I think he's a true believer in Donald Trump, actually. It doesn't mean I don't think he's ambitious.

Beth [00:39:07] I think J.D. Vance will stab him in the front and the back at the same time eventually. Metaphorically, of course, but eventually.

Sarah [00:39:14] I don't know. I think he's too close with the whole family. We'll see. But the problem is that it's not just Donald Trump anymore. The whole party has been recreated in his image. And until there's enough-- like I said, that gap shrinks between what people read about. I wrote this thing about is it a coup in our alarmist language. And I thought, that's the problem, right? Every time we ring the alarm and people go my life's going on just the same as it was, it doesn't connect for people. I think that's reason that he lost the first term, because the pandemic shrunk that gap between what I'm watching play out on a CNN screen, maybe in the doctor's office because I don't watch it any other time, and what's happening in my life. I definitely think the firing of the federal employees is radiating because there's just so many, and it's such a bulwark of the middle class, and so many people know someone that works for the federal government. I think that will radiate and it will feel chaotic to people. And it's one thing when his chaos is on a TV screen, it's another thing when it starts to show up in your life in real ways. And so we'll see.

[00:40:27] To me, it's like the two components are that when the political reality shows up in people's lives in a way that even those who avoid politics altogether cannot avoid it, and when the Republican Party decides it's something besides Trump. I think that's a tougher one. There's just not that many people left inside the Republican Party who define themselves as anything but MAGA. And you have to have two parties because we have a two party system. Love there be more, but we got at least our two. I think that he has done a good job of procuring that loyalty. But it's true, whether you're a king or whether you're a mob boss-- because I'm deep in The Sopranos right now, there's a scene in the last season where two of the captains come and give Carmela Tony's cut when he's in the hospital, and they're like, "This is what we do. We take care of each other." And she turns around, smiling, and then looks back at them on the elevator, and both of their faces have just fallen. They're miserable. They hate it. They resent giving him that money. And it's such a great moment. And that happens a lot. Whether you're talking about a royal court or the Mafia, which is, I think, what he acts like more often than not- is a mob boss. And so we'll see. We'll see.

Beth [00:41:54] Well, he's going to give a speech tonight about his vision for the country. And whatever he says, I think you're right that shrinking the gap between people's feeling about what he's doing and what he says is important. And I think the tariffs will make that happen. I think the federal firings are making that happen. And I also think to end where we began, that on a gut level, most Americans have a sense of what is right and wrong in Ukraine. And so even though, yes, we were able to still live our lives after that Oval Office meeting, I am hearing in my regular life a huge amount of emotion about what happened there and what it says about who we are as a nation. And there is real discontent in it from a lot of different kinds of people-- not everybody. And that is where my sadness always lands, because I want it to be everybody. But they're putting their foot on the accelerator so hard that that gap, I think, is going to shrink exponentially. And we're going to be very clear about what the second term means within 100 days, for sure.

Sarah [00:43:13] Look, to my post about is it a coup, the thing I didn't include, but I will say here is, look, I read how democracies die along with everybody else. I get it. I'm there with you. I understand the journey of Turkey and Hungary and Venezuela. I get it. I really do. I think it's important. Now, I think the first thing to remember is most Americans have not read how democracies die. That's fine. That's not a critique, okay? That's a nice, normal way to live your life. But at the end of the day, America's greatest strength and its greatest weakness is that we are unruly group of ungovernable assholes at the end of the day. We want to do what we want to do. And that is great sometimes and truly awful sometimes. But I do think it's sort of a fundamental piece of the American identity, and I think he's going to start running up against that.

Beth [00:44:24] This administration's philosophy is definitely not leave me alone and let me live my best life.

Sarah [00:44:29] No. It's definitely not J.D. Vance's philosophy.

Beth [00:44:31] We'll see what he has to say tonight. We'll come back and discuss it on Friday, I'm sure. And we will enjoy hearing what you think about what you hear this evening.

Sarah [00:44:52] Beth, it's Fat Tuesday, it's also your birthday. That's probably a pretty rare overlap.

Beth [00:44:58] It is. Now, my birthday does coincide with Founder's Day for our sorority, and it coincides with the Constitution going into effect.

Sarah [00:45:08] Okay, I like it.

Beth [00:45:10] So there are some stars that align around my birthday typically. But Fat Tuesday is not a norm.

Sarah [00:45:16] It's a late one. It's a late Fat Tuesday. Do you celebrate Shrove Tuesday? Do you eat the pancakes?

Beth [00:45:21] No. Not usually. If I think about it, we do. But Lent has just never been deeply embedded in my spiritual life because I grew up in a Baptist church where we just didn't really talk about Lent. My church now observes the liturgical calendar, and we'll have an Ash Wednesday service. And we'll change the sanctuary and all the things. But I'm having to learn that that's a new muscle that I'm building, not one that I'm really accustomed to.

Sarah [00:45:50] Yeah, same. I did not grow up with any sort of Lenten practice. And as a Baptist, now I'm in the Episcopal Church where we take Lent very seriously. And I got to say, Imma make a pitch for it, I really like the Lenten season. First of all, I just like pancakes. So they got me there, got me real early in the process with the Shrove Tuesday. Let's have pancakes for dinner. I was like, okay, well, we're off to a great start here, guys. It is a little bit of a trick because then they're lying. That was a celebration because all the celebrating is about to come to an end. We do this thing in our church where we bury the Alleluia. We hang the Alleluia from a ceiling, and then we put it in a box and we slam the lid shut and we don't say Alleluia again. And I just think I really don't put any of my spring decorations out until Easter. Now, I really try to keep it pretty bare for Lent.

[00:46:36] I love in our church we start off with like some bare branches, and then over the course of Lent they'll add like one green branch. Just like one more green branch and we trickle it out over time. And I just think the idea of building up to this very, very important moment in the liturgical calendar of stripping away things that can numb you and distract you. More important than ever, I would argue. But I've really embraced advent leading up to Christmas and the mirror image is Lent leading up to Easter because I think we don't do enough of that practiced waiting, that patient observation, that everything we want is at our fingertips. And so using Lent to practice like, well, but what if it wasn't? I think and seeing that through the lens of the resurrection and redemption and all of that. I really like the Lenten season. I really, really do. Have you ever given anything up for Lent?

Beth [00:47:44] I have. I have not found that practice to speak to me the way that I heard others describe it speaking to them. What I have enjoyed more than giving things up for Lent are affirmative like let me do something to spend time with God every day. Like more intentionality about my spiritual practice. So less deprivation, but more focused attention, which I think usually accomplishes the deprivation too. A lot of the things that I would numb with, I don't need when I am leaning in to spiritual practice. I guess I just haven't ever felt that profound connection to God through saying no to things.

Sarah [00:48:30] Well, I really try to think about it through the lens of fasting, because that is such a massive part in particularly the two other world religions in Judaism and Islam. Now, that level of fasting physiologically would be very difficult for me. So I try to think about a way to fast, to really say no because it is something that is clearly like a tool, a pretty essential tool in so much of the world's religious practice that I didn't really grow up with. There no fasting in the Southern Baptist Church. So let me just say that as about as clearly as I can. At least not when I was growing up. And so that's why I kind of try to think about it because again I try not to reject something that clearly so many people have benefited from and that came across as thousands of years as this regular part of the practice, even though I don't have experience with it. So that's what I try to do. Is to really fast. I've done Instagram for several years in a row. I guess I'll say it on the podcast, I think I might do desserts this year. I tried chocolate once a long time ago and it went poorly. But I think I might try desserts this year. I'm really scared.

Beth [00:49:49] So that's my question. What is it about the idea foregoing dessert makes you feel like this is really going to bring me closer to my faith.

Sarah [00:49:57] I just don't think the part of my brain like this sort of deprivation, the what if it wasn't here, is very well paved. And I think it is an important perspective, not just because I've just been a lot of time with the Stoics and they're all about that. They're all about just it doesn't matter. You think it matters, but it doesn't. It's just superfluous. It's just a habit. It's something that you've made essential to your well-being that isn't. There's only one thing that's essential to your well-being, and it's that connection to something larger than yourself. And I call it God. It could be meditation. It could be the present moment. It could be mindfulness, whatever. I think that sort of stripping away to see what's left, even with something as minimal as treats, is a really powerful spiritual practice because it's tough, man. It's tough.

Beth [00:50:57] Yeah. I'm not rejecting it. It just hasn't connected with me in the way that lots of other spiritual practices have over time. And I feel at a place in my spiritual life right now in this exact moment in season, and I think not just because I have the flu--

Sarah [00:51:16] Since you have the flu there's no fasting allowed. That's just for baseline.

Beth [00:51:20] And I think that's kind of a metaphor for me though. I feel a little bit like I spiritually have the flu. I feel a little bit like in my entire worldview I need a lot of nourishment right now. And so I think in this Lenten season, I am just really focused on what does it mean to be part of the body of Christ for me? Because that is important to me. And I have to lean into that instead of leaning away from something else. That's how I'm feeling called right now. Well, hey, thanks for joining us and trudging through my voice today. I really appreciate it. We will be back with you on Friday. Until then, we hope that you are happy and well and that you have the best week available to you.